Talk:Christopher Gillberg

I would like if this guy's name was mentioned in more pages, but perhaps he isn't that important? The only proper article page linking here is : Autism rights movement.

--Fred-Chess July 1, 2005 10:15 (UTC)

Lanced?

Should it say "launched" instead of "lanced"? It's not too clear from the context. To me, "lanced" would mean skewered, i.e. decisively defeated; this seems to be the opposite of what the article is saying, and is also the opposite of what I get out of his book on Asperger syndrome. If nothing else it's unencyclopedic, and the whole sentence in which it appears could be a great deal clearer.

(Speaking of Asperger's, the above person who complained about Gillberg not being mentioned enough will be pleased to know that he is prominently mentioned on Asperger's Syndrome in at least two different contexts.) PurplePlatypus 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This change has (correctly) been made previously. "Lance" in English is here a faux ami to the Swedish word "lansera," which means to launch or introduce. --Tkynerd 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The article in BMJ doesn't support these claims at all. Gillberg was accused of fraud by a sociologist. The accusations were dismissed by the investigation committee as being without merit.

Did you read both the BMJ links? The investigation is still ongoing and Gillberg now has criminal convictions. Your approach to editing this article is ill-considered. I have again reverted your changes. Your way of acting is inappropriate for Wikipedia. —Daphne A 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course I've read these articles. The conviction had nothing to do with accusations of scientific misconduct. It was for refusing to comply with a court order. A lower administrative court had ordered Gillberg and his colleagues to hand over patient data to the sociologist and her friend (in their private capacities). (The decision was based on the Principle of Public Access.) Gillberg and the others refused to comply in order to protect the privacy of their patients. There is no ongoing investigation of misconduct. There has in fact never been any such investigation since the accusations were found to be without merit. Perhaps you should be a bit more careful with your own accusations?

Denis Diderot 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of fraud were made by Eva Kärfve and Leif Elinder. While they have drawn a lot of attention to it, it must be stated that neither are educated neurologists -- Kärfve and Elinder critized Gillberg's research on the basis of their own theoretical and practical experience with children -- the associates of Gillberg did not bother greatly formulating a response, and Gillberg himself has not bothered at all.

It is now not possible, and it will never be possible, to research the scientific basis and the possibility of fraud of the research, as Gillberg's associates have destroyed all material of the study.

Fred-Chess 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My previous comments were made in a hurry, so I'd like to clarify a bit. There was never any serious investigation into possible scientific misconduct, but there was of course some preliminary investigation to determine whether Elinder's and Kärfve's accusations deserved to be taken seriously. Among other things, the researchers and the research coordinator were interviewed. Gillberg and Rasmussen, the two researchers specifically accused by Kärfve, formulated a detailed response. After this preliminary investigation, the committee declared they they hadn't found any reason to suspect scientific misconduct.

Denis Diderot 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes with POV on integrity

Denis Diderot has been made changes to this article recently. Those changes included deleting relevant factual statements, then claiming that the statements were "false". I initially assumed that he had not read the references, but it now appears (from his remarks in other Talk), that this assumption was incorrect. In other words, he deleted statements that he knew to be true—so his claim that the statements were "false" must have been dishonest.

One such deletion, of an entire paragraph in the Introduction, was labelled "minor", when it obviously was not.

I have restored the factual statements to the article. I have tried to make the wording NPOV, but perhaps others might think that I have not succeeded. Denis Diderot, you (and anyone else) are welcome to reword the presentation of factual material. You may not, however, delete facts: continuing to do so will lead to mediation/arbitration.

I hope that we can find wordings of the statements that are mutually agreeable. If not, there are still ways of making the article have NPOV. For example, the article might state something like "Some people interpret these facts as indicating that ...; other people, however, believe that ....".

Please stick with the principles of Wikipedia. —Daphne A 06:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I am requesting mediation/arbiration. This is in accordance with Wikipedia polices on Dispute resolution. Under those policies, mediation should be attempted first. Mediation, however, can only work if you are willing to take part, to be honest, and to be honourable. Please indicate whether or not you are willing to do that. If not, I will request arbitration. You might consider that in either case, you are taking up time from other people, as well as myself.
In the meantime, I will restore the article and add some detail. —Daphne A 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how accustomed you are to Wikipedia, Daphne, but a one-page discussion is unlike to be seen as a dispute, and requesting arbitration at this stage will simply be laughed at.

