Talk:Harvey Bialy

Fact Checking

I'm trying to verify some of the information listed in this article. In the article it says that Dr. Bialy is a visiting scholar in the IBT in Cuernavaca, however I extensively searched the IBT website, and could not find any listing of him among the personel or anywhere. A google search of the site revealed only 3 links, 2 of which was a listing of an editorial which he co-wrote with IBT investigator Roberto Stock and another was a hidden link to a page selling a CD-ROM by Dr. Bialy. The page for the Virtual Library of Biothechnology...etc does not list him as director either. So I'm assuming that Dr. Bialy has moved on to something else, unless someone can confirm this I will change the article to reflect this. The article also mentioned he is the author of numerous research articles in peer-reviewed journals, but a PubMed search only finds a bunch of editorials and then only 6 original research articles in which he is listed as an author, the last one being from 1986. Nrets 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nrets: THE SECTIONS RELEVANT TO YOUR REMARKS - AS COPIED BELOW - ARE ACCURATE. BIALY 20 MAY 2006 (If you have any other "facts" about me that you would like "to check", you can email me at my public, Institute address bialy@ibt.unam.mx)

Bialy is a resident scholar of the Institute of Biotechnology (IBT) of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Cuernavaca, a position he has held since 1996, and acts as director of the Virtual Library of Biotechnology for the Americas.

He is the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology (part of the Nature family of publications), and edited its peer-reviewed content from 1983-1996. He has authored significant papers in molecular genetics -- among them being the first to show that phage genes can subvert host functions (Virology, 46:387, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 66:587), and editorials and commentaries on contemporary issues in biotechnology in Nature Biotechnology and other leading journals

There is no mention of this on the IBT website, nor in the VLBA. Could you please provide an external source to confirm this? The IP address that edited this originates from Uruguay, not the UNAM, so I don't even believe you are actually Harvey Bialy. Nrets 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NRETS / It doesn't matter what you *believe*. You have been given several ways to discover if I am who I write I am, and if the information is accurate as it is now REEDITED. Your sole recourse to web resources speaks volumes in folio about *you*. I would also ask you to please refrain from line editing anything else. The change you made does *not* come under any heading of *fact correction* as the dates of the papers speak for themselves. It is clear you are making pathetic reaches at attempts to discredit someone you revile for speaking the truth. Cease, por favor. Bialy@IBT.UNAM.MX 22 May 06

The email I sent to the address provided was returned as undeliverable. So no, I do not think you are Harvey Bialy, and not I do not think he is part of the IBT, there is no mention of him in the IBT directory nor ANY secondary source other than an outdated CV in the bialystocker website. The VLBA page lists Zaida Penton and Shirley Ainsworth as directors. For whatever reason, whoever you are, you seem bent on promoting this guy but not providing any accurate source. Nrets 15:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If only you were so insisting of evidence with regard to HIV... 64.185.56.232 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nrets: As I wrote, what *you* believe (or "think") is not relevant. Please resend your email as there is no way it was returned to you if properly addressed. bialy@IBT.UNAM.MX. I know perfectly well what it says or doesn't about me on the various pages of the institute's website. Since you are so savvy why don't you email the director of the IBT with your question? And as long as we are re-revisiting this tired point, my dear cybernetically informed and otherwise cerebrally challenged "Nrets (whoever *you* are), the homepage of the Virtual Library simply gives Penton and Ainsworth's names. It says nothing of their functions. Your deductive reasoning is a shining example of that of the entire church of HIV/AIDS. Bialy 22.05.06

I add a PS Mr. Nrets. Don't you find it even a little odd that *nobody* from the IBT or UNAM had seen fit "to correct" my affiliation? Surely with all the people who have seen it (and its "spiffier" version at the AIDS Wiki) something as glaring and *significant* as this would have been brought to the attention of someone in authority. Did *you* never "think" to do this before heading way out to sea in a very leaky rowboat? But then you are "protected" by internet anonymity so reckless and ignorant behavior is facilitated.

You can spew all the insults you want, the fact is is that you are not listed as a member of the IBT and that's that, and maybe IBT or UNAM does not care enough to correct a self-promoting WP page. Finally, Ainsworth 'is' listed as being in charge of the VLBA [1] Nrets 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User Nrets. Be that as it might (and things on the internet change often in the blink of an eye), the only facts that are relevant to my biography are that I *am*, and have been since 1996, a resident scholar at the IBT and serve as *the director* of the Virtual Library. I also find it as far-fetched as the hypothesis you so fervently beleive in that had anyone altered either the UNAM or the IBT that an infamous "HIV denialist" was pretending to be a resident scholar at the most prestigious biotechnolgy institute in Latin America on a very well visited Wikipedia, they would not have been interested. Bialy, 22 de Mayo, Cuernavaca

NRETS -- a single phone call or email to a real live, human being who has access to the information would verify or refute the claim immediately. It would be a trivial task in the course of work for a journalist. Surely, it's not too much effort for "you". And Nrets, it's quite comical to see you write things like, "no, I do not think you're Bialy"... hee-hee 64.185.56.232 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the Personnel office at the IBT, which will settle this once and for all. I'm basically trying to confirm everything in the article, and all I get is a barrage from insults from both User:Revolver and someone who is allegedly Harvey Bialy. I will not let your bullying tactics keep me away. Nrets 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You get a barrage of insults from me and Dr.Bialy because you go and remove things before actually trying to verify whether they're true or not, things we KNOW are true. Besides, your subtle little POV changes "a handful of papers" and so on. And how you think the internet, google, and PubMed are the ultimate sources of journalistic verification is beyond comprehension. 64.185.56.232 22:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's be frank, Nrets. You're picking on this article because it prominently displays a "denialist" with tons of street cred. The usual policy at Wikipedia for a while has been, when confronted with "unverified" info, to leave "citation" tags, and if necessary, a template indicating that the article needs citations and references to validate information. You don't just go in and start rewriting stuff because you "think" it's not true. 64.185.56.232 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And I would think that *assuming* previous editors have knowingly contributed false info and even questioning the identity of a contributor is hardly Wikipedia good faith. 64.185.56.232 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go pick on Alfred_Mirsky?? It hasn't got a single referenced fact on it. 64.185.56.232 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming false info was knowingly added. I am suggesting the article is out of date, and incredibly POV'd. I could go on and on as to why this article is POV, but I think you get my point from my edits. Also note that I have not, at any time personally insulted anyone unlike you and Dr. Bialy, who seem to be quick with the insults but slow with actual responses. Finally, I did not change the article until I posted my concerns in this talk page first, for several days, which went unresponded. Nrets 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for an official reply, but again, Dr. Bialy seems to be listed as an "ex-collaborator and/or ex-student" at the IBC, see here [2]. Nrets 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

