Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Haley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd_Haley

[edit]

Another not-a-biography page with disreputable references, toxic hyperbole, buzz phrases "50% Mercury by weight". It is Thimerosal controversy being re-written along with conspiracy theorising, Gulf War syndrome and WP:OWN by the usual author, Ombudsman. An academic Chemist with not a single published paper referred to in the article. Not notable, at least, on nothing like this basis. Not WP:BIO Not good. 'Speedy DELETE Midgley 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some rewriting on it. Has anyone told his university/department the article was planned? That might be ... appreciated. Midgley 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPA

Then the article should be edited. There are lots of biographies about individuals known for one strongly held opinion, especially if it is controversial.--Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is very difficult for you to understand this concept, but here it is. Even if you disagree - and maybe especially if you disagree - with Boyd's point of view, it is critical that people who want to be educated on the controversy know something about the people who make them. If Boyd is deleted, then it is open season on all kinds of people. Of course, precedence means nothing here, only mob rule. --Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Obviously notable, 50K+ Google hits on "boyd haley autism", for example. Whether he's a crackpot or not isn't relevant; he's a reasonably conspicuous participant in a high-profile public controversy. He shouldn't be written out of Wikipedia on a rationale that borders on censorship; instead, the article should be cleaned up and made into an NPOV presentation. Monicasdude 14:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as it has more than 50000 Google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Jim62sch 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Common sense indicates that the concerns expressed by an eminent researcher of Haley's stature should be taken seriously, given that the combined effects of neurotoxins upon humans, especially in utero, are unknown and of paramount importance considering the acute crisis of the autism epidemic and rising prevalence of autoimmune diseases. Too, a goofle search for "Boyd Hayley" produces over 30,000 hits, making this AfD one of the most absurd ever to be attempted. Ombudsman 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The top hit of those 30 000 (I have not checked all of them) is the famously unreliable Whale site, and the next few are rather similar. When you get down to http://www.chem.uky.edu/research/haley/ which is what the Haley group says it is about, you find no note of toxicology, and no note of autism or mercury. But you don't find any note of any of that in the article. The problemisn't with the subject, who is as notable as many people are, it is with the article, which is not actually about him. SO yes, Prof Haley may well be worth biographising, but this is not his biography. It is eyt another of a string of articles pushing a very restricted POV of Ombudsman's att he expense of real information or an accurate view of the people whose names are used to cover them. Midgley 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Notable researcher, even the nominator says he "may well be worth biographising". AfD is not the answer if you think an article has POV problems. David Sneek 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect relevant NPOV info to Controversies in autism. If the subject is notable, and he is a leading scientist / crackpot / whatever who misses the bar as an individual, that's where he / this belongs. I'd be tempted to keep (or at least not delete) if this looked like it could be kept NPOV and verifiable, but I'm betting that would be a problem. Deizio 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Doubt" should translate into "keep" - WP has a bias for inclusion. --Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to controversies in autism. A search of verifiable sources available through my public library system refers to two articles in Biotech Weekly and Vaccine Weekly respectively both titled "Autism: Lawsuits accuse companies of mercury poisoning". There is also a mention of him in relation to a 1992 New York Times article on Alzheimer markers. Academic Search Premier came up with nothing on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete --Khoikhoi 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen Wikipedia articles for people who own ad agencies, not to mention creators of favorite anime. The bar for who is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is not all that high. This is a professor who obviously has a following. He seems to be important to supporters of alternative medicine, so mobbing on this for deletion could be considered a political/ideological action. --Pansophia 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Soapboxing and walled gardening by one editor with a known strong anti-vaccine and autism-related bias. JFW | T@lk 05:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who starts an article is irrelevant, and you know that. The soapbox element should be edited to be NPOV, and the wall garden is nothing but a spurious charge, disappointing especially coming from you. --Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not the starting that bothers me, it's the writing. In the present form the article is biased towards Haley's work in mercury, while his academic interests are underrepresented. There are significant WP:V problems as well. I reserve the right to vote delete when an article appears beyond rescue. I also support the invocation of WP:BIO - this researcher does not need his own page to cover the material mentioned; this is Ombudsman's well-known tactic of maximising his desired content - writing about the personalities. That's walled gardening to me, period. JFW | T@lk 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known. --Masssiveego 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A search on PubMed --the database of medical articles (for everything 1966+)-- for Haley B(au) AND autism yields three articles, the first of which is published by a German group and possibly someone with the same name. Haley BE(au) AND autism yields one hit on PubMed. On NONE of the PubMed papers is Haley first author (i.e. the lead author). Haley isn't an expert in austim in my books-- if he has no more than three publications listed in PubMed and a not a primary author on any of them. As for Google hits -- I got 15,900. There are things that had more hits (e.g. Church of Reality) and didn't get an article. Nephron 06:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I agree he deserves a mention in Controversies in autism. The way it's written now is a soapbox for a point of view best raised elsewhere. -- Samir (the scope) 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just another attempt to suppress a vaccine critic. Boyd Hayley is the most