| Revision as of 09:46, 10 March 2016 editGongwool (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users788 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:15, 2 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,680,982 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (636 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp}} |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Martin, Brian|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Australia|edu=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi| date = 28 January 2010 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Brian Martin (professor) }} |
|
{{Old AfD multi| date = 28 January 2010 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Brian Martin (professor) }} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|class=start |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|listas=Martin, Brian |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author = Martin, Brian |
|
|
|date = June 21, 2017 |
|
|
|url = https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0894439317715434 |
|
|
|title = Persistent Bias on Misplaced Pages: Methods and Responses |
|
|
|org = '']'' |
|
|
|archiveurl = |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Australia|class=start|edu=yes|edu-importance=low}} |
|
|
==Notability== |
|
|
|
|
|
I think Martin is notable under the publication guidelines, and for his activist work. -- ] 08:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Danny Yee, seconded. This guy is remarkably prolific and energetic, as well as dedicated. |
|
|
He even posts the full texts of his books online (i.e. obviously not motivated by personal |
|
|
profit). NOTABLE ENOUGH. -- ] 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I would agree too. Notable enough! ] 09:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, I agree. Martin is both notable and tres cool. |
|
|
|
|
|
==3rd paragraph== |
|
|
Johnfos has critisised this paragraph. ] will need to comment on this. ] (]) 23:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've added a diverse list of mainly refereed papers. Which of these do you think is "activist publishing"? (from anonymous) |
|
|
::Anonymous, I've made the cites relevant to "often published by activist publishers" (or primarily he does), i.e. cites x2 - Irene Publishing & Google Scholar Citations. Please stop trying to de-neutralize article by loading it up with anything you can scramble from the net - even listing stuff not written by Martin, LOL! Other (a lesser amount?) of non-activist publ have been listed in paragraph 5, so please be happy with that. ] (]) 05:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Martin was an activist, now (uni) bureaucrat?== |
|
|
Some may now be of the opinion that Prof Martin has now become a cog in the wheel of the type of oppressor he has previously challenged. The Wilyman and anti-vax period in his new career at the University. Thus well worth a balanced critique of his two contradictory sides. ] (]) 23:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: I wouldn't know. I think the most likely thing is that he has spent so much time studying whistleblowers that he's lost objectivity. I am reminded of Bob Park's wise words: to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be ''right''. Martin seems to support people not on the basis of the validity of their arguments, but purely according to whether their ideas are rejected or not. He does not seem to grok that most ideas that struggle to find room in the mainstream scientific literature are excluded for excellent reasons. AIDS denialism and anti-vax bullshit being two obvious examples. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yes ] I think you're correct. But additionally that some who made a career out of social science dissent theory are now despairing about a loss of audience (since global warming acceptance, environmental concerns and nuclear hazards etc are now considered mainstream) and seem stuck in the rebellions of the 70s. And a minority of SS prof are now desperate enough to target bottom feeders such as tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists looneys. ] (]) 10:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BLP issue: inaccurate reflection of source. == |
|
|
{{BLP noticeboard}} |
|
|
currently WP:Brian Martin reads, |
|
|
"In a 2010 paper, Martin <deleted as per BLP> |
|
|
|
|
|
Source "Anti-vaccination activists spruik PhD thesis as proof of conspiracy" reads in part, "Professor Martin conceded the peer-review verdict on the theory was “almost entirely negative” ..." |
|
|
|
|
|
Source continues, "He has written several articles about the silencing of the theory, which was emphatically refuted in numerous well-regarded scientific publications ... more than a decade ago." |
|
|
|
|
|
Note this source is addressing the refutation of the OPV-AIDS theory ( ... more than a decade ago) and is not addressing Martin's work claiming collusion to silence. Current inaccurate statements denigrate Martin's professionalism. This would appear to possibly have legal consequences. |
|
|
Deleting immediately as per BLP. |
|
|
