Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop/Nandesuka

message: Henceforth, I will move for joinder and injunction against any non-party who removes any party's work from the workshop page again. --James S. 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are unclear on what a workshop page is and is for.  But feel free to wiklawyer all you want.  I'm sure the arbcom will be suitably impressed. Nandesuka 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you accusing me of making inappropriate use of legal technicalities?  If so, which ones and why? --James S. 11:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-party interference 

message: Nandesuka attempted to prevent parties from editing this project page by using the "inuse" tag.  I left him or her a message about it on his or her talk page. --James S. 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of {{Tl|Inuse}} by Nandesuka

message: ==== No Legal Threats====
=====Alternative (a)=====
::: The arbitrators are free to adopt whatever principles they choose, at their pleasure.  Nothing limits them to the text of policy pages.  I have offered my stronger version below as an alternative. Nandesuka 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You believe that your version presenting one side of the issue only, is "stronger" than the version which includes the exeptions?  Interesting.  I hope your other edits show less bias. --James S. 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles

message: =====Alternative (a)=====
::: The arbitrators are free to adopt whatever principles they choose, at their pleasure.  Nothing limits them to the text of policy pages.  I have offered my stronger version below as an alternative. Nandesuka 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You believe that your version presenting one side of the issue only, is "stronger" than the version which includes the exeptions?  Interesting.  I hope your other edits show less bias. --James S. 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Legal Threats

message: ::: The arbitrators are free to adopt whatever principles they choose, at their pleasure.  Nothing limits them to the text of policy pages.  I have offered my stronger version below as an alternative. Nandesuka 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You believe that your version presenting one side of the issue only, is "stronger" than the version which includes the exeptions?  Interesting.  I hope your other edits show less bias. --James S. 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative (a)

