Talk:Telethon Kids Institute

Vaccination talk protest

I've reverted the addition of Wilyman to this, because I'm not comfortable with the source being used. The main article about the protest is the West Australian report, and it makes no mention of Wilyman [1]. The only mention is a brief one in The Australian, but it isn;t reporting on the protest, and is an aside in a column that has been extremely aggressive towards Wilyman in the past [2]. If it was an article looking at the event and they made this claim I'd be more comfortable with it, but saying that Wilyman was involved in the protest - as opposed to present at the talk - is a strong claim, and really needs more than this single reference to support it. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you dont like the australian newspaper or trust it, i hear your opinion and disappointment in that newspaper, but you are misled, whereas most of the australian public holds that newspaper in high regards,

I also noticed you put up a link to a video of wilyman elsewhere showing she was at that seminar, so i think your mistrust in the newspaper is a moot point, and contradictory to proof you personally linked and published elsewhere Jewjoo (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

- Hey, here's the link to the video Bilby posted on youtube. You can hear Wilyman disagreeing (rather than ask a question) at the beginning, and you also see her interupting at about 14:08. Hope that helps. I think The Australian attended the event, and also used Bilby's video above as a confirmation of Wilyman's attendance, as well as Wilyman's newletter before the event encouraging protesters to attend. Triple source checking. 49.195.47.3 (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The distinction I'm making is between attending the event and protesting the event. We know that she attended the event, and we know that she asked a question. What I am less sure of is that we can claim that she was part of the protest. If the articles that covered this in depth had mentioned her involvement then that would be yes, but the only mention of her being protester is a brief mention in a column which has previously been extremely hostile to Wilyman. I have no problem accepting The Australian as a reliable source for their articles, but this mention in a hostile column seems borderline at best. Perhaps it is something best handled in WP:BLPN and see what they think there.

I haven't read her newsletters. Do you know which one she encouraged the protest in? If she did so, I'm happy with that, but I'd like to confirm. - Bilby (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If found the newsletter - [3]. It says nothing about protesting per se, just about attending and asking questions. - Bilby (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have raised the issue on BLPN to get some alternative views. I'm happy to accept whatever the consensus is. - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, am concerned that my taxpayer funds are supporting your wiki obsession in improper matters. As you're happy to publicise your place of work and you wiki username on the web, a few questions. Have you ever used your universities servers to wiki edit? Is your VC and Head of School aware of your editing on behalf of, or in defense of Wilyman and Martin? Why are you editing such during work hours when you have actual paid duties to attend to? Do you think it would put your university in a compromising position to be linked with your defense and editing in favour of Wilyman? (you will recall Murdoch Uni desperately had to distance itself from Wilyman to save it's reputation). I'm just a concerned taxpaying citizen, nothing more. 1.129.96.211 (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, the wisest move would be to ignore this. But because these claims keep being made, in spite of what I've said elsewhere, I guess I need to try again to clear up some misconceptions.

• I have no connection to Wilyman, Martin, the University of Wollongong, the AVSN, or anyone or anything connected with these topics.
• I strongly disagree with Wilyman and the anti-vax movement, and I fully support vaccinations.
• However, BLP is not optional. It doesn't matter whether I agree with these people or not, applying the BLP policy is essential. It is a core policy, and needs to be followed no matter how I feel about the subject.
• Similarly, NPOV is not optional. Wikipedia needs to be written in a neutral manner, and not used to further an agenda, whether or not I agree with that agenda.

My interest here is solely to keep these articles within policy. Given that only one side of the debate is represented - those strongly opposed to Wilyman and the anti-vax movement - this is more difficult that normal, as there isn't a clear opposing ground from which we can determine the middle. But the tendency has been for these articles to go far too far to one side, and while I run the risk of ending up slightly off center, I'm confident that following policies will bring these articles closer to balanced than not following them would allow.

So can we dispense with the threats and attacks? They have been going on long enough. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

For gods sake Bilby, no one threatened you. You use the phrase "threats and attacks" to distract in the same identical way to when Wollongong Uni used it to distract from critique of Wilyman. That's not a typical university type response. 1.144.97.116 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And Bilby you can't single-handedly invent a balanced neutral POV to your liking when 99% of sources offer critique of Wilyman. Critique equates to proper academic debate in normal discourse. You certainly have cherry-picked bits out of the NPOV policy to have such an odd interpretation of it. 1.144.97.116 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the discussion at BLP/N, we should either a) leave Wilyman out, or b) just mention that she was there. As there is a wish to mention her attendance, even though I'd rather not mention her at all, I'm happy to go with the second option and simply mention that she attended the forum and a protest occurred. I made that change here but have since been reverted. Is there any objection to making that change, considering that was the opinion of uninvolved editors? - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bilby, you are extremely involved in this topic, over many months, and thus should not be directing and dictating the outcome in such an inappropriate way as you have above. You do not have consensus for your demands, and not only have COI regards your university lecturer status, but also abusing your influence as a ex Wikimedia Foundation member - all this info as publicised by you online. Your strong position on anti-vax has been noted and obviously a driving force on your bias. Take a back seat please and stop taking ownership of any article relating to your university colleague Judy Wilyman. 1.129.96.151 (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

These attacks really are getting a bit silly, considering how far off you are on almost every single accusation you make. However, you are very welcome to read the BLP/N discussion and see if I am misinterpreting what was said. Do you have a problem with following what was said at BLP/N? - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)