Talk:BDORT/Archive 3

AfD Result Notice
This page was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 27 June 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we have an AfD history template on this page? (this is the 2nd AfD survival to my knowledge). Crum375 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the old template because it covered the topic at a different name - its applicability now that there has been a pagemove/rewrite is questionable. This AfD was the first for "Yoshiaki Omura."  As for the above notice, I hand type AfD notices by personal choice.  The same result still governs, don't worry! ;) Xoloz 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not worried, but I think having a template at the top of the Talk page, that survives archiving edits, is useful to newcomers. Crum375 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I added a suggested box on top - comments? Crum375 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this subject was decided as notable on its own (ie not dependent on the NZ Tribunial), is this correct?--Richardmalter 10:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what the closing admin Xoloz had to say: "The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious."
 * The main documented 'controversy' featured in the AfD debate was the NZ Tribunal's report, as far as I know. Crum375 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing this here [] with Xoloz, as his statements about what consensus there was is clearly not accurate.--Richardmalter 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On [], Xoloz wrote that: ''. . .but my remarks on Dr. Omura's repute are not at all binding -- I was only explaining how I came to conclude that the article should be kept. In a way, my remark was a "worst-case senario": even if this man is a charlatan, he still belongs in our encyclopedia. Now that the article has been kept, it is up to you and other editors more knowledgeable on the subject to flesh out on the talk page how credible (or not) the doctor is, based on evidence available. In that endeavor, my comments are utterly irrelevant -- and if anyone says differently, do feel free to quote me on that. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)''

So we still have to discuss if this article is Notable on its own. I think so; Philosophos said the same. Other comments?--Richardmalter 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If by 'on its own' you mean that either BDORT or the NZ Tribunal report can be excluded, I would disagree. I think the article is fairly good as it stands, though not perfect. If you have some specific idea to improve it, please feel free to suggest it. I propose we make suggestions here first, to improve efficiency. Crum375 14:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(A) Yes, I mean without the NZ report. So we still dont have consensus here. I mention agian that Philosophus agreed with me (see archive) on this. What this would mean, would be taking the NZ report and putting it all lower down where the whole section on it is there already; currently it is repeated info which is itself no good.

(B) Also the repeated variations of However, these claims have not been verified by any conventional independent peer-reviewed assessment. need to go - they are commentaries.

(C) The See Alsos are also problems. Obviously this expresses opinion that BDORT/Omura etc are catagorized under pseudoscience etc [i remind again that these were added while i was away less than 48 hours previously - itself a reason for them going - for simple integrity of process]. "Pseudoscience" (and "quackary") as SlimVirgin earlier commented would have to have direct citations for inclusion. Sticking them at the end under a See Also title does not change their POV bias. Why not have, "Science", "electromagnetism", "invention" etc etc there too. Clearly this is POV sneaking in.

(D) Since after long discussion and detailed examination, you agreed the shinnick article is reliable and neutral according to the very criteria you set as a standard for us, I want to include info about it. I did previously, and you deleted it for no WP criteria reason, immediately - on the Work version!--Richardmalter 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Last, perhaps you would be interested in a quick personal comment. I, as you noted, do earn a living partly based on the ability I have with BDORT. You can only I realize of course take my word for the following, or not. I believe that if you could have been able to see how I have been able to use this Test and based directly on it and not confused with other many nebulous factors also involved, as a means of diagnosis and guide in treatment, been able to help many people who had been through the mainstream western medical system and found no help for their often very severe discomforts, often (very) young people who would otherwise had probably gone through lives of operations and ever recurring semi-reductionist-diagnosed illnesses, I believe you would understand why I am so intent on a non POV article and giving Omura and the BDORT "a fair shout" as I think you put it earlier. Remember, the way science progresses is new information is discovered; it is not understood, people ridicule it; gradually it is accepted as possible; then new groups of people later accept it as commonplace knowledge. BDORT is simply going through the stages. This is depsite what we here can argue about abstractly. BTW, its the same with acupuncture. The studies carried out are just not fitting to the subject. Any good acupucturist will tell you that a certain point is sometimes useful and sometimes not - depending on the very precise condition of the patient at the time of each treatment. So when some people come along and construct a correct western EBM test for the efficacy of acupoint #X - they are not even in the right ball park. Any good acupuncturist will also tell you that how you stimulate the point makes the difference between effect and no effect (and in japanese style treatments, this 'effect' is referring to objective measurable 'clearing' of highly localized non-dermatome pattern related palpable pressure evoked pain - like that from blood pooling in the abdomen from (stress related) adrenal vasoconstriction in the lower left quadrant) - by distal treatment points that have no neurological connection to the target area; the stimualtion can also be sub-neurological eg Microamp (which is why the Professor at the NZ tribunial was also on the wrong playing field holding the wrong bat for the game in hand). So the gulf between what is discussed by people who read reports and the like and those who actually do these things hands-on, is as wide as the oceans that lie inbetween (I think) you and I.--Richardmalter 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

post-AFD changes in article
I think the article is near-acceptable in its present form, with perhaps some minor tweaking needed. RichardMalter, who is an admitted BDORT proponent and practitioner, feels it is too negative towards BDORT as it stands. I think we need some more neutral editors (I personally don't have any bias except my desire to conform to WP policies), to take a look at the article and decide if any of Richard's suggested changes (in his above list) are necessary or justified, given WP's neutrality and reliable sourcing policies. Thanks, Crum375 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article is near-acceptable, also. From the information I've seen in archives it is generally acknowledged that Omura and his apparently very small group of followers are charlatans (or delusional), but NPOV rules out stating such plainly in the entry itself. I think the entry in its present form is reasonably solid given the tempest in a teapot controversy presented here. Any attempt to slant it to advocacy which seems to be the suggestion, is out of the question with respect to WP policy. Arcsincostan 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If there were a reliable source calling Omura a charlatan, then it could be included, in principle. But to the best of my knowledge, no such source exists. One could argue that indirectly the NZ Tribunal is implying as much, but there all we can do is use direct quotes - we are not allowed to interpret, especially so in possible libel, as that would constitute original work on our part. Crum375 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to be something with a tiny following unless I missed something. Mr. Malter is clearly an interested party and I believe WP has policies against advertising. I think the article is probably fine as it is. People can figure it out, just as the admin could. The obligation is to live by the policies. Arcsincostan 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * “Science means simply observing and explaining; it should not be confused with the philosophy of modern scientific practice which is a different thing entirely.” – This is a quote of Mr. Malter, from his site.


 * There are also repeated statements that Mr. Malter’s procedures, including the application of Dr. Omura’s techniques, are reproducible, double-blinded – yet, despite apparently having been applied for a number of years there is no evidence of their having been subjected to any external scrutiny. The point here, I think, is that Mr. Malter’s definition of “scientific practice” would not seem to be one which would be recognized as standard, yet he seems to want to claim validity for his and Dr. Omura’s techniques by the conventional definition. This seems to me to present a problem, and a conflict in usage of terms. Doubtless it is sincere and well-intended. Still, it is a problem.


 * The New Zealand commission’s experts made a very simple point with respect to this issue: It is not necessary for conventional science to understand a diagnostic technique or treatment in order to evaluate its efficacy. In a sense, this is parallel to the point Mr. Malter seems to make. Mr. Malter seems to argue in this Discussion and on his site, in the same form that Dr. Gorringe’s defense did in his trial in New Zealand – that orthodox science fails to understand this radically different approach and thus cannot evaluate it.


 * The problem here, though, or the conflict, is, it seems to me very simple, and even obvious: As the New Zealand tribunal’s experts point out, it simply isn’t necessary to have a correct theory or understanding in order to evaluate efficacy. Let me offer a very simple, very crude parallel example: If one’s understanding of thermodynamics were that a magical force invested steam with magical power, and that that force could be concentrated, stimulated by the destruction of the life force present in the burning of coal, etc, then made use of, this theory would not be “accurate” in contemporary scientific terms – yet it could be applied to the construction of a steam engine which would, in fact, operate. Mr. Malter, with all respect, seems not to grasp or to accept this point. It simply isn’t necessary for “conventional” “Western” science to comprehend the basis of Mr. Malter’s or Dr. Omura’s theories in order for it to validate them if they are, in fact, valid.


 * It would be the simplest thing in the world for Mr. Malter, rather than arguing the point, to construct a study which would satisfy even the most skeptical observers if his claims are true. Yet he has not, so far as I can tell from his site, done so – just as, to judge from the evidence available, Dr. Omura has not done so. Instead we have what I am certain are sincere statements of people being helped, of a lack of appreciation on the part of conventional medicine, etc. Now, I would quite agree that there are, to put it kindly, very real shortcomings in “conventional” medicine. Indeed, I think this perception is widely shared, and rightly so. Yet, despite these limitations, the fact of the matter, so far as I can tell, is that the New Zealand experts were right in noting that Dr. Gorringe could easily have constructed an objective demonstration – just as Mr. Malter or Dr. Omura might. The belief system of the observers is effectively irrelevant in such a case.


 * I would sincerely urge Mr. Malter, if he feels, as I believe he does, that he has something of great importance to offer the world, to construct such a study, or to urge others, such as Dr. Omura or another of Dr. Omura’s supporters, to do so.


 * The cruel, simple, reasonable fact is that, even if these techniques have something to offer the world, the avoidance or failure of so doing casts doubt upon their validity in the minds of most if not all objective observers which are not likely to be satisfied, in my estimation, by repeated assertions effectively confined within a small self-defining group.


