Talk:Judy Wilyman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Title

Playing Devil's Advocate, should the article title possibly be changed? My thinking is that the sources don't really label it as a "controversy" (although granted, I may have missed something) and I have Orac's definition in mind when I see this word? For what it's worth, I don't have a suggestion yet, but I'm taking the dive back into WP here in a talk page. Be gentle with me :-) Shot info (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care a lot, but the controversy over the antivax PhD has been running for years, as the sources show. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the tile is a bit clumsy. Perhaps this article should be rolled in to the larger article on vaccine controversy? Does this individual's fringe theory really deserve to be highlighted in it's own article? 79616gr (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There are rather a lot of sources over a number of years discussing the controversy around this specific PhD thesis, and the failure of the University to adequately ground it in reality. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the Universities name should appear in the title? 79616gr (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And there's more media stories each week on Wilyman PhD, SkyNews TV has now picked it up. This article is about the Uni allowing a questionable PhD to be swept under the carpet and all were well aware ahead of time of the non-academic nature of the way the PhD was heading and suppressed any challenge of theses. It's more an academic misconduct issue than any anti-vax debate. The Uni is presently refusing to review PhD, thanks to Prof Martin enforcing the Uni to bend to his 'freedom of dissent' over 'academic-standards'. Yes the name of Uni should be in title, they're the main offenders as they allowed academic misconduct to take place. Gongwool (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't quote Wilyman's article in text

WP administrator JzG or Guy has already determined such quotes are not acceptable. See "16 January 2016‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,644 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (fine with templating it, but the thesis is not a source for the subject of the article." - JzG.

Please don't use Martin's ref in text ?

There was a flurry of attempts to use non-WP:RS from Martin with claims he was the (only) "authority" in this article (lol?), I deleted those non-RS ref. Alternatively if any WP:RS relevant to the topic (not off topic debates i.e. sorry self victimization or anti-vax propaganda) exist from Martin I and others may consider them to be WP:QUESTIONABLE as Martin is central in creating the "controvesy" along with Wilyman. Gongwool (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Brian Martin

Article currently states:

"the supervisor of her PhD thesis is UoW social sciences Professor Brian Martin who has published a number of vaccination-skeptical papers."

I propose instead:

"the supervisor of her PhD thesis is controversial UoW social sciences professor Brian Martin, who is prominently associated with a number of non-mainstream views."

Read the article on Brian Martin for fuller context: he's promoted anti-vaccination, AIDS denialism and all kinds of nonsense in the no doubt sincere belief that by dismissing these crank ideas science is somehow "suppressing" them. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep that sounds a good sentence. Gongwool (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Last sentence

Is that really necessary? Seems a bit leading to me. If Wilyman had offered a response to the criticism then fair enough to include it, but is a "no comment" worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedic article? 79616gr (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep fine with removal of last sentence, yes is a bit newspapery sounding. Gongwool (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.79616gr (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian public health consequences of PhD controvesy

I would like to insert the following paragraph and cites. -

'Claimed adverse public heath consequences - As early as 2012, concerns had been raised that Wilyman's UoW thesis could have negative Australia public health consequences. Dr Matthew Berryman stated: "While I'm a big supporter of academic freedom, I somehow don't think that academic freedom extends to ... making unscientific claims discouraging people from seeking appropriate preventative measures for life-threatening diseases". ' (or similar) http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/270598/uni-responds-to-anti-vaccine-views/

+ '... In contrast to the medical science research majority view, Wilyman's thesis claims that “diseases for which vaccines are recommended have not been demonstrated to be a serious risk to the majority of children”.' (or similar) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/wollongong-university-looks-at-releasing-more-wilyman-details/news-story/37f538e1a3997d2415ac077557809b90

+ 'The MJA criticised the university in awarding a PhD to the student "despite demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding of immunology and vaccine science," warning that unless legislation keeps the anti-vaccination movement in check "we are ushering in a dangerous time."' https://www.mja.com.au/insight/2016/3/time-government-tackle-anti-vaxxers

Gongwool (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Description of thesis

I'm at a loss as to how we can write an NPOV account of the controversy surrounding this thesis, and not include a summary of the main point covered in the work. Accordingly, I've returned the summary of Martin's description of the points raised by Wilyman. Previously this was a massive hole in the article - we spend considerable time discussing how various people lacked the knowledge to evaluate, write and supervise the thesis, without telling the reader what it was they they were supposed to be evaluating, writing and supervising. - Bilby (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We cannot invent NPOV with "tiny minority" views, here is WP:NPOV's response to above NPOV over-concern this article s suffering from - "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." Gongwool (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This article very, very clearly reflects the position of most commentators that there are significant problems with the thesis. But, just as most of the articles gave some time to the views of the author, supervisor and university, we also need to give some time to those views. - Bilby (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

To other editors what Bilby needs help with is what's called "polishing t*rds". That is he needs to use one of the many negative articles or papers and somehow cherry-pick out of it anything resembling 'nice' to make seem what is a major academic controversy look like it's got a balance of support, when it aint. I have no strong opinions of Wilyman, Martin etc but do have a low tolerance of B.S. Please, don't come to my talk page and accuse me of XYZ, Wilyman's the public figure with notoriety, not me. Thanks. Gongwool (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, we need not despair. Sooner or later some closet lunatic from a Uni with a sloppy VC will come along wearing a tin hat and self-publish some conspiracy laden paper saying how Wilyman is indisputable in her "research". Then we can refer to that very unreliable source /cr*p. And that will be the counter to those many thousands of academic scientists who have slammed Wilyman, so what's the rush? That's how WP works, isn't it? Gongwool (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool, in today's editing session on this article, [1], you added claims that called Wilyman a "marginal quack", refer to Martin as having "a history of being sympathetic to medical cranks", and to the University of Wollongong as having an anti-scientific culture that is "inimical to scholarship". All of those remain, even though I feel that some of those are misplaced. The only comment I objected to was one which I believe went beyond what was written in the source and therefore became a problem with BLP. I do think that this article has a problem with weight, because it does seem that the negative and insulting comments are getting an awful lot of space with little to balance them, but working out the correct weight (especially when there is so much material on one side) can be difficult to calculate, and thus is probably best addressed when the issue has played out some more. But I don't object to negative material being added - I only object when the material goes beyond what is in the source, creating potential problems with libel. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

All I have done all along is primarily report the supermajority view and only very occasionally the tiny minority view. That is what I am directed to do by policy. That the central point of any dispute here, not any other argy-bargy. Using cvio, npov or whatever excuses to minimise the "supermajority" view can and will make the article look unprofessional, silly and not in line with WP. Gongwool (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations are a serious problem because of how we re-license material. BLP violations are also serious, and under policy need to be removed immediately. These occasional small removals have not changed the direction of the article, and are essential under policy. - Bilby (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OCCAM's Nightmare