Stating ones points in the way that Denis Diderot is the best way of discuss. I suggest you try to discuss in a similar matter. This is most likely what any mediatior would tell you.

Fred-Chess 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have followed your recommendation to address his points, such as they are. It should be clear from his comments and actions, however, that the dispute will not be resolved in this way. —Daphne A 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try some examples. The article contains a quote from Rydelius & Zetterstrom criticising some of Gillberg's work. Given the cited qualifications of R&Z, this quote would seem to be important. Because the quote directly concerns Gillberg's work, it would seem to be relevant. The wording in the article stays extremely close to the wording in the reference. All of this, then, presents a strong reason to keep the quote. Yet you deleted the quote and, moveover, all mention of R&Z.
As another example, the article contains a quote from the Chairman of the Ethics Committee. This quote is obviously central to the question of what investigation, if any, was carried out by the university. Here, verbatim, is what the reference says (any typos are mine):

Quote

the Gillberg group informally asked Ethics committee chariman Ove Lundgren to look at the material. Lundgren, given four hours to scrutinise 100,000 pages of research material filling 22 metres of shelf space told Gillberg that he could find nothing obviously wrong, but pointed out it was impossible to examine all the information in that short time. The Gillberg group and Preses (President) Goran Bondjers, chief of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg then made media announcements stating that the Gillberg group had been cleared by the ethics committee. Lundgren writing to the editor of Dagens Medicin (Medicine of Today) stated never in his professional life had he felt so exploited. The Ethics Committee never had freed the Gillberg group of scientific misconduct accusations.

The claims in this quote are clearly false and misleading. According to Ove Lundgren himself (Dagens Medicin, 16/03/2005. p 51) he was asked by Elias Eriksson, a professor of pharmacology and not by "the Gillberg group". He was not to scrutinize all of the research material but only the basic data on the participants. (That's what the accusations concerned.). This was done separately after the Council had already cleared Gillberg and Rasmussen. Bondjers wasn't "chief of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital". He was the Preses of the Sahlgrenska Academy (formerly Dean of the Faculty of Medicine). Lundgren himself as well as the "Committee" (actually Council) announced that the accusations had been dismissed and the researchers cleared. ("Professor frias från misstanke om fusk vid dampforskning" Göteborgs-Posten 26/02/2003). (This has also been confirmed in letters by Council members published in the journal Dagens Medicin.)--Denis Diderot 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is certainly interesting. The problem that I have in accepting it is that the letter from Lundgren himself (which I uploaded and you saw) appears to be far more consistent with the reference quoted above than with your comment. I e-mailed Lundgren on the 18th, asking for more information (and I believe that I did so in a neutral manner), but have not heard back. —Daphne A 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded a copy of the letter than Lundgren wrote to Gunnar Svedberg, which was quoted in the article. (The letter is on file with the Chief of Administration at Gothenburg University.) Again, you have deleted the quote.
If you want to pick another statement that you believe is unsourced, please ask, and I will give you the page and paragraphs in the references or links. Everything that you deleted is in one or more References or External links.
—Daphne A 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Daphne,

Please study the basic Wikipeda policies, as I've asked you several times now. This is getting to be quite silly. Apart from the ones I've already mentioned, I'm thinking especially about WP:V and WP:NOR. If you wish to include scientific criticism of Gillberg's work, that's fine, as long as it's balanced and sufficiently notable. Just skip the defamatory nonsense.

The task of the "Ethics Council", just as with any similar body, was to either (a) accept the case (which required reasonable cause for suspicion) and proceed with a full investigation, or else (b) to dismiss the case and clear the researchers of all suspicions. The Ethics Council dismissed the case and cleared the researchers (option b). What they couldn't do, of course, was to prove that they were innocent of all wrongdoing. First of all, it's never the task of any judicial body to prove innocence. (In most cases that's simply impossible. If I accuse you of having killed someone 4 years ago, for example, would you be able to prove that you are innocent? Only if you could prove that you were somewhere else at the time of the murder. Normally very difficult, and perhaps the exact time of the murder isn't even known.) Secondly, when a case is dismissed, that obviously means there won't be any furher investigation.

