Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 29 October 2006

Archives
Mediation Archive 1 Mediation Archive 2 Quackwatch

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

Reliable sources and proper use of citations

Citations to add?

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

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 Misplaced Pages policy to this article.

My criteria are quite simple: applying Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages! Whiffle 05:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

ECIM-Europe

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

Baobab.or.jp

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

PFarber

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

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.

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)

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.

AMBA.org

I) BDORT, Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, developed by Yoshiaki Omura, Columbia University New York, 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.

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.

Contested

Dominic Lu

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

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. 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 ], 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages". 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 Misplaced Pages policy should be adhered to as best as possible. I do agree that, without adherence to policy, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.