I'm curious as to why were using OCCAM's Nightmare by Peter Davis. It is self published, so isn't regard as reliable, but more importantly the only thing it is being used to support (as it was published in 2013, three years before this controversy) is that the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network is an anti-vaccination group, and issue that is already well sourced and not in dispute. I'd be happy to consider the book if it was otherwise valuable, but the source doesn't appear to add anything that we need. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, obviously raising concerns about this source has led to tagging the New Matilda one. Given that, can I ask why it is felt that New Matilda is unreliable? My understanding was that New Matilda is a professionally published work under editorial control, with the current editor being Chris Graham and with Professor Wendy Bacon as a contributing editor. Is there any particular reason why this raised concerns? - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool, you tagged New Matilda as an unreliable source, in spite of it having editorial oversight. Yet you thought it was sufficiently reliable that you used it yourself on University of Wollonogong: [2]. Why did you find it acceptable for you to use it there, and you find it unacceptable for someone else to use it for something that is clearly accurate here? - Bilby (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to question New Matilda as an US? Why were all the recent changes you made not discussed on talk page first? It's been difficult to try to stop whitewashing of article when sentences are moved but critique is dropped out of them when re inserted. Yeah, whatever. Gongwool (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Gongwool (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you were. You tagged New Matilda as an unreliable source, [3], having used the source previously to make the same claims at University of Wollongong, [4]. But that aside, why do you feel it is unreliable? It has editorial oversight by a well respected journalist and editor, and is a professional publication. It is being used to source the opinion of their columnist, and was used as a secondary source for the quotes from Martin, which we could independently confirm were accurate from his publication on his site. I'm not aware of any problems with its reliability in this case. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Too much argy-bargy and incorrect accusations after the fact, so whatever you want. But am glad you allowed Martins statement that he is not neutral before his quotes and Thought you would have done this without prompting. Anyway must go, need to do the laundry. Thanks for using the talk page. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongwool (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I did think that saying Martin was the thesis supervisor made it clear that he was biased. :) And thank you for finally responding to my posts here - at least we can make some progress now. - Bilby (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No - thank you for now discussing your changes on talk page. As I said whatever..., I don't care, but his very telling statement early on does indicate he can't cope with academic rigour or critics, accusing others of attack (crybaby?) cheers, I really have to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongwool (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Description of Brian Martin's position

I'm not sure we need to clarify Brian Martin's position at UOW beyond professor, but if we do I'm not sure of the description: "University of Wollongong's professor of social science Brian Martin" The problem is that he's not in the Faculty of Social Sciences, but in the Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts. I think we could possibly describe him as being a professor who works in social sciences, but I'm not sure of the exact wording. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to note the faculty, because it's clearly not related to medicine. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right, and we are probably on the same page as to why. It is important that we are clear that this was not conducted through a medical school which should have been better able to consider the claims. I've added the faculty and school. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Masters Thesis investigation

For an academic, an accusation of academic misconduct is a big deal, and would end a career if substantiated. Given this, I think it is important to note in the discussion of her Master's thesis that she was cleared. I respect that this means that we say it twice - once in the first line, and again as the outcome of the investigation at the end - but it is fairly serious, so it seems safer to be very clear that she was cleared as a result. - Bilby (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool:, can you clarify why you have such a major problem with mentioning that she was cleared both in the first line and as the conclusion of the investigation? I'm at a loss to understand why this is something that you have such strong feelings about. Given the severity of the accusation, my wish here is to make it clear to the reader that the investigation found nothing wrong, especially given that the investigation doesn't appear to have anything to do with the PhD controversy. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to repeat stuff over and over again. I am at a loss why an Admin is so deeply involved in this topic over such a long time. Also this is very serious as the Uni is offering little transperancy and would appear to be questionable. It's about uni coverup not the person. Anyway I can't say anymore on talk as some use it as a pretext to set up minor editors and take frivolity to ani, bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to revert your addition. Saying that an investigation was dropped is not the same as saying that an investigation cleared the subject. In this case, one of the sources says "cleared" and the other says that the charges were "thrown out" - this is a stronger conclusion than simply dropping the investigation would be. - Bilby (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool:, is it really that big an issue for the article to state that at the end of the two month investigation Wilyman was cleared? I don't understand why you are fighting a simple, and important, concluding statement. It doesn't seem like a major concern - I'd just like for the article to be very clear that this unrelated nine year old investigation resulted in clearing Wilyman of academic misconduct. I don't understand why you find this an issue. Could you clarify the problem? I'm hoping to find a way forward, but I can't unless we hash this out. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see a WP:OWN issue evolving here with admin editor Bilby. Obvious from above. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you move the Masters Thesis out of the background section? It is unrelated to the doctoral thesis, which this is about, and seems more relevant in regard to the background of the doctorate. If there's a reason for the move I'm ok with it, but it did seem that "Background" was a better section, as it makes it clear if it is in there that it is not part of the current issue. - Bilby (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Masters thesis apology

@1.144.96.24:, I think that there might be some confusion. In regard to this revert, as I'm only using a very short direct quote, there isn't a copyright concern. The source was provided, but was "Wollongong University looks at releasing more Wilyman details" from The Australian. I'll wait a bit before putting it back, but hopefully that addresses your concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Other editor raised concerns with this content. I see a WP:OWN issue evolving here with admin editor Bilby, as example above. Let's go with consensus and editors please refrain from adding it. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That's ok, too, as there weren't any concerns raised with this in the past. I presume, then that you don't have a specific concern with the content? There are no problems with copyright or sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with your proposal to add that material, the way you presented such was misleading and not neutral. 1.144.96.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That's more useful. It was an exact quote from The Australian, though. How do you propose we word it? I'm happy to see it reworded, as the core point is that the university made the unusual step of apologizing to the student for the investigation. - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby you seem to push and push until you get your way. You have a WP:OWN breach as an Admin with this article. I do not support the addition of your text, you are adding "mills and boon" sympathy text and this is not a novel. Please refrain from WP:OWN activity. Uni's can be fallible and dodgy, they are not above misconduct. I do not support your proposal to add that content in any form. Regards. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This makes it a bit difficult to find consensus. Why are you opposed to it? It seems very significant that the university apologized to the student for putting them through an academic misconduct investigation. I have not heard of this happening before, although I doubt that it is the only time it has happened. The Australian found it significant enough to be worth mentioning, Why do you feel that this is not worth covering? - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I've addressed all of the concerns you've raised - there isn't a copyright issue, it is sourced, etc. From what you said, I have to assume that your only complaint at the moment is that you don't like the text. That's not enough to justify leaving out sourced and potentially significant content. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

- I reject your proposed addition based on 'weight', 'own' and 'not reflected in source' policies. Your continual agenda pushing is reflected in WP:OWN policies. This is not personal bio article, it is about a Uni controversy where Uni is secretive and has created a lowering of academic standard question hanging over it. It is obvious you are an apologist for Wilyman and Uni's investigating themselves, and I will give you benefit of doubt that your only breaching WP:OWN rather than WP:COI. If you work for, or have worked for an Aus Uni then you will need to disclose that as a COI, also if you are a SocSc you will need to disclose that as COI. Regards, 1.144.96.24 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It is one brief sentence, so weight isn't an issue, and it is a direct quote from the source, so that also isn't a concern. Thank you. At this stage, I haven't seen a solid reason against including the text.

