Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Addition of information

Colleagues. I'm not sure of the Wikipedia etiquette about starting a new Section whilst there is still discussion afoot in a previous Section, but my apologies to Bilby if I'm jumping the gun. Anyway, I am considering adding material to the body of the article on Martin's education and career. This would be strictly factual and supported by reliable sources. My reasons for this are: a) It seems logical. Martin is an academic, and it seems logical to include information on how he became an academic and his career appointments. b) Accepted Wikipedia practice. I know that one article doesn't necessarily need to follow other articles, but I think it is generally held that it is reasonable to include such information in articles about academics. See for instance, entries under the Wikipedia Categories for UofW Faculty and Australian Academics. c) Compliance with Wikipedia Manual of Style. I know that information on education and career appears in the Infobox for this article, yet the Wikipedia Manual of Style advises "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article". Thus there should be relevant information in the body of the article, as well as in the Infobox. I understand that, similarly, the Lead Paragraph is designed to summarize what follows. Please note that I'm not suggesting here that any of the material currently in the article which is critical of Martin should be deleted. I'm keenly aware that this is a highly contested article, and thus I thought it prudent to canvass opinion before taking any action. I'd be interested in hearing from folk on this, especially if any editor objects to this proposed action, and the reasons for any objection. Regards, Research17 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just some more detail on what I am thinking of adding. Under Education, I am thinking of adding: Martin’s education commenced in his home country of the USA. He attended Rice University in Texas, completing a BA Degree in physics in 1969. He subsequently emigrated to Australia, where he gained a Commonwealth Postgraduate Scholarship to undertake further university studies. He attended the University of Sydney, gaining a Master of Education Degree with First Class Honours, followed by a PhD Degree in theoretical physics in 1974. The PhD thesis was published in the Journal of Computational Physics in 1975. My reason for including the information about the publication of the thesis is that readers may wish to access this, especially as whether his PhD qualifies him to supervise certain theses is an issue of concern to some. Under Professional Career, I am thinking of adding: From 1976 to 1985, Martin was engaged as an applied mathematician at the Australian National University in Canberra, first as a research assistant and then as a research associate. In 1986, he took up an academic post in the emerging field of science and technology at the University of Wollongong. In 2007, he was appointed to full professorship at the University. Martin has published widely, across a range of fields, and his work has been translated into 20 languages. My reasons for adding the last sentence is that this sort of information is generally included in Wikipedia profiles of academics, but the "across a range of fields" is important, as this is a point of concern to some. All of the above is supported by published sources, which I will reference. I'm eager to work towards consensus on this. Let me know if you have objections to the above, or any other comment. Research17 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No I don't agree with any of these proposals. And there is no need to prod and badger me about justifying my position. CatCafe (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I support these proposals with the proviso that they do not make the BLP too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC).

• Resume padding is not what Wikipedia is for, but if there are reliable independent secondary sources that cover this information then fine. Nothing from primary or affiliated sources, though - so not university or personal websites, book blurbs or anything similar. Guy (help!) 09:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

University web sites are fine to confirm non-contentious information, so are books of reliable publishers. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, yes, but Martin is an antivax apologist with a history of AIDS denialism, so everything is potentially contentious, especially content that is intended to make him look more like other scholars who do not have his history of advancing dangerous bullshit in the name of academic freedom. Guy (help!) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The allegations are just gossip in blogs that nobody takes seriously. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC).

Is that supposed to be a serious comment? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, there's solid evidence in RS of his promoting antivaccinationist bullshit and the OPV-AIDS conspiracy theory under the smokescreen of "academic freedom". Aside from those, what other allegations are we talking about? Guy (help!) 12:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Martin's own papers are pretty flimsy at best. In them he references his own previous papers, and it becomes a circular cl:aim loop. What he doesn't write is "And Martin says..." because to do so would make him seem a right clod. CatCafe (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, I can't speak to that, all I can say with confidence is that I have read the Wilyman PhD thesis and it's unbelievably shoddy. Whether his motivation in granting a PhD was the desire to have a student pass, or to promote bullshit, I could not say, but the latter is the effect regardless. Guy (help!) 14:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not read the Wilyman PhD thesis and don't intend to. I think your views about it amount to WP:Original synthesis. The PhD was issued by a reputable university that would have checks and balances in place to ensure quality control. Your claim without evidence that the PhD thesis is unbelievably shoddy may violate WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well as main pages. It may also sail close to defamation. I suggest you refactor it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, no, my views are a straight rendering of the sources. I read the thesis because I thought that the criticism had to be hyperbole. It isn't. Guy (help!) 08:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

