User talk:Bilby/Bonghan system

This is a subpage of Bilby's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This user page was nominated for deletion on August 22, 2009. The result of the discussion was Delete.

This page was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep.

References[edit]

Pleas do not gut this article and replace it with out dated references. If you want do delete an article do it properlyDavidWis (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I retained a single reference, which was in the page when I started editing it, and added Ernst & Singh. The sources are all low-notability, primary sources, not the secondary reliable ones required by WP:MEDRS. This is a fringe claim, a novel anatomical structure that hasn't been noticed in the centuries since the microscope (and decades since the electron microscope) was invented, is highly unlikely and would be trumpeted throughout the scientific world. That hasn't happened. It's reported in a series of non-pubmed indexed journals focusing on acupuncture (itself a fringe theory) and meridians (totally unproven speculation based on a prescientific culture that did not dissect its dead and found inspiration in geography rather than anatomy). I can't even tell if it is notable or not, and if not, it certainly should be deleted. It's had to tell, like a lot of pseudoscience it's got a lot of articles, but in horrible quality journals that assume the existence of the phenomenon rather than investigating it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to PubMed and search bonghan ducts. You will find several references to this subject at PubMed some of which I cited in the article which you gutted.DavidWis (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I found seven on pubmed. Two, using the search term "bonghan duct", were primary sources. One was a study of rabbits. Both were by the same research groups. Another five turned up. One is a primary source studying mice. Another ditto the rabbit study. A third ditto the rabbit study. A fourth was a primary source study of rats. Fifth and final another primary study of rabbits. All seven were by the same research group in Korea, with at least one of two researchers (Lee and Soh) being authors of all of the studies. No replication, no extension, and they're being used to justify meridians. None are appropriate; even the one study I retained is a misuse of the source since it's a primary source, but it's used to justify some basic information. No mention in mainstream sources, despite existing for 40 years. The discovery of a whole new organ system would be noticed by the scientific community. That hasn't happened, perhaps it will. But for now as a fringe claim making an extreme assertion, it shouldn't be a lengthy article and arguably shouldn't be a page at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a sentence because it was biased Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don’t think that there is a recognizable group called “believers in Bonghan structures”, the word notion is a weasel word, and underly was mispelled.DavidWis (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to something else - only one research group, in a single country, has done any work on them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with animal research? I realize that discoveries of this magnitude are rare, but this originated in North Korea, and has been confirmed by labs in Japan, South Korea, and recently in China. Anyone who has joined this discussion can click the View History tab and read the original article which outlines this history. Do you think that these researchers are forging the photographs of these structures? It takes time for the scientific community to notice these things. “The Wright brothers first flight was not reported in a single newspaper because every rookie reporter knew what could and couldn't be done.” - Edward R. Murrow “What we see depends mainly on what we look for. - John Lubbock”DavidWis (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for, but was unable to find, a Wikipedia policy on length of articles as related to fringe claims. Could you give me a link to this policy?DavidWis (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per talk page guidelines. We are not the newspaper, or a crystal ball or a soapbox or a advocacy site. There are several problems with the sources used. The animal research papers are primary sources. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, particularly medical sources. Wikipedia reports the scholarly mainstream as found in secondary, reliable sources, and in proportion to those sources. Only one research group has published this. It is based to date solely on animal research. Even if secondary sources were published, they would be about animals making them utterly irrelevant except for the veterinary acupuncture article. The focus of the articles (and a large number of the journals) is on acupuncture, acupuncture points and meridians. Though acupuncture has, to a certain extent, been found useful, the theory of meridians and specific points has not been supported. Research is, in fact, contradictory - it doesn't matter where you jam the needle. It doesn't matter whether you penetrate the skin. It doesn't matter if you even use needles or not. You can use toothpicks. No research has ever validated the theory or reality of meridians or acupuncture points. They may not be forging those photographs (or they may be - Korea isn't exactly seen as the paragon of honest research in the South or North and China is notorious for never having published a negative study of acupuncture) but they may be mistaken on what they represent. This material hasn't been replicated. It hasn't been reported in high impact journals. It's reporting a strange and incredible finding - a whole new organ system, after decades of electron micrography and histology? That'd be front-page news. For every Wright brother, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall there were many other researchers, engineers and experimentalists who failed, or whose work went nowhere, or whose work produced information on cold fusion or N-rays. When the scientific community does notice these things, then the article can expand.

The policy governing length and detail would be WP:UNDUE. We should not give undue weight to pseudoscientific or speculative phenomenon. We shouldn't be writing articles from the perspective of the minority viewpoint. A lengthy article gives the impression that the subject and idea has merit, is a serious topic, and has scientific acceptance. None of this is true yet. Publications mostly in fourth and fifth tier journals, that aren't pubmed index, that assume a concept exists when most scientists do not, that hasn't been replicated outside of a single research group in a country with intense nationalistic interest in the topic, are not the appropriate sources to write a lengthy article. Since this particular concept hasn't even garnered critical and skeptical attention, the mainstream perspective can't even be given.

Don't worry. If the Bonghan system actually exists, it'll be written about in time as the discoveries are replicated and extended. When that happens, the page can expand. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]