Talk:BDORT/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"BDORT not accepted by mainstream"

Richard, I will accept your explanation for the unilateral change per WP:AGF. Let's make it clear that from now on, any change, of any kind, except a typo if one is discovered, needs consensus. If you disagree with this, please let me know in your next message. Now addressing your point about the word accepted. I think I understand that to you it implies fore-knowledge prior to acceptance, so its negation not accepted would imply knowledge and rejection based on that knowledge. I think from a strictly logical point of view that is incorrect (if A = P and Q, then notA = notP or notQ, which in this case would mean that if acceptance means 'knowledge and agreement', then non-acceptance would mean either no knowledge or no agreement, but not necessarily both). But leaving strict logic aside, I offer the following change, which of course would need consensus to be adopted: "There is no evidence that BDORT was ever accepted by the mainstream medical community, and it was in fact labeled as having 'no scientific validity' by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand, in a disciplinary action against Richard Gorringe, on August 5,2003. Dr Omura had declined to testify in that case to defend BDORT or Gorringe, despite being invited to do so by the Tribunal." Obviously this would require evidence for Dr. Omura's invitation and declining thereof, which I haven't seen but FuCyfre has claimed. If such evidence is not forthcoming then the last sentence would have to be removed. Anyway, I await comments. Crum375 10:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I of course parse the semantics in similar fashion, and am agreed.
• I thought that it was acceptable to make such statements in discussion even if one had no third-party verifiable source available. If it isn't, I stand corrected on that point – please feel free to remove it. The fact, however, I know with absolute certainty, is as stated, and I thought Richard might find it in some small sense helpful. Evidence suggests he does not. FuCyfre 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, personal knowledge, if that's your implication, is not acceptable in the article per WP:RS. But if there is any valid published evidence for it then of course that could be used. Crum375 14:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• This in haste – is it acceptable here in discussion, however? My understanding was that it was. Correct me if I'm in error. FuCyfre 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• If your question is whether 'personal knowledge' is acceptable in a discussion, my own understanding is yes, as long as one understands that it is of very limited use as it can't be cited in the article. I can see a hypothetical case where an editor is aware of a fact because of personal knowledge (but has no acceptable source), communicates it in the discussion to others, and then someone else comes up with a proper source for it. So I would consider it 'work product' level information. Of course if someone starts inventing information (and claiming personal knowledge) that could be really disruptive so I guess the trick is to keep it to a minimum and assume it is near-useless until hard evidence is obtained. Crum375 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable enough. I doubt this particular information would be confirmable in third-party published form. If, on the other hand, someone were sufficiently motivated, I suppose they could phone or fax Omura at the numbers listed on his independent web site. For what it's worth, the information is quite accurate. FuCyfre 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• In that case I will remove the last sentence from my proposed change (Richard please note). Of course if this info ever surfaces in appropriate form, future editors would be able to re-insert it. Now let's wait for Richard (and anyone else) to opine. Crum375 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree that the statement, while true, is not independently verifiably sourced, does not meet WP criteria for inclusion in the actual article. I simply thought Richard and any other adherents of this particular belief structure might find it helpful to broaden his/their perspective as to the underlying character of the situation – that, in point of fact, the proponents of BDORT have, if anything, avoided any attempt at independent mainstream evaluation. Omura, as I've said, has never in his long career even attempted to submit a paper to a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. This is verifiable independently only by implication, and I would never propose it for inclusion in the article. It is nonetheless fact, and I note it for consideration in discussion, particularly, frankly, for the benefit of adherents who are inclined to present a position which suggests that Omura's armamentarium is largely unknown in the mainstream medical and scientific communities through some close-mindedness or other shortcoming on the part of the mainstream medical and scientific communities. The simple fact is that Omura has never attempted independent standard scientific review, yet claims the mantle of science. FuCyfre 00:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, your proposed sentence is still saying the same thing, its just another formulation; note how the WP:OR POV not citated assertion of 'none accepted' is still in there; its also become now a kind of WP:OR anti-statement:

There is no evidence that BDORT was ever accepted by the mainstream medical community, and it was in fact labeled as having 'no scientific validity' by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand, in a disciplinary action against Richard Gorringe

Why don't we ask the questions: What is the point of this sentence?, What is it aiming to say? How does this help the informational aspect of this article? Is it just not now a convulted way of saying 'we dont rate it'?. Paraphrasing is also a helpful way to do this, have a go. Its very clearly a POV assertion. Again Crum375, you wrote: I will accept your explanation - you have just proved the point again re the word accept. You might as just as well write in this article: there is no evidence that marshans have come to planet earth. Again, what is anyone trying to inform with this sentence (other than negative POV assertion). I suggested above that we could say something like :

BDORT is largely unknown by the MMC [even that is WP:OR How do you know? Have you conducted a survey worldwide? Has anyone reliable? There might be other reasons - people here are obviously (POV) interpreting lack of information; that;s not quite right: positive citated information should be presented, not sweeping (POV) statements that have no citation; and if you were aiming to characterize usage (which previously we discusssed and (you) decided that we must have reliable sources for - so would be self-contradictory to you anyway) that the sole mainstream source (Tribunial) said XYZ. I am going to insist on consistency throughout. That's about all you can neutrally say.---RichardMalter 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am sorry if my proposed change is not acceptable to you. Let me respond to a couple of your key points:

1. You say: "BDORT is largely unknown by the MMC [even that is WP:OR How do you know? Have you conducted a survey worldwide? Has anyone reliable?": I would agree with you fully here. The phrase largely unknown would constitute WP:OR. All we can say is that we have no evidence whatsoever that BDORT was ever accepted by MMC. And I am willing to use your definition of accepted which implies knowledge and agreement. So we agree that we cannot use this phraseology, but obviously this was not my proposed one.
2. You say: "Why don't we ask the questions: What is the point of this sentence?, What is it aiming to say? How does this help the informational aspect of this article? Is it just not now a convulted way of saying 'we dont rate it'?.": The point of this sentence is to inform the reader what we know (or don't know as the case may be), based on the evidence we have. Dr. Omura makes some far reaching claims about the medical benefits of his invention, and we are saying that although he (and other proponents) claim that, we have no evidence on the record that this technique was ever accepted by the MMC. And as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if accepted implies knowledge or not - either way the statement is true. I do not think that the statement says 'we don't rate it'. First, WP (i.e. 'we') is not here to rate anything. If we did that as editors we'd be kicked out of the project per WP:NOR. All we are allowed to do is collect valid evidence and present it, and that's what we are trying our best to do here. Second, we are not saying that it's not possible that Dr. Omura is correct. In fact, per WP it is possible that BDORT works as advertized, however the MMC to our knowledge has not accepted it (or per my suggested version "there is no evidence that BDORT was ever accepted by the MMC ..."). This is all we are trying to convey to the reader. Then comes the NZ case which is the only example we have of MMC (or a part thereof) addressing BDORT, and it's our duty to present that relevant evidence.

Anyway, I notice that this is taking up a lot of page space, so I am going to stop for now and let you respond. I hope you still 'accept' that I am trying my best, though perhaps not able to convince you yet. Thanks, Crum375 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, yes, I think you are trying your best. But I am being straightforward and saying that I dont think the arguments you present stand up (totally). You say that "either way the statement is true": this cant be correct: because if 'accept' is used or read in its normal meaning it implies knowledge and so the statement becomes a global guess (WP:OR). The word means what it means, I cited the dictionary; and your usage; and you have said you accept [i am paraphrasing you] the (normal) definition of the word. This sentence does not somehow have power to change the normal meaning of the word; it means what it means. Next point in reply is, where do we elsewhere try to inform the reader what we dont know?!! Can you see that this abnormality of trying to inform the reader what we dont know is coming from a POV motivation to assert something? Why not inform the reader about lots of other things that we dont know; the reverse POV-motivated logic is the same? The answer is that there is a particular POV behind asserting this bit of non-information that we dont know. Why dont we just stick to making clear statements that we can citate about positive knowledge; surely that is the most neutral correct WP thing to do. Trying to 'fit in' what we dont know obviously stands out as attempt at POV assertion. Last thought for now re, we have no evidence on the record that this technique was ever accepted by the MMC - if I think about this very carefully and what is its underlying action (its a very useful paraphrase sentence that you made), this sentence is strongly suggesting to the reader not to credit the BDORT with any significance of validity; its attempting to influence the mind of the reader into an opinion; instead of just presenting what is claimed, as claims, using standard wording like according to . ., giving citations where they exist, and leaving the reader to make up their minds for themselves. This is the underlying analysis of why this sentence is POV from beginning to end; this underlies all the semantic/grammatical discussion. Not that it matters to this understanding, but historically this is also easy to see, because it began as was identified by SlimVirgin of a way of saying 'we dont rate it', and although its been stretched and turned inside out, the underlying purpose of the words remain unchanged.

Next thing, as there is clearly not yet consensus here, please see my previous request to put something clearly on the page in whatever WP format is correct, to state that the WP editors are in debate about the content of this article; I think this is fair and correct to do; (and also because changes that are clear POV motivated inclusions, eg multiple repeat citations, etc, where put up while I was off line for a not very long period - which you yourself have correctly and explicitly identified as a gracious period to allow for other's time restrictions), thank you. --RichardMalter 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added the NPOV template to this article, as I understand that RichardMalter disputes its neutrality. I suggest we keep trying to find wording that can achieve consensus. Richard, can you propose (here in the Discussion page) a language that in your opinion will be neutral and represent the fact that the only WP:RS evidence we have of MMC evaluation of BDORT is by the NZ Tribunal. For your version to have a chance at achieving consensus, try to think like a neutral WP editor, who has no personal stake in the matter, and only wants to present the verifiable information at hand. Thanks, Crum375 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I personally think the NPOV template will be of real utility in directing a reader to the discussion page where they may judge for themselves the character of the arguments as well as read the assertions and claims with respect to additional information. That said, it would be better by far in my estimation if it were possible to agree at consensus as to a NPOV presentation of the article itself. I think that if it's impossible to arrive at such consensus with respect to such an article it may be necessary to either truncate the article to little more than a stub or to have to settle for it in its present form for which, in my judgement, there is essential consensus with the exception of Richard, and wit the NPOV template directing people here. If necessary, I'm fine with that, as I think the information presented here, however lengthy, covers the ground nicely as supplementary material more than sufficient to the subject in question. FuCyfre 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I would consider 'agreeing to disagree' and leaving NPOV template in the article, requiring the reader to come here and pore over reams of discussion to figure out what BDORT is about, a cop-out on our part. I think it is our duty to try to reach consensus, one way or another. I asked Richard to try to suggest his own neutral version describing the facts we have, and hopefully he can comply. I would wait for Richard's proposal, assuming it is forthcoming, before any other move, unless anyone thinks otherwise. Crum375 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll attempt to give the matter some fresh thought. FuCyfre 06:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, please note that I have suggested an alternative, (I will always do this whenever possible), I said above, Why dont we just stick to making clear statements that we can citate about positive knowledge; surely that is the most neutral correct WP thing to do. Trying to 'fit in' what we dont know obviously stands out as attempt at POV assertion. I am proposing this as the WP policy solution. If we analyse the first part of the sentence, do you see it similarly to me that it is aimed at trying to characterize usage of BDORT in the world?; or if not, do you see it similarly to me that trying to do this would be better (ie less POV, less WP:OR) than trying to guess what all of the mainstream might accept or not accept if they new about the BDORT in the first place (which we all know most of them don't)? In science you can say that a theory [analogue to WP:OR] holds (if its tested and you can make reliable predictions of results) because it isn't refuted so far; but this is still a theory: an attempt to provide an explanation for observations. This sentence is trying to do the same thing: use lack of refuting verifiable citations to prove a theory, ie a guess; as such its WP:OR. I repeat, we have no citation for either of these. Why are we insisting on trying to say what we cant verify? My answer is that the motivation is POV assertion underlyingly; ie trying to make a point - which is not what WP is about. This is very clear to me. Why cant we just include what we can citate (once not repeatedly), and let the reader make up their mind themselves? Note also that we have a See also to Alternative Medicine [itself a difficult subject]; any interested reader will see clearly that the BDORT is not in the mainstream. I will not later argue with this See also (as I certainly will about the quack/pseudo which are clearly POV trying to be pushed into the article again and need to be removed). I dont see there is a problem; is it possible we are stuck on trying to say something we cant verify, (that is said by See also links anyway(?--RichardMalter 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, if there was something in my above suggestion to you that was unclear, I apologize. Let me try again: Please imagine you are a neutral WP editor, and your job is to summarize (for the lead-in) the following information:

1. The one and only WP:RS we have of BDORT ever being evaluated by the MMC is the NZ Tribunal's report
2. The NZ Tribunal's report determined that BDORT was 'not scientifically valid'

Please Richard, again, all I am asking for is clear and concise suggested language (not guidelines or ideas) that will express the above facts that we have in front of us, with you wearing a neutral WP editor's hat. We'll then take your suggestion and work on it. And please let's focus on the lead-in section for now. Thanks, Crum375 11:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, thanks for the patience, I know (for me) that webchat communication like this is very imperfect and extremely laborious. I did not not understand you; but to summarize my last bit of argument, I am replying to you by asking you, why does a WP article have to try to present evaluation of something, why not just present descriptive facts that can be citated about the thing in question itself, and let the readers make up their own minds? This is the most neutral thing to do. Do you see this similarly? Also because this bit about the Tribunial is at the beginning, we cant repeat the same information again in the article, that will be like saying, and Mary said so too. . . .and Mary said so too. .. . . and Mary said so too..., which is obvious bias and POV assertion, so others here need to look now where they want this citation, here or somewhere else - the whole heading about the Tribunial cant stay in if we cite it once at the beginning. As a proposed wording of this citation, but not necessarily at the top, I have this sentence:

The sole recorded opinion of the BDORT by a mainstream medical body is of the NZ Tribunal in the case of Gorringe which was that the BDORT was 'not scientifically valid'.

Again, I am almost directly paraphrasing the info you summarized, which was again useful. Please note that by arguing out what we can and cant say and what we want to say essentially is proving very helpful - and I suggest this method for later on too. This sentence says a few things: this is the only recorded opinion - there might be other opinions but we are not telepathic; there might on the other hand not be any other opinions because others in the MMC dont know about the BDORT so cant give an opinion; its not the MMC opinion (which would be a guess) - it is a very small unit within the MMC; it gives the Tribunial info and we can add the citation link into the sentence; that it was an opinion only - they did not conduct scientific tests to refute Omura et al's papers, it was not a scientifically tested and published result, and very significantly they were not experts in the main appropriate field - electromagnetism; and it gives their wording as a quote which the reader can interprete or follow up as they may wish to in the link to the report.--RichardMalter 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Reformed Entry

I suggest the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/Work

Hit Show Preview to view. FuCyfre 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• With this offering I now withdraw. FuCyfre 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

FuCyfre's Work Version

Here is the URL to FuCyfre's version. I hope FuCyfre doesn't mind that I fixed up the URL in his version too, so people wouldn't get into the edit page inadvertently (and he can delete the strikeout I put on his 'preview' instructions).