PhD “incomplete”, “biased” and “flawed”.[1] "There are numerous leading scientists and at least five major scientific organisations criticising the university for rewarding poor scholarship and asking that the university has the thesis re-examined by people who are experts in immunology and epidemiology, which is what the thesis addresses." [2] CatCafe (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, exactly. Right from the outset: Deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases were significantly reduced due to environmental and lifestyle reforms prior to the widespread use of most vaccines in the mid-20th century. Mass vaccination campaigns were adopted after this time as the central management strategy for preventing infectious diseases. This is an antivaccine talking point (or, to put it as charitably as possible, a "common misconception"). Yes, deaths began to reduce prior to mass immunisation but illness did not. "Environmental and lifestyle reforms" reduced the incidence of polio in 1955, measles in 1965, Hib in 1988, and so on - it's pure coincidence that this was right after the vaccine was introduced in each case, right?

When you're supervising a PhD you demand sources and facts for bold claims like this. Wilyman cites none. You are especially careful to do this when the author is already on record as being an antivaxer.

But Martin has a history of believing and promoting antivaccination conspiracy theories such as the OPV-AIDS hypothesis. It's probably not an accident that Wilyman chose him as her supervisor. It's pretty likely that anyone from the reality-based community would have refused anyway. Guy (help!) 08:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. Both Xxanthippe and Guy, if I understand them correctly, offer qualified support for the proposed additions, subject to being careful about not making the article too long and being careful about using appropriate sources. Fair enough. Thanks for that input. CatCafe objects to the proposed additions, but says "there is no need to prod and badger me to justify my position". I am a little uncertain as to what this means in this context. I think it is reasonable to ask another editor, politely and respectfully of course, why he/she is objecting to a specific proposal. Wikipedia expects that, as editors, we act in good faith, and good faith is defined by Wikipedia as being open and transparent. Further, it is difficult, if not impossible, to work towards dialogue and consensus if we are not prepared to be open about reasons for taking certain positions. Apart from anything else, the editor objecting to a specific course of action may well have some good insights, and other editors will not be aware of these if the editor in question does not share these insights. So, I would ask CatCafe, politely and respectfully: What are your reasons for objecting to the proposed additions? Research17 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Research17, as long as we do not lose the focus of what Martin is best known for: promotion of antivaccination tropes and enabling the grossly sub-standard PhD of Judith Wilyman. Guy (help!) 23:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Uni Research17, as you specifically requested my opinions against my wishes, here it is: 'Because from what I can see your manner of edits on this page are tedious, excruciating and have a self serving impact - of going on and on and on, until you wear down and exhaust other editors - and then you assume you have thier support when they're worn down and actually avoiding you.' Don't ping me again please. CatCafe (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy. Understood. Indeed, if I understand your critique of Martin correctly, at least part of this is that Martin is writing outside his area of formal competence. The additions as I've framed them potentially might help illuminate and support this critique. CateCafe. Well, you may well be correct, in that I am tedious, excruciating and so forth. But we still don't know the reason why you object to these proposed additions. Research17 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Outside his area of formal competence as well as outside his area of factual competence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Research17, As Hob Gadling says, yes, but not only that: he apparently believes that the "suppression" of scientific dissent is his area of competence, suggesting the Dunning-Kruger effect at least. His perceptual filters are such that he appears to see all criticism of any scientific endeavour as inherently valid, even when, as is the case with Wilyman, it is wilfully dishonest. And that's the most charitable interpretation. The more parsimonious explanation is that he's an antivaxer. Guy (help!) 12:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been some two months since I flagged the additions, and I think I can reasonably say that we will not achieve consensus on this, and thus I will not be taking any further action to advance the changes I suggested, at least not in the near future. One of the observations I might make is that if an editor decides that he/she will not act in good faith, then this effectively undermines the operation of Wikipedia, as its operation is based on the assumption that individuals will act in good faith. My thanks to those editors who did make positive and genuine contributions to this discussion. Research17 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Placement under anti-vaccine activist category