CLOSURE AND AN OBJECT LESSON:

It is unwise to base conclusions on very partial data that are subject to many interpretations and not necessarily reproducible -- something the AIDS establishment has done for 25 years and spent 50 billion dollars doing to the same futile ends as the insistent and insolent interference with my Wiki page by Nrets. To understand exactly what I am saying, please click on the link this anonymous defender of the faith brazenly claims to reveal me as "either an ex-collaborator and/or ex-student". Bialy 26 de Mayo 2006, Cuernavaca

Is Bialy still affiliated with UNAM?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.115.49 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, according to their website. Trezatium 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Bialy

First, I had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of my Wikpedia page, and until a few days ago, when I learned that an internet character identified only as “Nrets” had been willy-nilly altering my hard earned professional accomplishments, almost nothing to do with its content. After learning of this interference, I re-edited the page, and in the “Discussion” section of the Wiki left what should have been sufficient data to satisfy whatever the burning desires for accuracy were that drove him to his mistaken “correction”. Alas, it was not to be, and by the time *you* read this, I have no idea whether the entry will be accurate as it is *now*, or whether Nrets or someone else will have altered it once again.

As has been noted in many venues, this free for all editing of Wikis can be problematic. In the case of relatively non-controversial pages, web-selection appears to work, and quite well. However, when the entry involves an exceedingly (although I have no idea why) controversial issue such as the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and its critics, such malfeasance is not only to be expected, but it appears unavoidable.

Por ejemplo, someone might write "Bialy received his Nobel in Literature in the same year Duesberg was awarded his in Medicine. But as they were both rainbow bodies by then, they declined to be present in Stockholm or even send video of their acceptance speeches."

Because of this, someone had the idea to create an [3] AIDS Wiki that would be impeccably moderated. I suggest that anyone who wishes up to date and accurate information about the critics and the critique of what Kary Mullis (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry 1993, and inventor of PCR) called “the worst hypothesis in the history of medical science”, visit it before taking any other action. Harvey Bialy, Cuernavaca, 22 de Mayo 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.56.232 (talk • contribs) .

The above comments were orignally cut from Bialy's website and pasted into the article; 64.185.56.232 then cut them from the article and pasted them here. Trezatium 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of "debate with Nick Bennett" as an external link

The insertion of the "debate with Nick Bennett" is inappropriate. First of all, it was not a debate with NB at all. Secondly, Bialy has had a lot of internet discussions such as this, and none of them are listed here. There were many other participants in this reference, and so the forum was hardly particular to Bialy at all. As such it has been removed two times now.

If whoever keeps adding this ref insists it belongs here, we can add the "mother of all bllog books", which is more useful to the casual reader as it was compiled, edited, and introduced by a professional editor, poet and philosopher, Dr. Charles Stein, from eleven days of continuous (24/7) 'discussion' at Dean's World. It can be found at Bialy's page on the AIDS WIKI. 198.175.175.114 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion specifically relates to a short article written by Harvey Bialy called "Falsifying the AIDS Hypothesis" (at the very top of the thread), so it is not just a random internet discussion among many. The edited version referred to here has been edited to present Bialy in the best light possible and truncates the discussion, eliminating several of Nick Bennett's posts. The online link is therefore more complete, and relates specifically to an article written by Bialy that is central to his claims about HIV.

• • • The link has once more been removed. This is not Dr. Bennett's page and if he wishes to call attention to this enormously long blogathon that includes himself (to no obvious advantage btw)he should properly do it on his own site. As pointed out above, all the many blog discussions that Bialy has conducted are linked on his AIDS WIKI page. (11.08.06,6:33 pm est)

• • • For anyone who could possibly be interested in this apparently childish back and forth about a "web book". The readable and impecably edited version has been available as a link on the home page of my website for well over a year, and as pointed out above has been downloaded almost 10,000 times. So I do believe Dr. Bennett has received about as much attention, admiration, disdain and derision as he is likely to get. The relevant portion of the homepage of "bialy/s" reads:

"There are 4 kinds of things to be found in the White Cyber-City :: visual, musical, poetic and discursive. i parse the visual obras displayed in the main gallery as: ::Asiderial:: configurations, constructions, contemplations, conformations, considerations, conjunctions or conjurations depending on the day of the week on Jupiter.

They were all created using Photoshop 7.0, and the procedures used to transform the original digital record of some objective event were derived by application of the fundamental principles of the Alphabetic Calculus for Cosmic Idiots, so delightfully elaborated by my dear friend Eccles in a surprising forum." "Surprising forum" is hyperlinked to http://www.deanesmay.com/files/ThinkingTheUnthinkable.pdf.

Bialy, Cuernavaca, 11.08.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.138.23.250 (talk • contribs) .

Poetry, etc

I see the categorization of Bialy in Category:Poets was readded. Bialy is not exceptionally noted as a poet. He is noted as a scientist and AIDS dissident. For Wikipedia purposes, that should be the focus of the article. It's fine to leave the description and link in the article, but he should be removed from Category:Poets; he is not notable enough as a poet for inclusion in Wikipedia. MastCell 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (This comment was deleted by User:189.138.108.211 and subsequently restored.)

Yes I removed this comment previously (causing me to get a yellow card!). I would appreciate it very much, even though I am a hated dissident, ift the yellow ribbon (card) could be removed from the main page and that these useless comments also be removed. I thank the oh so vigilant moderators for their amazing attentions to this my wee page even though I am only a very minor poet (sigh). Gracias. Bialy, Cuernavaca, 16.09.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.108.211 (talk • contribs) .

UTC: Thank you for taking away my yellow card. You will of course have noticed that I have made two slight alterations to the article page that I believe are in accord with your views above when you wrote "It's fine to leave the description and link in the article", but that I am "not notable enough as a poet for inclusion in Wikipedia". I hope that we are done with adjustments to my page for a few more months. BTW here are "sources" for the uncited items that you marked. Each can be verified by contacting the librarian of the Virtual Library at the IBT. They are not the sorts of items that have otherwise available sources of verification. Take my word, or ask the IBT/UNAM. Bialy, Cuernavca, 16.09.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.108.211 (talk • contribs) .

UNAM website

I can no longer find any reference to Bialy on the UNAM website, he has been removed from the list of investigators and his page - linked to in the Wikipedia entry - is now blank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.115.49 (talk • contribs).