 * Arcsincostan 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Arcsincostan, for the comments. You are mistaken if you think that I do not understand the basic simple idea that there are observable phenomena and there are explanations, and that the latter does not necessarily equate to the former. But I suggest sticking to WP policy discussions precisely, will be more productive in the short run here - however genuinely interested I would be to have a longer discussion on the subject of science etc with you another time. I made some concrete points above about the current state of the article that definitely need to be addressed. Thank you. --Richardmalter 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome, Richard. You are however, evidently laboring under the misapprehension that I am addressing you, in particular. I am simply offering an observation relative to your suggestions re WP editorial process for this entry, for which you elected to offer personal testimony. The quotation cited indicates that in addition to being a proponent of these practices who makes a living from them, and thus is effectively attempting to render the entry an advertisement, you also employ a personal definition of 'science' which you define as in contrast to standard definitions of 'science', yet you seem to want to claim the standard definition's mantle of authority, which clearly indicates a deep and effectively unresolvable conflict as to intent, as you have yourself described it. I feel that this personal element is best removed from the discussion, and the entry confined to standard process rather than one particular editor's personal definition of scientific method which he has himself indicated is not that which is generally understood by the term 'scientific method.' WP cannot, so far as I understand it, resolve these conflicts for you. I would suggest you find resolution for them elsewhere, perhaps by presenting your researches to the world in a more appropriate forum for personal and scientific validation than WP. WP is not for the presentation of original research, as you well know. Since your definition of science is by your own statement, as quoted, personal and individual rather than the more conventional notion you dismissively characterize, it cannot, by your own definition, satisfy WP criteria of conventional validation. You seem not to have grasped the simple point: It is not appropriate re WP editorial policies to attempt to shape the entry to reflect claims not established according to WP criteria in the real world – as opposed to this discussion. I would, to repeat, suggest you might more effectively energize yourself to establish credibility in the real world first, then employ those references to shape the WP entry rather than attempt the reverse. I'm certain all deeply respect your sincerity and intent and wish you well in that endeavour, as in all things. Cheers. Arcsincostan 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: To date, I see no indication whatsoever for support for your specific suggestions as to changes in the entry, only acknowledgement that the entry is perceived as noteworthy on the basis of its essentially dubious claims. If you feel you can muster consensus for your suggestions, intended to present those claims favorably, by presentation of appropriate sources per WP criteria, by all means continue to have at it at whatever commitment of time and energy you deem appropriate. Cheers. Arcsincostan 05:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you write is your POV. You are repeatedly doing yourself a diservice by misrepresenting me. I will not enter into a personal discussion. Please address point A above if you care to. Thanks.--Richardmalter 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Loathe though I am to confuse you with facts, you have, in fact, presented nothing but POV in this forum, so far as even the most cursory reading of the record indicates, from first to last. You have repeatedly asserted as fact what are your opinions, which opinions have not been evidenced by appropriate sources, which are, further, by your own proud declaration, those of someone who makes his living from practicing what he characterizes as 'science', but which he then, by his own words, further defines as other than any standard recognizable definition of science, and which would, in fact, serve as well as a description of the power of prayer, voodoo, or what-have-you. The likelihood of engaging in meaningful discussion with the Red Queen is rather higher. I will repeat, sir: The burden of convincing others to a consensus in your favour is upon you. You have to date, failed to do so. The fact that you seemingly take this simple observation of evident fact as irksome is an issue for you to address, not for you to require others to address on your behalf. I would again suggest, as you have utterly failed to convince anyone of the force of your arguments, that you seek validation in the real world of science and medicine rather than revisiting your limitations upon others who, by all evidence, are plainly unpersuaded. That said, the allocation of your time and energies are, of course, yours to make, and if you care to expend them in evidently fruitless efforts rather than subject your claims to external validtion you are, of course, entitled to do so, and to derive whatever satisfaction you presumably so derive. Others, in turn, will draw their own, inevitable conclusions, as has been evidenced whenever your arguments have surfaced in wider view – a simple fact which, as many others, seems to elude your discernment. To flatter yourself that misrepresentation of your views is required, or has occurred, I assure you, is absurd, as anyone consulting the record has more than sufficient evidence from which to judge. Cheers :) Arcsincostan 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I havn't made a change in this article for months, while I think all other contributors have without consensus; so I have made the following changes which are strictly according to WP rules to make the article more WP acceptable viz WP rules. Befor that, I have added in the Shinnick study info (after long discussion, Crum375 agreed earlier that this source of info met the criteria for WP:Relaibility and Neutrality - that he had also analysed during the discussion). There is no reason not to include it - which would be a form of POV censorship. I have put this under a 'Medical Opinions' heading with the NZ Tribunial - please change the heading if you can think of a better one. I have left for now the NZ Tribunial note earlier in the article since this I guess will want to be argued further re essential Notability of the entry which is yet undecided. But I do not think that repeated information can possibly be a neutral feature - especially if it is WP:OR and not-citated at all. So I have taken out the WP:OR repeated comments under each heading - they are clearly WP:OR and non-citated, commentary. I have deleted the See Also section for the obvious biased POV reasons I gave just above. (The making of this addition also broke the 48 hour guideline for changes that all the contributors at the time had agreed to). The Alternative Medicine ref remains included earlier on in the article. Still it is not perfect - but it conforms to WP criteria better in this version. --Richardmalter 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral changes by Richard Malter
Richard, I think it would be best to discuss changes here before modifying the article itself. I myself also have some changes I wanted to propose, but I won't do it without at least some semblance of consensus here, and my own avowed agenda is simply to adhere to WP policies and converge to the best possible article. In your case especially, as a declared advocate of BDORT, I think it would be best if you refrain from making direct edits and suggest them here first. As I have said in the past, we all have the same 'Edit' button. It makes no sense to make changes that are non-consensual, especially when done by a BDORT advocate, as they will be quickly reverted. Thanks, Crum375 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Message to new user Icaet
Dear new user, if you are in fact a new user, and have never edited Wikipedia (WP) before, then welcome to WP!. I hope you will take the time and read the WP policies, such as WP:5P. Please note that this specific article deals with a controversial subject. In fact, much time and many words have been spent debating various aspects of this subject, namely Dr. Omura and his BDORT invention, and the present article represents a careful neutral point of view balance, reached after much discussion. As a new user, it would be useful if you could review the past discussions, both here on the Talk page and its archives, as well as in the AFD discussions (all linked into at the top of this page). After you have reviewed all past discussions, since this is a controversial subject, please suggest here on this page your proposed edits. We will carefully review them individually and decide, collectively, if they merit inclusion in the article. Welcome again, and thank you for your understanding. Crum375 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes that I made unilaterally, and which were reversed by Crum, should be strongly considered. This is my first time contributing to wikipedia, so of course my formatting errors should be corrected, as should any stylistic issues and such. I also understand that for this article changes are preferred to be made by consensus rather than unilaterally; therefore I apologize for having done so and now wish to have the changes that I attempted to make considered for application. (I am sure they are fully visible in the page history). One noteworthy change that I do not think one can in good conscience not include relates to the New Zealand tribunal. The author of the article repeatedly refers to the tribunal in the article with the effect of making it sound like the tribunal discredits Omura, whether or not this is intentional. However, it is incredibly misleading to quote the tribunal stating that PMRT (BDORT) has not scientific validity and yet NOT include the fact that the tribunal also included the statement that the techniques Dr. Corringe was being punished for using were NOT the same as those advocated by Dr. Omura. The tribunal clearly states this, and considering this is Dr. Omura's biography page, that is pretty relevant information. It is also irresponsible not to note that Omura himself disavowed Corringe. Perhaps that might be an "unattributable quote", but at the very least the tribunal's conclusion that the technique under review was NOT Omura's absolutely must be added.

I also think it is unnecessary to repeatedly states that claims about these techniques have not been substantiated by any independent medical review or something to that effect. That statement entirely hinges upon the utterly subjective notion of what thorough review would be. The fact is, you admit that the technique is patented. In order to receive a U.S. patent, any technique or piece of equipment is given THOROUGH scientific review. They do not just give out patents because you got there first. This may not be proof of effectiveness, but it is proof of independent scientific review.

I also think the information about the professor of neuroscience advocating for Dr. Omura is essential. I realize that I did not provide any direct quotes or links right there; as I said I am new and am still mastering the techniques. However, assuming that I could document all of those claims, would that not then be appropriate for posting in the article? I mean, a distinguished neuroscientist and chairman of physiology providing verifiable research in support, would that satisfy your need for independent review?

Please address my concerns as soon as possible. One reason that I would like to see these concerns addressed as soon as possible is that there is reason to suspect that the original poster or one of the contributors may be somone with a personal grudge against Dr. Omura. [accusation and possible legal threat removed per OTRS by FCYTravis (note added by Philosophus)]

And finally, I wish to reiterate that given that the part of the tribunals conclusions that support my claim are just as easily verifiable as those actually posted here, and given that they contradict the apparent attempted usage of the tribunal's proceedings here, the section contained in the paragraphs I described must in all good conscience by included. Please discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icaet (talk • contribs) 21:33, July 6, 2006.
 * [fixed formatting problems - Crum375 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)]
 * [moved above message here from older section - Crum375 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)]

I have some questions for new user, relating to your above message:
 * 1) Can you supply a reliable source to show that Omura disavowed Gorringe?
 * 2) Can you help us find in the NZ report where the Tribunal says that the Gorringe PMRT method was different from Dr Omura's?
 * 3) Can you help us find a reliable source for your claim that the USPTO performs a 'thorough scientific review' of each patent application, and that specifically such a review was performed for BDORT?
 * 4) Can you help us find a reliable source showing, as you say, "a professor of neuroscience" vouched for Dr. Omura's BDORT work?

If you can provide these sources, which must be reliable per WP policy, it would allow us to insert them in the article. Thanks, Crum375 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will second Crum375's observations as to WP criteria re this entry, its attendant history, as well as his specific queries. I would further note that I find no language in reading the tribunal's report which supports the assertion made, which had been repeatedly made earlier by another user, RichardMalter, an acknowledged proponent of Dr. Omura's teachings, as to the tribunal's supposedly drawing distinction between PMRT/BDORT. Nor has any other editor found such distinction, to my knowledge. If the relevant passage(s) might be presented, it would be most helpful, in my opinion. It's essential, I think, to bear in mind that any assertion made or perspective offered must satisfy standard WP criteria. Further, it has been established in previous discussion, that it is not always practical for all participants to monitor the discussion on a moment-to-moment basis, and time must be allowed for discussion. Arcsincostan 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ve checked the instance icaet references in her/his since-reverted edit of the entry, and this is ground that was all covered more than thoroughly and at very great length in previous discussion, with various editors, re this article. It presents a particular reference in the course of evaluating Mr. Gorringe’s defense where the tribunal noted Mr Gorringe’s practice, as described, failed to adhere fully to Dr Omura’s description of the technique. Unfortunately, it neglects or chooses to neglect to note those sections, all extensively previously discussed and appropriately referenced, where the tribunal’s experts and the tribunal itself in its final official findings of fact, does indeed conflate the practices with respect to claims of scientific validity, ruling clearly, explicitly, and unequivocally that PMRT/BDORT/AK all lack scientific credibility. If icaet wishes to argue with the tribunal that is his/her privilege. If icaet, however, wishes to do so in a WP entry, it will have to be within WP criteria for validity. As Dr. Omura apparently, according to icaet, chose to avoid presenting himself and his practices to the independent evaluation of the tribunal, we have only the tribunal available to us as a source that meets WP criteria – however much this simple fact may discomfort Richardmalter and/or icaet. In summary: These arguments have been previously advanced, at infinite length, by an avowed proponent, who derives a livelihood from these practices discredited by the NZ authorities, and these arguments have previously been set aside by the community as unpersuasive. I would suggest icaet familiarize her/himself with the ground previously covered before attempting unilateral changes, and present her/his arguments for discussion rather than perhaps pointlessly revisiting ground already more than thoroughly examined.


 * Perhaps far more problematic, it seems to me, are a few other points I would raise here for discussion:


 * The use of icaet as a handle suggests a claim to speak for Dr. Omura or his organization. Is this claim acutally being made, or merely suggested without basis?


