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)

There was a very inflamed debate in Sweden because of these events. Many people published angry letters and blamed each other of various things. Therefore it's very easy to take things out of context and give a false impression. This is a very good example of that. The members of the by then dissolved Etichs Council wrote an extremely unethical letter to Dagens Medicin. It was based on the argument that since they never proved that the researchers were innocent, they strictly speaking hadn't cleared them of the accusations. Sophism is the word that comes to my mind. Of course dismissing a case means that you've cleared the accused. Ola Stenqvist, a professor of Anesthesiology at Gothenburg University wrote a very angry reply. Here are some translated quotes:

Th Ethics Council (EC) was during 2002 asked by the preses of the Sahlgrenska Academy preses to investigate accusations af research misconduct from Leif Elinder and Eva Kärfve against Christopher Gillberg/Peder Rasmussen (G/R). The EC almost immediately dismissed Elinder's accusations, but Kärfve's charges were investigated by, among other things, questioning of the involved physicians and the [research] coordinator in the Gillberg group. After eight months investigation the Ethics Council cleared G/R. The report that they had been cleared was sent to Preses and the Vice Chancellor, who both dismissed the case. At that point ecerything could have been over, unless the EC, and especially the member Birgitta Strandvik, who has had a long conflict with Christopher Gillberg, and the chairman Ove Lundgren had begun to throw suspicions on the EC's own [ruling]

Torbjörn Tännsjö and the rest of the members of the EC are incapable of admitting that [their comments after the case had been dismissed] aren't compatible with what one expects from a law-based state. An apology to the Gillberg group had been in order, but the lack of civil courage confirms my view that we're in great need of a new drug: soul Viagra, for those who lack spine.

Daphne, if I'm allowed to be a little bit personal here, has it never occured to you that, since you're relying so much on information from Elinder, that perhaps your view of things may have become a bit skewed? It's just something to think about. I hope you don't mind me pointing it out so explicitly. --Denis Diderot 07:24, 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)

Daphne,

Thank you for your answers. I'll begin with point nr 2. You don't know if Investigate Magazine is a reliable source. This means it can't be used. We should only used sources known to be reliable. (For your information, it's definitely not reliable.) Obviously, something published in an unreliable source could still be correct. But in Wikipedia we may only use reliable sources. We can't do original research and say, based on x, y z, I have come to the conclusion that this article on davidicke.com is reliable, and therefore I will use it as a reference. If we find reliable sources that support some of the claims, then we refer to those reliable sources instead.

As for point 3, I think you may have misunderstood this policy a bit. We're not supposed to do any original research as Wikipedia editors. We can't use original research to support one POV even if we believe that POV is the right one. It doesn't matter if we post the results of original research on the talk page or send it as email to other editors, or whatever. We simply can't use it at all.

As for point 4, it seems that you agree, but perhaps you could clarify your reply a bit, since it isn't obvious?

I saved point nr 1 to the last, since it's a bit more complicated. (The quote contains several claims that need to be examined one by one.)

A. Investigate: "the Gillberg group informally asked Ethics committee chariman Ove Lundgren to look at the material" The Gillberg group denies this and Lundgren denies this. (My claim is based on stories in reliable sources and published letters. Can we agree that this claim is false?

B. Investigate: "Lundgren, given four hours to scrutinise 100,000 pages of research material filling 22 metres of shelf space" First of all, this is extremely misleading ,since Investigate fails to mention that Lundgren's review was done after the researchers had already been cleared by the Council. Secondly, the only thing supported by one source (Lundgren's letter) is that Lundgren felt or believed that this is what he was supposed to do. Lundgren's version has been strongly disputed by other people. So it could be reported in the article as Lundgren's POV, but only if there is a sufficiently detailed description of events. For editorial reasons, I don't think it's a good idea. Can we agree that this is Lundgren's POV?

C. Investigate: "The Gillberg group and Preses (President) Goran Bondjers, chief of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg then made media announcements". This is obviously false. I've provided the reference to Göteborgsposten. The university published a press release. Bondjers was not "chief of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital", but Dean of the Sahlgrenska Academy, alse known as the Faculty of Health Sciences. The Gillberg group didn't make media announcements, they simply replied to questions from journalists.

D. Investigate: "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." This is partly misleading and partly false. The problem here is that the Ethics Coucil acted very unprofessionally. (You yourself quoted Lundgren saying he was biased.) The council was dissolved soon after, and the procedures for dealing with such accusations changed completely. The council did dismiss the case. This is undisputable, since it was reported in several articles at the time, which included quotes from the Chairman. They also wrote letters to the researchers saying that the case was dismissed. Now, obviously, when there isn't any evidence to support the accusations, that means that the accused as been cleared. We've been through this already. A court never dismisses a case and then proeceeds to try to prove inccocence. It doesn't happen and it can't happen. The whole idea is absurd. But this is exatly what's meant by "never had freed" in the quote above. It means that they never proved that the accused researchers were innocent (since they dismissed the case). Call it false, call it misleading or call it absurd, it really makes no difference.

--Denis Diderot 07:24, 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.

—Daphne A 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• The above list also included another point that was removed by Denis Diderot. That point was that Denis has been deleting parts of the Talk page that show him in an unfavourable light. To see parts that have been deleted, look at the diff. —Daphne A 12:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I removed your {{pov}}, because I thought these issues had been sttled. When I realized that this wasn't the case, I added it back.

• I've only removed claims that are unsupported by or contradicted by reliable sources. See discussion above.

• The accusations are discussed in a special section don't belong in the lead

• We'll deal with bibliography later, but it's only confusing if we try to discuss everything at once.

--Denis Diderot 09:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

IAN WISHART of INVESTIGATE magazine responding directly (not a regular Wiki poster so forgive the lack of proficiency please)

As I did not personally write or research the story at the centre of this debate I have nothing to offer in its regard.

However, I have extreme reservations about the so-called NPOV of Denis Diderot in regard to assertions that Investigate is not a reliable source. His posted allegations are unfounded, biased, and badly researched.

Investigate is indexed by the EBSCO database in the US, and we are repeatedly asked by Knowledge-Basket in New Zealand to permit indexing there as well because of customer demand, but have not yet agreed because of the logistics involved.

Investigate is subscribed to by the US State Department and government organisations in Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as hundreds of libraries in Australasia and further afield.

The magazine has never been sued for defamation, and has never been proven wrong on a major story. Yes, it has annoyed New Zealand's Labour government, but that is the role of an independent Fourth Estate - to hold the Executive accountable.

If Mr Diderot cares to show how and where Investigate is appreciably less reliable and more inaccurate than, say, the NZ Herald, Dominion Post or New York Times, then his slanderous assertions may have merit. Until then, they remain baseless. Investigate is as reliable as any other major New Zealand media organisation, which is perhaps why Fairfax Publishing invited Investigate staff to deliver a training seminar on investigative journalism for two dozen of Fairfax's best NZ journalists in Wellington in May this year.

Finally, in defence of Investigate magazine, here is an email illustrating how others see us:

From: Cobb Adam Civ AWC/DFS [2] Sent: 23 October 2005 05:53 To: 'editorial@investigatemagazine.com' Subject: Matt Thompson's PI piece

Dear Editor

The College admin staff will soon be in touch seeking copyright permission to use Matt Thompson's excellent piece on Terrorism in the Philippines 'On Terror's Front Lines', in Investigate: Australia's New Current Affairs Magazine, August 2005, pp.38-54) in a syllabus I am putting together.