In regard to COI, no, I do not have a conflict of interest in regard to this article. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK thank you. It is then concluded you have a WP:OWN policy breach issue with your editing on Wilyman or Martin and UOW topics. Do as you wish as you are the Admin with unbounded powers on Wikipedia. No-one can stop your actions due to your seniority. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you misunderstand the role of admins - in regard to content, administrators have no more say than anyone else. Which is why I've been trying to understand what the objections to content are - if we can understand what they are, we can come to consensus about how to proceed. But as far as I can tell from your responses, you are opposed to including it because it is sympathetic towards the subject, which isn't sufficient for leaving it out. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject your judgement of me and find your opinion insulting. What you want to include is out of context. Actually it infers collusion and coverup between Uni and a poor academic if nothing else, as it's written from such a sympathetic POV it's vomit/gag material of the highest unacademic order, It is damning. You continue to push WP:OWN of article with misconstrued sentences. Your bias on this UOW issue has been extremely telling in my short time here. I suggest as an admin you take a break from defending questionable Aus academia coming out of dodgy institutions, they can self bias implode themself without your assistance. Regards, 1.144.96.24 (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies - it seems I misread what you meant when you described it as "sympathy text" above. I'm not sure why you feel that it infers collusion - what it does seem to suggest is that the university felt that Wilyman should not have been put through the investigation, and therefore apologized. Hence my feeling that it is significant, as I have not previously seen note of a university apology to a student for an academic misconduct investigation.

At this stage I'll try and find an alternative way of wording it, as that seems to be the main issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert the text:

According to The Australian, after the investigation cleared Wilyman the university apologised to her "for the ordeal".

The edit summary said that I misrepresented the source, but I can't see where that occurred. Could you clarify which part is misrepresenting The Australian? - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that we're back to where we started [5]. Ok, The Australian wrote:

"The university originally declined to release more details about the investigation into the alleged academic misconduct relating to Dr Wilyman’s 2007 thesis on the federal government’s pertussis immunisation policy, and apologised to Dr Wilyman for the ordeal."

According to The Australian it was the university who apologised, not an unnamed individual in the university. I can't see in those sources any evidence that more people in the university spoke out against her in regard to the academic misconduct investigation at the time, and I can see The Australian claiming an official statement by the university as an institution. Returning to the text, why is the wording provided above incorrect? What is not in keeping with the source? - Bilby (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll give this a bit of time, but unless a problem is identified with the text that goes beyond not liking it, I'm very inclined to put it back. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why the WP Admin was so reluctant to identify who apologised to her in the newspaper. There's enough coverup going on at the Uni and Bilby is contributing to Uni's agenda of coverup who was invloved. Raper it now seems is the apologist. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The paper notes two apologies, which may or may not be from the same representative. The first time the author writes:

"The university originally declined to release more details about the investigation into the alleged academic misconduct relating to Dr Wilyman’s 2007 thesis on the federal government’s pertussis immunisation policy, and apologised to Dr Wilyman for the ordeal."

The second time we have:

"The outcomes of that investigation remain confidential, but the university’s deputy vice-chancellor (research) Judy Raper wrote to Dr Wilyman to say she was “sincerely sorry for this to have happened”."

It is possible that the two refer to the VC's letter, but it is also possible that there was more than one apology. Given that it isn't clear which is the case, assigning the apology to the university certainly covers one, and will probably cover both. If there is consensus to handle this differently I'm also ok with that. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

- as it is now it's factual, i vote leave it. this other which-ever proposal is interpretation not true to the citation, cant understand this. so my vote is leave it as it is, don't know why theres so much opinion and interpretation going on, that's all I have to offer, 03:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewjoo (talk • contribs)

Peter Dingle

Is there any evidence that Dingle's involvement was significant? As far as I can tell, if he did supervise Wilyman, it was at a different university and was years before the thesis was released. Dingle is not mentioned in the final PhD, any of the sources that discussed the PhD, and given the change in university and the time frame involved, it isn't clear that this is the same thesis as was eventually released. Other than a single mention in a blog, is there anything to suggest that this is the same as the Wollongong doctorate, and that Dingle's involvement was significant in the eventual controversy? - Bilby (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I would appreciate you please stop WP:STALKing or 'Wikihounding' my edit efforts on Vax topics. As this has been your M.O. for some time as I believe it reflects WP:HA and WP:FRINGE/PS on your part. Thank you in advance. Gongwool (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you address the issue above? - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Today's Australian

Story shows that one of the two original PhD markers found that the thesis was of no value, and instead of addressing the issue the university simply substituted another credulous marker instead. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/third-marker-gave-ok-to-antivaccination-thesis-by-judy-wilyman/news-story/cbdf24fe7b4388f0fbf715354ebab8bb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This is standard practice in PhD marking in Australia. In situations where the two examiners disagree, a third (reserve) examiner is used to form a majority opinion. That said, it seems worth mentioning, so I've added it to the article. - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Also this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/judy-wilyman-shielded-from-critics-in-lowkey-conference-promotion/news-story/6fbd40ae181f6522c0e9d149271bb21f 82.21.88.44 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's untrue. It is only standard practice to need a third examiner on occurrences of extremely poor academia. See the cite that the WP Admin has removed [6] which tells how Wilyman was in the minority of PhDs needing a third opinion to pass. Gongwool (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Australian Society for Immunology conference

I'm not sure how much weight we should be giving this, but I feel it is important to note why the University claimed not to wish to promote the conference. The wording as of now (after edit warring) reads:

In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman", wrote the UOW media officer.

However, In the article in The Australian, there are two lines relating to why they chose not to promote the conference:

"If Ronald or the conference will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don’t want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman"

and:

"A university spokesman told the HES the university was concerned about 'limiting the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student by those opposed to her participation in academic debate'."

I'm of the opinion that the second quote is clearly referring to Wilyman, although I gather @Gongwool: is saying that it might be referring to a different student. In deference to Gongwool, I'm happy to use the direct quote and not name anyone. In which case the wording in our article becomes:

In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman". According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student".

