Talk:Brian Morris (biologist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

this reads like a promotional pamphlet written by brian morris, the article has an incredible amount of unsourced claims and crucially no one has added them in despite citations being requested.


Walabio, in reintroducing the following text, you partially reverted my edit. Can I remind you that we have both been asked not to revert each other while in mediation?

He is controversial because he advocates circumcision despite not being a medical doctor and using the name of the University of Sydney despite the University not advocating his personal views.

I removed this text for several reasons. Firstly, is it Morris himself that is controversial or his views or lobbying? It seems to me that it is the latter. Secondly, this looks like your opinion rather than anything else. Has anyone raised these objections to Morris or his work in print? If not, they ought to be removed.

I hope that you will respond soon. I have not reverted your edit for reasons stated above, but I would appreciate it if you would do so voluntarily while we negotiate over the appropriate wording. I don't want to censor the fact that Morris' work is controversial - only to ensure that the discussion is verifiable and accurate. Jakew 16:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see, he is not medical doctor, but he represents himself as such. Rather than merely include that he works for the University of Sydney in his biography, he goes on and on about him working there in such a way that it implies that he speaks for the university about circumcision, but he no more speaks for the university than one of the Janitors. He claims to be neutral but is obviously biased (that sounds familiar).
Last year, I ran into two members of the Australian Medical Association at a convention of the American College of Pædiatrics. They said that he annoys them with his constant lobbying campaign of letterwriting. They do not take him seriously, because although he is a good Molecular Biologist, he is not a Pædiatric Urologist. They suspect that his fixation might be prurient. Frankly, they believe that he has a screw loose.
Hugh Young wrote a response to Brian Morris. [1]

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you saying here? You and two friends of yours disagree with him? Sorry, that's insufficient grounds to insert it into an article. Jakew 12:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those two people are not my friends. I met them only once. They came into the conference from Australia. I merely used them as illustrative examples. Let us forget the example for a minute. Brian Morris writes many letters to the Australian College of Pædiatrics which the society ignores because it is like a plumber trying to change the carpentry-code. He begs questions and takes things out of context. Frankly, his claims are controversial (at odds with the positionstatements of all medical bodies with positionstatements about circumcision) and the just Australian College of Pædiatrics ignores him. His views are controversial.


Jakew, I'm getting a bit concerned about you. It seems you spend a hell of a lot of time picking away at any page on Wikipedia that has anything to do with circumcision. I think it's time you came to terms with your problem. - David. —

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate training[edit]

The article mentioned Morris received "first class honours" as an undergraduate, but fails to mention in what area. This should be made clear. He is not a medical doctor, and any ambiguity that may result in someone mistakenly believing he is (or ever was) should be clarified.

Not noteworthy[edit]

Brian Morris is an ordinary academic at a university. He's not distinguished enough to have his own Wikipedia page. Vote for deletion.



I agree. You have my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.246.33 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

"Because cervical cancer has been found to be much higher in women whose male partner is uncircumcised," It has? How much higher? By whom? Not, for example Castellsagué et al, much cited for this purpose, who found "Male circumcision was associated with a moderate, but nonsignificant, decrease in the risk of cervical cancer in the men's female partners (odds ratio for self-reported circumcision, 0.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.49 to 1.04 [i.e. no significance]; odds ratio for clinician-confirmed circumcision, 0.69; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 1.11 [i.e. even less likelihood of significance])." --Hugh7 (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment about a major relationship with cervical cancer and circumcision has been here far too long without any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.182.243 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

I've tagged this article with a COI because the IP editor and later Professoremeritusbrianmorris have heavily altered the article in such a way as to promote Brian Morris and his views while limiting or removing opposing points of views (not to mention the puffery). This significantly alters the neutrality of this article. I'm logging off for the night, so I'm hoping that the tag will attract other editors who are more familiar with handling this sort of problem and can monitor and/or correct the situation if needed. – Robin Hood  (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tag had been removed; i re-added it, and also added connected contributor tag to this page. am watching. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Morris (biologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Morris (biologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