 * Why the unexplained removal of reference to the Heart Disease Research Institute, of which Dr. Omura is, according to his own sites, Director of Medical Research, which office, again according to his own sites, he held at the time of the meritless suit which established legal precedent as to the ready dismissability of so patently meritless a suit – in this case an attempt to extort money from General Motors in a class action suit brought on behalf of all urban residents of the United States and which actually failed to trouble itself to present any actual basis to the claim – an attempt at distortion of process so extreme that it both established legal precedent and prompted revision of civil code so as to preclude any possibility of its attempt in future?


 * Why, then, in turn, an attempt to hasten discussion in shaping the entry to icaet’s preference which includes the suggestion that an editor is guilty of attempted extortion? This would seem a quite extraordinary if not libelous claim, and would seem to me to violate WP criteria re personal attacks and legal threats and/or libel. If this is not the case, and I labor under a false impression, I’m certain icaet will in all good faith hasten to seize the opportunity to clarify any possible misunderstanding.


 * Cheers. Arcsincostan 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chifuyu Takeshige
I've been able to Google-Locate a couple of references/publications of the esteemed Chifuyu Takeshige referenced by icaet as representative of validative authority in icaet's meaning of the term:


 * Establishes that BDORT is ineffective if one's eyes are closed – perhaps this relates to the previously cited "triple-blinded" study in which the particpants avoided eye contact.


 * The esteemed professor is duly eulogized in the Journal of International Society of Life Information Science (Journal of ISLIS), which journal states in its notes to prospective authors that "The Journal of ISLIS publishes the fruits of scientific researches (e.g. original research papers, review articles) in which consciousness, the spirit or the mind, etc. figure." It features such representative work as "The Spiritual World (spiritualism) will be Illuminated in the 21st Century," "A Study on Physiological Changes in Shaolin Internal Qigong," "Immune Responses during Remote Qi Emission."

These, along with BDORT remote application to rabbits, presumably with eyes wide open, it would seem to me, speak for themselves. Then again, perhaps my eyes are closed. Arcsincostan 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard Malter makes WP criteria improvements to article immediately deleted by Crum375 (whereas other previous changes made by others without full consensus were not deleted by Crum375)
Crum375, headlines are easy to write. It also seems very clear that you have a POV re this article. You immediately deleted the improvements I made on the Work version, whereas you made no such action when others did exactly the same. When Philosphos made changes without consensus you did not revert them, mine you do and did. You set a 48 hour 'no changes' rule, just after you agreed without full consensus on some radical changes while I was offline for under 48 hours, that were made; you then claim this to be a consensus version. You recently tried to imterpret the Admin's comments to support your POV. I withdraw your temporary mandate granted by me (et al) to you as an informal mediator here.

Now to the article. Re your: Can you help us find in the NZ report where the Tribunal says that the Gorringe PMRT method was different from Dr Omura's? Did you not read this citation quoted in the article (that you reverted)? The report itself says just this. This make all current statements re the NZ Tribunial incorrect information. The are not a comment on BDORT. I will undo the non consensus change that you made that I refer to above (see archive for detailed chronology) adding the See Also section. --Richardmalter 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it:

Page 58/para 290, However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent. --Richardmalter 12:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That quotation, as indicated above, which you ignore, and as previously discussed at full length, by numerous parties, is taken out of context. At that point the tribunal is addressing a specific defense claim presented by Mr. Gorringe. It later considers at length the testimony of expert witnesses, who equate PMRT and BDORT as trivially invariant forms of AK, and notes for the record that none of these have any claim whatsoever to scientific standing. The tribunal, upon full consideration, fully and formally agrees with this judgement – that PMRT and BDORT are both forms of AK, and that they are without any credible claim to scientific validity. There is no point in endlessley revisiting this ground, which represents a willful or delusional distortion of the tribunal's actual findings, as present in the full text. It has been covered, again and again, and the only parties to date who choose to take it out of context are those who are acknowledged advocates who derive their livelihood from this practice, and who regard those who question them as prejudiced against their belief structure – all the while failing to present their claims to reliable, independent scientific review. Arcsincostan 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability
"The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious." Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This was the observation of Xoloz, in judging, on the evidence, that consensus merited retaining this entry. He further noted, upon Richardmalter's query, that this observation was not in and of itself binding upon the form of the entry itself. It is, however, the judgement of an independent party, upon consideration of the evidence – as opposed to those who derive a living from the application of practice which, upon its sole independent credible evaluation, was judged devoid of any merit, and who have presented no evidence of any attempt to validate these practices via any independent credible means.

It is not the purpose of WP to present advertisements for practices which claim scientfic and medical efficacy and fail to present any evidence of these claims other than the repetition of these claims by self-interested advocates who, on the evidence, are unwilling to present their claims to credible independent evaluation. The fact that this seems to distress these advocates is unfortunate, but inevitable, given their position.

Unfortunately, it seems to me, WP has very little effective defense against this sort of problem, which surfaces in many areas, and effectively turns what might otherwise be a cooperatively-produced encyclopedia into a variant of chatroom culture, with all its flamewars and other charms. It will be interesting, in that sense if no other, what, if anything, is evolved of this process.

Cheers. Arcsincostan 13:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Justification for "See also: Alternative Medicine, Pseudoscience, Quackery"
Here is my justification for the inclusion of this section's contents:


 * 1) Alternative Medicine: To the best of my knowledge, this is a non-contentious item. I was under the impression that BDORT is accepted as Alternative Medicine procedure by all parties. If I am wrong here, please correct me.
 * 2) Pseudoscience: As I noted earlier in this Talk page, I personally consider the term a pejorative, akin to calling someone 'stupid'. On the other hand, if there exists a verifiable and reliable source that says 'X is stupid' and that labeling is relevant, important and significant to an otherwise acceptable article about X, I would include it. In this case, IMO the NZ document is the most critical component of this article as it is the only reliable source we have for BDORT. In the NZ document the term 'pseudoscience' is used in relation to Gorringe's PMRT/BDORT usage several times. I think it makes sense to supply a linked WP definition of the term, so that the informed reader may reach his/her own opinion. We (WP) are not saying that BDORT is pseudoscience, only letting the user read about it so he/she can be able to decide on their own if the pseudoscience allegation in the NZ document is valid.
 * 3) Quackery: I quote from WP's article quackery:"'Quackery is a term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis. Quack is a term used for a person who dispenses false medical advice or treatment.'"
 * I think most logical and neutral readers of the NZ Tribunal's report would agree that this definition fits almost perfectly the Tribunal's description of Gorringe's activities and reliance on PMRT/BDORT. I am not saying this is Wikipedia's description of BDORT since WP must remain neutral. All WP can do is provide pertinent and well sourced information to its readers so that they can reach an informed opinion on their own. Providing this link to WP's article in the "See also" section fulfills that function. Note that both for quackery as well as pseudoscience I objected to the categorization as such, since IMO that would be WP forming an opinion about a controversial subject, which contradicts WP's policies. But including these items as "See also" for self-informing is acceptable IMO.

Now let me respond briefly to Richard Malter's comments about my apparent un-even-handedness and lack of neutrality, and my losing his support as 'informal mediator'. First, I have already admitted fully my POVness - I am committed to WP's policies of neutrality, reliable sourcing, etc. If that makes me a POV-pusher in his eyes, so be it. I only proposed my role as 'informal mediator' with assumption of unanimous support. If Richard does not accept me as 'neutral enough' - it is his decision to make. All I can do is try my best to get this article to WP standards and requirements. Perhaps Richard, as I believe I suggested in the past, can find a more neutral party to help in these issues. I would be delighted to have more neutral voices here. In the meanwhile, since this article is contentious and controversial, I do strongly suggest to refrain from making any edits that change the POV-balance of the article, without first discussing them here and achieving a consensus. Thanks, Crum375 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I have to form an opinion based on your actions. Changes were made not by consensus earlier on, when I was offline for a few hours; you agreed to these. Mine you deleted even on the Work version immediately. This is bias. You now claim that things must be done by consensus. Since you made changes not by consensus, these do not constitute a "stable article"; you prove your own point in this. These include the See Also section, the repeated WP:OR comments at the end of virtually every paragraph (as Icaet also noted). I will improve the article strictly in line with WP criteria. If you can find WP improvments on what I edit - please do improve; reverting all the time will eventually contradict the WP:3R rule. You asked Icaet for an exact reference in the report for the Tribunial distinguishing between "PMRT" and BDORT, he gave you it, I requoted it. Therefore the NZ trial does not comment on the BDORT. I insist on very strict WP criteria, as you do. Incorrect information is clearly not.--Richardmalter 03:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WP is Not
I have reverted the changes made by Richardmalter as a patent attempt by an acknowledged professional advocate to shape this entry to his commercial purposes. Arcsincostan 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo on appropriate use of NPOV re crackpot theories
It would seem to me that the following suggests the possibility of reshaping the entry, and I would ask for discussion. Arcsincostan 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would note that to date the only neutral, credible, reputable source presented in this respect is the NZ commission. To allow professional advocates of a crackpot theory (on the only available reputable evidence yet presented) to reshape the entry to suit their promotional purposes while claiming NPOV, given Jimbo's observation, seems to me both unnecessary and inappropriate. Any other opinions? Arcsincostan 04:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection, anyone ?
Also, as the proponent(s) seem to be becoming disposed to an edit war to attempt to have their way and present the entry as an advertisement for their dubious practices, I think it may be appropriate to consider the possibility of requesting Protection of the entry. Again, any thoughts? Arcsincostan 05:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Note
I would also point out that I've used other handles on this entry previously, never overlapping in time to present any attempt at sock puppetry. This is an old habit of mine from chatrooms years ago where one shifted handles to reflect different moods or dispositions. As I understand it, WP is somewhat grey in this area, but acknowledges editors/users may prefer to adopt different noms d'edits at different times. I've attempted to be scrupulous so as to avoid any suggestion of greater numbers/sock puppetry. If any admin feels this presents a problem, please feel free to point it out. Arcsincostan 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Central Question re NPOV in the Face of Promotion of a Pseudoscience for Commercial Gain
The central question to date, in my understanding, is, effectively, what constitutes appropriate/valid NPOV with respect to this entry. With all respect to Crum375, who is clearly very dedicated to his understanding of WP ideals, I disagree with him, here. My interpretation is other than his. It seems to me that by WP criteria of valid external reference with respect to sources that are neutral and reputable, the only basis for this entry's existence is the fact that it represents a crackpot theory. This has been, on my reading of all discussion to date, particularly the observations of the occasional admin who's looked at the issue and judged the matter from a neutral perspective, effectively the observation of all non-promoters of Omura, the BDORT, and the remainder of his armamentarium derived from BDORT, who have considered the matter. There have been differences amongst such parties as to how to appropriately present the article entry with respect to NPOV. Some have felt a simple, plain description of the procedure is sufficient to make clear to any observer that the process is rooted in, shall we say, the extreme alternative end of the spectrum. Others have felt NPOV makes it appropriate to 'call a spade a spade' and simply describe the procedures in question as quackery. I feel that people of good intent for WP may legitimately differ in this respect, and are quite capable of discussing the matter intelligently and sanely and arriving at an appropriate entry – were it not for advocates with a professional postion to maintain, and who have not, on the evidence, presented their procedures to independent reliable scrutiny and evaluation, yet who seem intent on rendering the entry as an advertisement for the wonders of this pseudoscience in the name of NPOV. This seems to me Red Queen madness, but I recognize other people of good intent may differ. This, however, seems to me to leave open the question of advocacy intent on shaping the entry to serve commercial purposes, while claiming NPOV. This, too, would likely present no insurmountable problem were there a significant number of eyes on this entry. There are, however, it would seem, very few eyes on this entry, and one recognizes the devotion of those who are true believers in what is on the evidence a pseudoscience in the face of likely finite patience on the part of those who do not derive a livelihood from this 'dubious practice.' I would then, suggest that the matter be considered by those of good faith, who have no commercial interest in the matter. A professional advocate, whether sincere or insincere, is a professional advocate, and, by definition, not an independent judge. Indeed, on the evidence, the advocates seem inclined to readily engage in challenge and personal attack against those who disagree with them. I recognize that these characterizations are not kind, but I simply know no other way of putting the matter plainly. An advocate is an advocate. A person with a declared commercial interest in these procedures is by definition an advocate. I will be frank in that, as I have argued before, wonderful though WP is in its espoused ideals, I do not feel it is a fit tool for every purpose, and I very much doubt that it is possible, in this context, to arrive at a satisfactory entry that would, in fact, satisfy a neutral onlooker that they had been presented with the available neutral, appropriately reputably sourced information. I will be more than happy to be proven wrong in this. Arcsincostan 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Responses
Here are my responses to some points raised by Richard Malter and Arcsincostan above.