message: ====Plaintiffs have scant reputable sources in their support====
Reference                                                             	Source                                             	Economically conflicted?                                                                                                                                                                                	Reputable per WP:NOR?
RAND Report                                                           	RAND Corporation (private corp.)                   	Questionable: RAND is paid by the U.S. government, and took an early position on the issue which they have been defending against evidence since                                                        	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house, but research for hire
International Atomic Energy Agency on depleted uranium                	IAEA                                               	Questionable:  IAEA lobbies governments in favor of nuclear energy, and often fails to explain the full health hazards of nuclear byproducts and wastes                                                 	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Sandia (Marshall) Report                                              	Lockheed Martin-funded Sandia National Laboratories	Yes, Lockheed makes DU guns                                                                                                                                                                             	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
World Health Organization - several reports                           	WHO                                                	No:  In fact, the WHO reports are some of the best non-peer reviewed references because they specifically caution that uranium in the environment should be assumed to be soluble unless otherwise known	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Background Material on Depleted Uranium (DU)                          	NATO                                               	Yes, NATO is the largest consumer of DU weaponry                                                                                                                                                        	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Depleted Uranium: Opinion of the group of experts                     	European commission                                	No, but this 2001 report ignores the largest congenital malformation rate increase in Iraqi civilians and U.S. and U.K. troops which were first published in 2000-2002                                  	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
European Parliament Directorate General for Research DU Health Effects	European Parlament                                 	No, but old (2001)                                                                                                                                                                                      	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
After the Dust Settles                                                	Bulletin of Atomic Scientists                      	No                                                                                                                                                                                                      	No, this 1999 news article was not peer-reviewed; however, this may qualify as a reputable news item per WP:NOR.''
AC Laboratoriam Spiez report on Depleted Uranium                      	NATO                                               	Yes                                                                                                                                                                                                     	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Environmental Exposure Report Depleted Uranium in the Gulf            	US Dept. of Defense                                	Yes                                                                                                                                                                                                     	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Uranium Project                                                       	World Information Service on Energy                	No, but this information is not about DU, it's about uranium in general                                                                                                                                 	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Weapons with Depleted Uranium: Public Risks and Perceptions           	author's preprint                                  	Unknown                                                                                                                                                                                                 	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Could Stress Be the Underlying Cause of the "Balkan Syndrome"?        	NATO and the Univ. of Zagreb Biology Dept.         	Yes                                                                                                                                                                                                     	No: scarcely any reputable sources at all in this list
 table provided by James S.
::: This table would be very interesting if it reflected what is actually written in WP:NOR. Alas, it does not. Your willingness to reject reputable sources because they are "not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house", once again, speaks volumes about why, exactly, this case was brought.  While WP:NOR certainly includes peer-reviewed and scholarly publishing houses, the idea that you would try to argue that these are the only reputable sources, when the text is perfectly clear that many other things beside are reputable is nothing short of astonishing. Nandesuka 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1999 news item and the title of this proposed finding of fact to address your concerns. --James S. 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that DV8 2XL, Dr U, and TDC have removed my statements supported by, and the text of citations to, reputable sources, is a serious behavior issue on their part.  The fact that they have done so while offering very few reputable publications on their own makes it even more serious.  It must stop. --James S. 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: James has got one thing very wrong, the IAEA is not a nuclear industry group it is a UN body whose role is to oversee the safe and peaceful use of both nuclear and radiation technology throughout the world. While they might provide help with nuclear power they also provide medical advice (and other advice) in the event of an accident and a whole load of other things. Overall the IAEA is an international body whose role is to help all the nations of the world. Hence like the EU's ITU it does not push a nuclear policy (other than to urge its members to use radioactivity/nuclear equipment in a responsible and safe manner). Overall I would say that the IAEA and the ITU are the closest things you will ever get to an informed expert NPOV on this subject ! Cadmium 08:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the WHO to the IAEA, because they have supported more detailed work such as A. Pfister's in Chapter 8, "The Chemical Toxicity of Uranium," of Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (World Health Organization, Ionizing Radiation Unit, 2001, http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf page 103: "Until more information on the chemical form of uranium and DU in the environment is obtained, it would be prudent to assume that it is in a soluble form (ICRP Type F)." Remind me to add that one in if it isn't already. --James S. 10:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you trust the WHO more than the IAEA ? Both are part of the same UN. The IAEA have published plenty of material which considers the negative side of the nuclear industry, as well as plenty which paints the nuclear industry in a very good light. It is interesting to note that the EU's version of the IAEA (ITU) is both trusted by Greenpeace and the reprocessing industry (BNFL etc). If the reason you distrust the IAEA just becuase they have the words atomic energy in their name then I suggest that you should consider the mechanism by which you make your choices as to who to trust. If you are unable to give a good answer to this point then you are opening up a can of worms for yourself over sources of information. For the record I would like to point out that the IAEA have been involved in providing modern cancer treatments in the third  world. The reasoning of the IAEA is that by saving a child's mother from an early death due to cervical cancer, that a great deal of suffering can be avoided for both the woman and her family. Such work has been done in north east africa. Such an activity is a world away from electric power generation and all the other activitys which are part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Also read their bulletin and you will see that they are NPOV. So I think that it is reasonable to assume that the IAEA are NPOV.Cadmium 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide an example of an IAEA publication which "considers the negative side of the nuclear industry" -- I haven't seen one yet. --James S. 13:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, how about , here you will find reports on a range of misadventures involving nuclear and/or radioactive materials. The Tokaimura and Tomsk reports are on accidents in the nuclear fuel cycle, the majority of the reports on this page are radioactive source accidents, but to cap it off there is a report on Chernobyl which is a combined IAEA/WHO/EU report. I think that none of these events are exactly a recruitment advert for the nuclear/radiation industries but the IAEA still have published them. While the majority of the accidents were radiation events rather than nuclear events I would say that it is clear evidence that the IAEA is honest about the threat posed by radiation to people. Hence it is NPOV.Cadmium 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IAEA has never replied to my email, while I find it easy to correspond with reputable sources.  Secondly, I don't think the IAEA has ever published anything on the chemical reproductive toxicity of uranium, while that information is easily available in the peer-reviewed literature.  Furthermore, there aren't any IAEA publications dealing with the long-term storage of nuclear waste.  But this is just a content dispute.  That the IAEA is primarily composed of industry officials and the government officials who depend on them proves that they are economically conflicted; the fact that they don't perform anonymous peer-review processes in the production of their reports proves that they aren't reputable in the standard of the table above. --James S. 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Findings of Fact

