Talk:John Brignell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] History of this article
John Brignell maintains a site called Number Watch [1] created to promote his book Sorry Wrong Number about the misuse of science and statistics in the media. On it he maintains a number of the month blog wherein he comments on such matters. Tim Lambert took exception to some material in his book and an exchange of views took place. [2] [3] [4] [5] (You may need to search through the material.)
Aaron Swartz, "a teenage writer, hacker, and activist" [6], and a supporter of Lambert, retaliated by creating an entry on Brignell in Sourcewatch. [7] Sourcewatch is a wiki created for the Center for Media and Democracy, a partnership between Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Activistcash describes it as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [8] It goes on to say that "These guys come from the far side of liberal." The original entry was created to attack Brignell and portray him as a crank. Supporters of Brignell have tried to modify it to provide a more balanced view, supporters of Lambert have reacted, and an edit war has resulted. The sponsers and maintainer of the wiki have come down heavily on the side of the latter group. During the course of this war the entry was copied to wikipedia.
The difference between the two camps is one of ideology. Brignell is an old school scientist who believes that theories must be backed by good science. Lambert and his followers are supporters of various environmental and other left wing causes. A natural clash occurs in areas where Brignell criticises the science behind theories that support such causes. Preparing a proper biographical article on John Brignell will require someone to read and understand his work, preferably someone with a good mathematical background (many of his criticisms require a reasonable level of mathematical ability to comprehend), and without a left-wing bias. Until someone is prepared to do this, this article should be understood for what it is. [Jim Smith]
Update: The reason why Lambert and his cronies have chosen to attack John Brignell in this way has now emerged. Lambert charges $520 a week for ad space on his site, so generating controversy by this sort of attack is his way of drawing readers to his site and thus lining his own pockets. [9]
- The link in the update is to the site "http://rwdb.blogspot.com", where RWDB is a popular acronym (in Australian blogging circles) for Right Wing Death Beast, a title humourously adopted by hardline rightwingers such as the author, JF Beck. I'd be happy to include Beck's speculation in the main article, along with similar supportive statements about Brignell from other extreme rightwingers. It would certainly help to clarify Brignell's political affiliations. JQ 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion of changes
If you're going to copy the article out of sourcewatch, you may as well copy the whole thing. Jim Smith
- The bulk of this page is original research and should be deleted. The lengthy statements of Brignell's views on statistics should be replaced by a list of links to his site/book. Unless someone else wants to tackle the task, I'll do it. JQ 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed all PoV material, added more biographical material. Jim Smith 9 Feb 2006
- Brignell is notable because of his participation in policy debates about environmental statistics. The previous version summarised and linked to his views, and criticism. I've restored it JQ 20:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Brignell is not particularly noted for participation in policy debates about environmental statistics, he is noted for being an expert in industrial instrumentation to the point where he has advised government panels on it in Britain. He maintains a web site where he discusses statistics in general, not just environmental statistics, but that does not mean that he is noted for it.
It's my understanding that the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not argument and criticism. If I were to modify the global warming page so as to add an argument about whether it was bollocks or not, the entry would quite properly be removed. If I were to edit the homeopathy page to add something similar it would also be removed. If I were to add an entry to the George W Bush page arguing about whether his politics were right or not it would also be removed. Most of what you have put here is pro and con argument about a small set of issues on which Brignell has extressed a view. It is not fact, it is opinion, and it does not belong here.
I have replaced your article with a small biography of John Brignell. It is fact, not opinion. If you delete it, you are removing factual material which I understand is against the rules. If you want to add to it, go for it, but please make sure that what you add if fact, not opinion. Putting point of view material like that here is against the rules. Jim Smith
- John Brignell was notable in two areas, one academic, the other public debate. Information on his academic career is relevant factual information, particularly for those not curious about his public debating. I propose devoting the first separate section to this. As for his public debates, I think it very relevant to present his opinions here. Minding the NPOV policy, it should be clearly attributed to him, as should any charged words (debunking, etc.). If he has received criticism, this is certainly relevant for the article and could properly be discussed in a separate section, as in the article about Lomborg, Bjorn, or perhaps in the sections dedicated to each issue. Jens Nielsen 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and a second point: It is not always clear what exactly his opinions are on each of the topics, particularly for Second Hand Smoke. Please state clearly his views. Finally the external links don't work. I'll remove them if they dont get fixed. Jens Nielsen 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've put the biographical data back.
The statement "Brignell's most notable original claim is that tests of statistical significance in epidemiological studies should be replaced or supplemented by a Relative Risk criterion" is nonsense. What he has said is that the criteria used in epidemiological studies are too lax; specifically, that the confidence level of P<0.05 combined with the regular division of collected data into categories combines to produce a disproportionate number of type II errors in epidemiological work. This is not the same thing and is not even an original idea. His reason for making this suggestion is that so many epidemiological studies appear that contradict each other; he continually points these out on his website. Could you please correct this nonsense. I would do it myself, but then the article would be reverted. Jim Smith
I've put the material back because it does belong there. It is explaining why he set up the webpage in the first place. Of course it's point of view; it's Brignell's point of view. How can you understand his web page without understanding his point of view? I was very careful to ensure that the phaseology was not point of view. If you have difficulties with the phrasing please correct; don't just throw it all away. The material you have put in about the opinions other have expressed about Brignell is surely more point of view than any of this.
