Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Diffs
Richard, please use diffs instead of section links. I just spent fifteen minutes searching for the diff of the post allegedly from Shinnick, because the IP that was signed to it could not possibly have been Shinnick's IP (I can only assume it was yours, and was ready to post evidence that Shinnick could not possibly have left that comment until I finally found the diff). This is the correct diff: [1]
- Che Nuevara 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] affadavits
I looked at those scanned affadavits to the patent office. They're a bunch of basically personal testimonials from users of Dr. Omura's gadget saying that they got good results from the gadget. Without meaning to cast aspersions on this particular gadget, one sees similar testimonials all the time for (e.g.) faith healers, whose results in general haven't been impressive under careful scientific examination. So they're not really indicative of much. As primary source material, affadavits like this are unsuitable for an encyclopedia article which is supposed to rely only on secondary reliable sources. 67.117.130.181 08:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the mediation process we discussed using the affidavits to discuss the people who testified, not the procedure itself. No agreement was reached. - Che Nuevara 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Che, please note that the people who give the affidavits/testimonials are many and all highly qualified medical/scientific people some in eminent positions. While this 'proves' scientifically or not is a big discussion which we need to understand no one here in WP is qualified to assess and is also a big question in itself, they are available from the Patent Office in the simple public manner I set out for everyone's ease, and this Office is a public source - a public repository of information, and a secondary source, and a reliable/neutral source. This means that they can be used to say that these people said what they said and made the clinical evaluations that they made. For reasons I gave in Evidences, it is little surprise there was not agreement. IMO, your use of the word gadget, though I am sure not intended so by you, is also open to interpretation as derogatory given the context.Richardmalter 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Note
I'd simply like to note that, as I've attempted to be succinct in presentation of evidence, to let the evidence speak for itself as much as seemed possible, if there's any need to provide further presentation as to my interpretation of context and the like, I am, of course, prepared to do so at the request of arbitrators or other responsible and relevant parties. GenghizRat 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correction of Yoshiaki Omura Entry Cites re Affiliations/Credentials
As Richard Malter has recently pointed out [2] in his presentation of Evidence in accord with his presentation of Yoshiaki Omura's demands [3] re the entry, the cite as originally referenced in Yoshiaki Omura: Affiliations/Credentials has now been 'corrected' on the Brazilian site which appears to be affiliated with Omura's work. I have therefore taken the liberty of replacing this previous citation with the three citations I located and placed in Evidence after noting Richard Malter's citing the 'corrected' cite in Evidence. [4] Though I recognize that as the entry is now in Arbitration it is likely most sensible in general not to lay hands on it, this correction seemed appropriate. If not, please advise. GenghizRat 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re Che's Observations
I frankly think, with all respect for his efforts, that Che’s contention that ‘The dispute at the article is not so much about content as about drawn trench lines’ [5] is utterly and fundamentally in error. The dispute is precisely as to the content of the article and its presentation. All other aspects of process are derivative of that plain, simple fact. Che invested a great deal of time and effort, with the best of intentions, in the attempt to mediate a situation which I would judge incapable of mediation precisely because of the deep fundamental differences dividing the parties. I thank him for that effort, and for his intent, but a failure to appreciate the simple fact that the dispute finds its root cause in deeply divided perspectives as to the entry’s subject matter is a failure to appreciate the essential character of the situation. GenghizRat 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- With full appreciation for Che and his commendable efforts invested in this entry, I have to agree with GenghizRat here. I also think Che did a great job by remaining neutral and trying to individually address root issues, but with all my respect for him I believe that the issues here are very much derived from a content dispute. You have the pro-BDORT faction, represented by RM, who are all closely associated with Omura, who want to present BDORT in the most favorable light possible, vs. all the rest of us looking for a good WP-compatible NPOV way to present strictly verifiable sources about the subject. Everything else, in fact our entire history on this entry with all its mediation sessions and volumes of discussions, is a consequence of that essential content dispute. My own expanded statement goes into the specifics. Crum375 13:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