message: Reference                                                             	Source                                             	Economically conflicted?                                                                                                                                                                                	Reputable per WP:NOR?
RAND Report                                                           	RAND Corporation (private corp.)                   	Questionable: RAND is paid by the U.S. government, and took an early position on the issue which they have been defending against evidence since                                                        	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house, but research for hire
International Atomic Energy Agency on depleted uranium                	IAEA                                               	Questionable:  IAEA lobbies governments in favor of nuclear energy, and often fails to explain the full health hazards of nuclear byproducts and wastes                                                 	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Sandia (Marshall) Report                                              	Lockheed Martin-funded Sandia National Laboratories	Yes, Lockheed makes DU guns                                                                                                                                                                             	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
World Health Organization - several reports                           	WHO                                                	No:  In fact, the WHO reports are some of the best non-peer reviewed references because they specifically caution that uranium in the environment should be assumed to be soluble unless otherwise known	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Background Material on Depleted Uranium (DU)                          	NATO                                               	Yes, NATO is the largest consumer of DU weaponry                                                                                                                                                        	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Depleted Uranium: Opinion of the group of experts                     	European commission                                	No, but this 2001 report ignores the largest congenital malformation rate increase in Iraqi civilians and U.S. and U.K. troops which were first published in 2000-2002                                  	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
European Parliament Directorate General for Research DU Health Effects	European Parlament                                 	No, but old (2001)                                                                                                                                                                                      	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
After the Dust Settles                                                	Bulletin of Atomic Scientists                      	No                                                                                                                                                                                                      	No, this 1999 news article was not peer-reviewed; however, this may qualify as a reputable news item per WP:NOR.''
AC Laboratoriam Spiez report on Depleted Uranium                      	NATO                                               	Yes                                                                                                                                                                                                     	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Environmental Exposure Report Depleted Uranium in the Gulf            	US Dept. of Defense                                	Yes                                                                                                                                                                                                     	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Uranium Project                                                       	World Information Service on Energy                	No, but this information is not about DU, it's about uranium in general                                                                                                                                 	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Weapons with Depleted Uranium: Public Risks and Perceptions           	author's preprint                                  	Unknown                                                                                                                                                                                                 	No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Could Stress Be the Underlying Cause of the "Balkan Syndrome"?        	NATO and the Univ. of Zagreb Biology Dept.         	Yes                                                                                                                                                                                                     	No: scarcely any reputable sources at all in this list
 table provided by James S.
::: This table would be very interesting if it reflected what is actually written in WP:NOR. Alas, it does not. Your willingness to reject reputable sources because they are "not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house", once again, speaks volumes about why, exactly, this case was brought.  While WP:NOR certainly includes peer-reviewed and scholarly publishing houses, the idea that you would try to argue that these are the only reputable sources, when the text is perfectly clear that many other things beside are reputable is nothing short of astonishing. Nandesuka 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1999 news item and the title of this proposed finding of fact to address your concerns. --James S. 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that DV8 2XL, Dr U, and TDC have removed my statements supported by, and the text of citations to, reputable sources, is a serious behavior issue on their part.  The fact that they have done so while offering very few reputable publications on their own makes it even more serious.  It must stop. --James S. 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: James has got one thing very wrong, the IAEA is not a nuclear industry group it is a UN body whose role is to oversee the safe and peaceful use of both nuclear and radiation technology throughout the world. While they might provide help with nuclear power they also provide medical advice (and other advice) in the event of an accident and a whole load of other things. Overall the IAEA is an international body whose role is to help all the nations of the world. Hence like the EU's ITU it does not push a nuclear policy (other than to urge its members to use radioactivity/nuclear equipment in a responsible and safe manner). Overall I would say that the IAEA and the ITU are the closest things you will ever get to an informed expert NPOV on this subject ! Cadmium 08:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the WHO to the IAEA, because they have supported more detailed work such as A. Pfister's in Chapter 8, "The Chemical Toxicity of Uranium," of Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (World Health Organization, Ionizing Radiation Unit, 2001, http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf page 103: "Until more information on the chemical form of uranium and DU in the environment is obtained, it would be prudent to assume that it is in a soluble form (ICRP Type F)." Remind me to add that one in if it isn't already. --James S. 10:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you trust the WHO more than the IAEA ? Both are part of the same UN. The IAEA have published plenty of material which considers the negative side of the nuclear industry, as well as plenty which paints the nuclear industry in a very good light. It is interesting to note that the EU's version of the IAEA (ITU) is both trusted by Greenpeace and the reprocessing industry (BNFL etc). If the reason you distrust the IAEA just becuase they have the words atomic energy in their name then I suggest that you should consider the mechanism by which you make your choices as to who to trust. If you are unable to give a good answer to this point then you are opening up a can of worms for yourself over sources of information. For the record I would like to point out that the IAEA have been involved in providing modern cancer treatments in the third  world. The reasoning of the IAEA is that by saving a child's mother from an early death due to cervical cancer, that a great deal of suffering can be avoided for both the woman and her family. Such work has been done in north east africa. Such an activity is a world away from electric power generation and all the other activitys which are part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Also read their bulletin and you will see that they are NPOV. So I think that it is reasonable to assume that the IAEA are NPOV.Cadmium 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide an example of an IAEA publication which "considers the negative side of the nuclear industry" -- I haven't seen one yet. --James S. 13:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, how about , here you will find reports on a range of misadventures involving nuclear and/or radioactive materials. The Tokaimura and Tomsk reports are on accidents in the nuclear fuel cycle, the majority of the reports on this page are radioactive source accidents, but to cap it off there is a report on Chernobyl which is a combined IAEA/WHO/EU report. I think that none of these events are exactly a recruitment advert for the nuclear/radiation industries but the IAEA still have published them. While the majority of the accidents were radiation events rather than nuclear events I would say that it is clear evidence that the IAEA is honest about the threat posed by radiation to people. Hence it is NPOV.Cadmium 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IAEA has never replied to my email, while I find it easy to correspond with reputable sources.  Secondly, I don't think the IAEA has ever published anything on the chemical reproductive toxicity of uranium, while that information is easily available in the peer-reviewed literature.  Furthermore, there aren't any IAEA publications dealing with the long-term storage of nuclear waste.  But this is just a content dispute.  That the IAEA is primarily composed of industry officials and the government officials who depend on them proves that they are economically conflicted; the fact that they don't perform anonymous peer-review processes in the production of their reports proves that they aren't reputable in the standard of the table above. --James S. 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plaintiffs have scant reputable sources in their support