I'm failing to see how any of the sources support Martin being categorized as a anti-vaccination activist. It seems like a lot of previous editors have knowledge about this that I don't, can anyone provide a direct quote in which Martin is against vaccinations? I did come across An Experience with Vaccination Gatekeepers in which Martin states personally not to take a stance. If there are no direct quotes, at the bare minimum Martin should be removed from this category and a sentence along the lines of "Martin has denied any allegations of him personally taking a stance on vaccination" should be added to the article. Wiskundestudentje (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Let's add it to all the anti-vaxxer articles because they all say that, and be done with that. Shouldn't be difficult to find sources. Maybe we can even write it without sources because it is a well-known fact that all anti-vaxxers say that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"They all say that" seems to imply he is "one of them". Until now nobody provided a direct source from Martin's work questioning or hesitating vaccination. Until that is done it seems unfair to categorize him as an antivaccination activist even though his position on vaccination in the source I gave is questionable on itself. Wiskundestudentje (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I read, Martin takes an anti vaccine stance. And then when it's reported on, he published a denial in the form of a research paper and publishes it. His papers do not come from a NPOV and he even published a paper complaining about his wikipedia page. CatCafe (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, but could you then provide a link where you read Martin directly taking an anti-vaccine stance as I requested? I agree on the defense being shaky given he would be an anti-vaxxer, but it is also fair to ask for a direct source to confirm that, no? Wiskundestudentje (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems odd for Martin to say that he doesn't "take a stand on vaccination." More context and nuance would be helpful from him on this--Polio? Smallpox? It is possible not to have a position on vaccination? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of his other papers explain his position a bit better. The essence is that he doesn't claim to take a stance in regard to the vaccination debate, saying "For many people, vaccination is a personal issue, linked to their own experiences and decisions, but my interest in the issue is somewhat different. Having looked at both sides of the debate, I do not have strong views about vaccination. I have had many vaccinations during my life, never with any noticeable side effects. I have no children and have never made a decision about anyone else's vaccinations."[3] I'm not sure if he has made a personal statement one way or the other for or against vaccinations, but he does activly support the anti-vaxx community in the sense of arguing that they should be heard, so there's that. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly there is no independent evidence that Martin is an anti-vaxer so the BLP should reflect this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC).

Independent of what? Of the scientists who say he does spread false anti-vaccination rumors? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

They might be fine for the tag. Which scientists did you have in mind? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

None in mind, two in the article: Gorski and Loussikian. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In this case Gorski is self published, but it is still a good source for Gorski's opinion of Martin. I don't think Loussikian explicitly states that Martin is an anti-vaxxer. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, actually I think it is not. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one. We should not cite self-published opinions without a third party to establish significance. I'm amused that the clearly self-published Gorski blog passes your bar whereas the widely trusted Quackwatch, endorsed as a source by government websites in several countries, does not!

Gorski draws a distinction between the "respectful insolence" of his blog and his more measured and reviewed writing on SBM. He is absolutely correct in what he says about Martin on his blog, but he has not published these views on SBM so I want a third-party source that shows Gorski's views to be significant. Respectful Insolence is almost always correct and always entertaining, but it's not a RS wfor Wikipedia and should not be used to quote-mine people we like, because that same rule would allow others to quote-mine the blogs of popular charlatans. Guy (help!) 11:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem then. Based on that, I gues we should reduce our dependence in BLPs on Respectful Insolence. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, Respectful Insolence should not be cited in BLPs. Quackwatch should. Guy (help!) 10:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Quackwatch is cited in BLPs. But I'm fine with removing Respectful Insolence, if that is where consensus sits. - Bilby (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the material from a different article @Bilby:. Having looked at both sides of the debate, I do not have strong views about vaccination, also strikes me as a bizarre statement. Both sides? The mommy blogs on one side and....Salk et. al. on the other? If Martin wants to focus on the study of dissent then it would behoove him to adopt the approach of many political scientists and intellectual historians who study racism and ideology. They emphasis the dangerous, pernicious nature of the ideas examined but argue that it is important to understand how the response of elites (scientists, politicians, 'the media') can have perverse consequences for the spread of these ideas. Or make the argument that even ideas that are dangerous to public health should be allowed to circulate freely because the consequences of 'suppressing' (this I assume is the crux of his argument) them could be worse. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That may well be a good approach. I haven't read enough of his work to see how he presents the case. Academically, it is sometimes better to take a neutral stance in terms of the content you are examining, but this isn't always the case. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi AugusteBlanqui, the article from Agence Science-Presse concludes "The professor she chose as thesis supervisor, Brian Martin, is known for her belief in a conspiracy of silence to hide the fact that the AIDS virus was caused by the polio vaccine. And he [Martin] too defends the idea of ​​a vaccination-autism link". This sentence is a conclusion reached by the author, (not directly referencing to Gorski). The Agence Science-Presse article sources seven others and that conclusion is not referenced to any one of them specifically it seems. CatCafe (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, he has publicly defended Wakefield, promoted the OPV/AIDS conspiracy theory and he supervised Wilyman's antivax term paper - cum PhD. His default position is that all criticisms of science are legitimate until proven otherwise, and sometimes long after.