User:Professoremeritusbrianmorris about the HPV molecular diagnostic invention - was that licensed to Genera or anybody else? If so is there a source for that? thx. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in this interesting history, which focuses on the US... Hogarth, Stuart; Hopkins, Michael; Rotolo, Daniele (2015). "Chapter 5: Technological Accretion in Diagnostics: HPV Testing and Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening". Medical Innovation: Science, technology and practice. Routledge. ISBN 9781138860346... Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jytdog
My patent (at the time owned by Biosearch Ltd) was purchased by Polartechnics Ltd in 2006.
(Unfortunately, Polartechncis went into receivership in Aug 2010.)
The priority date of the group of HPV patents (separate for US, Australia, European countries, Japan) was 27 Feb 1987, and since patents only last 20 years (plus 1 year for the provisional patent lodgement) it was offpatent in Feb 2009.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/polartechnics-buys-hpv-detection-patents-20060914-gdodti.html
Article in Sydney Morning Herald:
BUSINESS
Polartechnics buys HPV detection patents
14 September 2006 — 1:04am
Biotechnology company Polartechnics Ltd has announced the purchase of a key group of patents for methods of detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) from Biosearch International Pty Ltd.
Polartechnics executive chairman Robert Hunter said the potential for HPV screening was enormous, given its favourable comparison with the existing pap smear screening method.
"We are of the view that HPV tests will become an integral part of cervical screening in advanced industrialised countries and represents both synergy and enormous growth opportunity for our company, which has a strong history in cervical cancer screening and detection," Mr Hunter said.
As part of the deal, Biosearch will receive 1.5 million fully paid ordinary shares in Polartechnics at 14 cents per share, subject to shareholder approval at the forthcoming annual general meeting.
I trust that this will help.
Many thanks
Best wishes
Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that doesn't say anything about you. How did Biosearch International Pty Ltd. acquire the patents? Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just searched the internet to death as well as my university library. The only things I can find are:
I see that Polartechnics brought forward a device in 2008 (press release) and that after Polartechnics tanked, a NZ company called Truscreen (crappy ref) ... but hm. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits[edit]

Hello,

Before reversion, please discuss on the talk page perceived issues or shortcomings. This can be a contentious topic but we must be careful in the way we act. This comment is specifically directed towards user:alexbrn.

Techelon (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring on a biography and likely to get sanctioned. In fact, the onus is on the editor requiring change to get consensus. We're not going to be inserting your unsourced POV-labelling or off-topic material about circumcision in general into this article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, is it unreasonable to use the phrase "pro-circumcision"? That seems like it's been a sore point, and I can't see where the issue comes from. You are welcome to state your objections, but it's exceedingly difficult to understand what precisely is the issue here. I think it's reasonable to call someone who described himself as an 'advocate of circumcision' just that. It is up to you to delineate what you feel is off-topic, which you resile continually from doing. What precisely in my edit was off-topic? Techelon (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the question is, should users be edit-warring unsourced labels about someone being an activist into Wikipedia, because such behaviour is likely to get them blocked. Also pushing broken ungrammatical factoids in is not good. Note too this is not a general article about circumcision; such material is off-topic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal[edit]