 * 1) Richard, I understand you don't accept that I am neutral enough. But I don't make a living from anything relating to this issue and my efforts here are purely voluntary, intended only to protect WP's interests as I understand them, I hope you accept that. I think your making money from BDORT means you cannot logically be neutral on this issue, and you should probably recuse yourself from making any direct changes to the article, although your comments here would be most welcome and valuable.
 * 2) Arcsincostan, this article will not be 'protected'. There are essentially 2 types of protection - semi or full. Semi is protection from new or unregistered users, is seldom used and if so, mostly for vandal or sockpuppet protection. Full is used even less, e.g. for the Main page. This article is a typical 'contentious' subject, and a mild one at that. See 'Zionism', 'Christianity', 'Islam', or GNAA if you want to see real animosity and fur flying. Here we are mostly well behaved and civil, and just need to make sure we steer the article, which IMO is not bad as it stands, on the right neutral course.
 * 3) As to the sockpuppet point raised by Arcsincostan, I personally feel that using different names within the same article and/or talk page, even when subsequently disclosed, is confusing and a discourtesy to others, to say the least. When used to circumvent bans/blocks, gentlemen's agreements, or in general to create the impression of more supportive views of one's position, I would consider their use as clearly unacceptable sockpuppetry and hence clearly violating WP's rules and spirit, as well as offensive to the the other editors.
 * 4) To Richard's point about NZ 'confirming' that Gorringe was not using PMRT/BDORT and hence the NZ report was not about PMRT/BDORT, Arcsincostan responded to that point, and you/Icaet ignored his response. Please respond to that point, as well as my own answers to Icaet, when you can.
 * 5) To all, yet another reminder: this is in lieu of 'protections' - this is a controversial subject, let's keep our suggestions here and aim for consensus before modifying the article.

Thanks, Crum375 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Points taken. Arcsincostan 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, few very quick replies, and I wont discuss me personally further. Do you actually thing that any part of any money I may earn here in Australia will actually be affected by this Wikipedia entry? I mainly practise Japanese style acupuncture, within that I use BDORT sometimes. Next, of course I am biased. You are too, you are not a robot (I hope!), very clearly so. And so is Arcsincostan very clearly so etc. Arcsincostan (et al names) are declared biased against Omura (personally) and BDORT, to extremes, so what's the difference? You, we, are all biased re this subject. The only thing left is use WP guidelines.

Next. I read your replies to the NZ distincion between BDORT/PMRT - and it is as far as I can see WP:OR - can you show actual citations? And even if so, the line on p58 cannot be ignored (except from your et al POV bias).

Next. All the repeat commentaries are WP:OR non-citated. Can you possibly not agree with this?!

Next. I repeat that you made the See Also addition not by consensus. A review of the timeline of contributions and my temporary absence for "RLW" will confirm this. This is therefore not acceptable. I hope you will consider this point properly - how do you expect to get a "stable article" if you do not. --Richardmalter 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard, here is a partial response to the question you raise re par. 290 where the NZ Tribunal says that Gorringe's method deviated from Omura's. If you read the report further, you see that the Tribunal then calls in Dr. Cannell as an expert, and I quote from that point on:


 * 304. Professor Mark Cannell was called by the Tribunal.


 * 305. Professor Cannell referred to some 14 references in the literature which examined scientifically whether there was any reliability in applied kinesiology (AK) methods, which include PMRT or BDORT. He stated that none of those studies reached the conclusion that PMRT was a reliable diagnostic technique.


 * 306. Professor Cannell stated:

“In summary, I find the descriptions of the AK [applied kinesiology] methods and in particular the BDORT test to be inconsistent with known physical principles. Even if it were possible to produce a “field” with these methods, AK [applied kinesiology] methods (and BDORTing) [testing] have not been shown to produce an electrical field which is required to alter the electrical activation of nerve and muscle. A limited survey of the literature shows that the AK [applied kinesiology] testing results are unreliable – and this idea is apparently supported by some organisations that support complementary medicine. 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.”


 * 307. Professor Cannell stated in answers to questions by the Director that it would have been quite simple to set up a blind trial of the PMRT technique Dr Gorringe uses and that he had made such an offer to Dr Gorringe who was unwilling to undertake such a trial and did not offer any explanation as to why he would not.


 * 308. Professor Cannell confirmed that there was no scientific or physical explanation for how touching a vial with an aluminium rod could result in a muscle result in the patient.
 * 309. The Tribunal accepts Professor Cannell’s evidence.

I jump forward in the document to par. 355, where the Tribunal summarizes its findings, where they again mention Dr. Cannell: THE TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS REGARDING PMRT


 * 355. Professor Cannell provided credible, coherent and compelling evidence which significantly assisted the Tribunal in considering and determining the relevant issues.

I quote also from par. 363 later on:


 * 363. We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognised diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible. I respectfully submit that my understanding is that the NZ Tribunal is opining on BDORT/PMRT as a generic technique. Dr. Cannell testified that he asked Dr. Gorringe to validate his own variation of it, to see if it's any different from the generic version, but Gorringe refused. The Tribunal is therefore opining on the generic version as well as Gorring's variation. I don't see any WP:OR that's needed here - only simple reading of the report. If anyone neutral disagrees, please let me know.

Now as far as your point about the fact that somehow because you are in Australia you are not impacted financially by criticism of BDORT - are you saying that no one in Australia reads WP? Also, my bias is only as a WP policy advocate - if you detect any other bias I have, please let me know.

Regarding the 'repeat commentaries' about BDORT - I assume you mean where we say 'has not been validated'. If you are aware of any scientific clinical validation of BDORT, please let us know. Otherwise we must have that disclaimer in close proximity to every unvalidated claim, as it could create liability for WP if someone read just a paragraph without the disclaimer and relied on it.

Regarding the 'See also' section. You may recall I removed the categorization as pseudoscience that was insisted upon by some, and instead added the See Also as a compromise. I have the justification for it above, to which you/Icaet have not replied. I see it for now as a balance between those who want WP to simply label BDORT as quackery and/or pseudoscience, and those (such as yourself) who would prefer we label it as a successful technique to diagnose and heal most diseases. I prefer WP to just present the hard evidence, provide some links for the reader to become informed, and let the reader decide on his/her own. Thanks, Crum375 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

D'uh Moment
Extraordinary claims merit extraordinary skepticism. Arcsincostan 03:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing NZ Trial assessment
Crum375, no, what you confirm with the quotes is what the quotes actually say, that those people that were considered experts in this field by the Tribunial, gave the opinion that anything to do with muscle testing, including BDORT, is not valid. This is clear, it is their opinion, there is no argument. But now you start your WP:OR and try to infer more widely. But to recap first, we are agreed that as you say I respectfully submit that my understanding is that the NZ Tribunal is opining on BDORT/PMRT as a generic technique. The Tribunial lumps these together as PMRT for ease of description which makes sense. We can clearly say in this article that this is the opinion of the Tribunial. But, they do not anywhere contradict their previous also very clear statement on page58, that Gorringe did not use BDORT. So we can also clearly say that the Tribunial made this differentiation - all we need to do is quote them word for word - how much more WP OK is possible than that? Are you arguing that we should not quote the paragraph on page 58 word for word? That really would constitute a bias - a very big one! Notice that you read the article, and pick out one interpretation and focus, I do the same and focus on something else. You have a bias, here identified, as is many times previously. I have one too. To suggest you do not have a bias in what you think here is in my opinion either dishonest or lacking understanding. Are you telling me that privately you do not have an opinion about what you think re BDORT and Omura? Are you telling me that you separate this from your WP volunteering 100%? It is humanly impossible. You are using your brain to interprete data - like all humans on planet earth your interpretation is subject to many biases including those that arise directly or indirectly from your personal opinions and thoughts.

So I think something like:

''The Tribunial noted at an earlier stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent. But the Tribunial gave final opinion that all PMRT (which they meant to include BDORT) is "not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions" and that "We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity."

Omitting one and not the other is VERY VERY CLEAR POV bias. I will put this up. Please improve with WP guidelines. Unless you can find a WP reason this is not OK, please do not delete or revert.

Re the disclaimer idea, as long as you say according to it is all fine, we are just reporting.

