Talk:Jeremy Griffith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biologist

According to Biologist A biologist is a scientist who conducts research in biology.

Can someone please provide citations to Griffith's publications in scientific journals? Also CV covering his research, where he publishes, academic or industry appointments, etc. I'm having trouble finding them.

Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Griffith clearly conducts research in biology— he’s written multiple books about human nature, as well as his early work on the thylacine. The Biologist page doesn’t say a requisite is publishing in scientific journals— nor does the Scientist page, nor the Independent scientist page (to the extent any of these pages are authoritative). There would be thousands of biologists, and scientists more generally, working in various fields who have never published a journal article. In any event, he is referred to as a biologist here, here, here and here. Cabrils (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

All this does not matter. To call him a biologist in the article, we need a reliable source calling him that. Deducing it from "he’s written multiple books about human nature" or from "work on the thylacine" is not only WP:OR, it is ridiculous OR. Immanuel Velikovsky has written books about astronomy, mythology, and history, and he was neither an astronomer nor historian nor mythologist - he was a crackpot whose opinions on all those subjects are at odds with the experts. Griffith seems to be in a similar situation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling: I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not proposing WP:OR, I was merely making a common sense point. I completely agree with you regarding IRS which is why I included some above but you appear to have missed them so here’s another selection (all are on the main page). He’s described as a biologist in the IRSs (it’s not a deduction):

• a review of Griffith’s book in the Sydney Morning Herald is titled “Biologist Jeremy Griffith examines where the human race is headed”
• a book review in the Montreal Review states “…the work of Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith”
• a Sky News TV interview of Griffith regarding the 2020 Australian bushfires refers to him as “Biologist Jeremy Griffiths”
• a 2GB radio interview regarding the 2020 Australian bushfires states “Biologist Jeremy Griffith argues that the native tree is posing a threat to communities faced with fires.”
• Irish Times published an article by him and has the byline “Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith offers a new biological understanding to the human condition”
• Griffith has had 2 articles published in The Spectator (here and here) with the byline “Jeremy Griffith is an Australian biologist“

The page does not contain, nor have I been able to find, any IRS’s that dispute Griffith’s vocation as a biologist. Cabrils (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't ping me, let alone ping me twice. I have a watchlist.

As I explained, deducing that he is a biologist from things "he’s written multiple books about human nature" is OR. It is also not correct. "Common sense" seems to be wrong here. If you don't want to do OR, then don't do it.

OK, you have a source, so "biologist" is OK. All the rest of your contribution is unnecessary chitchat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources that are general news articles, book reviews, interviews, are fine for establishing his views, why he's notable, what he has to say, etc. They are not WP:IRS for establishing his scientific qualifications, which as may be seen, they do not go into. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing books is not the same thing as doing research.

Scientists do research. One way we know they do research is they publish their work in refereed journals. Another way is they have appointments or jobs as scientists. Another is they have advanced degrees in their field. I am looking for reliable sources on Griffith's CV covering any of these three areas. Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Cloudjpk: I think it’s helpful to clarify that you created this discussion here because I reverted your edit to the page in which you deleted the description of Griffith as a ‘biologist’, which you justified by saying “he's a biology graduate, not a practicing biologist”. As I understand you, in your view, to be described as a biologist requires academic or institutional appointments and/or journal article publications. I disputed your criteria because I think it’s a subjective personal view, and referred you to the Biologist, Scientist and Independent scientist pages to see how Wikipedia defines those terms, because I could not see any support there for your position, that those criteria are requisite for a descriptive term in Wikipedia.

Of course you are entitled and welcome to discuss here Griffith’s CV etc, but respectfully it is somewhat disingenuous without also being transparent that you chose to delete the biologist term from the page based on your personal view of what defines a biologist. My point is that you have not shown any evidence of any WP that justifies the deletion—respectfully, you are raising a specious argument in this particular case.

I agree with Hob Gadling that the criteria for such descriptive terms is WP:IRS, and there are numerous ones in the page, some of which I have listed above. Several IRS’s refer to Griffith as a biologist and accordingly it is an appropriate description.

