Talk:Mark Brake

Deletion of this talk page

This page was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Mark Brake.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Rosit's reversions

Speedy deletion of page requested by creator of the page and submitter of the majority of the content here, as per criteria G7 of the speedy deletion policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosit (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits is not to be done without providing reasons. Edit summaries were lacking, and I assert that my edits were entirely proper. In the absence of explanation, I will re-do them. Discussion here, not on users' talk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. All the edits are acceptable, bar the libelous claim wrt false funding Rosit (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What false funding? I made no edit about "false funding". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. To be more precise. The edit which states Professor Brake submitted a grant application falsely claiming a PhD is libellous. Rosit (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then take it up with the THE and Melanie Newman. As for Wikipedia, the edit satisfies WP:RS. If you think it violates some other policy, by all means say which one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me for saying this, but I don't feel your attitude is helpful to novice contributors. I do not have an intimate knowledge of policy. Rosit (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. No-one looks kindly on mass unexplained reversion of edits, and it's clear from the article history that you've done quite a lot of that. But perhaps we can now get off to a better start. Your talk page contains a welcome message with links to pages that explain how Wikipedia works. The "five pillars" link is the best place to start. As for "libelous": do you believe that it is not true that he falsely claimed to have a PhD on a grant application? The THE article is unequivocal on the point. If it's true, it's not libelous to say so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall read on. Wrt to the press, I do not think it is true. Rosit (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The problem though is that a core principle for wikipedia is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" -- see WP:V. We would not want to include a claim that is false. But unless it can be shown that it is false, using a source that meets WP:RS means that the edit/information can be verified. If there are other sources meeting WP:RS that cast significant doubt about this claim, please do present them here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On further thought I have reverted the reference here. A single and isolated alleged incident based on an alleged and unreferenced document from 3 and half years ago is not a credible and representative biographical feature, especially in light of (a) the overwhelmingly positive nature of Professor Brake’s work, and (b) the University’s statement that the allegations appear to have their origin in a particularly unpleasant and long standing personal vendetta that has been waged against Professor Brake by a former colleague, who was dismissed by Glamorgan for gross misconduct including harassment.Rosit (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing a reference is thoroughly inappropriate. The false PhD is now back as well, as it can be corroborated in an additional reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also two blog pages which refer to the story of Brake's false PhD claim. One of them has a scanned picture of that part of the grant application. Is it worth adding links to these two URLs? TGttifco (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not -- WP:RS discusses what kind of sources can be used, and blogs are excluded. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There are also about 20 news stories which refer to a "Dr. Brake" going back as far as about 1998 suggesting this deception about qualifications was not isolated to the grant application. Can I add references to these? TGttifco (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle they can be used. But they can't be used to draw inferences about deception. Anything we write in this article here has to appear in the sources we use. Putting 2 + 2 together to come up with 4 isn't allowed if 4 isn't explicitly stated in the source -- that's the gist of WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. TGttifco (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

After the work I've done on this article today, I'd be curious to know whether other editors believe there are still problems of neutrality/NPOV, advert, factual accuracy, etc. I don't mean to imply that I've fixed everything, but if there are still other issues to work on let's try to identify them. (In addition to the outstanding ref requests, naturally.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well -- as it works out, an additional problem is WP:COPYVIO, of www.markbrake.com (click on service, which leads to text that is identical to the lead paragraph here).... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And now I've taken care of some of the overlapping content. But I'll also add that I'm quite confident the copying went the other way -- the material was written here first and then used at Brake's own site. The key indicator is that the text at www.markbrake.com includes dozens of wikilinks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction degree

In order to add balance to the section where the article discusses the creation of the Science Fiction degree I suggest mention is made of the fact that this degree was deemed to be the second course in a list of courses which should be abolished as being a waste of Taxpayers' money - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6955701.stm. Also mention should be made of the fact that this degree and the degree in Astrobiology no longer run, due to lack of numbers to make them viable TGttifco (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Brake, not the degree; since that BBC piece doesn't mention Brake, there's really no place for it here. If there is a good source for the closure of the degrees, please provide them. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the BBC article about wasting taxpayers' money does not mention Brake by name, but it lists as 2nd the degree which Brake has mentioned establishing in this article. I feel that if the setting up of the degree is to be mentioned then it is also fair to mention this BBC story about wasting taxpayers' money. There is no story about the closure of the degrees that I am aware of, but they are absent from the University's prospectus, indicating that they have ceased. TGttifco (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR to get a sense of why what you propose is not normally considered acceptable at Wikipedia. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I will take a look at WP:OR as you suggest. Thanks TGttifco (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rocotto Telescope

This article also mentions the Rocotto telescope as part of Mark Brake's achievements. It would nice to note for balance that this telescope has never really worked and was certainly not used by the community students it was meant to be used by in any great numbers. It has now been de-commissioned as it to be given away. There is also some evidence that the numbers doing the Rocotto community courses were not as great as claimed by Mark Brake, and that records were falsified to increase the numbers. TGttifco (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources for this that meet WP:RS, then that would be fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I will see what I can do about pulling together the evidence. Thanks TGttifco (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