And please in future do me the courtesy of explaining your actions here. Jim Smith
- Your edits seem to be designed to obscure the controversy over Brignell's views on relative risk and environmental issues, which as Google will tell you are the things for which he is currently most notable and most likely to lead people to look for him in Wikipedia. I don't think the material you've included adds much to the article, but rather than delete it again, I've created a new section for it JQ 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- You must be looking at a different Google to the one I am. :-) Once you eliminate all the controversy generated by the Sourcewatch entry, the most common things he gets refered to about are his views on global warming, epidemiology, and speed cameras.
-
- What is the difference between "relative risk and environmental issues" and "global warming and epidemiology"? His most prominent contribution on epidemiology is his relative risk theory and his most important single environmental issue is global warming. I haven't seen him on speed cameras, but I can predict without bothering Google that he's opposed to them.
-
-
- Brignell has quite a lot to say about epidemiology, mostly about the standards they adopt in their work. Relative risk is only a small part of it. And he applies the relative risk criteria to other areas, not just epidemiology. Global warming is one environmental issue. He has talked about other environmental issues, but they aren't mentioned. (Some people assume 'computers' means 'PCs' if that helps you understand. :-) ) In Britain they installed speed cameras at the top accident black spots. The next year there was a reduction of accidents at each spot. The government claimed that this showed that speed cameras worked. Brignell (and others) have pointed out that it was just regression to the mean. It's hard to say whether he's opposed to them or not. Take his attitude on smoking. He's commented that the evidence for passive smoking is unconvincing. He's said that the link between smoking and shortened life expectancy is the same. He also said that the link between smoking and lung cancer is undeniable. What's his attitude to smoking? I don't know. I am virulently antismoking, but I agree with him about the evidence for passive smoking. I can even point out an instance in the EPA report on it where they doctored their data. :-) [Jim]
-
Looking at the article as it now stands, the opening parts seem to me to be reasonably NPOV - they state Brignell's views on controversial issues, and indicate that they have been criticised. The bits on DDT and the Lancet study need some cleanup, particularly as they replicate a lot of what is in the relevant articles, and include lots of statements along the lines "as A observes". When I get time, I'll clean these up and then I think the tag should be removed.
It's not just a matter of tidying up the language. The problem of neutrality is that the information presented in the article has been selected to create a false impression by people with an agenda. It's not necessarily false, but it is definitely misleading. Fixing this can only be achieved by rewriting it from scratch. That needs to be done by someone familiar with Brignell and his website, not by someone who has just read this page and a few links to which they have been directed, and has had a quick glance over it. [Jim]
Okay, I've put up an edited version of this page. I have attempted to severely reduce the size of the page by removing all the argument about Brignell's views, pro and con. I have condensed all the arguments offered against him into the criticism section. If you want to change this, please remember that it is supposed to be point of view neutral and so you should not use it as a forum to air your own views, or to attack Brignell over something he has written. Put it in your blog; that's where it belongs. If you really feel that the world needs to know that he has criticised something like DDT, the place to put your comment is on the DDT page under "critismisms of", not here. [Jim]
NPOV does not mean that the article should ignore anything controversial. The article should describe the controversy fairly not pretend thatit doesn't exist. --TimLambert 15:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is pretty poor behavior on your part, Jim. I made a good faith effort to include all the material you felt was needed for balance. As I said a while back, I think it's obvious that you're trying to hide Brignell's controversial (not to say, just plain wrong) views and the criticism of them. JQ 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That said, the section on DDT could usefully be shortened. Brignell's views on this are just a restatement of the standard DDT myth, and a link to that page would probably cover the issue. JQ 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What the NPOV rule actually says
Jim Smith wrote, "It's my understanding that the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not argument and criticism." That's inaccurate. Wikipedia's purpose includes presenting facts about argument and criticism. "Wikipedia should report all major points of view . . . ." (from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Expertise) To take but one of the examples Jim gives, the article on Homeopathy certainly does present the arguments. It summarizes the scientific criticism of homeopathy. It summarizes the homeopaths' responses. It doesn't merely mention that the subject is controversial. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relative risk
I've taken the liberty of trimming the relative risk section. It read like an attempt to find the truth about relative risk. There were many interesting facts mentioned there, but this is an article about John Brignell, not about Relative risk. Relative risk is explained in its own article, and this article should satisfy with identifying JB's view on the matter, and other's views on his views (briefly). I did not move the material about relative risk to that article, but I encourage anyone to do so if (s)he finds it relevant. Jens Nielsen 19:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've done a further edit, removing the claim about absence of citations (strictly speaking, it's true that Brignell doesn't provide any, but if there are proper citations, that should be adequate. The approach taken by Jensbn should be applied more consistently to the rest of the article: rather than rehash the debate at length, we should indicate Brignell's position, point to specific criticism of Brignell and link to the main entry JQ 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
On the substantive issue, I followed up Sir Richard Doll, who's the most famous source cited by the RR>2 crowd. I found that, whatever he said in 1981, in his published work he uses the standard approach based on statistical significance. Here, for example is a piece about disease risks that may be reduced by smoking. [10]. Doll doesn't, as Brignell would suggest, discard findings where RR<0.5.JQ 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