Writing it that way, we don't claim that the student facing "vicious and repeated attacks" was Wilyman, but we do make it clear that the university stated that their reason was to protect a student from those attacks. Without it we create the impression that it was only to avoid opposition to Wilyman, and that's not the full story as covered in the source. Accordingly, unless there is a clear reason as to why we shouldn't give the full account, I think we should include both quotes. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are two possibilities. One is that the university chose not to promote the conference because of opposition to Wilyman and because of repeated and vicious attacks made against her, in which case we need both quotes. The other is that the university chose not to promote the conference because of opposition to Wilyman and because of repeated and vicious attacks made against a different student, in which case we need both quotes. Either way, we need to give the full story. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note the above discussion is Bilby talking back and forth with him/herself and considers this lone conversation as reaching consensus! lol... Gongwool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool: technically, I'm putting forward my case and asking for your thoughts. Would you be able to clarify why you don't want to include both quotes in the article? - Bilby (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As there hasn't been an argument offered as to why we shouldn't include this in the article, and it has been a week, I'll add it back. Hopefully that won't prove too controversial. - Bilby (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again Bilby seems to have had a conversation with himself on talkpage and is very happy with the outcome. He once again says "we" (decided). So once again I guess he's referring to himself and one of the people mentioned in the article. Right-on Bilb! Gongwool (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, by "we" I'm referring to the community. However, I waited a week for you to offer a valid reason for not including the University's explanation in the article. You said nothing. You still haven't said anything. Accordingly, I have to act on the assumption that you have no valid objection, and to move forward. If that's not the case, you might want to rethink the approach you have been using, and focus on the issue at hand rather than accusations of conflicts of interest. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The quote that the admin keeps on replacing is vague sensationalist slander designed to insinuate that someone has physically or verbally been threatening Wilyman. i.e."According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student". Here's the facts again:

1. It does not refer to Wilyman so not justifiable to try to link via WP:OR policy.

2. Highly ambiguous. The Uni will not specify what "vicious attacks" are. The insinuation is that they are violence. But it is more likely the "attacks" refer to academic criticism that suggests the Uni or it's Supervisors are dim or dodgy academically, this is likely why the Uni is remaining vague on it's use of this word.

So not only is the comment vague and disingenuous, it is also disingenuous and vague for the admin to keep on putting it back in the article. Thus I will rightly remove this sensational line again. Ridiculous that I have to correct an admin on such basic concepts! Gongwool (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing something to work with.

"It does not refer to Wilyman so not justifiable to try to link via WP:OR policy."

No, it does not directly refer to Wilyman. In which case, we are being misleading by insinuating that the only reason why they chose not to promote the event is because of Wilyman, as if this doesn't refer to her, it is clear that there were other considerations as well. We should be clear about what those considerations were, rather than cherry picking one of the two reasons offered. Alternatively, if it is about Wilyman it is highly relevant.

"Highly ambiguous."

It is a direct quote. So yes, it is a slightly ambiguous quote, but the university has offered an ambiguous explanation, and we need to offer it as such. If anything, though, adding the second quote is making it less ambiguous, as the current quote only refers to "inflaming opponents" with no explanation as to why this would be a problem. The second quote is clearer as to why.

In regard to WP:OR - it is not original research to add a direct quote. It would be OR if we were to try and synthesis it, or use this to come to our own conclusions as to why they chose not to promote the conference. It is not OR to directly quote the only two reasons they have offered.

I remain at a bit of a loss. The university offered two quotes regarding not promoting the conference. Currently, the article mentions one. In the interests of being neutral and complete, it seems important to mention the second as well. - Bilby (talk)

Yawn, I'm tired of you Bilby. (ever wondered why so few editors want to engage you on Aus Uni's poor academia topics?) bye. Gongwool (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that you've added a claim that the examiners couldn't be under any threat if their names were released, it now seems important that we mention the university's view that a student connected with the vaccination debate (presumably Wilyman) had faced attacks in the past. I've put the additional claim back in the article, as now we have a greater reason to provide this context. - Bilby (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that your addition is "presumably Wilyman" but you're not really sure, and it's needed there for something unrelated according to you. Top-shelf! No offence and apologies for my tone, but your standard of accuracy in addition of content to articles is rock-bottom dismal and just adds to making WP an inaccurate resource. Sorry but I have higher standards than just guestimation on such inaccurate slanderous comments. No wonder Aus Unis are in such a academic reputation void these days. Cheers. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess you missed all the comments above, from the first one onwards, where I've been very clear to acknowledge that it might not have been Wilyman, as unlikely as that may be, in deference to your view. And, once again, I need to warn you that your ongoing personal attacks are not the best way forward. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to remove the untrue statement of "According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student".[20]" as the uni refuses to provide evidence that anyone attacked Wilyman, or said they were going to attack her. It's just lies and distraction and victim role-playing and I can't remove it due to settings on page, so can someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.214.16 (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

We are not making a statement as to whether this is true or not. However, we are making the statement that the university offered this as an explanation as to why they were not promoting the conference. As that was a direct quote published by The Australian, I assume that they were accurate in how they reported the university's claim. - Bilby (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologise again profusely for any hurt I caused you Bilby. This in no way changes my opinion that I am more diligent in sustainable facts, needed for a platform such as WP, than you are. But I understand expressing such in my specific humour tone can cause offence, and for that I am sorry. Please accept my apology. FYI my PhD was in social science as well, but not fantasy like Wilyman's. Cheers, Gongwool (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, its not accurately presented quote because The Aus prefaced the Uni's lies with ; " Judy Wilyman shielded from critics in low-key conference strategy " to show that the Uni's answers are highly questionable. I can't understand why this website wants to align itself with the childish victim role playing of this disreputable Uni. Please remove this example of this Uni's propaganda unless they are prepared to solidly substantiate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.253 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we agree with the university's claim - what is important is that we acknowledge the reasons they give, without making our own claim as to whether they are true or false. I assume that you are not saying that The Australian misquoted the university, just that you disagree with the university's reasoning. While you might be correct, we still need to present the university's account. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, The Aus article has put the uni's odd comment about un-named student in context making the reader question. Wilipeadia has cherry picked the comment out of context to infer violence threatened. That's not acceptable or arguable. It should go. Unless you have evidence of someone being investigated or charged for these alleged vicious attacks being committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.253 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, we've chosen the two statements made by the university, and provided them in full. This is the exact opposite of cherry picking. What you are asking for is to pick the explanation which you believe to be the most "true", which is not how we can proceed. We can't make that call. - Bilby (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin Bilby's threat and tantrum

Unless Bilby gets his/her way this WP:OR interpretation of the last ambiguous quote, this bouncy admin has threatened "Or we kill the section as a whole" [7] - who's "we"?. Very concerning that an admin is throwing his/her weight around inappropriately -WP:bully. Bilby's bias is obvious, long-term and over the top on this topic, especially for an admin. Left wondering when Bilby says "we kill" as a threat, is Bilby's "we" referring to Bilby and someone mentioned in the article? - a WP:COI ? Go away Bilby you're giving WP a bad name. Gongwool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to WP as a whole. :) My apologies - I tend to view editing as a community endeavor, and accordingly when talking about making changes I tend to refer to "us" as a community making those decisions. If we should include this in the article is a decision for consensus and the community, so when I say that perhaps we should remove it, I'm referring to a decision we would need to make as a community of editors. I shall try to be more careful in my wording. At any rate, can you raise any objections to including the second quote above? - Bilby (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem a professional academic spindoctor employed to bore us to death. You bore me with your illogical obsession in defending with the recent worst examples of poor Australian academia and their own illogical spin. And you scare me with your stalking obsession of me. I keep on asking you to leave me alone but you keep demanding I engage, yes you're spooky. Please stop "ATTACK"ing me - to use a UOW phrase. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume that this means you won't be responding to my points above? As a suggestion, it isn't in anyone's interest for you to continue with the personal attacks, as they can lead to being blocked. I'd rather work with you to fix the article and to continue to develop it - your point of view is an important one. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wilyman photo