This is just a courtesy email and heads up. I certainly hope you will allow us to use the piece as its rare to find this level of information on such an important topic. As a researcher myself I know how much work would have gone into this piece.

I would be happy for you to let Mr Thompson know that his work will be used in a War College seminar on SE Asian Terrorism. The Air War College prepares Colonel's for promotion to General - issuing MA degrees in the process. We have 250 students from arouind the world attending the college.

Very best regards

Keep up the good work

Adam Cobb

__

Dr Adam Cobb

Associate Professor

Department of Warfighting Strategy

USAF Air War College

325 Chennault Circle

Maxwell AFB

Montgomery AL 36112-6427

---

So to conclude, I trust that blanket assertions that Investigate is "not a reliable source" will be treated with the contempt they deserve. Shooting the messenger is intellectually weak. Tackle inaccuracies by all means if they exist, but don't let your own personal biases affect the truth of what you write.

Ian Wishart

Ian,

I obviously have now way of knowing if you really are Ian Wishart or just someone claiming to be him. But, since I assume people to be telling the truth unless I have reason to believe otherwise, and since it makes little difference for this discussion, I'll just assume that you really are who you claim to be.

You claim that Investigate Magazine is in fact a "reliable source". First of all, this phrase was used here in a specific sense. "Reliable source" can mean almost anything when taken out of context. In this context it refers to specific Wikipedia policies for sources, and it refers, even more specifically, to it being used as a source for this article. So it's not a "blanket assertion" as you wrote. That's simply a misunderstanding.

You claim that my "posted allegations are unfounded, biased, and badly researched." Your claim appears to be based on this:

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."

First, note the disclaimer "as far as I know" to some of the statments. This disclaimer indicated that I wasn't sure that these facts were correct. I believed they were, but wasn't sure. After reading your reply, it seems that all my assertaions were essentiall correct.

IW: "Investigate is indexed by the EBSCO database in the US, and we are repeatedly asked by Knowledge-Basket in New Zealand". So you are indexed by Ebsco. Clearly not the kind of service I was referring to. And you aren't indexed by Knowledge-Basket. I didn't write "haven't been asked", did I?

So none of the factual assertions that I've made appears to have been false.

Now to the more important question of reliability. It's of course possible that my judgment of Investigate Magazine has been clouded by its completely false and misleading reporting of facts relating to this article. But the issue here isn't what I think, or what Ian Wishart thinks, or even what some associate professor at a US Air Force college thinks. There are many people, and not just politicians, who seriously question the reliability of Investigate. And many people dismiss Ian Wishart as a conspiracy buff. This may well be unfair (I wouldn't know, since I've only read a few articles in Investigate and haven't read any of your books), but it's still an unfortunate fact. Your reputation simply isn't quite as solid as one might wish.

IW: "The magazine has never been sued for defamation, and has never been proven wrong on a major story."

Perhaps it's a fact that you haven't been sued for libel. (I haven't checked.) But I'm not really sure that's evidence of reliability. Has the British Royal family ever sued David Icke? Did they win?

"Has never been proven wrong on a major news story." What does this mean? That you never published retractions? Have you retracted your false and misleading claims in the Gillberg story?

--Denis Diderot 07:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

IAN WISHART: Denis, with the greatest of respect, you flounder around like a blancmange trying to deny casting unfounded assertions while uttering new ones - "There are many people, and not just politicians, who seriously question the reliability of Investigate. And many people dismiss Ian Wishart as a conspiracy buff."

There are "many people" who equally think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll in 1963. The vague and snide way you deal with Investigate is redolent of a conspiracy theory of your own perhaps. If people want to "seriously question" our reliability, let them do their homework and really challenge us. Some in the blogosphere tried and failed. Vapid put-downs without substance are, as I said, intellectually weak.

Truth is not decided by majority vote, and just because Investigate annoys some in the liberal cognoscenti does not make it inaccurate or unreliable or "nonsense" as you approvingly quote Maharey. Maharey doesn't like us because we pinged him for his hypocrisy, something you failed to note.

I understand Wiki's policy on NPOV, flawed as it may be in both principle and practice.

The article you question was submitted by a freelance journalist with references, and from what I've read of the correspondence in here Lundgren appears to confirm Investigate pretty much hit the nail on the head, but maybe didn't go far enough. Perhaps, perhaps not. As I said, it wasn't my story nor did we go hunting for it, but nothing I've seen in your comments gives me cause for concern about its reliability.

I guess the question is, is it a matter of factual record that Gillberg's work is being challenged? Yes it is a matter of record. Does Investigate record the existence of that fact? Yes it does. Is it "reliable" in a neutral sense? Yes it is. To suggest that a controversy does not exist would be tantamount to saying you believe in the existence of leprechauns. I appreciate your point - that the merit of the controversy is not significant, in your view. But that is, with respect, merely your opinion. Others disagree.

Just because you may vehemently disagree with the merits of the argument does not, I would have thought under the NPOV system, empower you to act as gatekeeper to erase any mention of the controversy.

So surely the Wiki way is to acknowledge that a controversy exists, reference the factual context of that for and against, but pass no judgement on the ultimate merits of the controversy, seeing as that argument remains a work in progress.

Why is that a problem?

Ian

Ian,

I quite like your expression "flounder around like a blancmange", although I don't agree about its proper denotation. Because the article in Investigate was written by a freelance journalist, and because you don't read Swedish and thus can't do proper fact-checking, and because you lack the necessary resources to let other people do the fact-checking, and because (fairly or unfarly) many people have doubts about the reliability of your reporting in general, it can't be accepted as a reliable source for this article.

If you've read what I've written above, I've explained in great detail (A to D) why the claims in Investigate were false or misleading. Everything I say can be demonstrated with quotes from first-hand reports in mainstream Swedish news media. Consider some of the most obvious errors: Bondjers was a key person in these events. The journalist thought he was "chief of the Sahlgrenska Hospital". That's really a terrible mistake to make. And that the Gillberg group asked Lundgren. This is denied by both Lundgren himself and by the Gillberg group. Although the case was discussed extensively in the Swedish press, no other article supports this claim. Thus it's clearly false. A journalist who makes two such errors is clearly not reliable. If you had done proper fact-checking, you would never have published that article. Unless, of course, it was because the article appealed to your ideological preferences. Evil scientists who want to give drugs to children. Of course they must be dishonest. Perhaps that's why you published such nonsense? I hope not, because that, if anything, would seriously undermine your reputation.

Of course this article should discuss the accusations against Gillberg and the other researchers. It already does, and an entire section is devoted to that controversy. But we have to be very careful so that the account in this article doesn't become as misleading as that in Investigate. Remember that the article is still in the process of being written. (We've just begun, in fact.) In the finished state, Wikipedia will hopefully report all the important facts about the controversy.--Denis Diderot 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite what I have written below, I wanted to make a small remark in support of Ian Wishart. Denis's claim that the Gillberg group did not ask Lundgren is specifically contradicted by the published statement of Lundgren et al. I have put an English translation of that statement here: ::http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/c/cb/EthicsCommitteeLetter.pdf

Denis's claim is yet more sophistry: it is true that Eriksson was the person who actually asked Lundgren; following Denis's illogic, when I receive an invitation in the mail, it is actually the postman who is inviting me. —Daphne A 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

IAN WISHART: Denis, let's look at points A to D: A. Investigate: "the Gillberg group informally asked Ethics committee chariman Ove Lundgren to look at the material" The Gillberg group denies this and Lundgren denies this. (My claim is based on stories in reliable sources and published letters. Can we agree that this claim is false?