Finally, I would note that just as you have a personal, subjective view about the qualities and requisites to be termed a biologist (or presumably scientist more generally), my personal view is what I stated in my previous post above, that there would be thousands of biologists, and scientists more generally, working in various fields who have never published a journal article. But my personal view is not relevant. Editors naturally have a range of personal views, but over time policies have developed to guide and define appropriate content, and it is those policies that are relevant. Cabrils (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I thank you for your thoughtful discussion Cabrils. I'm happy to avoid personal definitions. According to Scientist "A scientist is a person who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest" What research has Griffith done? Scientist also mentions "common training requirements include specializing in an area of interest, publishing research findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presenting them at scientific conferences, giving lectures or teaching, and defending a thesis (or dissertation) during an oral examination." What is Griffith's record on these? And more important: where would I find sources on these? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk)

I imagine you could find answers to your questions in the sources on the page, or a basic google search, but I don’t agree that what you’ve cited from the Scientist page fairly represents that page— you’ve not included all the qualified references made in that passage, so for clarity I’m adding it here (with emphasis added):

“In modern times, many professional scientists are trained in an academic setting (e.g., universities and research institutes), mostly at the level of graduate schools. Upon completion, they would normally attain an academic degree, with the highest degree being a doctorate such as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Although graduate education for scientists varies among institutions and countries, some common training requirements include specializing in an area of interest, publishing research findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presenting them at scientific conferences, giving lectures or teaching, and defending a thesis (or dissertation) during an oral examination.To aid them in this endeavor, graduate students often work under the guidance of a mentor, usually a senior scientist, which may continue after the completion of their doctorates whereby they work as postdoctoral researchers.”

The page also says:

“there is no formal process to determine who is a scientist and who is not a scientist. Anyone can be a scientist in some sense. Some professions have legal requirements for their practice (e.g. licensure) and some scientists are independent scientists meaning that they practice science on their own, but to practice science there are no known licensure requirements.”.

And the Independent scientist page states:

“An independent scientist (historically also known as gentleman scientist) is a financially independent scientist who pursues scientific study without direct affiliation to a public institution such as a university or government-run research and development body.”

So I think those pages refute, not support, your contention.

But again, respectfully, it is not relevant to the matter in issue here. The matter in issue is: Is it appropriate for the page to say “Griffith is an Australian biologist”, and given the multiple IRS articles that describe him as a biologist, the answer surely has to be yes. You (or me or any editor) may not personally agree that he should be described as a biologist, but our personal view is not relevant. Expressing a personal view is precisely what Hob Gadling was objecting to—that would be WP:OR. Our role as editors is to neutrally present content that is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, bound by the relevant policies as agreed to by the community, which in this case is WP:IRS. I did search for IRSs that dispute Griffith’s vocation or even question it, but I couldn’t find any, so in their absence the appropriate wording should be as it was ie “Griffith is an Australian biologist”.Cabrils (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I had also thought I could find answers to my questions in the sources on the page, or a basic google search. I was surprised at how little turned up. I would appreciate any help getting reliable sources on: what research has Griffith done; which peer-reviewed scientific journals does he publish in; what scientific conferences does he present at. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, he isn't a scientist in any recognisable sense, he's an author, afaik doesnt do any science, just speculation. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Inductive reasoning is a legitimate form of science: “Like Darwin did with his theory of natural selection, Griffith puts forward a wide-ranging induction-derived synthesis. As Professor Scott Churchill, former Chair of Psychology at the University of Dallas, said in his review of Freedom, “Griffith’s perspective comes to us not as a simple opinion of one man, but rather as an inductive conclusion drawn from sifting through volumes of data representing what scientists have discovered.” (Montreal Review) Cabrils (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Inductive reasoning says it's done in science, law, philosophy, and other endeavors. Sam doing inductive reasoning does not mean Sam is doing science, nor that Sam must be a scientist; he could be a lawyer.

Churchill concurs: he says Griffith is not doing science, but rather drawing conclusions based on scientific work done by others. That seems a fine thing to do, and indeed that's what he's known for. Accurate terms for this might include: thinker, author, essayist, thought leader, visionary. Do you have a preference? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Inductive reasoning is a legitimate form of science" it's indeed part of doing science, but it has to be done through a scientific process to be considered as such, this includes publishing in peer reviewed journals of the field. However, a degree in biology (the case here?) can also be a rason to use the term (I know that some would object by this criterion alone). —PaleoNeonate – 07:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So Darwin, who Churchill referred to as being like Griffith, wasn’t a scientist!