I've tagged the relevant reference - perhaps someone can provide info on why the page is blank, or will look into it soon. MastCell 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for leaving UNAM

I've reverted the recent edit by Iago4466 (talk · contribs), because it is unsourced. As potentially harmful information, Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people demands that we have a verifiable, reliable source for such information. Iago4466, if you can provide such a source, the material can be reinstated. Thanks. MastCell 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy

The implication that Bialy was hurriedly "disassociated" from UNAM needs a [[WP:RS|reliable source. Until there's a source, it can't go in, per WP:BLP. Also, per WP:EL, one external link to the dissident AIDS wiki is sufficient (in fact, it probably falls under "Links to be avoided" entirely). With reference to Bialy's book, an ISBN link is appropriate, but a link to a commerical bookseller (Barnes/Noble) is not. External links to blogs are generally to be avoided. Hence the edits. MastCell 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, wikipedia trolls demonstrate inability to correctly read English

MASTCELL --

"This page uses content from the AIDS Wiki article Harvey_Bialy, captured on 16 March 2006. AIDS Wiki is licensed under the GFDL.

WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?? It is clearly giving credit to material originally released under GFDL at the AIDS Wiki. (The date says 16 March, but it actually goes back to January or February... the point is, the material ORIGINALLY appeared at the AIDS Wiki.) THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER THE WIKI IS "NOTABLE ENOUGH" OR WHATEVER. IT IS A MATTER OF YOU VIOLATING GFDL IF YOU REMOVE THIS CREDIT ONCE MORE.

Really.

68.35.72.13 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, User:Revolver. Perhaps you could explain which part, exactly, of the current Wikipedia article uses text taken from the AIDSWiki? So far as I can tell by looking at the edit histories side-by-side, most of the AIDSWiki article was actually captured from Wikipedia rather than vice-versa. I've not been able to identify any significant content that was added from AIDSWiki to this article - could you specify? Otherwise it looks like you're spamming a "credit" template for a wiki which you happen to run, when in fact the flow of text has been in the opposite direction. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you want me to spell it out for you??

ON 17 JANUARY 2006, THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE READ:

"Harvey Bialy is an American scientist currently residing as Scholar In Residence at the Institute of Biotechnology of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and acting as coordinator of the Virtual Library of Biotechnology for the Americas.

Graduated first in his class from Bard college in 1966 in biological chemistry, and was awarded a PhD in molecular biology in 1970 by the University of California at Berkeley. Founding Scientific Editor of Bio/Technology, later renamed Nature Biotechnology (part of the Nature family of publications). Authored more than 25 peer reviewed scientific articles in molecular genetics, and more than 100 editorials and commentaries on contemporary issues in biotechnology in Nature Biotechnology and other leading journals. Recipient, World Health Organization grant to study the epidemiology and genetics of antibiotic resistant enteric pathogens in Nigeria, 1982. Co-recipient of a grant from the Charles Merill Trust to study antibiotic resistant pathogens in Nigeria, 1978. Worked as a visiting researcher or research fellow at several universities in the United States, Africa, and Cuba throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Member of the South African Presidential Panel on AIDS, April, 2000 - present.

Bialy authored Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter Duesberg[1], a book about the life and work of fellow molecular biologist Peter Duesberg.

He is also an artist and poet of some fame, having been granted a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in Poetry in 1976.

References

• Bialy, Harvey. Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: a scientific life and times of Peter H. Duesberg, The Institute of Biotechnology of the Autonomous National University of México, 2004. ISBN 1-55643-531-2

External links

• Bialystocker Bialy's home page, dedicated mostly to his art.
• Amazon info Info and reviews on Bialy's book on Duesberg's work on cancer and virology

This article about a biologist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about a U.S. scientist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Categories: Biologist stubs | American scientist stubs"

THE NEXT EDIT TO THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WAS ON 29 JANUARY 2006. ON 28 JANUARY 2006, THE AIDS WIKI ARTICLE READ:

"Harvey Bialy is an American molecular biologist and AIDS dissident. He currently resides as Scholar In Residence at the Institute of Biotechnology of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and acts as coordinator of the Virtual Library of Biotechnology for the Americas.

Bialy graduated first in his class from Bard College in 1966 in biological chemistry, and was awarded a Ph.D. in molecular biology in 1970 by the University of California at Berkeley. He is the founding Scientific Editor of Bio/Technology, later renamed Nature Biotechnology (part of the Nature family of publications). He has authored more than 25 peer-reviewed scientific articles in molecular genetics, and more than 100 editorials and commentaries on contemporary issues in biotechnology in Nature Biotechnology and other leading journals.

Bialy was the co-recipient of a grant from the Charles Merill Trust to study antibiotic resistant pathogens in Nigeria in 1978. He received a World Health Organization grant to study the epidemiology and genetics of antibiotic resistant enteric pathogens in Nigeria in 1982. He worked as a visiting researcher or research fellow at several universities in the United States, Africa, and Cuba throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Bialy was one of the original signatories to the letter establishing the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and has been a member of the South African Presidential Panel on AIDS, from April 2000 – present.

Bialy recently authored Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, a book about the life and work of fellow molecular biologist and AIDS dissident Peter Duesberg.

He is also an artist and poet of some fame, having been granted a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in Poetry in 1976.

Quotes

• "HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." (Spin, June 1992)
• "From both my literature review and my personal experience over most of the AIDS – so called AIDS centres in Africa, I can find absolutely no believable persuasive evidence that Africa is in the midst of a new epidemic of infectious immunodeficiency." (Meditel 1992)
• "The virus theory has produced nothing...a vaccine that doesn't exist; AZT, which is iatrogenic genocide; and condom use, which is common sense." (Sunday Times (London), 26 April 1992 "Experts Mount Startling Challenge to AIDS Orthodoxy", Neville Hodgkinson)
• "We have taken sex and equated it with death, and into that mixture we have thrown money. What an ugly stew." (ibid)
• "AIDS is consensual death." (back cover of Infectious AIDS)

External links

• Virusmyth bibliography
• Bialystocker Bialy's home page, dedicated mostly to his art.
• Amazon info Info and reviews on Bialy's book on Duesberg's work on cancer and virology

Template:Essential

This page uses content from the Harvey_Bialy article on Wikipedia, captured on 5 Dec 2005. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with the AIDS Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Categories: Dissidents"

ON THE 31 JANUARY, AFTER SEVERAL EDITS BY MYSELF, OCCURING BETWEEN 29 AND 31 OF JANUARY, THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE READ:

"Harvey Bialy is an American molecular biologist and AIDS dissident. He was one of the original signatories to the letter establishing the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis and has been a member of the South African Presidential Panel on AIDS, from April 2000 – present.