RESPONSE - I have to agree with Daphne. Lundgren was asked to look at the issue, he didn't just come up with the idea himself. You claim previously that it was Eriksson's original idea to ask Lundgren - how do you know? Does the letter explicitly state such, or are you leaping to a conclusion that the last link in the chain of communication is also the first? Does Lundgren specifically deny that Gillberg group were involved in request, or is this merely an inference you draw?

B. Investigate: "Lundgren, given four hours to scrutinise 100,000 pages of research material filling 22 metres of shelf space" First of all, this is extremely misleading ,since Investigate fails to mention that Lundgren's review was done after the researchers had already been cleared by the Council. Secondly, the only thing supported by one source (Lundgren's letter) is that Lundgren felt or believed that this is what he was supposed to do. Lundgren's version has been strongly disputed by other people. So it could be reported in the article as Lundgren's POV, but only if there is a sufficiently detailed description of events. For editorial reasons, I don't think it's a good idea. Can we agree that this is Lundgren's POV?

RESPONSE: You can join the dots on the public record. The sociologists wanted a review, Lundgren believed he was conducting a cursory review. Reviews don't happen for no reason. Just because Gillberg group denies it doesn't give their comments extra weight.

C. Investigate: "The Gillberg group and Preses (President) Goran Bondjers, chief of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg then made media announcements". This is obviously false. I've provided the reference to Göteborgsposten. The university published a press release. Bondjers was not "chief of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital", but Dean of the Sahlgrenska Academy, alse known as the Faculty of Health Sciences. The Gillberg group didn't make media announcements, they simply replied to questions from journalists.

RESPONSE: Giving comments to journalists is making "media announcements". Publishing a press release is making a "media announcement". This is my stock in trade, you really are playing with words on this. The error regarding Bondjers correct title is of the kind made every day in newspapers around the globe from the Washington Post down. Regrettable, but the story doesn't hang on it. One cannot dismiss an entire article on the basis of minor errors. One addresses the errors and corrects them, and accepts as correct those facts that remain. The fact that you make errors in your analysis of this does not negate all of your points, nor should it.

D. Investigate: "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." This is partly misleading and partly false. The problem here is that the Ethics Coucil acted very unprofessionally. (You yourself quoted Lundgren saying he was biased.) The council was dissolved soon after, and the procedures for dealing with such accusations changed completely. The council did dismiss the case. This is undisputable, since it was reported in several articles at the time, which included quotes from the Chairman. They also wrote letters to the researchers saying that the case was dismissed. Now, obviously, when there isn't any evidence to support the accusations, that means that the accused as been cleared. We've been through this already. A court never dismisses a case and then proeceeds to try to prove inccocence. It doesn't happen and it can't happen. The whole idea is absurd. But this is exatly what's meant by "never had freed" in the quote above. It means that they never proved that the accused researchers were innocent (since they dismissed the case). Call it false, call it misleading or call it absurd, it really makes no difference.

RESPONSE: Denis, you happily quote your own biases to justify why you think everyone else is biased: "Ethics Council acted very unprofessionally". Says who? But having set up the Ethics Council as an evil strawman, you then approvingly rely on their dismissal of the case as "clearing" the accused. You can't have it both ways, if the Ethics Council were truly useless, then why should we rely on their dismissal of the case?

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the merits of this debate...merely trying to illustrate some inconsistencies in your reasoning.

You have some other problems in the logic of your arguments as well. You say reports in the Swedish press are automatically "reliable". Why? What makes their reports provably more reliable than Investigate's. Simply the fact that you agree with them?

There are other points one could make, but seriously if points A to D are the best you can throw at the article then I'm not sure it gets you very far.

Ian

==> Investigate has a blog, "The Briefing Room", and Ian Wishart has now very kindly posted a full copy of the Investigate story on Gillberg there. This is truly excellent. I am extremely glad that everyone with access to the web will now be able to read the story! There is also a preamble at the top of the blog entry, dating the entry to today and stating that the entry was posted in part because of Wikipedia. That should remove any doubt that it is indeed Ian Wishart commenting here on Wikipedia —Daphne A 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation/Arbitration

Denis Diderot, I give up attempting discussion here with you. You can either agree to mediation or I will request arbitration. —Daphne A 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Protecting page. Suggestion how to move on

I have again protected the page due to the massive reverts. I protected the least defamatory version, to be on the safe side in regards to our readers.

I wrote for some help by WP:RFC on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, and now I'll write a summary of the dispute... I should have done this a couple of days ago but the guidelines of RFCs just recently changed.... Fred-Chess 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I believe that the first thing that should be done is for either you or some independent third party to verify the citations in the version of the article that I wrote. That would be a couple hours work, but is almost certainly the best first step; note that all the references are now available online (albeit one in translation only). —Daphne A 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would then first want you to fill out this section below, please. That will provide neutral third parties with the nessary background. / Fred-Chess 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I had originally intended to fill this out myself but from the template it should be written by those involved in the conflict. / Fred-Chess 12:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Scientific misconduct / credible sources

(see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article RfC example for example on how to fill it out)

Statements by those involved in the conflict

• Statement by Fred-Chess: The inclusion of the category category:Scientific misconduct violates Wikipedia policy about living person because Gillberg has not been convicted of Scientific misconduct. / Fred-Chess 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Inclusion in the category does not imply that Gillberg committed scientific misconduct. It merely implies that someone who was researching the issue of scientific misconduct would be likely to be interested in the article. The allegations of scientific misconduct are what ultimately led to the destruction of a large amount of research material—a very important event. Moreover, there were criminal convictions for the destruction. Also, the allegations have received significant media coverage. All of this is very likely to be of interest to someone researching misconduct (including those who believe that Gillberg and co-workers are entirely innocent of wrongdoing).  —Daphne A 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Statement by Fred-Chess: Daphne wants to lead section to say: "In 2002, Gillberg was accused of having committed scientific fraud for much of his career. In 2004, most of the records of Gillberg's research were deliberately destroyed by Gillberg's wife and other co-workers. The destruction of the potential evidence ended attempts at investigation into misconduct." -- The second sentence is not about Gillberg; the first sentence is unrelated and unreferenced ("was accused of..." ?! ); the third sentence should not be mistaken as "scientific misconduct", but destroying government property. / Fred-Chess 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the main things that made what the Swedish media have called the "Gillberg affair" something of special interest is the destruction of the research material. This is why, for example, the British Medical Journal first got on the story in 2004. The destruction would not have occurred without the misconduct allegations. Moreover, the destroyed material for the basis for a substantial part of Gillberg's career. So your claim that this is "unrelated" to Gillberg is invalid. Your claim about the statement being "unreferenced" also makes no sense: this is the Introduction; numerous references are given in the body of the article. Finally, if you had read the article and references, you would know that Gillberg was never charged with (or convicted of) destroying government property.  —Daphne A 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Statement by Fred-Chess : Daphne wants to add a private letter that was sent to her. Having been told that Wikipedia material needs to be published, she intends to "publish" it on Wikisource (!) thus violation the important policy about wikipedia:Verifiability. / Fred-Chess 10:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you wish to dispute the uploading of the letter, you should raise your objections at Wikisource. Material on Wikisource is acceptable for citation at Wikipedia.  —Daphne A 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

__________

• Position statement of Daphne A 12:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are now essentially two versions of the article, one by Denis Diderot and one by me. Roughly speaking, Denis's version is a subset of mine; that is, mine contains almost all of what Denis's contains, and more.