Please reflect source accurately when editing. ] (]) 15:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:saving reference <ref name="Australian-spruik">{{Cite news|url = http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/antivaccination-activists-spruik-phd-thesis-as-proof-of-conspiracy/news-story/d74552da1a6875e2b0eea290094b590b|title = Anti-vaccination activists spruik PhD thesis as proof of conspiracy|last = Loussikian|first = Kylar|date = 2016-01-16|work = ]|access-date = 2016-01-17|subscription = yes}}</ref> ] (]) 15:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Have repaired the paragraph u were complaining about. (Rather than delete it like u did). The errors in it were no where near as great as the average Wilyman PHD citation! ] (]) 03:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BLP:OR "often published by A rather than B" removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 2 sources given for this are not accurately reflected by "Martin often published by A rather than B". |
|
|
|
|
|
Rather the inserting editor seems to have formed this opinion (A rather than B) and is using the irenepublishing source as an example to support their WP:OR. The other source contains nothing that I can see as connected to the editor's opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
This OR has no place on a WP BLP. |
|
|
Please reflect sources accurately. ] (]) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Saving refs <ref name="irenepub-martin" /><ref name="goosch-martin" /> <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed the issues in sentence as complained about. Thank you for your constructive criticism - fin. It has been a promotional article for many years, this eventually had to be attended to. ] (]) 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BLP: inaccurate reflection of source "support of Michael Primero" == |
|
|
|
|
|
The source does not support the claim that Martin has been criticised for his support of Primero. |
|
|
Please reflect sources accurately. |
|
|
This is the 3rd inaccurate reflection in this BLP found by this editor. ] (]) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fixed paragraph exactly as per your complaint. Can't recall who produced the sentence in the first place, but it's not a blame game. ] (]) 07:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Hatchet Job? == |
|
== Article biases == |
|
What happened? This entry had references to the significant body of work by Martin that was very useful, but it is all disappeared. It has been replaced with what reads like a smear campaign. Are the astroturfers targeting Prof. Martin for some reason? ] (]) 23:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my view this article is structured and framed to amplify negative coverage, and paint a subtly misleading picture. When nearly half of the body of text is under a non-neutral section heading of Controversies, this becomes a magnet for controversial content, no matter how relevant. ], ] and the essay ] are germane to the discussion. Furthermore, there seems to be subtle editorial biases, perhaps unconscious, in the presentation of facts: phrases like "he has been criticized for..." often link to articles that merely state that people refuted or disagreed with him, or that he supported a student, or are criticisms of Wilyman, without explicitly mentioning criticism of Martin. This turns a neutral into a negative. I see no explicit criticism of Martin himself in purported sources like and . mentions critics of Wilyman's thesis who question whether Martin "had the necessary knowledge to assess it", but this can be simply stated rather than given a editorial nudge towards criticism. I ''do'' see criticism in an opinion piece by an unnamed author in , and possibly reasonable criticism in ''Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology'', but again, framing matters, and the article should be scrutinized for presence of bias in the presentation and compilation of facts. ] (]) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
I'm no astroturfer, I'm here as one wanting to offer alt opinion against a Dominant Paradigm, that being say a big PHD issuing University and say a institutionalized Professor. They may be generally believed to be infallible, unquestionable, non-transparent, able to review internally, secretive and unanswerable to ethical questions of academic rigor. Also publicly funded. If pretentious seeming SST academics in their old-boys-club institutions consider this dissent, then so be the irony. ] (]) 03:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I agree with the comments above. This BLP has long been a matter of contention and needs serious revision. ] (]) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC). |
|
: No idea, but you're free to reintroduce anything that can be shown to be significant by reference to reliable independent sources. Obviously we're not going to trawl his website and university homepage and present his own selection of his work based on that, but there is no reason not to include anything that has received independent commentary. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: Similarly I agree. At various points the article, in my opinion, comes close to being defamatory in nature. Perhaps the worst aspect of the editing of this article is that any Editor who dares to suggest the need for revision is likely to be the subject of personal abuse. Let's hope that this has changed. ] (]) 04:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Fyi == |
|
== Facts and sources removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots-and-censorship-why-wikipedia-can-no-longer-be-trusted-ded395123ba9 |