To place criticisms of John Brignell on this page without allowing those criticisms to be addressed is bias. Brignell is criticised for failing to provide citations for quotes, with the implication that the quotes aren't genuine. It's appropriate to address this by providing the quotes with the citations. You have criticised Brignell for his stance on relative risk. I have provided quotes from and a reference to a paper that proves mathematically that his stance is the correct one. Leaving the criticism and removing the supporting evidence is bias. And given your previous stance on the removal of material from this page it is also hypocracy. Engjs 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify before responding, you are Jim Smith with a new user name, correct? JQ 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I've registered on wikipedia and you should now be able to send me email. 134.148.20.33 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, that should help a bit. Back on topic, I removed the statement that Brignell didn't have supporting evidence in my last edit. I also removed a lot of material critical of Brignell's position on DDT, which belongs in the DDT article or maybe Rachel Carson. This wasn't, as you suggest 'vandalism'.
- I think the approach taken by Jensbn on relative risk is right in general. The topics should contain a brief summary of Brignell's position, and of criticism specifically directed at Brignell, with a link to the main article. If you want to cover the view that RR>2.0 is desirable, and evidence in favour of this, the Relative risk article is the place to do it.
- I suggest reverting to my last edit . Then you can point out specific instances where you think NPOV is not satisfied.
- The article should not contain errors of fact. "The notion of relative risk proposed by Brignell is not generally accepted by statisticians." This is simply false. Mathematics is a field where, if you don't believe something, you do the mathematics and verify it for yourself. Any statistician can read John Ioannidis' article and check that what he has done is right. Unlike science, mathematics is not a field where you have theories, it is one where you know that a theorem is right or wrong. The idea that a mathematical concept has to be "accepted" is one that could only occur to someone without a strong mathematical backgound. If you can't read John Ioannidis's article and either understand why it is right or be able to show the mathematical error he has made, you are not fit to hold an opinion on the matter. I understand you are an economist; I am sure you feel the same way about someone who made an uninformed statement about some economic truth and then tried to back it up with generalised statements and calls to authority where the authorities were not economists. "the Relative Risk>2 criterion has been promoted enthusiastically by lobbyists for the tobacco industry, particularly Steven Milloy." In mathematics, the truth does not depend on who said it. It doesn't matter how many letters an eminent mathematician has after his name, if others can't check his work and get exactly the same answers then he is wrong. There is simply no opportunity for differing opinions. What is being done here is to draw attention to Steven Milloy and the tobacco industry for the sole purpose tarring Brignell with the same brush. The fact that quotes from sources that were less subsceptible to smearing were removed simply underlines that. "It should be noted that Brignell does provide a number of supporting statements attributed to recognised authorities, and widely circulated on pro-tobacco websites. However, no citation details are given, making these attributions hard to verify." Again a statement that implies that the truth of a mathematical statement depends on authority rather than being directly verifiable, and an attempt to tar Brignell with the pro-tobacco brush. And to deliberately imply that statements made by authorities are unsourced while at the same time deleting all sourced statements is deceitful and hypocritical.
- I am not prepared to accept a deliberately misleading presentation of Brignell, and if you are not prepared to let me change your comments then I am not prepared to let you change mine. I would suggest that if you really want to change this article into something more appropriate for a wiki, the first step is to clump the criticism into one section separate from the fact as I tried to do here [11]. Then we can concentrate on reducing the criticism section to something acceptable to both parties. I doubt you would be able to do that, as the purpose in creating this article was to smear John Brignell and those responsible won't let you tamper with their work. 134.148.20.33 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Jim, I have extensive training in statistics, including quite a few publications dealing with relative risk measures (not in relation to epidemiology). I can assure you that the RR>2 criterion is not generally accepted, or even considered in work using these measures. In any case, this belongs in the article on RR. BTW, it's worht noting that this article, which as far as I can see is entirely NPOV, makes no mention of any requirement that RR>2.0
- As regards Milloy, he has cited Brignell extensively, always positively, and vice versa, and most of this has been in relation to the specific issue of passive smoking, so how is it a smear to refer to this fact. JQ 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Are you a trained mathematician or are you trained in some other field? When I attended university I did the same first year statistics course in both Mathematics and Psychology and saw first hand the different standards of academia that applied in each field. It may be (and probably is) that the standards accepted in the publications you wrote for are less rigourous than those accepted in the fields Brignell has made contributions in, which I assume are engineering and measurement. If that is the case an appropriate comment would be "The standards of relative risk applied by Brignell are fairly strict; many publications apply looser standards." with a link to the article I quoted from. Brignell himself frequently comments on the slackness of publication standards in some areas of science. :-) The article on RR contains no comment about acceptable levels of RR in scientific studies whatsoever, I assume because nobody's every sought to address the matter. I agree with you that a lot of what's in this article doesn't belong here, but as can be seen from the last few edits your approach and the approach of others is to keep the bits that attack Brignell throw away the bits that undermine that attack. I won't accept that. If you can suggest a way of phrasing things that's not biased you are welcome to.
