Talk:Glenda Gray

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Year of Science

This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Year of Science, a collaborative effort to improve the content of science content on Wikipedia. To learn more about how to participate, visit Wikipedia:Year of Science/Get Involved.Year of ScienceWikipedia:Year of ScienceTemplate:Year of Science bannerYear of Science articles

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

thanks sfu for pic

tweet Victuallers (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I would like to update Glenda Gray's page and, in particular, add info regarding the two occasions on which she has voiced opposition to the government's stated medical policies and/or COVID-19 policies and the reactions from government, the public, etc. I will copy her page to one of my sandboxes and work on the changes there. If anybody has additional info they feel I should add, please let me know. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I've decided to rewrite the entire page. A lot of the links are dead and the text need work. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completed rewrite. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:. I started the page COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa and thus received a notification that someone had linked from this page. I have done a few edits to encompass your new edits in the introduction. Please may you provide a citation, I left a citaton needed note in one of the new sections you added. Ear-phone (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hello @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:.

You have changed "they had black friends" to "they did not only have white friends" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenda_Gray&type=revision&diff=959260018&oldid=959256770

The reference you cited stated, "But what set her family apart the most was having friends and visitors who were black." https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2014/11/glenda-gray-the-hiv-vaccine-warrior.html

No original research is permitted on Wikipedia. I am therfore planning to revert your edit. Ear-phone (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbyshabangu: @Netha Hussain: @5 albert square: @Discott: @Doc James:

Hello Wikimedian @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:, paid editing is not permitted on Wikipedia, as well as editing that includes conflict of interest. This article has all those elements, although not flagged. It has also been started by a user who has now been banned from Wikipedia. Something tells me this user still continues to edit this page under a different Username, and they personally know Glenda Gray which constitute conflict of interest. Please read more about how Wikipedia article should be written here. Bobbyshabangu _talk 23:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Bobbyshabangu:, @Wyatt Tyrone Smith: seems to edit this page in a biased way. Ear-phone (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbyshabangu: @Netha Hussain: @5 albert square: @Discott: @Doc James: @Ear-phone: Let me answer some of the things you’ve mentioned above.

Firstly, I’m not a sock puppet of the person who wrote the original page - difficult to prove a negative but I hope you take my word for it.

Secondly, I have no conflict of interest. I attended the same university as Glenda Gray and lived near to where she did, but I didn’t know that until a few days ago.

Thirdly, I have no agenda other than the improvement of Wikipedia pages relating to science and pseudoscience. You can see from my user page that I have improved the pages of many South African scientists, without bias.

Fourthly (and least importantly) I did ask a friend to look at the page after I made the changes and she said that the phrase “also had black friends” made it seem like Gray’s family were closet racists. You know, the “I got black friends” argument. I can appreciate that what I wrote is not exactly as per the source but I wasn’t quoting the source and the revised statement does mean the same thing. I’m not sure you could call that original research. I would call it paraphrasing. However, I don’t feel any need to fight you on this one.

Lastly, I added a section to this talk page indicating my intention to edit the page and what I was planning to add BEFORE editing the page. I did subsequently amend that after carefully reading the page and trying to follow the dead links. I think you might have forgotten the Wikipedia principle of good faith. You can clearly see my rationale for the changes. I also don’t think I made any changes in bad faith or with an agenda in mind, beyond that of improving the quality of the page.

I will admit that the controversies section is more political than most things I have written but part of Gray’s story is her long-term activism for HIV treatment. I felt that that section should be present on her page.

Thanks for patrolling the pages and keeping a look out for biased editors. I do appreciate that you messaged me instead just reverting my work without explanation. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Thank you for your answers @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:. You say that, "revised statement does mean the same thing", yet just before, you indicated there is a difference between the two statements which made you change your original statement. Also, I am not sure if editing 'at the behest' of a friend is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Thanks for engaging.