Anyway, to me it seems to have potential. I am going to try to merge Richard's suggested phrasing into it and see what happens. I guess what we can do is reach consensus on the Work version and then replace the 'official' version with it when we all agree. And FuCyfre, please don't withdraw - we need you here to help us get it right! Thanks, Crum375 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I spent some effort on partially wikifying FuCyfre's Work version. The references are still not in a consistent style - any volunteers to fix them? Overall this version seems more complete and coherent to me. It would be nice if we could get feedback from Richard and others on this Workŋ version so we can have some consensus on whether to use it to replace the current version. Thanks, Crum375 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was, of course, precisely improved coherence and comprehensiveness that was my intent. Thanks for confirming that independent scrutiny suggests I'm on the right track. Obviously I'm of the opinion the entry would be better served by replacement of the present entry with this one. I'll offer what assistance I can. FuCyfre 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot FuCyfre, for the work you have done before plus this latest proposed version. I also think it's probably good enough to replace the current version, but prefer to have consensus for any move. Thanks, Crum375 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And a note to Richard: Your proposed wording actually looks pretty good. But I think FuCyfre's proposed new Work version makes life even easier for you as it no longer claims anything about BDORT acceptance or lack thereof by the MMC. So perhaps this is even closer to what you wanted. I guess we'll find out once you chime in. Crum375 23:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the NZ Tribunal section in Work, after spending some effort on fixing the quotes, I now think that there is way too much verbiage there that does not add much and could be confusing. I think the first paragraph, which is the actual summary of the Tribunal regarding BDORT/PMRT suffices, and is simpler to read. Anybody who needs more detail can click on the reference and get it all. So I trimmed the excerpts to the summary only. If anyone disagrees please let me know. Crum375 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we stick with what I proposed, if as Crum375 says, it is OK to him. Please see the actual points I made above for rationale. FuCyfre's version has some clear POV problems with it. and was found to have no scientific validity strongly suggests or says that somehow without a proper hands-on evaluation it was (absolutely) determined that it was invalid (scientifically), and as if to say: and please you the reader understand this. Sticking to quoting them as I did gets round this. The next point is to stress that it was their opinion merely. I reiterate from above, that they are not experts in the required field - electromagnetism. The quote from the report on the work page about not creating a field strong enough to stimulate the nervous system is the big givaway to this. A brief context as it might be helpful, the (politically/financially (USA historically) drug company influenced) ignoring of the electromagnetism (EM) of the human body is a common feature of the MMC starting in med schools. This does not equate, however, to non-science. I will not get into a discussion of it now but for those interested here are a couple of well know books about this subject[1][2]. The main point is that the human body can be very stimulated sub-neurologically. And if anyone here thinks this is untrue, get the book at the end of the first link by a famous Japanese MD, PhD, army surgeon, with a hospital named after him in Japan, and try out the simple procedures for yourself first, before giving what can only otherwise be a POV on it; it contains objective clinical experiments/protocols that can be reproduced by anyone and have/are in fact by many people worldwide. The point of all of this is that the Tribunial gave at best an opinion, and that is the only neutral way to describe it in formal language (ie as opposed to saying they guessed). Also I repeat, to note also that there is no reference in the report that they tried to repeat Omura's et als experiments and refuted them. The next point is back to where we began, and what Crum375 stressed to me repeatedly: it is the sole MMC opinion ever recorded. Lets say this - why are we now not wanting to say this? after hashing this out? I dont see a problem here. This is important to say to give perspective - and please if you wish reread my notes directly under the sentence I proposed for more positive points about it. Re the version on the work page - as a general statement it is full of POV (as well as some useful organization of material). For the most obvious example, please see the point and Mary said so too . .. and Mary said so too . . etc above. Which brings us back to what we have on the current page. To reiterate again the point I made above not responded to yet - but needs to be, it also needs to be decided where we want this citation, at the beginning or later in the text. I dont mind (except for its current position after the EM paragraph which is obviously irrelevant re their lack of qualification and expertise). But generally a repeat of information is obvious assertion of a POV. Crum375, I again wish to continue with your proposed method of one thing at a time!; so I will not comment further on the work page version now - its too much info to discuss coherently in a linear format like this.--RichardMalter 06:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I tried my best to incorporate your language into the Work version (I prefer not to change the main version until we have consensus). Here is the entire paragraph from it:

The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test was considered by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in the course of its judgment of the case of Richard Gorringe. In the Tribunal's final report on that case, which is the only known recorded opinion of the BDORT by a mainstream medical body, the Tribunal found that '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity.'[3]

As you can see, I used verbatim quote instead of using our own 'summarizing' words. If you think you can tweak it further, please feel free to suggest a change here (so others can see and assess the Work version also). I agree with you that we should focus on single issues, right now let's focus on the lead-in handling of the NZ Tribunal report. Thanks, Crum375 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some more work on the Work version, mostly link wikification but also found a neutral source for the summer classes by Dr. Omura, so I took out one of the 'citation needed' templates. Also, I now feel this is a much more complete and authoritative version of Dr. Omura and his work, as compared to the current article. Crum375 14:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave a fair bit of thinking about this especially WP:RS: However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, in respect of other MDs that have commented on the BDORT that I have citated earlier on above, which you argued could not be used; I think it is a question of degrees who is in the mainstream or not; and I am not sure your interpretation of WP:RS is fully correct (I would like another opinion at some point). A clinic in a hospital in Japan that has a website and the MD there that directs it gives his public opinion on the BDORT on the hospital-clinic webpage - is that hospital/clinic/MD not mainstream? (The fact that he is in touch or colleagues with Omura is a normal expected relationship in medicine just as in any other field - that does not make him any less mainstream; and a hip-surgeon will tend to talk positively about the particular replacment hips he/she uses; or this MD about the BDORT he uses). . .All of that said, I am reckoning that the article as a whole can balance it out. Re the sentence in question, it may not be 100% accurate re the mainstream part, but I think it is neutral. One small step . . . :-) I suggest that "known" is more or less redundant and can be deleted, but if you prefer it in, OK with me. If the article as a whole remains with its obvious current biases, then I think I will return and open up the arguments re the 'mainstream' part of this sentence again, as I dont think it is cut and dry. But to be clear, I think it is OK for now.

Still we have this point to work out: I definitely do not think it neutral to repeat citations/information etc throughout an article. (Does anyone not agree with this?) It can go anywhere beginning, middle or end, except as a (current) comment re EM since it is irrelevant (since it is by non-experts of/on the key subject). But its position needs to be decided, so the repeats can be deleted. I want to make that clear: I would not agree to this sentence being added (in addition to the existing same citations) if there are also repeat citations/comments/information re the Tribunial that will remain included. I suggest the following overall scheme for the article: (a) state what the BDORT is, and give its applications, abilities etc using "according to" which is the standard neutral wording whenever necessary; (b) note independent opinions on it, such as the Tribunials, the engineer in Russia, Losco [dont have the citation to hand] etc; (c) give links to further info etc. Looking forward to comments.--RichardMalter 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Richard

Richard, since the previous section was getting long, I decided to start a new one while responding to you. I'll address three issues:

1. I thought you yourself suggested to stick to one issue at a time, yet you raise several in your latest message. I agreed with you that we can only deal with a single issue on the table, so let's try to stick to it.
2. Regarding the permission to use strong opinions - this has nothing to do with our refusal to cite improper sources. I have asked you, many times, for a single source where an MD publishing an article in MMC journal. Not 2 or 3 or 4 - just one. You have yet to choose that one, and provide it to me. If you do, we'll deal with it, and it alone. Again, just one good article in MMC - I know this is repetitive but I have yet to see your single example.
3. Regarding your a b c presentation of the article. This article, to remind you, is about Dr. Omura. Yes, his major claim to fame is BDORT, but Omura is the subject. So we can't just do as you say. I think BDORT having a separate section within Omura's article makes sense organizationally.

Richard, let me suggest to you how I would proceed if I were you. I think you are frustrated and feel that BDORT is not being given a 'fair shake'. Take a single small point in the article (or the Work version) and address it clearly. Show clearly and briefly, in minimum words, why the present version requires changing per WP policy. Then we can deal with it. Regardless of the eventual outcome of that item, you can then repeat the process for the next item, etc. Let's try to get to all your issues one at a time, and let's try to address each of them fairly and fully. Thanks, Crum375 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I have not forgotten to stick to one thing at a time, but the repeat citation point is obviously directly linked. To repeat we have agreement on this sentence. Re the citation point, I have not suddenly decided to ignore all or even some of the previous discussion - you would be mistaken to think that; the opposite I am reconsidering it; please test my WP understanding, what exactly does WP say against using this source to be able to say simply that the BDORT is used in this hospital in Japan? Many citations on WP about all kinds of things including medically related ones do not come from MMC journals - I think you might be mistakenly interpreting WP policy here; what exactly in your opinion makes this source not reliable?; sorry if I was not clearer before. Re the a,b,c, presentation: I was only referring to the separate BDORT section, just as you note. Please bear in mind that this webtalk way of discussing is often at fault not our basic ability to communcate between us. To end with a point to discuss: repeat citations - your comments please.--RichardMalter 05:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider

[[4]]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnarkBoojum (talk • contribs) 04:20, June 4, 2006 UTC.

Pseudoscience is Pseudoscience

Whther proponents care for that label or not, if WP processes and community cannot produce an entry on what clearly qualifies as a pseudoscience, the basis of for which entry is that it is, indeed, pseudoscience, then it is indicative of WPs dysfuncitonality and lack of utility with respect to any claim to authority or reliability. SnarkBoojum 11:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The label 'pseudoscience' is a pejorative. That amounts to WP:PA when it is used when people are promoting it. Crum375 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me add, WP is about neutrality. Labeling someone's belief as 'pseudo', or false, is not neutral and is a personal attack. There are no false beliefs. There are beliefs that are accepted by a minority, or rejected by a majority, and that could be stated if reliably sourced. Crum375 11:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cf reference noted above under heading Consider. I am of that opinion. Be advised, as well, I will no longer operate under previous agreements. They've limited the discussion to an attempt to mollify an advoicate of what is, in fact, by any rational objective criteria, a pseudoscience. TealCyfre 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note as well this is not sockpuppetry, I'm simply switching handles. I will not operate under both within the same entry or entries. TealCyfre 11:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think the handle changes are confusing, but we'll accomodate your needs. I just want to verify that:

• TealCyfre
• SnarkBoojum
• FuCyfre
• Fucyfre

are all the same individual. I think it's important for us to eliminate even the appearance of sockpuppetry, i.e. creating the impression of a crowd where there is a single person. Crum375 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Done. TealCyfre 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I normally associate the messenger with the message, but for the record it seems the same editor that wrote the missive[5] about Pseudoscience in his user page was banned [6] for stalking another editor. Maybe the issue is civility? Crum375 12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Noted. TealCyfre 22:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken record?

Richard, I am sorry if I sound like a broken record (hey younger people don't know what we are talking about, I guess), but all I am asking for is:

• One item at a time
• One really good, in fact the very best you can find, citation (i.e. URL) of the presentation of BDORT by an MD in a Mainstream Medical Community (i.e. not Alternative Medicine) journal (preferably in a language we can understand, since this is the English Wikipedia)

If the above request is not clear, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 13:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I apologize if I seem to be making this difficult, its not intended. I wont reply to anything you say just here, maybe we should do this the other way around: what point of any mentioned do you think we should address now? Thanks.--RichardMalter 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can do better than that. I suggest the point about multiple repeat information/citations currently in the article about the Tribunial should be addressed.--RichardMalter 14:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the present article is a little awkward in its organization. I think the new proposed Work version is much better. Can you please reply to my question below? Thanks, Crum375 14:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you let me decide the agenda, I would propose we start with the (in my opinion) much more comprehensive and better organized Work version, and address specifically for now the last paragraph of the lead-in, that I quote here:

The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test was considered by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in the course of its judgment of the case of Richard Gorringe. In the Tribunal's final report on that case, which is the only known recorded opinion of the BDORT by a mainstream medical body, the Tribunal found that '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity.'[3]

If you can live with that wording, please say so. Otherwise, please suggest your own version for us to review. Thanks, Crum375 14:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let Me Say This About That

I think it's important to bear the following in mind:

• The sole established basis for notability for this entry sufficient to jusity its inclusion in WP, in my understanding, as established at the time of its suggested deletion, is specifically that it is viewed as a form of pseudoscience and that this, and this alone, merits notability sufficient for inclusion. I am not aware of any other sufficient basis having been established. I would rather doubt holding a few seminars qualifies, or every such seminar, held by an enormous number of exceedingly minor figures, however estimable they may be as individuals, would merit inclusion. Something akin to the professor test seems to me therefore to be applicable, and while Omura is clearly not noteworthy on this set of criteria, having published, really, far less than a typical professor other than in his own self-publication, it has been established, at least for the present, that Omura is notable on the basis of the BDORT and his other 'researches' being a form of pseudoscience. That said, I accept that the term is fraught with peril and likely ought not appear in the entry per se. It is however, the established basis for the entry's notability being sufficient to exist as an entry at all, and that fact ought be born in mind, or so it seeems to me. If we were to conclude that pseudoscience is as an uncivil term not to be applied, then the article ceases to have any basis for notability, at least as established to date, sufficient to justify its existence. The pseudoscience label, then, however uncomfortable, and, yes, even pejorative, its associations, is unavoidable in this instance.
• Taking this into account at the least as background, then: We have at present on the table the assertion that 'balance' requires on the one hand presentation of the assertions of the advocates, in neutral terms, coupled with the parallel assertion that reference to the NZ commission ought not be repeated. This is problematic at any number of levels. I will address myself, however, only to the level clearly and immediately applicable. The WP criteria, in my understanding, in such a controversial entry as this, are twofold: 1) Those applicable to biographies of living persons, and 2) Those applicable to articles on subjects in which there is controversy. Let us consider, then, the two together:

As an article on a living person it is allowable to use the person's own site(s) as to assertions made to the limited extent of noting them as assertions made, by the source itself.

As an article on a controversial subject balance must exist within the article reflective of independently verifiable sourcing.