What Lundgren did, and possibly regrets (it's not clear from the letter why and by whom he feels exploited), is that he spent some hours to examine the lists of participants to see if they had been manipulated (as Elinder and Kärfve had alleged). This was certainly not "100,000 pages of research material" as you falsely claim. And yes the Ethics Council did dismiss the case and did clear the researchers. I've given you a reference to a mainstream reputable newspaper with a direct quote from the chairman. What else do you need? --Denis Diderot 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that Denis Diderot has not responded to my explanation for the inclusion of the quote from R&Z, but he has repeatedly deleted the quote nonetheless. I note that Denis has repeatedly deleted other statements that are vouched for in the references and that he has not attempted to justify deleting those either. [This comment is in addition to my comment above on deleting a quote from a letter of Lundgren.] —Daphne A 15:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to temporary protect this page from editing to prevent further reverts. Daphne: I do think you should include all such written references, such as the quote from R&Z, but please be more specific: mention exactly where this quote can be found.

The letter, on the other hand, can not be used as a reference. Wikipedia should report established and verifiable knowledge. A private letter that has not been published anywhere does not qualify.

Fred-Chess 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this article is currently quite unuseful. Most of Daphne's material is just ment as slander and isn't useful to anyone, and the material that is currently in the article is all about some research of DAMP/ADD. Very little is said about Gillberg as a person.

Fred-Chess 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote for R&Z is from the Investigate article, p.52, col.b. The letter is on file with the Chief of Administration at the university, but I don't know if that counts. In any case, the second of the two sentences that were quoted is also in the Investigate article.

As for slander, I do not see how: a slanderous statement is, by defintion, a statement that is false. If you are going to claim that a statement is false, please tell which statement. As I said, each statement is vouched for by a reference. It is possible that a reference is wrong, of course; on the matter that seemed to be of most concern, I did some extra work and got the Lundgren letter, which is a primary source and appeared to entirely support the reference. I do not believe that accusing me have introducing slanderous statements is valid under such circumstances. I believe that I have acted properly.

Finally, I do not know who user 84.217.31.72 is. But it seems that someone else also believes in including negative statements if they are factual and sourced.

—Daphne A 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that it is not slander ( I don't have my dictionary here right now ); I meant to say that the article is too heavy on the critical side, since it claims (in your version) that the most notable thing abour Gillberg is that he is a fraud.

If you want to use material from Investigate Magazine, use in line quotation so that it is clear exactly what the article wrote. Look at Wikipedia:Footnotes for the best way of doing this. And only use what the magazine wrote, don't add conclusions one could draw from the letter.

I'd like to state that I don't have any intention to take any side here; I only want the article to be accurately written -- one basic point is that it should only use accurate sources.

I'll unprotect this page now, but will protect again if the inserting of unsourced statements continues.

Fred-Chess 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred, thanks, that all makes sense; I'll save a revised version that uses footnotes (likely tomorrow). Denis, if you can demonstrate that something in that version is incorrect, please be assured that I will want to correct it; I too want the article to be accurately written. —Daphne A 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred,

Thank you very much for helping with this article! The WP:BLP policy is, as I'm sure you know, one of the strictest and most important. I absolutely agree that the article needs improvement. As soon as I find the time, I will do something about it. (As for now, I've only had the time to correct obvious errors.)

Daphne,

I'm glad that you at last found something I wrote "interesting". However I'm still very concerned for several reasons.

1) Original research. Letters to and from people at Gothenburg University and your interpretations. This is exactly the kind of thing WP:NOR refers to.

2) Reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should always use the most reliable sources available and never use sources of doubtful accuracy. Why on earth would anyone use an obscure tabloid style magazine published in New Zealand as a source for events that took place in Sweden, when there are several good reputable Swedish sources available? As far as I know, Investigate Magazine is published from the home of Ian Wishart with the aid of his staff of 4 (four). It's not for sale outside Australia and New Zealand. It's not indexed by major news indexing services. As for its reliablility, I almost agree with Steve Maharey: "Anything in Investigate magazine is nonsense by definition."