The basic issue, as I’ve repeatedly explained, is whether it meets WPs to describe Griffith as a biologist, and there is consensus insofar as Had Gosling and I agree that multiple IRS’s describe him as one and therefore it meets WPs. You have so far not engaged in this fundamental point and simply are seeking to conduct your own investigation into whether Griffith meets your definition of a scientist-- which is fine-- but as I have explained, that does not entitle you to arbitrarily change the page. You justified your most recent reversion of my reinstatement of the original page’s wording by saying “There is no consensus on the Talk page on this. Please wait and work for consensus” yet when it was put to discussion here, no WP justification for removing the description of him as a biologist has been made, so it shouldn’t have been removed after it was reinstated. Removing the description (on the basis of not meeting WPs) is what requires consensus, and since no case at all has been made that it did breach WPs, the biologist description should not have been removed, so I’ve reinstated it, and caution you that reverting it again will breach WP:VD. Cabrils (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Darwin did research, published in scientific journals, and presented to scientific societies. [1] Has Griffith done these things?

Hob Gadling and you agree; Roxy the dog and I disagree. Is that consensus?

The criteria in Scientist refer to these things; did I put that there?

I must warn you that you're near the WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

Will you please stop WP:Edit_warring and work for consensus?

I have suggested other terms for consideration. Will you consider them? Work toward consensus? Cloudjpk (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I repeat: Don't ping me. What good is it to summon me here, just for saying that someone agrees with me? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, please do not count me as agreeing with you. I am not for adding "biologist", I just don't care much about being against it anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a watchlist. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, you have not shown that the ‘biologist’ description breaches any WPs. The current ‘biologist’ description sources from multiple IRSs and accordingly is the appropriate description. Cabrils (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone who’s got a degree in biology and writes books about human biology, and is described in IRSs as a biologist, is a biologist. For example, he was interviewed about the biology of trees and bushfires. Schnitzelking (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be the emerging consensus, so I'll go with it. If anyone can help find sources for any of his publications in scientific journals, or any peer reviewed publications, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already addressed your overly-narrow interpretation of Scientist of having to have published peer reviewed articles, and hold academic or industry appointments, and how that page is replete with qualifying riders: “mostly”, “normally”, “some”, “often”, “usually”, “may”-- not “always”, “every time”, “all”, “always”, “must”.

Given your contention that a credible biologist needs to have published papers subjected to peer review, I might point out that in Professor Harry Prosen’s Introduction to Griffith’s book Freedom, he does summarise the danger of an overly-narrow interpretation of what a scientist is:

“Thomas Kuhn was certainly right when…he said that ‘revolutions are often initiated by an outsider—someone not locked into the current model, which hampers vision almost as much as blinders would’. Kuhn also recognized that ‘When a field is pre-paradigmatic (introduces a new paradigm, as Jeremy’s work does)…progress is made with books, not with journal papers’”.

Relevantly, Prosen goes on to quote Geoffrey Miller’s point that Darwin was “a lone genius, working from his country home without any official academic position”. Cabrils (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I failed to make myself clear. When I wrote "That seems to be the emerging consensus, so I'll go with it" I meant I am going with the term "biologist" as per consensus. My question is merely about his publication in peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps that would be more clear under a separate section. I'll do that. Cloudjpk (talk)

Result of legal cases needs clarification

The paragraph about the legal proceedings for defamation brought against several media outlets needs clarification. As it stands, it is impossible for a person without a law degree to even understand whether he won or lost the cases. 78.23.31.228 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is that Griffith lost: see 2010 NSWCA 257. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, that’s not an accurate summary. The judgment concludes: “while the appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment.” The article that discusses the judgment certainly found it significant that what the ABC had said about Griffith was not true. There is a lengthy discussion above in the POV section about this. Cabrils (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Griffith sued and lost: 2008 NSWSC 764. The Judge stated: "In respect of the action for defamation by Mr Jeremy Griffith against the ABC and Dr Millikan, there should be a verdict for the defendants" (par. 1003). Someone else called Macartney-Snape won, but that's not relevant to Griffith. Griffith appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and lost again: see the reference I already gave.

