Talk:BDORT/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about BDORT. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Crum has tried to argue that this version is in some way stable. His own edit block refutes that fiction as do all edit wars in the past. He likes this version because of his undeclared yet self-revealed bias. He has also tried to present this version as endorsed by WP. It has been explained to him many times that he is incorrect on this point. He has forgotten that he agreed to some usages of certain citations (so did Arc and all his other handles) as I documented just above. He has tried to impose a 'dont edit' rule on this version (re his bais) during mediation - even though the mediator has told him this is not agreed.

If we want not to have an edit war, in the interim, since this version is so full of OR, POV, violations of consensus decisions, and especially since we have all agreed to start over completely, I think it is the only workable way and the fairest, to reduce the entry to a mere placeholder while we discuss what we do agree on, ie a snippet in the meantime as part of 'Starting Over'. I will anticipate non-agreement with this proposal obviously re POV and biases involved. But in the spirit and logic of starting over, not to mention all of our time and energy, I strongly suggest you all agree to this. Responses please ASAP?

OK, I have done this. Just plain information. Can we agree to this in the meantime? I also see this as a test of genuine good faith.Richardmalter 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Richard, I would ask that you address the following question, posed above:

If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that when others disagree with you in discussion you are unwilling to accept that, and will rely upon your own interpretation and understanding to the exclusion of others, and act upon it by editing the entry accordingly. Is that understanding on my part correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, no, as ususal you choose to interpret me into some kind of hyperbole. You have also never apologized in a simple straightforward manner for misrepresentations. Re the example I noted, the other editor also picked it out straightaway as OR. "A happened, then B happened, and therefore such and such is" OR. If you cannot see this, then I suggest you ask you reread carefully WP policies and ask others until your understanding is clear.

Secondly, although I am by no means certain as to whether this particular form of shortened entry is acceptable – there had been agreement that a minimal entry might be the best way to proceed, but there had been no discussion or sandboxing as to the form of such a hypothetical minimal entry – let alone consensus – I have amended your unilateratally vastly shortened entry to include the New Zealand Tribunal. You will note that in two separate AfD discussions doubts as to the validity of Omura's techniques in general and the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal in particular were found to be the sole bases of notability for Omura and/or BDORT sufficient to justify the existence of an entry for Omura on Wikipedia. It is, therefore, utterly unacceptable to alter the entry to any shortened form which simply excludes the sole agreed-upon basis for the entry's existence.

I would suggest, then, that we simply await the availability of others, and their thoughts, as you had previously agreed on numerous occasions, rather than unilaterally radically altering the entry to any one person's particular preferred form, however well and sincerely intended.TheStainlessSteelRat 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Arc, your bias is that you originally wanted to tell the world that the BDORT is pseudoscience. In some way you want very much to be able to say this in some way. That is the long and short of all of it. Your AfD discussion is selective and what you write is not the whole story at all. "in the only credible bla bla" is just you wanting to scream out about pseudoscience, and is not on. Can you not in good faith actually agree to START OVER!!Richardmalter 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you remember when I quized Xolov about his summing up, he replied that what he had written was a "worst case scenario" for notability, NOT that he was given such a decision himself. Crum also noted that So I would say that if someone publicizes a symposium on a mainstream academic institution's official Web site, that would make BDORT, a featured sub-topic of the symposium (note the illustration), and most likely Omura, notable. You are selctively interpreting and quoting from the AfD discussions. Again I ask you, can you agree to not have your desire and genuine belief to label the BDORT pseudoscience spoken to the world? Can we just have an information snippet to save edit warring and everyone's time and energy??! Please?Richardmalter 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it, then, that, in response to my (above):

'If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that when others disagree with you in discussion you are unwilling to accept that, and will rely upon your own interpretation and understanding to the exclusion of others, and act upon it by editing the entry accordingly. Is that understanding on my part correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your answer is 'Yes.' Correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will have to take it, then, regretfully, that your answer is indeed, 'Yes.' I've just reverted (#1 of this cycle) in response to your revert. I'm attempting, here, Richard, to accomodate your preference for the drastically shortened entry, at least pending the return of other editors. I cannot accept, however, as rational interpretation of the AfD discussion anything other than my statement above: That Omura/BDORT were found notable, in both discussions, only on the basis of their being dubious/pseudoscience/quackery, and, more pertinent here, that the NZ Tribunal which you seem to insist on 'disappearing' is by far the most reliable, reputable source on this matter. I am aware of your stated differences with that characterization of the NZ Tribunal. You have advanced, however, absolutely no reliable, verifiable evidence per Wikipedia criteria to contest the Tribunal, only your insistence that your interpretation is correct. That, regretfully, simply will not suffice. TheStainlessSteelRat 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I would also ask that you desist from personal attacks on the motives of others. It is a common observation that ad hominem attacks strongly suggest a lack of convincing argument or evidence for one's position, and such attacks, I'm afraid, likely weaken your case in the eyes of most neutral parties. Please, if you have the arguments, and the evidence, simply present them and let them speak for themselves. TheStainlessSteelRat 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, you are avoiding the questions put to you as usual. I will revert after you are asleep tonight.Richardmalter 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I deeply regret, then, Richard, your acknowledgement that you insist on having your own way rather than work with the community. TheStainlessSteelRat 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, re personal attacks, when you get your own house in order re this I will take you seriously, not before. Re your own way - yes applies to you exactly; in addition to not answering questions when you dont like their answers.