3) Your use of sources. It's not just that you use unreliable sources, you also distort their content. I could give a long list, but it's enough with one example to show what I mean. Already in this version you claimed: "As of early 2006, the investigation into fraud was still ongoing". This is not only completely false,but the supplied reference doesn't say anything remotely similar to that. The word fraud doesn't even occur in the text.

I'm really sorry to be so critical, but what you're doing to this article is simply unacceptable. And I won't comment on User:84.217.31.72--Denis Diderot 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Swedish-language external links

There are now some Swedish-language external links. My preference here would be to keep such links only if they both (i) contain information that is very important for the article and (ii) there is no good English-language source for that information.
The Swedish press releases from Riksförbundet Attention and Riksföreningen Autism would seem to give little or no important information that is not in the Referenced Investigate article. That article cites, and gives the Swedish names (as well as the English names used herein) of those two societies.
—Daphne A 09:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Investigate Magazine isn't a good source, no link to the article, and the linked pages contain additional information.Denis Diderot 11:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Post-protected versions

I thought it might be better to try to thrash things out in Talk, before making changes to the article. For now, I've put a POV sticker at the top of the article. The one change that I've made is to include the article in the "Scientific misconduct" category. The reasons for that are as follows.

Gillberg was accused of misconduct. As a result of that accusation, about 100.000 pages of research material was destroyed. So even if you hold the view that Gillberg should be given sainthood, you have to agree that "an allegation of misconduct ultimately led to destruction of a great deal of research material". Moreover, Gillberg and colleagues received criminal convictions for the destruction. All of this is likely to be interesting for someone studying scientific misconduct. Inclusion of the Gillberg article in that category does not imply that Gillberg committed misconduct, merely that the article has some information that is related to that subject area; see WP:Category.

Regarding the text of the article, factual sourced statements are includable even if they are negative. Denis Diderot, I ask you to accept that. As for Investigate, there is no question that it likes to tweek the noses of politicians; that does not a priori mean that they make things up. In particular, on the question of the Gothenburg University investigation, where you accused the magazine of making statements that were "clearly false and misleading", I obtained a primary source that appears to support Investigate.

The idea that I had was to take some of the statements and discuss them in subsections here on Talk. The first one is small (which might make things easier) .

No, it wasn't "as a result of that accusation" that the research material was destroyed. How many times do I need to explain this? What is it that you don't understand/believe? Please read what the Wikinews articles says. It's completely accurate as far as I can determine.

And please leave out all those tiresome accusations. You claim that I represent "an extreme POV" or that I believe that "Gillberg should be given sainthood" etc etc ad nauseam. As I've already told you 3 times now. It violates official Wikpedia policies.

If Gillberg had been formally accused of misconduct, than that would be of interest. Spurious accusations by political opponents who aren't researchers in the field are not. They may be of interest to people who are interested in research politics, health policy, protection of privacy, and the like.

"Appears to support Investigate". To the contrary. The letter supports what I wrote above that Eriksson, not "the Gillberg Group" asked him to inofficially examine the participant data. The letter says that Lundgren feels exploited. It doesn't say why or by whom. It also says that Gillberg falsely believed Lundgren was the one who came up with the idea to examine the data, when it was in fact Eriksson. The letter also claims that Gillberg had changed his mind about asking the research council to examine the data. In short, there is nothing in the letter that supports the Investigate story. What's more, even if the letter had supported Investigate (which it doesn't), it would still have been original research, and, finally, private letters from Lundgren are not reliable sources. (They are only reliable sources to demonstrate Lundgren's personal opinions or beliefs, and only when there is independent verification that the letters were actually written by him.)

The whole Kärfve episode is clearly of minor importance in an article about Gillberg. He is notable primarily as one of the world's leading authorities on neuropsychiatric disorders, especially autism. That's what the article should focus on.

