Wikipedia:Peer review/Yoshiaki Omura/archive1

Yoshiaki Omura

This article could use a review to confirm that scientific findings regarding Omura's 'BDORT' technique are presented objectively. If so, the NPOV tag can be removed since this was the reason the tag was added. Other editors may have issues to add here which have been the subject of edit disputes. Antonrojo 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inaccurate characterization of the NPOV tag's placement on the article. The POV tag was placed because the article is the subject of a long-term, heated dispute and was (until just now) under mediation (which was ultimately unsuccessful, so I, the mediator, closed the case). Although this user has declined to take part in the mediation, and therefore does not seem to be part of the dispute, one camp in the dispute has "claimed" this user for their cause. - Che Nuevara 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che, could you summarize other potential NPOV issues with the article? Most of the mediation discussion I read seemed to be about whether to include citations critical of Omura's procedures and how to interpret the results. Since mediation is closed, a summary from someone who know about past disputes, such as yourself, would be helpful. Antonrojo 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, Antonrojo. I understand you are a serious, well-meaning, and capable editor.

In my esteem, however, the dispute at the Omura article is now far more about lines drawn in the sand than anything else. But from where I see it, the actual issues are:

How notable does a source have to be to speak on a topic which is only borderline notable? How expert does he have to be to talk about something about which little is known? (Shinnick citation)
How can a topic with few or no secondary sources be cited? (Tribunal citation)
Is it appropriate to cite a lack of sources? That is, is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence? (Disclaimers)
Is the article primarily about Omura, or primarily about BDORT? If its focus is Omura, how much of Omura's notability is owed to BDORT?
Is it appropriate to discuss other doctors and their techniques who cite Omura?

In my opinion, a lot of these problems comes from an AfD which was (in my esteem) closed prematurely. In short, while I laud Antonrojo's efforts, this article has many issues. - Che Nuevara 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clear summary. I'm moving it over to the Talk page to use as a basis for discussion. Antonrojo 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]