message: ====Prohibition on unreasonable attacks against reputable sources====
:: It is not an absolute restriction:
::: ... unless they first state reasons for doing so, based on sources of greater repute, on the talk pages of the articles to which they make such edits
:: So, we would have to find two peer-reviewed sources saying "x" before we could challenge a peer-reviewed source-supported statment "not x." This is specifically designed to prevent some of the problems I've experienced with the plaintiffs, which will be clear in evidence soon. --James S. 02:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would point out that the mediator has repeatedly stated that he believes both sides are at fault (although he has not said anything since arbitration opened), and so I personally have avoided proposing nonsymmetrical remedies. --James S. 02:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Remedies

message: :: It is not an absolute restriction:
::: ... unless they first state reasons for doing so, based on sources of greater repute, on the talk pages of the articles to which they make such edits
:: So, we would have to find two peer-reviewed sources saying "x" before we could challenge a peer-reviewed source-supported statment "not x." This is specifically designed to prevent some of the problems I've experienced with the plaintiffs, which will be clear in evidence soon. --James S. 02:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prohibition on unreasonable attacks against reputable sources

message: :: I would point out that the mediator has repeatedly stated that he believes both sides are at fault (although he has not said anything since arbitration opened), and so I personally have avoided proposing nonsymmetrical remedies. --James S. 02:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: James S. admonished