notable scientific critic of thimersosal. Typical Midgley, see attempt to delete most notable medical vaccine critic [1], and so on. john 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if Midgley doesn't like the content, he can edit. Haley has lots of credentials and is an important person is a ranging controversy. Midgley, btw, is a known knave at Wikipedia, prone to chronic personal attacks, sockpuppetry, impersonating other users, and confusing the debate. Any AFD or CFD from his should be met with suspicion. --Leifern 12:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an outrageous personal attack. Also essentially untrue (I was so irritated by an IP addresed user calling himself "the invisible anon" I registered the ID (making a literal error and registring the completely unused "Invisible Anon" which has been described as a sock puppet). I accept that that was WP:POINT and don't propose to do it again. AN admin commneting on it remarked that it had followed weeks of provocation - by Leifern, Ombodsmun and the IP address user referred to. If you look at Leifern's history, you will see that the first contact he had with me - triggered by Ombudsma - was a vitriolic attack on me, and an incoherent attack on a page I started called anti-vaccinationist which he has sustained. If you look at other edits I've been involved in, you'll see they mostly go smoothly, despite being in subjects not always free of controversy. (Try fast breeder reactors, Exeter, Smallpox, Edward Jenner which is now a Good Article. If you have a look at http://ganfyd.org you'll see that I wrote the licence and was an instigator and am a sysadmin etc there and it works very well. Look at leifern's early edits and you'll see that one of the four subjects he is very obviously non-objective on is the presence of anti-vaccinationists in the world (I can understand the psychology of the other 3 but that one I'm unsure of - possibly it is the reaction of someone who makes his living from rationality finding that he is keeping company he cannot accpet as an organised group but must regard as coincidental agreement arrived at independently but this is a digression). I think this sustained pattern of behaviour against me is outside WP policies and norms and worthy of comment. It certainly is an ad hominem attack here. Would admins take note of this, please. Midgley 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this off the AfD boards guys, yeah? Leifern, your comment should have ended with the word "controversy" and you know it. Midgely, your response makes this a candidate for a bad faith nomination. You guys seem too involved with the extreme ends of this debate, maybe others are better suited to judge this topic. Deizio 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would challenge anyone to find a clear example of my taking an extreme point of view on this issue, or any other - or that I have "lied" to anyone. All I have asked for is that a controversy be presented fairly and accurately. As for Midgley's sockpuppetry, impersonation, etc., it's a matter of record and not a personal attack. I think that anyone who stoops to such tactics deserves suspicion if not scorn. --Leifern 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to write an encyclopedia. I assume that Leifern posted in such fashion to make it appear that this is bad faith. In the end people have to make up their own minds, but should not be lied to. I agree that this is not a place for such an argument - Leifernstarted it and will not stop despite firm administrative guidance - I don't know what else to do about it, and as one might expect and I think is intended, it is upsetting. I note that other people have simply left WP in esponse to such tactics - I'm one of the ones you want to keep. Midgley 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make this AFD, you did, so I'm not sure how my objection to it could be done in a way that makes the AFD look like bad faith. As for firm administrative guidance, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As for being sober, thanks again for your medical insights, but yes I am sober. --Leifern 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Here is some firm guidance you have managed to know nothing of. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Norman&diff=43488887&oldid=41759444

I would think better of this behaviour if it was not sober. I read the WP article on sockpuppets, and apart from WP:POINT which I shan't do again, but Leifern is continuing to commit, none of my use of the invisible Anon was harmful - no voting, just a demonstration that if one wants to be called {name} then following advice from several people to actually register {name} is sensible. Leifern's behaviour has been from the start unreasonable and obnoxious, as demonstrated here. Since he started editing WP he has been pushing a particular POV, forcefully, and in several instances by sustained rudeness and uncivil behaviour - see his history with User:Geni over Thimerosal, Mercury and autism. It isn't coinciental, and it isn't me. Midgley 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further cluttering by defending myself, see User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley --Leifern 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: As pointed out elsewhere, Haley is perhaps the foremost scientist investigating the neurotoxicity of heavy metals, an area of utmost importance with regard to the global epidemic of autoimmune disorders. His research and outspoken opposition to vested interests profiting immensely from contaminating the environment and poisoning medical patients is of extreme relevance to many significant health and safety debates, making this AfD one of the most ludicrous and preposterous examples of gaming the system yet perpetrated. The motivation for this AfD is beyond highly suspect, since it inherently relies upon both a lack of understanding of the issues by many or most Wiki editors and the built-in advantage of having the dubious wind of medical orthodoxy at its back. Haley's research isn't simply about the role of thimerosal in the iatrogenic autism epidemic, it has ramifications with regard to the wisdom of the ADA's refusal to allow dentists to speak with patients about mercury poisoning caused by mercury-laden amalgams, upon the understanding of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's, and upon the understanding of the etiology of autoimmune disorders. There are plenty of fictional characters and soap opera actor biographies to nominate for an AfD, rather than gaming the system to suppress important information of a highly regarded scientist who is serving a critical role by actively investigating the devastating effects of neurotoxins that have ravaged the health of millions. Ombudsman 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google:neurotoxicity of heavy metals --> 56 300 hits. The top one is the US national institutes http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/neurotoxicity/neurotoxicity.htm which looks distinctly WP:RS but doesn't seem to be where Dr Haley works at present.