Should the edit made by @Wyatt Tyrone Smith: "they had black friends" to "they did not only have white friends" be reverted? Ear-phone (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone: I wouldn't say I edited the page "at the behest" of my friend. I asked a friend who is not South African, had never heard of Glenda Gray and had not heard the recent media reports surrounding her to read the page simply because I think that unconscious bias can enter ones edits. I took her opinion into consideration when I made the subsequent change. None the less I am quite happy for the change to be reverted back to reflect exactly what the source said. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the important article that you cited @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:. It does not seem surprising that the HIV vaccine, HVTN 702, trial failed. The way you have paraphrased suggests that the trial failure was completely unexpected. The way you selected certain phrases like "“futile” to continue", without providing broader context:

"Many HIV scientists had doubted the South Africa study would succeed because the vaccines used in the prime-boost scheme had only produced lackluster results in an efficacy study in Thailand." ^[1]

I completely assume good faith @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:. I hope you too assume good faith. Ear-phone (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone: Thank you for pointing this out to me. I was unaware of the context in which the trial was being performed. I will definitely add this additional information. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will personally not revert/edit the page @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:. I leave it to you. Good bye. Ear-phone (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invited by the bot. This one is a slam dunk. "Black friends" is more specific and what the source said. "Friends who were not white" is not specific and not what the source said.

black friends. (from Feedback request service) seems more specific and more line with what source is actually saying. "black friends" is specific whilst "did not only have white friends" is ambigious. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cohen, Jon (2020-02-03). "Another HIV vaccine strategy fails in large-scale study". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb1480. ISSN 0036-8075.

Infant feeding

Hello @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:.

I am planning to revert your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenda_Gray&diff=next&oldid=959411574 because it is better suited for Breastfeeding and HIV.

In more simple terms, Prof Glenda Gray promoted infant formula instead of breast feeding for HIV-positive women, contrary to the opinion of most experts. Susbsequent research demonstated Prof Gray was wrong.

Although you conceded that your earlier edit needed to be reverted, you left it as is. It seems you may have a conflict of interest, be doing paid editing or you may know the biography subject personally.

@Bobbyshabangu: @Netha Hussain: @5 albert square: @Discott: @Doc James:

Ear-phone (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone: No. Don't try to put words in my mouth. I wrote: "None the less I am quite happy for the change to be reverted back to reflect exactly what the source said." No where did I "concede that my earlier edit needed to be reverted." BIG DIFFERENCE.

Again you bring up "have a conflict of interest, be doing paid editing or you may know the biography subject personally". Just because you don't like my style of writing doesn't mean that I am paid to do it, know the biography subject personally, or have a conflict of interest.

You are making a hell of a lot out of a single phrase that I didn't change. Anyway, I have stopped following this page, so have at it. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit @Wyatt Tyrone Smith:. Another Wikipedian, not me, independentely arrived at the possibility that your editing of this page may be uduly influenced by external factors. I still assume good faith. Ear-phone (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ear-phone one needs evidence of COI. If we do not have evidence would drop that. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ear-phone, I agree with Doc James on this. One would need evidence of COI editing before action can be taken. Additionally some of the areas of COI are a bit more fuzzy as to wheater or not or to what extent they are indeed COI such as knowing the person personally. It is possible for one to know a person personally (for example) and those edits to be still allowed, it depends on the context of the edit made and the extent of the relationship.--Discott (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious accusations are being made against an editor with an extensive history on English and Afrikaans Wikipedia. He must be a multimillionaire by now with all the work he has done if he is getting paid. I'm sure you did look at Wyatt's edit history and his user page, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyatt_Tyrone_Smith I think Ear-phone you should keep your own side of the street clean and together we can get some work done. And what was up with pinging a bunch of your buddies? I think you owe someone an apology, yep that's what I think. I'm a mom so you can trust me on that. Sgerbic (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sgerbic:. I did not accuse @Wyatt Tyrone Smith: of anything - possibilities were raised based purely on his editing pattern of that page. I had not looked at his editing history. We, (@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: & @Ear-phone: have mutually thanked each other for edits on that page). I respect his edits on that page and I learnt a lot. And I have indicated that I assume good faith. I pinged experienced Wikimedians with expertise (arguably the most respected in their respective Wikipedia communities) - real life physicians and long time Wikipedians editing on South Africa who I thought can contribute valuable view points. I apologise sincerely to anyone I have offended. I do not wish to offend anyone. Ear-phone (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cohen, Jon (2020-02-03). "Another HIV vaccine strategy fails in large-scale study". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb1480. ISSN 0036-8075.

[1]