It seems, to me at least, an inevitable corollary that given the limited applicability of self-published sources, viz, statements effectively in the form of assertions by the source itself about itself, coupled with the relative weight of the sole known extant example of a verifiable source actually at some reasonably presumed objective remove from the source itself, then . . .

. . . at the very least, that the NZ commission, as the sole extant example of third-party, verifiable, reputable sourcing, and its attendant experts, formally regarded as such by the commission, must be given at the least equal weight within the article to assertions made as to Omura's armamentarium, as these are all, in turn, dependent upon what is effectively self-sourcing.

Indeed, were the entry analagous to a court it would be assigned greater weight as a matter of course, as the sole presumably objective source of information available about the subject. Equal weight is actually given the assertions of the subject itself, by objective criteria, arguably undue weight.

The article, if it is to maintain balance within WP criteria with respect to both aspects, must reflect at the least essential balance between these two elements. It would not be satisfactory nor acceptable to have the article consist principally of the findings of the NZ commission with an attendant small reference to Omura's own sites, for example. Nor is it acceptable, in my understanding, for the entry to be evolved in the direction of a series of assertions ultimately referenced only to self-publication and promotion while relegating the NZ commission to a few brief passing references. Opinions? TealCyfre 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, I generally agree with most of your points and specifically your conclusion. I think the Tribunal's report, being the only neutral Mainstream document to assess BDORT, must be given equal footing to anything else. The one point I disagree with is the Pseudoscience labeling, that we have hashed out before. But having arrived to this page after the AfD discussion, my opinion is that the Pseudoscience label is not needed for inclusion of this article in WP. I think that a person who holds multiple international symposia and courses, some approved by (or at least held in) legitimate universities (see the new references I found for the summer courses and inserted in the Work version), is certainly notable based on current WP criteria. Anyway, I agree with you that balance is needed, and that we cannot just describe BDORT in great detail and avoid the Tribunal, and conversely we can't just describe the Tribunal's report of BDORT and ignore Omura and his claims. I think the Work version is a good starting point, I would like Richard to concur and let us continue from that version onward. I am assuming you are OK with it, and if not, feel free to suggest changes. Crum375 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think we're in or nearly in essential agreement. I'd note a few differences, though: These conferences are very small events. We are talking, as a rule, less than twenty registered attendees, each, almost all of whom are regulars, who have come to these seminars for years. I would estimate the total number in the pool of attendees at only a few tens of people. I very much doubt that this rises to the level of notability. If it does, than an enormous number of practitioners of various sorts, in various fields, would meet WP notability criteria. Now, perhaps that ought be the case – but at present, in my understanding, that is not WP policy in re notability. If the burden of proof were to be placed, as it is to be placed, on those making claim of notability, and they must verifiably source their claim, then they will be unable to muster more than a few brief notices of listings placed at the NYAM and tiny notices in a few alternatie health journals, usually at O's expense. If the burden similarly is placed upon them to justify an assertion of widely followed, or attended, etc, they will summon a very small list, as I've indicated. Now, of course, I can't verifiably demonstrate these numbers here, but, for what it's worth, I'm prepared to make the assertion, and, as the burden is theirs, I have absolutely no doubt that if challenged in any form of open discussion/debate to make a case for notability other than on the basis of that thus far accepted, that of pseuodoscience, they will fail in that case. That said, in turn, I will repeat, though it is the background basis for the entry I am not at present asserting it must be overt and explicit within the entry itself, given the contentiousness of the issue and 'civility' issues, but I do feel strongly that it is all the more incumbent upon any editors that the entry itself make crystal clear the relative weight of stated independent verifiable opinion and not become, by virtue of its shape and character, an entry that might appear, to an intelligent but casual and uninformed reader, to suggest that Omura's armamentarium has any more weight behind its positive assertions than the fact that an objectively miniscule number of proponents have made assertions and that the only independently credible body to consider the matter swiftly reached the conclusion that it was nonsensical in its claim to scientific validity. In that light, while I agree that the series of quotes from the NZ commission in the Work entry was lengthy, it was placed there in order to address specific aspects of the claims presented within the article itself, effectively point by point. I am most certainly open to suggestion and harbor no illusions of editorial infallability. That said, I think it's vitally important, given the listing of assertions by proponents, which have to date no independent sourcing, simply existing as a series of assertions by proponents, that the be appropriately balanced and offset by specific counter-points, to the limited extent they exist, from the sole body we have been able to find to address the matter at any level of independent credibility. The burden of proof must fall upon those – the proponents - making claims. It must not in any way shape or form rest upon others to form a negative proof, of the sort which has been persistently demanded by proponents who have sought, in the form of a single individual (to date) at this entry to minimize offsetting claims made by proponents of a methodology which, I am prepared to assert, has never in fact even be presented, at least by its principal architect, to external meaningful scrutiny, and of which such external review, therefore, unsurprisingly, proponents have as yet been unable to produce any credible verifiable evidence. TealCyfre 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Moral Acid Test

I would also pose the following to be born in mind, in each person's conscience, as a sort of moral acid test: If this were an entry on Richard Gorringe, prepared in advance of his being charged and found guilty of malfeasance and incompetence which resulted in very real human pain, suffering, and death, and we were to apply appropriate criteria for the entry, would that entry do a sufficiently competent job of presenting the facts so that a person consulting it, having found it via Google or some equivalent, and not of necessity particularly familiar with WP Discussion pages' existence, etc, that such a person might reach the simple conclusion that the alternative medicine offered by the practitioner, who stressed not only his status as an alternative medicine practitioner, but also his status as a 'man of science' in the more orthodox conventional sense, and thus, like Omura, might appear at first glance to offer 'the best of both worlds – sound grounding in orthodox medicine and science combined with an openness to new and less conventional possibilities – would it be clear on reading the article as to the relative balance of factors, would that person be able to trust the article to present, in NPOV the appropriate information and perpsective? It was on precisely this factor that the NZ commission focused, and which, in my judgement, must be adequately born in mind in the presentation of this material. TealCyfre 01:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be great if an average patient could pop open an encyclopedia, look up her symptoms, diagnosis, doctors, hospital/clinic, etc. and then reach a rational and optimal decision for herself. Unfortunately life is not so easy. WP's mission is not to directly help patients make life-saving decisions. WP should make every possible effort to present to every person on Earth, in a neutral, well sourced, objective, factual, legible form, the best knowledge we have at any given time on a subject. The knowledge may often be contradictory - science evolves over time, especially medical science. In the case of contradictory sources, WP must make every effort to properly cite the sources and attempt to present a reasonable and fair picture of the differing views, with the most common ones, expressed by the Mainstream, receiving top billing. This latter point, of highlighting and prioritizing the Mainstream is a critical part of the WP:NPOV policy, known as Undue Weight. I suggest to read that section carefully, but my understanding of it is that we must assign priorities to contradictory viewpoints according to their relative preponderance. This is tricky for us to do here, since we cannot easily or practically assign preponderance figures to each view. My own simplified approach is to assume the Mainstream view (assuming there is one) is the majority view, and it should get top billing. Having said that, per the above policy, minority views should get some space also. Bottom line is that in our case here, per WP policy we must assign the NZ Tribunal report high priority and billing, since it is the only representation we have of the Mainstream view. Once we present these views and sources to the reader, it is up to her to decide on her own best course of action. Most readers are very intelligent, and most have trusted friends and relatives by their side also, and they will recognize a POV article for what it is, and potentially ignore its view totally. WP wins, in my own opinion, if the reader is impressed with an objective, well founded and explained presentation, and is able to get a good picture of the 'prevailing views' about the subject, along with any 'minority views', and then make a well informed decision. Crum375 01:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. TealCyfre 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I read through your discussions; but many points made and to reply comprehensively would take up lots of WP webspace and time. So I'll stick to the one thing at a time idea. Crum375, yes, I have already said I think this wording is OK. You have not commented directly on the repeat citation issue , is this the next point to discuss? If so, your comments please? --RichardMalter 09:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I'll put this in a separate entry so it could be discussed as a separate thread I'll label "WP:RS". I would like to repeat the question to you have not responded to my question: what exactly do you find in WP policy that says that citations like the Japan hospital one, or the many MDs/PhDs who published in 'Omura's' journal and are cited on PubMed as published in that journal, some in senior positions, are not reliable citations for even saying that the the BDORT is used by them (not number of applications, not proportional use compared to the remaining MDs in the world who of course dont use the BDORT, just used). I am also checking my WP understanding.--RichardMalter 09:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, regarding your 'multiple citations' issue, I'd like to address it on the Work version, because I think that version is better balanced (and wiki-formatted) citation-wise. I am still waiting for you to approve proceeding from that version forward. We will still have the old (current) version saved in the History, so we can use it to compare, or even revert, at any time. By supporting the change-over to the Work version, you won't be blessing it as perfect, just that it's better than the old one, and then we can all be on the same page (pun intended). Regarding your BDORT 'usage' point, I did address it before, please scroll up in this Discussion and you'll find my previous response. Thanks, Crum375 11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, re working on the Work version, I dont mind; there are quite a few bits in the current version that I think are better though, like the Description and Background sections, which spell things out quite clearly I think. Re the 'usage' point, please point me to your comments above, its now a very long discussion, I appreciate it, thanks.--RichardMalter 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have found a useful citation [7] of a stated independent "double-blind trial" by MDs, in Brazil; which is also a citation of usage. Crum375, I anticipate that you will say this is not a mainstream medical journal, but to be clear I am civily challenging your interpretation of WP policy here and asking you what exactly are you citing from WP policy docs that says this citation et al cannot be used.--RichardMalter 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I prepared the response below before you uploaded your last message re the new source. I will reply to you last message later, below this response.

Please search for 'usage' in this Discussion page, I am sure you will find our long disucssion about this subject. For your convenience, I am quoting the final part of my message on that topic, from higher up on this Discussion page:

Richard, this is my opinion based on my best understanding of WP criteria. If you find a neutral and reliable source that says that X number of BDORT procedures were performed on humans by MDs in a given country or region during a given period, we could cite it, with language that narrowly states what it says (or maybe a direct quote). IMO for the source to pass muster of WP:RS it cannot be a site that is related to Omura or directly to BDORT promotion. The two sites you cite above both prominently display 'BDORT' in their front page and don't appear to be neutral sites that would meet WP:RS criteria. BTW, if the information were in Japanese in a Japanese publication I personally would not be able to help in assessing the validity of the information, and I suspect that would be true for most editors here. If you have such a neutral and reliable source for the number of BDORT procedures performed, again I much prefer a single good one to focus on, please point me to it. Crum375 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify, even to say that one BDORT procedure was performed by an MD on a human subject I think you would still need an acceptable source per above. Crum375 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be going around in circles on this issue.

Also, I compared the Work and old versions to compare the Description and Background sections. I think the new Work description is much easier (for me at least) to understand, and does have references to the patent etc. if anyone wants a deeper knowledge. If you agree, I will move the Work into the main area, and as I said we will still have the old version as a reference in the History for comparison. Crum375 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

New Brazilian Reference

I am really swamped with RLW (Real Life Work) and cannot address it yet. Hope to evaluate it later. Thanks, Crum375 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I finally had a chance to look at your reference. Unless I am mistaken, this was published in Dr. Omura's own journal:

"Farber, P.L. and Koga, K. Analysis of Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in Brazil. Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Res. Int. J., Vol. 23 (1): 78-79. 1998"

My understanding of WP requirement of neutrality of a source publication is that it cannot be related or connected to the inventor or promoter of the evaluated technique. If you think otherwise, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Move?

I would respectfully suggest then, as Richard seems to agree, that the Work version replace the extant entry. I prefer, as the creator of the initial Work version on which Crum375 has now expended so much of his own effort, that Crum375 make the actual move, at his convenience, if that's acceptable to him. TealCyfre 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard said this in one of his comments above (emphasis added by me):

"Crum375, re working on the Work version, I dont mind; there are quite a few bits in the current version that I think are better though, like the Description and Background sections, which spell things out quite clearly I think."

Which, like you, I take to indicate that he can live with the Work version being a new starting point for changes, e.g. the ones he is referring to. It seems then that we have a consensus for the Work version move, which I will do forthwith. Just to clarify, there is no loss of information since the current version is preserved in the history. I do suggest for anyone with some spare time to go through the new style references and fix up the missing labels (but no other non-consensual content changes for now, please). Thanks, Crum375 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. TealCyfre 19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. And thank you, TealCyfre, for all your efforts, in particular this Work version. Crum375 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. And thank you, in turn, Crum375, for all your efforts. Whenever you're ready to seek further status within WP feel free to advise, I'll be happy to lend my voice. That aside, a question: Can you direct me to a page that would indicate how to markup the form of footnoting cites used in the entry? I know how to do a simple external link, but I'm not clear on markup for these references in the form you've put them, and on which you've asked for additional hands' assistance. TealCyfre 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Disregard the markup question I've worked it out. TealCyfre 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've completed fleshing out the cites, attempting to keep descriptions of use to readers and also NPOV. Didn't know whether to characterize these as 'minor' edits or not, just thought I'd mention them here so they're subject to scrutiny by all so that if anyone sees anything other than NPOV we can discuss that here. TealCyfre 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I am confused: What does the Bonnano Crime Syndicate have to do with Omura? I waded through the very long legal reference and all I found was Bonnano and his family, nothing about Omura. Crum375 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's cited as an instance of the Heart Disease Research Foundation v General Motors Corp case, which is noted in US Federal procedure as establishing precedent as to a particularly meritless form of civil action in which allegation is made 'bare bones' of conspiracy with no actual evidence presented as to the alleged 'conspiracy.' The case was dismissed at the time, but established precedent, and US federal codes of civil procedure were subsequently amended to make it impossible to make such an attempt possible in future. This cite is presented to establsh that fact. The US 'conspiracy' statutes are notoriously vague, but HDRF v GM was too vague even for them. If one searches for other claims to fame of the HDRF, this is about all one finds other than Omura's researches. The fact of the matter, though I cannot present externally verifiable sourcing on this, is that the HDRF has been subject to NYS and Federal investigation as to whether or not it actually had any claim to charitable tax-deductible status. The resolution was that the HDRF had at the least to retain an MD. Omura is that MD. TealCyfre 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, I am having a hard time finding how the Bonnano cite came about. I understand the logic of it, I think, that Omura's foundation sued GM, GM got the case dismissed using the Bonnano dismissal (on similar RICO charges I presume) as precedent. What I can't find is the actual reference to the Bonnano case in the current sourcing we have. A simple search on the other legal reference comes up empty on 'Bonnano'. Crum375 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't recall what search terms I had used on Google when I came across this particular cite. I was looking for something that would be an independent source per WP criteria and which would establish the statement made in the entry that the HDRF v GM case established citable precedent. The Bonnano case is the one I got a hit on with Google. It is *after* the HDRF v GM case, and the HDRF v GM case is being cited in the course of the Bonnano case as having established precedent that a case of such form has been judged meritless not only in content, but in form. TealCyfre 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I now understand that the Omura-related case came before the Bonanno case, and I now see the Heart Foundation cited in the Bonnano case file, so I guess it makes sense to cite Bonnano, as it shows reliance on the Heart Foundation vs. GM case as a significant precedent. Which is what you've been saying all along I guess, I was just slow to catch on. Thanks, Crum375 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dateless