neurotoxicity of heavy metals Haley --> 568 hits, but the top ones, in a pattern that is familiar here, are Whale, Mercola etc. At the top of the page we see 3 scholarly article hits, and on the first page there is one potentially reputable source the FDA giving what turns out to be a straight presentation (I think the US calls it testimony) on Hg and Alzheimer's disease. No comments attached to it from those who heard it, but I note the FDA has not changed radically as a result of it. After that it is all the way to page 6 before I see anything remotely academic or WP:RS and that - [ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-12/correspondence.html] - although in an environmental health journal turns out to be a mis-hit, a different Haley.
"Neurotoxicity" is quite specific, if one looks at Google --> toxicity of heavy metals the spread is still quite complicated but high on the first page is emedicine which is a very WP:RS. Looking at the references in that article which is as all the emedicine ones are, Honcode, long, attributable, peer-reviewed, and in something more than principle sue-able/actionable upon if bad advice caused incorrect actions - points to books - expect to see Haley in the references in Harrison's? You shouldn't. On page two we find another reputable source a CDC minute
Looking more closely if we restrict sites to ac.uk and .edu (the US equivalent, I understand) we get much smaller numbers of hits which are much more distinct IE differ from each other in their content. They are also highly likely to be [[WP:RS]. Haley? The first inviting one in the .edu is IOM meeting agenda] with slides and audio. WHat stands out there is that yes, Haley is among people who one would expect to be well-recognised, and therefore probably is in his field, which there is given as in vitro studies. He is among others who deal with whole people, or make them ...
Conclusion of comment This does not to me make Dr Haley's reputation out as described above. It is a disservice to an academic or scientist to blow them up as something more than what they are - one of many - and the underlying reason tends to be that few scientists share the particualr point of view lauded. Actually, Haley has a reputation for doing competent and interesting work in fields having nothing to do with any of this, and that points up even more strongly that this is a non-WP:BIO piece of an article about Autism and Thimerosal controversy, not about Haley, and not an effort to biographise him. An article might be written, but this is not that article, any more than Peter Fletcher was. Midgley 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite if need be. Seems reasonably notable. Jcuk 23:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not adequately balanced, not convinced he's notable enough. This is not about Haley but about a theory, and I don't go along with "personalising" theories especially when dealing with contemporary not historical figures, it doesn't make for objective treatment of either the person or the theory Gleng 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another example of the disservice of disinformed statements by certain diningenious editors with regard to Haley and the avalanche of hard demonstrative evidence that provide proof of the iatrogenic debacles that are the hallmark of mainstream medicine. If anything, Haley's research findings have nailed shut the coffin of medical orthodoxy's dead on arrival theories unconscionably proffered to excuse the unexcusable continuance of its idiotic insistence upon using thimerosal in vaccines and quicksilver amalgams for dental fillings. Haley's use of birth hair, blood and urine analyses, not to mention use of highly advanced biomarkers, are not mere theoretical indicators, these have been used to provide overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of ongoing harm perpetrated by the medical industry. Ombudsman 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to pick out one thing from that unWP:CIVIL unWP:AGF comment, amalgam is _dental_ amalgam, not a medical thing at all. And while Haley's work is interesting, there is a need for someone else to actually succeed in repeating it before it convinces everyone. Thimerosal is pretty much abandoned now, and it is time the incidence of autism was shown to have changed as a result, if the cae for a connection is to be made - it is very classic really: make a hypothesis that A causes B, stop A, observe B decrease. We might avoid the stage of restarting A and observing B rise again in challenge - if it happens. WP:RPA does seem a useful semi-convention, and actually once it is appleid, the content of comments gets easier to pick out. The character of the argument of course doesn't of itself demonstrate the falsity of the arguments, any more than the ad homenem and more precisely ad personam attacks demonstrate anything about the article, the AfD or the science, but they are quite characteristic of anti-vacinationist and the fringe medical campaigners and IMHO out of place in the construction of an encyclopaedia. Medical orthodoxy by the way, has been assembled from whatever came to hand and worked, which is why so much that isn't orthodox doesn't work. We have been doing free and open copying of knowledge for generations longer than WP has, and approving of it. Midgley 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, lots of RPA links. Okay: I say, keep. Boyd Haley is notable as a professor; head of a department, with describable contributions. However, the POV edit war thing has got to be resolved somehow. AfD is not the way to do it: here, we should decide on the notability of the topic. I advise the editors to try dispute resolution. Mangojuice 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by all means, but trim it. His article is longer than those of most heads of state. A couple of paragraphs should do for a scientist who is a proponent of a theory. ProhibitOnions 21:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boyd_Haley&oldid=1140386014"