I'm concerned about the photo of Wilyman that was added, at this stage because it appears to be a screenshot taken from a video that has been floating around online. My concern is that it is unclear as to the copyright status of the video, (which has since been taken down from the Periscope.tv, where it was first posted), and it doesn't appear that the uploader was also the owner of the video. Accordingly, I've raised it for discussion on Commons, and it seems best to keep it out of the article until the discussion there is complete. It might also be best on BLP grounds to look for a more neutral screenshot to use, but that's not the primary concern at the moment. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no evidence it's free and no fair-use rationale. I think a case could be made under fair use, given that ti depicts a (hopefully) unrepeatable event, but the image is not free and is likely to be nuked form Commons. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede; also, New Matilda

The lede does a poor job of summarizing the mainstream view. The phrase "calls for the university to review the doctorate" comes across as unmotivated bullying by anti-UOW forces, but most of the mainstream anti-UOW views I've seen so far (1) carefully explain up front that the paper is objectionable because of the level of scholarship, not just a knee-jerk dislike of the conclusion, and (2) call for a transparent explanation of why the mistake occurred, and/or for the UOW to adopt a more consistent, transparent, and defensible standard in awarding PhD's, rather than calling for the UOW to review her PhD. To be clear, some critics (but not most) move beyond just condeming UOW, and advocate that UOW review the PhD, or that the Australian goverment should formally investigate; this is a significant (though probably minority) point of view, and can remain in the article (or even in the lede, if the current wording is fixed to avoid accidentally implying that critics in general advocate this.)

Somewhat related: I'm not familiar with the New Matilda, does it carry sufficient WP:WEIGHT for an editorial in it by this Michael Brull guy to be cited six times in the article? I bring it up because the cited editorial seems rambling and nonsensical to me but YMMV. I've tried to follow up on Brull's allegations that critics want her PhD reviewed and revoked merely because "her opinions are unorthodox or distasteful to many" but this seems to be a straw man; the (probably minority) of critics who want to go so far as want the PhD reviewed and revoked are pointing out that the thesis is demonstrably low-quality and nonsensical pseudoscience, and (they argue) should be prioritized for scrutiny above other terrible PhD theses as Wilyman's thesis contains misinformation which could directly cause people to die; whether you agree with them or not, they're not merely complaining that it's "unorthodox or distasteful" as Brull suggests. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The cntext for the call for a review is in the previous lines in the lede:

"... but came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory whereby the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly conspire to promote vaccinations in the absence of evidence of safety and efficacy. The awarding of the thesis created questions about the standards being applied and whether or not the thesis supervisor and examiners had sufficient knowledge to oversee the research, ..."

My feeling is that represents the main view - the thesis pushed conspiracy theories, have failed to meet academic standards, and was improperly examined by people with insufficient knowledge. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that: (1) the thesis is psuedoscience, and (2) that the best response is to condemn UOW for publishing such a rock-bottom poor-quality thesis and call for reform. The article is commendably clear on (1), but the lede doesn't communicate (2). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The mainstream response you are referring to is mostly blogs, which we are currently overly reliant on anyway. I think we can add a bit more in regard to the criticism of the UOW, though. However, most of that criticism is invalid, which makes it a bit more delicate to work with. - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

University employee Bilby has proudly publicised his employer, his WP username and WP status all together online and then lectures us with: "...criticism of the UOW, though. However, most of that criticism is invalid". Wrong !!! it is only "invalid" in his opinion due to his unflinching bias. Give us a break! 1.144.96.53 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've to you here and elsewhere, I have no connection to the University of Wollongong, Wilyman, Martin, the AVSN, or any other players in this mess. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a statement regarding the criticism of the university to the lead. The essence appears to be claims of a lack of transparency and an failure to uphold academic standards. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree blog sources require case-by-case justification to be included. Some non-blog sources that are already cited in the current article:

• "But the Australian Medical Association has criticised the University of Wollongong for supporting a PhD student with anti vaccination views." [8] (Technically this is about the $3k not the PhD publication)
• "Wollongong uni slammed for accepting PhD thesis on 'anti-vax conspiracies'" [9] (7 news Australia)
• "UOW panned for accepting thesis on vaccination 'conspiracy'" [10]

So, again, it seems to me like the main newsworthy item is that the University, not so much the student, is being criticized. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added that the university was criticized for a lack of transparency and a failure to uphold standards, which seems to be the essence of the concerns. - Bilby (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Judith Wilyman

As noted previously in the Talk archives, the current title isn't very good. "The Judith Wilyman PhD thesis" or "Judith Wilyman PhD criticism" might be better, but IMHO we should rename to just "Judith Wilyman" as it arguably fails both (1) and (2) of WP:BLP1E. Any objections? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources only really cover her in regard to this. If it was just about her, it would end up with massive weight problems, as almost everything would be about this event in considerable detail. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. Currently this article is almost entirely about the thesis. It is not a biography article and therefore should not be named as such. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about "Judith Wilyman anti-vaccination thesis" then? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty much what it is now. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Reasons for not promoting a conference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Australian included two quotes as to why the University of Wollongong chose not to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference. Currently, we only refer to one. Should we refer to both? - Bilby (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

According to The Australian, in 2014 the University of Wollongong chose not to promote a conference they were sponsoring. In regard to their decision, The Australian expressed the university's reasons as:

"If Ronald or the conference will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don’t want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman", a media officer wrote.

A university spokesman told the HES the university was concerned about "limiting the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student by those opposed to her participation in academic debate".

The dispute is about whether to include both explanations or only the first.

1. The original wording in this article only included the first statement, and was:

In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman".

2. The alternative is:

In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman". According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student".

I would prefer the second, as the first doesn't explain why they do not wish to "inflame any opponents", making it appear that their concern is that the student will undergo unwanted academic criticism, when, based on their second statement, their concern is more serious. The alternative argument is that it is WP:OR to include both, as the second quote might might not have been referring to Wilyman. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

3. The original text Bilby obscured is an alternative:

The Australian reported that in 2014, "Wilyman [was] shielded from critics" by the university when their media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman".