Finally, I hope I've made sufficiently clear why Invesigate magazine can't be used as a source for this article. If you don't agree, please tell me why.--Denis Diderot 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot, I ask you to respond to my previous request for mediation/arbitration, as that appears to be the only way forward. —Daphne A 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in mediation at this stage. This is about following basic Wikipedia policies. Don't rely on unreliable sources, don't include original research, assume good faith, and, very important, please don't insert defamatory nonsense. That's all. What is there to mediate about?--Denis Diderot 10:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept that an accusation of misconduct that has been often reported in the media might be of interest to someone generally interested in scientific misconduct and therefore should be so categorized. (In ignoring your other allegations, I am not agreeing with them.) —Daphne A 11:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other allegations"? Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? What is it that I've alleged and failed to demonstrate? As for the miniscule chance that someone interested in "scientific misconduct" would find something interesting in this article, that chance is greatly outweighed by the risk that someone could get the false impression that Gillberg has been suspected (or worse) of scientic misconduct. (Definition of libel: "2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression [my italics]"[1]) --Denis Diderot

Other allegation: "defamatory nonsense". You have yet to demonstrate that any statements in the version of the article that I was saving were incorrect. You have also mispresented things I've said. For example, I did not claim that you believe "Gillberg should be given sainthood"; rather, I said "even if you hold the view that Gillberg should be given sainthood", the purpose being (I thought) clear from the context—that no matter what someone's view on the accusations against Gillberg, it was those accusations which ultimately led to the destruction of a great deal of research material. Your claim that “it wasn't "as a result of that accusation" that the research material was destroyed” is entirely illogical: if the accusation had not been made, then the research material would not have been destroyed.

I also do not understand how you can make a comment about “the miniscule chance that someone interested in "scientific misconduct" would find something interesting in this article”. For me, your comment is particularly amusing: I have no special interest in Gillberg or child psychiatry; rather, I was researching an essay on scientific misconduct (unrelated to Wikipedia), had heard about the allegations against Gillberg, and when I saw that the Wikipedia article discussion of this appeared to be in need of substantial improvement, I got involved. I believe that anyone doing a general study of scientific misconduct should write about the Gillberg case—even if that person believed, say, that Gillberg should be given sainthood (I hope the intention is clearer now). The reasons are (1) the allegations ultimately led to the destruction of much research material and (2) the allegations have received significant media coverage. Really, this is obvious.

—Daphne A 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Daphne, this is getting to be increasingly absurd. I won't go through all this again, just point out the most obvious. 1. Gillberg didn't destroy the material. His co-workers did. 2. Kärfve and Elinder didn't investigate scientific misconduct. They couldn't do that, since they weren't in any such position, and had they been on the Ethics Council, they'd be forced to recuse themselves, and the researchers had already been cleared by Council. 3. The destroyed material wasn't potential evidence. 4. "on the grounds of patient confidentiality" Yes, but not only. Also promises to the participants. 4. "Instead, Gillberg informally " This had nothing to do with the court's decision. 5. "Lundgren was given four hours to scrutinze 100.000 pages" False. He was supposed to look at the participants, not all the data. And this was after they'd already been cleared. 6. The quoted letter, while probably not false, is misleading and irrelevant. As I've pointed out before, judicial bodies never prove innocence. 7. "further attempts at formal investigation into potential misconduct became essentially impossible". False as I've explained several times already. 8. "published a somewhat-investigative article" Not at all. It was an article where these long-time opponents criticized the methodology. Nothing "investigative" about it.

These examples should be enough. What's worse, these are not random mistakes. They all work together to paint a completely false and libelous picture. (It's not as if you made positive and some negative mistakes. All your mistakes are negative.)

Your reply to my amusing comment proves my point very well. You were misled into thinking the allegations had merit. Let's make this article informative instead of misleading. --Denis Diderot 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The central point of this part of the discussion is whether or not the article should be included in the category "scientific misconduct". I gave what I believe are two extremely good reasons for inclusion. Your reply did not even attempt to address either. So, I have restored the categorization. (Those same two reasons are why the third paragraph was added back to the Introduction.)

Regarding your other points, K&L were attempting an investigation and had a court order to support them in doing so; the destroyed research material obviously was potential evidence (see a dictionary if you do not understand); the letter is obviously useful for understanding what investigation by the university actually took place, as well as how Gillberg portrayed such; etc. Your reply seems to be mostly rhetorical illogic. I have, however, provided a detailed expostion on one point in a separate subsection below. As that exemplifies, your claim that I have attempted to "paint a completely false and libelous picture" seems to be based upon looking in a mirror.