Bialy currently resides as Scholar In Residence at the Institute of Biotechnology of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and acts as director of the Virtual Library of Biotechnology for the Americas. The Virtual Library receives 100% of the profits from Bialy's book (see below) which was published jointly by the Institute of Biotechnology and the National University (the first English language book ever published by the UNAM), and was recently translated into Spanish by Dr. Roberto Stock, a senior investigator at the Institute of Biotechnology, and published by the National University of Mexico Press (ISBN 9703225993).

Bialy graduated first in his class from Bard College in 1966 in biological chemistry, and was awarded a Ph.D. in molecular biology in 1970 by the University of California at Berkeley. He is the founding Scientific Editor of Bio/Technology, later renamed Nature Biotechnology (part of the Nature family of publications). He has authored more than 25 peer-reviewed scientific articles in molecular genetics, and more than 100 editorials and commentaries on contemporary issues in biotechnology in Nature Biotechnology and other leading journals.

Bialy was the co-recipient of a grant from the Charles Merill Trust to study antibiotic resistant pathogens in Nigeria in 1978. He received a World Health Organization grant to study the epidemiology and genetics of antibiotic resistant enteric pathogens in Nigeria in 1982. He worked as a visiting researcher or research fellow at several universities in the United States, Africa, and Cuba throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Bialy authored Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, (ISBN 1556435312) a book about the life and work of fellow molecular biologist and AIDS dissident Peter Duesberg.

He is also an artist and poet of some fame. Some of his artwork can be found at his homepage Bialystocker.

Quotes

• "HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." (Spin, June 1992)
• "From both my literature review and my personal experience over most of the AIDS – so called AIDS centres in Africa, I can find absolutely no believable persuasive evidence that Africa is in the midst of a new epidemic of infectious immunodeficiency." (Meditel 1992)

External links

• Virusmyth bibliography
• Bialystocker Bialy's homepage, dedicated mostly to his art.
• Amazon info Info and reviews on Bialy's book on Duesberg's work on cancer and virology.
• AIDS Wiki article

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Bialy"

Category: AIDS dissidents"

ONE OF THE EDITS AT THE AIDS WIKI INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING, AT 19:03 ON 31 JANUARY 2006:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php?title=Harvey_Bialy&diff=1679&oldid=1660

"The Virtual Library receives 100% of the profits from Bialy's book (see below) which was published jointly by the Institute of Biotechnology and the National University (the first English language book ever published by the UNAM), and was recently translated into Spanish by Dr. Roberto Stock, a senior investigator at the Institute of Biotechnology, and published by the National University of Mexico Press (ISBN 9703225993)."

THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT ADDED UNTIL 22:49 ON 31 JANUARY 2006 AT THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.

Mastcell, it does not matter whether the "bulk" of information flow was one direction or another. THE PURPOSE OF THE GFDL IS TO ENSURE THAT ANY EDITS RELEASED UNDER GFDL, NO MATTER HOW INSIGNIFICANT OR MINOR, ARE PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED WHEN USED ELSEWHERE. This includes proofing, rearranging, spelling, change of syntax, style, etc., and is not limited solely to "content".

But let's be real. This isn't about "maintaining Wikipedia's standards" or anything. It's about a crusade run by you, Trezatium, Nunh-huh, Bob, and a handful of others to marginalize, distort, and suppress any and all information about AIDS dissent on Wikipedia, using whatever legalistic formalities you need to justify it.

Mastcell: I am more than perplexed to discover that material which has been on my page since the first entry was made by Dean Esmay, I believe, back in 2005 is now suddenly in need of sourcing. Each of the items currently marked as requiring such has been on my professional resumes for a long time and never has anyone presumed to ask me to authenticate any of them. Further each is a matter of public record and none of them are the sorts of items that can be cited in the way a book or publication can. For example, you ask for a citation to the fact that I graduated first in my class from Bard College in 1966. Well I would have thought that I would hardly be on a list of notable Bard alumni if that were not true. Similarly for the other items you now threaten to remove. How could it NOT be true that I received the grants that are indicated, or am a member of Pres. Mbeki's panel? Is the presumption that such material, cobbled from online resumes, could be false? I do not believe that any such excessive and silly scrutinies are applied to the members of the AIDS establishment who are represented on the Wiki pages. Further, the article has also been deemed neutral enough to have been fundamentally untouched for years. The recent intrustion of Prof. John Moore posing as "Truthseekernyc", and adding inaccurate and libelous material, has it appears caused you to undertake these radically revised stances towards my modest representation. Harvey Bialy, Cuernavaca, 6 April 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.96.136 (talk • contribs).

Indeed. Compare to Alfred Mirsky. Both articles were created about the same time, both are entries on molecular biologists, and both have roughly the same format and style. Wikipedia policy dictates that, no matter the relative stature of the subject, or how accessible "well-known" facts are via google or other means, all verifiable data are to be sourced. Yet the article on Mirsky

1. Does not have a statement saying it "reads like a resume".
2. Does not have a statement saying it has numerous "unsourced statements", although it has very similar unsourced statements as those which appear in Harvey's entry.
3. Does not have numerous "citation needed" tags placed throughout it, although it has NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE OR CITATION TO ANYTHING IN IT.

What's the difference here? I don't see any. Is this really all just about following Wikipedia procedures and blah-blah, and not using any and every opportunity to game the system to scrutinize and harass dissidents and suppress their viewpoint as much as possible. If you are really acting on the former motivation, MastCell, you should do everything possible to "go and clean up" the article on Mirsky. Your user history (e.g. the time you've spent along with Trezatium and others to make the AIDS dissident article almost completely orthodox POV and a total joke) suggests the latter, however. 68.35.72.13 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. One, about the "citation needed" tags, I've removed those although I would prefer those things to be sourced. The underlying problem is that the article is essentially a resume, not an encylopedic article based on secondary sources (actually, no real primary sources either). Please don't remove the maintenance tag until that issue is addressed.