There were several issues: that's not unusual. Griffith won some and lost some, but the overall result was that he lost. The basic issue was whether it was true that "Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community." The Courts concluded that this was true. The trial judge stated: "I find the defendants have proved the second element of the imputation that Mr Griffith published work of such poor standard as science" (par. 649). The Court of Appeal stated: "I would not overturn the primary judge’s finding that the work was of a poor standard" (par. 62). I'm deliberately avoiding legal terms like "statutory qualified privilege" and "comment", so that a non-lawyer can understand.

These are all primary sources. I'll try to find secondary sources, preferably legal sources. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've looked around, and I didn't find much. The case is mentioned in a few scholarly publications, but not in any way that's helpful here. It's not a very interesting case, legally.

I did find this (sometimes pay-walled, but sometimes not) from the Sydney Morning Herald, which states first that "Four Corners [the television program] was found to have defamed Mr Griffith", and then that "a four-week hearing to determine defences and damages began on Wednesday". (This was in 2007, so it's talking about the trial decision.) This helps a non-expert see that the question of defamation is only the first step; the Court must then decide if there are any valid defences, and truth is the best defence of all. I don't know whether the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source.

I think that any analysis of the Court's reasoning would be original research, but saying which party won the case is simply a fact and should be acceptable, I think. So I think that the article should state merely that Griffith sued and lost, and then appealed and lost again, with a reference to the two Court decisions. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• With respect, what you say about the Court of Appeal judgment is fundamentally wrong. The finding as to truth in the lower Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal, the judgment from which you have selectively quoted. You have referred only to paragraph 62, which is part way through the Court of Appeal's reasoning, focusing only on the “second element" of the imputation, but ignoring the subsequent reasoning and, more importantly, completely ignoring the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the defence of truth was not made out.

I have set out below the following extracts and the conclusion from the Court of Appeal judgment in Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2010] NSWCA 257.

In the headnote of the Court of Appeal judgment:

"(11) The primary judge set the bar for the relevant finding of causation too low, and his reasons did not adequately support his conclusion. Causation was not established and on that basis the defence of truth was not made out.

...

(29) The appellant [Griffith] succeeds on the issue of truth ...”

At paragraph 95 of the Court of Appeal judgment:

"... I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out."

At paragraph 149 of the Court of Appeal judgment:

“Conclusion

149 Thus it is my opinion that, while the appellant [Griffith] succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment.”

So, contrary to your claim that “the Courts concluded that this was true”, the Court of Appeal in fact concluded that the defamatory imputation about Griffith was NOT true.

This critical finding in the Court of Appeal’s judgment as to truth is referred to in the Quadrant article:

“In a subsequent case in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Jeremy Griffith failed to recover damages from his claim that the program had defamed him.

While the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming Griffith’s book was of such poor scientific standard that it had no support at all from the scientific community, Four Corners avoided liability when the Court upheld a defence of comment. As a reading of the decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/257.html will confirm, that was an unusual outcome. What was interesting was the difficulty the judges created for such future cases with their comments on the imperatives of Rev. Millikan and the producers. The judgment found that Rev. Millikan considered Griffith’s activities highly undesirable in their impact on his followers and their families, and by inference, the purpose of the broadcast was to set back these activities. Rev. Millikan had also engaged in misrepresentation to obtain Griffith’s co-operation in making the broadcast. But the purpose of the broadcast, it said, was to inform the audience; setting back the activities was not the dominant purpose; the misrepresentation was engaged in to enable the giving of information, not for any other purpose. Therefore, the publication was not actuated by malice. Evidently the appeal judges failed to understand the motivations of some investigative journalism projects, which from time to time clearly attempt both to inform audiences and to exert social and political influence.”

Again, this was all explained at length in the POV section above.

As you acknowledge, “truth is the best defence of all” and the fact is the ABC ultimately failed to establish that what they said about Griffith was true. People can draw their own conclusions from that Court finding, but that is what happened. Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Griffith sued the ABC, and the trial judge gave judgement in favour of the ABC. Do you agree or disagree?

Then Griffith appealed, and the appeal was dismissed (rejected). Do you agree or disagree?

