Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Mediation Archive 1 Mediation Archive 2 Quackwatch

Contents 1 Disputed material is pretty specific to BDORT 2 General discussion 3 Reliable sources and proper use of citations 3.1 Citations to add? 3.1.1 Shinnick 3.1.2 Whiffle 3.1.2.1 Helpful Whiffleminder of the Importance of Precision in Presentation!!! 3.1.2.2 WhifflePoof (ProTem)!!! 3.1.2.3 WhiffleThePirate! (The Return!!!) 3.1.2.4 Whiffle block 3.1.3 Manaka 3.1.4 ECIM-Europe 3.1.5 Baobab.or.jp 3.1.6 PFarber 3.1.7 Dental video 3.1.8 Coriandrum sativum 3.1.9 JSAM.jp 3.1.10 AMBA.org 4 Disputed material 4.1 Contested 4.1.1 Dominic Lu 4.1.2 MPDT of NZ re: Gorringe 5 Outside Discussion 5.1 An Outsider 5.2 Starting over 5.3 Assessing other citations

[edit] Disputed material is pretty specific to BDORT

Alrighty, it seems to me that the disputed material is pretty specific to BDORT and the sourcing thereof. So I'll take a moment to address those things, and then get things started.

On sourcing: Everyone has slightly different interpretations of WP:RS, some rather strict, some relatively lax. On these points, it's important to be a little flexible in both directions. What's really important to remember about reliable sources is this: a source has to not just be reliable, but also properly represented. That is to say, a source may be up to the standards of quality for citation on Wikipedia, but not for the issue it is being cited on. If the author of the source isn't an authority on the issue in question, then he, for all intents and purposes, is not an authority.

On BDORT: I'm relatively ignorant on the subject, honestly. I will recommend that everyone (re)read WikiProject CAM's Standards of Quality for guidelines on how they deal with these sorts of issues.

As as I said before, I'd like to really hash out the discussion on this. So go right ahead and list your disputed material below, along with the rationalization, and a suggestion of what ought to be done (whether rewrite, removal, sourcing, whatever). And try and keep in mind everything we've discussed so far.

Did I miss anything? Let me know if there's something I've passed over that you'd like to discuss -- I'm here for you guys, not the other way around. - Che Nuevara 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Che, thank you for the very clear introduction. Since as I previously mentioned I think the current version is fairly complete and balanced (though not perfect), and since I am well aware that Richard does not feel so, I think it makes sense to let Richard start and present his main grievances and then we can address them one at a time. What I would highly recommend, however, is to try to focus on one atomic issue at a time; my concern, based on past experience in this article, is that by putting too many items on the plate at the same time, we'll lose track of the critical path and drift off on tangents. Thanks, Crum375 17:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I think that's a good idea, actually. Let's do our best to keep focused -- a chaotic disagreement is less likely to come to consensus than one under control. - Che Nuevara 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion

OK, I have copied what I started doing and what we started doing in Mediation, a list of contended (and some decided on sources) and a list of to adds (also some discussed already).

Anyone can pick anyone they want and start with that. If anyone wants to go back on an agreement made in the Mediation please say so now, otherwise I suggest we just repeat the deletions we made from the current version immediately, as simply economy of time and effort.Richardmalter 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would give a specific sentence or two on each piece, ie, "This is not a reliable source because X is not qualified to assess Y" or the like. I noticed in the archives that some citations were contested because they were unreliable, and some because they were reliable sources inappropriately applied. It will be important to maintain these distinctions. - Che Nuevara 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest, as I did above and many times before, that we limit our discussion to address one item at a time. That is, we all agree on an agenda item for discussion, then we all address it, and only proceed with the subsequent item when the current item is settled. I am open to suggestions as to which specific item we pick and how - one way would be to simply iterate over Richard's present list below and hence start with the Shinnick paper. Does that make sense to the rest of you? Crum375 13:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, yes, sorry, will do. Crum, can we first just go over what was decided in mediation, and you say if you now contest what was decided, thanks. Then we can go on to the shinnick paper if you like.Richardmalter 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, since all previous mediation efforts were aborted, I suggest that we follow Che's format in this one. I suggest you list below the items you feel need addressing, as you aleady have, expand on them as you (or Che) feel necessary, and if you feel that a particular item has already been 'settled' by mediation, please include your understanding of the 'settlement'. Then we can pick off the items one by one (I suggest sequentially for simplicity) and deal with them. I am hoping this makes sense to Che also. Crum375 11:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I see it as respectful to our times not to repeat things. The two citations, a and b, listed below with links to the mediation archive (I have now inserted) were decided as not usable in any way that anyone suggested. You agreed/did not dispute these decisions. Do you now? If so for what reasons? If not they can be removed forthwith. Mediation efforts were aborted, but this does not change the fact that consensus was reached - something you argue for repeatedly - therefore I expect you to follow consensus decisions, unless you have fresh specific arguments to refute what was decided.Richardmalter 12:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I think maybe we should wait for Che to chime in. From my own perspective it would be best to follow the simple process I outlined above. It is guaranteed to cover every base in an orderly fashion. If you have any points you'd like to make regarding 'settled matters', please include them next to the respective items you list below. We will get to, and address, each one of them in turn. If I agreed to something, odds are that, unless some facts have changed since, I would still agree to it. But we need to agree to the basic process first. Let's see what Che thinks. Thanks, Crum375 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I understand your concern for time, but I think what Crum is saying is reasonable for the reason that, if the issues are already clear and nothing has changed, the discussion ought to go very quickly. It makes sense, then, to start with them -- start on the most common ground ie those which were already basically agreed on, knock those pins over quickly, and then work from there. We've all made a committment to the process now, so we ought to be able to breeze right through the easy ones right on to the stick ones. - Che Nuevara 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have various points I'd like to make and discuss regarding the issue(s) of Pseudoscience, Quackery, and the use of Quackwatch as a source, but I'd like to nail down our general format/methodology first. I would like to first be sure what sequence we use to address Richard's items below: is it random, is it whatever Richard decides, or sequentially as Richard listed it. I can live with any of these as long as we agree to it a priori and stick to it. Also, where on the page do we address each item? My concern is that some of these discussions can easily grow to many thousands of words, and thus if we (for example) just read them inside Richard's item list below it may become hard to see the big picture. One possiblity is to start a discussion section for each item, separate from the item list, so we can still see the condensed top-level item list as the discussion sections grow (maybe we can just insert a short status to each item). Another way would be to archive each thread when it is completed, perhaps on a clearly named sub-page with a direct link under the item, but some items may not need a whole page so it may be an overkill. My concern is based on past experience in this article, where the discussions grew and we started losing the forest for the trees. Any comments? Crum375 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources and proper use of citations

[edit] Citations to add?

A and B have already been discussed at length in Mediation - please see Archives.

[edit] Shinnick

A) Shinnick et al Research: http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html.

Lets see if we can get through this easily !!! (though I doubt it). Please FIRST read the mediation archives. Crum was the only objectee on the basis of the meaning of the word 'since'.Richardmalter 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We've been thru this countless times. Shinnick signs his name as 'PhD', but we have no idea what field it's in and where he got the title. When he presented himself to a congressional sub-committee, he said he's an ex-athlete, IIRC. It seems he is a health practitioner of some kind, but we really have no formal credentials for him as a scientist trying to present controversial scientific evidence. As to the publication itself, we have no proof that this article underwent peer review by any reputable scientist. We can get into all these issues deeper, of course, and I suspect we will. Remember that per WP and Jimbo, when we present extraordinary claims, we need extraordinary support. Crum375 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I found on Shinnick:

Phillip Shinnick, Ph.D. '67 holds a New York State license in Chinese medicine and has a clinical office on Park Avenue. He directs the Research Institute of Global Ohysiology, Behavior and Treatment. An ambassador of UNESCO, he is also chairman of Athletes United for Peace affiliated with the Department of Public Information of the UN. After earning his MPA, he ... received his Ph.D. from U.C. berkeley and was an assistant professor in sociology and history at Rutgers and New York Medical School (epidemiology). He is a writer, publishing in scientific journals and in media such as The New York Times.

It's from this; the it doesn't say what his Ph.D. is in, but it does say he was (which I found at other places) a MedSchool asst. prof in epidemiology. - Che Nuevara 04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, any other objections? I realise it would seem good for the BDORT to use this citation, but it exists, it is Board-Certified MD peer reviewed, the journal states this explicitly; it is an independent journal. There is not much you can do about it. You are the only one in the last round of mediation that objected to it, I understand this leads on from your bias, but there it is all the same. Your last argument was what the word 'since' meant, in regard to the peer-review status of the journal, which I told you my opinion about. Che?Richardmalter 07:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a man with a PhD in an unknown and undeclared field can be used as a high quality WP source to support an outlandish medical claim about a procedure that will quickly and easily diagnose and cure most diseases known to mankind. This is exactly what Jimbo referred to by explaining how for extraordinary claims we need extraordinary high quality sources. The publication itself, as I noted before, does not tell us that it was actually peer reviewed at the time Shinnick's article was published and/or that his article was in fact reviewed by any medically and scientifically qualified person. Hence I consider this an unacceptable scientific source. Crum375 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

His Ph.D. isn't really what's in question. What's in question is whether he's an expert in Chinese medicine, as his stated objective is "To provide an independent analysis of the O-ring as it is applied to the traditional Chinese main meridian system, and to examine this technique's applications in clinical medicine." Do you think that holding a New York State license to practice Chinese medicine qualifies him as an expert in it? - Che Nuevara 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

His qualifications to design, perform and report on a clinical study are in question, and his PhD title is essential to inform us of his background. A PhD in an unknown/undeclared subject leaves the issue of his credentials as a clinical scientist unresolved. As far as the objectives of the study, as you say he says he will "examine this technique's applications in clinical medicine", in addition to the traditional Chinese components. 'Clinical medicine' is mainstream medicine. I believe he would have to show proper credentials and background (at a minimum board-certified MD) to make any scientific statement about mainstream medicine. Crum375 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Clinical medicine" does not equal "mainstream medicine". According to The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, "clinical medicine" is "the study and practice of medicine based on direct observation of patients". Which is in keeping with the definition of "clinical", which is "concerned with or based on actual observation and treatment of disease in patients rather than experimentation or theory". He is in fact making claims on how to treat patients, but not within the bounds of mainstream medicine. As a licensed practitioner of Chinese medicine, don't you think he's an expert on clinical Chinese medicine? - Che Nuevara 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to where you find that "clinical medicine" is not part of "mainstream medicine". All the definitions I am aware of, including yours, which I will use here, effectively say: "the study and practice of medicine based on direct observation of patients." (emphasis mine).
Unless you otherwise quantify it, and especially in the Western world, the word 'medicine' as in "practice of medicine" in your own quotation means mainstream, not alternative medicine. In the West, "Doctor of Medicine" (no qualifiers) = MD = mainstream, "School of Medicine" = mainstream, "Internal Medicine" = mainstream, etc. If you wish to get someone else's opinion on this point, which I think is fairly important, since this article involves alternative medicine, I would be pleased to hear other opinions. Crum375 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we get the opinion of the dictionary I quoted from? Here's what Stedman has to say on medicine:

1. The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind.
2. The branch of this science encompassing treatment by drugs, diet, exercise, and other nonsurgical means.
3. The practice of medicine.

Do you dispute that BDORT fits that definition? - Che Nuevara 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the definition that you quoted is the generic term, which would encompass both Western mainstream as well as Alternative medicine. But my point was that in conventional usage in the West, the word 'medicine' as in the sample items I used above, implies "conventional". Thus, in the West, if you hear the words "School of Medicine", "Internal Medicine", "Doctor of Medicine", etc. you assume that these are all mainstream. It is this implication/assumption that I am referring to. So if in the West someone says "Clinical Medicine", unless otherwise qualified, the implication is that it's conventional and not Alternative, just like the other items. Crum375 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Crum, don't be ludicrous. Are you really going to argue with a medical dictionary over the definition of clinical medicine? And based on a "some people say" argument? If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, and the American Heritage Duck Dictionary says it's a duck, then it's a bleeding duck. You may not like it any, but it's comes from people whose job it is to define these sorts of things. You're grasping at straws covered in grease. Phillip Shinnick is a licensed practitioner of Chinese medicine, which means he practices clinical medicine, even if it is alternative medicine. - Che Nuevara 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, trying my best to follow your duck analogy in Chinese Medicine (I'm assuming this is not Peking Duck), I still don't quite follow you. I am not arguing with the dictionary definition, I accept it, as a broad and generic definition of 'medicine'. What I am saying is that the accepted definition of 'Clinical Medicine' in the West is normally conventional clinical medicine and not 'Alternative Medicine'. To me, reading Shinnick's objectives, it is clear that he is using BDORT for clinical medicine in general, not just the Chinese variety. The article was published in the West, hence the connotation/assumption is that the 'clinical medicine' he is talking about is conventional (aka mainstream) clinical medicine, not only Chinese. If you can show me proof, instead of your words, that Shinnick is referring only narrowly to Chinese clinical medicine in his study and paper, then I would see it differently. But as of now, it seems fairly clear to me that he is talking about both. Crum375 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Shinnick doesn't say a word about conventional medicine. Alternative and complimentary medicine often claim to reach similar ends by different means, and that seems to me to be what Shinnick is saying. It doesn't look like he has anything to say about traditional surgery, medicines, ect. The fact that Shinnick talks about using BDORT on his patients seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that he as well is using the above definition of "clinical medicine". I propose to you the exact opposite challenge: show us a place in the article where he makes a claim about traditional medicine. - Che Nuevara 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would consider this fairly 'conventional medicine':

Radiography showed bone-density loss, anterior vertebral osteophytes, and hip restriction of side-bend. The diagnosis was disk disease degeneration of the lumbosacral spine, somatic dysfunction of the cervical spine, arthritis, and osteoporosis.

I doubt that ancient Chinese medicine had radiography available. Hence, once he starts discussing modern radiological studies and results, he needs to be a radiologist, or at least an MD. At this point we have no proof that he is either one. Crum375 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me (and I may be wrong here, I'm not sure) that he's talking about diagnoses that other doctors made there. I don't believe he practices coventional medicine, so when he says "After the usual conventional medical procedure..." etc, I assume it refers to what happened before his patients came to him. Do you agree with this assessment? - Che Nuevara 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume you are right, and examine the implications. He is untrained in conventional medicine (we are assuming) but is brought a patient that is shown to have problems based on conventional medicine. He then applies BDORT-related techniques and claims the patient is better. To me that's a combination of conventional and alternative medicines, which is my point: he is using BDORT in a combined conventional and alternative medical environment. Now think about it for a second: if in fact the patients improve, why wouldn't someone else there, like a regular medical doctor trained in conventional medicine, write (and sign) the paper and say: we did X, Y, Z and the patient improved? Crum375 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've lost the forest for the trees. Is there any independent credible evidence for the truth of the claim to peer review the journal makes for itself? If so, where in a credible source is the journal cited? If Shinnick is a reputable researcher with credentials, is there any evidence for this assertion other than his having made the assertion? These are simple questions. They should have clear, simple answers, not people peering into dictionaries asking what 'is' means. Whiffle 20:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it simple. We can verify who he is (see Che's ref re him above), the source is neutral and reliable; the journal states it is peer-reviewed by MDs. (Crum cannot do WP:OR and try to investigate journals to compare the peer-reviewedness that they state). We can say that the study took place, who was involved, what they did, what was their stated objectives and what did they claim to find. All of that is WP very good.

I think, Che, I am loosing trust that mediation will ever work, and that Arbitration is the best way to go, as Crum's only once revealed underlying (well-intentioned) bias that you noted is so strong. I'll wait a bit longer, but even in this example, at least 2 other Admins in mediation so far accepted this citation but crum is willing to argue down to what the word 'since' means etc etc in order to somehow find a way not to allow it. Also when biases exist and have been revealed, but are not declared openly, can you understand that Good Faith has much less meaning in reality?Richardmalter 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(from above) Now we're getting somewhere: The claim is that, in order to base his practice off diagnoses made by other people, he ought to have an expertise in the methods which were used to make those diagnoses. But remember, whether or not it actually works is not for us to say. Whether or not a conventional doctor signed a paper saying "yep, Shinnick cured this patient" is immaterial. What we're interested in here is what Shinnick says about BDORT, not what other doctors say about it (those discussions are for the other disputed sources). So, does Shinnick need expertise for diagnoses that he doesn't make? - Che Nuevara 00:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's say Shinnick, assuming he is not a trained doctor, has a magic wand that is claimed to diagnose/cure all. All he would need is a doctor to bring in the patient, testify as to the patient's prior condition, let Shinnick work his magic, then the doctor tests the patient and testifies as to results. Assuming the doctor then published the study in a reputable peer reviewed journal, WP would accept this even if there are contradictory results and detractors, etc. OTOH, what we have here is Shinnick, a non-MD, alone signed on the paper, for which we have no proof of peer review, and the paper describes procedures that at least partially rely on conventional medicine techniques. Given that the claims made are extraordinary, WP requires extraordinarily high quality sources. I don't see how this could be described as such. Crum375 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So we can't use Shinnick to say that BDORT works, but I am not sure whether the intention here. So the question is, what are we trying to source with the journal article? - Che Nuevara 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is a good time for Richard to tell us what he wants to do with this paper. Crum375 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, very simply, we can relate what is described according to this reliable, neutral article:

The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, in its claimed application of detecting the 'electromagnetic resonance phenomenon' between two identical substances or electromagnetic fields was tested by Phillip Shinnick PhD, Celia Blumenthal MD, Adriano Borgna MD and Jacob Heller MD, in a clinical research trial over a four year period involving 400 patients with localized pain at the Center for Sports and Osteopathic Medicine in New York from 1986 to 1991. During the study the BDORT was applied diagnostically without knowledge of the standard Western diagnoses that had been made earlier of the patients involved. According to Shinnick et al, the BDORT was able to detect the internal organ that was the causal factor of the pain arising from a referred acupuncture meridian phenomenon. The findings of this study were peer-reviewed by Board-certified physicians.

note that this says what Shinnick says, not what the article says; in short it is a citation that provides nuts and bolts information rather than justifications, proofs etc. Richardmalter 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't have a source other than Shinnick to say that this is what Shinnick did, should it say "BDORT allegedly was applied ..."? - Che Nuevara 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this would not be acceptable. First, the the MD's are not signed off as authors in the paper. Second, a 'clinical research trial' is clearly not restricted to Chinese medicine, if there was any doubt of that, which proves that Shinnick would not be qualified as an author of such a study unless he has credentials we don't know about. Third, we have no proof the paper was peer reviewed, which would be required for a scientific article making extraordinary claims. Bottom line: I see no way that a person who is not a doctor can make (or even 'allege') statements in a clinical study to prove a radically new medical procedure, that would be acceptable on WP. All the other people, who appear to be MD's are not signed off on the paper and hence are not a factor here. (And I am not going to speculate here why they didn't sign off as co-authors on a paper summarizing a study that they supposedly participated in). Crum375 03:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay wait...so if I follow all this you are saying that Shinnick says he's qualified, but he doesn't actually say what his qualifcations are, and he's published in a journal that says it's peer reviewed, but that there are no credible references for? What, precisely, are Shinnick's qualifications, where, other than in his own business which he describes himself in an alumni magazine of some sort? I'm not saying he isn't necessarily qualified, but where, other than in his own words, in a journal that no one seems to have any independent reference to, is there any evidence for any of this. Anyone can describe themselves anyway they want and anyone can publish something that says whatever they want. Businesses are thrwon out of WP all the time for this kind of naked self-fpromotion and advertising. Is this any different in any way anyone can actually check? You people all all throwing out opinions interpretings words out of dictionaries. Do you have any actual verifiable facts to verify this man's claims or this journals claims. Or would an actual verifiable fact be too much to ask? You prefer word games and opinionating? Whiffle 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not exactly: what we are saying is that Shinnick is a licensed practitioner of Chinese medicine which makes him qualified to speak on ... Chinese medicine. That's very easy to check, and it's been checked. Now, Shinnick says he's used BDORT, so we're saying that ... Shinnick uses BDORT. That's all rather simple.

By the way, to say "businesses are thrown out of WP all the time" is simply untrue. Articles on businesses are deleted often, true, but to be banned requires a lot more.