Two, about the AIDSWiki, it is apparent from looking at the page histories that the AIDSWiki article is a derivative of this one, not vice versa. If the section about the proceeds of the book is sourced to the AIDSWiki, it should be removed as the AIDSWiki does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. The fact that you made minor sentence-structure changes to the content at your wiki and then cut-and-paste it back here, and are now demanding a "credit" template, violates both WP:SPAM and WP:COI. I'd prefer to get outside opinions since you've repeatedly attacked me personally, although at least one such opinion was rendered by User:JzG. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Two, about the AIDSWiki, it is apparent from looking at the page histories that the AIDSWiki article is a derivative of this one, not vice versa."

Well, look at [4] and [5], for one. You're still missing the point. It's not about "which is a derivative of which", it's about giving credit for edits released under GFDL. I really find it AMAZING that you find it so g-d-dang important that a little half-line attribution with a single external link does not appear at an article. And with all the litigation issues that have surrounded Wikipedia in the past, I would think a "better safe than sorry" approach would be better. You have been extremely adept at using the letter of the law of Wikipedia to suppress and distort mention of AIDS dissent at Wikipedia (I saw one of your recent edits was to remove a link to a rebuttal to Gallo's rebuttal of Farber's Harper's article, under the guise that it was no attributable or a reliable source. Nevermind the authors of the article are clearly listed in the paper, nevermind that the only thing which would satisfy you would be for the paper to appear in Science or something,...nevermind that the paper is in direct response to the 57 points of bullshit, etc., etc.)

"If the section about the proceeds of the book is sourced to the AIDSWiki, it should be removed as the AIDSWiki does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines."

Geez, it's not about sourcing, it's about GFDL.

"The fact that you made minor sentence-structure changes to the content at your wiki and then cut-and-paste it back here, and are now demanding a "credit" template, violates both WP:SPAM and WP:COI."

Oh, really? Nevertheless, NOT including a credit template violates the letter of the law of GFDL, which trumps any informal Wikipedia policies: "A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language....You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:...List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."

Your accusations of "spamming" and "conflict of interest" would be more convincing if you could demonstrate a really concerted, coordinated effort to include links to the Wiki across a very large number of articles. In fact the number of articles in question that form the basis of this endless internet chit-chat comes to the whopping grand total of about half a dozen (Bialy, Farber, Caton, Lang, AIDS dissident, and a couple others or so...) "Spamming" from my reading of the page on it, would be something more akin to writing 20-30 articles on dissidents at the Wiki, and then transporting them over here with credit templates in streamlined fashion. Or going out to any and all articles remotely related to AIDS dissent and inserting links all over the place. The grand total of links that's preoccupying us with all these hours of time is something less than a dozen over about half a dozen articles. Hardly what I would call a coordinated "spamming" effort. WHY DO YOU THINK I LEFT WIKIPEDIA IN THE FIRST PLACE?? Because I wanted a forum where I could write a lot of content and collect information WITHOUT spamming. What I have done at the AIDS Wiki would certainly be considered spamming here. But I have not done that.

"I'd prefer to get outside opinions since you've repeatedly attacked me personally, although at least one such opinion was rendered by User:JzG."

"Attacked you personally"...give me a break. You don't know what ***ing attacks are. I mean REAL attacks. Attacks that RUIN LIVES, CAREERS, REPUTATIONS, AND RELATIONSHIPS. Attacks that leave people FINANCIALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, AND MORALLY DRAINED. Threats of PHYSICAL ASSAULT AND SOCIAL INTIMIDATION. REAL attacks.

Revolver 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Secondary sources to verify quotes are significant and representative?"

The quotes are sourced. I don't know how you use SECONDARY sources to "verify a quote is significant and representative". The former is a subjective determination, anyway, and can't be settled by "sources". The fact that the founding scientific editor of one of the world's most respected biotechnology journals is saying such things would seem to make them "significant" on face. As for the latter, all one has to do is note the scientific biography of Duesberg... if that doesn't satisfy you, I don't know what would, as far as being "representative" (??). 68.35.72.13 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Founding scientific editor"?

All this talk led me to go look at a few old issues of Nature Biotechnology (or Bio/Technology, as it was called in the past). Interestingly, although this article (and Bialy's blog) describe him (unsourced) as the "founding scientific editor" of Bio/Technology, it appears from the February 1 1984 issue (vol 2, page 109) that he in fact came on board as a "research editor" in Feb 1984, about a year after the journal's inception. On p. 179 of the same issue, the "scientific section of the editoral board" is ennumerated, which includes 14 people, none of whom are Bialy. One can only conclude that he was not, in fact, the "founding scientific editor" but at best the 15th scientific editor to join the journal. I've removed what I presume was an honest misstatement and not intentional self-aggrandizement, but it points up the need for sourcing more of the claims here. I'm happy to be corrected if a source can be found showing I'm wrong here. It's interesting to find such claims amplified on a number of dissident websites that go so far as to call Bialy the "founding editor" of Bio/Technology, when this was not him but Christopher Edwards. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell, you are really tiresome. The scientific advisory board that *I* formed is just that. I was in fact the second scientific editor of *Bio/Technology*, the first having the postition for only a few months, however I was the founding scientific editor of *Nature Biotechnology* and you can check the mastheads to verify that. Do you honestly think that it could read 'the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology' on the jacket of my biography of Duesberg and not be true? Give yourself a break Masty. Each time I see that someone has incorrectly made me the founding 'editor', I correct it. Sometimes the correction doesn't take. I hope your passionate curiosity is now satisfied. And FYI, I was born in NYC, in 1945, much easier facts to find than all the misinformation you manage to unearth about my professional life. Bialy, Cuernavaca —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.96.136 (talk • contribs).

But the journal wasn't really "founded" in 1996; it just changed names. In fact, the first paragraph of the first page of the first "Nature Biotechnology" issue states, "The first issue of a new publication is an adventure... Thankfully, this is not a new publication." (Nat Biotech, vol 14 p.235, March 1996). Currently, the journal is listed as "Nature Biotechnology" going back to 1983 on its own website. The volume numbers go back to volume 1 in 1983 and are shared with Bio/Technology; the first "Nature Biotechnology" title was volume 14, again suggesting this is not a new publication but a name change. I will look at the masthead next time I'm able to get over to the library. On Wikipedia, items not only have to be true, they have to be verifiable via a reliable source. I'm just trying to find such sources for some of the items in this article. I'm sorry the process is annoying for you. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell, tiresome is not the word. Pedant comes closer. Look fella, the journal had a few very slim issues under Marcel Faber as the 'research (scientific editor)'when I took over in late 1983 (although my name did not appear on the masthead until Feb. of 84) and ran it until shortly after the name change when I became its 'editor-at-large', and left my full-time position completely voluntarily to pursue other biotechnology-related activities, initially based in Havana - a fact that can also be verified from the masthead of the relevant number of the journal - in 1996, and which are described in an essay on my Aids Wiki page entitled "Tales of a Traveling PhD" that you might learn something by reading. I remained an editor-at-large for several years until my other work no longer made it possible to devote the time that the title required. So we have the 'first' scientific editor of several months, and the second of 13+ years, who brought the journal to the prominence of Nature London desiring the name change. So which one is the 'founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology' Mr. Mastcell? Bialy, Cuernavaca --This unsigned comment was made by 189.138.96.136 00:24, 7 April 2007 UTC