At the very least you could file him under "pathologically suspicious" of vaccines. In fact the sources make it fairly clear that he is sought out by antivaccinationists with a view to legitimising their bullshit, much as Shaw and Exley were. Guy (help!) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, I think he is one of those who wishes to play the "just asking questions" card. Despite many of the questions being blatant bad faith, and many of the answers already well known. Guy (help!) 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the discussion above provides a direct source, which I find rather appalling given the high standard I usually come across Wikipedia. The only thing I'm questioning is him being an anti-vaccination activist. Maybe I need to rephrase - is there a direct source on Martin's extensive website, or a source quoting Brian Martin directly, in which he expresses a view against or hesitant of vaccinations? Wiskundestudentje (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As a category anti-vaccination activist does seem rather normative. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ref 30 says "Professor Martin is a former paid member of the anti-vaccine Australian Vaccination Network" [4]. This org is pretty radical and you wouldn't pay to join them unless you supported anti-vaccination activism. CatCafe (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the article, Martin says he is also a paid member of the Australian Skeptics. It is probably better not to mention either rather than just highlight the one. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby you once said "According to Martin he joined both organisations so he could get their newsletters". Is that from a secondary RS or something Martin once told a colleague or such? CatCafe (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's from Martin here. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That could be seen as disingenuous as one does not have to become a paid up member to obtain AVN's newsletter. See here [5]. CatCafe (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the situation today. However, in the past they didn't offer the newsletter without a membership. I don't know when Martin joined. - Bilby (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As noted somewhere else by @Bilby:, being a member of a group only seems to indicate being interested in the magazine. This still does not fulfill my request of him expressing hesitancy of vaccinations. Hence, I still do not see why he should be categorized as an anti-vaccine activist. I'm not knowledgable enough of Wikipedia policy, does someone have an idea when one can put someone under such a category? Comparing this to a different category, Milo Yiannopoulos is affiliated with neo-Nazism but not a neo-Nazi himself while Richard B. Spencer clearly is one. I feel a similar approach should be taken here, hence meaning Martin does not belong in this category. Wiskundestudentje (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiskundestudentje yes, you called, what do you want from me? Regard your speculation Martin's "being a member of a group only seems to indicate being interested in the magazine", has you arguing something you have no Reliable Source for, not helpful. Do you want me to fix the category link for you? OK only this once. CatCafe (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Why checking may be important

Some time ago, an editor, I think it may have been Xxanthippe, suggested that it was important to check whether Martin actually said the things he is alleged to have said. In particular, Kylar Loussikan, Stephen Jenkins and Pascal Lapointe make some very damaging assertions about Martin. This is where I think checking Martin's writing very closely to see whether he really did say what he is alleged to have may be important. Normally the truth of an assertion is a defence against a charge of libel. However if I am making damaging comments about a person, based upon what they are purported to have said, and it turns out that they did not in fact say what make the alleged statements, then the truth defence evaporates. If I am making damaging comments about a person, based on incorrect information, then my comments are clearly libelous. The relevant Wikipedia policy WP:LIBEL stipulates that libelous material should be immediately removed. It is noteworthy that the policy refers to 'libelous material', in other words, there does not need to be a court decision confirming the libel, the material merely needs to be libelous in nature. That's why I think that checking whether Martin actually said the things he is alleged to have said may be important. Research17 (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea what your assertions relate to, i.e. "Martin actually said the things he is alleged to have said". From my reading Kylar Loussikan, Stephen Jenkins and Pascal Lapointe have not stated that Martin said anything that he hadn't already published himself. Yes they have made assertions based on his actions or writings. This confusion and wishy-washy statements about unspecified "things" is why I could not assist you with your requests in the past. CatCafe (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

{{re|Research17)) in any cases, that's not our role, that would be original research. If it something is reliably sourced, we can't decide that it's actually libel and remove it on that basis. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Anything that Martin is alleged to have said has to be sourced to Martin himself, otherwise it is hearsay and must be removed under WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC).