If there's no objection I'm removing the specific date of birth. I had done this on the Work version and I'm operating on the assumption that the version moved to the article page in the switch was not reflective of a choice to retain the specific date of birth. If it was, I apologize, and happy to discuss it. As I understand it it's not considered a good idea to present speficif dates of birth for living persons unless they're readily available anyway, as it may facilitate identity theft. Granted the info is available at the site from which it was sourced, but I'm inclined to think it appropriate to minimize chance of anyone doing ID theft on Omura. TealCyfre 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I saw your removal on the Work version, and reverted it there at the time, as I noted in the Edit Note, which you may have missed. The reason that I stated was that the DOB was readily available at the next click, in the very first sentence of the first reference, which is Omura's CV. I understand that the DOB inclusion criterion (for living individuals) is that it is 'widely known'. Well, if we supply it in his CV, on his Web page, 1 click and then 5 words away, it becomes widely known right there, even if it wasn't before. But if you click on Google for "Yoshiaki Omura was born", you'll get his CV and DOB right there also (from the same CV). I would consider that widely known. Crum375 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed that Edit Note. My error. I'll restore the date, then. TealCyfre 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Brazilian reference

Crum375, I think I see it dissiimilarly from you. The citation is within a webpage of an org of MDs in Brazil [8][9]. This is the primary citation source I am noting - I cannot see how it is not an unreliable or neutral source. At some point it was also published in 'Omuras journal' - which makes no difference. They state explicitly on the website that they were introduced to the technique, which they then independently tested. We have the report here in their own words of independence. Later they kept ties with the inventor - what is the novel feature here? I noted many times above, people in professions share links if they have common ground. I cannot find in WP anything that dismisses this as a citation. This is also therefore a citation of an independent analysis that means that current info presented is factually incorrect. The same argument also applies to the hospital website in Japan: it is a hospital: they have clinics within it as all hospitals do, one clinic of these is using the BDORT, the MD there is has published along similar research lines to Omura because they have come to share common ground. Your idea for a MMC citation also does not seem to stand up to WP policies to the best of my reading of them. (I am as impatient as you at going round in circles with this [joke]).--RichardMalter 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, my understanding is that there are liability issues for WP, which become even more serious if we accept any evaluation of a technique that was not performed by a neutral party. This to me means that the publication that evaluates the technique must be totally independent from the inventor(s) or promoter(s) of the technique. The Brazil reference, to the best of my ability to read it, was published by "Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Res. Int. J., Vol. 23 (1): 78-79. 1998". According to Omura's CV he is the "Editor-in-Chief and founder of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal." My best understanding of 'neutrality' is that when an article about an invention is published in a journal for which the inventor is "Editor-in-Chief and founder", that is not an independent, neutral source. I apologize if this is a misunderstanding on my part. Also, you keep referring to a 'Japanese publication', if you can cite that, I'll be happy to address it (assuming it's in English since my Japanese is somewhat lacking). Thanks, Crum375 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, the brazilian reference is published on a Brazilian website of MDs by MDs there. They state clearly that they made an independent test of the key part of the BDORT, 'resonance phenomena between two identical EM fields' and found after 20 double-blind goes that it worked 100%. I do not see what is the problem here at all. The article also has been published in 'Omuras journal' - that does not dismiss the neutrality of the first publication - again this is very usual events in the professional field where information is circulated amongst journals/conferences etc. If you were to dismiss it on that basis, you would very likely have to dismiss 50% of all the MMC MD published papers. If you still do not see this similarly, please kindly refer me to the exact words in WP policy docs that you are interpreting please re this neutrality issue. Thank you. Please note above I refer to a Japanese website of a hospital, not a journal; similarly of the european one [10] that I previously noted. I am also challenging not being able to cite references from people that have published in 'Omuras journal' [AETIJ]. I think the reverse, the many MDs/PhDs, some in eminent positions, who have published in it from 4 continents (unless you think the entire thing is a fabrication) makes it a reliable source . Again, please if you see dissimilarly, please point me to the exact WP wording that makes you think otherwise, thank you. I am thinking generally, that this has to be an encyclopedic entry, not an attemp by anyone here to evaluate it; the best non-WP:OR you or anyone else can do is characterize usage or debate viz WP policies. This is also another reason why all multiple repeat informations need to be deleted - essentially they are WP:OR. --RichardMalter 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I apologize if there is some other neutral publication that published the Brazillian results. If there is such a reliable neutral publication, please point me to it because in the link you gave all I find is Omura's journal. As far as the Japanese, if you are relying on a Web site of the hospital where the doctors are working, I think that would present a conflict of interest, since it would not be neutral to its own employees. My understanding is that conflict of interest contradicts the ability to neutrally evaluate a paper or a technique. Since you ask for exact words, here is an excerpt from WP:RS:

"Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident."

This is in explaining how to find neutral reliable sources. I assume there are more places where this is explained, I'll let others chime in to explain why conflict-of-interest (e.g. being published on author's employer's Web site, publisher invented the technique being published) negates neutrality. Crum375 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• We have been over this ground, again and again. For the entry to be NPOV as per the criteria discussed at enormous length above, it must meet the criteria presented at enormous length above. Similarly, for it to be neutral, not simply a self-referential advert, any claims of validation must be verifiably sourced to third-party neutral sources. We have been over this ground time and gain. The simple reassertion that one party is not convinced is not an argument, it is simply an observation on their part to the effect that they are unconvinced, no more, no less. I will once again cite the observation of Cannell in the NZ proceedings – not because Cannell is the Pope and infallible, but because it makes a sound point, and from an independent, distant, non-self-interested party, sought out by a government commission charged with enforcing the law:

• 'I find it deeply disturbing that the only people who seem to claim reliable diagnostic results are those who make a living from applying it and some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.' p 306

As to Cannell's credentials and independence I would again cite:

• 'Prof Mark Cannell, who, at the time of the hearing held the Chair of Physiology at the School of Medicine at the Unviersity of Auckland before which he held a personal Chair as Professor of Biophysics in the University of London. He teaches medical and science students, post graduate science students and conducts research programmes which employ state of the art techniques in cell biophysics to help clarify the mechanisms underlying normalcy and disease. Most of his scientific work has centered on the biophysics of muscle contraction. He has published extensively in international journals on excitation contraction coupling and is recognized as a world expert in this area.’ 285

I would suggest that where there is in fact neutral, independent, disinterested, verifiable, properly sourced information, it is relevant. Where there is mere assertion, it is irrelevant to the entry, whether sincerely held or as a matter of simple self-interest.

Richard, you have repeatedly asserted the BDORT and Omura's armamentarium is widely taught, widely reviewed (by implication by independent sources), etc. If so, perhaps, to repeat the invitation once again, you might care to present a single such instance.

As to balance, the present entry is in my judgement balanced. A long list of claims for Omura, with nothing more substantive to back them than the fact that the claims have been made, repeatedly, by what is, on evidence presented to date, no more than a small self-reinforcing circle of true believers who have never presented their long-repeated claims to independent scientific scrutiny, with the only independent review reduced to an afterthought, which would seem to be your notion of balance, Richard, is hardly balance, at least in my humble judgement.

Mere 'bare bones' assertions, to refer to the Heart Disease Research Foundation case cited above and in the entry, from which I would remind you, Omura derives the financial means to sustain his self-publications, are meritless.

Such, at least, is the conclusion of independent, disinterested parties. TealCyfre 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, thanks for the time in digging that out for me, you are helping me learn how WP works. There are two points then, one is a reliable source, the second, neutrality. Re the Brazilian website, I can only repeat again, that this information is published on a website of MDs in Brazil by MDs. I also note as you do that the website also gives the publication details of this info in AETIJournal, but again I can only reiterate the point above that one publication does not negate another (longer discussion of this above). So I am citing the website as the source, sorry if I was not clearer. In that case, I think that it is clearly an independent, non-biased, neutral, reliable source, both of evaluation and usefulness. They also state explicitly that they carried out an independent double-blind test. Re the Japanese hospital website, and also the European one, I do see the point about neutrality here (though it is not clear cut because an MD cannot ethically claim anything they like). However accepting that for a minute, they are still reliable sources for usage of the BDORT - unless we somehow make a case out that they are all (including this hospital) putting up false information deliberately and that when you go to their clinics they never use the BDORT - which would of course be a very far-fetched assertion. Finally re AETIJournal, from the points which are now much clearer, I think that the MDs/Ph.Ds that publish in that journal can not be dismissed as either non-neutral or unreliable. Re the neutrality, many of them do use the BDORT but only as a small part of their whole field of professional practice - effectively they are independent. Re the reliable source of these papers, the contents of the AETIJournal can be separated viz neutrality and reliability. I do not think anyone will claim that Omura has fabricated the papers of MDs on 4 continents - ie usage on 4 continents is confirmed; re neutrality, Omura's own papers obviously don't conform to the neutrality idea, but the other MDs/Ph.Ds publications as abovementioned do. This seems to be very clear.--RichardMalter 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Richard you seem fundamentally not to accept or grasp that the burden of proof is on the party making an assertion. You persistently make statements to the effect you have above in which you attempt to place the burden on external parties to prove a negative. The burden of proof in any discussion, any debate, is on the party making the assertion. TealCyfre 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, are know these are your opinions; but regarding giving information, I do not think WP policies bear them out - see discussion immediately above. I think an underlying problem here is the one you have given many tomes yourself - you are trying to force this article somehow to say to the world "I dont rate it", by trying to insert repeated evaluations of people with long bios and qualifications not in the appropriate field of expertise because they agree with your POV and dismissing all the other many by arguing that they are not reliable or properly sourced, instead of giving basic encyclopedic information, characterizing debate when necessary, for the reader to make up their own mind. In short, you are very clearly trying to assert you POV in this article. Lets just say what this thing is, who Omura is, what he does, and let people decide for themselves.--RichardMalter 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Richard, if a true believer in the notion that the pyramids were clearly constructed by aliens were to employ your form of argument and evidence, then your logic would dictate a WP entry presenting a long list of largely self-referenced sources, with the 'confirmation' that the phenomenon of this claim had been noted by external neutral sources. If your form of logic and evidence are such that they support such a notion of 'science,' then you will in my estimation find little support in the wider world.
• As to your assertion re WP policies. I would note, Richard, that to date you are the only party in this discussion who sees them significanly otherwise. Feel free to read the lengthy discussion once again.
• I would note that the cite you offer above from Brazil, in addition to its other shortcomings, while it uses the term 'double-blind' does not actually describe a double-blind process. Is this similar to your earlier citation where you cited a 'triple-blind' process in which, upon scrutiny of the description it turned out that 'triple-blind' was being employed to characterize three people avoiding eye contact? Precisely how idiosyncratic is this form of 'science'? It seems to employ the term 'electromagnetism' not to mean what would be standard useage, but seems to refer to a Qi-like quality not actually being measured by the conventional means used to measure electromagnetism. By these criteria Voodoo quite literally would qualify as science.
• If you have any credible instance of independent, mainstream view, which you claimed earlier existed in abundance, I would suggest you might cease your coyness and simply trot it on out so that all may be dazzled by the quality of the evidence presented.
• As to your ad hominem: It's irrelevant. TealCyfre 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

I am again swamped with RLW, but I thought I would share this with you - it is from WP:Verifiability:

Please read this carefully as well as the full article and related ones. We must find reliable sources according to WP's definition. In my present opinion the only reliable sources we have for BDORT are:

1. The patent - for the description of the procedure; and
2. The NZ Tribunal - for analyzing BDORT/PMRT by neutral and qualified professionals

Every other reference we have about it would not be considered a WP:RS as I presently understand it.

We have no reference at this point, reliable by WP standards, that even shows us reliably that anyone besides Omura and Gorringe ever used BDORT on a live patient.

If I am wrong, please correct me. My goal is to implement the correct WP policy, as I understand it, nothing more and nothing else. Crum375 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am in agreement, with the sole addition of the fact that we have, I believe, the second patent filing reliably sourced. Perhaps, though it would mean discarding a great deal of effort, it would be best, then, to simply confine the entry to a very short entry noting these verifiable facts: The patent (perhaps patents) and the NZ commission.
• Thoughts? TealCyfre 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm game. Richard? Others? Crum375 02:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you're up for it, let's, as you say, cut to the chase. Barring objection, I'll prepare my take on a very short, very NPOV, very verifiable entry. If you'd be kind enough, as I don't know these ropes, to set up a similar mechanism as before where I may place it, perhaps we can load out this show and get back on the road to other things. TealCyfre 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• You can just go to the Work version and edit it at your leisure. Since we copied it to the main article it is no longer needed and can be used for your test version. Give it a shot and let's see what you come up with. Crum375 02:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Are any external links at all appropriate in your judgement to Omura's site, etc, or should it be very tightly confined to the three references of the patent, the patent application, and the NZ commission? TealCyfre 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised/Verifiable

New test version is up. [11] Comments and criticisms welcome. TealCyfre 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, I understand that you are required to maintain civility throughout.--138.217.80.202 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, this is what seems to happen, from my perspective. I question you why a website, for example, is not a verifiable source or neutral. We begin to discuss. I ask you for exactly what you are referring to in WP policy docs. You cite these. I argue back that based on what you present - the exact wording, what you suggest re for example the Japan website does not seem to fit fully with what you quote. For specific example re the Japan hospital website, I say that we can use this website just as we have used other websites here for in this case usage. You then note the neutrality point. I reply that I understand and see this and of course agree. But I further add that we can still use this website for a cite of usage only (ie not evaluation) because no specific wording that you have yet mentioned or quoted says we cannot. You do not reply specifically or in any detail to this point. At this point you reiterate in general what you think regarding this website, and as above quote WP policy wording, but you do not actually continue the discussion of individual points, in this case answering why this website fails the test of reliability. From my perspective, just when we are getting to the end of the discussion, you go back to the beginning again. Much the same applies to the other websites I mention. I realize you are being patient; but so am I. --138.217.80.202 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you mean to suggest I have been anything other than civil, 138, I would find that uncivil. Therefore, I'm confident you meant to suggest no such thing and will be more than happy to clarify that simple fact, yes?
• I see no way to resolve this impasse other than to reduce the entry to a bare, minimal, absolutely indisuputably NPOV reliably sourced entry of the form presented. I accept Crum375s argument above as to sourcing which means there are at most three sources that meet WP criteria. A reading of the page(s) referenced by Crum375 clearly indicates in my understanding those are the only sources reliable as defined by WP criteria.
• Therefore, the entry must, in my judgement, perforce be reduced to a form as suggested by my current entry. I suggest we agree on that, and move on. TealCyfre 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please note:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Reliable Sources
• Wikipedia:Citing Sources

• You will note that these policies require that all sources not meeting the criteria stated, which, as noted, are only three, and their attendant material in the entry be deleted, forthwith, without discussion, without consensus.