Now re the See Also point. I have reiterated at least 3 times that you broke the consensus process. You repeatedly reply on the substance. You want to move on to the substance based on your non-consensus additions. You are very careful never to reply to the process point. I will remove this therefore. But about your point of labelling, have you never read an entry in an encylopedia that described anything according to the inventor or proponent and not concluded that that encyclopedia is an advertisment for the entry!?? Based on your argument all entries in all encyclopdeias of people and their inventions are advertisements. The argument holds no water whatsoever. If you want "hard facts", lets quote the Tribunial!!!. Lets also write according to in every case. Your proposed solutions again show your very clear bias, which is not a criticism, just needs to be noted and recognized. Thanks for reading.--Richardmalter 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk . ..
At the risk of terrifying Richardmalter, frankly I'm impressed by the current revision. I've only read it quickly, and there are matters with which I would differ, but on the whole I think it's simpler, clearer in its presentation, and on the right track with respect to NPOV. I would still question, in particular, the validity of Shinnick, et alia, with respect to WP criteria, but, on the whole, I think the entry satisfactory. The previous entry was the product of a tug of war, and reflected that fact. This, as I say, seems on the whole to me superior. If I may presume to say so, well done Richardmalter. 12:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard, Arcsincostan: I strongly disagree. First, I really think we need to discuss issues here and reach some consensus before editing the article. Second, I disagree with many of the changes made by Richard, and believe they totally subvert the careful POV balance we had. I will reply more fully later, but I do want to mention that I agree with Richard that some mention of Dr. Cannell's observation that Gorringe's method's is a variation of BDORT/PMRT should be made. Note that Cannell said it - not the Tribunal, but still it merits a mention and Richard is correct in principle on that issue, IMO. But we should carefully consider the wording here, before modifying the article. Thanks, Crum375 12:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more responses to Richard's message above. Regarding what I (or anyone else) may personally feel deep inside, that is not a 'bias' per se. For all I know, you may personally feel deep inside that BDORT is quackery, but just because of your circumstances in life you ended up having to push it to make a living. That is not an issue for us at all. It is the perceived or expected bias that counts, and if someone has some deep seated internal feelings but never lets them interfere with his/her words or deeds, it is a non-issue IMO. If someone makes a living selling item X which is the subject or major component of an article, by definition that someone has a bias, as he/she would stand to potentially lose or gain monetarily depending on each change in the article. If he/she were a sitting judge they would instantly recuse themselves from the case, and as WP editors I think they should give the related article a wide berth, but should be allowed to fully and freely express their opinions and concerns on the Talk page, and go all the way to ArbComm if they feel the subject or their views are improperly treated.

Anyway, regarding the 'See also' issue, you say that I keep addressing the 'substance' and ignoring the 'process'. By that I understand you mean that your concern is that a while back I unilaterally removed the 'Category: Pseudoscience' that was in the article, and replaced it with 'See also: pseudoscience', etc. I disagree with you that I am ignoring the 'process' here. I already noted above that this was my action, but explained that I viewed it as a compromise attempt, to try to find a middle ground between those who wanted BDORT directly and clearly labeled as quackery/pseudoscience and those who wanted no mention of it at all, despite the fact that it is mentioned in the NZ report. This was a step that brought the article into a neutral balance, IMO, and I think we should keep it there until there is some consensus here for a change.

Now let me address your point about 'according to'. My understanding is that WP policy is to avoid using that term, if at all possible, as it is non-encylopedic (and more news-report-like). Instead, if the issue is non controversial (not here of course) we should just state the information as a fact, followed by a reference to a valid source. If it is controversial, we should first try to find the number and quality of proponents for each point of view. Assume for now only 2 basic views. If the minority is so tiny as to be marginal and/or not well supported by valid acceptable references, we just ignore it. If the minority is notable and has valid acceptable references, we still state the majority version as fact with a reference as for non-controversial, but then we follow up with the minority opinion in some way. If the opposing views are close in numbers/source validity, then we may have no choice but to start using the dreaded 'according to'. In our case here, we have no reliable acceptable source (per WP's definition) that claims that BDORT is effective for diagnosis or treatment of anything. Yet, Dr. Omura, the subject of the article, claims that it is, so we must judiciously follow each of his claims with the WP disclaimer that there is no scientific proof of effectiveness, and also provide top billing, right in the lead-in section, to the only reliable and acceptable source we do have in the article, which is the NZ commission and its findings. As I mentioned earlier, I do think we can mention Dr. Cannell's testimony that Gorringe's version of PMRT/BDORT varied from the generic version, although Dr. Cannell and the Tribunal decided that variation is inconsequential to the merit of the technique, either generically or as practiced by Gorringe. Thanks, Crum375 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A few points, in some haste:


 * I do not feel that a participant is of necessity compelled to recuse himself in every instance in which he has or may appear to have a financial stake. I prefer to judge by conduct and by result.


 * I feel that the pro forma notion that 'according to' is to be avoided is simplistic and inappropriate. It seems to me, again, best to judge on overall tone of the entry.
 * It seems to me, as I believe it has to some others as well, that WP welcomes editing by the uninformed amateur enthusiast, yet is disposed against much actual knowledge and or expertise.


 * These observations aside, WP processes have resulted in the existence of an entry on which, by the evidence, only a very few eyes rest, and which is by its essential nature controversial. Arcsincostan 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to recusal, it is extremely hard if not impossible to be both human and neutral while editing what is essentially a source of your livelihood. At the very least it creates an assumption by everyone else of lack of neutrality. Hence it is best for editors with a direct financial stake in the presentation of an article to try to focus their energy on the Talk page, where they can make suggestions, raise objections, and in general try to steer the article via neutral intermediaries.

As for the use of 'according to', it is a WP style issue. 'According to' is a classical news report style, of a dynamically unfolding situation, while an encyclopedia is more of a summary of established 'facts' based on verifiable published secondary sources. Hence, where there is no dispute or a large majority for a given view, it should be presented as a 'fact', backed up by an appropriate source as a footnote (the very existence of the footnote effectively says 'according to'), and the minority view, if it has valid references, should get second billing, in a controversy section or 'other opinions' as appropriate. In our case, as I mentioned above, we are starting out from a minority view of the article's subject that is unproven using WP accepted sources, and in fact claimed to be 'ineffective', 'irresponsible to use' etc. by a source that is accepted by WP standards. I think the way the views are presented in the current version is essentially correct, but tweaking is always possible. And I do agree with Richard that we should add the Gorringe variation note, I am waiting for Richard to respond and then maybe I'll suggest a wording for discussion. Crum375 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One more point to respond to your last point about the supposed obscurity of this article, if I type 'bdort' into Google, I get this article showing up as #5 on the list of major items. Crum375 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Arcsincostan, "terrifying" is not quite right, but you got the essnece right! Thanks for the 'vote of confidence' - it is appreciated. Please improve as you mentioned you could. Crum375, I just dont agree with all these reversions not for WP criteria. Crum375, re the See Also - you above state that you made unilateral changes because of what you thought. That's exactly the point I made. Later you expect others to do differently. You made a mistake, that's all, no big deal; I have done too here at a few places. Please improve on the article according to strict WP criteria, not just delete it thank you! I have improved a bit the O-Ring description etc - but when get a bit more time will do more. Thanks. I will also ask the admin Zolox to comment on the liability issue on his talk page - I'll copy back any comments he makes straightaway.--Richardmalter 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral changes
I strongly urge all editors to try to reach consensus for significant or POV-changing edits. This article has arrived at its current state after a lot of back-and-forth tweaking. No one side is fully happy about its current state, but I personally consider it neutrally balanced, close to WP guidelines, or nearly so. As I have repeatedly said, we all have exactly the same 'Edit' button. Unilateral changes will not work, as the various parties will just keep reverting and we will not reach stability. I personally have no wish to waste energy. The only logical way to handle a contentious issue is by prior discussion here before any changes. Thanks, Crum375 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Any other questions . . . ?
WP is an experiment. Quite a new experiment, at that. Its processes have evolved and are likely to evolve in future. Whether it is, in the longer term, to prove an experiment that ‘succeeds’ or ‘fails’ is as yet very much an open question.

There are clearly a number of limitations in this process. In this instance, for example, I see no evidence of more than three parties actively involved in ‘editing’ this entry to date. There is no ‘editor-in-chief’ to whom to appeal when there are differences. It is, denials to the contrary, effectively an anarchic (in the non-pejorative sense of the term) process. Such processes, as any other, have their strengths and their weaknesses.

I personally think the current ‘rule’ for avoiding use of the phrase ‘according to’ is an absurdity, an attempt to maintain conventional encyclopedic voice when Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia in any meaningful conventional sense. If a given participant feels this is an appropriate ‘rule,’ fine. If not, fine. I see little point in pretending to be something one is not, other than as a form of entertainment, and Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, though it aspires to be encyclopedic.

These are not academic points in the pejorative sense in that they bear on the fashion in which editors and potential editors consider the possibility of contributing to an entry.

Wikipedia’s culture, in my observation, bears a non-trivial resemblance to chatroom culture – unsurprisingly, given its structure. The notion of creating a valid organic quasi-encyclopedic structure of such a process is appealing, to a degree, but, as in the case of extraordinary scientific claims, I feel skepticism rather than quasi-religious embrace is the appropriate stance.

These may seem idle or casual observations. I do not believe them to be. Wikipedia, because of the character of search engines with which Mr. Wales is presumably more than casually familiar from his illustrious Bomis enterprises, combined with the simple fact that it is free, has rapidly assumed a quite extraordinary presence on the web. Whether this proves, or ought to prove a more than evanescent phenomena of the moment is as yet very much an open question.

Consider this a preamble and a justification of sorts, then, for the very simple, indeed elemental observation that Wikipedia ‘rules’ are not of holy writ carried down from a sacred mountain.

They are subject to discussion.

No ‘editor’ in this entry has, so far as I am aware, any claim to authority or precedence.

I place the term ‘editor’ in quotes for the simple reason that the term is rather casually, and, indeed, one might argue disingenuously employed on Wikipedia, and this is part of the appeal of the process. Anyone who troubles herself to make a change, an 'edit,' is thereby an ‘editor.’

So much for the formerly ink-stained wretches of the world who endured years of apprenticeship.

In this space, every participant is an editor, an instant expert.

The very process will in and of itself generate at the least an approximation of the desired end.

Quite the miracle.

As to the miracle of this particular entry, then:

1) ‘According to’ is perfectly appropriate phrasing with respect to semantic import.

2) I fail to find convincing the argument that an ‘editor’ ought ‘recuse’ himself for reasons of financial or professional interest. Ought a professor of mathematics recuse herself from an entry on mathematics? She derives a salary from her position. If her position is enhanced she stands to benefit. Ought Wikipedia to be constrained then solely to self-appointed amateur enthusiasts and scholars? ‘No professionals need apply?’ Rather a peculiar notion for something that suggests in any sense resemblance to an encyclopedia.

3) This entry has, at present, on the evidence, a grand total of three sets of eyes on it. It is by its essential character controversial. Extraordinary claims are advanced for this technique. It is, unsurprisingly, therefore greeted with extraordinary scepticism – by the apparently few who are aware of its existence. To apply to this reality, as is doubtless applicable to many other entries, notions that, in time, with enough people looking in, a really swell entry will evolve, is an act of very considerable faith, as yet in my judgement unsupported by observation. I’ve seen far too many entries on any number of subjects with very little active participation, and which reflect that fact. Will they in time improve? Perhaps. Will they in time worsen? Perhaps.