I don't think anyone is questioning that you were a longtime editor at Nature Biotechnology during a time when its prominence and impact increased dramatically. But "founding scientific editor" implies something very specific - that you were the first scientific editor, or held the position at the time the journal was first founded. Neither of those appear to be the case. If there's a reliable secondary source somewhere specifically referring to you as the "founding scientific editor" (for example, in the journal masthead or elsewhere in the journal), then we should include it. If such a source exists, please point me toward it, because I haven't found one yet. However, the bar for inclusion on Wikipedia is that a fact is verifiable via independent reliable sources. You're welcome to claim whatever title you'd like in real life or on your book jacket, but to be included here it would need to be sourced. Given what you've accomplished and your professed disdain for this encyclopedia, surely our arcane policies are not that big of a deal? MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No again Mr. Mast. I was *THE* Scientific Editor, and was *100%* responsible for every aspect of every single peer-reviewed paper published for Essentially ALL of the time the journal went from unknown (in the beginning Maddox decided that Nature, London wanted nothing to do with commercial biotechnology or anything American) to first place, and did more than any other employee to accomplish that. And I claim this with the full knowledge that not a single editor of the journal (Edwards, McCormick, Hassler or Marshall, its current editor) would in any way shape or form dispute that, nor would anyone else associated with the journal for all those years. As for disdain. It is not Wikipedia I disdain. It is your constant presumption that is sickening. And what I find particularly indigestible is that your mucking with what was a simple, neutral statement of a real-world fact, namely that I am the "founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology", has forced me to do something all who know me know I strenuously dislike, namely "blow my own horn". For this I despise you nasty Masty. Bialy, 7 April 189.138.96.136 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.96.136 (talk • contribs).

News service copying Wikipedia article verbatim

(copied from WP:AN/I per Jkelly's excellent advice)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

During my recent travails on Harvey Bialy, I happened to come across this news item from "PrimeNewsWire" which appeared on MSNBC.com, dated 29 March 2007. The description of Harvey Bialy is taken verbatim from older versions of the Wikipedia article which predate the MSNBC item. The really incriminating thing is that the unbylined author went to the trouble to mix up the paragraph order, and convert the inline footnotes into parenthetical citations. I'm not sure where to take this - does anyone look into these things when material from here is reused with the claim that it's now "Copyright 2007, PrimeNewswire, Inc. All Rights Reserved." ?? MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do note this at Talk:Harvey Bialy, because someone else may take this to Wikipedia:Copyright problems thinking that the problem in on our end. Jkelly 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You people are all so possessed of your meagre importance and take yourselves so damn seriously it is really sad. Does this kind of absurd attention get paid to all your entries? Look...the text that was used in the press release comes, in fact, from my page at the AIDS Wiki, some of which might have been back and forth edited in the process, since my entry here changes as often as explanations of how HIV causes AIDS. In any case, the material, which according to Mastcell reads "like a resume", is all in the public domain, and this was I thought supposed to be the "people's encyclopedia". It appears when it comes to AIDS dissent, it is some Orwellian nightmare come true. Bialy, Cuernavaca, 7 April —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.96.136 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia's content is freely available to be copied under the GFDL, as is that of the AIDSWiki. The problem is that the content cannot be copied into a news story or press release which is then "copyright PrimeNewsWire". If the text is reused, it must remain freely available. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell, you are truly amazing (and entertaining in a weird way). Now you think that Wikipedia, which alters willy nilly my own biography, and which deems my entry "a resume", somehow owns what *I* supplied to the company in question, which I partly copied from my authentic and verifiably true entry at the AidsWiki that you so despise. You are out of your bloody mind mast. Go secrete some IgE. Bialy, Cuernavaca, 7 April —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.96.136 (talk • contribs).

Technical note: Mast cells do not secrete IgE. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: It seems to me that it is a relatively easy matter to contact all or most of the living persons whose bios appear in/on the Wikipedia and ask them to authorize such publication. And whenever someone wishes to edit the page, such proposed alterations first be shown to the person whose biography is being changed. Since you appear to have more policies than the UN, why not add this one? I suspect that part of the answer is that only bios of AIDS dissidents are continuously attacked, because if not such a policy would have been instituted long ago. Bialy 7 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.96.136 (talk • contribs).

AIDSwiki

We do not allow POV forks. We do not allow them even if hosted offsite. The AIDSwiki link is just a way to get round WP:NPOV, it is not a reliable source per our attribution policy and I see no reason to link it. The article makes it perfectly clear that Bialy rejects the scientific consensus, we don't need to see a more sympathetic article in order to understand that. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth missing / Year of birth missing

You would think... with ALL the copious time and effort devoted to all the minutiae of this article, that a simple thing like date and place of birth would have been added by now, given that it's been in everyone's face for days now. Another reason I feel that all the attention paid here has jack-squat to do with "NPOV" or "Wikipedia policies" and everything to do with Harvey being a dissident. So, I'm going to go ahead and add it...BTW, it's "And FYI, I was born in NYC, in 1945, much easier facts to find than all the misinformation you manage to unearth about my professional life. Bialy, Cuernavaca" available at Talk:Harvey Bialy#"Founding scientific editor"? 68.35.72.13 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Describing the Presidential AIDS Advisory Council as "controversial" is not POV. The panel was controversial, as attested to by the cited source as well as dozens of other reliable sources which I'd be happy to cite. Describing something that was controversial as "controversial", with a source to back it up, is not POV. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Justification for partial reverts 10-25-09

1. Signature and editorship -- Bialy's signature of the original letter establishing the Group, and his editorship of the first newsletter of the Group are important historical events concerning his history as a dissident.

I have provided a new source for the first claim of the signature, the book Impure Science by Steven Epstein, published by the University of California Press.