TealCyfre 07:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, I will not engage in a personal argument. Crum375's I will wait for your comments; this does not mean I agree to the shortened version. There is lots I would want to add to it as basic information, for example. I also have lots of RLW, so my replies may not be as quick to come; please bear in mind the 48 hour rule we agreed to. Thanks.--138.217.80.202 08:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, not in place of but in addition to, here is a video citation on google of a US dentist who introduces himself giving a presentation of how he used the BDORT for intractable headaches after dentistry [12]. Unless this is a fabricated video (and the Japan, Brazillian and European websites I have cited are also fabrications, the hospital, clinics etc dont really exist, etc etc) then this one is a reliable neutral citation both of usage and utility. (I remind that I have already noted that a MMC journal article is not a WP criteria; that this DDS (or other MDs/Ph.Ds) presents at a conference/publishes in AETIJournal about the BDORT also does not make him unreliable or non-neutral: scientists/MDs publish in the appropriate journals).--138.217.80.202 09:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Points of Entry, Points of Departure

I wash my hands of this. TealCyfre 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, can you please stick around at least until we get some resolution? Of course all I can do is ask and hope.

Richard, before we continue, it would be nice if, like TealCyfre, we had the complete list of your aliases, since someone just perusing this page may not understand who's who. As you know, it is very confusing and distracting when people use different handles on the same page, and may create the impression of a crowd where there is just a single individual. I presume that the previous IP addresses are you; can you please give us all other names or IP's you have used on this page? Thanks, Crum375 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, let's not jump the gun with the short version. Although I share your opinion that a properly sourced version can be much shorter, and your Work version seemed like a good foundation for it, I think it makes sense to try to work by consensus, as we have up to now. Thanks, Crum375 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, sorry, I was hurrying, the above comments where by me. My name is Richard Malter, I do not use aliases.--203.51.184.97 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)--RichardMalter 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Almost did it again :-) )--RichardMalter 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to explain a bit more fully my above point; I am opening up again the whole discussion re sources; I think it just tapered out because there has been so much discussion of many points, sometimes all at once. This one for example, [13], I do not accept is a fabriaction, that all these people do not exist, and that we cant use this information. The papers come from such a broad range of MDs/Ph.Ds, that the idea of non-neutrality also seems to me to loose all sense. It is very plain that in fact we have many citations from all around the world of independent evaluations and usages of the BDORT.--RichardMalter 13:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I think that looking at a few WP pages will bear out what I say clearly. Take for example, The Indian Ocean is the third largest body of water in the world, covering about 20% of the Earth's water surface. No citation. [14] It is not necessary to cite a secondary source for the existance of this ocean. It is not necessary to cite a secondary source for the existance of a hospital or the clinics within it. Current WP pages implementation confirms this.--RichardMalter 11:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Reference

Richard, unless I am mistaken, and please correct me if I am wrong, your latest reference comes from a BDORT Web site and is a collection of papers presented at a BDORT Society meeting. If this is in fact so, I don't think WP reliable source policy would accept this source as neutral regarding BDORT. Please read the policy sections and let me know if I am wrong. Anyone else is also welcome to chime in on the acceptability of this source. Thanks, Crum375 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I have cited many sources that I think are reliable and neutral as I have presented in detail in each case; the last was the video presentation I linked to (please see above and maybe watch the video).

I have read again the policy docs (you linked to). My comments are summarized as follows re all this:

1) Notability: fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice I cannot see it otherwise that the many MDs/PhDs who have tested and used the BDORT, on the citations I have given, satisfy this. The MD on this Talk page also agreed: his opinion was that the BDORT was notable but "not effective". There were other contributors who spoke obviously for its notability on this Talk page. Looking at just one of the links to the many published scientific papers by MDs and PhDs on 4 continents, I have given (please see under Re: last comment above), it seems impossible to conclude otherwise.

2) Reliable sources:

a) Published papers by MDs/PhDs from 4 continents in AETIJournal. I do not believe that these papers are fabrications. I believe the people exist, they are who they say they are in their abstracts, some as you can read in some eminent positions in the medical and scientific ocmmunity, some professors at universities etc. (Again, please see an example list of persons under Re: last comment above). The fact that they are published in AETIJournal, which Omura is the Editor-in-chief of, does not lessen who they are or what their papers present. They are simply publishing in a journal that focuses on this field. Geologists do not publish in watercolour drawing magazines. I think this point was blurred before and I would like to clarify it now. The next thing is we could make a conspiracy POV WP:OR guess that Omura does not publish articles in AETIJournal that contradict or refute any other researchers/MDs findings. But we might expect these articles to be published elsewhere - which we have no evidence. However, supposing that there were such papers for the sake of the argument and we just hadn't found them yet, they would still not affect the reliability or the neutrality of the papers that are published; the case would simply be that not all of the information is being made available. But of course this is a very wild POV guess at best. Re neutrality, the very wide range of MDs, PhDs in this journal, makes any idea that they are (all) non-neutral not really an argument that holds up. I think therefore, that it is clear these papers are both WP reliable and WP non-neutral. I find nothing in WP docs that when read in detail suggests otherwise. As such they are examples of both usage and evaluation. (I repeat again that the MMC journal publication criteria that you suggested is not a WP essential criteria; though of course it would be a valid one).

b) Speakers at BDORT conferences. All of the above arguments in (a) apply equally here. Speakers on cosmology do not present at textile industry conferences. They are reliable and neutral references.

c) The Japanese hospital website. Possibly this is a fabriaction, the hospital does not exist, the building is really an apartment block, Omura has put up this website deviously, there is certainly not an O-Ring Test Clinic there, and Dr Yamamoto is of course not one of the staff of the hospital and head of the clinic there [though I have corresponded with him many times personally]; I do not think so. This is a reliable citation for usage. Re neutrality, I have reconsidered this. Unless you will argue that we should proceed on the basis that MDs (at this hospital) make claims about the techniques they employ that are false to their real knowledge and understanding, Dr Yamamoto's comments on his website are obviously and explicitly an endorsement for the utility of the BDORT.

d) The European Integrated Medical Centre website. All of the above arguments in (c) apply equally here. It is a reliable and neutral reference of both usage and utility.

e) The Brazilian website. The fact that these doctors also published their findings in AEIJournal does not lessen one bit the reliability or neutrality of what they write on their website - which is by MDs. We actually have on the website the history of the article/findings they present in summary by the authors, which is helpful to us. They describe an independent evaluation of the BDORT by MDs (which they repeated 20 times with repeatable results). It is a reliable and neutral reference of usage, and evaluation.

f) Phillip Shinnick's article in the American Medical Acupunture Journal. (I remind again, that medical acupuncture practiced by 1000s of MDs in the world means acupuncture practiced by MDs only; there is for example a Clinical Acupuncture Course for Physicians at Harvard Medical School, USA; it is not correct to quote one group of MD's opinion re this becuase it is equally easy to quote another group which includes 1000s of MDs worldwide; incidentally the World Health Org (itself a reliable source) accepts acupuncture as effective in many conditions). But that is not even critical in itself, Shinnick is a research scientist (who has commented directly on this Talk page) who with an eminent US MD (I noted and linked to above) et al, carried out an independent research of the BDORT with over 400 patients, which was published in the USA medicalacupuncture journal. It is a reliable and neutral reference of evaluation.

g) The video footage. It is possible that the DDS is not a DDS, that this DDS does not exist, that he is an actor, that the slide show and patient caseload is made up (by Omura), that Omura et al filmed the whole thing as an elaborate fabrication to persuade the US dental surgeon community that the BDORT is worth a try; but I do not think so. It is video footage of the presentation of a US DDS having used the BDORT and Selective Drug Uptake Enhancement Method on a number of patients, successfully. It is a reliable and neutral reference of usage and evaluation.

Last comments. I do not think that we should aim at giving an evaluation of Omura, BDORT or any other Omura originally-developed technique. Currently the article is being 'squeezed' to do this; and I will not agree to this for sound WP criteria. Lets just present information and let the reader decide, look up, follow links etc. We can quote what the tribunial opined, we can quote who does use it, what they think etc etc, if we want to - ie characterize the situation as best we can (find out about it). Its an encyclopedia. This is what orignially pulled my attention to this entry - it was obviously an attempt to give an evaluation of these things, and so obviously not appropriate. Lets just give information.--RichardMalter 10:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

One at a time please

Richard, please try to indulge me. I get overwhelmed with too many issues or references all at once. In WP, to make a point, you generally need one valid source. If you want me to address any BDORT source, pick one and I'll be glad to do it. Right now, I am not aware of one reliable source for BDORT besides the NZ Tribunal. Everything else I have seen appears to lack neutrality, a primary pre-requisite (in my understanding) for reliability.

And I fully agree with you, it's not up to WP to assess the efficacy of BDORT - only collect and cite reliable information about it, and that requires reliable (mostly neutral) sources. For me to continue, I need a single one such source selected that I can focus on, not two or more, just one (hint - pick the best one). Sorry if I haven't made that point clear enough up to now. Crum375 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I respect your patience. Please take any of 2a,b,c,d,e,f,g that I summarized just above to focus on. As you can see my comments and logic re each one are included. I think that we might see these sources disimilarly re WP criteria (at this stage), so I am not sure how to continue. Maybe focusing on one and debating it out is the only way. --RichardMalter 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, can you pick one of them, the one that you think is the best source? Remember, a good reliable source has to be neutral. Let's focus on the one you think is best. Personally I have not yet seen a single valid source that would qualify, but maybe I missed something and I'd like to give you a chance to correct me. And please, just one, not two or more, not 'any of the above' - just pick one good one, the very best example you have. I apologize if I am not expressing myself clearly enough. Thanks, Crum375 11:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably for continuing current usage, c (the Japanese hospital website) is best. Please see my comments re this one above. Thank you.--RichardMalter 13:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, please correct me if I am wrong, but if the Japanese web site is a Hospital (as opposed to a publication) it would be considered by WP as a primary source of information about BDORT, according to my understanding of reliable source policy. My understanding of the policy is that only secondary sources are acceptable for WP, e.g. a neutral and verifiable publication (such as an established medical journal). As explained in the policy, WP is a tertiary source of information, which means it must rely on some other source to neutrally and reliably evaluate the primary information (i.e. some BDORT claim); it may not do so itself. As such, the NZ tribunal, as an example, is an acceptable secondary source, since it evaluated various statements of other experts evaluating BDORT, and then reached its conclusions. Again, I could be wrong here, so if anyone feels that we are allowed to directly cite as a reliable source a hospital web site to evaluate BDORT, please feel free to chime in. Thanks, Crum375 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, hello; I read through the primary source page. As I see it, the idea of a primary source and a secondary source is in respect of historical events that have already happened. I do not think this is applicable to a current hospital website. I will take another example to illustrate what I mean. Lets imagine we were discussing a less contested subject, like organ transplants at a particular hospital, because of some especial notability that they did there, say this one [15]. Would we really question whether they had a Transplant Center [16] at this hospital? Would we really need a secondary source to confirm this? I dont think so. Back to BDORT, the same logic applies. Possibly you could stretch an argument about the neutrality of the few words the MD on the hospital wrote - but even re this see my comments above. Thanks.--RichardMalter 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I don't think the primary-secondary-tertiary policy rules are 'for historical items' only. I think they apply to anything or any fact reported by WP. Having said that, I think the rules are applied more judiciously when the issue being addressed is contentious or in any way controversial. But I don't claim to be an expert or a spokesperson for WP - perhaps someone else can contribute their understanding here. As far as the heart transplant reported in a hospital web site, I guess if there are other independent sources for it, that would be OK, but if it's a sole source or somehow controversial, then it could be a problem as I understand it. Again, I am more than happy to get other interpretations of the WP rules. Thanks, Crum375 10:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, the hypothetical transplant operation itself is an event and would need to secondary sourced; but the fact that the physical building stands where it is and is a hospital not a grocery store etc etc, does not make sense to me that it requires secondary sources - I cant see that WP source policy refers to this. --RichardMalter 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I think that looking at a few WP pages will bear out what I say clearly. Take for example, The Indian Ocean is the third largest body of water in the world, covering about 20% of the Earth's water surface. No citation. [17] It is not necessary to cite a secondary source for the existance of this ocean. Exactly the same, it is not necessary to cite a secondary source for the existance of a hospital or the clinics within it. Current WP pages general WP policy implementation confirms this.--RichardMalter 11:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian ocean example

Richard, thanks for bringing up the Indian Ocean as example. In this case, the references they cite are:

• Braun, D., The Indian Ocean (1983)
• Chandra, S., ed., The Indian Ocean (1987);
• Chaudhuri, K. N., Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean (1985);
• Cousteau, Jacques-Yves, and Diole, Philippe, Life and Death in a Coral Sea (1971);
• Cubitt, Gerald, Islands of the Indian Ocean (1975);
• Das Gupta, A., and Pearson, M.N., India and the Indian Ocean (1987);
• Dowdy, W. L., and Trood, R., eds., The Indian Ocean (1985);
• Kerr, A., ed., Resources and Development in the Indian Ocean Region (1981);
• Nairn, A. E., and Stehli, F. G., eds., The Ocean Basins and Margins, Vol. 6: The Indian Ocean (1982);
• Ostheimer, John M., ed., The Politics of the Western Indian Ocean Islands (1975); *Toussaint, Auguste, The History of the Indian Ocean, trans. by June Guicharnaud (1966).

Much of this text is based on public domain text by US Naval Oceanographer at: http://oceanographer.navy.mil/indian.html

I assume that these references, most of which appear to be secondary (i.e. not direct research papers but collections of papers, textbooks, compendia, etc), include the facts cited in the article, such as the fact that it's the 3rd largest, etc. I don't think there is any unsourced fact in the article, but I can't tell for sure since I haven't checked those books out of the library. If I were to contest some unusual fact, maybe I would borrow the relevant books to find out.