Finally, I have restored the article. There is a potential problem with the reference for the letter, discussed below. If anyone has any other criticisms, please discuss them here before changing.
—Daphne A 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

--->I just saved a version of the article that had integrity. My User ID is not shown, because I forgot to sign in before editing. —Daphne A 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Riksföreningen Autism and Riksförbundet Attention

I originally did not mention these. Denis Diderot added External links to both, containing press releases supporting Gillberg, without making any related change to the article text. I then added the following to the article.

Kerstin Lamberg, a member of the Gillberg group, received a suspended sentence and a fine for her role in the destuction of the research material.

Lamberg is vice-chairman of the Autism (Patients) Society (Riksföreningen Autism). Both the Autism Society and the Attention (Patients) Society (Riksförbundet Attention) have remained strong supporters of Gillberg.

My source for this is the Investigate article (p.53, col.a). Denis deleted all of this, but kept the External links.

Denis: I ask you to either show that Investigate was wrong or to accept that the above addition be included in the article.

Something else that is related is here:

  http://aftonbladet.se/vss/kultur/story/0,2789,658421,00.html

I have no idea how reliable this is though, and I did not mention or use it in the article for that reason.
—Daphne A 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Again please don't rely on Investigate magazine for anything, but it's correct that Lamberg was one of the researchers who (probably) destroyed the data. This article is not about Lamberg, however. It's about Christopher Gillberg. If Gillberg had been vice chairman of one of those organizations, then that should probably be mentioned. If you like, you could add to the information in connection with the link as, e.g. "one of Gillberg's co-workers who destroyed the data has been elected vice chairman", but I don't really see the relevance.--Denis Diderot 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ethics Committee Investigation

There is obviously some dispute about what the Ethics Committee at the university did and did not do. One of my main sources for understanding this was the story in Investigate (quoted above). Denis Diderot alleged that the story is "clearly false and misleading". I pointed out to Denis that the story is consistent with the letter from Ove Lundgren, Chairman of the Ethics Committee (which I uploaded). Denis claimed that this was my "interpretation" of the letter. I find this claim to be bizarre, as the letter seems quite clear.

For those reasons, and also because it seemed like a generally right thing to do, I e-mailed the following to Ove Lundgren:

One of the things that got me involved in this was a story in the New Zealand magazine Investigate. Attached is a copy of one page from the story, which discusses your work on the Gillberg case. Could you tell me how accurate/inaccurate that discussion is?

(The page was p.52, which is the page that I quoted from above [Recent changes with POV on integrity].) Dr. Lungren kindly replied as follows:

I think the story told in the New Zealand paper is in principle correct although it does not tell the full story. I was asked by one of the friends of Gillberg, professor Elias Eriksson, to come and see the material. This was in a way a surprising offer since Gillberg had promised his patients not to show the material to someone outside his group. I was rather reluctant to go and see the material (in fact, afterwards the other members of the Ethical committee thought I should never had visited Gillberg) but after having had a discussion with my closest collaborator since about 35 years I decided I should go but I should make clear to Gillberg and his collaborators that I would never become the "truth witness" for two reasons: the large material (I visited Gillbergs department for four hours a Friday afternoon) and I would be biased (the lexicon translates the Swedish word with challengeable) since I belong to the same university faculty as Gillberg. So before inspecting the material I made it very clear to Rassmussen (Gillberg was not present) just that. Despite this Gillberg stated in a letter to the Vice chancellor of the univerisity that my inspection had cleared Gillberg. I became aware that by chance several months later.

My "interpretation" of this (to use a term that Denis Diderot seems to abuse) is that the Investigate article is indeed reliable and that the statements that are "clearly false and misleading" are those of Denis Diderot.