IOP Status

I see a revision has been made by "John Brindley" to remove a reference to Mark Brake being a fellow of the IOP. A person named John Brindley is responsible for IOP membership matters (according to their website) so this could indicate that the IOP has completed its investigation. However, given that there seems to be no reliable sources to support this, I've reverted the page. At present, the only reliable sources I can find indicate that he is still a fellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.149.241 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not clear to me that there is a source for the claim that he is a fellow of the IOP. If I am mistaken, please point out which reference supports this (or supply a new one). If there is no source for it, then it will be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He's listed as a newly elected fellow in the 2008 list: http://www.iop.org/aboutus/Annual_Review/fellows/page_24798.html (now referenced) and there is, as yet, no reliable source I can find which indicates that this is no longer the case. While this is a primary source, it seems to satisfy WP:RS which states that primary sources can be used to support specific statements. I've also specifically mentioned that he was elected as a fellow in 2008 thereby leaving open the possibility that this may no longer be the case. Junder1234 (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am John Brindley, Director, Membership and Business at the Institute of Physics. I can confirm that Mark Brake was elected as a Fellow of the Institute in 2008 and that he resigned from Fellow in January 2010. There is a well established and understood convention that memebrships of professional institutions is considered as continuous from the date of election unless or untl a date of resignation or removal is given. The earlier statement did not observe this convention as it gave only a date of election.--86.21.160.227 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

John - I've reverted your change. While I have no reason to doubt what you say, you must provide a reliable source for Brake's resignation. At present, the only reliable sources I can find indicate that he was elected a fellow in 2008. Other than your comments here, which unfortunately can't be considered to be a reliable source according to wikipedia rules, I can find nothing to indicate that he has, in fact, resigned. Is there perhaps an updated fellowship list on the IOP homepage we could link to ? Junder1234 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)-

I've reverted the change which resinstated the claim about Brake's resignation. All sources must satisfy WP:RS. A blog is not considered to be such a source. Please follow wikipedia guidelines and discuss any changes here to avoid yet another wiki-war on this page. --Junder1234 (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the people responsible for reverting these edits are acting according to the letter of the law as laid down by wikipedia, but the effect of their actions is to produce a page that misrepresents the truth. How can a statement about membership of the IOP coming from the Director of Membership and Business of that organization not be considered authoritative? And if you don't believe that John Brindley made that statement, why not just check the IP address from which it was posted? Dominic Guzman (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What would checking the IP address prove ? At best it would be an IOP address. However, the IOP has many employees, one of whom could be engaged in mischief making. The rules on wikipedia are clear - if John Brindley wants wikipedia to report on Brake's resignation he has the power to make that happen. All it would take would be, eg, a mention on the IOP website somewhere that Brake has resigned --Junder1234 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP address would presumably be traceable to John Brindley's computer. I think it's reasonable to suppose that a person holding such a senior position in a large organization might be allowed his own computer! I assume that the IOP does not routinely issues press releases or make announcements on its website every time an individual leaves the organization, which is why it has not done so in this case. Anyway, there is a straightforward compromise here. The concern about misrepresentation is that the current page implies that this individual is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics. Why don't you just remove all mention of the Fellowship? If you look at Mark Brake's own web page at www.markbrake.com you will see he has recently done just that himself. Presumably he now accepts that he is not a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, even if wikipedia does not. Dominic Guzman (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Many computers can share the same IP address. Furthermore, how would anyone be able to demonstrate that an IP address, even if it was an individual one, was actually associated with John Brindley ? The IP address used by the person claiming to be John Brindley is actually available in the wikipedia history page for the Brake article. Can you please demonstrate that this IP address can be linked exclusively with John Brindley of the IOP. Regarding Brake's removal of the reference on his page, there are a several inferences which be drawn from this, only one of which is that he has resigned.

The best way to get this issue mentioned is to force the IOP to make it publicly available or perhaps interest THE in resuming the story. This would strengthen what is anyway a somewhat execrable page full of PR trivia and which requires a drastic rewrite which focuses only on the most noteworthy aspects of the subject's life. --Junder1234 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to trace an IP address so I can't help you with that. However, you could simply contact John Brindley and ask him. His contact details are in the public domain.

My point about Brake removing all mention of the IOP from his own website was not meant to be proof that he had resigned, but does suggest that it would not be unreasonable for wikipedia to do the same thing. This page should not present the impression that Mark Brake as a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, which is what it (still) does. Better to exclude the reference to the IOP altogether than present a half-truth.Dominic Guzman (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP address question was a rhetorical one to illustrate that what you suggest can't reasonably be done. Regarding the membership description, at present the only reliable sources indicate that he is a member. Information to the contrary comes from someone claiming to be John Brindley (though anyone can claim to be anyone on wikipedia) and a blog which has published a number of hostile posts about Mark Brake. It would be unwise to take these at face value without supporting evidence.--Junder1234 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat. If you don't believe it was John Brindley who made those edits, why not just ask him? The blog to which you refer is presumably the one you have linked to below. The posts about Brake appear to include documentary proof that Brake has made false claims about his professional affiliations before. Dominic Guzman (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if I received a mail from him confirming Brake's resignation, this still wouldn't count as a "reliable source". It would be equivalent to a "private communication to Junder1234" and may even fall foul of wikipedia's no original research rule.