I cannot find that passage in WP:BLP. Could you be more specific than a link to a 7000-word page?

It does say that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed. That is different from what you said, unless you regard Martin as the only non-poor source. --Hob Gadling (talk)

The only allegations I can see are those above by Research17 and I think this topic is becoming a pointless damp squib. I have read it again and need enlightening as to these "things" in the article that Martin is alleged to have said as stated by someone else. From what I read any quotes by Martin in the article are followed by a reference of his. Perhaps we incorrectly assumed there was some substance to Research17's claims. CatCafe (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: are you saying that anything said at a rally, meeting, conference etc that was not recorded digitally but was reported by sources that we would always consider reliable cannot be used? Doug Weller talk 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

New York Times yes: tendentious bloggers no. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC).

Are Martin's papers considered tendentious blogging? They're mostly non peer reviewed. CatCafe (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, yes. Guy (help!) 10:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to return to the original question of whether we need to check of what Martin actually said, I'd like to respond to three issues which have been raised: a) Hearsay. I suspect that Doug Weller may be correct, in that there is no automatic prohibition of hearsay. I cannot find any prohibition in Wikipedia polices. And yet at the same time there are numerous Wikipedia policies which indicate it is responsibility of editors to check the content, especially in the case of a biography of a living person. Where the nature of what a living person has said is contested, then it is logical to give priority to the person's actual words. b) Original research. I'm not sure that checking on Martin's own articles to see if he said what his accusers claim he said does amount to original research. Moreover, I think it is a misconception that the NOR not precludes reference to primary sources - see W:NOR. Further, W:NOR indicates that "The best practice is to research the most reliable source on the topic ...". Now, in this instance Martin contests the allegations from his accusers. If we are seeking to determine what is the most reliable source of what Martin has actually said, clearly this would ascertained through looking at Martin's own words. Primary sources? Maybe, but again Wikipedia NOR does not preclude the use of primary sources. c) Reliable sources. The fact that a particular media outlet or publisher falls into a listing of RS does not absolve editors from our responsibility to exercise due caution in including material from such sources. W:LBL puts it succinctly: "It is the responsibility of all contributors [i.e. editor] to ensure the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". Part of the defamation check is to check that allegations against a living person are in fact true. By necessity, this involves looking at Martin's own words. Research17 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Martin is not in dispute of anything that's been added unless you have a personal message to deliver from him. So again I have no idea what you are going on about, and question why you see the need to drone on about "things" you won't specify. Please precisely specify what text you are referring to or drop the stick. CatCafe (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I will try to be more succinct: I think it is important for editors to check what Martin actually said (wrote). For my reasoning on this, see W:BLP, W:NOR and W:NOR, and my explanation in postings on 28 May and 1 June this year. Research17 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Research17, I thought you said you were going to drop that particular strain of windmill-tilting? This is Wikipedia, we are a tertiary source, so we base our content on what reliable secondary sources have said, we don't go quote-mining primary sources so we can write an article that reflects the reality we would like rather than the one that's reflected in sources. Guy (help!) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to exercise a right of reply: a) I could be wrong, but I don't recall saying that I was going to "drop" any so-called "wind-milling". b) I know there was a proposal to have Wikipedia defined as so-called tertiary source, but I understand this proposal failed to gain consensus. c) WP:NOR indicates that sources for Wikipedia articles include all three categories, that is, primary, secondary and tertiary. I'd be interested to hear what other editors might have to say on this. Research17 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Typo above. Wind-milling should read windmill-tilting. My apologies. Research17 (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Obscuring that Martin was a "paid member" of AVN