And then Griffith asked permission ("leave") to appeal to the High Court of Australia, and permission was refused. Do you agree or disagree?

It really is as simple as that. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The essence of, and what everyone wants to know, in any controversial defamation case is: Was the allegation true or not? As you yourself said in your very first comment: “The basic issue was whether it was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” ” You again acknowledged how important proving the truth of an allegation is when you said “truth is the best defence of all”. And the Court’s ultimate answer to that question is that what the program alleged about Griffith was NOT TRUE.

So to strip out the substance of the judgment and simply write “appeal dismissed” would, by your own admission, not inform readers of the “basic issue” (your description) that the Court of Appeal found that what the ABC said was not true. To do that would give people the misleading impression that what the program said about Griffith was true, and that there was nothing wrong with the program. Bear in mind the facts that the ABC also had to pay out $1 million (to Macartney-Snape) for the same program, and that the Sydney Morning Herald apologised for a related article by the same journalist – these are highly relevant to the credibility (or lack thereof) of the publications, a point made in the Quadrant article. Geoffrey Luck, the author of that article was a well regarded Australian journalist and, ironically, worked for the ABC for 26 years. He immediately recognised the significance that “the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified” in what it claimed. The page just reflects the secondary source, as it should. Cabrils (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if your analysis were correct, it's WP:OR, and thus unusable. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made an addition based on a detailed summary of the court of appeal judgment from an authoritive secondary source, and it is consistent with the Quadrant article. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Advice wanted: Lawsuit and OR

The article mentions Griffith's lawsuit against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It refers to the decisions and analyses them. It also refers to Quadrant Magazine, an unreliable source.

I believe the decisions themselves are primary sources and that the analysis is WP:OR, so that's not permitted. The references to Quadrant should also be removed.

Is it possible to refer to the decisions simply to indicate which party won in court, with no analysis? Some secondary sources mention that the lawsuits are pending, but I couldn't find any secondary source that mentions the results. A few scholarly sources mention the decisions, for example this, but only to discuss a specific point, without indicating the results. The relevant decisions are 2008 NSWSC 764 and 2010 NSWCA 257.

If it's proper to refer to the decisions this way, it's pretty obvious that Cabrils will attempt to revert the changes and restore the OR, so I'd like help with that also. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

216.106.104.34’s summary is not an accurate description of the current wording on the page, which is discussed at length in the section above (Result of legal cases needs clarification). There is no analysis (WP:OR) of the court decisions, rather just a short factual summary of the Court of Appeal’s concluding judgment, based on a secondary source, Quadrant.

The Quadrant article has been discussed above in the Quadrant Magazine unreliable source section.  The reliability of Quadrant as a source generally is discussed at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269#RfC:_Quadrant_Magazine, which concluded "Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Please note the specific terminology: "generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible" (emphasis added). In this instance, the source is used to support five factual statements on the page: that Griffith was the subject of an ABC TV Four Corners program; that Griffith sued the ABC; that he was not awarded damages; that he appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal; and that the Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s defence of comment, but overturned the lower court ruling regarding the ABC’s defence of truth, finding that what was said of Griffith was untrue. Each of those factual statements by the article’s author are accurate and can be verified in the primary source. They are not the author’s opinions. While the author does go on to analyse and express his opinions about the judgments and the ABC’s conduct, none of that material is referred to or relied upon.  The author is Geoffrey Luck, a respected Australian journalist who worked for the ABC for 26 years.

Like 216.106.104.34, I have been unable to locate any other RS about the outcome of the case, so in all the circumstances Quadrant is an appropriate source.

The current wording was effectively reached by consensus in the previous lengthy discussion above in the POV section and has been on the page since then (June 2021).

Nonetheless, in light of 216.106.104.34’s view, if the consensus is that the wording should be revisited, could I suggest the following revision to simplify things:

Griffith was not awarded damages in relation to the Four Corners broadcast and on appeal in 2010 the NSW Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s defence of comment and dismissed the appeal. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court ruling that found that a lack of scientific support for Griffith’s work was because of it being of a poor standard, and so found that the ABC’s defence of truth was not made out. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I've modified the article to refer only to the Courts' decisions in favour or against a party, removed WP:OR, and remove references to unreliable sources.