- As regards Milloy, please do not insult my intelligence by pretending you do not understand what I am saying. 134.148.20.33 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have a first-class Honours degree in mathematics, and postgraduate training in econometrics, including hazard rate models and others related to relative risk. As regards Milloy, I'm well aware that his ties to the tobacco industry have got him into trouble lately. But these ties have been well known for years. Brignell called Milloy and Fumento "giants of the pro-science movement", and hasn't as far as I know, changed his mind, despite having instances of Milloy's bad behavior drawn to his attention in the past. BTW, this quote was in the article well before the recent fuss about Milloy and Fumento. Finally, I repeat that I deleted a large chunk of material attacking Brignell's views on DDT because it belonged in DDT or Rachel Carson.JQ 06:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I looked up your wikipedia article and it says you have degrees in Arts and Economics. I checked the degrees at ANU and there is no mathematics based degree in Arts. The nearest I could find was a Bachelor of Science with a major in mathematics. It does look as though mathematics at ANU is now a very tailored area, being aimed at providing support mathematics for other subjects. I don't know what it was like in the late 70s. So that tells me the Brignell can read a mathematical article on statistics and understand it, that you and I can do the same. If I were awed by authority I would now be in a pickle, but as you should know being able to read the mathematics means I am not. If you would care to point me to a mathematical article that supports your views about relative risk I would be happy to read it. As regards Milloy, do you think it is wrong for big companies to test their products on animals? I will explain why I ask after your next response. Re DDT, you're welcome to delete the same chunk again and I won't revert it. After you deleted it last time other users went through and deleted sections supporting Brignell to bring the article back to its original state, and I won't let that pass without reverting things.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As you say, you know nothing about what degrees were offered at ANU in the 1970s, so why question my word on the matter? You're just making yourself look silly with this kind of thing. And the history shows that your revert immediately followed my changes on DDT. You've repeated your characterisation of my changes as vandalism, so I don't see any need to engage you any further.JQ 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Three-revert rule
Jim Smith, as far as I can tell, you are engjs, 125.255.16.233, and 134.148.20.33. You have reverted the Brignell article five times in the past 24 hours. This violates Wikipedia's Three-revert rule and can led to your being banned for 24 hours. --TimLambert 12:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll only revert it three times a day in future. :-) Mind you, I might be able to get together a group of like minded friends to join in the game. If you want to talk sense about the article, and perhaps seek some sort of consensus I am happy to discuss it with you. I have registered my email address with wikipedia so you should be able to email me through it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Engjs (talk • contribs) .
-
- Jolly good. Lay of the "vandalism" edit comments though (WP:VAND has a specific meaning; you have a content problem) and sign your edits with ~~~~. William M. Connolley 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
Jim Smith, your last edit was a further violation of the Three-revert rule. Read the policy.
My last edit was not a revert, it was an edit. I still have three reverts to use. Engjs 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, read the policy. "Edits" like yours count as reverts. You're inviting a 24-hour ban here. JQ 02:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Counting the dead
I deleted a lot of material from this section, moving some of the useful stuff on both sides to relative risk.
I think the article as a whole now stands up pretty well. On each of the topics we have Brignell's POV, that of the critics, a wikilink to more general discussion of the same topic (if available) and external links to Numberwatch and to critical pieces. JQ 12:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Article was slightly misleading: Brignell is very clear he does not apply his RR>2 rule for all experiments (which the previous version seemed to imply), but specifically to observational studies. He recognises that in tightly controlled (e.g. double blind etc.) experiment a more marginal RR would be acceptable. Modified to clarify this point. S. 18:37, 21 Feb 06
- Realised I duplicated a link on my last edit above, also found a section on observational sciences in wikipedia so thought it would be good to x-ref that at the same time. Tried to bring the tenor of the debate out more clearly. S. 12:41, 22 Feb 06
[edit] Removed Unsubstantiated Randi Opinion
I removed this-
James Randi appears not to have expressed a view in public, but given his expressed "hatred for the tobacco industry" [12], it seems unlikely that he would sympathise with Brignell's views on this topic.
since firstly it's just an assumption by the author regarding what they think Randi thinks, and secondly it implies that Brignell in some way holds the opposite view, i.e. he approves of the tobacco industry. Since Brignell has expressed no support for the tobacco industry, has frequently quoted the high lung cancer risk from smoking, and on his site expressed the opinion that smoking is one of the stupidest things a person can do, it "seems unlikely" that he has any great love for the tobacco industry either.82.71.30.178 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Major hack
I had a hack at this (I haven't checked the edit history so I don't know whose stuff I removed). I consolidated and shortened a lot. We don't need all the details of JB vs TL; just a brief summary and links. William M. Connolley 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Generally I think these changes are in the right direction. But I think you could probably restore a brief section on speed cameras. Brignell did have a valid statistical point here, though of course it was one that suited his policy preferences.JQ 23:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation!