I challenge Denis Diderot to specify one statement in the last version of the article that I saved ("Criticism and controversy" section) that he believes to be both (i) factually incorrect and (ii) not well sourced. (Just one.)

There is an exception. The version of the article that I saved quotes a letter from Lundgren to Svedberg (dated 2005-02-21). It is unclear if that quote is (or can easily be made to be) well sourced. I have asked about that both on this talk page and on the talk page of User:Fred Chess, but have received no response. I have now raised the question at the Village Pump. For the moment, specifying that quote as not being well sourced cannot be an answer to the challenge.

Given the challenge, my position is as follows. If Denis Diderot can specify a statement that he believes meets the challenge, then the statement should be examined to determine if Denis's complaint/criticism is valid. If Denis cannot specify such a statement, or if his criticism of the statement is invalid (as determined by discussion herein), then the last version of the article that I saved should become the Wikipedia version.

As far as I can tell, Denis has not specified a statement that meets the challenge. Rather, his talk seems to me to be mostly rhetoric (my position has been chosen in part to address that). Perhaps, though, I have misunderstood. If so, he should be able to meet the challenge.

• I began editing this article when I discovered false and defamatory claims about Gillberg that were not supported by the references. I removed these claims and explained why. A long discussion ensued that can be reviewed on this talk page. My discussion with Daphne A has mainly concerned verifiablity (especially reliable sources), and original research. I don't think an article in Investigate is an appropriate source for this article and I have explained why above. Also, letters submitted as "rapid responses" to BMJ can't be used for anything but the authors' opinions. Since this article is about a living person, we have to be very careful with potentially defamatory claims. The article can not give more weight to Kärfve's and Elinder's accusations than the peers and investigators have. It appears as if Elinder and his supporters would like to use Wikipedia to promote their view. I don't think that's a good idea. (To Daphne's question/"challenge" above, I'd have to reply that basically everything she added is false or misleading, and contradicted by reliable sources.)--Denis Diderot 12:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my challenge to Denis Diderot: specify one statement (just one) that you believe to be both (i) factually incorrect and (ii) not well sourced. If his words are not just rhetoric, then Denis should be able to meet this challenge. —Daphne A 13:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

basically everything = almost all > one --Denis Diderot 04:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course Denis Diderot is again avoiding the challenge.  —Daphne A 06:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Moving forward

I have resaved a revised version of the article without the quote from the letter of Lundgren to Svedberg. The text that I saved is pretty much the same as before, except with more references and replacements for the statements in the letter. The only real exception is a small positive statement about Gillberg (in the Introduction).

A remark on the translation of "Etiska rådet" is perhaps appropriate. This is obviously very minor, but it has come up several times; so I thought it might be worth addressing. First, I think we all agree that the correct translation of "rådet" is council. But I do not agree that this implies "Etiska rådet" is best translated as Ethics council. As an analogy, consider "Högsta domstolen". The literal word-for-word translation is Highest court, but is that the best translation? I think that Supreme court is preferable. As a test of this, I tried two automatic translation programs (Systran and WorldLingo). Both translated "Högsta" as Highest; both translated "Högsta domstolen" as Supreme court. (I recognize that programs aren't as good as humans; I just thought that they would be helpful here.) The analogy is not perfect, but the point is that translating whole phrases can lead to a different conclusion than word-for-word (which is obvious anyway, of course). In English, "council" feels wrong in this context, and "committee" feels more appropriate. Additionally, the other English sources that we have (British Medical Journal and Investigate) both used "committee", and it is obviously nicer for readers of Wikipedia if we use the same translation as those sources. For those two reasons, I prefer "committee".

I have also removed the POV sticker. I am happy to put it back on if someone can meet the challenge (above).

Lastly, I have had some discussion at Wikisource. It seems that all the documents, including the letter, can be uploaded, and thereby published, there. (I hope to do this after Ove Lundgren returns from vacation.)

Perhaps we could have some discussion before making further changes?

—Daphne A 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I read your link to Wikisource. I don't intrepret their answer in the way you do. Wikisource is not a place where one can publish previously unpublished documents. It is explained in WP:V / Fred-Chess 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the critical part of the lead section.

I removed the category Scientific misconduct.

I removed one statement that is really generalization "has been considerable attention"...

Now -- please do not insert the category Scientific misconduct. Gillberg has not been conducted of scientific misconduct! He was convicted of destroying Government property.

Otherwise, I think you've done a good job with all the references.

Fred-Chess 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am genuinely not really understanding your first comment. Wikisource have stated that both letters can be uploaded; they are clear on that. Wikisource is not Wikipedia.

Your rewrite of the Introduction is factually incorrect. So I have restored my version. If you want to rewrite it again, that's fine, but it must be factually correct.

I have explained twice why the article belongs in the "Scientific misconduct" category. It is wrong for you, or anyone, to repeatedly revert my change without responding to, or even acknowledging, the reasons that I have given for making it. I have for now restored the categorization.

Okay on removing the media generalization.

—Daphne A 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your version is defamatory which has been repeatedly pointed out. / Fred-Chess 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Use_of_categories states Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation.

See also Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General_considerations : Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics.

See also Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation [for sensitive categories:] Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person." So, as an example, there is no doubt a "significant minority" would consider Menachem Begin a state terrorist - while, however one turns it, this is not one of the 4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person, a "state terrorists" category will not be found at the bottom of the article of this person.

Fred-Chess 23:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My version of is not defamatory: defamatory statements must be untrue. Your version is factually incorrect; you do not address this point, yet resaved your version.

You have again reverted my change without responding to the reasons that I have given for making it.

So I have restored my version. I ask you to respond to the above.

—Daphne A 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot, the last two sentences (especially the second last) in the new paragraph that you wrote are factually incorrect. Otherwise, I am happy to include the information that is in your paragraph in the proper version of the article. Unfortunately, as things stand, it will be difficult to do so: there are several unsourced statements. I do not dispute the factualness of those statements right now (except for the last two), but I'm pretty sure that some references are required. Can you supply those?

—Daphne A 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Defamatory statements

Concerning Daphne's statement "My version of is not defamatory: defamatory statements must be untrue" in reference to the disputed sentences: "X was accused of having committed scientific fraud for much of his career" and "The destruction of the potential evidence ended attempts at investigation into misconduct":

• PROBLEM 1 - THE WORDS "FRAUD" AND "MISCONDUCT"

Using loaded words like these run the risk of being defamatory unless the author can:

a) Point to a source where a quote using the word "fraud" appears. Unreferenced, the sentence using "fraud" is Daphne's own interpretation of what has been said by those involved in the dispute. And, she also needs to

The words are indeed used in the sources; anyone who checks the references will see them. To pick one example, the Ethics Committee has used the word "fraud" (see their cited letter).  —Daphne A 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not. The letter is a private document, not a statement from any committee (and the words used in your version are really bad translations as well). Pia 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

b) Show that the statement is true, that is, supply sources which present evidence that fraud was committed. Simply repeating a defamatory statement, without regard to its factuality, especially in the introductory paragraph in a biography of a living person, is not advisable.