By the way, if you're going to take part in these precedings -- which you are welcome to do -- please try to be constructive. - Che Nuevara 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You do undrstand right that you are busy arguing and looking up words about people pulling their fingers apart? Has anyone ever even heard of this? Whiffle 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) They would'nt believe it you know. Whiffle 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, are we in agreement then, that Richard's sweeping statement above, basically saying that BDORT has been 'clinically proven' by Shinnick et al is not acceptable? If so, what can we use Shinnick for, if anything? Crum375 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the article supports the fact that Shinnick, a practitioner of Chinese medicine, claims to have successfully tested BDORT. Is that not enough? - Che Nuevara 03:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, you are not coherently and consistently addressing the criteria for inclusion as to reference in this entry. Reference to WP criteria's existence is insufficient imho. What, precisely, as moderator, is your interpretation of those criteria as applicable to this entry? Use small words. I'm slow, but I'll see if I can keep pace with a swifter and subtler intellect, fair enough? Whiffle 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle, I'm attempting to discuss this entry. I haven't come to a solid conclusion about this citation -- I'm attempting to stimulate discussion, posing questions / challenges to the others involved, and attempting to find out what the real issues below the conflict over this citation (if not the article as a whole) are. - Che Nuevara 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought your job was to moderate, that is to facilitate the parties coming together in a more functional manner – how is that process aided by your acting as a judge while denying you're a judge? You clearly have an atheist and a believer, here. Do you expect to reconcile them? That won't happen, ever. Do you expect to judge for them? Neither party will accept that, in the end, and you know it. Do you actually have a plan here? You seem to be unwilling to state your criteria other than to allude both to WP and to your feeling very strongly that you are to interpret that flexibly as you think best. What does that mean, in the end? Whiffle 05:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't expect to judge. I don't care what Richard or Crum or you or anyone else thinks. Really. Couldn't care less.

Second, I'm never going to get Richard and Crum to agree on the merits (or lack thereof -- again, I don't really care) of BDORT, and have nothing even remotely resembling a desire to do so. Seriously. Don't care.

But what I can do is encourage them to get deep down into the issues, discuss things in terms of policy (which always has to be interpreted), and challenge them to reevaluate the assumptions that they bring to the table. That's the only possible way to achieve consensus. That, or either Richard or Crum leaving. And I have no desire to see Richard or Crum leave, because I believe they are both good editors. I do have a desire to see them come to some sort of agreement on how to apply Wikipedia policy to this article.

My criteria are quite simple: applying Wikipedia policy in the way which makes the most sense. I realize that this will be slightly different to everyone, and I readily accept that. And if I challenge something that Crum or Richard says, it's not because I necessarily think they are incorrect, but because I want to challenge them to think of things in a different way.

So that's my plan. If you don't like it, you don't have to pay any attention to it. I assume, however, that Crum and Richard are both alright with the way I'm doing things, because they're still here. (Of course, guys, I don't want to put words in your mouths, so reply to that with however you feel, if you feel the need to do so.) - Che Nuevara 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you misrepresent what I wrote, I do not say that has been clinically proven. Where did I say that? I said what I said, that Shinnick did what he did and wrote what he wrote in the journal that is reliable and neutral (that way back in discussion after I pinned down what you required re this citation you agreed was). Are you saying that we cant say that what Shinnick says he did?Richardmalter 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, to me if someone is saying, effectively, "the procedure was tested in a peer reviewed study and was able to detect the causal factor of pain" (my paraphrasing), it is another way to say "clinically proven". I don't accept the article was peer reviewed as we have no proof of that, I don't accept that Shinnick is qualified to design, perform or write about a clinical study, as we have no proof of that, I don't accept that WP may cite as a source such a reference since it does not meet its criteria for excellent sourcing that are needed when extraordinary claims are made, as is the case here. I hope this makes my position clearer. Crum375 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, it is a perfectly reliable, neutral, source, and can be used perfectly fine in WP policies as such, to say what it says it says. A claim can be reported quite simple without WP claiming anything, many Admins have told you this already. Re the peer-review status, what criteria are you using to decide if a journal by MDs for MDs that says that all its articles are peer-revieewed are not peer-reviewed? What normal "proof" are you talking about, give an actual example of this please? Che, comments?

I will assume this unsigned message is from Richard and not from Mr. Whiffle or someone else.

Just because you say something is reliable or neutral, doesn't necessarily make it so. In the case of extraordinary claims every source has to be proven reliable and neutral. Let me start with your point about "by MDs for MDs". If this is true, as they claim, then why is this apparently medical paper written by Shinnick, a non-MD with an unknown PhD? Doesn't this cast doubt over the publication?

Now, I am not sure what you mean about "admins telling me" - and I am not sure if that is WP policy that admins are the official interpreters of WP sourcing policies, but let's take your statement about "WP claims". You are saying that "a claim can be reported quite simple without WP claiming anything". I beg to differ. According to my admittedly limited understanding, in a controversial article making extraordinary claims such as this one, we can only include statements that are backed up by excellent sources. If there are no such sources available, the statement stays out. Now let's get to the "peer reviewed" issue. You gave us a pointer to a statement that said the journal has been improved over the years in various ways, including by adding peer review. It does not say exactly what year the peer review was added, and we don't know if this article was in fact peer reviewed, and if so by whom. We certainly have no references to this paper or journal in the mainstream press that I am aware of. Bottom line: this medical paper was written by a person with no proven medical credentials, in a journal that has no mainstream references, with no mainstream references to the paper. It does not meet the definition of 'excellent' sourcing that would be required when making extraordinary or outlandish claims, and hence cannot be included. Crum375 12:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, what you're saying would absolutely be true if we were trying to make claims about BDORT as a procedure. Claims about BDORT's efficacy would indeed be extraordinary claims. However, the fact that Shinnick has attested to BDORT's efficacy is in fact a rather mundane claim. Similarly, the fact that Shinnick claims that his experiment was successful is a rather mundane claim.

In the absence of extraordinary evidence regarding BDORT, mundane evidence regarding the belief in BDORT serves a significant function. Take, as analogy, Creationism: to attest to the factual accuracy of creationist theories would indeed require extraordinary evidence, evidence which in fact is not present in the article. But the article doesn't attest to creationism -- what it does handle is the belief in creationism, without making judgments about the belief one way or the other.

It seems to me that the Shinnick paper is rather good evidence of the fact that some medical professionals (ie Shinnick and his research partners) recognize BDORT as legitimate and use it.

Wouldn't you agree? - Che Nuevara 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there are non-MD 'alternative medicine' practitioners who apparently use BDORT. We already know about Gorringe, and what happened to him, and apparently Shinnick is (or was) also such a person. If the issue is "are there some people who use BDORT?" - then we know of 2 (besides Omura and his colleagues). How to plug that statement into the article, and where, I am not exactly sure. Crum375 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As Che says, we can use this citation as I originally suggested, to say not only that these people have used it, but the fact that they have in their opinion tested it and in their opinion recognize that it is valuable and can do what they 'found' it can do. The extraordinary claims argument, as Che says, does not apply.Richardmalter 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that's much too broad. We don't know that 'these people' used it - they are not signed off on the paper, Shinnick is. Shinnick claims in the paper they 'helped' him - but how exactly it's unclear (to me). Did they actually try to force open the patients' fingers? Did they just observe? Did they just let Shinnick do it alone with the patients? Very unclear to me, hence I don't see how this can support a statement that anyone but Shinnick apparently used BDORT. Now you say 'they' "tested it and in their opinion recognize that it is valuable". I don't see anyone but Shinnick making such a statement, and he's not an MD, so he can't really make any scientific statements, we can only say he used BDORT. So, we have evidence that one person, non MD, besides Gorringe who got fined and stripped, used BDORT (excluding Omura). I am not sure how to use or present this info - maybe Che has an idea? Crum375 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum brings up the legitimate point that there is no corroboration to Shinnick's article. It seems to me that none of the others involved in the study -- whether or not they agree with Shinnick's findings -- have come out and attested to his findings. Nor have they, on the other hand, disputed them. Anything that comes from that paper will essentially be a quotation or paraphrase from Shinnick. - Che Nuevara 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Crum, you are incorrect. In 1986, with the assistance of Celia Blumenthal, MD (holding the probe), and Herbert Berger, Dipl OBT (as the subject), and the author testing the finger strength, imaging was done for the Lung, with a cigar as the toxic substance taped to the wrist and the Mu Lung point as the control reference.

That's clear, they directly participated. (so did Borgna MD). Just takes a bit of reading. Again for the X time, now about the 'scientific' question. You have to define what you mean by this word that you use. For example in no way whatsoever did the NZ Tribunial do anything scientific - unless you define 'scientific' as sitting and thinking and giving opinion. So 1) you must define what you mean by scientific, and 2) then we will agree eventually on a definition for it here, and then later apply that consistently to the Tribunial citation (that had zero science in it and so can never be cited as a scientific evaluation). What Shinnick did do was an experiement. Experiments are attemps to find out things, which is what most of the planet regards as science. So I leave it to you to define what you understand by science, how you wish to use the word here, and I am guessing that we will end up substituting another word for what you term science, which will probably be 'opinion'. Next, your equating MD with science is also a clear mistake. Your statement that a non-MD cant make a scientific statement or test is incorrect. So what you go on to say is also incorrect. So what we might actually have is what Che says, that:

we can use this citation as I originally suggested, to say not only that these people have used it, but the fact that they have in their opinion (or maybe in Shinnick's evaluation only ) tested it and stated their/his recognition that it is valuable and can do what they/he 'found' it can do. And we can add in some details of what they did as any blank report of a topic might contain, as I originally suggested above. Richardmalter 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe what Crum is saying is that the paper itself was written solely by Shinnick, even if other people helped, and that we thus have to take Shinnick's word for whatever they said/did. - Che Nuevara 00:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Che's analysis is obviously correct, and furthermore, regarding the 'experiment' issue: anyone can perform an experiment and 'prove' whatever. That is not automatically acceptable on WP. For excellent sourcing, as required in this case, the investigator/author has to be properly credentialled, and his/her report/paper has to be published and peer reviewed. The publication would have to be reputable for mainstream science (i.e. referenced by well known reputable mainstream publications), and ideally the paper should have multiple references in the mainstream press. In our case here we have none of the above. Crum375 01:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Shinnick as author idea, however that the other people assisted is equally correct and can be stated (they are also MDs). Crum, you are effectively attempting to evaluate the citation's contents - this is not your task as an editor. The citation in itself is what matters, which is neutral, reliable as you yourself agreed long ago back in discussion (see archives of Talk; you only argued back then re the usefulness of the citation). It is also peer-reviewed, as this reliable, neutral source states explicitly, I will not accept your attempt to somehow discredit this (again you were the only one in the previous mediation round which included a number of Admins that attempted to do this, which also remarks on WP policy re this citation showing that you did not get agreement or anything near such when you tried to previously). I just cleared up the mistaken argument re the scientific bit you presented. This should not be confused with the content and the ability we have to present what they did and claimed. And this we should. We need to be careful not to confuse points. So what Che said: that the Shinnick paper is rather good evidence of the fact that some medical professionals (ie Shinnick and his research partners) recognize BDORT as legitimate and use it and the details about it we can report plainly without judgement, is perfectly fine and moreso, very useful; nothing that has been argued so far, on anylsis, says anything against that. If we were using the cite to put forward opinions about BDORT, that of course would not be OK. But that is not the case. Lastly, Crum, as you know the Tribunial word for word said early on that they recognized that Gorringe did not use Omura's technique, and no amount of unallowable WP:OR viz the tribunial article by a WP editor will ever change that. The only thing we will be able to say is as you said previously, they ruled on PMRT generically. But lets keep to this citation please (and please bring up others in their place, thanks).Richardmalter 02:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard: where exactly does it say that this article is peer-reviewed? - Che Nuevara 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] Richardmalter 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I tried to convey to Richard several times, his 'peer review' reference above does not say that the Shinnick article, written in 2003, was peer reviewed. All it says is that many changes were made in the journal over the last 10 years, and one of them is that peer review was instituted. It does not say when exactly the peer review was added, and more importantly and specifically, it does not say that the Shinnick article itself was peer reviewed. It also does not mention the actual names and qualifications/credentials of the peer reviewers - if they were more Shinnicks reviewing Shinnick that would not help us much in establishing the scientific merits of this paper. As I noted earlier, the publication also claims that the articles are written by 'Physicians to Physicians', where clearly the Shinnick article was not written by a physician, hence the publication's claims about itself are contradictory.

And as I mentioned above, I agree that this reasonably establishes that one non-MD, in addition to Gorringe (excluding Omura himself and colleagues), has used BDORT. It is unclear to me how to present this in the article and I asked for Che's opinion on this. Crum375 12:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I hate to break it to you, but Crum's reading of the editorial is in fact the only correct syntactical reading of that sentence in English. "Changes have been made since 1996" is not linguistically equivalent to "Changes were made in 1996". This can be clearly seen in the following: one of the "changes made since 1996" is the increase of publication from twice to three times yearly (number 8). Volume 12 lacks an issue 3, which means that as late as 2000, this change had not yet been implimented. So it is clearly false to say that change 8, "Publication was increased from twice a year to 3 times a year," was implemented in 1996. But it has been implemented since 1996. Crum may be a stickler for precision, but in this case he's correct. The editorial does not say that all articles since 1996 have been peer reviewed. It says that "all articles became peer reviewed" some time after 1995, just like "publication was increaced from twice a year" some time after 1995 (in the latter case, in 2001). Thus we cannot say, without further evidence, that this article was peer reviewed, because we don't know whether it was or not. If other people agreed that it had to be peer reviewed based on that editorial, they either read it incorrectly or didn't understand the sentence, and they certainly didn't take the thirty seconds it took me to do the check that I did. This doesn't mean that the source is automatically thrown out, but it does mean it can't be used as a peer reviewed source unless we can be sure it's actually peer reviewed. - Che Nuevara 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, in defense of the 'other people who agreed', I am not aware at present of a single person who agreed with Richard's reading. Since all discussion is archived, it would be very useful if Richard can point us in the record to one single person (besides himself) who agreed with that interpretation. Crum375 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked through ... it looks like Aguierro assumed that it was peer reviewed ... and the rest is hard to tell, because not all the comments are signed. - Che Nuevara 16:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I also looked (to refresh my recollection) and no one agreed with Richard that "since 1996" means "on 1996". In fact, no one (except for me) even addresses his point. You (Che) are the first one to consider it on the record, as far as I know. Aguierro, as you note, was speaking generically and making assumptions, and that was prior to Richard's 'since' = 'on' assertion. Crum375 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it is still a reliable neutral source that can be used to say who did what and what they siad/thought. Effectively, then, we have: The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, in its claimed application of detecting the 'electromagnetic resonance phenomenon' between two identical substances or electromagnetic fields was according to Phillip Shinnick PhD, with the help of Celia Blumenthal MD, Adriano Borgna MD and Jacob Heller MD, tested in a clinical research trial over a four year period involving 400 patients with localized pain at the Center for Sports and Osteopathic Medicine in New York from 1986 to 1991. According to Shinnick's report, during the study the BDORT was applied diagnostically without knowledge of the standard Western diagnoses that had been made earlier of the patients involved. According to Shinnick et al, the BDORT was able to detect the internal organ that was the causal factor of the pain arising from a referred acupuncture meridian phenomenon.

based on thrashed out discussion so far.Richardmalter 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum? - Che 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No dice. When WP requires excellent sources for an outlandish claim, that means we need a peer-reviewed article published by a properly credentialed author in a respectable publication. The article and the publication should have multiple references in the mainstream press to prove respectability. Journals like Nature, Science, New England Journal of Medicine are examples of excellent sources. There is little doubt that claiming, as per Omura/BDORT, that by trying to force open a patient's fingers, the 'trained' operative can diagnose and cure most illnesses known to man, is 'outlandish' and extraordinary. Hence there is little doubt that excellent sourcing is needed. Now, if WP requires an excellent source, there is no room for end-runs. By saying: "X published a paper Y in publication Z", we must first prove that X, Y and Z meet our excellent sourcing requirements, otherwise we cannot make that statement inside an article. I believe that in this case we have serious doubts as to each of X, Y and Z, hence they are not admissible. If we were to accept this statement, WP's excellent sourcing requirement for outlandish claims would be a mere decoration. Crum375 20:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, this would be true if the citation were applied to talk about the efficacy of BDORT. As I understand it, Richard wants to use this citation to talk about the "history" of BDORT -- that is, that Shinnick claims to have tested it. In saying "according to Shinnick" in the citation, rather than presenting it as neutral, this makes a mundane claim: that Shinnick uses BDORT. - Che Nuevara 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I noted earlier also, the mere fact that at least one person (besides Omura and colleagues) used BDORT at one point can be stated. The statement the Richard wants to introduce, which essentially is a description of a paper and results which don't meet WP's 'excellent sourcing' requirement, cannot be included in the article. Crum375 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But it certainly can be said that Shinnick claims to have conducted this experiment, no? Shinnick is indeed an excellent source on what Shinnick claims. Something to the effect of "Shinnick claims that he is able to diagnostically apply the test to determine the internal cause of pain arising from acupuncture meridian phenomena" (to use Richard's words). - Che 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP cannot cite claims by anyone about extraordinary scientific topics unless they are excellent sources - recognized experts in their field and/or highly credentialed, publishing a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal, etc. In this case Shinnick, his paper and the publication do not meet those criteria, hence the paper and/or "Shinnick's claims" (which are one and the same here) cannot be used. Crum375 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the concepts of claiming and quoting. We cannot use Shinnick to claim anything about BDORT because Shinnick is not such a stellar source on health and medicine. However, we can quote him on what he claims, because he's a great source on what he claims.

Take another analogous religious situation. The Book of Genesis is not really what you'd call a good source on the creation of the universe, mainly because it's not a verifiable source. We don't even know when or by whom it was written. So we don't quote B. of Genesis in articles about geological history. We do, however, quote it (indirectly) in the article about Young Earth creationism (eg "Additionally, they believe that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark.").

That's what this boils down to. Exceptional evidence doesn't mean that the source has to prove what it sets out to prove; it means it has to prove what we use it to say. We can't say "BDORT has been successfully tested by Shinnick", but we can say that "Shinnick claims to have successfully tested BDORT", which is incontrovertible fact. - Che 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If a published source is unacceptable, because it is of dubious quality and does not meet WP's 'exceptional evidence' requirements to support an exceptional claim, it cannot be used, period. We can't rehabilitate the paper and author by saying "author X claimed Y in publication Z" - adding the weasel word 'claims' does not magically bless the reference. The idea is that we keep the statement out of WP unless it is backed up by the proper evidence. The bible is different. The bible is either a fable or gospel truth, depending on your POV, but there are lots of excellent publications quoting it, so we may quote it too. There are no excellent publications at this time that quote Shinnick's work. Crum375 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you again, extrapolate into hyperbole, and imply things that I am trying to present, that I have not. The article says what it says, nothing to do with "illnesses known to man". The article says something very specific as can be read. Re the excellent sourcing, 1) what exact WP policy text are you referring to? and 2) Che's comments are correct, we are reporting what was done, said etc, historically, not claiming anything; just like the extraordinary proof question, what you say really applies at all.Richardmalter 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying we can report what was done; we can report what Shinnick claims was done. Those are two very different things. Che - 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP policies I am referring to are WP:V where it says: "Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims require stronger sources" and WP:RS where it says: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". And by claiming that "BDORT was able to detect the internal organ that was the causal factor of the pain", juxtaposed with Omura's claims, as cited, about BDORT diagnosing/curing just about all illnesses known to man, we are bolstering Omura's claims, using a source that does not meet WP's "exceptional evidence" requirements. Please note also my latest response to Che above. Crum375 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for Che: there is no special WP provision that says that if some claim is outlandish and does not meet the required "exceptional evidence", we are still allowed to use it with liberal sprinkling of weasel words. In fact, the rules are quite opposite. Crum375 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Crum, sources aren't blanket-good or blanket-bad. Sources are judged in relation to how they are used. That is the point of the Bible example. The Bible would be a terrible source for geologic timescale and would be removed out of hand if it were inserted into that article, but it is an excellent source for Young Earth creationism. David Irving would be a terrible source for Action T4, but he is an excellent source for Holocaust revisionism.

Weasel words serve to make things more ambiguous. Saying that Shinnick claims something actually makes it more specific, because it identifies the people who believe these things.

