User talk:Allanhildon

Welcome!

Hi Allanhildon! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kj

I am not new to Wikipedia, but I have only recently updated my userpage.

All the best, Allan Allanhildon (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kenny

I have reverted some of your changes to the Elizabeth Kenny article. It appears that you are citing some of your own original research which is self-published. Wikipedia has a number of policies you need to be aware of:

I'm not saying that what you added was untrue, just that without other sources backing you up, adding content from your own book tends not to satisfy Wikipedia's policies. Kerry (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kerry, thank you for contacting me about the Elizabeth Kenny edits. As a (now retired) academic I fully understand the need for verification in new research, but I admit to not understanding what process Wikipedia employs to verify the findings of new research. My publication is based on my doctoral research at the University of Essex, so has passed a much higher threshold of cross examination than the biography published by Wade Alexander in 2003. Notwithstanding my respect for the field work which Wade undertook, there are a number of factual errors in his work. The Kenny page states "The most dependable one, however, is most likely in a letter to Victor Cohn from Toowoomba journalist T. Thompson.[11]". Whilst Alexander cites this letter, Victor Cohn did not cite it in his 1975 biography as it was a recollection of a story that the journalist had heard, and not a first hand account. I therefore conclude that it should not be described as a dependable source.

The crucial issue which Wade Alexander overlooks or misunderstands is the fact that Queensland had a very rigorous system of disease notification from 1909 onwards. As a lecturer in public health I am very well acquainted with the history of disease surveillance in Australia. There are no records of any infantile paralysis (polio) cases in the Darling Downs district between 1909 and 1915. Dr McDonnell would have known that any suspected cases, even those not directly treated by himself, would have to be reported. Kenny claimed she treated numerous cases during this period, but none were reported. If we believe McDonnell was involved in her early polio cases we also have to accept that he knew they would have to be notified to the local public health officials. As none were we have to conclude that the story is not supported by the facts.

I am not the only researcher who has questioned the veracity of Kenny's claim to have treated polio prior to WW1. Kerry Highley, who's book is based on her doctoral thesis, also states that Kenny's claims to have developed her techniques while working as a bush nurse is highly unreliable. Highley claims Kenny probably developed her methods during the early 1920s while working with Daphne Cregan. (See chapters 4&5 in Highley, Kerry. Dancing in my dreams. Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2016) I agree with Highley's conclusion. The focus of my research over the past fifteen years has been to explain why Kenny promoted this story in the 1940s

I am a keen supporter of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that you need to have transparent editorial policies. I now need your guidance on how this policy allows new research to be integrated into the existing knowledge base. There are several serious factual errors in the Kenny article which need to be corrected. I am alarmed that a charming but utterly unverifiable folk story about Kenny's life and work cannot be challenged by research which has been subjected to cross examination by doctoral examiners. How can we resolve this impasse?

Allanhildon (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that a PhD is a more rigorous process than random postings on the internet that "I have proved that eating baked beans cures cancer" (which is the kind of thing that policy on original research policy is trying to keep out of Wikiepdia) but you didn't cite your thesis but your book (which appears to be self-published). But the answer is still that that you personally can't make the changes you would like because of the conflict-of-interest. If someone else were to read your thesis, they could be better placed to make changes to the article, so long as they followed the Neutral point-of-view policy, which would dictate that the bulk of sources say "Such and Such" so that would be the statement in the article, but which could be followed by "but this has been questioned because of This and That [Hildon pp X-Y]". If your thesis was being cited by others in their researchs, it would add weight to arguments. But basically your research needs to gain traction with others so it isn't "yeah, and one guy says differently". Kerry (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kerry. It has been some time since I last viewed the Elizabet Kenny entry on Wikipedia. I am horrified to see the current state of the content on Kenny's early nursing career, war service, and the origin of her therapeutic techniques. The sections covering Work, World War 1, and Return to Queensland are bereft of acurate citations. I note that the re-issued biography by Wade Alexander is now the most common citation. I have in the past rasied my concerns with you about the lack of academic scrutiny of the Alexander biography, and my concerns about the potential for Wiki policies on original research and conflict of interest to be "gamed" by unethical authors who organise covert editing of Wiki entries.

I now intend to enter into the affray once again. I will start with some careful corrections that I can support with primary sources. The more important corrections will involve challenging some of Alexander's more ludicrous assertions about the origins of Kenny's therapy - assertions that neither Kerry Highley or myself believe to be evidence based. This will be more difficult as I completely respect your need to conform to Wikipedia editorial policies.

Would it be possible for me to send you a draft of proposed corrections for your comment ahead of submiting the revisions? Dr Allan Hildon Allanhildon (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allanhildon, I don't think that User:Kerry Raymond is likely to frequently check your talk page, so I pinged her. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Allanhildon (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello "Drmies" and @Kerry Raymond

I have invested considerable amout of time over the last 3 days in editing the Elizabeth Kenny entry. As an academic historian I am pretty shocked at the poor quality of the sources, and the lack of evidence for the heresay and opinions expressed about Kenny's early life, work, and war service. I fully understand the Neutral Point-Of-View Policy, so I have been very careful to only cite original sources. I usually work in Harvard or Chicago style, so please forgive me if my references are not always consistent with the Wiki style.

I think it will be important for someone to review my editing as soon as possible as it is clear to me that past edits have been framed to support a specific author's pont of view.

I have added one citation to my doctoral thesis, and I am hoping that this will be considered transparent and neutral. In all other changes I have cited original documents and sources. Some of these sources are only available in special collections in Minneapolis and the National Archives of Australia. I have used the available URL where it is available, but the MHS-EKP papers are only accessible in person.

My overall impression of the Elizabeth Kenny page is that far too many citations are made to secondary sources and the biographies published by Wade Alexander and the Australian Dictionary of Biography (1983). I have a lot of respect for Wade's now dated biography, but recent independent scholarship by Kerry Highley and myself has shone an entirely new light on Kenny's life and work that does not sit comfortably with received wisdom. I believe that many of the edits that have been made over the past few years have been designed to protect a specific world view, rather than promote awareness of the life of a remarkable historical figure.

Allan Allanhildon (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]