@Xxanthippe: why are you keen to obscure this fact of his previous membership? It supports the statement that Martin supports anti-vax activism. The Australian reported that "Martin is a former paid member of the anti-vaccine Australian Vaccination Network".[6] CatCafe (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And in saying that, should we give equal weight to Martin's unsubstantiated claim that he is also a member of the American Skeptics Society? I do not believe so as both statements are not equal weight. 1.The Australian said "Professor Martin is a former paid member of the anti-vaccine Australian Vaccination Network" and that claim is from a RS and fact checked. 2.The statement "Professor Martin… says he is also a member of the pro-vaccine Skeptics Society" that is unsubstantiated claim by him, there is no evidence of that and if there was Martin would have provided that to the author asking and The Australian would have said so. It is of unequal weight and there’s already too many of Martin's opinions in the WP page already. CatCafe (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

With both the AVN in the past and the Skeptics Society today, you become a member automatically if you subscribe to the print versions of their newsletters/magazines. For example, the Skeptics Society still provides membership automatically when you subscribe to the print edition [7]. As such, being a member of either group might simply indicate an interest in their magazines, rather than active support of either position. If it helps at all, Martin had an article published in the Skeptic in 2007. [8]. To publish in Skeptic it is asked that writers subscribe, so presumably writers who do that will also become members. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can't see why would Martin need to put in so much effort on his blog in rebuttal after rebuttal, seems tediously odd. If he wanted to appear non biased in the Australian vax debate he would have also joined the Australian Skeptics or SAVN, but he has not claimed this in his blog.

Anyway if nothing else, the conclusion reached is that it's a fact that Martin was a member of AVN (his rationale of why being in dispute) which adds further weight to the sentence in the lede: "He has been criticized by medical professionals and public health advocates for promoting HIV/AIDS denialism and vaccine hesitancy in the context of his work." I am more than satisfied that ref[8] makes this sentence factual. CatCafe (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Whether or not Martin was a member of the AVN has no bearing on whether or not he has been promoting HIV/AIDS denialism and vaccine hesitancy in the context of his work, and teh ref you are refering to makes no mention of whether or not Martion promotes HIV/ADIs denials or anti-vaxx. That is simply based on how people interpret his work, not on what he was a member of. The issue under discussion is whether we should mention that he was a member of the AVN. I'm inclined to say no, given the points raised and his similar membership to the Skeptics Society. Not covering that will have no bearing on the other promotion issue. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that this and other RS supports that Martin supports anti-vax activism. But you should not remove his memberships sentence from the page because you put more weight into Martin's blog than the RS. And it's a shame you had to step in and speak on Xxanthippe's behalf as you and I should not be conversing due to the previous 'outing' dispute, but thanks for your input. CatCafe (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No, what I wrote is that this source does not support such a view. Unless you want the quote the line in [9] here which says that he is an anti-vaxxer, as opposed to once was a member of both anti-vaxx and pro-vaxx groups? - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, but of course we would never engage in such WP:SYN here. What we have is a reliable secondary source for his being a member of an anti-vaccination group, and no reliable source for his being a member of the pro-vaccination group. Which feels like the end of the discussion as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Guy (help!) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The same source also includes his claim that he was a member of the Sketpics Society. Honestly, this should be a non-issue - it is irrelevant what groups he has joined. He can join any group, just as we can, but without knowing why you join it says nothing. What matters is what he does and says. The WP:SYN is adding that he joined the AVN, ignoring that he was also a member of the Skeptics Society, and synthesising from that that he must be an anti-vaxx activist. He may well be called an anti-vaxxer, but not based off that. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have a secondary RS for his membership of an anti-vaccination group, and no RS for his being a member of the pro-vaccination group. I agree and we should not be reading his blog and letting it colour what we include and exclude here. His membership of AVN needs to be included, it's relevant on many levels. CatCafe (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a simple BLP issue. We don't try and use synthesis to suggest that he is an anti-vaxx supporter by including his membership of one group, when a) there is a valid reason for why he might be a member without also being a supporter, and b) without including that he also says that he was a member of a pro-vaccination group. This isn't about making Martin look good or bad, but simply about proper coverage in a BLP. Sources that say that he supports ant-vaxx positions are fine, but insinuating that by selectivly including information isn't. I'm not sure why anyone would want to take that approach. - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, we are not using synthesis, we are reporting that he was a member of an anti-vaccination group. One linked to his former PhD student, known antivaxer, and primary source of his notability, Judith Wilyman. No synthesis involved.