Here am I, let's start the mediation in the /Mediation subpage! --Neigel von Teighen 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speed Cameras
(a) Listing out the data for the last eight years and showing the jump iand the resultant fall is demonstrating, not alleging.
(b) In 2000, when Brignell started talking about the problems with speed cameras, The Times was not running a campaign against speed cameras. This is a deliberate lie on your part.
- Claims of "chicanery" are allegations, not demonstrations. Similarly, disputes about dates on your part are not demonstrations of lying on mine. You're violating all sorts of Wikipedia policies here, and I request that you cease doing so JQ 12:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"disputes about dates on your part are not demonstrations of lying on mine" Then you need to provide verification that the Times was running such a campaign in 2001 when Brignell first started talking about speed cameras. It was not, so you won't be able to. This is not a claim on your part based on any sort of knowledge, but only a lie aimed at smearing John Brignell.
- I've moved the quote from the Times to the article on Speed cameras. As in other sections, we shouldn't be debating the substantive issue here, and the disputes over this para show this. The section now states Brignell's views, and those interested in whether the evidence backs him up can check the relevant article, rather than look at a dispute over selected items. JQ 06:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Policy violations
Engjs/125.255.16.233 , your comments above, and many others violate No_personal_attacks. Your recent large-scale blanking is Vandalism. Your use of an IP address is Sock puppetry. Please stop all these behaviours. JQ 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I am making a bold edit, which the policy on vandalism specifically says is not vandalism, despite what you might want it to be. The reason for making the bold edit is that the article as you want it to be is too riddled with breaches of the wikipedia guidelines to be salvagable, and in any case I have tried to seek a compromise, proceeding with multiple dispute resolution processes, without success. You have the right to revert my edits, I have the right to revert your reversions. If you don't like it, tough shit. Engjs 04:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your lack of success reflects the fact that no-one else accepts your interpretation of the guidelines, which is showing up again here. You found this here, then with the editors at Relative risk, who have no axe to grind regarding Brignell apart from correcting his errors, then when you went to arbitration. Maybe you should consider the possibility that you are wrong. JQ 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
So who's wrong now? Engjs 6 January 2007
[edit] Relative Risk again
26 september again. John Q again reverts, without bothering to argue. Please note the below, and at least correct the grammar! Peroxisome 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
26 September. Yet again tim has pasted back in grammar errors, and irrelevant ad hominem argument. How can what steve milloy does be relevant to anything about relative risk and john brignell ? Tim also removes a reference from the peer-reviewed literature.Peroxisome 09:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
25 September 2006. I find it amusing that TimLambert has pasted back in grammar errors. The bit about Milloy is removed, as it has nothing to do with Brignell. Lambert removed the reference from the scientific literature, because it shows that Brignell's claim on Relative risk is substantially true. This is unimpressive. per
- Brignell and Milloy cite and praise each other, and use the same arguments. This fact was included in the article long before Milloy was publicly discredited. JQ 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- your argument is difficult to follow. If you wish to put in a chunk on the page about john brignell, which specifically is about the people who he cites; that is one thing. But the only reason you mention Milloy in context is to smear Brignell with the anti-tobacco lobby brush. As far as you know, Hitler or the pope might have used the same arguments as brignell on some issue, and it has no relevance whatsoever as to the merit of that argument. You are simply attempting to smear. Peroxisome 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I repeat that the bit about RR was wrong, so I have changed it. See my previoius note which justifies what I said. It is simply an attempt to smear Brignell by mentioning tobacco lobbyists, so I have removed this, as it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Finally, I have quoted an article from the peer-reviewed scientific press, which shows that epidemiological studies with an RR of <3 are more likely to come to false conclusions. This directly addresses the subject matter, and it is intellectual wo until i gecowardice to simply remove that reference, which proves that was brignell says is true. per
the bit about RR was inaccurate, so I have changed. The comment about statisticians discarding RRs of <2 is disingenuous. JB is not making a case about randomly sampled numbers, but about the application of stats to epidemiology. One of the important issues is that the populations sampled are not random samples, and one of the key issues about statistical methods is that they require a randomly sampled sample. In the absence of randomisation, it is very easy to systematically introduce a bias that will produce a small RR, and statisticians are very quick to point out the effects of systematic bias ! Note also, that epidemiologists use the funnel plot precisely to pick out the effect of small sample size introducing spurious results- which are typically RRs of <3. Finally, Ioannidis has explicitly stated and justified in the peer-reviewed press: "The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true". Per, 190906
I thought it might be more helpful to have the new talk at the end, where we can find it William M. Connolley 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- the good wmc reverted today. He has removed a directly pertinent reference from the peer-reviewed literature which just happens to explicity make the direct case that Brignell made. Why would he remove a peer-reviewed article by an eminent epidemiologist ? Is it because wmc is addressing the scientific issues at hand ? Fat chance. Instead wmc pastes back in grammatical errors, and an attempt to smear john brignell by mentioning the anti-tobacco lobby. That would be RealScience (TM). per Peroxisome 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
yet another blind revert by tl,which includes grammar errors and irrelevant ad hominem attack. These have been removed. Tim's egregious statistic error has also been noted.Peroxisome 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