‘Bottom line’ as the accounts-minded Americans like to put it: The entry is contentious. It has few eyes on it. It will reflect that fact.

This is a predictable and an inevitable outcome of this process, and this structure.

Any other questions?

Arcsincostan 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That said . ..
Richardmalter, for whatever it's worth to you, I personally do not doubt your or Dr. Omura's motives. That, though, in a sense, is irrelevant. Surely you appreciate that the claims made are absolutely extraordinary. Now, granted, startling new claims, even if true, will likely be encountered by unreasoned resistance. Please, in all sincerity, however, consider, if only in your heart of hearts, that there really, truly appears to have been no meaningful attempt to establish objective validation for these claims. It would not by any means be impossible to construct, for example, epidemiological groupings. If you want, in my estimation, to have any chance of spreading what I have little doubt you sincerely believe is a wonderful series of methodologies, you or other advocates must rise to this challenge. I will not pretend I think such study would validate the techniques. I think it will fail. I would, again for whatever it's worth, in all sincerity be delighted to be proven wrong, however. Please, though, accept the possibility of considering seriously, if you believe in this process, attempting to validate in a form that will convince even sceptics, even unbelievers. That, I think you might agree, is, after all, the ultimate scientific standard. Until that standard is met, however, extraordinary skepticism with respect to these quite extraordinary claims, is the appropriate stance in my judgement. Arcsincostan 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of what you say almost completely and completely in most points. I would welcome the best scientific test available; the problem for me personally taking up the idea is that I am not eminent in the academic/scientific world to be taken seriously enough and would be easily dismissed.--Richardmalter 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect that acknowledgement. Tell you what. I'll make a deal with you: I will remain very very skeptical, because – and I think you'd agree on this part of my point – the claims made for these diagnoses and treatments are very very spectacular – but I will, in all sincerity, also be open to any objective evidence that shows that I'm wrong and you and Dr. Omura, etc, are right. I won't pretend to think that will happen. I think these things are well-intentioned and sincere, but on the wrong track. But I will attempt to remain open-minded if there is reason to think I'm wrong, and your side of the argument is right. All I ask is that you, for your part, attempt to at least occasionally, in the privacy of your own mind, look at this thing with a skeptical mind – skeptical in the scientific sense, not in the sense of being close-minded. Frankly, the thing that strikes me as most problematic about Omura's articles, etc, is this: He almost never really seems to seek independent checks of his readings, and so forth. He tends to diagnose a problem, if there is one, via BDORT, treat it via Selective Drug Uptake or Solar Paper, and confirm outcome solely via BDORT, with followup if and only if the patient is re-presented at a subsequent seminar. He will, for example, use BDORT to determine the acetylcholine level in a patient's brain, then prescribe treatment, then, a few weeks later, examine the same patient, again only with BDORT, and determine to his satisfaction that the acetylcholine level is improved. If you look at his report on 'Juvenile Alzheimer's' disease, you'll see the particular case I'm talking about. In this example, a young woman, college age, Asian, born in Asia if memory serves, was attending Stanford. She reported problems with sleeping and concentration, etc. Stanford ran every test they could, and found nothing. She came to New York and was evaluated at NYU. They found nothing. She then, in the company of an Asian physician, was brought to Omura's seminar, and diagnosed as reported in his Journal. He prescribed treatment. At her next visit she appears much improved, reports much improved (but not perfect) functionality, and via BDORT he notes improved acetylcholine levels. Now, look at this with a sympathetic but also skeptical eye. It seems to me, as a human being, that there is a very real possibility, if not the probability, that this was a psychological process. The young woman's symptoms at Stanford clearly suggest the possibility of stress, quite possibly academic performance related. We do know that conventional extensive evaluation by two first-rate facilities found no organic problem. Might they have missed something? Yes, it's possible. Still, with all respect and sympathy, it seems to me also very possible that the young woman was stressed, and that, attended to and diagnosed by a fellow Asian, in a group of people practicing a variation of traditional Asian treatment, in a group with a significant number of Asians, she may have been able to find release and respite from her emotional stress, and thus improved. This seems to me the simplest and most likely explanation. Is it the only possible explanation? No, it isn't. It's possible, though I think it unlikely, that Dr. Omura's diagnosis and prescribed treatment is what led to the improvement. Consider, though, the limitiations of the claims presented in Dr. Omura's Journal entry: At no point does Dr. Omura attempt to establish via any secondary means of lab diagnosis the accuracy of his diagnosis as to acetylcholine levels. Essentially, it seems to me, we have a very anecdotal report, with no apparent interest in any external confirmation, and there is no longer-term followup (last I knew) as to the outcome for the patient. Now, do such things happen in treatment? Yes. But is such an occurance something with enough self-checking to serve as a Journal entry that demonstrates the efficacy of the diagnosis and treatment? I cite this because it seems to me both typical and representative of the problem with respect to Omura's claims. I don't ask you to agree with me, but I would, with respect, ask you to, in the fullness of time, keep this sort of thing in the back of your mind, because I do think you're attempting to find alternative approaches that will relieve suffering. I don't think Omura is likely motivated by money, either. Ego, yes, but there's nothing wrong in being motivated by ego if you aspire to be the best, and to make breakthroughs. Some things about Omura's approaches seem to me at the least a little strange. I can't document this, but ask you to consider that I'm telling the truth: The man feels, in all sincerity, he can use the BDORT to evaluate the health benefits of Barbecue Potato chips, picking out which bags are healthy, and which are not. The same for underwear or socks. The same for canned food in the (metal) can, unopened. He argues strongly that McDonald's according to BDORT, is one of the healthiest places to eat. Now, there may be something going on here, but I think it's appropriate to maintain extreme skepticism against such things unless they can be demonstrated objectively. As I say, I'll attempt to maintain an open mind against the possibility that I'm wrong, and all I ask of you is that you attempt, in all sincerity, to do the same. Fair enough? Arcsincostan 05:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deal. I can only ask you to take my word for it, that, yes, I will, 100%. I agree with everything you write here just above, including in the case you cite (which I was not aware of) the placebo 'possibility'; and also that it does strike as strange that Omura has not sought fuller 'outside' confirmation for his findings. But maybe this is just his 'approach' - I dont know, I am guessing. Shinnick's article I guess comes closest in the meanwhile. That Brazillian website that has not been allowed on WP criteria does read to me genuine of some MDs that saw a presentation by Omura, and made some tests themselves straightaway and confirmed Omura's basic premise re 'electromagnetic resonance'. But you do not need to tell me that it too is anectodal and no where near approaching a full blown control test. You dont really need to persuade me of anything you write. Lastly, there is my experience. What can I say, I use both the simple skin stimuation technique to detect pathological hypoaesthesia/tonus points that cant be diagnosed by palpation pressure pain (my usual method) and then try to work out what these indicate (longer explanation), and microscope slides of human tissue of organs in a range of resonance techniques: with some slides the ring opens and in others it doesn't; and I have no bias to which will work, pancreas, liver etc etc; a 'Control Ring' is always used - one which I cant open with any reasonable force with a ring formed by my thumb and index fingers threaded through. I am very rigourous with this. For example in about 40% of people I cant even get started because I cant satisfy the basic Control O-Ring condition - so I dont used BDORT in these cases at all. I also most often set the standard of testing twice any finding under exactly the same conditions - I am also healthily skeptical - and want to be sure. Regarding any subjective change of pulling speed, acceleration or strength - this is not really harder for me to describe to you as an objective method. Because to repeat, I start with the Control O-Ring - one that I cant open regardless of speed, acceleration and/or strengh of my pull. To me it is satisfactory, and reliable when I can get a Control O-Ring. It would take longer to then describe what I do with the resultant information - becuase (forgive the gross simplification) it gets translated into an acupuncture protocol that aims to make objective changes on the body (please see above my rough description of palpation pressure evoked pian and its 'clearing'). Sometimes only the BDORT helps find the treatment point(s) - and when I use it I am skeptical that it will work; but if I go stage by stage, and am methodical, and never go on to the next step without being entirely satisfied that the previous one has been obtained very clearly and reproducibly, it does help me enormously in what I am doing.--Richardmalter 07:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Non consensual edits
I again urge all parties to refrain from non-consensual edits. Please present any ideas or suggestions you have for changes here, and we'll discuss and consider them fully. Thanks, Crum375 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Richardmalter has indicated as I understand it that he is no longer operating under the previous agreeement reached here in discussion but prefers to operate in the more customary fashion of editing the article as seems to him appropriate. This seems to me to be his privilege, and not unreasonable. Arcsincostan 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that anyone can do anything. My point, which I made earlier, is that unless we cooperate, collaborate and try to reach consensus right here on the Talk page, we'll just spin our wheels and get nowhere. Thanks, Crum375 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then that may simply be reflective of a limitation in this process. Arcsincostan 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any perfect process. Crum375 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP process, as I understand it, is that 'editors' are free to edit the entry. They are not required to seek prior approval, and there is no editorial structure, per se. The entry, then, will be reflective of that process. Arcsincostan 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored Richardmalter Edits
I've restored Richardmalter's edits, after some consideration. It isn't that I'm in agreement with them, but they seem to me clearly not unreasonable on his part, and I don't think it fair or reasonable that he be effectively excluded from being able to adequately participate in shaping the entry and restricted to pleading his case in discussion. The edits, I feel, should be addressed directly as to merit or lack of merit. Arcsincostan 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree all of everyone's suggestions should be considered. But that should be done here, in a contentious article, lest it become a childish daily see-saw. Crum375 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why not present your criticisms here, and wait for Richardmalter's response? He is, it seems to me, not unreasonably frustrated that the article arrived at a state of semi-fixedness without his opinions being fully reflected. These frustrations are reflective, in my judgement, of the process itself, as is your perfectly reasonable concern that the result may be a see-saw. That, however, is the character of this structure, as you yourself have pointed out with respect to the grand-contentiousness of many other entries. Arcsincostan 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that:
 * 1) I am still waiting for Richard to respond to many of my points, for example, I suggested to add the Cannell wording, he never replied to me
 * 2) I myself have not applied a POV-change edit in weeks, and even then it was adding a pro-BODRT link, despite the fact that I have many suggestions for changes
 * 3) I am waiting for all of us to meet here and agree that working here together is the best way to go
 * 4) Until then, I believe that the status quo, i.e. the current post-AfD stable version, should stay until we have consensus

Thanks, Crum375 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, in turn, note that:
 * 1) Richard, on the evidence, has elected not to respond to your points in your preferred form, in this space.
 * 2) You have indeed consistently maintained the position that any substantive changes ought first be discussed in this space.
 * 3) There is, on evidence, no longer consensus on this approach.
 * 4) An entirely reasonable perspective, but one, on evidence, not shared by Richard – also, in my judgement, entirely reasonably.