You wrote that this page "misrepresents the truth" regarding Brake's IOP membership and yet I've seen no reliable evidence for this. You write with confidence. How do you know that what is written is not representative ? If you can point to the evidence then perhaps we can link to it and move forward.

Finally, its important to note that you are as much an editor as I am. If you think I'm being unreasonable then there are arbitration processes. However, it would probably be inadvisable for my blood pressure and yours if we keep on changing and reverting changes.--Junder1234 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until I have evidence that satisfies wikipedia's bizarre rules, which I currently do not. However, I don't understand your last comment. I have never made any changes to the main wikipedia page on this topic. Dominic Guzman (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My last comment was merely to point out that this page does not belong to me, or indeed any other editor. I don't wish to get into an unnecessary discussion but, for the good of the article, I would like to repeat my question. You wrote with confidence that the article misrepresents the subject's qualifications. Where is the evidence for this ? --Junder1234 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

There has been a flurry of editing in recent days. As a wikipedia novice I'm doing my best to stick to the rules and conventions i.e. discussing and motivating changes on the discussion page. I would be grateful if more experienced editors could also do this.

I also notice that my editing of this page appears to have made it into the blogosphere: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/truth-lies-and-wikipedia/ . I mention this since it is likely that this has stimulated the current interest in this page. Regardless of anyone's opinions on the Mark Brake issue I'd like to remind any potential editors that wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for either the promotion or denigration of the subject. This page is meant to be a biography built from reliable sources, as defined by wiki conventions.

The wikipedia rule on reliable sources may or may not be appropriate for the accurate reporting of Mark Brake's IOP membership history. However, the policy has certainly saved a lot of other pages from vandalism and distortions and, on balance, has thus served wikipedia well. Junder1234 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Brake no longer professor at Glamorgan

Mark Brake has been made redundant (dismissed) by the University of Glamorgan. The main article needs to be ammended to reflect this. This happened 31 March 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.22 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good source for this information? I don't see anything in a google news search. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is this blog, but I cannot find any news story yet..... http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/brake-out/ TGttifco (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that he is no longer on the list of academic staff at the Glamorgan Uni. Department of Science and Sport (http://hesas.glam.ac.uk/staff/science/). I've therefore added that he was formerly employed at Glamorgan. If this isn't considered a "reliable source" then we should discuss here. Junder1234 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he is still there, in a different faculty: http://hesas.glam.ac.uk/staff/all/ -- this could be the result of reassignment, or perhaps reorganization. Anyway the other changes look good -- I'm glad to see someone else involved in this page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Junder1234 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On his website he describes himself as a freelance academic and states that he was a Professor at Glamorgan until 2010. http://www.markbrake.com/about/ . I've amended the page accordingly. Junder1234 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC). It also states that he used to be responsible for the Science Shops. It looks like the page on the Glamorgan site to which we referred hasn't been recently updated.Junder1234 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up and removing text which is unsourced

The page is a bit of a mess. I've removed a lot of stuff which was overt PR-material or which was unsourced. I've stripped it down to what I hope is noteworthy material. I hope its a little better. Other editors should of course feel free to revert but please discuss any changes here.Junder1234 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the section concerning undergraduate course development. It still read a little bit like a PR-page. I tried to avoid using weasel words though felt it appropriate to add that the courses he developed were outside of the mainstream of university science education, which is the reason they received attention in the first place. I tried to ensure that my wording doesn't imply some kind of value judgement on the courses. Since none of them seem to run anymore (judging from the Glamorgan course list), I referred to them as having taken place in the past tense. Junder1234 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added the word "then" to "outside of mainstream". 'science and science fiction' is still an odd course, but 'astrobiology' is now taught in many astronomy undergraduate courses, even though there are no courses which are solely on astrobiology. Anotherwikifan (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fellowship Claim

I still can't find any reliable source regarding the IOP fellowship status. Does anyone know of such a source ? Since I've anyway removed a lot of material, I've also taken this away in the process. Again, other editors should feel free to revert if they feel I've acted in a partisan way.Junder1234 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

False PhD Claim

As can be seen, I created a new section for this and titled it "False PhD Claim". This information didn't belong in the section related to his education. "False PhD Claim" is a better description than "PhD Claim" (the previous title). However, if anyone thinks that this is in some way not showing impartiality to the subject then we should discuss.Junder1234 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is he really a broadcaster ?

Brake has popped up in the media but does that really imply he is a broadcaster. I've removed the statement that he is a broadcaster. Does anyone agree/disagree ? Junder1234 (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)