Please explain this point more. There were allegations of academic misconduct filed with the appropriate body of the university (the Ethics Committee). Again, a statement cannot be defamatory if it is factual.  —Daphne A 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Daphne, I must tell you in good faith that your Journalism 101 quote above is sadly and dangerously incomplete. I don't see why anybody should have to explain something so basic to you, especially since an explanation would involve quoting law---which is certainly not my place or within my privilege as a contributor here. However, since you keep insisting on continuing with the same behavior on this page, in spite of the efforts by the other contributors to explain why it's inappropriate, I still feel that I should tell you that in order to educate yourself on this issue, you might find it beneficial to visit a page like Defamation Dangers by PMA, the Independent Book Publishers Association, where you can find basic tips such as this: "A person who merely repeats the statement is equally liable, even if that person names the source, indicates disbelief, uses the phrase 'it is alleged,' or says the story is based on rumors. A distributor of the statement, such as a bookseller, is not liable unless it has notice of the defamation and continues to distribute the publication."

May I remind you that you have yet to present facts on this talk page that:

1) refute that the Kãrfve/Elinder "suspicion of forgery of data" (or of scientific misconduct), was DISMISSED by the appropriate authorities, and

2) prove that the allegations were in any way or form considered ACCURATE by the authorities or worthy of a renewed ethic council investigation, before the shredding took place. Pia 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

c) Point to the source where it is alleged that X was under investigation for "misconduct" or "scientific fraud" when the records were destroyed. Making a statement that somebody is under investigation for alleged "misconduct" and that "potential evidence" is deliberately destroyed to thwart such an investigation would appear defamatory, especially since the person had been cleared by the Ethics committee and was never implicated in the shredding that occurred later.

Regarding your first sentence, the records were destroyed to prevent Elinder & Kärfve from seeing them, after the Gillberg group was ordered by the Court to grant access; E&K planned to investigate, believing that they would find evidence to support their prior allegations. All of this is explained, with references, in the article. And your claim that Gillberg "had been cleared by the Ethics committee" is directly contradicted by the published statement of the committee, which is cited in the article. Really, your comment here is way out of line.  —Daphne A 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the truth, as the records show, is that Gillberg was NOT under investigation for misconduct or fraud or any other charge (forgery, etc) when the two private citizens were granted access by the court, nor when the records were shredded by his co-workers. Pia 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• PROBLEM 2 - THE STATEMENT "FOR MUCH OF HIS CAREER"

Is this supposed to imply that the accusation of "fraud" is a charge that has been repeated during a large portion of X's career, or is it meant to say that he was accused recently of having spent "much of his career" committing "fraud"? In order to verify the truth of the latter accusation, Daphne needs to point to a reliable source calling much of the 300 scientific reports produced during X's career "scientific fraud". A person in an unrelated discipline, who is also an opponent in a dispute, is not an appropriate source to quote in this respect.

Okay on your first point. The article used to say something about 15 years of research, but that seems to have been dropped; I agree that some elaboration would be very useful here. I would like to see a brief description of the Gothenburg study on DAMP. Your last sentence seems to be ad hominem; that E&L are not child psychiatrists is clearly stated in the article.  —Daphne A 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• PROBLEM 3 - BIAS

a) One of the sources listed state that when a petition was circulated among the medical profession, 267 doctors signed the petition in support of Gillberg's court obstruction. Another source states that Gillberg had the support of the "Swedish neuro-psychiatrists", while Kärfve was supported by "social scientists, journalists and some physicians". This is ignored in the Daphne version, where Gillberg appears to be under general attack from the entire medical science community. That few, if any, neuro-psychiatrists seem to have supported Kärfve's theories and her critique of the scientific methods used, would appear inconsistent with the claim that there were "scientific fraud" allegations. If indeed "fraudulent" neurological research was under investigation after the Ethics committee had cleared Gillberg of the accusation that his methodology was unscientific, why were the research records only requested by a sociologist and a pediatrician, as opposed to experts in the field of neuro-psychiatry where such data could have been competently and scientifically analyzed?

I agree that the letter of 267 should be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure about other things to mention. There was, for example, the letter of 30 professors in support of Eva Kärfve that was published in Dagens Nyheter. Should that be mentioned? What about the events that led up to it? What about the numerous other letters and media publications? It is hard to know what to include and not include. (Regarding your claim that the "Ethics committee had cleared Gillberg", I again refer you to the published statement of the committee.)  —Daphne A 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the 32 Kärfve supporters in the article, how many experts in neuroscience, neuropsychology, psychiatry, psychology, medicine or any field even slightly related to Gillberg's work? I checked the names, one by one, just out of curiousity, to determine if they had any expertise to contribute in a dispute over the quality of Gillberg's work in neuropsychology. The truth of the matter is that of the 32 names, more than half (19 to be exact) are colleagues/former colleagues of Kärfve's from the Department of Sociology, Lund University. Of the group as a total, 78% are sociologists active at Departments of Sociology and Schools of Social Work in the area. Of the rest, three persons work in Department of Political Science and three are from different humanities departments and active in Swedish language/Social Science/History in Lund or other colleges in the area. One person is an unknown PhD, from Lund University according to the list, who did not show up in any of my searches of people active at Scandinavian universities. Sorry, I just don't see how this group has any relevance in a biographical article about Gillberg's life and work. How about starting an article about Kärfve instead, where the support she has from her department could take center stage? Also, it would be a lot easier to include the dispute between the medical establishment (especially neuropsychology, psychology, etc) and sociology in an article about her, because that controversy seems to be her main claim to fame. Her doctoral dissertation, according to Dagens Nyheter is about the European witch-hunts, but she does not seem to be cited very much on this topic, at least not internationally. Even though this issue has no place in the article about Gillberg, I still want to give one example here on the talk page in support of my statement that Kärfve represents a minority view of him. She is described as follows in an 2002 article based on a personal interview by Karin Bengtsson at Kronoberg Landsting's "Health and Treatment" section, online here: "Eva Kärfve hävdar en åsikt som står i motsats till det rådande medicinska etablissemanget" (Eva Kärfve maintains an opinion that is in opposition to the prevailing medical establishment). She is also reported to have indicated that she felt that interest in her research was lacking: "Med stor oro har Eva Kärfve insett att man på de högsta styrande nivåerna i samhället inte är intresserade av den information hon fått fram", (With great perturbation, Eva Kärfve has realized that the highest ruling levels in society are not interested in the information she has). She felt unsupported by parent groups as well: "Hon har fått kritik inte bara från de forskare hon har granskat, utan även från föräldragrupper, vilket har förvånat henne." (She has had to endure critique not only from the researchers she has scrutinized, but also from parents groups, which has surprised her.") She is also reported to have indicated that she feels that there is a general conspiracy in the Swedish society against her: "Hon har också insett att det finns tydliga kontakter mellan de som styr politiskt och det medicinska etablissemanget, som företräder den sjukförklarande linjen, och att man därför på beslutande nivåer hellre lyssnar på företrädare för denna linje" (She has also realized that there are obvious connections between those who rule politically and the medical establishment, which represents the pathological-explanation, and that the decision-makers therefore will rather listen to representatives for that line [than her line]). Pia 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

b) The article also fails to mention that one of the sources state that all the study participants were contacted and asked if they would be prepared to have the data in question released. All but one family refused, according to the source. Pia 11:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a fair representation of what happened. I wanted to read more about it first. If it is accurate, then I definitely agree that it should be in the article.  —Daphne A 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