I'll request page protection if a user reverts to add WP:OR or unreliable sources. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC), formerly 216.106.104.34.

Primary sources should be avoided, particularly where the use is contentious. I’ve removed that material and added a description of the case from one of the existing RS. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzelking (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Defamatory" is a legal term of art. It merely means that the words would harm someone's reputation. It has to been proven before one examines any defence, including truth. Of course it's defamatory to say that someone "publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community". It can also be true.

I've added a short explanation of "defamatory", but the sentence is still misleading to a non-expert. The reason Griffith wasn't awarded costs is simply because the ABC was successful in its defence ("truth, qualified privilege and comment") and the lawsuit was rejected.

I'll have another look at the scholarly sources to see if I can find anything useful. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve reverted your edit where you removed a perfectly good RS and replaced it with a primary source. There is nothing wrong with the existing RS. I’ve removed your addition of the other primary source. Schnitzelking (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The source I've given is a secondary source. It's a summary of the decision on a Web site that's a reliable source for such matters. It's not the summary prepared by the Court itself; it's a different summary prepared by someone else, therefore it's a secondary source.

The summary is much longer that what I've quoted. I just gave the conclusion to avoid WP:CV. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t make sense. Sources need to be cited properly and verifiable: WP:CITE, WP:V. Schnitzelking (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable sources can be behind a paywall or require payment, that's well established, and LexisNexis is a reliable source for legal information.

If you think the sources are not cited properly, please suggest how to do so. I don't see anything specific at WP:CITE or WP:COPY. The full link was and is this, but the source can also be found by searching for [2008] NSWSC 764 on Lexis.

Edit: see this about Lexis's reliability. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no problem being behind a paywall. WP:CITE is very specific about how to cite: eg "Ritter, R. M. (2003). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-860564-5" and "Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1." Schnitzelking (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Briane what are you doing? You removed an informative summary from a perfectly good RS. This is the second time you have done that: WP:DE. Schnitzelking (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The article from the Sydney Morning Herald has a single sentence about Griffith, and it's confusing even for someone who knows the law. (I'm pretty sure that someone who doesn't know the law wouldn't understand it, and in that sense it isn't informative at all.) Lexis has a much better summary, and it's a secondary source. The reference to the Morning Herald can stay (even though it's not very good, at least it's free), but there should also be a reference to Lexis.

Cabrils did improve the reference to the Morning Herald by changing "did not award him costs" to "dismissed the case", which is clearer, I think, but now there's no source saying clearly "dismissed", unless Lexis is restored.

So referring to both the Morning Herald (poor but free) and Lexis (good but expensive) is best, I think. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I've added the citation to Lexis Schnitzelking (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit: in case it's not already clear, Lexis both a primary source (for the decision) and a reliable secondary source (for the summary). Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Briane from Chilliwack: You are a novice editor so I will give you the courtesy of cautioning you that your conduct is moving towards edit warring. It is completely inappropriate for you to impose your wording while it is still the subject of outstanding discussion. This matter was the subject of lengthy discussion above in the Talk page that you persistently ignore and have acted in complete disregard of. You clearly do not understand page protection. You should familiarise yourself with the relevant policies before doing anything further. Cabrils (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schnitzelking: I note your edits. In relation to the appeal, I remain of the view that the Quadrant article is WP:RS in this instance. Cabrils (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made an addition based on a detailed summary of the court of appeal judgment from an authoritative secondary source, and it is consistent with the Quadrant article. Cabrils (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

In pursuit of consensus, I’ve added the trial case was dismissed. Cabrils (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I've found the reference to Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin you mentioned. It's only three paragraphs and doesn't support the statement that "what the ABC said about Griffith was not true". Is that the text you have?