As regards the second claim concerning editorship of the first newsletter, this was removed with the explanation: "rm [remove] claim with unreliable source; this is a BLP [biography of a living person]". However, at the policy page for BLP, it is stated under "Using the subject as a self-published source":

"Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The document provided in PDF form at the given external link meets all these criteria. The document appears at the AIDS Wiki, a website which Bialy has personally assisted, and to which Bialy personally provided the document. Since Bialy edited the newsletter, it was evidently "self-published" (the Group published the newsletter itself) as well as "written [edited] by the subject [himself]...", and this is indicated directly in the document. It is not unduly self-serving, since as indicated above, editorship of the newsletter is an important historical event concerning Bialy's history as a dissident. It does not involve claims about third parties or about events not directly related to the subject. There should be no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it, unless one wishes to assert the document is a forgery. And the article is not based primarily on this source.

2. Career (grants, work history, etc.) -- An external link to Bialy's CV at his own personal website is given. This conforms to the description given above concerning "self-published material", and provides the requested citations for these aspects of Bialy's career. It is not "unduly self-serving", it's standard CV stuff, and it only comprises 3 of the 11 references, so the article is not based primarily on such sources.

3. Founding of the Virtual Library -- The source cited is the official webpage of the Virtual Library and it clearly lists Bialy as the "founder" [fundador]. From the policy on primary sources:

"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

The webpage is from the server of a very reliable primary source, UNAM, one of the oldest and largest research universities in Latin America. The previous editor considered this an "unreliable source", giving no justification why it was unreliable. There is no "interpretation", just a descriptive claim that Bialy is indeed the founder of the Virtual Library. This descriptive claim can certainly be "[verified] by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge".

4. Citation to El Sol de Cuernavaca -- This was provided as a source for the claims regarding Bialy's recent artwork, which was described as "trivia" by the previous editor, despite the fact that the claim itself refutes this ("The painter Rafael Cauduro admired Bialy's work and spoke in its praise for several minutes at the inauguration ceremony, which was also attended by the Minister of Culture of the State of Morelos." An article on Rafael Cauduro can be found at the Spanish Wikipedia.) (Also note, a few years ago, MastCell I believe agreed this description was warranted to stay in the article, although it was agreed to remove the "Category:Poets" tag.) This newspaper periodical is a publication of the Organizacion Editorial Mexicana, the largest newspaper company in Latin America. Again, the previous editor considered this an "unreliable source", yet gave no justification why it was unreliable. Perhaps the editor considered the AIDS Wiki, to which the text of the citation linked, as unreliable. This may or may not be the case; however, this has no bearing on the reliability of El Sol de Cuernavaca as a source. AIDS Wiki is not the source for the claims mentioned; El Sol de Cuernavaca is the source. The link to the AIDS Wiki was merely provided as a helpful addition; however, the citation could easily stand if the link to the AIDS Wiki was removed and the citation to El Sol de Cuernavaca was given without any hypertextual references at all.

5. Citations regarding Bialy's research on phage genes -- Many months ago, for some reason, the citations supporting the claims about Bialy's research on phage genes were deleted. It is significant to note that only the citations were deleted, not the content. As the citations only add support to the content, I am re-instating them.

6. Reference to editorial and commentaries -- The fact that Bialy has written over 100 editorials and commentaries on biotechnology throughout his career is extremely relevant to his standing in the scientific community and to his standing as a dissident. Therefore, I am re-instating this relevant fact.

67.181.111.220 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of this verges on turning the article into a resume rather than an encyclopedic biography, but I don't feel like fussing about it. The only real issue I have is that a 1-person wiki dedicated to a fringe, universally rejected agenda is not an appropriate encyclopedic source for our purposes. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be no references to the "AIDS Wiki". Regarding the other points:

1. The "Group for the whatever" is not notable. That the subject was involved in the group's major accomplishment is perhaps of interest to the group itself, but not to an encyclopaedia. I agree that the Epstein source is an improvement on a one-man website, but the letter remains trivia.
2. "Unduly self-serving" could be construed as including statements about grants, research programs etc. from a CV that are not confirmed by independent sources.
3. There's no evidence that the "Virtual Library" is notable.
4. An article in a local newspaper does not, in my opinion, establish the subject as an artist or poet. However, I won't argue with inclusion so long as the AIDS Wiki link is removed and a full citation given instead.
5. OK.
6. See WP:OR. There's no need to give a number. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find some common ground. I'm not going to make any instant reverts at the moment, because I want to establish a dialogue on these points, and I don't want this to degenerate into a revert war. But I am going to state my case on particular items.

MastCell, you don't seem to understand my point regarding the links to the AIDS Wiki. The Wiki itself was not a source in either case. In the former, the newsletter itself (i.e. Bialy) is the source, since it is "self-published" material. In the latter, the newspaper is the source, not the website. Apparently a simple webpage with pictures of the newspaper article and posters from Bialy's exhibition is too much for Wikipedia readers to handle. Nevertheless, I'm willing to let this latter link go.

Keepcalmandcarryon, most of your points involve a subjective determination of "notability". I would note (no pun intended) that notability at Wikipedia concerns whether a particular topic (or person) is notable enough to merit its own article. From the notability page:

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. [emphasis in original]

Keepcalm, are you really suggesting that the subject is not notable enough to merit this article?

Responding to your specific points:

1. The "Group for the whatever" is not notable. The Group was the first organized group of dissidents. Most all the major players on the dissident side have been associated at one point in time or another. The Group itself, whatever else one thinks about it, has played a central role in the historical events concerning dissidents. If you claim the Group is not notable, you might as well claim dissidents are not notable in general. As a large part of the notability of Bialy concerns his dissident activities, surely it's relevant that he was an original member and that he edited its first newsletter? That the subject was involved in the group's major accomplishment is perhaps of interest to the group itself What "major accomplishment" is that? The first newsletter? Of course I wouldn't call that its "major accomplishment", but it's certainly a notable fact. I agree that the Epstein source is an improvement on a one-man website, but the letter remains trivia. You like to throw that word around a lot, "trivia". Perhaps some people think that putting forth the major effort to start, maintain, and publish the first periodical among a marginalized and newly-forming group, whose original run lasted several years, is not notable. I strongly disagree.
2. "Unduly self-serving" could be construed as including statements about grants, research programs etc. from a CV that are not confirmed by independent sources. If Bialy is notable (as is attested to by the very existence of the article), certainly the reader should be given some minimal information regarding his scientific career? You know, why should we give credence to what he says? Does he have relevant experience and depth of knowledge to speak on this topic? It seems a bit incongruous to me to, on the one hand, to deem that he is notable enough to merit an article, and then on the other hand, to strip accounts of his contributions and belittle and minimize his scientific career. Especially on a topic like AIDS dissent, where one of the huge talking points is "none of the dissidents are scientifically qualified to speak on this subject". I also take huge issue with the weasel words "Bialy states on his website". It carries the subtle implication that perhaps Bialy is fabricating items on his CV. If you think you can argue the CV is an unacceptable source re: Wikipedia guidelines, fine. But don't accept it as a source, and then use weasel words to make those implications. Perhaps we can reach a compromise wording: "Bialy's CV indicates that..." That would be acceptable wording to me.
3. There's no evidence that the "Virtual Library" is notable. Again, I would make the reminder that notability concerns whether a topic merits its own article. We are not creating an article on the Virtual Library. The issue is whether Bialy's founding of the Virtual Library is a relevant aspect of his scientific career to note here. I think it is. It is one of the first and largest repositories of freely-, electronically-accessible information and content on biotechnology and genomic sciences available to those in Latin America, an area that comprises almost 10% of all human population. Maybe you think providing such a service is not "notable". I would bet the users of the service would differ.
4. An article in a local newspaper does not, in my opinion, establish the subject as an artist or poet. However, I won't argue with inclusion so long as the AIDS Wiki link is removed and a full citation given instead. I already said we'll agree to compromise on the latter AIDS Wiki link. Regarding the poet claim, Bialy is indeed a poet; he has actually authored several book of poetry. I will work to find adequate citations.
5. OK.
6. See WP:OR. There's no need to give a number. You really lost me on this one. I fail to see how the original research guidelines are relevant here. The source is the CV. Would you prefer a list of the 100 sources to all the commentaries or editorials?

I look forward to the continuing dialogue. 207.62.177.227 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC) (aka 67.181.111.220)

The "AIDSwiki" is not an appropriate reference for a serious, respectable encyclopedia. If the material is hosted somewhere more suitable, then we can link it. If not, then we don't need a URL - there is no requirement that sources be hyperlinked, and many are not. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

After waiting a week, I made some changes:

1. I re-instated the statement that Bialy was an original signatory, with the Epstein source. As I said earlier, this is a relevant fact concerning Bialy's history as a dissident, and it was agreed that Epstein is a reliable source.
2. I changed the wording "states on his website" to "CV indicates that".
3. I partitioned off the poetry/artistic aspects into a new section and added several sources for Bialy's career as a poet.

I have a couple questions:

1. MastCell, you said, "The "AIDSwiki" is not an appropriate reference for a serious, respectable encyclopedia. If the material is hosted somewhere more suitable, then we can link it." Would you accept linking to the first newsletter if it was hosted on Bialy's own website? After all, it is essentially "self-published" anyway.
2. Can you provide some citations to support the "heavily criticized" claim with regard to the Presidential Panel? I agree the Panel was "controversial", but "heavily criticized" is something different -- it implies that the scientific actions and deliberations undertaken by the Panel were met with scientific criticism. Other than the Durban Declaration (which was arguably more political than scientific), what other scientific criticism has been levelled against the Panel? The fact that many people were upset by the convening of the Panel, and expressed this upset, supports the fact it was controversial, but this is not criticism per se. 76.20.109.233 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to lower our sourcing bar to link a copy of the newsletter. If Epstein's book mentions that Bialy was a signatory, then that's enough sourcing for me - it's a respectable, third-party-published reliable source. And what do you mean "other than the Durban Declaration"? Was the fact that over 5,000 scientists signed a petition criticizing the conference not sufficient for you to call it "heavily criticized"? What would it take to justify that appellation, in your mind? The fact that the panel is considered the apogee of Mbeki's disastrous embrace of AIDS denialism, with its resulting hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths? MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to lower our sourcing bar to link a copy of the newsletter. If Epstein's book mentions that Bialy was a signatory, then that's enough sourcing for me - it's a respectable, third-party-published reliable source.

Epstein is a source for the claim that Bialy was an original signatory; Epstein is not a source for the claim that Bialy was editor of the first newsletter. Editorship of the newsletter is not mentioned in Epstein. So, sourcing the newsletter would not be "lowering the source bar".

Was the fact that over 5,000 scientists signed a petition criticizing the conference not sufficient for you to call it "heavily criticized"?

The Durban Declaration did not even mention the Panel (I assume you meant Panel, not "conference" [sic]).

What would it take to justify that appellation, in your mind?

Well, how about, can you provide even a single, solitary reference to an actual scientific criticism of the Panel in particular? I mean a scientific response that found fault with specific actions, deliberations, and/or conclusions of the Panel? Not generalized angst, upset, or consternation. If not, then the "heavily criticized" claim is simply unsupportable.

The fact that the panel is considered the apogee of Mbeki's disastrous embrace of AIDS denialism, with its resulting hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths?

What the Panel is "considered" to be is irrelevant. That goes to the claim of "controversial", which I'll concede. But "feelings" or what some people "consider" is not scientific criticism. I'm asking for specific scientific responses to the Presidential Panel specifically. I honestly don't think any such responses have ever occurred. 76.20.109.233 (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Another quick point and a request. Bialy's status as a poet is now referenced to a search engine result at Amazon. Of course, there's somewhat of a missing link without a secondary source establishing that the denialist and the writer are the same person. Furthermore, the list at Amazon indicates that many or most of these publications are rather obscure and published by the author. Were any of these works ever reviewed? A review in any reliable source would be a better citation and confirmation of the subject's status as a writer than an Amazon search.

Also, would it be possible to add a third-party reference to the subject's NEA grant? Even a primary source would be preferable to an unconfirmed claim from a C.V. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversial edits

Changes to this article (or to any other) that seek to qualify or minimise AIDS denial are controversial. As such, they should be proposed and discussed on the talk page before any changes are made. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When you remove text describing the work of his career from the opening paragraph you need to explain yourself. He's described as an AIDS denialist in the very fisrst sentence. Please stop distorting article content and violating BLP. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been made abundantly clear to you by many different editors on many different talk pages that AIDS denial is the appropriate, verified term for the views advanced by Duesberg, Bialy and others. Because of this consensus, I reject your unilateral changes to the consensus language here.

If you would like to discuss whether Bialy should be described in the lead as a poet and artist, I'm quite willing to participate. In my opinion, Bialy-as-artist is insufficiently sourced to intimate anything more than a hobby, which I'm not sure meets notability. However, I'm willing to discuss. I'm not willing to have this lumped in with denialist apologetics, and I'm not keen on continued personal attacks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:HarveyBialy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HarveyBialy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 31 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)