Talk:Judy Wilyman

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)

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...

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" [6] - 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)