In our case of BDORT, which is certainly controversial, in fact any Alternative Medicine procedure is controversial (since it is not accepted by the mainstream's scientific methods), we need to follow WP sourcing policy to the letter. Otherwise, we just can't cite the source or the unsourced fact. Again, I welcome someone else with more or different knowledge about this to correct me if I am wrong or otherwise comment on this. Thanks, Crum375 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I also saw the long list of references. But again I note that the existence of it is stated and not directly cited. Another example, the empire state building [18]: its existence is stated and not cited (obviously because you can go there and check if it there; just like a hospital, or a clinic in a hopsital. Many details about it and the indian ocean are given and referenced but that is not we are talking about, as far as I understand our discussion. I am saying: do we trust that this hospital exists or not, as a first stage? Take a usage example now, [19] In the USA, acupuncture is practiced by a variety of healthcare providers. Again this is not directly citated thirdy party - because it would not make sense to do it - no one claims that people dont practice acupuncture. I think common reasoning applies. If there is a hospital website (that we can telephone to) then I dont think we have to catch a historian or a journalist in the street and ask them "can you see the hospital that we are also looking at right now with our own eyes?". --RichardMalter 10:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I think your Empire State Building example is good - and it too, to my knowledge and understanding has more than enough secondary references to properly support each and every stated fact. If it didn't, if there were some fact that was unsourced or improperly sourced, then it would be our job to either provide the proper reference or remove the fact from the article. I think I must disagree with you on some of your points. You say that some facts are so 'self evident' that they require no sourcing, e.g. a building (or hospital) is there so you could go there for yourself to check it out, or call the supplied phone number. What you say is contrary to WP policy in several ways, as follows:

1. Even for the simplest most 'self evident' facts, we must supply a proper and reliable reference. There is no 'bye' for any fact whatsoever, to my understanding;
2. If we were to 'call the phone number' or 'visit' to verify a fact (e.g. building) that would make us researchers and the article or fact becomes original research;
3. Our job at WP is to collect information supplied by secondary sources - supplying the building's Web site as proof for its existence is not acceptable as the primary reference - it can be supplied as additional reference, after we provide its review in a neutral 3rd party secondary publication;
4. As example, if a person visited the Empire State Building and discovered some facts about it, and reported it on his/her personal web site, that would not be acceptable as it would be a primary source; and
5. Not all facts must be backed up by a footnote reference immediately where the fact is stated in the text. My own guess is that it is up to the presenter's style, who for example may prefer to just reference one or more big textbooks at the end. I would suggest that more important or controversial statements should have the citation closer to where the statement is made, to make it easier for a critical reviewer to assess the validity, but as long as the reference is provided in the article that is minimally acceptable.

Bottom line, we cannot assume anything, whether it's 'common sense' or not - we must provide valid reliable secondary references to each and every stated 'fact'. Again, this is my own understanding of the WP policy - if anyone disagrees, please feel free to correct me. Thanks, Crum375 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I follow; what would happen, if

1. As example, if a person visited the Empire State Building and discovered some facts about it, and reported it on on a website that was a) not their personal one? Or b) in a journal not their own?--RichardMalter 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say it strongly depends on the nature of the Web site or Journal. The logic is the same in both your cases, but let's take Journal as example. If the Journal is an independent institution (i.e. not related in any way to the reporter) that would gain it neutrality. If the Journal is known as or can be shown to be a peer reviewed publication, that would gain it validity and reliability. Similarly for the Web site. Of course, there are very few Web sites that have a peer review system, but the same principle holds. Of course the above is based on my own understanding of WP policies, and if someone knows otherwise please correct me. Thanks, Crum375 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think then that the Shinnick article satsfies both criteria, the AAMA is not related; the author is an independent scientist; the journal is clearly peer reviewed. [20][21]. What do you think?[22]--RichardMalter 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked a bit more re the peer-review: Here are just some of the changes made to the journal since 1996: 9. All articles became peer-reviewed. [23].--RichardMalter 04:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Shinnick paper was published in peer-reviewed publication, although the underlying organization is non-mainstream. But I am not sure what specific fact we want to extract from that paper. I don't see any usage figures (e.g. XXX BDORT procedures are performed each year), and I thought that was the point. We certainly can't use it to indicate that BDORT is accepted by the mainstream, as this is not a mainstream publication, nor is the author an MD. We do know already what BDORT is - it is described in the Omura patent, among other places. So as bottom line, I am not sure what additional useful fact (from WP's perspective) we can learn from the Shinnick paper. All we know is that a non-MD PhD (unclear in what) authored a paper about BDORT, published in an acupuncture publication. Crum375 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. This is what we have (BTW as I have previously noted, all the many 1000s of MDs worldwide who practice Medical Acupuncture would most likely dismiss your comment about them not being mainstream as just your POV; they dont consider themselves not to be; very much the opposite; to say that Medical Acupuncture - which is based on the Western medical model, is not mainstream we would need a very well sourced citation that said that explicitly): We have an independent test and clinical application of the BDORT in a caseload of 400 patients with pain that produced some successful results. As stated previously an eminent MD also actively participated in the study with Shinnick - with patients referred from other doctors. This test by Shinnick used what Omura has termed an 'electromagnetic resonance phenomenon' as the main diagnostic means - which is the basis of all of Omura's findings with the BDORT. The outcomes and methodology and clinical application of the above have been independently peer reviewed by board-certified MDs in the USA. Shinnick also states that it was a "double blind" research study. We have here, in summary, an independent, Board-certified MD peer-reviewed, evaluation (and successful clinical application) of the BDORT. I will go through the Work version and correct the information there currently about it in light of this study.--RichardMalter 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Shinnick article

Richard, it is my understanding that the AMA considers acupuncture to be Alternative Medicine, which is by definition non-mainstream (otherwise it wouldn't be called alternative). Dr. Shinnick is not an MD, and whether his article cites other MDs or not, does not change the fact that his article was written by a non-MD in an alternative medicine journal.

I asked you what fact you think we can get from that article that would be acceptable to WP policies of WP:RS etc. The Shinnick article, written by a non-MD in an Alternative Medicine journal cannot be used to support any mainstream fact about BDORT. In theory it could be used to possibly support a usage claim, e.g. how many BDORT procedures are used per year, but I don't see that in the article.

I suggest that for now you refrain from editing the Work version, as my understanding is that the entire WP space is subject to liability issues. If you have a specific phrase you would like to propose in the article, please propose it here first and let's reach concensus on it. We used the Work area before to come up with a re-organized version of the previous one, not for changing the POV balance. Your current version in Work, which mentions the only WP-acceptable assessment of BDORT much further in the article, as opposed to upfront where it belongs, is inappropriate. I propose we stick to our Gentlemen's Agreement about the Work area too, as unilateral edits would be disruptive to our collaborative process here. I am simply emptying out Work for now - all previous versions, including yours, are of course preserved in the History. Thanks for understanding, Crum375 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, we see things very disimilarly here. Regardless of what you are researching about 'mainstream' we have the following facts that are WP reliable and neutral according to the criteria you yourself spelled out in detail:

1) a research test of the BDORT in a 400 patient caseload by a PhD AND MDs. (The PhD is the author of the article - it does not mean that MDs were not involved directly hands-on, they were as the article explains).

2) this research of the BDORT was peer-reviewed in an independent journal of board certified MDs by Board certified MDs in the USA.

3) This research tested and implemented the key part of the BDORT - EM resonance between two identical substances or fields (more correctly: the effect Omura discovered was reproduced repeatedly - and this is the explanation Omura et al give for it).

Please review what I wrote under the 'Medical Opinions and Tests' section and see if you can actually find anything that is not OK viz WP. I do not think that you can; I was very careful how I wrote it; but please check.

If you have reverted the work version, I see this as a very biased way to proceed. Its difficult to see this as anything other than something akin to censorship - since we have agreed that the information is from a reliable and neutral source, but still you have deleted it. I have trusted your mediation up to here but I feel I would like to know: are you an official WP Admin? If you are not, I feel at this point that we probably need more people here - for mediation.

Please review again exactly the points I have reiterated above. Thank you.--RichardMalter 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, let me make it very clear that I am just a mortal WP editor. If I do have a POV, it is to make sure that WP succeeds and becomes a great encyclopedia, and I think that it will succeed if we carefuly follow its stated policies, such as notability, reliable sourcing and neutrality. In this specific case of Dr. Omura and BDORT, the only goal I have (having previously decided based on the NZ tribunal case that he and his invention are notable per WP) is to present his biography and invention neutrally, fairly and in accordance to WP policies and principles. I also realize that Jimbo Wales and the WP policy are very weary of including outlandish opinions or viewpoints, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

Regarding the Work area, as I explained all of WP space, including all its accessible nooks and crannies, is subject among others to liability laws and cannot contain arbitrary information. We agreed to restrain ourselves from making edits that are not previously agreed upon here. If you want to continue to collaborate and discuss issues calmly here, I suggest we continue in that mode, as we have done succesfully up to now. That means no edits by anyone to either the Work or main version until and unless we reach consensus here. Consensus (to me) is not one side believing oneself to be correct - it is all sides (or an overwhelming majority) agreeing to an edit.

Richard, I have tried in the past, and will try in the future, regardless of how long it takes, to follow WP policies to improve this article. If you feel more mediation is needed, there are multiple mechanisms for that, for example:

• Request for Comment
• Request for Mediation Cabal
• Request for Mediation
• Request for 3rd opinion

Please review the above. All of these channels are stocked with volunteers who would be eager to help you if you feel you (and/or the topic) are not being treated fairly and in accordance to WP principles. I personally would be happy to continue in the informal mediator role I have assumed here, but would be also supportive if you decide to embark on any of the above alternatives. Thanks, Crum375 12:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, if you go over the history of changes recorded on this page, please tell me if you find that changes were not: made to the work version within a 48 hour period without my agreement. Unless you are looking at a different Talk page, you will not. You have suddenly insisted on a new rule for changes to the Work page that is inconsistent with what you et al have practised up to now. I ask you to consider how this might appear to me.

I would also like to clarify.

Is the justification for notability in your mind of this entry the NZ tribunial? If so why not just make an entry about the NZ tribunial on another page?

Are you going to argue that the MD peer-reviewed study is of a) less or b) minor importance (compared to the NZ study - that we can both read if we care to was about an MD that used the BDORT in a completely 'non-documented' way that he invented (even though that WP:OR we confine to this Talk page))?

It seems to me that you contradict what you said earlier: that the chief task of this entry is to simple state what it is, not to try to provide an evaluation of it; why then did you say that the Tribunial evaluation should go right at the beginning?

Please reply point for point to the points 1,2,3 above - that you have not yet. You have again quoted WP policies generally; but after we have agreed that this is a reliable and neutral source of information you dont actually respond to what I point out this information is in relation to the entry.

Thank you.--RichardMalter 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I specifically postponed responding to your latest points since you asked me if I was an official WP representative or mediator. I am not an official in any capacity, simply a volunteer who is willing to help. I do not have an anti-pseudoscience POV, or anti-BDORT POV, or anti anything POV. My only goal as I stated above is to make sure that we adhere to WP's policies. If you are willing to accept my role as such, then I can respond to your specific points. Thanks, Crum375 13:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying these things. When you get time please could you answer the points I raised. Thanks.--RichardMalter 23:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you raise several points, and as you know I like to only have a single point on the table at a given time, as my juggling skills are rather poor. I will pick out one of your points for now, but in the future please make it easy for me and raise one issue at a time as we agreed previously.

==OK

Here is the point I am choosing to address: you are questioning why I think that the NZ reference should be upfront, vs. the Shinnick paper, for example, which should be much lower down, if anywhere, in my opinion.

My rationale is simple: The NZ reference is the only one we have that is written by a mainstream body, by highly qualified MDs, directly assessing BDORT.

==Already I find two problems here. One is that you are saying that you want an evaluation of the BDORT before even listing what in the galaxy it actually is. This arrangement I think is clear POV. In any encyclopedia, you would normally expect a description and then A thinks this B Opines thus etc. Not the reverse. The next problem is that they did not assess the BDORT. They sat and opined about it - which is very different, ie they didn't even try to test that it works which is very easy to do. Furthermore - you say that they are highly qualified; they may be; but not in the appropriate field: electromagnetism. What does WP say about experts having to be in the correct field. BDORT is highly specialized - as I noted previously the muscle-test is just the end resultant.

No other reference we currently have comes close to that level of reliability.

==So I disagree with this statement for clear reasons.

In addition, the NZ reference labels BDORT as ineffective, and the practitioner that applied it (or his version of it) on a live patient was fined and reprimanded, which lends notability to BDORT, and notability must be established as early as possibly in a WP article in order to justify its inclusion.

==again, I would like to know if the NZ thing didn't exist, would you consider this entry Notable?

The Shinnick article, and I repeat myself since you have not directly replied to my points, is written by a non-MD person of uncertain credentials (it is unclear to me what discipline his PhD represents), and published in an Alternative Medicine publication.

==we are going round in circles; they were also MDs, in a journal of MDs; peer reviewed by MDs; you repeat the mainstream point - which is like an umbrella classification - but you ignore the details - which stand up to all WP criteria.

The publication claims it is 'peer reviewed', but it is unclear to me if that means that a board of medical experts actually read the Shinnick paper and somehow assessed its premise, methodology or results.

==I think it is clear; MDs who author this publication know what peer-reviewed means. I dont think it is neutral to discriminate and doubt that this group of MDs somehow less peer-review than another lot. This is your personal POV/OR not WP policies.

If they in fact did so, I just can't find their results anywhere.

==when articles are published in major journals, you dont automatically find peer-review comments in the same or next journal - that is not normal procedure (that you are asking for).

The one fact that we could have possibly sourced from that paper is usage - i.e. XXX BDORT procedures performed on real patients per year (or total to date) - but I have not seen that figure quoted anywhere.

==we have quoted that it was a single research/test involving 400 "real" patients over 4 years. In each case the BDORT was obviously used. The numbers are very clear. I cant see the problem at all!

So as bottom line I am not sure what the Shinnick paper would add at this point. If you or anyone else feel differently, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, my replies inbetween your words above. Thanks.--RichardMalter 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond in about 12 hours - Thanks, Crum375 11:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you agree above with my one baby step at a time approach, so let's stick to it. I will address here only the issue of why I think NZ tribunal must be included upfront. In fact I explained it above, but perhaps you missed it, so I'll try again. I came to this article after the AfD debate. I know that if I had had a vote in the AfD I would have voted Keep specifically because of the NZ tribunal report. IOW, we have a procedure that has never been addressed on the record by anyone in the mainstream except this NZ tribunal.