hi there reverters how about engaging in some discussion of the issues ? Do you really want to put in bad grammar ? Put in smears about milloy, which have nothing to do with brignell ? Take out peer-reviewed references ? How can we come to an acceptabl middle ground ? Peroxisome 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the grammar. Do please mark you reverts as "rv" though. Middle ground... sounds like a good idea. I don't know what you mean by Tims egregious err, though William M. Connolley 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- dear wmc, congrats on fixing the grammar. tim was trying to make the case that knowing absolute numbers of deaths in two successive years allows you to say if the numbers in the second year are significantly different. You can't make that case without knowing the year to year variation in deaths.
Bringing in a reference to Milloy in a piece about Brignell, has nothing to do with brignell, and is merely an attempt to bring brignell's name close to the key words tobacco lobbyist; it is an attempt to smear by association. If you want to have a separate section, recording all those who have the same view as Brignell on a number of issues; by all means. But this is poor, and you know it. Peroxisome 09:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- As you point out the reference to Milloy was a little vague, since it merely stated that Brignell shared this viewpoint with Milloy,which wasn't sufficient grounds for its inclusion. In fact, Brignell repeatedly cites Milloy on this specific topic. I've clarified this in the revision; happy to give as many quotes from Brignell endorsing Milloy, and vice versa as you think are needed to establish the point. JQ 10:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- well, it is an attempt at discussion, and I am grateful. However, i do not think that this is particularly well structured, or that the content now reflects the title (relative risk). I think it would be much clearer if you set out first the issues on RR, then subsequently give the example of ETS. I could edit now, but I think it is better if you have a go at re-shuffling first. Peroxisome 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The problem is, as I've said a few times, that the substantive discussion belongs at Relative risk. However, I'll try to do a reorganisation that clarifies things JQ 11:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- let me note also that there is already a section on EPA and second hand smoke. This appears to be addressing the issue that you are raising under relative risk.Peroxisome 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- there is already a section about the EPA/ETS farrago; if you want to have comments on that, put it there. Including the bit about milloy is simply a device to smear by suggesting he has the same views as a tobacco lobbyist; I am not sure why you aren't comparing him to hitler at the same time. As phrased, the peer-reviewed reference did not support the claim made. I have changed the text so it reflects what the paper says.
-
- You keep on claiming that the link to Milloy is unfair, but Brignell himself cites Milloy and defends him - he dedicated his book to Milloy, for heaven's sake. If there's a smear, he's smearing himself. Also, review Godwin's law. JQ 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- what you wrote is untrue; he dismisses the EPA study on multiple grounds, not on one ground, and the ground that he does use does not rely on milloy in any way. This issue (tobacco smoke) is covered under another heading, and is irrelevant to his position on RR. There is no reason for bringing in the link to milloy; brignell's arguments do not rely on milloy in any way. Why are you not bringing in the names of all other people who agree and disagree on this (and on many other) issues ? The reason you are not is because you are desperate to smear with the tobacco lobbyist claim.Peroxisome 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- the comment that you put in about the peer-reviewed journal is wrong; that is not the case that the journal article makes. The ioannidis article makes its case on the basis of statistical issues, not speculation about motivation. If you are going to add comments about tobacco smoke (especially wholly unreferenced statements), you should put them under the section about the EPA report and ETS.Peroxisome 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, my statement on lambert's analogy has been edited to remove POV, and is factually accurate and relevant. It is inappropriate for you to take it out.Peroxisome 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- it is no surprise that wmc reverted an edit to bring in wrong and unreferenced statements, and ad hominem smear. Also fails to engage in discussion. He must be a model wikipedian :-) Peroxisome 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
what you wrote is untrue; he dismisses the EPA study on multiple grounds, not on one ground, and the ground that he does use does not rely on milloy in any way. This issue (tobacco smoke) is covered under another heading, and is irrelevant to his position on RR. There is no reason for bringing in the link to milloy; brignell's arguments do not rely on milloy in any way. Why are you not bringing in the names of all other people who agree and disagree on this (and on many other) issues ? The reason you are not is because you are desperate to smear with the tobacco lobbyist claim. the comment that you put in about the peer-reviewed journal is wrong; that is not the case that the journal article makes. The ioannidis article makes its case on the basis of statistical issues, not speculation about motivation. If you are going to add comments about tobacco smoke (especially wholly unreferenced statements), you should put them under the section about the EPA report and ETS. Finally, my statement on lambert's analogy has been edited to remove POV, and is factually accurate and relevant. It is inappropriate for you to take it out.Peroxisome 11:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) TimLambert reverts without comment on this page. He is of course delighted to introduce a reference about "tobacco lobbyists" on a page about Brignell; it is irrelevant to RR, there is a different section on this issue, and he loves to smear. Peroxisome 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
TimLambert reverts without comment on this page. He is of course delighted to introduce a reference about "tobacco lobbyists" on a page about Brignell; it is irrelevant to RR, there is a different section on this issue, and he loves to smear. Peroxisome 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your willingness to talk is commendable, but you're just saying the same things again and again, which isn't really progress William M. Connolley 09:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- ??? let us try to engage in dialogue. 1. the issue of whether brignell quotes a tobacco lobbyist is utterly irrelevant to brignell's position on relative risk. This comment, if it belongs anywhere, belongs under the section where it is on topic; the ETS section.