4. Another alternative that contextualizes both quotes:

The Australian reported that in 2014, "Wilyman [was] shielded from critics" by the university when their media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman". According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student"

Gongwool (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Support alternative with both quotations to provide greater context. Meatsgains (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• No 3 . As the Admin is inferring violence threatened by using the quote out of context, I vote for alternative 3. To infer violence ("vicious attacks") then delete references to academic 'critics' is questionable by a WP editor and suspicious activity. The Newspaper quote that Admin has deleted gives context in that it refers to 'critics' so as not to mislead and not infer threatened violence from thugs. Gongwool (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Number 3 or secondly Number 4, is want I want to see because presently wikipedia and the uni is trying to portray proper healthy academic debate as a "Vicious and repeated attack". And that's shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.4.131 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the intent is not to portray this in any particular way. Instead I'd like us to take a neutral stance and simply describe what the university offered as their reasons for not promoting the conference. I understand that some people do not accept those reasons, and I certainly have no problem with that, but it isn't our place to try and portray the issue one way or another. Instead we should provide what the university said and have readers consider the situation. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I prefer the "alternative" option that says, In 2014, the university's media office refused a request to promote The Australian Society for Immunology conference in Wollongong, saying if it "will be discussing vaccinations, we should steer well clear of doing any publicity. We don't want to inflame any opponents of ... Judy Wilyman". According to the university, they were attempting to limit "the vicious and repeated attacks being directed ... towards a then student". because it gives more context of how divisive this issue has been. The phrase "shielded from critics" only appears in the headline and was clearly meant to sensationalize a known hot button issue. I don't see that the "admin" is inferring anything as Bilby's suggestions are direct quotes from the source with appropriate attribution. —PermStrump(talk) 23:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

3 or #4. Wikipedia using the phrase "Vicious" "attacks" not in context is the only thuggery going on here. Where is the sources for the police reports made for these "repeated attacks"? There ain't any cause the UOW falsified these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.117 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• But it's a fact that the university spokesperson made that statement. That's why we give appropriate attribution. The readers know the original source for the information and it's their prerogative if they want to choose to believe the person who said it or not. —PermStrump(talk) 23:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

no 3 because it refers to critics. Not real threats. 83.137.1.218 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment, the title of this question is "Reasons for not promoting a conference" as put forward by complainant Bilby. The article clearly states the reasons are that the university wished to shield themselves/Wilyman from critics (as the Uow is anti-vax). And it used inflammatory language to smear any pro-vax critic. The "shielded from critics" explanation is essential as it directly addresses the question Bilby has posed, i.e.: The "Reasons for not promoting a conference". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.33.146 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd normally be ok with adding the shielded from critics claim, so long as we included the full claim from the university to balance. However, my concern is that the claim only appears in the headline, and isn't backed up by anything in the body of the article. As headlines are written to grab attention rather than necessarily to be completely accurate, I'm uncomfortable with relying on the headline on its own. It comes across as sensationalist, rather than necessarily accurate. - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 4 . I read the above debates and debates on the other topics Bilby is presently hung-up on. Have not witnessed such obsessive and domineering behavior from an administrator on wikipedia before, particularly on such a fringe topic as anti-vaccination and it's link with unruly academia. It's a concern, and maybe Bibly needs to be forced by another administrator to break from anti-vaccination academia topics on wikipedia. 120.151.210.209 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - this seems to be the most reasonable of the choices. It conveys the info without bringing any extra emotion into things. As long as it is well sourced so readers can find the original material, it should work just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

#3 is my preference, the idea that criticism of Wilyman was "vicious" or constituted "attacks" is highly problematic - it is abundantly clear that her sense of entitlement is an issue, but the only vicious attacks I have seen have been by the anti-vax community. All the criticism I saw of Woolongong and Wilyman focused on academic rigour, the totality of evidence, use of dubious sources, and her anti-vaccine activism outside of school (though she was very much inclined to wave her in-progress PhD as an appeal to authority). Guy (Help!) 11:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 4 as it provides readers a concise explanation for the actions taken by the university to protect a "then student". I also suggest rewording the last sentence to simply begin the last quote with "attacks being directed ... towards a then student" ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that all the vicious attacks come from the antivax side. Criticism of the indefensible PhD might hurt Wilyman in the feels, but that's the limit of it. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Telethon Kids Research Institute protest

I really don't see that Wilyman's presence at the Telethon Kids Research Institute forum is warranted here - it unreleated to her thesis. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, but even if we did try to place it, isn't background, it isn't dependent on her PhD, and it isn't anything to do with the response. It is just an event that occurred after she completed her doctorate. - Bilby (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just checking, as I'm inclined to remove this - other than a protester stating that Wilyman has a PhD at the event, is there any reason to connect Wilyman turning up at a vaccination forum and the PhD controversy? I'm not seeing much of a connection. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, you posted a link to video footage of Wilyman at the protest and referred to Wilyman's newsletter encouraging others to come along and protest. Now after you exposing Wilyman as the ringleader of the protest at the institute you want to sweep it all under the carpet. Are you feeling alright? Do you also flip and flop and contradict your position so rapidly in real life as well? And let's not all forget you've disclosed you're a University employee as well as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. You're a walking-talking contradiction and obviously abusing your position/s and practising that saying: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Please take a break from defending Wilyman, you're an embarrassment to Wikimedia and your University. 1.144.96.199 (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. That said, my question is simple - is her attendance at the vaccination related to the PhD controversy? If it is then it is worth including here. If it is not, then there's no value in adding it. I'm looking for opinions as to whether or not the forum is relevant to this article. - Bilby (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As has been previously pointed out to you by an Administrator, Wilyman was quoting parts of her PhD during the protest in a intimidating fashion. This is what the Newspaper refers to, you know that. You conveniently temporarily forgot this even though it's in the video you posted. I am sorry that the Wikimedia Foundation sacked you, but perhaps for the best as you have no grasp on COI or Bias in editing. Also your university no longer wishes to be involved with the Wilyman debacle, so perhaps you should back off on the topic. Best to you. 1.129.96.82 (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Where does the newspaper refer to this? And if so, is it the plan that every time her PhD is mentioned in the future, we put it in here? As that seems unworkable. - Bilby (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you OK? Your obsessive-compulsive regards Wilyman is off the scale. You should also provide a link to your video you posted, it shows Wilyman in full flight as the central yeller in the protest. Yes your video. You're just too weird and in denial, and contradictory for me to discuss with you anymore. 1.144.96.239 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking how this relates to the PhD controversy, not whether or not she disrupted the forum. - Bilby (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it, I can see how it is linked to the whole circumstances of the "controversy" surrounding her work. (I put "controversy" in quotes as it is used in the title of the article). But I can't see how the most recent event in the timeline can belong in the "background" section. On a related note, I only roughly scanned, but I can't see any mention in the article of when the thesis was actually released/published. But I am assuming it is now at least a couple of years ago.