==I dont think this is correct; please see my going round in circles comment above; I am guessing you think I am ignoring what you say here; I think that you are ignoring what I say: an MD journal peer-reviewed article by a PhD and MDs (one eminent) when they actually tested the BDORT on 400 patients, not just sat in chairs and thought about it (incidentally based on out-of-date science).

And specifically, when addressing it, they decide it is 'ineffective', and punish the practitioner that was using it. That in my opinion connotes notability to BDORT, and thereby to Omura, its creator.

==I see your reasoning, but I dont think it is justified. To analyse your logic, you are basically saying that notability of the BDORT is the Tribunial opinion. First that is a very skewed way to make an entry in an encyclopedia - I dont agree with it at all; second I have reread through the Notability page and think that BDORT and Omura is Notable anyway - also re WP:Importance and even the length of this discussion page - which is also a WP consideration. The MD that commented on this Talk page agreed. So did the research scientist - so it is true to say that your opinion on this was not agreed with by all other contributors here (and those that did had a declared bias against Omura personally and BDORT). This is why I asked you about this; I think you could make an entry about the NZ Tribunial separately - would be a better idea. Again, I think the normal and logical order of an entry is: say what the thing is, give details, report and characterize debate etc about it. I have a friend who is following this discussion but English is not his first langauge and he is not comfortable commenting directly, but he thinks we are nuts arguing so much when all we have to do is make a basic encyclopedic entry (you will or will not take my word for it that he exists).

As you know, WP policy says that it is essential to prove notability as early as possible in the article, normally in the lead-in section. So for me it is clear that the NZ evaluation of BDORT must come upfront.

==So see above comments.

Now whether the NZ tribunal 'assessed' BDORT or 'opined' about it is semantic hair-splitting in my opinion. Their intention was clearly to evaluate its merits.

Not semantics in the slightest. Lets be clear about this. In fact the only reliable and neutral report we have so far that we both accept as such is the Shinnick article - where they actually tested it; the Tribunial thought about it - that is the difference between black and white. You have also not addressed the plain fact that the guy was not an expert in the appropriate field. Their intention is one thing - what they did and what we can therefore actually report is another. This is basic accuracy of recording information.

Whether they did a good job of that intention or not is not for us or WP to decide. We as WP are not sitting in judgment of the true merit of BDORT, and if we were we should be stopped and reprimanded.

==True, of course. But accurate giving of information is.

All we are trying to do is list facts that are properly sourced, in a neutral and objective manner.

==we have this is the Shinnick article (too).

You accepted above that I have no ax to grind besides making WP great - that is my sole POV. To me WP greatness is not being an 'oracle' on good vs. bad items - it is faithfully, accurately and neutrally cataloguing and describing mankind's knowledge, in a prioritized fashion, about each item that we deem notable enough to be included. If we somehow convey a message to the reader that WP itself is opining about the item - we have failed and we must start anew. Crum375 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, my comments inbetween yours above, thanks.--RichardMalter 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I'll continue with the baby-step method, addressing one issue at a time. The first point of disagreement seems to be the issue of BDORT assessment by the NZ tribunal. Yes, to me that is the primary reason for inclusion of this article, but let's leave this aside for the moment. You also seem to believe that the NZ assessment of BDORT was 'an armchair evaluation', vs. the Shinnick testing which in your opinion was more 'hands-on'. As I mentioned above, the quality of the assessment (i.e. methodology, techniques, results) is not for us at WP to judge. What we can judge is the neutrality of the evaluators and their credentials. The NZ tribunal experts appear to be eminently qualified mainstream medical experts, whose livelihood does not depend on BDORT. Mr. Shinnick is not an MD, his PhD is in an unknown (to us) discipline, and apparently earns a living from BDORT. Furthermore, his paper is published in an Alternative Medicine publication. Therefore, in my own opinion, the NZ assessment of BDORT is acceptable to WP, whereas the Shinnick assessment is not acceptable. Again, the WP acceptability criteria have nothing to do with the actual results - WP is not a judge of technical merits. But WP (i.e. the consensus of its editors) may judge and is expected to judge the apparent neutrality and credentials of reviewers and publications that describe or claim techical merit. Thanks, Crum375 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Perhaps, effort notwithstanding, this entry ought again be proposed for deletion. It would seem that the only notability claim that Omura and the BDORT have, by WP criteria, is the NZ case, and there are already entries for both Gorringe and the Commission. If the very existence of this entry simply proves an opportunity for adherents to press their case while the entry in and of itself is not possessed of intrinsic notability by WP criteria, why not put the possibility of simple deletion out for broad consideration? TealCyfre 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we have been there and done that. If you review the previous AfD discussion (which I just did - I was not part of it at the time), you will note that the nominator himself changed his mind on the issue. I feel that a procedure that is cause for multiple international symposia as well as 'continuing education' courses to take place, and is viewed by a mainstream medical ethics review board in NZ as 'ineffective' (and a reason to fine and reprimand its alleged practitioner), is more than meeting the WP standard for notability. The inventor and promoter of the procedure, in my opinion, automatically gets acceptance for the same and related reasons. That said, WP is a fairly free and open place, and anyone can nominate any article for deletion at any time (noting that Daniel Brandt just got nominated for the 8th time). So if you are so inclined, go ahead. I would recommend to come up with good new arguments as to why you feel BDORT/Omura are not notable per WP criteria. Crum375 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, however, the nominator, withdraw the nomination precisely because he felt that the entry ought be included on the basis of its notability as a pseudoscience, which was also, in my reading, the rationale of the others. That basis is now set aside in the quest for NPOV. This seems to me to leave the entry in a strange state. TealCyfre 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note my own rationale for inclusion, which also relies on the NZ tribunal's labeling of the BDORT procedure as having 'no scientific validity'. The term pseudoscience per se is an incendiary pejorative, in my opinion, as it labels a person's science (or knowledge) as false (pseudo). That comes very close to calling that person either 'stupid' or charlatan, which would be contrary to WP's no personal attack and assume good faith policies. The entry is not in a 'strange state'. It describes a procedure that was considered by a qualified professional body as being without merit, and yet is still being promoted. I suspect it is not the only one in that category. Crum375 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply think that the matter is best opened to wider view, at least for a bit. I agree that there is no acceptable cite other than the NZ tribunal. The paradox, however, is that it was only its perceived status as pseudoscience that won the entry 'notability' its first time 'round. With that now removed I think it appropriate that there be the opportunity for wider consideration of 'notability' by the WP community. TealCyfre 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, can I ask your attention to the following points that I will make as specificially as I can, thank you. Please recall that we honed down that we need a) reliable and b) neutral sources and defined and concensed exactly what those were for a journal article to be used as a citation. You agreed at that time that the Shinnick article fitted those exacting requirements that you yourself specified at the final stage when I discovered that it was a MD peer-reviewed journal and article. So that is stage one: we can say that the Shinnick led research took place, numbers etc, and rough description. Note that they did not try to evaluate the BDORT nor did I ever state that they did or in my draft version (that you deleted immediately on the Work version under the authority of a new rule that you invented without consultation and then strongly suggested that I had transgressed); they simply implemented it: and there is every WP criteria reason to state this - it is information from a reliable and neutral source. You restate each time about the 'alternative' nature of the Medical Acupuncture Journal "for MDs by MDs" but you do not actually address that in details it is both relable and neutral viz WP criteria (again which you specified in detail when I asked you to). Next you just wrote: I feel that a procedure that is cause for multiple international symposia as well as 'continuing education' courses to take place and the Tribunial event gives it notablity. Unless you mean that only the Tribunial decision makes it Notable on its own - in which case an entry about the Tribunial is more correct, you have just stated that BDORT has notability anyway because of multiple international symposia etc. Last, your comment about suspecting to the effect that the BDORT is not the only technique being promoted that would fail mainstream medical thought on it - gives a clear notion of your 'orientation' re this entry - that is, that it is not neutral. You personally suspect that it is of little or no value: and I think that I can now clearly understand why you have taken the 'stance' about the above points I have noted - that is that you are 'entering' your POV to the entry--RichardMalter 09:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Richard, again you raise multiple issues despite my request to limit our discussion to one issue at a time. I will therefore respond to only one of your issues for now. The one I choose to address is my perceived POV or lack of neutrality on BDORT or Omura. First, let's make it clear that all editors working on an article should strive to ultimate neutrality. In your own case, since you apparently make a living from BDORT or related areas (as attested to by your Web site) I guess it would be hard to be totally neutral, but I am hoping you will make a special effort. In my own case, I earn not a dime from either promoting or disparaging BDORT or Omura. I do have a declared POV - to make sure WP is a great encyclopedia, which means to me we must follow its policies. If you suspect I have an 'orientation' as you say - you are right - it is the orientation of neutrality. I read somewhere that if at the end of reading a WP article on an issue the reader suspects the writer's view on that issue, the article has failed the 'razor' test. I fully agree with that criterion. I think our job is to present the sourced facts, prioritized by their widest acceptance (i.e. widespread reliable neutral publications, etc.), per WP policies. Please tell me where in the new AfD debate you see anything but neutrality on my part.

And here is the statement I made above, in defense of keeping this article, that you interpret as POV:

"The entry is not in a 'strange state'. It describes a procedure that was considered by a qualified professional body as being without merit, and yet is still being promoted. I suspect it is not the only one in that category."

If this discloses to you an 'orientation', then please re-read carefully. What I am saying is simply that the fact that a professional body considers something 'without merit' does not preclude its inclusion in WP, and I wouldn't be surprised that there are others in that category. Am I saying anywhere, or even implying, that I personally think it is without merit? Not that I can see. I am also strongly saying that lack of technical merit, as assessed by a given body, is not a reason to exclude an article. I will add here for the record that historically many 'professional bodies' and 'mainstream panels' disparaged or ridiculed ideas that were later accepted by the mainstream.

Richard, if you think even for a second that I am broadcasting my 'true feelings' of merit or lack thereof about this or any other topic, then I have failed. If you think I am not absolutely neutral on this (and all WP articles) and if you don't accept that my sole motivation is to ensure that we have an excellent (i.e. neutral, well sourced) article on each and every topic we touch, then I cannot move forward to address your other points about Shinnick etc.

Please re-read all my statements on this page or elsewhere, and let me know if you feel I am not absolutely neutral about this topic. Otherwise I don't see how we can continue to collaborate. Thanks, Crum375 13:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Short version

I have reverted to the short version again. I believe that this version, which is well sourced and does not give undue attention to the claims of Omura's supporters, is a good base to use for the article. I will continue adding to it later today if I have the time to do so. The description of BDORT can probably be extracted from the previous revisions, and the section on the NZ tribunal can be expanded. If we can get this article into a better state, we can avoid having to deal with the deletion debate, as I believe that most people supporting deletion would accept a NPOV article on the subject. --Philosophus ^T 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted to the previous, which you then edited. Your latest edits seem OK to me. Crum375 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• In a sense I'm only (figuratively) thinking aloud here, but I'm inclined to the belief that the very short entry is the only viable approach if there is in fact any viable approach at all to this entry, given the practical problems of minimal general interest adequate to sustain against adherents' inclination to turn the entry into an advert. Perhaps we ought consider whether even the minimal entry is appropriate given the practical problems. As I say, in a sense I'm only thinking aloud here, but the problem of skewed perception on the part of adherents combined with their financial interest pose in my judgement very real practical problems. TealCyfre 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• TealCyfre, do not lose faith in the WP process. Coercing an article's size will not work - WP is a dynamic environment and I assume you are not volunteering as a 24x7 'size cop'. Let the open process play out - stick to the WP principles, and the article will stabilize exactly where it should - a neutral middle ground, the so called "razor's edge" of neutrality and fairness. The reader will benefit more from a neutral, well written article, than from a POV version, regardless of the POV's direction. Crum375 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a question of faith. The problem, I think, is a generally recognized one where the likely number of readers/potential editors for an article is effectively infinitesimal and therefore likely to draw adherents/fanatics in disproportianate weight. WP principles themselves are as I understand it rightly in evolution rather than set in sacred tablets brought down from a sacred mountain. I see this as simply a discussion, in part, on the applications of those principles, as an evolutionary process. Faith, for me, does not enter into this matter. TealCyfre 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm working on this, and believe that it should be possible to get this into an acceptable state. --Philosophus ^T 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The more I think about it the more I think there are, to borrow one of Omura's favorite terms, intractable problems with anything more than the absolutely barest minimal entry if any entry at all. For example, giving a full description of the claims with the notation that there is no evidence for efficacy on the one hand makes it possible for the reader to draw the conclusion that a hell of a lot is being claimed for inference based on pulling a pair of digits apart, while, on the other hand, it may present a foolish or hasty reader with the notion that, gee, a lot is being claimed here maybe there's something to it. Now, the point here, is that such presentation is motivated in either case by non-NPOV. It's an attempt on the part of the editor(s) under either interpretation to 'help the reader along.' The bottom-line analysis here is that from a very strictly NPOV/Verifiable perspective there is nothing more to this entry than it's having been cited by the NZ commission. If any entry at all is justifiable it seems to me it is no more than that. Even that provides point-of-entry for adherents, who while tiny in number, may distort the entry beyond sanity in the absence of constant vigilance, and, given the minimal general interest in this essentially unknown practice, that is a real problem in my estimation. In many ways the problems here, I think, are practical. For pity's sake, how much effort has been expended by Crum375 dealing with this? I sincerely commend him for it, I see him as a master of Aikido, in a sense, but in this case, as in others, at times the effort is not indefinitely sustainable. Also, while I perhaps sound alarmist, if the entry can be turned into an advert, what are the possible legal issues for WP down the road. I don't claim to know, but I think that's another element to be weighed in the mix. TealCyfre 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to consider the barest possible entry as the limiting instance? Is such an entry, given the fact that the only verifiable NPOV cites available tie it to the Gorringe case, in satisfaction with respect to notability? TealCyfre 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• See my comments on this elsewhere, but I am not aware of any WP policy that limits an article to a 'barest possible' size. It would be impractical to enforce or even rationalize. I do accept Philosophus's point about limiting 'rants' to reasonable sizes. But that too, I would guess, would be difficult to achieve if a zealot is involved. The trick would be to show that the 'rant' appears in a widely read neutral publication, and is not too marginalized per undue weight. Crum375 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Then this seems to me effectively an argument in favor of deletion. As I understand it, we have an entry which may barely meet the criteria for notability. This judgement ought, in my judgement, be weighed against the practical consideration that it would likely require eternal monitoring against the possibility of usurpation by adherents, who, while few in number, are likely devoted to the cause. Consider, then, that there is likely to be no reasonable expectation of sufficient general awareness of the existence of the topic to likely provide counter-balance. I doubt those few involved thus far are prepared to pledge long-term commitment to the maintenance of this entry in proper WP form against the probable attempts at usurpation by adherents. I see this as the core limitation here. I am, I hope, open to argument and evidence, but, as I understand it, this sort of situation is an acknowledged limitation of a wiki process, and I feel we ought weigh it carefully. TealCyfre 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think 'fear of the future' is a recognized WP policy. Any article about any controversial but marginal topic would fall into the same category. We need to decide if the subject is notable enough on its own merits, without fearing future attacks by zealots. If it is notable, then we write the best article we can, while carefully following WP guidelines. If the zealots show up, WP theory is that they will eventually be counterbalanced by the opposing zealots, and guided by the neutrality zealots into the "razor's edge". Crum375 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't find arguments based on faith persuasive. Perhaps that's a limitation of my disposition. In any event, I'm not aware that WP policies are unmindful of real-world application. If they weren't I wouldn't think there would be the concern given to legal actions. I see the problem here as real-world practical as to the form of an entry, not as to the creation of an entry as a demonstration of faith in an ideal. Bottom line, I don't feel, on consideration, that this topic satisfies notability. TealCyfre 23:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• The focus of your conclusion is correct - we need to establish notability to move forward. Let the AfD process play its course. Assuming we are still here, then we must make sure that the article is well sourced and written per WP's policies. It is not an issue of 'faith', any more than waking up every day and driving to work, assuming we'll survive to return home for dinner, is an act of 'faith'. We acknowledge risks, we face them, we do our very best to mitigate them to a reasonable and practical minimum. WP cannot hide in fear from zealots, but also must present any notable topic in a neutral and well sourced way, to minimize its risks. Crum375 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Questions of faith aside, I see no basis for notability other than as an example of quackery/pseudoscience. If NPOV rules out such characterization, which is fine, then I feel that the argument for notability ceases to exist, as ought the entry. TealCyfre 23:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Example of something' does not connote notability. Either the item is notable or is not, but being an example gains nothing per se. In this case, part of the notability is conferred by virtue of a medical procedure that is applied to humans, allegedly causes injuries, the practitioner gets reprimanded and fined, yet articles, seminars and symposia are still being published or promoted. At least some of the publishers/promoters are not owned or related to the inventor, and some appear to be mainstream. If that is not considered notable enough, then I am not sure what notability is. Crum375 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is an inevitable limitation of WP structure. WP cannot be all things for all purposes, as you've pointed out. This may be unfortunate, but it may also be the case. TealCyfre 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have read somewhere that WP fails in theory but works in practice. Reminds me of the Ethernet model when it first came out. Crum375 00:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think WP is wonderful in theory. Time will tell, in practice. TealCyfre 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, the discussion has expanded so much it is difficult to reply to a point in isolation. Can you please clarify - are changes being made to the public page? If so this contradicts our agreed 48 hour rule (it seems right then that all changes to be reverted and changes stopped). I insist on consistency with our rules from all sides - let me know if this is an unreasonable idea to you. Is the discussion re Notability being had here or on the other page? In any case I agree that we need to go back to the beginning re Notability. Maybe we can have binary yes or no answers to the following:

Is Omura/BDORT Notable in itself without ANY reference to the NZ Tribunial case?

Can we establish this please either way. I say both are re the international activities around the BDORT/symposiums/continuing education for MDs, many eminent MDs/PhDs experimentation with it on 4 continents, Omura's patent that took 6/7 years for him to achieve by convinving the authorities of the objectivity of the BDORT after two failures, Omura's mainstream credentials, the length of this discussion (a WP consideration), the Shinnick reference, and WP:Importance.--Richardmalter 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the changes are being made on the public page. Crum375, if I recall correctly, has made only reversions of the switch to the short version, and has not been making any of the changes. I have been making changes mostly aimed at improving the NPOV and improving the language used - for example, the applications section used a phrase like "effectively and painlessly, in five minutes" six or seven times in succession, which was rather absurdly redundant. TealCyfre has made a few edits, the most recent of which, the switch to the stub version, was reverted, and has also nominated the article for deletion. I am not aware of the 48 hour rule that you are citing, but in any case, it is an agreement between yourself and Crum375, and cannot be imposed upon other editors without their consent.

As for the notability, I believe that BDORT would probably be notable if the NZ Tribunal case had not taken place, but the article would not follow a NPOV without citing the NZ Tribunal case, especially since it is the only independent, conventional, and reputable report on the practice. It also increases the notability of the practice, and affirms to me at least that it is being used by others besides Omura.

I'm not sure what your third paragraph is trying to state. I find the patent claim strange, since US patents are notoriously easy to get for even the most absurd things. Furthermore, it does not appear that Omura has any credible support from the mainstream medical community, or any "authorities". The length of the discussion has no relevance for notability purposes: in fact, some of the longest discussions in WP were for articles deleted for non-notability, or of questionable notability (Brian Peppers, for example, or the AfD debates about giant Japanese robots). The Shinnick reference, which I have not examined, would be but one possibly reputable reference if it were in a mainstream journal and by a reputable author. My opinion on notability is formed by my belief that the practices are used widely enough in certain circles and promoted enough to be worthy of inclusion. --Philosophus ^T 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, if we dont have some kind of guideline about changes we will be back to where we were some weeks(?) ago and have reversions and deletions no end. I will wait for Crum375, before changing anything, since he was informally mediating.--Richardmalter 10:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Also, I agree with what you say that As for the notability, I believe that BDORT would probably be notable if the NZ Tribunal case had not taken place, but the article would not follow a NPOV without citing the NZ Tribunal case.--Richardmalter 10:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD Discussion

Richard, if you follow the lengthy discussions here and at the new AfD, you will notice that the following events have taken place within the last 24 hours or so:

1. TealCyfre noted here that he may submit the article for deletion
2. I responded, effectively, that he should if he really feels it's needed
3. TealCyfre did submit the AfD, where there was very lengthy discussion, mostly between myself (Keep) and TealCyfre (Delete)
4. Philosophus joined the discussion at the AfD (Neutral), then modified the article in what he considered NPOV direction, which I do agree with but of course violates the 48 hour and consensus rule that we (you, I and TealCyfre) agreed to previouly - I have no control over Philosophus or anyone else. He seems to be in Keep mode now after his changes.
5. Right now the main issue is the AfD, which is focused mostly on notability. Once that is decided, assuming it is a Keep, we can regather at this Talk page and collectively decide how to proceed

Given the above, I suggest all of us just avoid editing the article for now, until AfD is decided. Then we can agree on an acceptable procedure for editing the article to avoid unneeded reversions and strive for collaboration. Thanks for understanding and waiting for my input. Crum375 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my last major edits were of a somewhat more controversial nature, and were rightly reverted. I have made a minor change to the polarity sentence which makes it not sound like complete nonsense to me, and which I believe is non-controversial. I plan on expanding the Stored Energy section with material from the patent, and possibly making a few more stylistic changes, but will avoid making controversial changes, which can be discussed later. --Philosophus ^T 13:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I've been re-reading the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons criteria. It seems to me clearly and unequivocally stated that an entry is to rely solely on verifiable, neutral, third-party sources with the sole exception of the subject's representing her/himself and that the person's site(s) may be listed as See Further external links. I see no indication whatsoever that, in the absence of subject involvement, information from the subject's site is to be used in the entry – only that the site may be linked to. I will, therefore, revert to the minimal entry, with such external links appended, as seems to me the only acceptable form under WP guidelines. TealCyfre 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would further offer the suggestion that any explanation/characterization/description of these very few verifiable, neutral, third-party-sourced cites be approached with extreme caution and vetted first in discussion as there is considerable divergence as to what constitutes NPOV. TealCyfre 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TealCyfre, although WP encourages you to be 'bold', it also reminds you to be 'civil' and not be so bold as to be 'reckless'. In this case, we have a number of editors who are reviewing this article, as well its current AfD nomination. At this point, to my understanding, at least 3 of us (Crum375, Philosophus, RichardMalter) have reached a consensus to leave the article alone for now, at least until the AfD's conclusion. Even then, I would hope that we can work by consensus reached on this Talk page and not by arbitrary wild and drastic edits by individuals. Please note that anyone at all can edit, revert, delete etc. - we all have the same handy button with the same power. The trick to getting a stable and good article is consensus. Now responding to your specific points, I already presented much of my case about properly sourced notablity in the AfD page. Please review my points there. Thanks, Crum375 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer to violate WP policy as cited and stated, that's your call. Have at it. TealCyfre 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• As I've just noted on the AfD page, I'm challenging the veracity of the academic credentials and other claims and descriptions you're basing on Omura's sites – with good reason, for what very little that's worth. The burden is now on you to establish verifiable, independent sources for that information. As I said on the AfD page, I wish you luck. Give it a your best shot. TealCyfre 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exposure

As I've noted both on the AfD page and in the edit note reverting the entry, I feel there are issues here with respect to both WP policy and legal exposure. I won't engage in a revert war, but I want it clear on the record at this point that a restoration on the part of an editor in my judgement raises very real concern at both levels. I will repeat, I am not threatening action, simply warning. If you feel there is no problem and want, on the record to accept that responsibility, have at it. TealCyfre 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• You say 'I am not threatening action, simply warning' - warning is still a threat. Please refrain from making legal threats - it is against WP policy. I am taking you at your word that you "won't engage in a revert war". Please let consensus take over. Try to step back a bit, let the process work itself out. Thanks, Crum375 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• It is crystal clear from context that I am not 'warning' in the sense that you suggest. I am simply saying that in my judgement you are creating legal exposure for yourself and WP. I would also point out that your threat of excision on the AfD in this context raises legal conspiracy exposure. This seems to me a curious choice, but you are quite welcome to it. TealCyfre 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your legal advice, it has been noted. In regards to excision of defamatory statements, I believe that is standard WP policy. If I say here: "Mr. Foo is a murderer and killed Mrs. Foo" without very careful neutral reliable verifiable sourcing, it would be correctly excised from the record - no conspiracy involved. Thanks, Crum375 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're dead wrong, in this context, but that's fine. TealCyfre 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me clarify, by "the record" I mean the main Talk or Article page. It normally would remain in the History section, unless an entire article is deleted, in which case I believe it's not accessible to mortals. I think there is a special deletion process from History also sometimes, e.g. when personal info is divulged, and there may be such a mechanism for extra malicious slander - I don't know. If so, that info would only be accessible via court order I would assume - again I don't know. Crum375 22:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing Education Claim

I have found the following possible sources:

1. Notice of 21st Symposium on NYAM site
2. Syllabus of 21st Symposium on Omura's site

My rationale for allowing Omura's site in this case is that the reference to the Symposium and the titles etc. are on the neutral site, I would argue that we would be reasonably allowed to get the content from the Omura site for this symposium only.

Assuming this logic holds, then the reference to the credits for Doctors and Dentists for continuing education is properly sourced.

I am not saying the above sources are perfect, nor that the current language is perfect, only that there is something there.

But leaving all this aside, can I please get agreement from everyone to refrain from editing the article until AfD's completion? It would make life so much easier. Please? Can you just note the changes you want and save them for later? Or suggest them first on the Talk page? Thanks, Crum375 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why will not editing while the AfD is in progress help things? Notability should be independent of the article itself, though some editors might be less likely to vote for deletion if the article is improved. I don't see how making the changes a few weeks from now will change anything, though I admit the AfD is very confused and has become more of a tedious discussion of a variety of issues than a clean AfD. --Philosophus ^T 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ideally you would be right - why not keep improving it while debating its notability, and I myself have taken articles in AfD that were on the brink of Delete and instead of haggling over policies went ahead and fixed them up myself into Keep status. But in this contentious case I think we should just let the small things ride for now, get the AfD status resolved, and move forward. I think oscillating between TealCyfre's stubby version and the current fuller version would be confusing for newcomers to the AfD debate. Crum375 01:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I added the above NYAM 21st Symposium links and removed the {{fact}} template. I really prefer to leave the article alone if we can. Crum375 02:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are the papers from 305?

In point 305 of the NZ tribunal report, Professor Cannell cites 14 papers on AK, and "that none of those studies reached the conclusion that PMRT was a reliable diagnostic technique." I would take that to mean that at least some of these studies included BDORT specifically. Why can't we find these? --Philosophus ^T 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me that he intended to state that he had found papers that specifically studied BDORT. Hence, further doubt, at least in my mind, as to the notability justification for Omura/BDORT as an independent entry. TealCyfre 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Closure

I think that the heroic efforts to establish notability for Omura are, as I've said, a form of trap, however well-intended, that reveal the limitations of this process. The resultant is an entry that, on the one hand, lends more prominence to Omura than can, in fact, be found in the record, with the possibile unintended consequence that his quackery may be employed where it might not otherwise be employed, with possible legal exposure for Wikipedia for which the defense that its procedures were adhered to would prove in the event inadequate. Wikipedia is not, in my estimation, the appropriate tool for this particular task, and the attempt to apply it may prove ill-advised. TealCyfre 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am holding of deleting very obvious POV in the current article - for example the multiple repeat WP:OR about "this has not been tested etc, this has not been tested etc", and many other POV problems with it including the See also catagorizations. We have to stick to the Notability discussion first. Then, if we go ahead, I back the obvious suggestion on the AfD page by one of the Admins to set up a section called "Controversies" or "Clinical/Medical Opinions and Tests" - the drafted title I made for it, to accurately characterize the debate around Omura and BDORT - which is the very logical and obvious thing to do and what I started to do (before it was deleted without warning). This should come after the basic description of what in the universe the thing is in the first place - ie following the format of an encyclopedia entry not a debate about a subject. But without clearing up the Notability debate we cant get anywhere. Currently the article is just being 'squeezed' this way and that to say what people's personal POVs are on these discussion pages. If we dont have consensus on the Notability point, then what does WP policies suggest we do?--Richardmalter 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If we don't have consensus, we don't have consensus, and the article is kept by default. Having a controversy section makes the article less like NPOV and more like two different sympathetic POV sections. The way the article is organized now is okay - though I do admit the really redundant "this has not been tested" boilerplate should be revised to be more meaningful. I intend to add to various sections later - quite a few could have better and more detailed descriptions in better prose, as well as slight NPOV fixes. More needs to be added from Omura, especially for the Stored Energy Paper and prescription of treatment with BDORT, and more probably needs to be added from the tribunal report as well, possibly citing individual expert witnesses involved. --Philosophus ^T 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This will be a problem, because I dont agree to leave it as is by default - changes were made to it without consensus (now and much earlier) - my reasoning says this cant be a basis for a "stable article". I'll wait some more to see if others comment some more.--Richardmalter 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we can agree to wait for the AfD resolution before making any changes. Thanks, Crum375 13:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)