==> Regarding the general charge of "bias", I would add that there is substantially more that could be included in the article and would likely be interpereted negatively for Gillberg: the Norwegian Health Ministry, the strattera trial and Eli Lily, the actions of Gillberg against E&K, etc. To pick two potential points not included in what could be a book-length article and then charge bias feels unfair to me.  —Daphne A 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Daphne, please make your own paragraph in response, instead of inserting your words into other posters' texts. I numbered my text for this purpose, so that it would only take four words for anyone to reply to any section of it, by using a reference method such as "Concerning your point 1". This whole page is almost impossible to read, as it is hacked to pieces, and it becomes more and more difficult to determine who said what as the number of insertions grow. Notice that the sections you interrupt have no signature — the signatures are only at the end of the posters' entries and the text above your insertion point therefore becomes orphaned. Once even more entries are inserted after your insertion point, some of them not even indented, it becomes harder and harder to follow any thread of logic here. Concerning your replies: I have no stake in this dispute, except to explain why you run the risk of being defamatory: your entry in the article had no source, no reference to an official publication or to the exact page in this publication where the word "fraud" is allegedly used, and therefore did not explain who said it and in which official capacity the person spoke, gave no indication that the source was found to have a factual base for his/her accusation of fraud and was used about the entire career of a living person with 300 publications to his name, a recent recipient of a scientific award in his field to boot. Using the word "fraud" therefore appears totally inappropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons if you don't understand this point. I am glad that you agree that this article must strive to stay unbiased.Pia 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And so at last we have reached the holy grail: a valid explanation as to why what I had written might be defamatory. (To oversimplify, the Gothenburg study was a substantial part of Gillberg's career, and it was alleged that much of the data in the study was fabricated or had other irregularities.) I will revise.  —Daphne A 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the "holy grail" is this quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the section "Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors"): "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." (My emphasis). Also, from the section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material", a "holy grail" quote from the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation: "He considers 'no' information to be better than 'speculative' information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: 'Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.'" Pia 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your criticisms do not seem to be valid. In any case, I have saved a revised version of the article, with a new third-paragraph, as well as several additional changes. The one additional change that might need some explanation is the removal of the mention of Gillberg being awarded the Philips prize. Gillberg was awarded the prize in part because he refused to hand over the research material for scrutiny (see the External link)—an action that eventually led to him being criminally convicted. If someone wants to put mention of the prize back in the article, that's fine by me, but there should be a note to state the motivations for awarding the prize.

I also have a question: is GU-Journalen citable in the article? In case it's relevant, the journal is listed here.  —Daphne A 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Views of study participants

Pia pointed out that "the study participants were contacted and asked if they would be prepared to have the data in question released. All but one family refused". I have found a reference for that: a story in Dagens Forskning ["Föräldrar manas skriva på Gillbergs protestbrev", 2003-06-10]. Unfortunately, the story is not online. I could temporarily save a passworded version (thus copyright-safe?), if someone will suggest an appropriate web site; alternatively, I would be happy to e-mail it. Briefly, here is what the story says.

The study participants were telephoned by a woman who identified herself as Anna Gillberg (the name of Christopher Gillberg's daughter). Afterward, each participant received, by post, a letter of protest to sign and a stamped envelope in which to return the letter to Gillberg. The belief that a review by Elinder&Kärfve meant that every journalist and anyone else would get to see the research material was widespread. "A 32 year old man who participated in the study recently made a comment on television channel 4 where he warned the public that - your worst enemy would get access to this sensitive information." Gillberg also stated in an interview that agreeing to the request of E&K would be like throwing the case notes out on the street.

The Dagens Forskning story uses words like "intimidate", "pressure", and "incorrect" in describing all this. The reality is that only E&K would have been able to see the data, and E&K had to sign statements agreeing to maintain confidentiality. (And, although the article does not mention it, E&K had asked for the data to be anonymized: even if you believe Gillberg's claim that anonymization could not be done completely, it could surely have been done at least partially.)

To me, this looks like a negative for Gillberg, especially if you consider the similarities with how Gillberg grossly misrepresented what the Ethics Committee did. It has been claimed that the version of the article that I wrote is overly negative. I strongly disagree. In any case, if someone wants me to include the above in the article, I am happy to do so, but the story would become more negative.
—Daphne A 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from editorial pages penned by opponents who speculate about what certain material could or could not have contained or about the motivation of a third party, as well as articles where a journalist give his/her opinion, for example about what has been said by someone else on TV or in other media, are not good sources, especially not in a biography that needs to be balanced and fair to the subject. News sources should be main stream and reputable. Journals should be peer reviewed and relevant to the article. The magazine you listed above was a valiant but short-lived attempt at a cross-disciplinary approach, where journalists examined the philosophical aspects of natural science and culture. It failed in 2003 and has not reappeared on the market. Even though I think its disappearance was unfortunate, I don't think anybody cares to argue that all of the articles produced there were stellar, as sensationalism seems to have gotten the best of some writers occasionally. I don't see its relevance in this particular article, at all. Pia 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a serious response. Daphne A 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What has been successful for Gillberg

Pia made a point about "the entire career of a living person with 300 publications to his name". Perhaps this deserves a more detailed discussion.

As noted in the Introduction, Gillberg's career has mainly been work on autism-spectrum disorders, especially Asperger's Syndrome, on DAMP, and on ADHD. Consider each in turn.

Regarding Asperger's Syndrome, as the article politely points out, Gillberg's characterization of it is "somewhat different" than the internationally-accepted characterization. In fact, if you compare Gillberg's characterization (given in the article) to the internationally-accepted characterization (given in the External links), it appears that the two are really different. Put plainly, Gillberg's characterization has not received strong international acceptance.

Regarding DAMP, Gillberg's work has been mostly ignored and otherwise strongly criticized outside of his group of co-workers. This is described in the article.

Regarding ADHD, much of Gillberg's work has been on pharmaceutical interventions. Gillberg's recommendations on this were particularly followed, of course, in Norway. The result was such a large number of drugged Norwegian children that the United Nations body for drug abuse expressed concern. (Note that children's brains are much more malleable than adult's; so a bad drugs regime could cause some children permanent harm.) There was then a series of investigative stories in Dagsavisen (search the site for "Christopher Gillberg"), that were extremely critical of Gillberg's approach, as well as questioning Gillberg's connections with drugs companies. Afterwards, Gillberg left his position at Bergen (as noted in the Wikipedia article, Gillberg was a visiting professor there). And there is now a related investigation being undertaken by the Norwegian Ministry of Health.

To summarize, Gillberg's work on characterizing Asperger's Syndrome has been a qualified failure, his work on DAMP has been an unqualified failure, and his work on ADHD pharmaceuticals has been a disaster. And that work seems to constitute a majority of Gillberg's career.