On an unrelated note, I think IP 1.144 should lay off the personal attacks a bit. It would help to keep the discussion on topic. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Background" was a poor fit, but so was putting it in the lead without coverage elsewhere. I did consider a "Further developments" section, but the entire section would consist of little more than "Wilyman claimed her thesis proved something that it didn't, and she showed up at a forum which protesters disrupted" - neither of which is really a further development in regard to the PhD controversy. Is there be a better approach?

I am concerned of a process whereby we just add every future mention of her to this article, though, as that seems to move the article into coatrack territory. I'm not sure what the correct balance would be. - Bilby (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AtHomeIn神戸. That the wording is important as is, and most importantly as s/he said: "it is linked to the whole circumstances of the "controversy" surrounding her work". Even though it maybe in the wrong section as s/he highlighted. Bilby, once again the consensus is against your 'social resistance opinion' on the matter, so best stop your overt meddling on Wilyman topics. 1.129.96.151 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Great - so can you clarify for me how this is linked to the circumstances of the whole controversy surrounding her PhD? Because as far as I can see, the only link is that someone said "she has a PhD" at the forum. If it is linked, then yes, it should be included. I just want to know how it is linked. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I find your tone toward consensus that you disagree with highly insulting and inappropriate. Another Editor took the time to offer a different opinion to you and all you have to offer is argy-bargy and a tanty. I understand you have a strong emotional response when consensus is against your judgement on a topic, and this became worse since the Wilyman controversy impacted your worklife. But please let it be and stop brewing for a dispute. It's all so unbecoming of a Uni lecturer of your stature to rebel so strongly against concensus. 1.129.96.151 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, you cannot show how this is linked to her PhD. Thank you. - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm Bilby? Very unbecoming. As has been explained to you a number of times by a number of editors, Wilyman was protesting by raising her voice quoting phrases from her PhD. Your not agreeing to listen to me or other Admins on this fact in reaching this consensus. I know you hate such consensus and rebel against it. I also you're not used to not getting your way. But the Wilyman topic has exposed your abuse of your position and maybe it's time to act like an adult on concensus. 1.129.96.151 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the only person claiming that she was quoting her PhD - only one published source mentions her at all, and it makes no mention of her PhD. The others don't even mention her presence at the forum, much less her doctorate. I have yet to see solid evidence of a link. The only claimed link with evidence is that someone called out that she has a PhD at the event, and your unsupported claim about quoting her PhD, both of which are tenuous at best. - Bilby (talk)

At any rate, this is going nowhere. I'm going to let this sit again and see if anyone comes up with a genuine sourced link between her attendance at the forum and her PhD. We can give this a bit of time, but ultimately if no link is established, including it falls into WP:Coatrack. - Bilby (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of being a sock of the other editor who pointed this out to you (you know who I refer to). This is too delusional on your part. Bilby YOU published the video on YouTube substantiating her part in the protest as she quoting her PhD. You provided this proof to us showing the link between her part the protest and the PhD controversy. This debate is beyond crazy, go and take a cold shower my friend. 1.129.96.151 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When did I accuse you of that? I have no idea of what you are talking about. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes Bilby, you conveniently have the memory of a goldfish when it suits your agenda. An Admin pointed this fact out to you some time back. Stop this memory-block silliness it's very unbecoming of a lecturer. 1.129.96.151 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I have no idea what you are talking about, but as I assume no one else does either, discussing this won't be good for anyone. Let's see if someone turns up with a sourced link in regard to the forum, and otherwise back off for a bit. - Bilby (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So Bilby will singlehandedly decide he is going to go against any consensus and my and Athomeinkobe's arguments. Bilby has pretty much breached most Bias, COI and OWN policies regards the Wilyman topic. Bilby don't tell others to back off, when you're the one with the obsessive-compulsive need to save Wilyman. Your place of employment, and your association with anti-vax colleagues of Wilyman within your own department, makes your activities here on WP plain and simple COI. And the fact you're a senior ex Wiki Foundation Administrator makes you untouchable with regards complaints of your breaches to Wilipedias policies and standards. So to use your words, you "BACK OFF FOR A BIT". 1.129.97.112 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when I read this talk page. —PermStrump(talk) 21:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have had another thorough read through of the article and have ascertained that Wilyman worked on the PhD from 2007 (Dunlop reference #12) until 2015 (external link to the abstract). I'll digress to say that this timeline should be made clearer in the article. So I am satisfied that the June 2016 forum cannot be considered part of the "Background" to the PhD controversy.

Does mention of the forum belong in the article at all? Yesterday I said "on the face of it", because I did not have the time to fully consider the references and context within the article, which I have now done. The first reference takes what I consider a passing back-handed swipe at Wilyman (without mentioning the PhD controversy) while the main story is the university's appointment of a new department head. The second reference doesn't mention Wilyman at all. Our description of the event doesn't even try to draw a link to the PhD. So Bilby's request for evidence of a link is entirely reasonable.

Turning to evidence of a link, IP 1.129 mentions above that "Wilyman was quoting parts of her PhD during the protest in a intimidating fashion. This is what the Newspaper refers to". Do you have another source that isn't currently used in the article? Wilyman simply quoting her own thesis does not make it related to the controversy. There would need to be a stronger link, for example her using quotes from the thesis in response to an attack on the thesis.

Without some link to the actual PhD controversy (and not just Wilyman herself), I think this does not belong here. It should be put aside for inclusion in an article if/when Wilyman becomes independently notable. (She may be now, but I haven't given thought to it as that is not the topic of this current discussion.) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I gather that we need to revisit this. Accordingly, to prevent this article becoming a coatrack of complaints about Wilyman, what should be inclusion criteria be for events that happen outside of the awarding of the thesis? Do we cover any event where her having a doctorate is mentioned? Or can we narrow the requirements? - Bilby (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are making a fundamental error. Wilyman is a crank, and coverage of cranks tends to be overwhelmingly negative. She is also a crank engaged in self-promotion, and that tends to mean that the comments become more prominent over time. Her failure to understand that she's been rumbled is not our problem, nor is it our problem that her reaction to shooting herself in the foot is almost always to reload and fire again. And while I think it's fair to say that ten years ago she would have been ignored, the success of antivaccinationists in promoting infectiuous disease, leading to deaths and serious harm, has made this a much hotter issue than it was. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is Wilyman on Wikipedia being controlled by employees of the University of South Australia?

A lecturer from this university is the primary editor here. Why is the university of South Australia spending its resources dictating the tone of this Wilyman topic on Wikipedia? It's not proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.28.185 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments like this are unproductive and likely to be removed. Refrain from making wild allegations which do not assist with development of the article. 86.163.65.36 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not s wild accusation. The lecturer editor here, should come forward, but is hiding behind editor name. Why are you not using your editor name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.28.185 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OUTING. If you continue along these lines this page will be semi-protected to prevent you from writing here. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for no peer-reviewed criticism?