As for Quadrant magazine, it's considered generally unreliable and "any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but in Australia and other Commonwealth countries, the defence of truth is often referred to as the defence of justification. For example, see here and here. Those terms are used interchangeably. The second paragraph of the report in the Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin – March 2011 makes it absolutely clear that the lower court finding as to truth (or justification) was overturned by the Court of Appeal: “The Court set aside the justification finding”. The Quadrant article says exactly the same thing “the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming …”. As does the final paragraph of the actual Court of Appeal judgment (which is WP:PS) which states: “149. Thus it is my opinion that, while the appellant [Griffith] succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment.” Cabrils (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Since you're quoting only seven words from the sentence in Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin, perhaps I can quote a little more without violating copyright:

The Court set aside the justification finding, as it was not satisfied that, if the appellant’s [Griffith's] work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community

And I hope that it's not WP:OR to merely bold one word:

it was not satisfied that, if the appellant’s work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community

The trial judge decided that it was true that Griffith's work was "of such a poor standard" (par. 649), and the Court of Appeal did not disagree. The trial judge also decided that it was true that Griffith's work had no support (par. 744), and the Court of Appeal again did not disagree.

The trial judge then decided that the reason Griffith's work had no support was because it was of a poor standard (par. 676). The Court of Appeal disagreed on this point: it was not proven that, "if the appellant’s [Griffith's] work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community".

So both Courts agreed that Griffith's work had no support and that it was of a poor standard. To summarize this by saying flatly that "what the ABC said about Griffith was not true" is absurd. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

With respect, it’s not absurd at all. It’s an accurate summary of what the Court decided and what the RSs report. Your analysis of the Court of Appeal judgment is fundamentally flawed and, in any event, it’s WP:OR. And obviously any analysis of your analysis of the judgment is also OR, but to respond to your query I need to refer to parts of the judgment.

For starters, by selectively focusing only on two sub-elements of the defamatory allegation and completely ignoring what the thrust or sting of the defamatory allegation actually was and the crux part of what the Court of Appeal judgment actually said (see in particular paragraphs 20, 50-51 and 86 to 95), you are misrepresenting the decision.

When the Court of Appeal says at paragraph 94 “Given the disadvantages referred to in par [88] above, I would not be satisfied that, if the appellant’s work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community; or that the lack of any support from the scientific community demonstrated that the work was of a poor standard”, the Court was acknowledging that any lack of support for Griffith’s work was likely to have been caused by the pre-existing “disadvantages” he faced such as those referred to in paragraphs 20, 88, 89, 90 and 91 of the judgment, rather than by the standard of his work. In its proper context, paragraph 94 reflects the finding in Griffith’s favour.

It’s obvious to any fair minded reader of the judgment that the Court of Appeal thought that the reasoning of the ABC and of the trial judge on the issue of truth was fundamentally wrong, which is why his decision was overturned.

Getting back to what is on the page, the key and indisputable point, as is crystal clear from the RSs, is that the ABC tried to prove that the particular defamatory allegation it made about Griffith was true, and it failed. I’ve edited the sentence to clarify that it’s the defamatory allegation that the Court found wasn’t justified. Cabrils (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That part of the article is now legalese gibberish. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be enough to say that Griffith sued the ABC and lost. (Macartney-Snape sued the ABC and won, but the article is about Griffith.) And then Griffith appealed and lost again. And one can refer to reliable secondary sources, none of which are free, unfortunately, and possibly also to the free primary sources because of this.

Anything more belongs in a legal textbook, not in an article about Griffith generally for a non-legal audience. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As you said yourself above on 31 March 2022: “The basic issue was whether it was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” ” The same day, you again acknowledged how important and relevant the truth or falsity of an allegation is when you said “truth is the best defence of all”. That is just common sense. Revealingly, at that time when you acknowledged this self-evident fact, you mistakenly thought that the Court had upheld the defence of truth when you said “The Courts concluded that this was true”.

However, the Court’s ultimate answer to that question is that what the program alleged about Griffith was NOT true. That is what the RSs report, and what the page should – in fact is required to – reflect: WP:V. It was only once it was pointed out to you that Griffith actually won on truth that you did a complete about face and have been desperately trying to say that the defence of truth is not relevant. For some reason, you seem to be on a personal crusade against Griffith.

To repeat: the Court of Appeal concluded that the defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true and that is what the RSs clearly report.

Your patent bias in wanting to disregard the RSs and impose your preferred personal interpretation of the cases on the page has been obvious from the beginning. Your initial editing via your IP address to your now-named account is essentially a WP:SPA pursuing a personal agenda in a manner which is not consistent with Wikipedia neutrality. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please focus on the article. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)