Obviously some readers may take this, his role in awarding woefully shoddy a PhD to a declared antivaxer, his defence of Wakefield' s fraudulent and unethical work, and his past promotion of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and perform synthesis of their own. Not really our problem to fix though. Guy (help!) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely different subject, but still related: I know "paid member" is exactly the wording in the source, but shouldn't that be "paying member"? Does the AVN pay all their 200 or 3000 members? Where does the money come from? Am I missing something here, maybe because I am not a native speaker, or is it a misprint? The header of this section says "paid up member" instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes the source may read that he has been paid or he has paid AVN a fee. I have no idea why the other editor feels so strongly about removing the quote about Martin's membership of AVN, and it could have a lot to do with the fact I included it. The article also says Martin defends "the idea of a vaccine-autism link."[29]. CatCafe (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, something we seem to have missed from that story: he previously supervised Michael Primero, who seems to have been the prototype for Wilyman (though he never got his PhD). He went on to work with Medical Veritas, which is Viera Scheibner's organisation. Also, have you seen "Vaccination Panic in Australia"? He might as well subtitle that "some of my best friends are vaccines". As to why Bilby wants it removed, well, defending antivaxers and charlatans is his thing. Someone has to do it. Guy (help!) 22:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining BLP standards is my thing. So Primero. Primerro failed to complete his PhD and left in the 1990s. Medical Veritas wasn't founded until years later, in the mid 2000s. It's simply guilt by association to claim a connection between a failed thesis and the actions of the student years later. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact he says he supervised Primero from 1999-2002, which is most of the duration of a typical PhD. Bilby thinks this is irrelevant because he can't be held responsible for subsequent actions, but given that Primero was already listed by Medical Veritas as its Australian rep by 2005 (http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/08/31/279119/NewPressRelease.pdf) it is no kind of stretch at all for these sources to imply, as they do, that Martin's involvement with anti-vax activists is not accidental. Guy (help!) 23:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the 2002 date. But that would indicate that his involvement was three years after a failed PhD. Which continues with the guilt by association problem. We don't typically hold supervisors guilty for the actions of unscessful students years later. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Here. https://www.bmartin.cc/others/supervision-d.html If it's guilt by association, it's not us who are doing the associating, it's the sources. And at some point you have to think that one unsuccessful and one successful anti-vaccination PhD plus defence of the most notorious antivaxer on the planet plus spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories isn't so much guilt by association as noting a repeated pattern.

Oh, note the PhD was called "The 'politics' of vaccination: a scientific controversy analysis". Rather similar to the Wilyman shite. Guy (help!) 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So three years later, an unsuccessful ex-student becomes one of 20+ editors (rather than a director) of a crappy anti-vax journal. No, I see that as attempted guilt by association. Not as bad as what we once had, but not the approach we should be taking on a BLP. We have stacks of material showing problems with Martin's work. We don't need to selectively look for every possible negative connotation to add it it. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, a candidate fails to complete an obviously antivax PhD and three years later he's already listed as a contributor to an antivax group. Yes, that seems perfectly innocent. But you're missing the point: Primero is noted by two cited sources as a precursor to the Wilyman antivax "PhD". These sources clearly think it's relevant that (a) it happened and (b) he went on to work for Viera Scheibner's fake medical journal. If you want to excuse it, find reliable independent secondary sources that have your excuses in them. Also: Primero is credited in Martin's 2001 promotiojn of the OPV-AIDS antivaccine conspiracy theory. https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01ptrslb.html Guy (help!) 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If this was the case of a student having been involved in Medical Vertias before studying, such that Martin should have been aware of the problems, I'd be more ok with that. If Martin was in any way connected with the actions of the student after completeing his thesis, it would be possible. However, many supervisors will occasionally get students who go on to do something stupid after they leave - it seems a stretch to hold Martin responsible for the actions of a student under those circumstances. It is a good means of poisoning the well, but not a valid criticism of Martin. It woud be very much valid in an article about Primero, but that's not going to happen. btw, ythe credit you mention is "thanks for reading a draft", which doesn't seem to count as a smoking gun. - Bilby (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have read WP:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement and the RS is not in dispute. Maybe to satisfy the editor the last half of that sentence can read "...who went on to become a "senior editor of a conspiracy-driven publication called Medical Veritas, which included [Andrew] Wakefield as either an editorial board member or contributor"." and then have the tag removed. CatCafe (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not the issue, and going even further down the guilt by association route is unlikely to be a resolution. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if that's what you believe then I can't help you with your issues and your tag is incorrectly applied as the sentence is not in conflict with WP:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement. There is no WP:IJDLI tag. CatCafe (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll find a better tag, then. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, you have this the wrong way round. The issue is that Wilyman was not the first attempt by an antivaxer to gain a PhD under his supervision. And the facts show clearly that Primero is an antivaxer, was a member of an antivax group shortly after leaving Martin's supervision, assisted Martin with an antivax conspiracist p[aper, and was writing a PhD wih what looks like an antivax title. So claiming that it's irrelevant, despite reliable sources making the link, seems an awful lot like motivated reasoning at this point. Guy (help!) 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Primero never finished his PhD, so we have no idea what he would have argued. Whether or not he became an antivaxxer, three years after failing to complete his Doctorate under Martin, doesn't seem to me to be Martin's problem. Martin is not responsible for the activity of failed students after they leave. That he was involved in the Wilyman anti-vaxx PhD is something we know, and that is something he was responsible for. I'm not happy with guilt by association, but I'm perfectly happy with guilt on the basis of actions someone was responsible for. - Bilby (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, Doesn't matter, because we're not saying anything about it in the article other than to note that (a) Primero is an antivaxer and (b) he tried to get a PhD under Martin before Wilyman did - both of which are relevant to his history of active support of antivaxers, which is presumably why reliable sources have chosen to mention this.