Off-topic discussion

I understand the position of a number of people who believe the thesis is unscientific and unscholarly. Fair enough. The advancement of scholarship proceeds through scholarly debate. I could have missed something, but it seems that none of Dr Wilyman's critics have used the conventional means of scholarly criticism, that is, publishing peer-reviewed scholarly critiques of her work. Why has this conventional scholarly path of criticism not been utilized by her critics? Just curious. Research17 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC) As far as I am aware, there normally aren't published criticisms of a doctoral thesis. Wilyman does have the choice of publishing the thesis, but it wouldn't be normal for criticism of a thesis to appear in journals - if she published it as a book, then yes, it would become more likely, or if she chose to publish her findings as papers then she can reasonably expect a response. With that said, there was criticism published in Vaccine by Durrheim and Jones "Public health and the necessary limits of academic freedom?", and that raises Wilyman's thesis. Vaccine does include peer review. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Well, I understand what you're saying. But by posting her thesis online, Dr Wilyman has in a way published her thesis. Just as an aside, I think she was very unwise to do this - given the controversy, she could have gone to a commercial publisher, and made a fortune! But I digress. It may not be normal for scholars to write a critique about a thesis, but this is hardly a normal situation. And my contention is that if individual scholars did feel strongly about the thesis, and its scholarly integrity, then they should have opted for the conventional scholarly critique. This Wikipedia article, based largely upon self-published blogs and tabloid media, has the feel of an attack article. Now, it could well be that what Dr Wilyman has written deserves to be ripped into - but the way to do this, in my opinion, is through conventional scholarly criticism. I return to my original question - why have her critics, with the exception you've noted, not done this? Research17 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC) I guess, ultimately, you would need to ask her critics. - Bilby (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Publication, in academia, has a very specific meaning: it means publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Wilyman is unlikely to do that for two reasons: first, any competent peer-reviewer will require fundamental changes (for example including the substantial body of research refuting several of her core claims, or providing actual evidence for the colaimed conspiracies). Second, if she does publish, then responses will also become part of the record. She is very clear about this: she thinks any rebuttal or refutation of her claims is a form of suppression. That is, needless to say, delusional, but it appears to be her view, according to her most recent outburst on her blog. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for this - I've noticed that, given that members of the general public do not usually understand the difference between PhD examination and peer review of submitted papers, the antivaxers like to represent W as much more of an underdog then she really is. But Guy, you are thinking of publishing in a decent journal here. There are literally thousands of crappy OA journals around now that will run her crap, so I wouldn't be too sure it is not out there somewhere in one of the OMICS-type deals.137.205.183.31 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Wilyman is now lobbying for the University to airbrush this Wikipedia article. http://mazeinamirror.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/open-letter-concerning-wikipedia-and.html

Of note: in the letter she basically admits choosing this PhD precisely in order to enable her to enagge in anti-vaccine activism. Whihc was obvious anyway, but it's good to know that this was not an accident, that her intent from the outset was to give a veneer of academic authority to a pre-existing agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

She's not the first to complain about a Wikipedia article - on the plus side, this is almost the first real comment she's made addressing some of these issues, so it might prove to be something we can use to present her views. That said, as far as I can tell she is denying being anti-vaccination, so I'm not sure we can say that she claims this was the reason for the doctorate. - Bilby (talk)

I don't think we should present her views other than through the filter of reliable third-party analysis. Her views are, after all, dangerously delusional. We should always defer to third parties when reporting the beliefs of preventable disease advocates, global climate change advocates, starvation advocates and all other anti-science cranks. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Her views about vaccination, yes. Her responses to allegations regarding her doctorate is a different issue, and it is fair to include her response to those who are criticising her work. Not that there is much that is usable, but if there is we should look to include it. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. To report her own words directly is equivalent to quoting the propaganda of a white supremacist in response to criticisms of their bigotry: it gives a platform to a form of nonsense that is actively harmful. Wilyman is engaged in the promotion of infectious disease, trying to roll back a century of progress in eliminating infections that cause death and serious harm. She is part of a movement that harasses parents of dead children ([11], [12]). Her reasons are not based in fact, and are actually largely irrational. We should quote her views only through the filter of independent sources which establish their credibility and validity. This is no different from how we would treat any other member of a cult: we don't use their article to allow them to proselytise the cult, we report impartially based on reliable independent sources who have analysed their statements and compared them with reality. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in promoting Wilyman's views on vaccination. We may have cause to express her views on the controversy surrounding her thesis, but one does not entail the other. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If her views about the PhD controversy are DUE, they will be covered by secondary sources and waiting until we can cite a secondary source will allow us to appropriately contextualize her statements through the lens of secondary source without risking OR/SYNTH. —PermStrump(talk) 20:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We use a whole pile of self published views in this already to speak against her thesis. I think the opinions of the author on the controversy surrounding her own thesis need to be mentioned. We need to be careful and present them as her opinion, not as factual statements, but it would not be reasonable to leave them out completely. - Bilby (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We can and absolutely should draw a distinction between credentialled experts self-publishing a science based view, and Wilyman's special pleading. Anivaxers are very adept at pretending that they are "just asking questions", and Wilyman repeatedly asserts that challenging her drivel violates her freedom of speech. It doesn't. Your freedom to say a thing does not confer any obligation to provide a platform or take your speech seriously. Comments form the reality-based community are an essential component of this article, establishing why this junk thesis is nont part of the scientific debate. Scientific journals are never going to take it seriously, as it fails the most basic standards of science, so in order to explain why it is not addressed and countered in the literature, as Wakefield's fraudulent research was, requires us to take sources that are rteliable for that kind of information. We dont then "balance" that by stating that Wilyman believes her work is not actually crap at all because (a) that's obvious and (b) it's a fringe view with no currency in the relevant professional community. Which is, after all, why it was not conducted as part of any school of medical science, and why the University had to find a replacement reviewer with no biomedical background who would pass the thing at face value rather than pointintg out that it is drivel from start to finish as the original reviewer did. UoW should do us a favour, though, and withdraw it. It's an embarrassment. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but not particularly relevant - I have no interest in defending the contents of her thesis, and I've yet to see a usable source arguing that the thesis is sound. I do think that we may need to add content related to the controversy, but not the arguments in the thesis itself. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the content of the thesis is so bad that an overall negative tone in coverage is inevitable. We should not "balance" this by reference to her own self-serving statements. She is, after all, a danger to public health, and we should report her words only through the filter of third party commentary. And if the commentary is "neutral" then we should also treat that with suspicion. This is not a debate with two equal sides, it's science versus a tiny fringe of people who would rather the world had infectious diseaes than vaccines. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in adding anything that defends the content of Wilyman's thesis. As far as I can tell, the article currently has no statement defending the arguments she puts forward - the strongest we get are statements defending the doctoral review process, which is a separate issue - and I don't believe that this should change. - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on Bilby, you have an agenda and you know it. Have you no shame?137.205.183.31 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)