|
* The fact of Martin's prior paid membership of AVN has been removed. That seems ot me to be a significant fact, especially in the context of his support for the antivaxer Wilyman. |
|
|
* This source has been removed: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/wollongong-university-accepts-thesis-on-vaccine-conspiracy/news-story/dbd57d8909779f4d82ece7b9ab8d520a - it contains the important statement that "The thesis was supervised by Brian Martin, a professor of social sciences at the university with a long history of supporting controversial PhD candidates," whic seems to me to be useful context for an article on someone whose notability springs in no small part from exactly that. |
|
|
* A statement about criticism has been reframed as if David Gorski is the only critic. This is simply not true, the other sources include similar criticism from plenty of others. |
|
|
* The link with Michael Primero has been expunged entirely. Why? Martin supervised this crank, the title of his PhD was "The 'politics' of vaccination: a scientific controversy analysis" - not dissimilar to Wilyman's PhD and Primero also contributed to pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. |
|
|
SOme of this text should be restored. ] does not mean we whitewash critical commentary just because a subject disputes it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi! The short version is that there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, and issues around due weight. I don't have any particular issue with the sources themselves, but the claims they were supporting had to be removed, so they went with them. :) More specifically, I removed the mention of the membership of the AVN as it was a lone statement without any context. The context you mention might be important, but it is just a throwaway claim in the source. The second reference was removed because the claim it was supporting was false to the extent of being a serious BLP issue, and as it wasn't being used for anything else I took it out. I don't see why it couldn't be used for an accurate claim, but that wasn't the case at the time. Only Gorski was provided as a source for the particular criticism that you are referring to, and therefore I was uncomfortable with claiming "scientist critics" when only one critic was referenced for that view. (I expect that there are many other criticisms of Martin, and perhaps some of those are the same as Gorski's, but the wording didn't hold with only a single reference to use). And Primero was removed because that whole sentence, as mentioned, was a serious BLP violation and had to be pulled, and was not what was written in the source. - ] (]) 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See comments from Brian here, and link to the article he wrote.<small>] ]</small> 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== COI of IP? == |
|
|
:EvergreenFir has made the following comments about user 124.171.192.238 (or SmithBlue??) who keeps on posting BLP (or any type of) complaint about the Martin article. EvergreenFir noted "For note, there's likely a conflict of interest here... the IP geolocates to around where the subject of the article lives. EvergreenFir (talk)" . Also the IP (SB) layed the boot into WP admins. I think this IP/editor confuses WP with linkedin! |
|
|
:I don't think this IP/editor (at the Gong??) will be happy until the article is a whitewash. I think it's worth noting that Martin published ''The Controvery Manual'' but his COI's wants any critique or controversy avoided on his WP page, Bit like 'say as I say, not as I do'. Martins papers are very 'cherry-picked' re references to give biased impression. WP isn't perfect but I think his WP article is much more balanced and academic than Martin's typical writings or the student's crap he defends and oversees. ] (]) 09:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
In my view this article is structured and framed to amplify negative coverage, and paint a subtly misleading picture. When nearly half of the body of text is under a non-neutral section heading of Controversies, this becomes a magnet for controversial content, no matter how relevant. WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION and the essay WP:CRITS are germane to the discussion. Furthermore, there seems to be subtle editorial biases, perhaps unconscious, in the presentation of facts: phrases like "he has been criticized for..." often link to articles that merely state that people refuted or disagreed with him, or that he supported a student, or are criticisms of Wilyman, without explicitly mentioning criticism of Martin. This turns a neutral into a negative. I see no explicit criticism of Martin himself in purported sources like The Australian and New Matilda. Another Australian piece mentions critics of Wilyman's thesis who question whether Martin "had the necessary knowledge to assess it", but this can be simply stated rather than given a editorial nudge towards criticism. I do see criticism in an opinion piece by an unnamed author in The Australian, and possibly reasonable criticism in Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology, but again, framing matters, and the article should be scrutinized for presence of bias in the presentation and compilation of facts. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