It's already been decided, via AfD, that this subject is notable enough for an article. Being as Shinnick is among the only people to publish this kind of report, it makes him an excellent source on the belief in BDORT. - Che Nuevara 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I think you are still confusing issues. I think it is as simple as that, in just the way the 'extraordinary proof' argument doesn't apply unless we are stating something as is.Richardmalter 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to both of you, I agree with Chet that sources come in all flavors. Here we have a poor quality source to support anything scientific, for reasons discussed above. So if the issue is "did anyone ever use BDORT, besides Gorringe and Omura and his colleagues", then yes we can make state that Shinnick used BDORT. But to start describing his 'scientific study' (and I use quotation marks because we have no evidence he is qualified to design, perform or report on such a study), and his 'scientific conclusions' or 'results' (again, quotes added for same reasons), would be contrary to the exceptional evidence requirements for an exceptional claim. Crum375 00:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in case there is any question about the need for exceptional evidence for Shinnick's claims, as I noted above, according to Richard, Shinnick claims: "BDORT was able to detect the internal organ that was the causal factor of the pain". Relying on the subjective force required to open someone's fingers to discover which internal organ is the causal factor of the pain, would be considered an exceptional or outlandish claim to most if not all mainstream scientists. In fact, there is no known reputable mainstream source on this planet that can support this claim. Crum375 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a claim about the efficacy of BDORT would be an exceptional claim. However, we've already established what proponents of BDORT believe it can do without the Shinnick quotation, so the Shinnick quotation doesn't really make further claims. No "description" of the experiment is needed, nor any particulars about the results, but don't you think the fact that he claims to have tested it is worth mentioning? When people see an experiment that has not been repeated and not been used or cited by doctors, don't you think they'll come to the necessary conclusions? - Che

People may also reach the conclusion that WP is presenting scientific evidence from unqualified persons, published in dubious publications. For exceptional claims such as this one, we are only allowed to present scientific evidence from exceptionally high quality sources. If we present a claim from an unqualified person, in an unqualified publication with no proof of peer review, we are violating the exceptional sourcing requirement. If we couch the claims with weasel words such as "claims this" and "claims that" we are not improving the quality of the source in any way. Either we have the sourcing we need and it stays, or we don't and it goes. And to emphasize, just in case there is any doubt: the issue is not the 'truth' or even 'scientific validity' - WP is not equipped to judge either - the issue is strictly, as always, does the quality of the sourcing match the exceptionality of the claim. We would report something even if all editors disagreed with it personally, as long as it's properly sourced. Crum375 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A part of the inevitable difficulty in this process, or so it seems to me, is the simple fact that the admissability of a source, characterized via the mechanism of WP criteria, is treated as a quasi-independent factor even though the parties concerned are, in fact, concerned with its particular application and implications for the balance of the entry as a whole. Such a process tends to prove intractable when approached recursively as opposed to synthetically. If this source is not admitted, as Crum would clearly seem to prefer, it leaves the matter of BDORT’s application unverified other than claims of Omura and his immediate circle. If, on the other hand, it is admitted, it would seem probable that Richard, motivated of his sincere beliefs in the character of scientific method defined as he understands it, will attempt to ‘naturally’ present it as implicit if not explicit evidence if not validation of BDORT’s having been, to at least some degree, presented within a ‘scientific’ or ‘medical’ context within the common (as opposed to ‘alternative’) comprehensions of those terms. In that sense, it seems to me, the process is inverted and distorted in what seems a logical attempt to advance ‘one step at a time,’ when, in fact, it is the outcome as to balance that is determinative. In this sense the discussion is analogous to the admissibility of evidence in a court – a contest between combatants, with the only justice in the halls rather than within the hall of judgement. Two scorpions having at one another as to terms of admissibility are unlikely to arrive at an amicable or a ‘truthful’ resolution. Thus, in other contexts, the role of an editor, or judge, however imperfect. There is no analog of that function present in this process in my estimation, hence its limitations. The challenge for you, as 'believers' in this process, is to prove the skeptics wrong. Whiffle 02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Whiffle, as a firm 'believer' in the WP concept, I ask you to look at the evidence. Pick any controversial topic you want, and check the current snapshot status of its article. My own impression is that actually, given the fact that it's all done by amateurs and volunteers, we are doing pretty good compared to any commercial professional encyclopedia dealing with the same hot topics. Crum375 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I'm only a simple Whiffle, so what would a Whiffle know, but I would think that's a fairly low standard – pretty well for amateurs and volunteers. That aside, I would think you might want to consider very tightly linking discussion of potential admissibility to tightly specific and constrained language and application within the entry. Otherwise the sun may fade before this current recursive process reaches something resembling resolution. Of course, that's only a whiffle on my part, and Whiffles don't know much – but if they wobble they don't fall down! ;-) Whiffle 02:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually agreed with this earlier. I think that we can use the Shinnick paper as evidence that someone besides Omura and colleagues and Gorringe, has actually used BDORT on real patients. I asked Che to suggest possible (if any) use for this in the article, as I am not sure myself. Crum375 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if all are agreed that the reference is valid for that purpose and for that purpose alone that it might be a footnote citation to an en passant reference which indicates there is in fact usage. It need not include characterization of the extent of that usage. It would have, I would think, to be tightly constrained to that particular application unless evidence is found to bolster its application beyond that extent. If Richard or someone else is able to find such evidence, fine. Pending that development, however, it seems to me it must be very tightly constrained so as to demonstrate what it does in fact demonstrate while not implying more than that. That's how it seems to one whiffle, anyway. Whiffle 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard? - Che 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Whiffle, can you first please answer the simple question, are you the same person who used the ARcsincostan handle or anything similar at any time in the past? That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, I think everyone will agree, and I object to your involvment if you do not answer this question. I think WP has a name for people using multiple handles.

Whiffle is whiffle. Whiffle is not using multiple handles. Try and pay attention. Whiffle 03:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2) I agree with crum that I think that we can use the Shinnick paper as evidence that someone besides Omura and colleagues and Gorringe, has actually used BDORT on real patients, but I see no WP reason yet mentioned re the above discussion why we cannot say how it was used. Frum, you repeat the confusion, which sounds good but does not stand up, that we are not presenting factual information re a judgement on the BDORT but what some people who used it say about it/concluded etc. And that is fine. Your concern what the public might believe or not, which flows from your implicitly stated bias that Che also recognized immediately on reading what you wrote to Addhoc, to warn the public about your perceived dangers of the BDORT, which is again creeping in here, is not appropriate to WP as many people have told you previously (eg when you wanted a line at the end of each para etc). I have told you before that if we followed your logic, every entry in every encyclopedia, in all of the world, that ever even mentioned an invention/tool etc and that did not carry a public warning (which they dont) would (in your eyes) be a danger and all such encyclopedias would have to burned immediately for the 'public good'. We can use this source to say who used it, what they did (in summary; giving some details of what they did is not against WP policies neither a global public threat), and what they concluded. And as Che says, the reader can obviously see if they care to look that this is an isolated study cited (ie not crossreferenced) and can decide for themselves how much validity to give to it,; much rather than you, 'Crum375' doing this for them, which is your intention according to your words, but not your role as an editor here. As Che says, its an excellent (third party) source for saying what Shinnick thinks about the BDORT. And what he et al did and found according to them is not a WP crime either. Re the scientific bit, just as I will not allow you to use the word as a descriptive unless the subjetc referred to is scientific (ie not just opinion viz the NZ Tribunial which was not on the BDORT anyway), you will note that I have not argued here to label this study by Shinnick scientific, just to present in neutraly. Richardmalter 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is vague. Suggest wording and employment in the entry. The core problem is an utter lack of specificity. Whiffle 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle, pay attention please ;-) because based on what I have written just above and so far anyone could suggest the wording; why dont you give it a go; and constructively add to the discussion here.Richardmalter 09:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who wants Shinnick, but you want other people to word it for you. Should they pull their fingers apart to read your mind? Whiffle 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle has just pulled his fingers apart! (The left index finger won!) The left index finger says that this reference is not sufficiently reliable or reputable! No one knows who Shinnick is except Shinnick! No one knows what this journal is except this journal! This is what terrans call a circle jerk! Circle jerks are when people stand in a circle and pull fingers while making peculiar expressions. It is an ancient terran custom, Whiffle has been told. Circle jerks seem to be important to the people in the circle but no one else knows what they mean. Meaningless is Bad. Pull your fingers and see if you can find a reputable source. Thank you for playing Wikipedia! Whiffle 12:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you keep referring to my perceived bias as if it is some kind of crime. WP recognizes that every editor has a bias, we wouldn't be human otherwise. Some have clear biases - like you earning money from BDORT and obviously wanting to protect its reputation, and me wanting WP to meet its stated goals of verification and neutrality. I see no problem with our admitting those biases, in fact it may help us progress quicker. As far as adding the balancing statements near each place we state one of Omura's claims, we will get to that in due time - this mediation is supposed to cover all issues, and this is certainly one of them, but not now or here in the 'Shinnick' section. Regarding possible usage of the Shinnick paper - I myself am not sure how to use it. We certainly can't 'describe the paper and let the reader decide' - that's a backdoor way to including the paper, and thereby providing a shaky source for an outlandish claim - violating WP's policies. We could, in principle, use it as evidence that we know of at least one person that has used BDORT besides Omura and colleagues who hasn't been punished (to our knowledge), but I am not sure if that's 'encyclopedic'. So I am waiting for you and Che (or Mr. Whiffle?) to suggest how to handle it. Crum375 13:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is agreed as at best a dubious/limited source by WP criteria. What, precisely is its purpose? How, precisely is it suggested it be employed? Whiffle 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Crum, is the bias that is not declared (by you), that Che recognized as your opinion on the BDORT immediately you implied it when you did. I dont know what to say to you other than what has been said to you repeatedly before that you are confusing applications of WP policies, claims, and plain reprting of facts; and ignoring points made to you that you dont seem to hear. Che, Can I ask you to do as the previous mediator did, and based on discussion here, draft what you think we can write about the Shinnick case? To my mind I have already done this so dont want to repeat needlessly. Thank you.Richardmalter 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, do you prefer to discuss motivation or present the fashion in which you think Shinnick might validly be employed? Whiffle 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle would like to propose, after Richard has pulled his fingers apart to determine his criteria for admissibility and presentation and duly presented them, which I am certain will happen [looks up at extensive verbiage preceding] Real Soon Now (to employ a technical term) that at a later date, after the sun has gone nova and rendered this discussion even more effectively moot (if possible) than in its present form that the assembled Merry Pranksters weigh at great length the possibility of re-terming BDORT (Bi-Digital O-Ring Test) as the CJT (Circle Jerk Test) – alternatives might be the OCJT (Omura Circle Jerk Test), or the OK/NotOKTest since the test involves the ability of an American-Style 'OK' sign to maintain its integrity – I'm OK meaning healthy and NotOK meaning will die soon. These alternate terms would be much simpler and less confusing than the BDORT terminology which suggests the sound of someone vomiting, which Whiffle, at least, finds non-decorous and thus in violation of widely known but sporadically invoked Unwritten Wikipedia Official Policy such as that invoked on Whiffle's Talk Page[2] by Hostile And Easily Offended Administrators of Victorian-Lady-Caricature-Like Sensibilities. Whiffle thinks this is a WP:OK idea, and people should circle jerk their fingers to evaluate its validity according to Unwritten Wikipedia Policy!!! Whiffle 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, it sounds like Richard believes at present that his suggested wording above for the use of the Shinnick paper is the best he can come up with. It sounds to me like you disagree with Richard's proposal or wording, and I obviously disagree too. I think Mr. Whiffle also disagrees, if we count his Whiffle-vote. IMO, it makes sense for you as mediator to try to suggest the best course of action, given the above situation, so we can pursue the matter further. Thanks, Crum375 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that this horse has been beaten, buried, dug up, burned, beaten again, and chained to an anchor and thrown overboard ...

I'm not convinced that saying that Shinnick claims to have tested the method actually adds anything to the article which saying that he uses it does not. Of course he believes that he can successfully use it, otherwise he wouldn't use it. Whether citing the test itself from this article is disingenous or not is, in my opinion, a far more complicated question than either of you seems to think, but hey, nothing says you have to agree with me, and I don't claim to know I'm right.

Something akin to "Shinnick claims to be able to reproduce Omura's result, and uses BDORT in his practice of Chinese medicine" would, I think, be relatively innocuous and, quite honestly, convey everything that there is to be taken from this article.

Thoughts? - Che Nuevara 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Shinnick is a non-notable person (WP-wise) and is not credentialled/qualified (WP-wise) to design/perform/report a medical study that claims exceptional results (e.g. that by forcing open a patient's fingers and subjectively testing the patient's strength he can tell which internal organ is the cause of pain). Thus his claims as to what he thinks about BDORT are not admissible, IMO. If Shinnick's paper were cited by some credible mainstream publication, maybe then we could refer to Shinnick and his claims/beliefs. Otherwise, I don't think the claims/beliefs of a non-notable person who is scientifically unqualified to make those claims (again WP-wise) should be cited in a WP article. Also, for all we know, maybe Shinnick only peformed the study described in his paper and never used BDORT again (maybe he is concerned he could be fined/stripped like Gorringe), so I am not sure we really know more than he just once used it. Thus your suggested statement that says he is using it today is more than we really know, and even if he does use it, we don't know that he only uses it for Chinese medicine. Crum375 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah ... I was apparently falsely under the impression that we had already established that he uses it. But are you saying that we can't take anything from the article? - Che Nuevara 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are correct, I did agree and still do, that we can use it to show that at least one other person besides Gorrnige, Omura and his colleagues has used BDORT, and that unlike Gorringe, that person was not punished (to our knowledge) for its use. But to start pulling conclusions or results from a paper that does not meet WP's strict sourcing requirements for exceptional scientific claims would not be appropriate, IMO. Crum375 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's the "in his Chinese medicine practice" that you object to in what I said? - Che Nuevara 04:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, this is what you said: "Shinnick claims to be able to reproduce Omura's result, and uses BDORT in his practice of Chinese medicine". I have problems with almost every single word. I'll give you some examples:

1. "claims to reproduce Omura's results" - not really, in this paper he only claims a small subset AFAICT
2. The above is not admissible even when restricted to the actual claims, per WP's strict sourcing criteria for exceptional scientific claims, previously discussed at length
3. "Uses BDORT" - we only know he used it for one study - no idea if he's still using it today, maybe he's concerned about legal problems with Gorringe's fining/stripping?
4. "In his practice of Chinese medicine" - we really don't know that - that's pure speculation - even if he does use BDORT, we don't know if he restricts its use to Chinese practice or general practice - totally unsupported in any case.

Bottom line: I can't find anything in your suggested wording that I would find acceptable. Crum375 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor correction for my item #1, on re-reading I realize you said "result" (singular). I guess to me it sounded and still sounds that "Omura's result" is his entire suite of benefits. Restricting the claim to a subset would then run afoul of WP's exceptional sourcing requirements, per item #2. Crum375 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My intention in crafting that sentence was to make it general, which of course is contrary to the need for precision; it wasn't meant to be a final suggestion, just to get the ball rolling.

Can we take a step back from "wording" and talk about "content"? I feel like we're chasing our own tails saying this word, that implication, and whatnot, is unacceptable. I realize that my wording wasn't ideal, but to pick it apart piece by piece, I feel, is disingenuous to its purpose and what it actually says. I quite clearly said "something akin to", not "I think this wording should be used". I'm trying to create an impetus in the direction of actually coming up with something, rather than just scratching back and forth about vocab.

As I said before, I was under the impression that it had been previously established that Shinnick uses BDORT, not from this source, but from somewhere else, but it seems that I was mistaken -- that is the explanation for "in his practice".

Crum, why don't you suggest what you think we should pull from this source? - Che Nuevara 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, Sorry if I 'picked your suggestion point by point', but I simply tried my best to be responsive to your question about what I objected to in your suggestion. As far as my own suggestion, I am not really sure, but one idea would be to follow Gorringe's fining/stripping by a statement saying something like "However, there is some evidence that others have used BDORT, without evidence of any subsequent punishment.[1]", providing the Shinnick reference at that point. My concern is that since Shinnick is a live person below the notability radar and falls under WP:BLP, we are kind of painting a bull's eye on him and that's not my intention, nor my understanding of WP's mission. This is why I am not so happy including the Shinnick reference at all, since we know what happened to the previous BDORT user, but I am open to suggestions. Crum375 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't meant as a criticism, Crum, but rather just to point out that I think we need to work on what we can take out of this, rather than what we can't. - Che 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that's what I did just above. In other words, I probably would not use this citation, but if I were to use it, it would be in that very restricted way. Crum375 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum: I understand that; again, I'm not criticizing, just clarifying motives. It sounded to me like you thought I was pointing fingers when I mentioned "picking apart ...", and I was just trying to make sure that you didn't think that. I understand and appreciate your intentions and opinions on the Shinnick quotation. I'm just trying to move the conversation in the most amenable and respectful way possible.

Richard: How do you feel about Crum's usage of the quotation? In light of the fact that Shinnick does indeed seem to be non-notable outside of BDORT, is there really much to be added? - Che 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum. 1) Gorringe did not use BDORT. However much you want to say that he did. The Tribunial - who merely gave an opinion on PMRT generically - as you said so yourself previously, noted this clearly. 2) I cant fathom your seeming like for expiation and punishement! 3) Che, Crum's, ideas here are completely unacceptable; and I dont think WP correct. I think we need outside help, without any disrespect for your knowledge of WP or efforts whatsoever.Richardmalter 06:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard: Gorringe used a variant of BDORT (which they called PMRT) that in the eyes of the NZ Tribunal was equivalent - this is why they said that PMRT and BDORT are equivalent. I don't understand what you mean by "I cant fathom your seeming like for expiation and punishement!" - please explain. As far as "outside help" - I'll let Che speak. Crum375 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, Gorringe did not use the BDORT, he seems to have invented his own 'methods', the fact that they seemingly resemble the BDORT to someone who cant tell the difference, is no more surprising than someone who does not know the game of chess or checkers seeing the two as simply pushing pieces of various shapes around a board. He did not use the BDORT is the summary. The Tribunial noted this early on as you know (we can and will quote there words). The fact that the Tribunial lumped PMRT together as a generic set of techniques as you noted previously, and opined on them, does not change that. This discussion though, no doubt, will be repeated when the time come, and we will get stuck on it too, it seems. Biases are very strong things. I prefer not to explain further my other comments; but what I have said, I have said. Che? we have an empasse.Richardmalter 08:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is Gorringe's method:

I get the patient to put their hand, palm up, with thumb and forefinger together. This forms the “O” ring. My right hand slides down and grasps the thumb. My other hand comes and picks up the 4th and 5th finger. The test is when I ask the person to squeeze their thumb and 4th finger together, using their muscular strength of the adducter muscle of the thumb and forearm muscles that innervate the 4th finger. I attempt to generally separate the fingers apart using a “squeezing/gentle pulling” type of motion. If the muscle reaction is strong, the fingers will stay together. If it is weak they will come apart or a “giving way” feeling occurs with muscle weakening perceived by the tester.

Now, I am sure that you can find minor variations there from BDORT descriptions elsewhere, but to Gorringe himself and to the NZ Tribunal this was considered BDORT. I would suggest that most neutral readers, reading this description and comparing it to Omura's, will find the techniques essentially the same - having the patient form an "O" with his/her fingers with the tester trying to separate them, subjectively gauging the muscle force. But as you say, I am sure we'll get to this in due time. Crum375 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gorringe will come when Gorringe comes. As for stating that no punishment was levied against Shinnick, it's rather unnecessary and has nothing to do with the source; if we don't say he was punished, then we assume he wasn't, and since the source doesn't mention it, there's no reason to mention it. On the other hand, the Shinnick source (which is what we're discussing at the moment) seems to support two things: 1) that Shinnick has used BDORT, and 2) that Shinnick believes in the efficacy of BDORT. That seems to be the conclusion that we've come to, no? - Che 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, yes, agree, correct; and no WP reason not to describe briefly what he did as well and who with.

(Crum, see the chess/checkers example above; you basically restate and confirm exactly what I have said "to someone who cant tell the difference". Right from the outset, not establishing the 3 essential conditions for reproducibility, is clear description that it is not the BDORT. You also say "subjectively" which is also inocorrect. Even though the current source of the affidavits may not be WP acceptable, you can read if you ever choose to that your armchair opinion re this contradicts the reported facts of many eminent people who have applied it clinically repeatedly; and more importantly, the definition of the BDORT. You can do all kind of things with a samuri's sword, but a samuri will be able to tell you immediately what is a real cut and what is just waving a sharp stick around. In advance, you can take this as the understanding of the Tribunial report who were also not experts on electromagnetism anyway so couldn't possibly comment and didn't any more than you can (unless you are a doctor of science of physics etc?).Richardmalter 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Che: I think we can say that someone else has used BDORT. To start being more specific, like saying Mr. X used it and Mr. X believe Y, Z" leads down a slippery slope, since then one would add "he believes Y, Z because of A, B", and then we basically are back to introducing his paper as scientific evidence for his beliefs that BDORT is a valid technique and thus are violating WP's exceptional sourcing for exceptional claims policy. Thus I believe the only way to avoid that slippery slope is not to mention Shinnick directly at all, but simply note that "however, at least one other medical practitioner has used BDORT besides Gorringe and Omura and his colleagues", after the Gorringe punishment reference, while simply providing the Shinnick reference as footnote. Anything more starts down that slippery slope.