So, what has Gillberg done that has been successful? (Is there, for instance, some non-Asperger autism work?) If someone can recommend something, it should be listed in the article. I did not find anything, but my search was nowhere near comprehensive. I did do a very brief look through the papers that Gillberg has listed on Medline. I found, for example, a paper in Acta Psychiatr Scand. [82:152-156] entitled "Do children with autism have March birthdays?", which generated some follow-up interest by other researchers; after major study, however, the answer is that being born in March does not affect a child's chance of having autism.

In show business, some people are just famous for being famous.
—Daphne A 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the many awards from organizations in his field, the number of references to his articles used in scholarly papers and dissertations, as well as the amount of peer reviewed publications the man has produced and is famous for, I would say you represent a minority view in regards to his importance in his field. Pia 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Daphne, I believe several editors have made clear to you that defamatory statements as defined by WP:BLP are unacceptable on talk pages.

1. Gillberg has only advocated pharmaceutical treatment for especially severe cases of DAMP/ADHD where all other actions have failed. He is in fact one of the most restrictive experts in this regard.

2. Your so-called "investigative stories" in Dagsavisen are nothing but a rehash of the old story about accusations and destruction of research material. There is no "related investigation being undertaken by the Norwegian Ministry of Health."

3. Look at the select bibliography in the article and compare that with your statements above. Consider this assessment from 1996:

During the past 10 years, Dr Gillberg has become a preeminent world authority in the field of mental retardation and psychiatric disorder.

This quote comes from a peer reviewed journal in the field (Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience). The author was Benjamin Goldberg.

Throughout his career, Dr. Goldberg has specialized in treating children with autism, developmental disabilities and psychiatric problems. From 1960 to 1965, Dr. Goldberg served as the First Chief of Psychiatry at the Child & Parent Resource Institute in London, Ontario. He was the first Director of Treatment, Training and Research from 1971 to 1988, and at the same time served as the first Coordinator of Child Psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario from 1973 to 1983. He also served as the founding Director of the Developmental Disabilities Program at the University of Western Ontario where he trained residents and other physicians in more effective ways to treat individuals with developmental disabilities. In addition, he has been a consultant for the United Nations Rehabilitation Directorate. In 1970, with Dr. Goldberg’s leadership, the Child and Parent Resource Institute in London received the American Psychiatric Association Gold Award as the most comprehensive children’s psychiatric mental health service in North America.

--Denis Diderot 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to offering strong support to the comments made above by Denis Diderot about defamation, I want to add that even a cursory look (for example a quick look at the top 50 Autism articles quoted in the medical journals hosted at HighWire Press, Stanford University) reveals that Christopher Goldberg is considered important in his field. The top five articles cited in the scholarly journals are as follows: 1. Patricia Howlin, Anna Moorf. "Diagnosis in Autism: A Survey of Over 1200 Patients in the UK." Autism, Nov 01, 1997. 2. Christopher Gillberg, Harald Heijbel. "MMR and Autism." Autism, Dec 01, 1998. 3. T. Arvidsson, B. Danielsson, P. Forsberg, C. Gillberg, M. Johansson, G. Kjellgren. "Autism in 3-6-Year-Old Children in a Suburb of Goteborg, Sweden". Autism, Nov 01, 1997. 4. Dougal Julian Hare. "The Use of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy with People with Asperger Syndrome: A Case Study." Autism, Nov 01, 1997. 5. Susan Leekam, Sarah Libby, Lorna Wing, Judith Gould, Christopher Gillberg. "Comparison of ICD-10 and Gillberg’s Criteria for Asperger Syndrome". Autism, Mar 01, 2000. Gillberg co-authored 3 of the top 5 most cited articles. To pick just one of the many articles in the popular press referring to him as a leading expert in his field: see for example the BBC's documentary The Autism Puzzle of 14 December 2005. The article states: "The documentary looks at the history of the condition, and current research into cause, treatment and prevalence. It includes interviews with some of the world's leading experts on autism, including Dr Lorna Wing, Professor Christopher Gillberg, Professor Fred Volkmar and Professor Anthony Bailey." Pia 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the comment from Daphne A: "I found, for example, a paper in Acta Psychiatr Scand. [82:152-156] entitled "Do children with autism have March birthdays?"" and her implication that the subject is in some way demonstrating the trivial and unimportant focus of Gillberg's work: After accessing the article and other articles that relates to it, it becomes evident that the research into autism it describes is part of a larger international study into the role of pregnancy viral infections, conducted in order to establish the possible contribution of environmental factors in utero (such as viral infections, including rubella). The title reflects Gillberg's finding that "children with autism in Gothenburg were more likely to be born in March and that the March-born cases came from poor social conditions, increasing the risk of pregnancy viral infections". (Gillberg, Christopher (1992). “The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 1991 Autism and Autistic-like Conditions: Subclasses among Disorders of Empathy”. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 813-842, 1992.) Is Daphne implying that his findings have been proven wrong by a similar study in Gothenburg or is this simply another unfounded accusation, created by taking a fact out of context and spinning it into a web of negative POV? Pia 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A good way to find works that cite some particular paper is via Google Scholar; in the case of Gillberg's paper on children born in March, the appropriate result is here. Regarding those "50 papers", your description is incorrect: those are only papers in journals published by Sage; also, many important journals are not listed in HighWire (e.g. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders), and so I don't believe this counts for very much. Regarding the Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture, please note that this paper is included in Gillberg's bibliography (with a link to the full text) and that it was me who included it in the article. —Daphne A 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Daphne's statement above ("A good way to find works that cite some particular paper is via Google Scholar"). Thank you for your suggestion. The problem I see with your use of Google searches though is that some of your posts appear to be based on such cursory Google searches alone and not on any actual reading of the content in the articles. I therefore suggest that you combine your Google searches with actual downloading and reading of the journal articles you want to base your arguments on. This can be accomplished through your university library's open access service to scientific journals, where Sage, for example, offer 220+ of their journals for download in full-text versions. (Sage publishes 50 journals in Psychology, which is why I chose them as an example to show the most cited author in the journal Autism from their publications. There are of course many more citations to Gillberg than from the Sage journals, and to articles of his published elsewhere. I was not in any way or fashion making a reference to the most cited article in autism through history. If you can find a source for such statistics, please share. It could probably be put to good use in other articles). I am glad you noticed that I took extra care to refer you to an article that you appeared to have access to. Now kindly point me to the "major study" you refer to which states that Gillberg's findings that 'persons in Gothenburg with autism are more likely to be born in March' were proven wrong. I got tired of searching through your Google list. The first five contained supporting statements regarding similar studies that have established things like "infectious and immune factors may contribute to the pathogenesis of neurodevelopmental disorders", etc, etc. Not to hurt your feelings, but after spending way too much time on wild goose chases to examine issues you have raised, I have come to the conclusion that some of the arguments are just designed to waste people's time. Pia 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To evaluate what Gillberg has, or has not, been successful at, consider that the Introduction states that Gillberg is known for his research on four main things: autism in children, DAMP, Asperger syndrome, and ADHD. Since we seem to agree on that, look at each of the four in turn.
→Autism in children. Roughly (very) half of Gillberg's work has been on this. The article, then, should surely have some discussion of this. I've looked through a sample of Gillberg's autism papers, trying to find some general themes, or landmark results. I didn't find such, but there is a lot to look through; I could easily have missed it. For now, I've put in a new short section on this, but the section is obviously poor and needs substantial expanding.
→DAMP. I added a substantial section on this a while ago. The section is well-sourced, and I believe it to be overall a good description. (The Gothenburg study is also part of Gillberg's DAMP work.)
→Asperger's syndrome. There is a section on this, and I've just made a small change to it. Perhaps more could be included, e.g. on the debate over Asperger vs. high-functioning autism.
→ADHD. There is nothing in the article on this. Looking through Gillberg's papers indicates that most (though not all) of his research has been on interventions. I mentioned above about what happened in Norway when Gillberg's advice was followed; Denis Diderot has disputed that. Here is a relevant quote:

In Norway, Health Minister Sylvia Brustad stated on TV2 Channel 3 in March 2006 that the United Nations body for drug abuse is concerned. About 12,000 children in Norway (the highest number in Europe per head of population) receive daily stimulant drugs for ADHD. Brusted announced an investigation into the practise of doctors 'labelling' children, and their connections with certain drug companies. ADHD diagnosis in Norway had been influenced by Gillberg's position as head adviser to the prestigious 'Children in Bergen' project, a post he now no longer holds.