I will repeat: The structure of this space is what it is. Outcomes are reflective of that simple fact. Arcsincostan 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I would suggest that it is appropriate that you restore the version of the entry prior to your reversion to your preferred form. Arcsincostan 20:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
So far as the evidence of previous discussion indicates, in my understanding, there had been for a period an agreement, suggested by Crum375, that any substantive edits would be subject to consensus having been reached first on this page. Over time, however, that suggestion's support eroded, until, so far as I can see, of the grand total of three active participants in this discussion, only Crum375 sought to continue on that path, the other two participants having found it ineffective. At that point Richardmalter made a series of edits, which seemed to me, though I did not agree with them, not unreasonable in that others might hope to work with them. At that point, however, Crum375 seemed to insist on his course as the only reasonable course, though it is not, of course, any WP policy, and insisted on reverting any edits not agreed to via his methodology in discussion. It would now seem that, in order to gather support for this preference, he has enlisted SlimVirgin's assistance, though she has not been actively involved in this entry, and has not stated any reason for her revert. I find this problematic. It represents an insistence on having one's preferred way though that preference is not any WP policy. I fail to see why the entry ought not be allowed to evolve via the customary WP pattern of edits, with discussion accompanying. In the name of averting a revert war, Crum375 would seem, in my judgement, to have evoked one, complete with insistence on a course of conduct which, while not unreasonable, is no policy of WP of which I am aware, and with the enlistment of an admin with whom he has collaborated on other entries, but who has not been on the evidence actively involved in this entry or its discussion in any meaningful way for some time.

Precisely what WP policies does this reflect?

Arcsincostan 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies exist more as an attempt to describe the practices of editors rather than as a set of axioms. Edits do not need to necessarily reflect certain policies. In the case of articles about pseudoscience like this, the policies become extremely difficult to deal with, and, in my opinion, IAR and common sense, along with and understanding of the tenets of the policies themselves, must be used to prevent the process from falling apart. I've seen many articles like this get stuck in labyrinthine wikilawyering that only became resolved through the application of common sense (Aetherometry, Research into health benefits of Falun Gong, and so on). The general idea with controversial edits like RichardMalters is that they should be discussed on the talk page first, instead of being added and then discussed. This isn't really reflected in any policy, but is just part of the culture. --Philosophus T 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, I take the point; but have you heard of the saying ". . .. we believe in rough consensus and running code" [Dave Clark, MIT]? ie consensus is good but the task in hand shouldn't if at all possible be held up by it, instead the task should be continuous - shaped by ongoing consensus-based discussion. (Also bear in mind that Crum375 is arguing that a particular point in time and version should be the "stable" one, when it is clearly not in fact, and when it was arrived at amongst other things by some unilateral changes made by him that he of course confirms - which contradicts what he is suggesting now). I can't help interpreting that an 'edit war' is being created now based on insistance to a certain process. When the process creates the problem, the problem is the process. --Richardmalter 09:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's be crystal clear about something, here. My perspective with respect to the scientific validity of Omura, BDORT, etc, is effectively the antithesis of Richardmalter's. Let's also be crystal clear about something else: There is throughout WP the persistent amorphous invocation of 'rules' and sacred WP writ at one moment, then the invocation of IOR the next – a palpable absurdity. All this in a noble 'project' created by a porn merchant, off of which he is now in the 'process' of spinning derivative income, which project's pervasive 'culture' is that of a high school elected body, hostile to any claim of authority. Hello, earth? Anyone home? Arcsincostan 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Set of Empty Sets sans Flats (or Sharps) Quite Tone Deaf, Actually
Antidote: о Arcsincostan 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since SV appears not to be involving herself for some time, and since consensus is what everyone seems to agree is the important criteria for a stable article, I am reverting to the most consensus version we have had (see above discussion), (which was only opposed on his processual arguments by Crum375). Please improve.--Richardmalter 08:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not Crum375. --Philosophus T 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. What is your WP reason for reverting the most consensus version so far? (That quotes word for word from the Tribunial etc). Please dont just revert, why not improve on it etc. What in it do you disagree with. Please note that I gave reason for putting up the (most consensus) version.--Richardmalter 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are a few reasons:
 * You remove entirely the scientific viewpoint and notes that things have not been given a scientific explanation, even in cases where a scientific reason seems implausible.

-- Crum375 wanted these in repeatedly for liability reasons; I et al answered that 'according to' does the same thing. Its also less words that way; and does not smack of POV commentary which is WP:OR.


 * You remove the See Also section.

-- Crum375 added this unilaterally; I did not agree to it and still do not - it obviously is just another way of labelling as 'pseudoscience' which is POV. I know you are fixed on saying this, but it is opinion so not admissable. SV told you this previously - unless you have a very good reference for it.


 * You change the NZ tribunal content in a way which tries to mitigate and misrepresent what they said.

-- Your interpretation (ie POV). I have quoted from it word for word. If you are arguing that some words should be quoted and some not - that is POV and unacceptable.


 * You remove the only scientific source from the introduction.

-- The other Admin considered that the article is Notable anyway. It does not need to be up front (where it also illogical to go there); it also saves repetition since we need some kind of 'Opinions' section anyway. Also the sentence is factually incorrect since the Tribunial differentiated between PMRT/BDORT - no arguument, see word for word.


 * Your changes to the process description, while possibly correct in their basic form, also serve to make the description highly POV, with things like "three conditions of reproducibility".

-- Your POV. The whole thing is 'according to' - or add that if I missed it please. It is not possibly correct - it is correct - and since accuracy is good it should stay.


 * I don't have time to argue at length over every little thing like this, since I deal with quite a few articles on pseudoscience.

--You have repeated many times your POV that this whole thing is pseudoscience. That doesn't matter though for this article or any other. We have to stick to WP ideas.

But in short, your version essentially removes the NPOV from the article, and makes it highly biased toward Omura. Consensus cannot override NPOV. My reverting the version is improving on the article.

-- Reverting is not the same as improving.

I will look into Shinnick and the basic description later.

--Please do; please review the discussion with Crum375 - it is WP reliable and neutral, and should stay.

Also, note that SV has left because she has quite a few other things to do. Consensus does not just consist of editors active on the talk page. I am certain that she will come back if necessary. --Philosophus T 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--My comments inbetween yours above. Thanks.--Richardmalter 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria
Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: No Original Research, Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia: Biography, Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons


 * An assertion of fact in and of itself is only an assertion of fact. An assertion which explicitly or implicitly claims scientific status for an individual or individuals, their procedure or procedures, and which fails to adduce as per the criteria listed above evidence as to the factual status of those assertions fails in the presentation of its claims. Arcsincostan 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Arcsincostan, hello; I get what you are saying, but you have me confused re what has been said just above. Can you spell it out a bit more for me please? Thank you. --Richardmalter 08:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fjagod02's
It might be helpful, Fjagod02, if, rather than dismissively presuming ignorance on the part of those who do not share your perspective you read the Discussion section. You would then find that the NZ Tribunal document has been read in full, and discussed in full. Arcsincostan 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we back to square 1 again with an edit war? This is very regrettable. --Richardmalter 05:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All information presented is fully and properly sourced and documented by mainstream, verifiable sources as per appropriate criteria, properly presented and structured. Most people would call that editing, not an edit war. Arcsincostan 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A TRULY Reliable Source, or: Keep it All in Perspective
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

That said . ..
The criteria here are straightforward, as noted above: Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: No Original Research, Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia: Biography, Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons

There is no justification for attempting to shape the entry to one's personal preference by simply deleting distasteful properly sourced properly presented information, nor for adding infinitely long stretches of OR with no verifiable citations whatsoever. Presumably this entry aspires to credibility as encyclopedic, not as a personal essay of proponents unable to verifiably source their claims.

Any other questions? Arcsincostan 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. 