Richard: WP specifically states that you don't need to be an expert to edit. But you do need to have common sense, and you do need to understand and enforce the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NOR and other relevant policies and guidelines. In general, when something does not meet the policies/guidelines, it stays out. In other words, our debates should not be about science or pseudoscience or anything technical, they should focus on the quality of sources relative to the exceptionality of the claims. Crum375 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you are still confusing application of policies, esp. regarding the extraordinary claims idea. I think Che has covered this: Shinnick is an excellent source for saying what he does, thinks etc. We can state who Shinnick is, we have this info well sourced above; we can say what he has done, with who, and what he thought about it, this is also perfectly well sourced. Che? we are going round in circles here, Che, without any disrespect to you at all, quite the opposite, shall we put it out to a bigger WP audience for discussion, and then focus back in again under your mediation?Richardmalter 05:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I totally disagree. Shinnick is definitely not "an excellent source for saying what he does, thinks etc.". If that were true, you might as well toss WP's strict sourcing rules for exceptional claims out the window - you could have anybody, notable or not, come in with any theory, scientifically proven or not, properly peer reviewed or not, and just "say what he does, thinks etc." So I would think that it's obvious that we cannot state what Shinnick "does and thinks" as that would be basically to allow an unacceptable source for an exceptional claim through the back door. Crum375 06:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Shinnick is a good source on what Shinnick believes; I believe, Crum, that the issue you mean to raise is whether what Shinnick believes is relevant and applicable. Which does indeed seem to be a question that we are having trouble agreeing on. Crum, would you be willing to take this question to a broader audience? - Che 08:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shinnick is not notable nor a reliable source, hence not a source for anything scientific, including not his beliefs. Including the scientific beliefs of a non-notable non-reliable person, for exceptional claims, would start us down a slippery slope as I noted above. And sure, I would love to have more neutral/objective eyes and brains scrutinizing this, and WP's policies/guidelines regarding exceptional claims in general - that's what WP is all about. Crum375 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant by whether his beliefs are relevant and applicable. No one can tell us better what Shinnick believes than Shinnick, but the issue in question is whether that belief is appropriate to the article. That doesn't make Shinnick a bad source on Shinnick's beliefs, it simply makes Shinnick either useful or not. I agree it's a fine semantic distinction, but it's an important one.

How do (both of) you suggest we go about getting some more opinions? - Che 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am no big expert in WP procedure, but I think one possibility is to use the WP:RFC mechanism. My suspicion is that an RfArb would be rejected outright at this stage, as a "content dispute". But I am open to suggestions, of course. Crum375 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and to refine the suggestion: we have covered by now a few topics, at the end of each we reached an impasse where we could not reach a consensus and decided to postpone each item to a later date. Richard's list still has a lot of other items, each of which can potentially generate many megabytes of discussion. If we were to switch to a wider forum RfC at this point, where we are kind of in the middle, we may get bogged down there on one specific item (i.e. the current one - how to present the Shinnick ref, if at all). Assuming (optimistically) that item is resolved there, we'll still have to cover all of Richard's other topics, each of equal if not greater Megabytes-worth of discussion, and potentially come back to the RfC group each time for each topic. That's a lot of work and bandwidth, and it may make sense for us to first do a quick survey pass over all of Richard's items, see where we stand on each, and only then try to expand the forum, when we have a clear view of the forest. I again leave the decision to the others. Crum375 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, Crum. The most important thing here is that we're discussing civilly and constructively, but if not everything can be agreed on, well, that happens. If we move on with the discussion, we can (as we go) set aside a list of things which we can't agree on and put those particular things up for RfC. Reasonable? - Che 02:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think civility has never been a serious issue here, as I think Richard is basically a civil person, and for me civility is one more WP policy to follow. And I agree with your proposal to set aside the problem items and use RfC at the end. Let's see what Richard thinks. Crum375 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Crum, that civility is not really a problem; I meant that we're discussing civilly and constructively at the same time. You guys have been great about being respectful, which is why I've felt comfortable becoming a little more personally involved than I would normally, willing to give personal opinions on things. Really, this is far less of a "mediation" and far more of a "moderated discussion", which I think says good things about you guys. - Che Nuevara 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but I hope Che that you can see the following point. With the current 'default' version up to now (that I have just edited), Crum is reasonably happy with it (he has reverted it himself) while I am completely opposed to it. This situation has occurred many times before now, and so again now it is not surprising that Crum would be happy to proceed as you both suggest - because it means effectively that no information that Crum does not agree to gets added (nor subtracted) from the 'default' version - and so to what I think are clearly gross (WP) incorrectnesses by default stay in not only in the meanwhile but effectively more like in the long term by default that we cant agree on any changes. Again, an easy position for Crum to agree to if the version that was frozen is OK to him more or less. But I do not therefore agree. And think we have to not default for these reasons, but instead get more opinion on the Shinnick citation, because I think Crum is completely WP wrong about his arguments and this needs addressing now also because the decisions reached will affect futute citations.Richardmalter 03:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle is Back!!! Richard went to the Rocky Horror Picture Show, in costume, clicked his ruby slippers together three times (wrong costume for RHPS but we'll ignore that minor infelicity and admire Richard and his Ruby Slippers!!!) and reverted Three Times, thus [dramatic pause] Summoning WhiffleThePirate! (exciting, isn't it???) Whiffle has now helpfully restored the status quo ante (or is it Uncle???). Thank your for playing WhiffleThePirate!!! WhiffleThePirate! 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I had, by chance, the opportunity to speak today, briefly, with a Columbia P&S MD whose specialty, duly published in reputable scholarly publications, is the consideration of alternative scientific and medical paradigms. I’m not going to get more specific than that because I don’t want to bring his name into this discussion – believe what you want, draw what conclusions you will. I took the opportunity to ask if he was familiar with Omura, or the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. He had never heard of either. Now, this is anecdotal, and proves nothing. It is, however, I think, suggestive. We have no known reference to Omura or his work at the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of NIH, or any other likely locus that might objectively establish claims as to his consequence within the world of alternative medicine, etc. What have we, objectively? A series of claims as to consequence, reputation, etc, sourced to Omura’s sites, a handful of mirrors, and a very dubious echo or two, plus the New Zealand tribunal’s consideration re Gorringe. That’s it, the sum total. Other than these, and the occasional drive-by by what would appear to be either Omura or a meat puppet or two, the sole advocate appears to be Richard, who has a laundry list of desired alterations in which he clearly strongly believes, and a corresponding laundry list of what he feels, equally strongly, to be sources acceptable to Wikipedia. I would respectfully suggest, to save infinite time and energy, that Richard simply draw up his list of sources, then run it up the Comment flagpole and see if anyone else salutes. If yes, yes. If not, not. Literally months and nearly limitless verbiage have been extended in efforts to politely mollify Richard. I can’t imagine that happening. Perhaps I reflect the limits of my imagination. Ciao, for now. WhiffleThePirate! 06:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle (and any variation on that), can you please state if you have ever used another handle here, for example anything like Arcsincostan? Not answering this question simply and clearly will be taken as your admitting that you have used other handles (by all concerned). and I will ask that you be immediately ignored or stopped from contributing here. Thanks.24.105.141.126 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, whoever you are, please don't try to speak for other people: you're free to assume whatever you like, but I don't think it's a wise move to suggest that you know what others will assume. It's not that I'm disagreeing with your right to be skeptical, but attributing an ultimatum to people other than yourself is unfair. Thanks. - Che Nuevara 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Che: the use of anonymity per se is not against WP rules. If you read WP:SOCK, one typical explanation is:

multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny

I don't think Whiffle* has tried to convey consensus, or vote more than once, or evade scrutiny. It seems to me his main goal is anonymity, which is clearly something most editors here seek. Crum375 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry, I forgot to sign in that's all.

So, I am still waiting for a clear reply, number 1.

Number 2, Che, please instigate the wider audience on this topic please as you see best, thank you. I will be absent for 48 hours or so now, so this is a good time for such a wider discussion to start up. Thanks,Richardmalter 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved discussion of a "wider audience" to a new section at the bottom of the page. - Che Nuevara 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whiffle

Whiffle, are you the same person that has previously used the name Arcsincostan, or any other similar handle, or ever participated here under another name?Richardmalter 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am Whiffle. You are not Whiffle. Who are you? If you pull your fingers apart while holding them tight can you tell who you are? I think you are Dr. Yoshiaki Omura channeling through Australia. Who do you think you are? Can you prove it? Can you prove it to anyone else? No, I didn't think so, but thank you for playing Wikipedia! Whiffle 05:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful Whiffleminder of the Importance of Precision in Presentation!!!

Reuters – You may have heard of them ;-) They are (mostly) actual professional grownups who report things to other people, most of which are based in or at the least inspired by reality and very few of which are about anime or cosplay!!! Try not to be frightened!!![3]

No one scurrying about playing WikiGames wants WP to become even more of a joke than it's already become – right?

This would make the JimboGod frown and furrow his brow!!!

Try and get it right. Try and keep up.

Helpful Whiffle-Reminder: Concision and Clarity are your Friends!!! Whiffle 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WhifflePoof (ProTem)!!!

Whiffle finds this discussion faux-earnest, tedious, and non-fruitful and will await the un-locking of the entry in order to make more fruitful contributions. Whiffle 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, when you need Whiffle'sExpertWhiffleHelp just click your ruby-slipper-heels together three times, whiffle twice, and Un-lock the Entry !!! Whiffle 00:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WhiffleThePirate! (The Return!!!)

As promised!!!

Now, remember: Be civil, be nice, discuss, don't edit war, or ... You Will Walk The WhiffleThePirate! Plank of Doom!!! (Sharks need love, also food.) WhiffleThePirate! 05:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whiffle block

I am not sure who instigated the Whiffle* blocking. I see no evidence of Whiffle* ever using more than one handle at a time, though it does seem he has an unusual habit of using a succession of handles over time. While I find the name changes distracting, as long as he contributes reasonably and civily to the article and/or discussions, I can live with it (though I would much prefer a single steady handle per editor, I have enough trouble remembering various wiki-handles as it is). While I disagree with his comments on the unblock request about WP's "fatal flaws" and imminent demise, I do agree that is very peculiar that a person who obviously is a bona fide user with a concrete view point about this matter (for which we unfortunately have only meager participation and opinions), is blocked. Che, what do you think about this? Crum375 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the good faith edits I've seen Whiffle make in this article, I agree that an admin should reverse this block--and also that multiple handles are annoying. Antonrojo 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Before defending Whiffle as "reasonable", "civil", and "bona fide", take a look at these diffs and contribs:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Also note that the blocking admin did not block User:Whiffle, only the puppet account, so he can indeed go on stating his opinion. Whiffle isn't even blocked; his alternate account is, so his behavior isn't even really an issue. The block of Whiffle's alternate account may have been premature, but it's a moot point. - Che Nuevara 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my own message above, I did not 'defend Whiffle as civil or reasonable' - I said he "obviously is a bona fide user with a concrete view point about this matter" and that he didn't use different handles at the same time, but sequentially. I agree with you that some of your diffs leave much to be desired in the civility department, but I don't think he is a troll in the classical sense of just wanting to cause trouble. I think he just has a peculiar way of expressing himself, but the actual message underneath that peculiar exterior is actually quite logical (not that I agree with all of it, but obviously that's not the test of reasonableness or logic). In any case, I guess if his original Whiffle account is unblocked, then he should have no problem to use it and I agree with you that the block issue would be moot. I am sure you agree that we do need some more warm bodies (and reasonable minds) to add input to our Omura/BDORT issues. Crum375 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See 'Outside Discussion' below. TheStainlessSteelRat 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NB: TheStainlessSteelRat is The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, Arcsincostan, etc, Whiffle(s), etc. Try to relax. There's no point in dying all tensed up ;)

[edit] Manaka

B) Printed published material: Manaka use and opinon of BDORT: Manaka, Yoshio, Chasing the Dragon's Tail: The Theory and Practice of Acupuncture in the Work of Yoshio Manaka, Paradigm Publications 1995, page 142.

[edit] ECIM-Europe

C) http://www.ecim-europe.info/bdort/?p=yu_bdort&lang=en. Usage citation of BDORT in Europe.

[edit] Baobab.or.jp

D) O RING TEST CLINIC in Japan, usage citation: http://www.baobab.or.jp/~oring/e_basis.shtml.

[edit] PFarber

E) http://pfarber.sites.uol.com.br/ORT98.htm. Usage and test of BDORT in Brazil.

[edit] Dental video

F) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649479432793723588&q=Bi+digital+o-ring+test. Video presentation of dentist having used selective drug uptake enhancment method.

[edit] Coriandrum sativum

G) Published paper. 'Preventive effect of Coriandrum sativum (Chinese parsley) on localized lead deposition in ICR mice. ' J Ethnopharmacol 2001 Oct;77(2-3):203-8 (ISSN: 0378-8741) Aga M; Iwaki K; Ueda Y; Ushio S; Masaki N; Fukuda S; Kimoto T; Ikeda M; Kurimoto M ,Hayashibara Biochemical Laboratories, Inc., Fujisaki Institute, 675-1 Fujisaki, Okayama 702-8006, Japan. -- paper confirms Omura's finding of effect of coriander as mercury removing agent; before Omura mentioned this effect, there is no report of coriander's property in this regard. ie Omura discoverer (via BDORT). Richardmalter 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSAM.jp

H) http://www.jsam.jp/english/journal/abstracts/a_21.php?lang=en&id=20 citation of use of BDORT and its usefulness.

[edit] AMBA.org

I) [4] BDORT, Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, developed by Yoshiaki Omura, is a technique that is not found within the context of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Applied in bio-resonance phenomena, it offers diagnosis preambles and futuristic treatments already applied by many physicians all over the world.

[edit] Disputed material

a and b have been discussed in Mediation and agreed by consensus to be deleted including all references inferred from them. c still in discussion.

[edit] Contested

[edit] Dominic Lu

b) Dominic Lu, quoted on Yoshiaki Omura's Japanese web site. SEE FOR MEDIATION OUTCOME: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/MediationArchive_1

This cite, also created by Arc, is an interesting one. We know from various reliable sources, and can get more if needed, that USPTO does not evaluate the medical efficacy of medical procedures or devices.[5]

But Arc wanted to be extra 'cute' by using an online quote from one of Omura's own people stating this for us. Well, lo and behold, after Arc added the citation it promptly became inaccessible and/or disappeared. (You can read about it at the link Richard provided). Here is what I said about the subject at the aborted mediation:

The USPTO does not evaluate the medical efficacy of medical procedures or devices.[6] That is the job of the USFDA, which is a separate and independent government office. Omura has a patent for BDORT, which means the USPTO did not find a precedent for it and that it is not obvious to someone 'skilled in the art'; The USPTO is not equipped or staffed for and does not perform a clinical evaluation, as that would usurp and overlap the authority congress granted to the USFDA. Anyway, to make a claim that the Omura patent represents anything more than a government clerk accepting a filing fee and verifying no precendent and non-obviousness, we would need a reliable source. Crum375 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the correct resolution of this issue is to eliminate the 'cuteness' and replace the source with one that won't disappear on us, possibly the one I cited above. Naturally, if the Lu link is dead, we can't use it, but we can still advance the same argument in the article with a non-vanishing reliable reference. Crum375 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless I've recently gone insane, the disputed text and citation aren't in the article at the moment. So is there actually an issue here? - Che Nuevara 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are technically correct, as I think that reference got chopped off as soon as we agreed that the link is broken, hence unusable. However, we still need to address the point, as the issue of the existence of the US patent as some kind of blessing by the USPTO of BDORT has come up in our discussions and we need it nailed down, most logically in the Patent section. So I see this as another issue that we need to address at some point, perhaps not immediately. Crum375 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'm just saying that, with a reliable source, a sentence about this probably isn't controversial. - Che Nuevara 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You would think so? Well so would I, before I got here. But perhaps you haven't seen the long missives/rants we have been receiving periodically from some anonymous BDORT/Omura advocate(s), who seem to insist that the fact that the USPTO granted a patent to Omura for BDORT means that they actually validated its clinical efficacy. In fact, Richard himself has tried to upload some material in that regard. So sit tight and enjoy the show... Crum375 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, of course if the cite doesn't exist (conspiracy theories aside) then it cant be used. Next re the affidavits [[7]], Crum375, you misrepresent me unintentionally. I did definitely upload the affidavits. But you will not find in the discussions that I did this for demonstrating that the Patent Office garnting a patent constitutes a 'proof' of any kind. I uploaded them because when I read that these people had testified re the BDORT, I thought they are obviously important in themselves as a citation, that these many, very reputable, medically and scientifically formally highly qualified people, from the mainstream (medical) sciences, internationally, have testified under oath to their experiences of the efficacy etc of the BDORT. That they did this is a fact. It is a direct and substantial piece of information about the BDORT (re comparing for example to a company that makes a braclet and says the BDORT proves it works that Crum has insisted goes in this article). Can you both read the uploaded file? I suggest we make a separate section on this page for discussion of this citation for sake of coherent organization of discussion, OK? Await comments re this source.Richardmalter 07:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as I responded last time you came up with this information, I believe it is not WP acceptable. As I understand WP's reliable sourcing rules, a source must be published by some reputable entity and freely available to the public. In this case, you as a WP editor have uploaded some documents in the form of a PDF file into WP space. To the best of my knowledge this does not constitute a 'source' that meets WP's requirements. Of course I would be glad to hear Che's take on this issue. Thanks, Crum375 11:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, on a technical note, can you view the file? Next, they are a PDF copy of the record held by the Patent Office - a very reliable source. They are public documents, freely available on request, filed by the Patent office in the public domain. I'll wait for Che's comments.Richardmalter 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum: Wikipedians often forget about hard-copy sources. Books are still legitimate as long as they are findable by your average Wikipedian. If someone wanted, they could verify the authenticity of these documents.

Richard - the file does not seem to be openable. - Che Nuevara 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, maybe other Wikipedians forget about books, but I don't. Lots of articles I've been involved in have books as sources. But here we don't have books but some letters filed with the government, and the issue is accessibility for the purpose of verification by WP. If you have a controversial subject, and only one side comes up with a copy of a primary document (unpublished letter in some archive), I find it difficult to see how ordinary Wikipedians can access it. You can't just walk to your public library and ask for it. Not even to a large city public library. Yes, you may be able to file Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Government to ask for it, and then wait many months (maybe send more request letters if it doesn't come soon, maybe hire a FOIA lawyer to expedite) - i.e. very hard to access. And once you do get it, let's say - what do you have? A bunch of letters submitted by foreign persons you don't know. Are we here at WP really qualified to judge authenticity of these documents? Or the qualifications and authentication of the persons supposedly writing them? These are all, at best, primary sources, and IMO to be able to validate their authenticity would require original research. This is why WP frowns upon the use of primary sources in lieu of secondary sources in general, and even more so for controversial issues, where 'high quality sourcing' must be used. Crum375 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, patent documents are a matter of public record. You don't need to file a FOIA request to access public record. Being as I can't read the file, I can't verify what Richard's saying, but it seems to me that public record documents are not all that difficult to verify. - Che Nuevara 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you are our mediator, I only think it makes sense for you to a) try to access the information (by assuming you are 'the average Wikipedian' you mentioned above as a refernce point); and b) once you have accessed it let us know if you would consider it meeting reliability and verifiability requirements. Then we can address this specific issue further. Remember, this is not your normal Patent filing that anyone can access, even online. This is, as I understood from Richard, some supplementary data that was submitted to the USPTO. Thanks, Crum375 19:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love to assess the information, but I can't open it. My browser tells me the file is corrupted. Is there another copy of it floating around somewhere? - Che Nuevara 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to open it either. But let's assume for a moment that it has some information related to the article. As far as you understand WP sourcing rules, are we allowed to use an image of a document, uploaded by a WP editor, as a source to back up a statement in an article? (assuming we have no better source of course) Crum375 20:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can view them from the uploaded file, I dont know why you cant. I am uploading it somewhere else to see if that helps. Crum, re some of your comments. Authenticity: when you see the papers, you will see that they carry the official US Patent Office stamp. Re the "foreign persons" - and their authenticity etc, when does WP not use sources from overseas citations? This would be a discrimination to do this in this case, and so I of course would object. Obviously these are public documents, the signees knew that they were signing public statements, its about as reliable source as you can get.Richardmalter 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Hmm, I just click and it opens. There must be a technical problem somewhere. Crum, can you open the file? Can I possibly email it to you Che and you have a go at uploading it - maybe I did something incorrect when I uploaded it. I dont presently have another webiste I can use for uploading it. I am sure I will solve this technical problem very shortly, the affidavits are very insightful. Try going directly to this page: [8]Richardmalter 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to hear Che's opinion on this issue, but in the meanwhile here is a quote from WP:NOR:

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

I can generate on my home computer any kind of document with any kind of 'stamps' and 'signatures' on it. I am not saying that I think that you or anyone else actually whipped up these uploads out of thin air (or Photoshop), but OTOH this is exactly why WP wants to base its statements on "reputable third-party publication(s)". The concept that anyone can just upload his or her possibly home-brewed materials into WP would clearly contradict this requirement, IMO. Of course we need Che to give us his take. Crum375 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• And yes, for some reason I can now read the file, but I would like to get an answer from Che as to its usability in WP on principle. Crum375 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I would like to know just how you went about getting this, Richard. - Che Nuevara 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Avraham Henoch MD supplied them to me, he is a student of Omura. You can find him on google, he is in the USA.Richardmalter 03:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I think. Bear in mind that I am not a stickler for rules, but rather in favor of interpreting the spirit of the rules. It's my opinion that the text of the rules, strictly interpreted, do not accurately reflect the spirit intended.