Put simply, whether or not Martin is an antivaxer (I think he isn't, see below), the antivaxers think he is one - and RS are not going out of their way to hide it, so we shouldn't either. Guy (help!) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm moderatly ok with saying that Primero did an unsuccessful PhD under Martin. The issue comes from then connecting Martin with Primero's unrelated actions after the PhD attempt. - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, which is not us, but the sources, so it's not our problem to fix. Maybe they also spotted that he helped Martin with his antivax conspiracy theory paper. Maybe they think it's significant that Wilyman was not the first antivaxer to try to get a PhD under Martin. We don't really care: they make the link. Guy (help!) 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The "it's not our fault, we just blindly copy the sources" argument is never very convincing. It suggests that we are nothing more that automations, rather than editors. There is always judgement involved in what we include and leave out, hence the "editors" term. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The subject pays dues to pro-vax and anti-vax organisations so that he can obtain their newsletters for his research. End of story. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC).

So Xxanthippe you're declaring you put more weight into Martin's primary non-RS blogs over and above the Reliable Sources used in the WP article. Thanks for expressing your POV re the topic, explains much. CatCafe (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pays dues to pro-vax organisations? {{citation needed}}. Tell you what, though, his article "On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent" bigs up Gary Goldman, founding editor of the anti-vaccine fake medical journal Medical Veritas, and Jayne Donegan, who gave bogus antivax evidence in compensation cases in the UK (https://bjgp.org/content/57/542/757). But you know what, I don't think Martin is actually an antivaxer. I think he's just so obsessed by the idea of suppression of dissent that he's unable to distinguish between good faith and bad faith dissent, and is thus ripe for exploitation by bad-faith actors such as antivaxers looking to gain the legitimacy of being able to call themselves PhDs in "vaccine science". And he sees criticisms of his own well-documented faults here as part of the problem, not an indication that he's done anything wrong. Guy (help!) 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Primero and Martin have been bosom-buddies on anti-vax conspiracy theory propaganda beyond the supervision of the PhD. Primero proofread Martin's vax-blaming paper on his debunked origin of AIDS. In 2000 (whilst Primero was under his supervision) Martin wrote: "I thank numerous correspondents for insights and stimulation... Michael Primero made useful comments on earlier versions of this paper."[10] Another paper where Martin works outside his qualifications exerting medical scientific expertise where none exists. CatCafe (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, JzG (Guy), I concur when you say that "I don't think Martin is actually an antivaxer" - perhaps therefore accusations along this line should not be included in the article, in line with the Wikipedia policy on defamatory material. Your suggestion "I think he's just so obsessed by the idea of suppression of dissent that he's unable to distinguish between good faith and bad faith dissent" is interesting. I'd prefer to say that he leans towards a libertarian philosophy of science, but I suspect you may have a better handle on his work than I. One suggestion I would make is that you consider publishing a critique of Martin in a refereed journal (I think I might have suggested this previously). Often journals will publish critiques well under 2000 words, and thus this should not involve too much work. I think that such a critique could be very valuable, as well as being a potential source in the Wikipedia article itself. Research17 (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

References