- 2. your statement which refers the peer-reviewed paper is wrong; that is not what it says.
- 3. my statement on lambert's comment is factually correct, and shows his argument to be wrong.
- strangely enough, i don't see any discussion from you. Peroxisome 10:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Your criticism of Lambert is original research. I don't see a problem with referring to it, if you publish it under a verifiable real name, but it should obviously not be presented as an encyclopedic statement from Wikipedia. On Milloy, given that this is obviously controversial, the best thing might be to have a separate section on the relationship between Brignell and Milloy, stating facts like the dedication of Brignell's book to Milloy, and their points of agreement and disagreement. Would that suit you? JQ 11:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- yes, if it is so very relevant to note that brignell and milloy agree, putting it somewhere separate seems more appropriate. It clearly is not relevant to what his views on RR are, nor how they were formed.Peroxisome 13:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- fascinating to see that it is original research to point out that lambert has not set out the variance of his measure; that he is merely asserting that if you have two good measurements, that allows you to show significance. If you really want, I can find a textbook that says that. Would you accept that ?Peroxisome 13:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've reported Per for 3RR, so I don't know if he will get to answer here. Anyway: I don't see why Milloy is irrelevant. Milloy produces junkscience and is a lobbyist. He isn't someone you would expect to see a respectable scientist quoting with approval. The fact that JB does cite him seems quite revealing to me (and, I suppose, to you: which is why you're so keen on removing it). Since the ref (which you keep removing) does cite SM on RR and passive smoking, the lack-of-relevance is hard for me to understand William M. Connolley 11:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dear wmc, the issue of Brignell's views on RR- which is what the section is about- has nothing to do with whether Brignell talks about Milloy, or whether Milloy and him have a similar view on this subject. Even you must realise this. I could even do with the mention of milloy's similar view on this issue; it is the gratuitous introduction of the phrase "tobacco lobbyist" that makes it an attempt to smear brignell. Peroxisome 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- per, I've deleted "tobacco lobbyist". I hope that meets your objections, as stated.JQ 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
ok, you have taken out tobacco lobbyist, so that is good. I still think the sentence isn't helpful; if you look at the EPA and second hand smoke section, JB makes numerous and cogent objections to one of the major bits of evidence. I don't think it is fair to say that his objections to ETS is just on the basis of RR; and that is what the text says. Since you have moved, I will leave Lambert alone; I think it is amusing that he wishes to leave that up.
Re; the next para, you are mis-stating what the reference says. It does not make the case you say it does, and that is why my text is accurate. Peroxisome 11:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I went through JQ's reference 8 under relative risk. It explicitly makes clear that there are multiple reasons for dismissing the ETS data, and that it is not solely on the basis of RR. The sentence as was is directly contradicted by the reference given.
I also went through Durusoy et al., who control for direct tobacco smoking, and accept that there is probably residual confounding from direct tobacco smoking. There is no analysis whatsoever about ETS in this paper. The statement that they correct for passive smoking confounding is flat-out wrong.Peroxisome 13:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
WMC has reverted to statements where the cited references contradict the text. this is bizarre. Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a lynch mob aiming to crucify JB, no matter what it takes ? Peroxisome 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- You've obviously reverted without reading the new reference I added. The first one checked for direct smoking only (that doesn't contradict the text as you claim, but supports only part of it), so I found one that checked for both direct and passive. As I said, there are plenty more where that came from. JQ 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I read the reference. There is no evidence that the passive smoking correction has any significant effect, and they do not even show that passive smoking has any effect in their data set. You also cannot use studies on direct smoking (which has an RR of 20) to support claims about agents with an RR<2 (which is what this paragraph is about). If there are so many references out there, how come you cannot find a paper which supports your POV? Let me be utterly clear, that you are simply promulgating your partison POV and the reference does not support the statement that you make. Peroxisome 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- you also claim that "Brignell applies this claim to dismiss studies of...", yet the reference cited makes it plain that there are multiple grounds for dismissing these studies, not just a single ground. Your statements must be supported by references. You are just putting a partisan POV which is contradicted by the references. Peroxisome 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- let me challenge you to mediation or arbitration. I am utterly clear that your statements are not supported by the references. Peroxisome 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
-
the reference cited for RR<2 explicitly makes clear that there are many, and interacting, reasons for caution; specifically it is wrong to assert that JB is making the case that RR<2 operates independently of other parameters, because that is not what the reference says.
