"First of all, the Gibson report is not a government report. Not that it matters, because stating that government reports are by nature reliable is ridiculous. Now, the reliability of any source can be questioned, which results in a discussion. This discussion is settled with arguments. It is not required that such arguments are themselves held to the same standard as the article text, so arguments being, for instance, original research, can be perfectly alright, as long as they are not cited in the article. On a talk page, we are not editors. MastCell is fundamentally wrong.  

I'm sorry but I think both mast cell and the unregistered user misunderstand the issue here. JFW has expressed an intention to publish unsubtantiated, inflammatory claims which will be to the detriment of a patient community, from an unreliable source. Suzy Chapman and I have been trying to illustrate how unreliable the source is and how unsubstantiated the claims are. We have been providing copious evidence and plausible arguments as to why, but frankly it feels we are running around in circles. We are certainly not engaging in 'spurious arguments'. IF this goes ahead, the reputation of Wikipedia, Simon Wessely himself and possibly the Gibson may be severely damaged, because public calls for full verification will have to be made by the patient community, and Wikipedia's displayed determination to publish unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims from unreliable sources (NOT a government document). Suzy has attempted to resolve this problem by verifying the situation by Gibson himself via letter. But neither of us have suggested to phone up the subject on the phone: Sciencewatcher has. So already we have misreading of the facts being exhibited here.

But in addition there is a marked inconsistency here: all sorts of debate goes on at Wikipedia. Calling the discussion ""the din of argumentation, speculation, unverfiable personal commentary"" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO just because you say. And just because you can't be bothered to study the points does not make the points irrelevant! I have developed quite a lot of familiarity with Wikipedia processes, and both Mast Cell and the unregistered user don't seem to be following them. I suggest that certain people stop pulling Wiki-rank 'I know more about Wiki than you' and act responsibly in this, for Wikipedia and the subject concerned, if not for a patient community.  

"