I'm of the opinion that government documents are pretty reliable sources where government activity is concerned (conspiracy theories aside). While many of these documents are not immediately available, a research librarian should be able to assist you in obtaining such documents through the appropriate channels. I would not support classified, restricted, or otherwise inaccessible documents. Patent Office documents are, however, accessible to anyone willing to do a little legwork. That's good enough for me.

I think it would be problematic not to accept public documents as sources, even if they do take a little work to get at. Another way of looking at this is to say that the person giving the testimony (because in this case we are simply talking about an affidavit) is the source and the government office is the publisher. They are, after all, publishing the information, even if it is not commercial. This is kind of a roundabout way of looking at things, but it returns the same conclusion.

That being said, what can be taken from such a source must be carefully restricted. It is, in my opinion, okay to use the source to say "This person testified as to the efficacy of this procedure under oath"; it would not be wise to try and use the source to support the actual efficacy of the procedure itself.

Does that make sense to you both? - Che Nuevara 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am sorry to be a stickler to rules, but IMO even your restricted use is not acceptable for WP. IMO, and I think this issue should be debated in the broad generic sense, any 'evidence' that is uploaded into WP's space by an editor does not qualify as a reliable or verifiable source. If it's not an acceptable source, then no fact, regardless of how restricted in scope, can be introduced into the article based upon it. Repasting again the quote from WP:NOR:

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

I think that if there is any way we can use the uploaded PDF file, then this quoted policy would need to be changed first. Crum375 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I read that paragraph the last time you quoted it, Crum, there's no reason to quote the exact same passage again.

This is not just my opinion, by the way, but the opinion of several others who I consulted. Not every new precedent requires a policy change; policy on Wikipedia is inexact and imperfect, but the spirit of it is pretty understandable, I think - Che Nuevara 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating the quote, Che, but I thought it would be helpful to see it again alongside my rationale. If you have consulted with several others, as you say, on this issue, can you share the consultation? As I understand it, WP is all about open process, with no back room discussions, except for sensitive personal matters (which this obviously is not). If in fact, there is now a new consensus in WP to allow sourcing, restricted as it may be, from data files uploaded into WP space by editors, to me that would constitute a non-trivial and fairly radical policy change. It would certainly require modifying that quote I re-pasted. So if there is now such a consensus, can I ask you to point me to the discussion and its conclusions? And BTW, although a mediation process is not a court case that establishes 'precedent' (in fact even arbitration per WP policy does not do that), it is still important, IMO, to be sure that all our decisions are well founded on WP policy/guideline framework. Thanks, Crum375 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, re what you wrote: It is, in my opinion, okay to use the source to say "This person testified as to the efficacy of this procedure under oath"; it would not be wise to try and use the source to support the actual efficacy of the procedure itself.", I agree with this and think this would be WP correct. Crum, that quote does in no way say anything against what Che has suggested IMO. I think, oppositely, the US Patent Office is a very reliable source and that by restricting from it as Che suggests, we have no OR whatsoever. The objections you raise I understand come actually from your good intention noted above to provide 'warning' to the public readers of this WP entry re your perceived dangers of the BDORT. I can only remind you of the argument I gave some time ago, that if we were to follow your logic, thousands of entries in WP about all sorts of things would have to carry 'official warnings' - and any encyclopedia ever published would be dangerous to the public if it even mentioned someone's invention in all history without a comparable 'disclaimer' re itys efficacy. I suggest we just follow Che's strict ideas re this citation.Richardmalter 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the fact that many WP articles are not up to spec is not relevant to me right now - we are focusing on this one, and we need to apply WP rules to this article to the best of our abilities. Let's see Che's discussion about this subject with others and how they reached their consensus. Crum375 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, I can't divulge the details of that conversation, because it was on the irc channel and I have no desire to be permabanned. If you really want me to I can try and start up some semblance of a dialogue about it on the wiki itself, but I don't see how allowing this sort of use defies the spirit of the policy. If you're in doubt as to the properness of interpreting rules rather than following them to the letter, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIgnore_all_rules&diff=70516723 this diff[, authored by Jimbo himself. Please read this diff carefully before arguing that the letter of the policy should take precedence over what makes logical sense. - Che Nuevara 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am fully familiar with WP:IAR and in general support of it. My understanding of it is that it is to be used when you encounter a unique situation where the standard WP rules, if applied by the letter of the rules, would actually harm WP in your opinion, and therefore you are encouraged to ignore the rules and do the right thing to improve WP. I don't think that WP:IAR is applicable in this situation. We are engaged in a very civil discussion about WP sourcing rules. The item in question appears to violate WP's sourcing, and one party in the discussion (myself) contends that it does violate it, and is thus unacceptable. You as the mediator say that upon checking with unknown (to us) 'others', you and the unnamed others have decided, via IRC chat that cannot be revealed to us here, that this sourcing via evidence directly uploaded by an editor into WP space is acceptable for restricted use in article space. When one of the parties (myself) questions the secret process or its results you respond that via ignoring all rules you decided to forge ahead and accept this questioned sourcing mechanism anyway. I don't see how allowing a source that at the very least appears to violate WP sourcing rules would actually improve WP. I can see how using a secret IRC discussion to validate what appears to violate WP's sourcing rules could harm WP. IMO WP:IAR is not applicable in this instance. I ask you again to re-evaluate your position, perhaps by consulting, on the record, with a wider group, perhaps by starting a thread in WP:V or WP:NPOV Talk page(s). I honestly don't see how WP can continue to function and grow if decisions to violate existing policies are made in secret. Thanks, Crum375 12:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I'm going to assume that you don't actually believe that I'm a) making it up or b) part of some "secret" cabal, as could easily be inferred from what you just said, and go ahead and explain myself.

You asked for my opinion regarding the source. I thought about it and went back through the policy, and decided that it was in the spirit of Wikipedia policy and precedent to allow this sort of usage. I asked a few other people, who agreed with my analysis, and I was satisfied. You said that my solution clashed with the letter of policy, and I said, per IAR, the spirit of policy is more important than the letter of policy, and no huge policy overhaul is required on account of this article.

If you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine, but I did what you asked and provided a reasonable explanation. There was no "forging ahead". If you disagree with an answer which you solicited from me, that's your right, but please don't imply that I was doing an end-run around process.

If you'd like to start a community discussion about this issue, it can be done, but that sort of thing will take time and go well beyond the scope of this article.

For the sake of ease, Richard, is there any other source which can validate what you're trying to say with this one? - Che Nuevara 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am not implying anything, nor do I fear a Cabal, I just want to be sure we are all on the same page. For me, basing WP article space statements on a source that was uploaded into WP space by an editor would constitute a radical change in my understanding of how WP works. It would seriously conflict with my reading of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and maybe a few others. To base such a move on a casual and unrecorded IRC conversation would be hard for me to accept. I think we need to understand your position on this specific issue, and based on your position we can decide how to proceed from here. Thanks, Crum375 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained my position quite clearly, I think. I understand your objections via RS and V, although I disagree with them. But please explain how uploading a government document which anyone can request violates NOR and NPOV. - Che Nuevara 03:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, I can whip up any old 'government document' you want on my home PC and upload it to WP, with all the seals and signatures you specify. I am not saying this is what Richard did - I think the odds are high that he didn't - but that's not how WP works. The whole concept of WP:V, WP:NOR etc is that WP is based on published sources that the average reader can obtain and verify on his/her own. If I am an average reader, I'd like to know how to get those documents from the government. FOIA? lawyers? I know I can't get them online. Odds are high whatever method is needed would violate the passage from WP:NOR I quoted above. Here is what I said earlier about this point:

I really would like to hear Che's opinion on this issue, but in the meanwhile here is a quote from WP:NOR:

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

I can generate on my home computer any kind of document with any kind of 'stamps' and 'signatures' on it. I am not saying that I think that you or anyone else actually whipped up these uploads out of thin air (or Photoshop), but OTOH this is exactly why WP wants to base its statements on "reputable third-party publication(s)". The concept that anyone can just upload his or her possibly home-brewed materials into WP would clearly contradict this requirement, IMO. Of course we need Che to give us his take.

And this too:

If you have a controversial subject, and only one side comes up with a copy of a primary document (unpublished letter in some archive), I find it difficult to see how ordinary Wikipedians can access it. You can't just walk to your public library and ask for it. Not even to a large city public library. Yes, you may be able to file Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Government to ask for it, and then wait many months (maybe send more request letters if it doesn't come soon, maybe hire a FOIA lawyer to expedite) - i.e. very hard to access.

Hopefully this answers your question why I don't think that uploading one's own evidence into WP space is acceptable. Crum375 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding why you keep referring to this as "evidence". This process isn't about being for or against the procedure detailed in this article, it's about making the article up to hack. Characterization of sources as "evidence" seems to me to be indicative of not evaluating sources for what they are, but rather what they say; and while sometimes this method may hit the mark, it's a crap-shoot not particularly appropriate to this process.

You asked for my opinion. I gave it to you. You asked me to back up my opinion. I did that too. I don't know what else you want from me. I volunteered to mediate this case. Mediation means stimulating dialogue, not conducting polls and writing new policy. I don't really see any dialogue going on here.

The passages you are quoting from NOR and NPOV are to prevent people from uploading their own work to Wikipedia. That is clearly not the case here, and thus the quotations, while they might sound relevant, don't apply. I've explained thoroughly why I believe that this is within the spirit of Wikipedia policy. What else would you like to hear from me? - Che Nuevara 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay here we go, how 'bout this: I am going to print out this document and bring it to my research librarian and ask him how he would go about getting something like this. How does that sound to you? - Che Nuevara 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I cant see a single thing in all that you have quoted that is actually pertaining to this source - and I understand the meaning of the words you quote. Basically, the MD that supplied this docs to me has done a bit of librarianship, that's all. You could do the same. It might take a few weeks, yes. But that does not mean they are not from a reliable, public source. As Che, states, I am not uploading my own work. What you quote does not really apply. Also what happened to good faith? Some of your arguments are about protecting WP from fabricated sources. Che, I have asked the MD that supplied them to me if he has another source, but I dont think there will be one, he just did the library work himself. Crum, this is what I really think:

My bias is that I have used the BDORT many times and am under the conviction that it works and is highly valuable. Your bias (that you have related indirectly to Addhoc, however completely clearly - as another reader like Che understands immediately on reading your words) is that you are personally against the BDORT or this entry sounding anything like positive in your perception about it. These are the 'cards on the table'. We all know that. Your bias, would predictably lead you to act towards this source in the way you are; you are doing just that. I, on the other hand, have asked the MD that first mentioned these affidavits on the Talk page if he could get hold of the original documents, because I know they are pretty 'heavyweight' sounding for the BDORT. Its all very simple and we are just following our biases. I mentioned to Che at the outset that this is a meta-meta issue that might need addressing first. I dont have a solution, the baises are very entrenched. But behind all the technical WP debating, this is what really is happening. Sometimes just good to say publicly for the record what is really happening. As you will probably have read in the Affidavits, some doctors in Japan for example, hope to be able to save many lives by early diagnosis of cancer. This slips through your wish to warn the public about relying on the BDORT and not conventional medicine, because the diagnosis that is made (if made) by BDORTesting is invariably earlier than that made by western medical checks. The BDORT is more sensitive. The only other problem that the absence of a 'warning' could create (from you POV/bias) is that if an 'all clear' is given re diagnosis of cancer via the BDORT, a cancer might go undetected because a conventional screening would not be carried out and that person might then not get early enough attention and possibly suffer and even die because of that. That's the analysis of the possible positive effects of the warning you want this entry to have, in one way or another. Here's a proposed solution. If you read through the abstracts of the BDORT conferences, you will find that many MDs that have used the BDORT for cancer diagnosis state clearly that diagnosis should always be confirmed with standard orthodox medical checks. Now, if we were to insert prominently a quote from one of these abstracts, to this clear effect, then we would have an antry, that regardless of how many 'positive' citations and information it contained re the BDORT, would carry the 'warning' that you are obviously seeking it to have. What do you think of this idea? Then, you would not need to be so 'objecting' to the citations that we have here. For example, you would not have to argue as you have done re the Shinnick citation, which we both know is USA Board Certified MD peer-reveiwed, that the words "since 200X" might mean "at a time later than 200X but not during 200X", re the publishing journal's peer-review status statement, etc etc. What's my motivation for writing the above? First, my bias. Second, saving a lot of time arguing superficially about the letter of the law of WP, when the real conflict here is our resepective biases. I am just thinking this might be a better solution. Either way, the article will eventually be reasonable (to me). You cannot really block citations like the Shinnick one in the end. I will not agree (and no one else ever has - including 3 Admins that have not) that a 'warning' after each paragraph is OK, or that the See Also section contains a clear labelling of "pseudoscience" etc - that you unilaterally put in months ago. Perhaps what will eventually happen is that I will have to request Arbitration, and the entry will be just a stub. It will be a shame, but perhaps that will suit you better, re your bias. and I can understand that: better to have nothing rather than not be able to warn the public of possible dangers. The other possibility is that all the above is incorrect, and that it has become a matter for you of personal conflict. In that case all this is a waste of time, and Arbitration is the best way to go. You must realize by now, that you have become the main 'argumenter' in this entry. Even during the last round of mediation, you had quickly become the one that has argued against the opinions of many Admins, repeatedly. This position requires a lot of responsibility, as I see it. Again, your bias, is a strong responsibility, and justifies your course of action. Lets just be clear about what is really happening here. Please note that I am not attacking anyone's bias, merely stating and analysing them. Good faith has been assumed throughout :-). Do you all know the quote, by the great Irish writer, George Bernard Shaw: "Hell is paved with good intentions, not bad ones; all men mean well".Richardmalter 10:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, let's get resolution on the WP-acceptability of this source before we decide if any part of it is usable in any way. Che, your idea of asking the librarian sounds good to me: please keep us posted; obviously getting this from a library using normal means available to the average Wikipedia reader would allow us to move forward. And one more thing Che, I do appreciate very much your mediation effort and your fairness - please don't misunderstand me, and I thank you profoundly for the work you've done so far. But we must play by the rules - we can't just make them up as we go. And as I understand them, WP's sourcing rules are pretty clear, and they disallow a source that is simply something an editor uploaded into WP space, regardless of what that source appears to be or say. If you are in fact correct, and such sourcing is acceptable, then my WP understanding would require a major and radical overhaul. Crum375 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But that's just it -- I don't agree that Wikipedia rules are cut and dry. Not in the slightest. The rules of the 'pedia are clear cut only up until the point that you navigate away from the foundation issues, and after that they become grey and uncertain. For that very reason we have guidelines -- they are commonly accepted suggestions on how to interpret the rules. If only it were that simple, policy disputes (and AfD disputes, and all those other lovelies) would not exist. - Che Nuevara 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, I think you may have a basic misunderstanding about how WP works. You mention the foundation issues, and you are correct - they are the basic tenets that we at WP cannot change, only elaborate and explain. OTOH, the WP policies are derived from the Foundation issues and exanded further. They are then turned into WP policies and guidelines that are decided by community consensus. For example, and specifically, take WP:V. It is specifically not a Foundation policy, but it is a WP policy. Your primary guidelines/policies here are the WP ones, which in turn are derived from the Foundation ones. So we can't just ignore WP:V and say "it's grey and uncertain" or "it's not in the Foundation policies". WP:V is a critical and fundamental WP policy and we must adhere to it. Otherwise, the WP:5P is just so much hot air. If I am wrong here, please correct me. Thanks, Crum375 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never said we should "just ignore" a policy because "it's not in the Foundation policies". All I said was that policies are not actually as cut-and-dry as you've represented them to be. They are many and complicated, and in my cases they contradict each other or themselves. At best, they are ambiguous. I am not in any way saying throw out policy. I'm saying interpret it. The very reason we have guidelines is because we need to interpret policy; if policy were clear-cut and unambiguous in every case, we wouldn't need guidelines.

Also note that, by their very nature, the Five Pillars that you've name-dropped are not policy, but "principle". I think that says a lot. Wikipedia policy is problematic. Necessary, but problematic. I think that's fairly plain to see.

Also, I'm growing tired of your thinly veil patronization. I can read and comprehend a passage you quote the first time; posting it twice more is patronizing. Telling me that I "may have a basic misunderstanding of how WP works" is patronizing. Saying "if you have (whatever), as you say, then ..." is patronizing and insulting to my credibility. Maybe you don't mean to sound like this, but take some time to go back and read over what you've said in this thread. It's incredibly patronizing and startlingly offensive. You're free to disagree with anything you want to, but I (and Wikipedia policy!) unequivocally require that you do so with a modicum of ettiquette. - Che Nuevara 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, please forgive me if I sound patronizing, because I am not. And if I sound rude, I have no intent to be rude, so it would be simply poor communicating skill on my part. And if I am short on etiquette, please feel free to correct me. I have nothing but respect for you - I know you are volunteering your time and energy for this, that you have other and better things to do, but like me you want to help improve Wikipedia. So again, I apologize if I sound offensive, it's inadvertent and certainly unintentional. Having said that, it seems that we do have a different vision and interpretation of WP's rules. Quoting from WP:V: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia". Similarly for WP:NOR. These are the first words on the respective pages after the title. It does not say: "these are suggestions that Wikipedians are encouraged to follow". For me a policy is something you adhere to, and if you don't like it, you get it changed, but you cannot just ignore it and say "it's all ambiguous and contradictory anyway". If we all did that, WP would cease to exist as a successful collaborative effort. Anyway, if we still disagree on this point, how do you propose we continue? Crum375 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not communicating this as well as I should. Let me try saying it this way: I do agree with you that Wikipedia policy should be adhered to as best as possible. I do agree that, without adherence to policy, Wikipedia would cease to function. But I also believe that it's not quite as simple as that, as the policy was written by a community of imperfect people, so the policy is imperfect. I'm not saying "ignore it because it's self-contradictory and ambiguous" -- I'm saying, in places, it's self-contradictory and/or ambiguous, so it has to be carefully interpreted so that the product as accurately as possible represents the model. What I'm saying is that, in this case, the letter of the policy and the spirit of the policy seem to say two different things, so we should proceed with caution and acknowledge the possibility that the policy is in this way less than perfect. Of course the policy is less than perfect; there would be no way to write a perfect set of policy. However, we still need to pay attention to the policy; we just need to carefully interpret it to ensure that our changes reflect what the policy is intended to moderate. Sometimes that is a gray area; I do believe that now is one of those times. I am not, I repeat, not suggesting that we just throw policy to the wind and have a field day. I'm saying we look past little snippits of the policy to what the whole of the issue, in the whole of policy and other precedents, is, and make an appropriate decision to a complex, not necessarily obvious problem. You get what I'm saying? - Che Nuevara 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree in principle. I agree that no policy should be followed blindly - we are not robots and every situation is different. I think the gap between us is specific to this specific case - I think this case is an obvious violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, while you apparently do not feel so. So maybe we need to focus on this issue specifically, and perhaps get some outside input. Does that make sense to you? Crum375 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think outside input would be a good idea; I've been terribly busy this week (midterms are coming up and I've got comprehensives next week) otherwise I would have done more to gather recordable opions. (Please note that this was what I was trying to do by asking the IRC channel for their thoughts, but anyone who has been in the #wikipedia channel understands why I can't reproduce the conversation here. If you're not already on the #wikipedia channel, I highly recommend it -- it's a helpful resource and honestly a lot of fun.) I'm hesitant to call it to a vote or a poll or something; do you have any suggestions on how to garner some other (possibly new?) viewpoints? - Che Nuevara 05:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to admit that I avoid using IRC specifically because it is not reproducible or linkable, as I think that wide open discussion is one of the main strengths of WP. I think what we need is to present this narrow specific and generic issue (the question of acceptability of evidence uploaded by an editor into WP space) at the proper forum. I would recommend the WP:NOR Talk page, since it has that famous quote I keep repasting, but WP:V or WP:RS would also be logical. I think we should avoid bringing the full case over there but limit ourselves to strictly this one specific issue. What do you think? Crum375 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable suggestion. What do you think, Richard? - Che Nuevara 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, good. Point me to the page for discussion please.Richardmalter 08:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, Richard: by sheer coincidence, there is a new proposed policy that it designed to replace the 3 policies in question, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and replace them by the combined version Wikipedia:Attribution. The discussion there is mostly about the transition issues, but since it seems to be gathering steam and could well be the new relevant policy by the time we are done here (if that ever happens), then it may make sense to post our question over there. I can see several options of how to do it, regardless of where we go. Obviously we need to remember to keep to the very narrow focus of the specific issue of relying on a source uploaded into WP by an editor. But I thought maybe we could agree here beforehand on the exact wording of the initial question, and then post it there. The other option is for Che to do it on his own. I can come up with a proposed wording of the initial question to be posted in a sub-page here, e.g. Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/Mediation/Draft, if you all are in agreement to the principle. I guess I can do that in any case - if/when I do, you'll see it go live. Crum375 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that putting this on WP:SOURCE would be a good way to get a community perspective; the page hasn't even reached the community portal, which indicates to me that its status in the community is questionable -- we don't want answers based on things that aren't really community based. I would put it on NOR.