I can look for more on the Ministry of Health web pages, etc., about this.
—Daphne A 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Daphne,

Gillberg is not responsible for the treatment of Norwegian children with ADHD. This comes from that same unreliable source, the article in Investigate Magazine, that you keep referring to. I thought we agreed that this article can't be used as a reference. It's full of errors that even the most cursory fact check would have revealed. Therefore it's not what "happened in Norway when Gillberg's advice was followed".

Unfortunately your proposal for a new section on "MBD, ADHD, and DAMP" can't be used either. This is partly because it contains statements that are false, e.g. "A substantial part of Gillberg's career research has been devoted to studying and evaluating the concept of DAMP." It is also because the section devotes too much space to criticism. There must be balance. (The quotes from Rutter and Rydelius could be used, but they have to be put in a proper context and balanced by other opinions.) And why "are believed to"? Is this disputed somewhere? --Denis Diderot 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

About revisions

I suggest the following changes in a reorganization of this article:

• remove the mention of suspicions of forgery of data from the lead, as well as any actions by third parties, for which Gillberg has never been implicated or charged, (that long explanation paragraph totally overpowers the article),
• develop a short and concise section in the lead instead which touches on the larger societal issues raised in Sweden due to the court case against Gillberg, (and by court case I mean only the one filed to gain access to Gillberg's raw data by two private citizens, and the one filed by JO where Gillberg was fined for failing to turn over the material.) It is important because the case started a serious controversy about whether or not references to or reliance on Swedish secrecy laws are allowed to be extended to participants and patients involved in medical studies which are government-funded research projects. Such promises are often required in research involving sensitive personal information (and Gillberg's concerend children as well). The written and verbal promises given participants are overseen by state regulated ethics committees, but the researcher has to guarantee them with his/her signature and on his/her honor. Access to the material is regulated by the ethics committees: they determine if another scholar's research proposal meets the ethical minimums and if that scholar should be granted access. The two individuals who sued for access are professors, but note that this fact, as well as their names, may as well be removed from the article altogether because they sued in their capacity as private citizens and in the name of public access to government records. The research material was considered owned by the government since professors at public universities are employed by a state agency. See for example Lars Ekholm (2004). " "Decentralizing higher eductaion – Swedish experiences in a European perspective". Introduction. New trends in higher education: Entrepeneuralism and the transformation of Russian Universities.. Ed. Michael Shattock. International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO. ISBN 9280312685, p. 99: "The formal status of a Swedish higher education institution is that of a state agency. Formally the staff have the status of civil servants.") As two private citizens, the complaintants did not have to present any proposal for review by the ethics committee, showing that their research project would make access pertinent and important, and which could be scrutinized by by an ethics committee. They found a back door in, so to speak---and somebody threw away the key.
• rename the section "Criticism and controversy" and make two sections: 1)one section about the legitimate issues raised by other neuropsychologists with different approaches to the field in which Gillberg is an authority, but I suggest it is limited to those who are considered noteworthy by other scholars in his field, and 2)one section expanding on the secrecy law vs. public access issue. In this section, news worthy items would have a valid place, such as for example Osvald, Clara (2005). "Professor Christopher Gillberg fälldes". Ekot, Sveriges Radio, 27 Jun. 2005, and the BMJ articles already listed. To present Gillberg's view on the court's decision, I suggest the following article: "Forskare ger falska löften". Svenska Dagbladet, 13 May 2006.

About the impact of the court decision on society at large and on medical or psychology research in particular: concerns were raised and covered by the leading media source. For example, as a result of the dispute over the verdict the editorial board of one of the major newspapers in Sweden, Dagens Nyheter, consulted and quoted legal experts in a May 2005 editorial, claiming that the judges in the case had demonstrated a "lack of knowledge" about legal provisions of the Swedish secrecy law, especially Chapter 9, paragraph 4, and that they were in effect "forcing researchers to break the law." See"Domarnas okunskap om lagen tvingade forskare till lagbrott". DN Debatt, 14 May 2005. (The law referred to in the article (can be found at Riksdagen - Lagar): SFS nr 1980:100, Justitiedepartementet L6. Sekretesslag 1980:100, and SFS nr 1980:657, Justitiedepartementet L6, Sekretessförordning 1980:657. The editorial board further argued that the regulations guarding research in Sweden are so contradictory that the courts are only able to reach a verdict in cases like Gillberg’s by completely ignoring Swedish secrecy law. The decision was indeed extremely controversial, but had nothing to do with the kind of "fraud allegation" POV pushed by Daphne. Pia 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Gillberg and the media

I had previously included the following sentence (regarding the Gothenburg study): "The whole affair has been given considerable attention by Swedish newspapers, television, etc.". Fred-Chess deleted that on the grounds that it was unsourced. Then Denis Diderot added this sentence: "A public controversy ensued with many articles in various Swedish trade journals and newspapers". Fred has left this in, because (evidently) it does not need to be sourced. That seems to be inconsistent. (Note that my text did include sourced mention of Swedish TV.)
My belief is that there should be a new section discussing when and how Gillberg has been mentioned in the media. Maybe someone else would contribute that.  —Daphne A 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My claim will be properly sourced when the section is rewritten. Also note that the meaning of similarly phrased sentences may differ depending on the context.--Denis Diderot 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost issues

I have previously pointed out that the mention of the Philips prize is inappropriate; no one disputed that, but my deletion of the mention has been reverted. I also put in a notice that there was a citation needed for the claim that Gillberg is the "recipient of several scientific awards"; this too has been reverted without discussion. Similarly with the quoting of R&Z. And I have repeatedly explained why the article belongs in the category of Scientific Misconduct and have not received what I consider to be a valid rebuttal; again my change has been reverted. This seems improper.  —Daphne A 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting worse and worse, with you wanting to turn the article into a fraud allegation. This is not NPOV. Indeed, the article has become a soapbox of current events.

Please take the controversy into a separate page. Compare with the structure of Richard Nixon where only one (1) page of 25 is about Watergate; the rest is in the separate page Watergate scandal

Fred-Chess 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Daphne,

I don't see at all why it would be "inappropriate" to mention the Philips Prize. I strongly dispute that. He was awarded the prize because he is one of the "central researchers" in the area of neuropsychiatric disabilites. Seems appropriate to me.--Denis Diderot 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)