The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Brian Martin (social scientist) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
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)[reply]
I agree with the comments above. This BLP has long been a matter of contention and needs serious revision. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
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. Research17 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