Can the Wikipedia article cite the letter that I uploaded? The letter has been mentioned in mass media publications; so mentioning it in Wikipedia would not seem to be original research. Also, Dr. Lundgren told me that the letter is open source; so it should be legally possible to upload the letter to sv.wikisource.org. Perhaps someone who is expert on Wikipedia policies could comment. Right now, the letter is quoted, but no reference is given, which is inappropriate.
—Daphne A 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just first comment on Lundgren's letter. This is the simplest explanation (assuming no one is lying): Eriksson probably wanted a stronger statement from the Ethics Council. He wasn't happy with just a dismissal. Therefore he asked Lundgren to look at the records. Perhaps Eriksson was unclear in his instructions to Lundgren, or perhaps the communication with the Gillberg group wasn't clear. Gillberg and Rasmussen thought it was all Lundgren's own idea. They also had the impression that he would only look at some of the data that wasn't sensitive and concerned only the handling of participants. Lundgren apparently didn't understand this clearly and didn't know exactly what data he was supposed to look at. I don't see anything strange about this at all. But there's something else that's really strange. Someone who says that he was "biased" still presided over the Ethics Council as chairman. Why didn't he recuse himself immediately? And why did he first dismiss the accusations (thus clearing the researchers), proceed to tell the press and the researchers that they had been cleared, and then years later produce ambiguous statements that could cast doubt on their innocence (if read by someone who doesn't know the background)? But this isn't the right place to discuss such questions. This space should only be used for improving articles.

Your comment is very interesting. I have added, to the article, a quote from the letter that the Ethics Committee published in Dagens Medicin (2005): THE TRUTH IS THAT THE ETHICS COMMITTEE HAS NEVER EXONERATED GILLBERG FROM THE ALLEGATIONS (original: "Sanningen är att rådet aldrig friat Gillberg från anklagelserna"). The letter also specifically criticises the president of the academy for claiming otherwise. —Daphne A 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try something different to see exactly what we agree or disagree about? I will make a number of claims here. I wonder if you could tell me if you agree or disagree with these claims, or if you want me to clarify what I mean. So could you please just say agree, disagree or clarify for each of these 4 claims?

1. The claims in this quote are clearly false or misleading.

2. Investigate magazine is not a reliable source as defined by WP:RS, at least not with the strict application in WP:BLP

3. Your correspondence with Lundgren is original research as defined by WP:NOR

4. A letter from Lundgren (if verified according to WP:V) is only a reliable source for Lundgren's personal (expressed) opinions and beliefs.

So perhaps we could start with these 4 points, and see if we can proceed from there to the other issues?

--Denis Diderot 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I disagree, as (it seems, from his e-mail) does Dr. Lundgren.

2. I do not believe that I am competent to judge, but the issue would seem to be irrelevant: all the statements in the article that you disputed have Swedish references.

3. NOR applies to the article, not Discussion, and there is no OR in the article.

4. If you mean the letter quoted in the article, I do not see your point; if you mean the e-mail quoted in this Discussion, it is irrelevant.

I don't think this line of discussion is productive. —Daphne A 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

There were three journal articles listed in the Bibliography. Gillberg has apparently authored or co-authored 300 research papers. It is not feasible to list them all in this Wikipedia article, because the article length would then be too great. One possibility is to create a new article that lists Gillberg's journal publications (and then have this article cite that). Unless that is done, we should probably have some criteria for which of Gillberg's journal publications should and should not be listed in this article.

Two of the three papers that were listed in the Bibliography contained links to the full journal publication. I think that is nice for Wikipedia readers: readers can quickly and easily see some of Gillberg's orginal peer-reviewed research publications. The third paper listed in the Bibliography did not contain such a link, and there was no explanation given for why that paper was listed. So I have deleted it. If someone wants to put it back in, that's fine, but I would like to see a brief annotation of what makes it so special out of the 300—e.g. include a brief note along the lines of "this paper was a milestone in the field of research because ...".

Also, one of the two papers had incorrect page numbers listed. This is now fixed.
—Daphne A 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent actions of Denis Diderot

Denis Diderot has recently been reverting many changes to the article. Perhaps his most egregious change is to remove the POV sticker, which warned readers that the text was disputed. Other recent actions include the following.

• Removing almost all factual well-sourced statements that are in any way critical of Gillberg.
• Repeatedly removing the article from the Scientific Misconduct category. I have twice explained why the article belongs in that category even if it is held that Gillberg is entirely innocent; on neither occasion did Denis Diderot respond.
• Removing a paragraph from the Introduction that mentions the fraud allegations, without giving reasons, and ignoring the reasons that I gave for putting the paragraph in.
• Reverting changes to the Bibliography after I explained the reasons that I had for making the changes; Denis again reverted without commenting on, or addressing, those reasons.
• Deleting parts of the Talk page wherein I previously demonstrated how dishonorable several of his earlier actions were. See the diff.

—Daphne A 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)