Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)

In my view this article is structured and framed to amplify negative coverage, and paint a subtly misleading picture. When nearly half of the body of text is under a non-neutral section heading of Controversies, this becomes a magnet for controversial content, no matter how relevant. WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION and the essay WP:CRITS are germane to the discussion. Furthermore, there seems to be subtle editorial biases, perhaps unconscious, in the presentation of facts: phrases like "he has been criticized for..." often link to articles that merely state that people refuted or disagreed with him, or that he supported a student, or are criticisms of Wilyman, without explicitly mentioning criticism of Martin. This turns a neutral into a negative. I see no explicit criticism of Martin himself in purported sources like The Australian and New Matilda. Another Australian piece mentions critics of Wilyman's thesis who question whether Martin "had the necessary knowledge to assess it", but this can be simply stated rather than given a editorial nudge towards criticism. I do see criticism in an opinion piece by an unnamed author in The Australian, and possibly reasonable criticism in Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology, but again, framing matters, and the article should be scrutinized for presence of bias in the presentation and compilation of facts. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. This BLP has long been a matter of contention and needs serious revision. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC).

Similarly I agree. At various points the article, in my opinion, comes close to being defamatory in nature. Perhaps the worst aspect of the editing of this article is that any Editor who dares to suggest the need for revision is likely to be the subject of personal abuse. Let's hope that this has changed. Research17 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I just came across this article. My first impression was that this article is biased because it covers controversies in detail but it does not cover much the actual research that Martin has done as an academic. Shouldnt an article about an academic focus mostly about the academic work of that academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhkurz (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this right now, and I also share concerns that this is too negative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots-and-censorship-why-wikipedia-can-no-longer-be-trusted-ded395123ba9

See comments from Brian here, and link to the article he wrote.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)