I was asked to explain why I deleted the awards section. I put it in the edit summary yet it wasn't noted. The awards section is wholly from Morris' self-written biography thus is not sufficient. If anyone wants to give a good reason as to why the content shouldn't be deleted then please let me know. Thanks! 199.254.238.201 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also sourced to the University bio. A standard part of biographical articles so fine. Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's self-written but hosted by the uni, it isn't "endorsed" by the uni. Given these awards are quite noteworthy I am sure you will be able to find reliable sources if you seek them out! 199.254.238.201 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "endorsed"? The sourcing is fine. Feel free to raise a query at WP:BLPN if in doubt! Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Describing it as a "University bio" seems to imply it's endorsed. It is hosted by the university but in no way endorsed. "there are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; [etc]". Also: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:VERIFIABILITY. As I said, I'm sure you can easily find a proper source for the apparent awards, if you are interested in preserving them. Crowning someone with laurel on the basis of their self-publication and nothing else is hardly encyclopedic! 199.254.238.201 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so silly. It would be extremely unusual for a reputable university hosting the bio of a reputable academic to be making outrageous fraudulent claims. The sourcing is thus fine for this purpose. If you continue edit warring you will be blocked or this page will get protected, so unless you can get consensus this will stay as is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking consensus right now. You are insulting me rather than explain rationally why you feel a self-published source is acceptable. As I have said, the university does not endorse personal pages, it is not the one making claims. The university is hosting Morris' work, not giving an official opinion. The university could inadvertently be publishing these claims wrongly--no fraud is required. Far from claiming Morris is lying, I am asking simply a proper source be provided, as what we had previously is obviously not within the rules. Asking for a source is not claiming the awards were never given, it is simply following good practice. Rather than threatening me with 'protecting it' (I think that effort would not go your way, sadly), why not either put in the work and find a source, or allow me do it when I have the chance? 199.254.238.201 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I already wrote. If you want to add more sources and "over engineer" this, that's fine. But there are no grounds for removal of this routine type of content/sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"there are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; [etc]." Speaks for itself. Self-citation is not permissible or encyclopedic. Hardly routine given what the rules say. Asking for neutral sources is not over-engineering either 198.252.153.226 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are exactly the kind of awards one would expect of a long-serving academic. Routine. The extraordinary claim is yours: to quote: "The university could inadvertently be publishing these claims wrongly". If you think the university is an unreliable publisher for whatever ("inadvertent") reason, make your case as WP:BLPN. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The university is not "publishing" them per se, no more than a Facebook post constitutes an endorsement from Facebook Inc. It is up to you, or whoever else, to demonstrate the source's reliability. I have specifically cited two Wikipedia policies, and you have completely failed not only to give a counter-argument, but even to respond. Now, let's review our conversation: I pointed out Morris' awards section is self-sourced; you claimed it was an official profile from the university; I responded it may have been hosted by the university but that does not constitute an endorsement, or mean that this is the official line of the university; you took this to mean I said the university was lying; I responded that the university is capable of inadvertently publishing incorrect information--it's not as if personal staff pages are reviewed before publication or anything; you ignore this. It is not the university making the claims, it is Morris himself, it is a self-publication. It is not within the clear standards as I have set out to you. The fact it is on the university server makes no difference; it is a self-published autobiography and Morris, like anyone, obviously has an interest in seeing he is portrayed well. You are intent on defending this, even though it obviously contravenes policy; why do you resile continually when I encourage you to properly cite them? It doesn't bode well. "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; [etc]". 198.252.153.226 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is routine stuff, so WP:ABOUTSELF sources are fine. Feel free to improve the sourcing further if you really think it is necessary, but there is no reason I can see to remove this content as-is. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you must consider claims of awards to amount to an "exceptional claim"? It also would have to meet the definition of "self-serving"--only natural, no-one's self written profile would tend to include criticism, nevertheless, clearly it isn't fit to base an article off of. Why are you reluctant to find proper sources given it should be so easy? 199.254.238.205 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an exceptional claim if he said he was a grammy winning songwriter, this is fairly routine stuff. I agree that self-written bios tend to omit criticism. That is a reason to include criticism from other reliable sources, it does not mean we can't use the subjects own words for non-controversial information. - MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Morris is felt to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, presumably on the basis of his positions and awards, so it seems reasonable that those awards and other positions he is said to hold, which give impetus to the article in the first place, be cited by proper sources. It's paradoxical to say otherwise. Re infobox: "Advocacy" is not POV, given he is literally an advocate and has given interviews to media orgs/written articles. He hasn't done "work" on it as such thus it shouldn't be listed next to hypertension etc, as he hasn't produced original research, he has synthesised (not unreasonably) already avaliable research, so "advocacy" is more accurate than "work" which implies he is performing studies on circumcision much like he performs them on, say hypertension. Why is "advocacy" POV? Morris would proudly say he's an advocate. Good work re citing Queens birthday honours, carry on! (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Reverting behavior[edit]

Hi, I seem to have stumbled into some reflexive reverting behavior today. I don’t know the contributor MrOllie, but his user Talk page has an awful lot of protracted fights with other contributors on it—I certainly have no intention of doing that!

If you have particular issues with a small edit to an article, it’s a good practice to revise what you think is problematic rather than revert. If you think your perspective may be controversial, start a thread on the Talk page for the article as well. Some brief discussion on concerns or rationale goes a long way and is essential here since individual contributors don’t have any particular unilateral sovereignty.

Biographies of living persons certainly demand high standards, but reverting entire edits without discussion can spark unnecessary conflict. It can also produce a phenomenon of pet-project articles being arbitrarily frozen by only a small set of motivated watchers. That scenario erodes most of Wikipedia’s pillars.

There’s a good little essay at WP:ROWN that goes into how edit reverts (excepting spam/vandalism) are counterproductive to the way Wikipedia operates and how that behavior can spark civility issues (more on that at WP:CIVIL). Most conflict on the platform does not foster contribution or add to article quality.

I’m happy to hear from MrOllie and Sundayclose with concerns on article content. This is not exactly a hot-topic article. Thanks! 75.172.34.226 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Morris_(biologist)&oldid=1204073687"