As for the actual draft, my understanding is that it's an affidavit, not a simple letter -- the difference is significant. Correspondence is not on public record, but official court documents such as affidavits are.

In addition, I think a simple "Should this be allowed or not?" is a little too close to a simple voting process for my tastes. I would say that we ought to ask questions such as, "How, if at all, might one go about verifying this document, and does this verification method reasonably fulfill Wikipedia requirements?" - Che Nuevara 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, Richard: I tried to incorporate Che's wording and agree with Che that WP:SOURCE is premature for this, and that WP:NOR is probably best at this time. Your commments are welcome. Thanks, Crum375 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A made a few changes. Take a look. - Che Nuevara 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can live with your version. Richard? Crum375 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good.Richardmalter 22:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, you decide the next move. Do you want to post the question or should I? And assuming we get some diverse responses, how should we respond? Another possibility is that I can start and you or Richard can intervene whenever you want (e.g. if you feel I am not properly representing all sides here) - your (and Richard's) call. We certainly don't want to carry our long debates over there, I would think (they may kick us out ;^). Crum375 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate for me to post the question. You guys can join in the conversation if you like, but there may not be a reason to. We'll call it as we go from there. - Che Nuevara 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is best. Let's see how it goes. Crum375 23:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Crum, you do not actually reply to the proposal I made. ie, the subtext is, the biases are very, very entrenched; I see. OK, lets se what Che comes up with. And Che, I second Crum's thanks to you, very genuinely.Richardmalter 12:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, there is only one bias I will admit to, and it is in fact a very strong one: my desire to improve WP while following its policies and guidelines. As it happens, despite working on many issues and articles at the moment, none are quackery or even medically related. But my 'bias' is the same for all of them: my commitment to apply WP's principles to help WP grow and succeed in being a high quality, free online source of verifiable notable information with no original research. Crum375 12:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The NOR strategy returned roughly what I expected: one opinion. Which is, y'know, nice, but not decisive. However, I still believe, Richard, that there must be another source if all you're trying to show with this source is that this guy testified in favor of BDORT. If not, then it's probably not a very widely-known fact. If it's not a widely-known fact, it's probably not that crucial. Don't you think so? - Che Nuevara 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPDT of NZ re: Gorringe

c) #6 Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand findings in re Richard Gorringe and the PMRT/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. - citation OK. Reason: selectively quoted from object to. Also WP:OR using this citation object to.

[edit] Outside Discussion

The need for outside opinions is clear. It's also pretty clear to me that, if we keep moving at this rate, we'll be finished with this process sometime before the next Presidential elections ... maybe. As ready as I am to work with you guys, I suggest a new approach: how about an article drive? - Che Nuevara 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - Sorry for my brief absence -- I've been doing work on my computer. - Che Nuevara 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in full support of any procedure that will bring more eyes and brains (hopefully neutral and reasonable) to bear on this article. I also think you may be optimistic about your end-of-project estimate ;^) Crum375 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is in my understanding Wikipedia policy that entries are not to be either created or shaped by those with a commercial interest in advertising and promoting the subject or subjects of the entry.

If that is the case, why have months of effort been devoted to the careful, minute consideration of every thought of RichardMalter, who is an acknowledged commercial proponent of Omura and his methods, which are the subject(s) of this entry? TheStainlessSteelRat 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While your argument sounds reasonable, TSSR, that's not actually the way Wikipedia works, nor should it be. We try to assume good faith -- it is the article that is judged, not the editor. - Che Nuevara 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith. Can you clarify then the meaning of the Wikipedia Is Not An Advertising Service notices? An advertisement, I would think, may be offered in perfectly good faith if the advertiser believes in what is advertised, yet Wikipedia seems disinclined to accept such. What are the criteria brought to bear? I realize they can't be precise, but what are they? TheStainlessSteelRat 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles which advocate a particular thing or subject are not allowed, but that's not because of the writer, it's because of the article itself. That is to say, if someone who makes his livelihood with a particular thing writes a reasonable and balanced article on that subject, that's wonderful, and if someone who has no connection to something writes an ad-like article, it needs to be removed. Now, if you believe this article unfairly advocates BDORT, that's an issue that we should discuss, but to say that people shouldn't write articles about things they do for a living doesn't hold up.

By the way, thank you for being forthcoming about your handles. It will make discussion a lot easier. - Che Nuevara 05:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Last point first: No problem. I'll likely not switch in future, but if I do I'll give a clear heads up.

As to the 'advert' aspect: I'm sincerely not trying to be argumentative or difficult, here, and I agree with your basic point that it's content that matters. It seems to me, though, that there's potential difficulty here in pointing out, one would hope appropriately, that an edit or proposed edit seems to have an 'advert' aspect. If one does so is one then to be accused of not assuming good faith? In turn, if one is not to refer to it in any way, it seems to me the policy, which is featured rather prominently at this point, as I understand it there having been difficulties along this line, is essentially meaningless. Is it to exist without being employed? Again, sincerely, I'm not trying to split non-existant semantic hairs, here, but it seems to me that the policy exists, yet to refer to it is to risk being accused of not assuming good faith. Any thoughts? TheStainlessSteelRat 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that an advert-like edit should be identified and treated as such; I didn't mean to say that a responsible editor should not be on the lookout for ad-like edits, because clearly he/she should. All I was saying was that, even though Richard clearly has a personal connection to BDORT, he does have some legitimate points to bring up. - Che Nuevara 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't question Richard's sincerity, or his motives. I agree that such personal evaluation is utterly irrelevant, and that content and proposed content are what matter. I do, however, think it's also important, as I would assume/hope you would agree, to bear in mind at all times that the claims made here are extra-ordinary, that a very high standard of reliability and verifiabiity are therefore absolutely required, and that the burden is on anyone presenting such extra-ordinary claims or evidence for them – that the burden of proof is not on those who would bring skepticism to bear, but that reasonable skepticism – emphasis on the word 'reasonable' – is the appropriate standard. That is my understanding of the core relevant principles here. TheStainlessSteelRat 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems that we're in agreement. - Che Nuevara 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. TheStainlessSteelRat 07:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, one additional: As in the past in this entry threats of real world character have been made, I would like it clearly stated and understood that any such threat is absolutely intolerable and will not, in fact, be tolerated. I will not proceed further without such commitment. TheStainlessSteelRat 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This should go without saying, but, if there were threats earlier (which I must have passed over when I went through the archives), apparently it doesn't. Threats relating to the real world are a bannable action, and for good reason. I hope I don't have to say more on this subject, but thank you for bringing this up, TSSR. - Che Nuevara 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks, in turn. TheStainlessSteelRat 07:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello TheStainlessSteelRat, can you please just confirm that you have never used any other handle at any time during these discussion going back to when they started please, thanks.

I believe you will find that your concerns have already been anticipated and addressed, RichardMalter. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re WP entries, WP entries need to be shaped by WP policies. You will note for example, that the current refs to pseudoscience etc in the frozen version that keeps getting reverted by a number of editors have been discussed (twice) during mediation and were agreed as not WP OK. Crum was included and was part of that consensus. I inititiated that discussion that had a positive consensus-agreed WP outcome on this entry.

If you can contribute positively here, please do.Richardmalter 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, lets get this citation out to a wider audience please, how do you suggest we do that?

I suggest that we use Wikipedia:Collaborations to try and get as many pairs of eyes focused on this as possible. While posting on the Medicine portal might be useful, I think simply hitting the Village Pump et al with collaboration notices will get a number of (hopefully) knowledgeable (about WP policy) people to notice this article. We can work here together on what should go on the todo template, and then people will immediately see what the issues are when they get here.

Sound good? - Che Nuevara 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am all in favor of additional eyeballs. Indeed, I feel strongly that the absence of an adequate number of eyes is the key problem here. A real problem in the past, however, has been that presentations to additional eyeballs have resulted in observations and judgements that seemed to me helpful but which later proved moot as the entry effectively reverted to a state in which only a very few eyes were on it. I know no remedy for this problem. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am all for the extra crowd. Let's go for it. Crum375 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup yup, please let's. TheStainlessSteelRat 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on actually putting this into action until Richard gets back (in the next day or so). Okay? - Che Nuevara 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, what exactly is the proposal? I actually want a wider opinion on the Shinnick reference specifically first; if we dont resolve things one at a time we will always have edit wars again sooer or later. I roughly agreed with your ideas on this citation, Crum disagreed, so we need more input to make a decision. Also Arcsincostan and Crum have taken part in mediation that reached certain agreements and then reverted them. So it's no use forging on if some basics are not established.Richardmalter 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Richardmalter 10:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I, for my part, feel the more eyes the sooner the better. Che, Crum ? TheStainlessSteelRat 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Holding a long, drawn-out mediation between two or three participants is kind of ironic because it's often very easy to get a consensus between a few participants which doesn't reflect the community consensus; likewise, sometimes it's very difficult to get a consensus between two or three people when a clear consensus among the community exists. Bottom line is, I don't think you (Richard) and Crum will ever agree on all, or even most, of the issues to be addressed on this page. And even if you do, it might not be the best solution. So what I'm saying is this: now that the both of you are reasonably discussing and leveling with each other, and have both shown a willingness and indeed desire to mold the article to what the community believes is appropriate, the edit war is over. I believe that now the responsible thing to do is to outline the issues and hand the article over to the community, given the unlikelihood of the two of you agreeing on all these points. - Che Nuevara 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am all for involving as many additional editors in this article as possible. I don't think that there is any change in my position, or Richard's, the only reason the 'edit war is over' is because the article is temporarily frozen. I am sure Richard would love to shape it into his favorite version, and I wouldn't mind some changes myself. As far as 'the two of us reasonably discussing and leveling with each other', I think we have always had a reasonable amount of civility here. Yes, Richard sometimes forgets about 3RR, and has played with puppets in the past, but overall I think he understands and respects the WP rules, and tries to abide by them. I myself got here as informal mediator who got 'stuck' in the article - I was trying to mediate between Richard and Arcsincostan (and his previous handles) and some others when I arrived. My only goal, then and now, is to ensure that this article meets WP's requirements. I think it's mostly there, but it requires some minor tweaking. If we get a bunch of fresh eyes to help us get there, so much the better. Crum375 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do in fact agree that both of you would love to shape the article a particular way, which each of you believes is the correct way, but I assume (hopefully correctly) that both of you are wise enough not to edit war over it and can hash out your differences on the talk page in the company of other fine Wikipedia editors ;) - Che Nuevara 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I myself have no problem whatsoever to leave this version alone while we hash out our differences. This in fact has been my position from months ago, shortly after I arrived on the scene trying to informally mediate. I strongly suggested then that we should leave the version alone, while we use the Talk page to reach consensus. Unfortunately the others did not agree. 99% of my edits to this article have been a simple reversion to the descendant version that was there when I arrived on the scene (which I call the 'stable' version), which was also tweaked by SlimVirgin, while simultaneously encouraging the others to negotiate future changes on the Talk page. I suspect that if the article becomes unlocked again, the same pattern will be repeated - Richard will change it to his BDORT-friendly version, I will revert to the 'stable' version, Whiffle* may revert to the 'simple' version, etc. If getting all the new eyeballs can help resolve this situation, I am all for it. Crum375 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts, for whatever they're worth: I think it best to involve as many others as possible as practically, efficiently, and rapidly as possible. As to whether that means simply inviting the active participation of others in the entry or presenting a 'laundry list' of proposed sources and/or changes, I'm open. — Anything that will involve a wider circle of participation is, in my judgement, much to be desired. TheStainlessSteelRat 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's one option. Antonrojo 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Crum375 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, be very, very clear that you have continued your habit of completely misrepresenting me again. Everyone should know this. Crum, the decent thing would of course be for you to egolessly apologize. I have never used another handle/puppet etc other than my own name, the only change has been an upper or lower case for my family name. Unlike most people here, I am happy to say who I really am. (It is very indicative to me that people hide their real identities).Richardmalter 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re the proposal, I have read the page, and it seems at RfC is the appropriate step for this citation; then we can hopefully move on. On a small positive note, we do have some agreement for example on the quackwatch citation already discussed, which could now by consensus be used to change the article accordingly. Lets put out a RfC re the Shinnick citation is what I propose.Richardmalter 10:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am willing to forgive your sockpuppetry and 3RR indiscretions, and no, I am not counting cases where you fairly obviously forgot to log in and later apologized for it, nor your upper/lower case changes. OTOH, if you really insist, and refuse to admit it, including evading a block in the past with a sockpuppet, I can start digging up old evidence. I really prefer to move forward, and mentioned it only in passing, however.

Regarding the proposal, is there some reason why you don't want us to present this case in front of a wide group of neutral editors, as proposed by Antonrojo and agreed to by TheStainlessSteelRat and myself? Crum375 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, it's my opinion that continuing at this current pace would be ludicrous. If we're going to RfC the article (or peer review it, or list it for collaboration ...), it should be for the whole of the disputed material. That's more realistic in terms of wiki-process anyway. - Che Nuevara 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. The more eyes the better. The more overall perspective those eyes have on the entry, the better. TheStainlessSteelRat 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, OK, I follow.

Crum, your mistrust and continued misrepresentation will lead you to waste your time trying to prove something that did not happen on planet earth, ever. But go ahead if that satisfies you (just like your seeming high regard for the primitive paradigm of expiation). Your lack of openness throughout here - hiding your true intentions that you unwittingly revealed in an email to Addhoc that Che noted here as soon as I pointed him to them. The fact that even after I corrected you regarding myself re your previous slandar and you then continued to misrepresent me is also noteworthy. You can also know that your behaviour has been noted by many people in and out of WP that have written to me privately about you. Your reverting decisions that you were fully party to and which you agreed with also is (WP) extremely undesirable and does not do much for your reputation either.Richardmalter 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My current plan is, then, to put the mediation page on Peer Review and, if that doesn't doesn't get the reaction we need, we can create and advertise a collaboration to look over the disputed material. Sound amicable to you? - Che Nuevara 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean this question neutrally, as an enquiry, not a challenge or quibble — you're more knowledgeable as to Wikipedia process than am I: Is it more appropriate to place this page on peer review, or the entry itself? I'm essentially amenable to either — whatever, as I've said, is most likely to open the entry and the question of appropriate sourcing to the wider community. TheStainlessSteelRat 04:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isn't really any precedent for putting mediation / specific issues on peer review, but that's really what we need. I suppose that the peer review would direct to the article, with a note that the issues we need to discuss are the ones being discussed in the mediation. So, long story short, both. - Che Nuevara 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I say, no quibbles, no quarrels, no qualms. It makes infinite good sense to me. This entry isn't the private property of those thus far involved. Let's attempt to open to a wider range of judgement and opinion. Let's do it. TheStainlessSteelRat 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like Richard to explicitly endorse this approach before I take any action, but I'm glad it has your support :) - Che Nuevara 04:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly does :) TheStainlessSteelRat 04:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, thanks for waiting for me; I did mean just above, yes, I go with this plan, thank you. Does this mean that all the contested references etc will get more opinion?.Richardmalter 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. Yes, that is the plan -- to expose the entire article, including and especially the contested links, to community judgment. I feel that is the most productive and appropriate course of action. - Che Nuevara 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, of course count me in - I endorse any plan to add wider exposure to this entry - i.e. the entire Omura/BDORT article, with the mediation page as a side note and background (in addition to the Talk archives).
Regarding Richard's comments, given that my reputation, as Richard says, is so low 'inside and outside WP', I would like to consult with the others here: should I provide evidence from the past about Richard's 3RR and sockpuppeteering, including evading a block with a sockpuppet, or should I just let it slide as counter-productive for now? Personally I see no advantage to it except to 'save my reputation', and if others don't feel it's needed, I'll skip it - your call. Crum375 12:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I'd rather move forwards than backwards. As long as the two of you feel that you can work together peaceably and constructively, what anyone did in the past is not of any particular interest to me. It's the future of the article that I'm concerned with. - Che Nuevara 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum: I quite agree that it's the entry and its content that matter. That said, Richard would seem to have persistently raised the matter of personality and motive. Why not ask him whether he would prefer you provide the evidence on the record or whether he would prefer to focus on the content of the entry? If the latter, then presumably we can proceed in that fashion in future, focused on content. TheStainlessSteelRat 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take TheStainlessSteelRat's suggestion: Richard, do you prefer that I provide the evidence I mentioned, and we then focus on those historical issues, or do you prefer to focus on the article and its contents? Crum375 20:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard: I felt I ought call to your attention that it's likely appropriate to include the 22nd Annual International Symposium Schedule/Proceedings in the proposed wider discussion. I believe the ability to remove asbestos and diagnose via the analysis of patterns of bubble formation in shaken urine samples are recent developments not included in the earlier cites. Also, Dr. Omura and his colleagues would seem to have further extended and refined many of their earlier findings, such as the application of Special Solar Paper and the selection of underwear, clothing, shoes, and soft drinks via BDORT. As you were in New York for the conference, I'm a little surprised you hadn't already presented these exciting new findings with us as proposed additions to the entry, and I thought you might want to rectify this doubtless unintentional oversight. TheStainlessSteelRat 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, do what you like. I refer you et al to my comments above re this which are as said; you can provide anything you like.

TSSR, just curious, how did you know I was in NY? Were you the person that tried to slandar Dr Omura at Columbia during the conference? Your sarcasm reflects back on you.

As an appeal to your basic humanity, one obstetrician at the conference told how he diagnosed a baby with an infection with the BDORT that did not show up with standard tests or could be verified by them, voiced his grave concerns at the time, but his colleagues laughed at him (much the same way you, crum et al 'laugh' here), and no action was taken. The child died of the infection a few months later. This was not a WP entry, it was a flesh and blood child. His colleagues no longer laugh at him. While you, crum et al sit and apply your armchair critques to the BDORT etc, the real world and real people are affected. The parents would not think much of your sarcasm. I can only sincerely suggest, from one person to another, that you consider such things with your basic humanity. Your comments will not bring the child back, ever; only an early diagnosis might have. Richardmalter 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, I wait for you to proceed as agreed, thanks.

Richard, since you apparently already feel that my 'reputation is in tatters', I doubt there is much I can do to repair my image in your eyes. I do care, however, about my image in other people's eyes, and if any of the others request me to present the said evidence to show that over the history of this article you repeatedly violated 3RR, and used sockpuppetry, among other reasons to evade a block, I would do so. I personally do not wish to dig into the past and/or critique other editors' behavior; I much prefer to move into the future by improving the article's contents. So I leave it to the others to decide this issue.