It is not possible to use smoking (which has an RR of ~20) to justify the detectability of effects with RR<2. The cited reference does not show that ETS has any significant effect, and it does not show that it is confounding anything. In summary, "the confounding effect of exposure to ...passive smoke is one factor commonly noted as a problem " is unsupported by any reference.
John Quiggin notes that there are lots of references out there. Why is it that he cannot find any references which support his partisan point of view ? Peroxisome 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Number watch
too many unsubstantiated allegations which are point of view. how can you show he is particularly critical of the labour party ? How can you show he supports the views of the UKIP ? It is not in the article you refer to. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not an excuse for you to put down your POV to criticise someone. Peroxisome 11:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Tim Lambert reverts, without addressing the issues. His revert is not supported by his reference provided. Peroxisome 19:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Tim Lambert, John Quiggan, and a couple of others have formed an editing group to maintain the site as it is, as part of their vendetta against John Brignell. Their actions are totally against Wikipedia's rules, but nobody cares enough to do anything about it. The only way you'll beat them is if you can form an editing group that's bigger than theirs. 125.255.16.233 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Who is this guy?
This article reads like it was written to promote the subject's books (self-published books, at that). Almost all of the citations are to the subject's own web site. Does he get any outside notice? If evidence of notability is not provided, this article needs to head for AfD. Raymond Arritt 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- notability
- The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
- also: [WP:PROF]
- note the number of awards, the popularity of his website, multiple appearances on UK media, etc.
- You may dislike the fact that Brignell has a strong and positive reputation, but that is not a reason for writing negative things about him, or removing the article. There was a requirement to put in references to support his point of view on a variety of issues; hence the links to his published works. Peroxisome 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- He may well be notable but all you've done here is make assertions. Specific evidence would be helpful. As for the awards, it would be one thing if he bagged a Nobel but the awards mentioned in the article aren't noteworthy outside his field of specialization (lots of scientists get awards from their societies). As for the "multiple appearances on UK media", please cite some specific and especially noteworthy ones. I have no problem acknowledging he's notable provided that the article gives specific evidence to that effect. Raymond Arritt 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relative Risk
I have left out the eminent, as per Raymond's change, although it is easy to justify this. It is important to include explanation of the reference, and i have put this in. The final sentence was removed because it is unverified, and fails WP:V. Please feel free to provide references for this assertion if you are replacing it. Peroxisome 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- The correct way of dealing with this kind of thing is not to attempt a summary of the position, but to describe Brignell's views, cite any response that's specific to him, and link to the main article on the topic. Anything else amounts to WP:SYN. The sentence I removed was in any case wrong - no serious epidemiologist supports RR>2 in relation to passive smoking. Readers can confirm this by looking at the relevant articles, but we can't easily summarize it. JQ 23:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unsourced claims and attributions
I'm not at all certain this guy is notable, but whether is he is or not, I do know that it's filled with poorly-sourced and/or unsourced statements that have to go as per WP:BLP. Out they go, bye bye. wikipediatrix 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Update: it's actually worse than I thought. Not only was virtually every statement in the article unsourced, the few that were sourced were simply regurgitating what Brignell says about Brignell on Brignell's own web page and self-published vanity-press books. That's not good enough. If something more substantial can't be scraped up, this needs an AfD. wikipediatrix 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
congratulations. You have now ruined all the references that were there, as well as removing accurate biographical information.
you have left in a couple of spurious "links" to criticism, which do not connect to anything, and are less than noteworthy. Peroxisome 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- There were no "references" to ruin, aside from links to Brignell's own site and unnecessary links to pages that were about subjects Brignell talks about but did not specifically mention Brignell himself. A Wikipedia article cannot exist containing only primary sources. That these sources are or are not accurate has nothing to do with it. wikipediatrix 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Who vandalized deleted most of this article?
The first version[14] of this article was actually pretty good. The current version is nearly devoid of content. NCdave 21:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References from AfD
I have added the two Telegraph book reviews, which I can access. Perhaps someone with online access could check these out and add where appropriate:
- Gaitskell, Robert. "Smoking Facts Out Of Statistics", The Times Higher Education Supplement (March 8, 2002)
- Sapsted, David. "Scientists 'using own cash to fund research'", The Times (London) (March 16, 1987)
Espresso Addict 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