 * The above is official WP policy. Note the following points: NPOV as policy requires that no statement be made in the entry in the form of an assertion that the pseudoscientific belief(s) is (are) false. It does not require obfuscation of the description of the main views. Bear in mind further, that as per WP policy with respect to verifiable reliable sources, the only sources we have re Omura's practices indicate that it is pseudoscience and quackry. The NZ Trib and the Quackwatch cite are verifiable, reliable, as per WP criteria. Omura's journals, etc, are acceptable only to the extent of verifying the claims made – not as proponents are attempting to shape the entry, the validity of those claims.
 * It seems to me clear, then, that with the combination of the Quackwatch cite, which, even if only in passing clearly and unequivocally identifies BDORT and Omura's practice as quackery, with Quackwatch clearly a verifiable reliable source, in combination with the NZ Tribunal, for which I have made clearer than ever in the entry itself BDORT is clearly and unequivocally judged on expert evidence to be 1) a form of applied kinesiology (which is established in WP, according to proper sourcing, as pseudoscience) 2) without any claim to scientific validity, it is appropriate to identify the character of this entry explicitly as one treating a form of pseudoscience and quackery. To evade this fact, for which verifiable reliable cites have been provided, because it makes proponents unhappy is not a valid approach. The object is an appropriat entry to appropriate criteria, not the comfort level of proponents of a practice who have provided no verifiable reliable sourcing for their claims but instead have resorted to revert wars and attacks. Arcsincostan 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I recognize that such simple, clear characterization makes some people uncomfortable. It is not, however, an attack or an ad hominem. It is, in plain and simple fact, the only neutral characterization possible upon the basis of verifiable reputable sources which are, as per WP criteria, the sole relevant basis. To argue otherwise is, in my judgement, however sincerely or well intended, an error in process as well as in fact. If verifiable reliable reputable sources of alternate character are presented, it is entirely appropriate that they be reflected in the entry. There are, however, to date, none whatsoever. None. Count on your fingers . . . none. Arcsincostan 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry have to be brief because of time. Points as follows: Quackery ref not third party (peer reviewed) so not WP:reliable - can be link given later but to present this early on and not other positive comments is clear POV. Not only medical evaluation - see Shinnick et al. Expert in NZ Tribunial was not expert in right field: electromagnetism (WP cant borrow experts from other fields to back up POV); Tribunial was for Gorringe not BDORT. Not quoting Tribunial differentiation of BDORT at least in early stages word for word is clear censorship and POV. Also Notability of article has been decided on not resting on Tribunial events, so no logic (other that POV for putting this up early). Description not factually accurate. Repeated 'not evaluated' lines POV?OR and not necessary re liability. . Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand Consideration has much WP:OR. etc. No WP reason not to include Shinnick info (etc POV) - has been decided on here as Neutral, Reliable citation and peer-reviewed. See Also section clear catagorization (why not list Electromagnetism etc). --Richardmalter 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Arcsincostan, can you please explain to me in simple terms what has sparked off this new 'conflict' mode, please - I dont really understand. Thank you and best regards.--Richardmalter 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This ground has all been covered ad nauseum in previous discussion. Please cf. Arcsincostan 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The bits I just deleted are so far from WP criteria, and has been covered previously.--Richardmalter 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Its just running away with nonWP content, mostly WP:OR, so reverting.--Richardmalter 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, all were and are fully and properly cited, as per criteria of sources being verifiable and reputable, and are presented in neutral fashion. The fact that these verifiable, reputable sources are highly critical does not render them unverifiable, disreputable, or irrelevant, nor the presentation of the fact of their existence and their critical perspective anything other than appropriate NPOV. They have, accordingly, been restored. Arcsincostan 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is going to go on for a long time at this rate and no one will 'win' - it will carry the Neutrality Disputes sign for years .. . The Description is inaccurate, when I replace it with an accurate one it is deleted. Pseudoscience citing to WP page is just opinion - why not link it to a page about Inventions for example? Why not just present information and let readers decide??? The WP:OR is extensive throughout. If you will not admitt the earlier exact words of the Tribunial re Omura's material not relevant since Gorringe was doing something else - then non of the Tribunial's words are admittable - as otherwise it is effectively POV censorship, giving one quote but hiding another. There is every reason to include the Shinnick material - it has been agreed here (by Crum375 et al) that it is Neutral and Reliable (and is peer-reviewed by MDs) - it is a good source of information about BDORT; but this is also deleted automatically. Shinnick et al (MDs) is also an instance of a credible assessment - the contrary idea repeated throughout in various phrasing being an opinion. The wording throughout is not neutral - it is WP:OR, or in informal terms - very biased: the same thing could be said much less biasedly. The See Also section - have noted before. etc. I have no reasonable choice but to delete as necessary. I regret this 'conflict' mode. --Richardmalter 07:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Process
I again propose that a much more efficient use of our time would be to reach consensus here, vs. the see-saw on the Article. The version I reverted to is the post-AFD one, which was voted a 'Keep' by the most pairs of eyes. I do agree that it merits changes, but I think the way to get there is by prior consensus here, not by everyone pushing their Edit buttons spontaneously. Crum375 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a correction to the Edit Summary note on my reversion, the version I reverted to was the one from 13:32, July 27, 2006, not the last one (Popup tool error on my part). Crum375 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You make the same error as you did last time. You want to start from a version that has been already edited far from any consensus. This is unacceptable. It also shows your personal bias about this topic inteferring with a neutral article (your actions speak better than your words). The most stable one we ever had was the one I an Aris. agreed to and you did not based on the fact that we didn't do what you wanted and so you actually disrupted a stable article in the making. That is the history here. We both complained to SV (a WP Admin re this). Your comments here ignore all of this. You also misrepresented to SV the situation, to say the least. If you can refute that statment, I challenge you to do so - but we have your very words on SV's Talk page. Please dont assume any authority in this process.--Richardmalter 21:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Richard, I don't really want to get into a long argument about this, but try to reflect for a moment: If I really were an anti-Omura/BDORT POV-pusher as you imply, wouldn't I revert back to Arcsincostan's current version rather than the original post-AFD one? Crum375 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The notion of POV pushing, as seen from the perspective of advocates, seems to me a pseudo-issue. I do not question the sincerity or the intent of those attempting to shape the entry to a form which would read as favorable to Omura. The key problem however is the simple fact that there are no verifiable, reliable cites as yet identified to justiry such a presentation. Indeed, the more one digs, the more one tends to come across appropriate cites which, from the perspective of Omura-enthusiasts are problematic. Consider, eg, the fact that we've had a number of attempts to re-shape the entry in which the claim is advanced that the patent demonstrates scientific/medical status – this in the form of argument with no cites whatsoever. Yet, if one then digs around, one finds the quote from one of Omura's principal colleagues, a regular presenter at his seminars/workshops according to the cite provided, in which he indicates in no uncertain terms precisely the opposite. The quarrel the proponents have, to date at least, is with the reality of the available information beyond their own self-reinforcing little world. If they have appropriate cites to back their preferred form, fine. To date, however, we seem to be waiting on that. Arcsincostan 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly, proponents have argued that the NZ commission indicates that Gorringe did not use BDORT and therefore that it rendered no judgement on BDORT. Well, they're right that it drew that distinction, but they're wrong that it didn't evaluate BDORT and render judgement, so quotes and cites making that quite clear and thus providing useful background to any of the reader were presented – to which the reaction of the advocates is to repeat their assertion, without evidence to back it, that the Tribunal effectively cleared BDORT, and to summarily attempt to remove the now more-extensive quotes and cites which cast BDORT in a negative light. If they have appropriate cites for their perspective, fine. To date, to repeat, they haven't presented them, nor has anyone else been able to locate them. Arcsincostan 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I was attempting to dig something up to see if it were possible to find an appropriate positive cite at the Japanese hospital the advocates had pushed. What I stumbled across, instead, in that process, was the Lu quote as to the lack of medical/scientific meaning of the patent. The reality here, as best I've been able to determine to date, is that very very few people have heard of Omura, BDORT, etc. That the only positive assessements seem to be from a small self-reinforcing circle of enthusiasts and their self-publication and promotion. That external, objective assessment is scarce, but that what their is is negative, often in the extreme. That reality, to the extent one can establish reality by WP criteria, is reflected in the entry, and, understandably, proponents are not keen on it. It is, however, by WP criteria, the appropriate reality reflected, I believe in the entry. I'm sincerely open, improbable though this may seem to the proponents. Evidence, however, is required, according to scientific criteria, is they wish to claim they are a part of science as opposed to something else, and that evidence must be verifiable and reputable. To date they haven't even presented credible verifiable evidence of attempting to subject themselves to meaningful evaluation by conventional scientific method, only 'triple-blinded' experiments published by proponents in their own journal, where by 'triple-blind' they mean the three people avoided eye contact. Yet they wish to claim that there exists obvious proof that Omura and BDORT are objectively 'scientific.' Fine. Where the devil is it, then? If you have it, present it. I, for one, have a skeptical attitude to any new and surprising scientific claim – any whatsoever. That is entirely appropriate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I fail to see how that brands me a POV pusher other than as a skeptic. One is *supposed* to be a skeptic in such matters. Arcsincostan 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting up the most recent version, which provides the patent information and background. We've had a number of challenge from Omura's advocates in which they've claimed the patent establishes their scientific claims. For this reason it seems to me vital to provide a reasonably comprehensive brief objective description, properly cited, of the realites in this respect. The patent information presented is a quote from Omura himself, duly cited, from one of his principal colleagues, duly cited, and from a critical perspective as well, making it possible for a reader to have a sensible, hopefully neutral overview, complete with the links necessary to check the info for her/himself Arcsincostan 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, you, in full knowledge of the actual situation, described a fictitious situation to an admin, SlimVirgin. You have many other descrepencies that I have listed previously above.--Richardmalter 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Richard, I described to her that there is a 'stable' version that survived the AFD and 2 wildly varying ones. The post-AFD stable one was essentially unchanged for several weeks, not necessarily due to total consensual agreement but because we de-facto agreed to try to hash out our differences on the Talk page prior to article changes. The wildly varying versions were yours vs. Arcsincostan's. You know your version, so I don't need to describe it. Arcsincostan's version, like his name, is constantly evolving, but has changed from a mere stub to a complete and utter debunking of Omura/BDORT. If you have a better way to neutrally describe the situation, be my guest. If you feel my description was 'fictitious' you are of course entitled to that opinion, but I can tell you I tried my best to describe the situation neutrally as I saw (and still see) it, and I hope you accept that. Crum375 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I, in turn, have, indeed, meant what I've said. If evidence as to fact, per criteria, is appropriately advanced, I'll be delighted to accept it. Personally, if I'm allowed to shape the cosmos to my preference, I will be more than happy to include swift, painless, efficacious diagnosis and prescription of effective treatment via BDORT. On the evidence offered to date, however, this particular cosmos seems not to have been constructed along that line. If other, appropriate, evidence is presented I will be delighted to acknowledge that fact. I await such evidence. Arcsincostan 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That said . ..
Consider the evolution of this entry. Crum's description is quite accurate. It began as a stub. An adherent found that stub objectionable in that its characterization of Omura and BDORT was negative. The proponent then ignored the fact that those negative characterizations were appropriate according to Wikipedia criteria, and were properly sourced, and altered the entry to reflect his judgement of reality, without any appropriate cites to justify that position. The entry evolved from that point. Every time a proponent objected, stating 'truth' and removing 'untruth,' all the while failing to provide appropriate cites, the net result was that the proponent was unable to maintain his/her position because the evidence for her/his position was simply not presented, according to Wikipedia criteria, and the entry grew further, with the accumulation of further cites, further evidence, all appropriate according to Wikipedia criteria, all of it negative toward Omura's pseudoscientific armamentarium. This was not and is not the reflection of prejudice against Omura or the armamentarium. Indeed, why, if the claims are, on the evidence, true, resist them? Would there be some reason to resist the ability to diagnose accurately by means of expert application of BDORT, or efficacious treatment by means of acupuncture, herbal medicines, and the like? If the evidence were there, I think most would be more than delighted to accept it, even if it required a revision of their previous world view. The evidence, upon the evidence, however, at least to date, is simply not there. It is understandable that a proponent, an advocate, a believer, would find this cruel simple truth intolerable and unacceptable. Step back, however, and look in your heart of hearts, and, better still, apply cold rigorous analysis, and I believe you will see that it is, in fact, the truth, at least on the evidence, at least to date. If proponents present verifiable, repeatable evidence of efficacy of claims made, if that evidence is sourced credibly, I'll be delighted to accept it, and to help shape the entry to reflect it. The burden, however, as these claims are to 'medicine' and to 'science' is on she or he who would present the claims. They are extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence. The evidence to date, and it is, to date, more than sufficient, is that Omura's practices and armamentarium are pseudoscience. The entry reflects that fact. It ought to reflect that fact. It must reflect that fact. That is all the appropriate evidence we have, to date. The efforts to shape the entry to reflect the quasi-religious beliefs of proponents, which quasi-religious beliefs take the form of the invocation of 'medicine' and 'science' and the appropriation and misappropriation of 'medical' and 'scientific' terminology, have resulted in the evolution and development of an entry which are damning to those claims. That is the inevitable result not of unreasoning prejudice but of the character of the extant evidence and, presumably, therefore, of the fundamentals. To quarrel with the fundamental character of a situation is, as a rule, ill-advised. The efforts of the proponents have resulted not in what they desire, but, inevitably, in the antithesis of that desire. I would suggest they draw, if they are able, the appropriate conclusions. It is, of course, their privilege to draw whatever conclusions they will – and to experience the consequences of that privilege, that choice. Arcsincostan 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)