I am surprised about your new allegations about me, which I quote: "Your lack of openness throughout here - hiding your true intentions that you unwittingly revealed in an email to Addhoc that Che noted here as soon as I pointed him to them". I don't recall ever sending Addhoc an email, and I don't recall Che noting here "my true intentions" or any 'hidden agenda' other than to confirm that my goal, as always, is to adhere to WP's policies, including strict high quality sourcing in case of exceptional/outlandish scientific or medical claims. If anyone here besides Richard believes that I have ever demonstrated any "hidden agenda" or bias besides the strong desire to see the source quality match the exceptionality of the scientifc claim per WP policy, please let me know. Crum375 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Richard, I have no idea what you're talking about. TheStainlessSteelRat 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be most helpful if we focus exclusively on the entry and appropriate sourcing per Wikipedia criteria. I presume, then, that Richard is amenable to the inclusion of the Program of the most recent Symposium linked above as it would certainly seem to meet Wikipedia criteria, and that others are as well, and that it ought be included in any sourcing presented to the wider community for discussion and consideration. I would hope that we can move expeditiously in that direction. Richard, Crum, Che? TheStainlessSteelRat 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If the question is whether to use it as a source to what Omura is doing or claiming, I agree. Crum375 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, re your very last comment, what then is the difference between this Symposium citation (which of course I agree can be included) for what Omura is doing or claiming, and the Shinnick ref for the same for him?

TSSR, did you not understand the English words I wrote?Richardmalter 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Richard, I have no idea what you're talking about. TheStainlessSteelRat 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume, then, Richard, if I understand you correctly, that you are indeed amenable to the inclusion of the Program for wider consideration and discussion on the part of the community. —Che? TheStainlessSteelRat 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I have never objected to use any of Omura's material to show what he is doing or claiming. WP allows us to use material written by a subject of an article to indicate his/her claims. There are some restrictions, for example, if the subject disparages or libels someone or something we could potentially censor it, but that's not the case here. Crum375 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, what then is NOT the same re the Shinnick citation? You seem to be saying something entirely contradictory to what you have argued re the Shinnick citation, WP allows us to use material written by a subject of an article to indicate his/her claims?! Please clarify what the difference is? Can we use the Shinnick ref to use material written by a subject of an article [shinnick] to indicate his/her claims??

TSSR, I wrote: TSSR, just curious, how did you know I was in NY? Were you the person that tried to slandar Dr Omura at Columbia during the conference? Your sarcasm reflects back on you. As an appeal to your basic humanity, one obstetrician at the conference told how he diagnosed a baby with an infection with the BDORT that did not show up with standard tests or could be verified by them, voiced his grave concerns at the time, but his colleagues laughed at him (much the same way you, crum et al 'laugh' here), and no action was taken. The child died of the infection a few months later. This was not a WP entry, it was a flesh and blood child. His colleagues no longer laugh at him. While you, crum et al sit and apply your armchair critques to the BDORT etc, the real world and real people are affected. The parents would not think much of your sarcasm. I can only sincerely suggest, from one person to another, that you consider such things with your basic humanity. Your comments will not bring the child back, ever; only an early diagnosis might have. What bit do you not understand?

Che, yes, sorry if was not clear enough.Richardmalter 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, to give you an idea of what an example of the public think, here is what some people on an oriental medicine discussion forum got as an impression of this WP entry: I did a quick Google search, but what I mostly found was a fairly biased wikipedia article, which speaks more to the level of activity over at Quackwatch than it does to the specifics of the technique. So you see the bias comes through very clearly to the public and the entry has been degraded by you to a personal opinion page.Richardmalter 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, Richard, but I fail to follow your point. TheStainlessSteelRat 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, if you're offering that latter quote as a proposal for the entry, it would be helpful, I think, if you could provide a link to the source so that we might determine if it's acceptable as per Wikipedia criteria.

I take it, then, if I understand correctly, that all are in agreement that it is best to present the entry and its accompanying discussion to the wider community as expeditiously as possible in an attempt to gain wider review on the part of the community. —Che? TheStainlessSteelRat 08:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I thought I made it clear in my last repsonse, but let me try again. Omura is the subject of this article. That means, by definition, that he was found notable enough to stay on WP. According to WP's sourcing rules, we can then use his own publications and words to indicate his claims, actions, thoughts, etc. This is how we describe BDORT - through its description in Omura's publications. This is not a 'scientific' validation or reference for BDORT - it is simply Omura telling us what he thinks or does, which we are allowed to use in his article. The same is not true in the Shinnick case. The issue there is whether we may use the Shinnick reference as scientific support for a scientific claim (BDORT and its clinical safety or effectiveness) - that is a very different situation, and in that case WP's strict 'exceptional quality' sourcing requirement for exceptional or outlandish scientific/medical claims applies, which the Shinnick reference fails, IMO. I hope this makes the distinction clearer. Crum375 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my brief absence, folks; the physical world called some demands in on me. Yes, it does seem we are all in agreement. I would like to make a move on a peer review which basically says we'd like community input on sourcing -- we have a list of sources and disagree on their usability. Exact wording might look something like this:

The article, overall, is in a decent state, but many of its current or proposed sources are in question. We would like input from the community on the proper usage of these sources; due to the small number of people currently involved in this discussion, we are unable to come to any reasonable consensus on many issues.

I would then direct them to both the article and to this page. If anyone would like to suggest additions / alterations, now would be the time. Richard: we cannot, by any means, afford to be moved by "basic humanity" in this issue. Whether or not BDORT works, and the merits or lack thereof of the process, should not be the concern of anyone editing this article. The sole concern of anyone involved in editing this article should be creating and maintaining an article which conforms to WP standards. - Che Nuevara 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Che, and thanks for hanging in with the process. I think the wording is fine, as is your proposed direction to the article/entry and this page. I would simply note the recent addition of 22nd Annual International Symposium as per above. I say, do it. TheStainlessSteelRat 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Che, I second TheStainlessSteelRat's comments: your suggestions and wording seem fine to me. I also agree about the latest BDORT symposium being a good reference for BDORT, in the limited way as all the previous symposia papers included in the article, per our above discussion. Crum375 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Crum, you contradict yourself 100%. telling us what he thinks or does, which we are allowed to use in his article. as Che has also says applies also to the Shinnick ref, does it not? (as you have been told many times, Shinnick is a great source for saying what he thinks; I think you just dont like it, that is all). Che comments on this please?

No, I do not agree with the wording, Che. I do not agree that the article is overall in a decent state; as the outside opinion I posted also agrees. The article is basically a billboard for Crum et al with all kinds of contents that have been agrred in mediation and crum has been told repeatedly by many Admins are not WP OK whatsoever. It is basically WP:OR/POV from more or less beginning to end. It is also a technically very incorrect deascription of the actual thing in question. In summary it is currently rubbish.Richardmalter 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, if you believe that the article is so bad, the a peer review isn't appropriate. Peer review is for articles which are doing pretty well but need a little help along the way. I think, given your summation of the article, that we should instead attempt to pursue a collaboration -- what you are suggesting is basically paring down this article to its bare essentials and rewriting it. - Che Nuevara 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would respectfully suggest that if Richard wishes to continue citing this 'outside opinion' which he quoted, that he provide a link to it so that we may consider it, as that's apparently his desire. I'm unable to locate the quote via Google. TheStainlessSteelRat 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TSSR, I think we both know you are avoiding responding; I will drop this thread which was started in response to your sacrcasm. This Che is what promoted my words, as you know silly sarcasm also has no place in WP.Richardmalter 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I don't give up easy, so I'll try again - maybe I'll get through this time. In WP we allow the subject of a WP article to tell us about him/herself via sources that s/he publishes that wouldn't otherwise be acceptable as 'standalone' sources. IOW, if there is a WP article about Mr. X, and he has a personal web site that says: I have a PhD in Chemistry, we are allowed to use Mr. X's web page as a source that he has that degree. IOW, the subject of a WP article is given some leeway for statements about him/herself, using sources that wouldn't be acceptable otherwise, as long as the claims are 'reasonable' and non-controversial. Note that BDORT is controversial in our case as a procedure, but it is not controversial (to my knowledge) what it is, what it claims to do, or that Omura invented it. Therefore we can use Omura's web sites and publications as a source to describe all these points, even though he's obviously not neutral, as he is the subject of the WP article. If a third party comes along (like Shinnick) and makes some scientific or medical statement about BDORT or Omura, then we must apply all the normal WP requirements for exceptional high quality sources for exceptional/outlandish claims. Crum375 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it’s best you drop this matter, Richard, lest it raise the question of who paid your expenses in traveling to New York to discuss the entry.

Let us confine our discussion to the entry and its citations, and move along to a wider colloquy, shall we? TheStainlessSteelRat 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone ought to rein in a little before the conversation takes an uncivil tone. Thanks. - Che Nuevara 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As Richard seems now to object to presenting the material to wider scrutiny, whereas the (limited number) of other participants are happy to do so, what do you suggest? TheStainlessSteelRat 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Richard is okay with putting it out here but disagrees with the two of you on the state of the article. I would suggest an article drive / collaboration. - Che Nuevara 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. TheStainlessSteelRat 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support any mechanism that starts with what we have now as a reference point, then allows Richard and/or anyone else to present their grievances with or comments on that version, and finally allows a wide (the wider the better) forum to tackle the situation by deciding on what needs to be changed and how. If there is a way to achieve this process, I am all for it. I am not sure what the exact WP process would be, but I know I want to address the full scope of the article, not some minor subset. Crum375 22:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated note -- can everyone please try to always use edit summaries on this page? Because sometimes comments rack up here quite quickly, if a couple of edits in a row have no summaries it's possible to miss a comment. It would be a huge help. Thanks! :) - Che Nuevara 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: I'm sincerely not trying to be confrontatory here, and we have an insanely small number of participants, which compounds the problem. It would seem, though, that with respect to peer review three of the four engaged in that question feel it's appropriate. Is it appropriate, then, that one of the four in effect insist on their preference? I recognize that Wikipedia is not a vote-driven process, but, rather, one of consensus. Is this to mean, then, that any single party effectively holds a veto? I don't claim to have the answers to these questions, I'm simply posing them. TheStainlessSteelRat 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that, as long as we come up with a solution, it's fine. If we can't come up with a unanimous solution, then we'll just have to go with the most popular one. But we'll burn that bridge when we come to it, eh? - Che Nuevara 22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you provide any sense of the likely strengths/weaknesses of each approach to presentation to the wider community? TheStainlessSteelRat 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The options, in my mind, are as follows:

1. Peer review: it seems that we have too far to go for a PR, but this might be useful in a while once we've gotten the article to a reasonable state and just want polishing
2. Straw poll: there are, in my mind, too many different things to discuss at once for a straw poll
3. Request for comment: this is nice for drive-by questions, but is not likely to get any committed participants
4. Collaboration: in my opinion, this is my best bet -- if we're lucky, we'll get a handful of people who are willing to stick around and work on this article with us

If anyone has another suggestion, or a comment on the above, please say so. - Che Nuevara 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read up on Collaboration. AFAICT, and correct me if I am wrong, the idea there is to take a stub (or an unsightly mess) of an important subject and bring it to a higher level as far as content, style, sourcing, etc. The article is planned like an Amish house construction project: everyone gets a piece to do, and in notime there is a frame, walls, floors, roof, paint and it's done. I don't think this is our case here. We have an article that, at least to some of us, appears fairly balanced and complete. The article also passed a fairly rigorous AfD, with quite a few eyes scrutinizing it. However, to one editor it appears totally POV, biased and factually wrong, 'rubbish' was the last adjective used. Obviously this is not a case of a stub in need of expansion - it's a case of a deep seated content dispute over an existing fairly complete article. Hence, it doesn't seem to me that WP:CO is the right place to take this case, although I could be totally wrong here, and please correct me if so. OTOH, I am not sure what other option of the ones Che listed above is better. It almost seems like it's none of the above. I wonder if it makes sense to just advertize the case on the Village Pump (as I think Che may have proposed at one point) and try to get suggestions as to the best course of action. Comments? Crum375 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to argue in favor of presentation of the entry in its present form for Peer Review. In my judgement this is a sound, neutral, well-sourced entry per Wikipedia criteria – though inevitably, as are all things, imperfect – which might well benefit from further criticism and refinement. If that judgement on my part were to be found upon presentation for Peer Review not to be shared by the wider community, then I would of course accede to that broader perspective. TheStainlessSteelRat 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you repeat yourself, and so do I; I think you have a basic confusion; Che (he will correct me if I am wrong) opined similarly - that Shinnick is a good source for saying what he did and thinks. Everyone should also note, especially TSSR who reiterates his point, that if we take the last citation discussed, I agreed with Che's approach and usage to and of it, which agreement can be reveiwed above, while Crum disagreed. So the accurate presentation here is that consensus on the last citation (and many others included in the last round of mediation including a number of Admins) is being 'held up' by Crum; not by me. Further, the current version includes things that Crum, TSSR et al in consensus mediation agreed against but continually revert to - which besides being very anti-WP culture, makes any idea that it is 'roughly OK' etc nonsense. Again, it does not even include a basic accurate description of the technique. When I on numerous occasions tried to insert this, Crum, TSSR immediately deleted it. ie the biases here are enourmous. I have strong reason to know that TSSR was the one who recently tried to slandar Dr Omura at the recent symposium in NY - an extremely strong motivated and vested bias indeed. So let's not distort the actual picture on any count.

(TSSR, you can discuss about me anything you like if it pleases you; I have nothing to hide - not even my name, address etc. Only put it on a separate page as it will clutter things up here; maybe create your own website where you can talk about whatever you like is best, I suggest.)Richardmalter 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, one approach in mediation, is to discuss where there is likely to be agreement. The next citation, the Manaka ref. was all but agreed upon in the last round of mediation - maybe we should (concurrently) discuss it in order to break the empasse?Richardmalter 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I'll try once more to explain, very briefly. If you are a WP subject, we are allowed to include your own published words to indicate non-controversial information about you. Hence we can use Omura's words to inform WP's readers about BDORT and Omura - what BDORT is, what Omura claims it can do, etc. This flexibility for WP article subjects does not apply to Shinnick, who is simply a third party here, potentially attesting to BDORT's efficacy. As such, the Shinnick reference must conform to the WP requirement of high quality sources for outlandish scientific claims.

Regarding my 'holding up the consensus' - I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Che presented us with 4 options above; I noted that I don't think any of them is directly applicable to our situation of a fairly polarized content dispute. I previously noted that I would be delighted to have as many eyes as possible going over the article, but to achieve that we must find the right mechanism. I am eager to see what Che thinks about my comments and suggestion above. Crum375 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Che: I would ask simply that you insist Richard desist from personal attacks. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to discuss appropriate form and references for an entry while being subject to repeated personal attacks. TheStainlessSteelRat 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard: I would ask that you desist from these persistent personal attacks. If you have the evidence and the arguments for the entry in the form you feel is appropriate, then please offer them. As to your most recent personal attacks, with which you insist in persisting, I would note that: 1) You accept without contest the simple fact that your expenses in traveling to New York to confer with Omura and his colleagues were in fact paid for by Omura; 2) I have no idea why you feel the need to invent a slanderous attack upon Omura at that recent Symposium.

I would respectfully suggest then that you simply confine yourself to your arguments and the evidence for them, as per Wikipedia criteria, and allow others to simply let the matter rest and address those arguments and that evidence on their merits without having to constantly defend themselves from your personal attacks.

I assume, then, that, as you accuse Crum of obstructing process, of which I see no evidence, that you are, in fact, in favor of presenting the entry for Peer Review as per Che’s suggestion.

Shall we then proceed?

Che? TheStainlessSteelRat 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus, and lack of consensus is lack of consensus. In asking me to cast judgment on who is "holding up consensus" you are asking me to relinquish any appearance of neutrality that I have. I absolutely will do no such thing. I want consensus or, barring that, as close to consensus as possible. That's it -- that's what I'm trying to do.

Furthermore, I could not care less what actually happened at this symposium. If there is a WP-acceptable source that arose out of this symposium, let's see it. If not, I don't want to hear about it. It has absolutely zero bearing on this conversation other than what people make of it. Please make it none.

Richard: if you read my comments from before, you will see that I said this:

That's exactly what I meant by whether his beliefs are relevant and applicable. No one can tell us better what Shinnick believes than Shinnick, but the issue in question is whether that belief is appropriate to the article. That doesn't make Shinnick a bad source on Shinnick's beliefs, it simply makes Shinnick either useful or not. I agree it's a fine semantic distinction, but it's an important one.

Let's get back on track, please. Richard, do you have any suggestions or comments re: my options above? - Che Nuevara 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a key part of reaching consensus is making sure that views held by only a few people don't get undue weight. In my opinion, peer review will help sort that out (in other words adding a {{peer}} tag and un/semiprotecting). Antonrojo 04:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Antonrojo, this is exactly the kind of thing I want to hear. Unfortunately, as much as I would love to unprotect the article, I'm not an admin ;) - Che Nuevara 04:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well, Antonrojo. Let's get this in front of more eyes, for a wider perspective, if at all possible, as expeditiously as possible. TheStainlessSteelRat 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Che et al, I am sorry if I have not been clear enough, I have already said I agree with this, yes, good.Richardmalter 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Outsider

Hey all. I'm willing to jump in here and lend my opinions on this matter. I was hoping, though, before I do, that someone might be able to briefly summarize what the current dispute is about and what I should be concentrating on when I read the article. Gzkn 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Gzkn, I'll essay the attempt: I would think the best starting point, if you're willing, is to look over the entry as it stands, as well as its sources. This, in a sense, will offer you the opportunity to see the entry as someone happening across it might, and you can make a first determination if it seems a fair and reasonable presentation. Then, I would think, it would be helpful to look at the suggestions made by RichardMalter, above, in this mediation section, where he indicates the ways in which he feels the entry is inaccurate. I would attempt, initially, to simply attempt to assess the entry, and Richard's differences with it, then let us know what you think. That's my thought, for whatever it may be worth. Thanks for offering to help. TheStainlessSteelRat 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much! Out of sheer curiosity -- and I don't mean anything by this question other than exactly what it asks -- how did you happen upon this conversation?

So here goes: Omura's biography is largely not in question. The main issues seem to be over what is and isn't a reliable source on BDORT. The fineries of WP:RS are certainly being tested here. Who can and can't comment on the procedure, effects, and efficacy of BDORT? The dispute (as far as I've seen -- I've only been here a while and I'm here as a mediator, not a participant) involves the above citations and their use in the article.

Anything in particular you'd like to know? - Che Nuevara 06:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Heh. In answer to your question, Che, I stumbled upon this as I have Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases on my watchlist. I noticed seven(!) new cases in the last two days, so I decided to browse some of the old ones to see if they were actually still open or whether there were any I might be able to help close (the current case I'm mediating is kind of slow at the moment). Anyway, saw the call for a wider forum in the status of this one and came here. (I was, though, a bit taken aback at the sheer amount of words here.) I think I'll take a look at the article first and post my general thoughts on the BDORT section/sources used there. Gzkn 07:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...after reading the article, I feel as if my opinions on this matter (that the article needs an entire overhaul and should be shortened drastically) will probably not lead to any good consensus and would prolong this discussion. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

• BDORT section:
  • "The fact that patent was granted to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has been cited as an example of 'high weirdness' [8] by at least one firm of patent attorneys, and by another firm of patent attorneys as 'just plain offensive,' presenting an illustrative example of the presumption of validity on the part of the US Patent Office being misused to an extent which renders claims of utility and enablement literally meaningless with respect to an invention which might have some claim to utility only if it had been presented as 'carnival entertainment.' " <-- Violates NPOV (as well as standard grammar).
  • The article is named Yoshiaki Omura, and yet there is actually very little information describing the man. If the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test really is that notable, I'd list all the information currently found in the BDORT section in a separate article on BDORT where it belongs. Of course, my view (after reading this article, reviewing some of the sources, and Googling it) is that BDORT is NOT that notable and does not merit such a lengthy description. I would shorten it to one or two paragraphs, summarizing thusly (and better worded than my example):

BDORT was developed by Omura as an alternative medicine diagnostic test in (year). He claims that BDORT does ___(whatever he claims it does)___. He applied for U.S. patents for BDORT twice unsuccessfully before being granted one in 1993. BDORT has yet to be accepted by the mainstream medical community and its scientific validity was rejected by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand (those darn hobbits!).

• Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand Consideration section:
  • After reading through the entire article, I still don't know what PMRT stands for, or what it is. Is it equivalent to BDORT? Lumped together with BDORT by the New Zealanders?
  • Anyway, my view is that this whole section should be gutted and replaced by one or two sentences in the BDORT section. No need to have whole paragraphs quoting those expert witnesses.
• Ideally, the Selective Drug Uptake Enhancement Method would be incorporated into my above BDORT section as one or two sentences.
• Solar Energy Stored Papers, Other Researches, and Heart Disease Research Foundation can be summarized in one or two paragraphs; they do not each deserve separate sections.
• "Similarly, Omura's sites prominently feature the statement that he has long held and continues to hold an 'Annual International Symposium on Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics' at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, as if to suggest some form of affiliation with or approval by Columbia University." Statement jumps to conclusions and violates NPOV

Of course, you're free to disregard my comments if you feel that the above won't lead anywhere good. I come from the land of FACs (where I spend most of my time on Wikipedia), so I might be holding this article to different standards than what is required to resolve the current dispute. Gzkn 08:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Gzkn. I think an outside perspective is invaluable. To compare thoughts with you, then, with respect to your observations:

I think that there is validity to your observation that the entry might be a good deal shorter, and tighter. There were originally, in fact, two entries, both short, one for Omura, the other for BDORT, both of which were linked to the entry for the New Zealand commission re Gorringe.

In nomination for deletion discussions it was concluded that the Omura/BDORT entry was notable on the basis of its being pseudoscience/quackery, as determined by the NZ tribunal, which was the only agreed reliable source on the matter.

The entry grew as a proponent attempted, doubtless sincerely and with good intentions, to ‘correct’ the entry to demonstrate that Omura/BDORT were in fact (in his judgement) perfectly sound science/medicine.

Hence the present form of the entry, which reflects this process.

Stepping back from the present fracas, and taking your observations into account, I still feel as I argued some considerable time ago: That either the entry is not notable, or, if it is notable, it ought, in order to retain NPOV, be far, far shorter – effectively a simple description of Omura’s bio, the BDORT and its attendant derivatives, and the conclusions of the NZ tribunal. (The NZ tribunal equates PMRT and BDORT and concludes there is no scientific basis for PMRT/BDORT– though you will find Richardmalter disagrees strongly with this).

My summary analysis, for what it is worth, is this: If this entry is notable per Wikipedia verifiable criteria it is notable solely on the basis of the NZ tribunal. If the tribunal is not notable or valid with respect to Omura/BDORT, then the entry ought be deleted altogether as not notable. If, on the other hand, the NZ tribunal is valid per Wikipedia criteria, it is sufficient to justify a short entry on Omura/BDORT, which would simply neutrally describe Omura/BDORT in short form and juxtapose this description with a comparably short description of the findings of the NZ tribunal that PMRT/BDORT were found, in its judgement, to have no scientific validity.

It seems to me that the present extensive entry is the result of a tug of war between a proponent who has argued that Omura/BDORT are well established and well known as valid science and medicine, and others who have argued this is not the case.

Thoughts? TheStainlessSteelRat 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gzkn, and welcome to the article. As you can tell this is quite complex. We all agree, or at least most of us do, that more eyes reviewing this article would be very useful. Going over your preliminary comments above, I will take just your first one, about the POV-ness of the characterization of BDORT as a carnival trick. Are you saying that WP is exhibiting POV here, or the source is POV? Obviously WP must be neutral, but we are allowed to include POV sources. So which is the case here?

Regarding our overall course of action to bring this article to stability (if not a future FAC), what would you recommend, given that we have one contributor who is a BDORT practitioner, who strongly and sincerely believes in its effectiveness, and is constantly trying to shape the article to say that BDORT is wonderful?

BTW, regarding your point about BDORT deserving its own article, if you follow the links and archives, you will note that in fact BDORT and Omura did have their own articles originally, but were merged after an AfD. Then there was another AfD where the entire combination was proposed for deletion, but the combined article survived the AfD mainly because it is a combination - both Omura and BDORT in the same article. Please read the AfD discussions for more details. Thanks, Crum375 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gzkn, I hope you stay with us for some time longer, thank you for the input. I agree with most of your suggestions - especially the very obvious violation in many cases of NPOV. I need to tell you that Crum has a habit of misrepresnting me, even thouhg I have asked him many times not to; I want a fair article not a hugely biased, selectively source-from-bias, censored one; Crum wants to warn the public about the dangers of the BDORT - which concern he mentioned to an Admin some time ago and which Che has also noted as clearly his opinion on the BDORT. Please also have a glance through previous mediation archives where you can see that some decisions were agreed in consensus which included Crum and TSSR but which they continually since revert. I would also like your opinion on the other citations listed above here for consideration - which the others have immediately deleted as soon as I have tried to use them. Also, a correct description of the technique, which seems pretty basic info to me, they also delete without explanation immediately it appears. Biases, though undeclared, are extremely strong here. Thank you.Richardmalter 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will simply note that I judge Richard's characterizations and accusations as inaccurate and let the record speak for itself. TheStainlessSteelRat 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest -- I'm rather dismayed at this reaction to Gzkn's sincere and helpful attempts. I said above and I'll say it again: we are not here to discuss who is "holding up consensus" efforts. I thought we had moved past this silliness to a point where we could assume good faith. Apparently not.

Now, with the addition of outside parties, it is more important than ever to focus on content and cease all semblance of ad hominem criticism. This process will go forward only with the assumption of good faith by all parties about all parties. I've spent enough time and energy here to expect that, and not displaying a willingness to do this is, at this advanced point, extremely disrespectful both to me and to Gzkn, who has come and offered to help of his own volition with no proffering.

This is no longer a request; I've requested it enough times. This needs to happen, or I will strongly consider pursuing other avenues. - Che Nuevara 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, please stay with us - we need you! Assuming you do stay, you have not yet responded to my suggestion above to advertize in the Village Pump looking for ideas for the best WP process to tackle our situation here. Crum375 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To specify, I don't plan to give up on this article, but if reasoned discussion isn't possible I will shape the process a different way, possibly through more official channels. I would indeed like to throw this issue up on the Village Pump and, seeing as everyone previously agreed that they wanted more eyes, I think it's appropriate. I'll put a message up in a little while. - Che Nuevara 23:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd already posted to Cowman's Discussion page asking he look at the state of discussion and if the entry should perhaps be unlocked and posted for Peer Review, as there was clear agreement on the desirability of that at that point.

In general, as I've indicated, I think this is the sort of situation that Wikipedia simply cannot effectively address. There is no editorial structure in the conventional sense to simply _deal_ with a dispute. That said, as I believe I made clear above, I'm open to either reducing the entry to a bare minimum or working with it in its present form. In the past it has simply not proven possible to get more eyes on the entry for anything more than a very brief interval. Hence, I believe, when combined with Wikipedia's structure, the problem. TheStainlessSteelRat 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Peer Review is the correct process for this issue. Quoting from the lead for Peer Review, it "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This is not our specific case here: we have a problem with a single editor who is an advocate and practitioner of BDORT, who (apparently) strongly believes it works as advertized, and will never cease to try shape the article in the most favorable possible way to BDORT. I would let Che proceed with the Village Pump process, to see if someone there has any idea how to deal with this situation. Crum375 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Forgive me for not replying sooner, but I'm in (probably) a very different time zone than you all and was soundly asleep! Thank you for pointing out me out to the AfD and that BDORT and Omura were two different articles before they were merged (I agree that they should be one [if we are at all to have an article on this], but certainly not in its present state).

• Crum, WRT your first question about the first non-NPOV statement I listed, I was saying that the following statement violated NPOV: ...presenting an illustrative example of the presumption of validity on the part of the US Patent Office being misused to an extent which renders claims of utility and enablement literally meaningless with respect to an invention which might have some claim to utility only if it had been presented as 'carnival entertainment.' It's not in quotation marks, so (I'm assuming) it's an original WP statement and thus, it violates NPOV. Obviously we can use non-NPOV sources, but that statement CONCLUDES that the US Patent Office is misused and that utility/enablement are now meaningless. (It also is unwieldy, confusing, ambiguous, and misuses the word "literally", but that's another matter. =]) Looking back on the clause, it seems it may be a continuation of "by another firm of patent attorneys as 'just plain offensive,'", but I saw it as an OR conclusion. The sentence needs to be rewritten.
• Richard, I saw your listing of sources above, but I don't know how you are planning on using them/where they would be necessary in the current article, so I can't comment on whether they should be included or not. However, my general view is that the article is most certainly in not need of expansion.
• Warning: drastic suggestion ahead What about starting the article from scratch? Take it one section at a time, and come to a consensus on what should/shouldn't be included? Or perhaps I could write what I think would be an ideal version of the article, place in my sandbox, and then we could work from there. :) Just a thought. Gzkn 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have absolutely no problem with either of those suggestions :) - Che Nuevara 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gzkn, thanks for your response. Regarding the specific question I had about the POV paragraph, here are the 2 sources: [9] and [10]

If you think there is a better way of presenting this, please suggest.

Regarding starting from scratch, we have already tried that a few times. We now have a version that is a significant problem for one editor only, who happens to be a BDORT advocate. Rewriting the article from start to finish won't help him unless his major concerns are addressed. But this is exactly the problem here: he wants to get rid of (or at least demote to a footnote) what we believe are excellent sources that claim BDORT is quackery, while he wants other sources, that others think are unacceptable, that show BDORT in a favorable light, included. So the problem boils down to a dispute over sources: what is acceptable and what is not, and then how to present the material that is acceptable. The actual writing itself is secondary, IMO. Crum375 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Now we have a version that is a major problem for two users -- namely, Richard and Gzkn. - Che Nuevara 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Hmmm, well I happen to think the current version isn't exactly acceptable either, so make that two editors :) (although probably for different reasons than Richard). WRT that statement, my suggestion is to just leave it at: "The fact that patent was granted to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has been cited as an example of 'high weirdness' [8] by at least one firm of patent attorneys, and by another firm of patent attorneys as 'just plain offensive.'[7]" Might not rewriting the article from scratch be able to solve some of these sourcing issues? My view is that the problem stems from the article being too detailed. Trying to cram so much information into this article -> trying to cram a lot of sources -> disagreements on the sources. If we rewrite the article to make it shorter and more to the point, that could just sidestep a lot of the issues with these sources. Of course, that means that you and Richard would need to agree on making the article shorter. And of course, if you don't think the article needs to be much shorter, then I can't do much. But then I'm also afraid this issue might just prolong itself. Gzkn 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can live with a shorter version, with less detail, as long as it covers the essence of who Omura is, what BDORT is, etc. Does your offer to try a sandbox version of your own still stand? What you say makes sense, that the shorter the version, the less potential pitfalls with sources (optimistically speaking). Of course Richard, TSSR and AntonRojo would have to agree also (I am assuming Che agrees per his above comments). Crum375 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Gzkn, in my judgement, as I said initially, the present length and form of the article are precisely the result of the differing perspectives. Richard, as he readily acknowledges, is a professional who believes strongly in Omura/BDORT, who is convinced that it is scientifically and medically sound and widely acknowledged as such, who derives some portion of his income from Omura/BDORT, who has recently traveled from Australia to New York at Omura's expense to confer at the recent 22nd Annual International Symposium. I am not aware of anyone having participated in the entry other than a few past drive-bys who shared that perspective. It is this conflict that is the problem, as I understand it, and, frankly, I don't think Wikipedia has any effective mechanism to deal with such a conflict. In the real world an editor or senior editor would settle the matter. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well I disagree that WP doesn't have an effective mechanism to deal with this (there's always ArbCom...and its rulings are binding). And just because Richard believes in Omura/BDORT doesn't mean he can't agree to a shortened (but NPOV) article. The offer of the sandbox version still stands, but I would like to hear Richard's thoughts on a shortened article before I proceed. If he doesn't object, I'll work on the sandbox version. Gzkn 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to either a shortened article or a sandboxed version of the article. I believe you will find, however, that there are fundamental and irresolvable differences in judgement as to valid sources, their application, and neutral point of view. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Well, wish me luck! :) Note: still waiting for Richard to comment before I proceed. Gzkn 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Luck, dude :) TheStainlessSteelRat 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First I have to note that the misrepresentation continues :-((. we have a problem with a single editor by Crum is obviously to anyone his POV; as I have noted many times everyone here except che and myself have reverted mediated full consensus agreements, that they have been fully part of, on contents. Next, TSSR seems to have the thinking that because I dont reply to his every notion they must all be true. What he writes about my expenses and Dr Omura are factual incorrect fantasy.

Che, I am sorry to seem disrespectful, which I am certainly not, quite the contrary, I am very grateful for your time and energy which is very considerable; but when TSSR and Crum continually misrepresent me and state that if I dont reply to them they are factually right, I am prompted to reply.

Now can we get on to the intelligent discussion:

First: excellent sources that claim BDORT is quackery have already been discussed and turn out not to be such at all (see mediation archives and see above here.

Gzkn, I am not against either of your proposals. And to jump to the end of this thought train, I will not object to either of them; if I had to pick one, I would go with starting from scratch. But here are some extra thoughts. I do think that deciding in advance what citations are acceptable and for what, is the underlyingly best way to go. Otherwise we get effectively a selectively sourced article - because what are I think we will find (if we can get to them and/or have wider opinion on eg the Shinnick ref) perfectly WP:OK citations are omitted, and the article becomes by default of non-inclusion, heavily biased. It also becomes very poor of content for the subject generally. Of course anyone with an (undeclared) anti-BDORT POV will not agree with what I have just written. But I would opt for a snippet rather than a heavily biased article. For example the POV you easily picked out currently is not 'just as it happens' it results from very entrenched biases. Also, in the future, lets say I do a simple thing and try to put in an accurate desciption of the technique (which gets immediately deleted for no reason ever given), or add something from another perfectly fine WP source, that will be deleted automatically (as has been done in the past). In the previous round of mediation, we got some progress; but decisions are ignored. Then we rediscuss the same citations again - eg the quackwatch one, and a decsion is made (see above about what Crum wanted to do with it and what was finally decided), but the minute the protection is off, any attempt to change the artice viz the decisions is reverted. So maby Arbitration is best. Bear in mind too that I inititiated this and the previous round of mediation for the reasons I note here. Currently the article is just a biased, selectively quoted (even selectively quoting from a single source to fit a bias - eg the Tribunial report), opinion board. Its loaded with POV, OR and much of the content that has been decided against by all the people discussing here at one time or another. So I think best is to try to find consenus based on WP guidelines on the citations listed above, then once we have a pool of information, we can write the article, is my suggestion. What do you suggest, based on all that please? and thanks for the time. Richardmalter 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starting over

It seems that no one objects to a complete rewrite of the article, which I think is a fine idea. If this is what's done -- and thank you again, Gzkn, for your help -- there are a few things which must be noted:

• The article is about Omura, not BDORT. The consensus of the AfD, as I understand, was to merge the BDORT info into the Omura article. This means that this article needs to be about Omura, with an appropriately structured section about BDORT.
• Hashing out sources before starting work on the article is putting the cart before the horse. There's no use discussing sources that we don't need. I think that a draft should be drummed up first, and then, if there's information from disputed sources that needs to go in, we can discuss them.

In reference to both of the above, Gzkn has expressed the opinion that the BDORT information should be significantly pared down. I agree. I suppose, Gzkn, the next move is yours, then. I might poke around to see if anyone else is interested in joining the discussion. Thanks once again! - Che Nuevara 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(GAH, another edit conflict) With regard to trying to find a consensus on which citations to use, I disagree that that would be the best strategy. Basically, we would be taking time to discuss sources that might not even be useful in shaping the article (as Che said above, it would be putting the cart before the horse). I think a full rewrite would be better. Since no one has objected to me creating a new version, I will go ahead and do so. I will post a link to it when it will be ready for your comments (maybe one or two days). In the meantime, maybe we can all go get some ice cream or something. :) Gzkn 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah, indeed. Gzkn, I'm not going to say a damn word or offer a single further [insert your preferred expletive here] thought or suggestion. I think you sense the lay of the land, here. Give it your best shot, in your own terms, then duck. (Viaduct? Vienotaduck!) TheStainlessSteelRat 07:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: 'The only emperor is the emperor of ice cream.' TheStainlessSteelRat 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in general amenable to all ideas mentioned here. I agree with Richard that deciding on the acceptable sources should be a first step, but if there are other ways of getting to a stable version I won't object. One important clarification regarding the AfD history: There were 2 AfD's. The consensus of the first was to merge Omura and BDORT, as they were not individually notable enough on their own. The second AfD proposed to delete the combined Omura/BDORT article, i.e. the one we have today. The consensus there was that although Omura on his own is not notable enough, it is BDORT that gives Omura notability, hence the combination Omura/BDORT is just notable enough to be included. My point here is that per that consensus, the article is about Omura, but a major focus has to be given to BDORT, as it is Omura's main claim to fame and it is the primary reason for this article's AfD survival, i.e. WP inclusion. I suggest a read of the last AfD discussion for anyone who's not fully familiar with it. Thanks, Crum375 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the related AfD's Talk page. Crum375 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks. I will be at my parents' until the end of the week and thus won't be online a lot. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll try to check in a couple of times. - Che Nuevara 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Just remember: Death To The Turkeys! (Unless, of course, you're Vegan, in which case the Pumpkin Pies are in for Real Trouble.) Also, have a good holiday :) TheStainlessSteelRat 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... anyone notice we seem to have a Food Theme going here? TheStainlessSteelRat 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing other citations

OK, since we can really say that the stub is stable in actual fact (no edit war!), can we go on to discuss other references. I would still like the Shinnick ref taken to the wider community - Che can I request a RfC on it? And in the meanwhile we can go on to the Manaka ref listed above. Please see mediation archives - it was discussed already at length. thanks.Richardmalter 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be appropriate. - Che Nuevara 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I think you said above,[11] and I agreed, that RfC makes sense only for the complete set of issues that we cannot resolve here. Doing it one item at a time would not be effective. Crum375 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I cant see any harm in a RfC in the meantime for the Shinnick ref since we did not get consensus either way, though I did agree with Che's suggestion more or less. Also we agree to the stub while starting over so lets stick to it please.Richardmalter 07:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am waiting for your reply regarding the RfC: one item at a time (as Richard proposes) or all the disputed items at once, as you agreed here. Richard, leaving a POV stub instead of a well sourced and well written article while we wait was never agreed to by any consensus that I can find. Crum375 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me rereading above that we agreed on a shortened version while another sandbox version was worked on by everyone. I guess you could argue that we did not 'sign' to this agreement, but I think anyone reading the above objectively could see what we were all saying at the time and what the proposal was. Also, we have in point of inarguable fact had the stub un-edit-warred without even the POV or Protected lock on it for a long enough time to be able to say that it has been a stable condition - which is a very desirable thing. Every other claim you have made to a 'stable' article version has been decimated in a few hours by an edit war - another irrefutable fact. Obviously the stub does not fit everyones' bias, but it is a temporary solution while we work through the citations. Do you really want another edit war?? Because history says that is exactly what you are effectively proposing.Richardmalter 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, it seems to me that the version that AntonRojo last edited is the one that is most NPOV and is closest to the post-AfD consensus version. The stub version that was just reverted to by the anon-IP is unacceptable for the reasons I noted above: if it has Omura alone without BDORT, it would violate the AfD consensus, if it has BDORT without the NZ Tribunal reference, it would violate NPOV. And overall, by deleting much well sourced and pertinent material it destroys good encyclopedic content. There is no consensus or agreement whatsoever that I can find for this unacceptable stub version, hence it should be replaced with AntonRojo's last version. Crum375 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, as Che noted to you the "consensus" you refer to was not as you describe - you accuracy is not quite right. The stub version has both Omura and the BDORT, as Che noted; the idea of NPOV by omission that you try to substantiate is in fact not the case. DO YOU REALLY WANT ANOTHER EDIT WAR (AND TO BE BLOCKED AGAIN), CANT YOU JUST LIVE WITH A STUB WHILE WE DISCUSS?! Surely that is the common sense thing to do - I know you have a bias about warning the world of what you perceive of the dangers of the BDORT revealed in what you wrote to Addhoc on his Talk page - but it doesn't hold water - many people are telling you this. Richardmalter 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I certainly don't want an edit war. The stub version you are reverting to is POV, by mentioning BDORT and omitting the New Zealand Tribunal's report (NZT), which is the main well sourced reference we have for BDORT. Since the NZT reference is fairly negative to NDORT, by excluding it we are moving the balance in a positive direction. Hence the version with this omission is POV. Crum375 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)