Just for the record, as Crum has said in the past, "everything needs to be citated".

In the only known credible independent evaluation and judgement of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s variant and derivative treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body,

does not have any citation. It is OR through and through and is not acceptable. If you cannot find citations for these words, they are out. In the only known credible is pure WP:OR/POV.

the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand heard extensive expert testimony as to claims of scientific validity and efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test

is not correct, you know that they said earlier on that Gorringe's methods did not resemble Omura's, in those words. You are mis and selectively quoting re your POV. If you cannot find an exact quotation for heard extensive expert testimony as to claims of scientific validity and efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test then it is not allowable. To anticipate you and Crum, Crum has the answer to you both: "everything has to be citated".

etc.

If you want to cooperate in WP terms, and can let go of your desire to call things pseudoscience - which you have been told here repeatedly by me and others including Admins that unless you have a very good direct citation for you cannot,let me know. Richardmalter 11:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, AKA, TSSR AKA whiffle, you have also broken your agreement documented as did Crum regarding:

which has been characterized as pseudoscience, ^[1]

You were part of a voluntary mediated consensus decision and you agreed as part of that consensus that this was not acceptable and should not be used. YOU ARE ASKED TO BE RESPECTFUL TO EVERYONE AND KEEP TO AGREEMENTS MADE. YOU SHOW HUGE DISRESPECT NOT TO DO THIS. Richardmalter 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going along with that. If you are immovable at this stage even in the Starting Over for having the Tribunial info, then I will insist on the line from the report I just added. Regarding all the other OR/POV language, I will not agree to it of course. I have explained to Crum innumerable times re the 'scientific' etc - also that they were not experts in the right field - please see archives - which make the whole thing (to the regret of the anti-BDORT lobby) not much use (to WP) at all. Richardmalter 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo: I would note that I find your edit work on the entry to be, in my judgement, quite helpful, and quite promising.

Therefore, I regret the following, though I'd ask that, if you're willing, you continue to contribute to the process, as I, for one, would very much appreciate it, as, I'm sure, would others.

Richard: I regret that I find your shortened form of the entry unacceptable per my understanding of Wikipedia criteria, and would, respectfully, ask, therefore, that, as a demonstration of faith in the community and its processes as per extant consensus, you revert to the version of the entry as it existed prior to its most recent unlocking, prior to your radical surgery, so that we may return to the process of discussion and consensus building, as most recently so generously and patiently moderated by Che and further contributed to and overseen to varying degrees by other members of the Wikipedia community. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, please explain exactly and in detail why - then we can discuss - which I definetely will. You have not given me any indication of what you think is WP:not OK; whereas you please note that I have discussed why have improved (not deleted) your edits. Please bear in mind re your comments as Crum has said, "EVERYTHING has to be citated" [my upper case] Thank you.Richardmalter 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer to maintain the entry in a radically altered form of your making – with minor but helpful contribution on Antonrojo's part as to neutral point of view with respect to presentation – which was previously controverted as to its particulars on numerous occasions and which found no support in consensus rather than simply restore the entry to that form which it took prior to your personal and radical reshaping I am content to note that fact for the present and await other opinions. TheStainlessSteelRat 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, hello, I have I think improved on your edits, as follows. Thanks for the info re better quoting of statements, reads much better. I put in the citation link - it is from the same source, just a different paragraph. Re: There are no known credible independent evaluations of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body - well this has been hotly disputed for months, the way I see it is not actually contributing information to the article. It is contributing a POV and a bias (albeit in a subtle way prehaps). credible etc are all hotly disputed. For example no one in the Tribunial had the expertise at post doctorate level to be able to comment on the basis of the BDORT - which Omura et al explicitly document in many abstracts as an 'electromagnetic resonance phenomena'. ie they are not expert in the required field - electromagnetism - at all, etc. heard extensive testimony as to claims of scientific validity and efficacy of BDORT is not correct since they earlier on noticed the obvious fact that Gorringe was doing his own techniques, so they generically called them PMRT. I then took out [which they generically meant to include the BDORT] since in the rewrite that is now covered. Richardmalter 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, everyone on that panel was qualified to judge whether a technique had undergone proper scientific verification. It does not matter whether the technique is supposed to be based on the properties of electromagnetic resonance phenomena, quantum mechanics, cosmic rays, fish oil chemistry, psychology or whatever since knowing how it works is irrelevant to judging whether it works. Either its effectiveness has been assessed properly or it has not. In the judgement of the tribunal, the effectiveness of PMRT type techniques (including BDORT) have not been properly demonstrated in repeatable, well-designed, well-executed, peer-reviewed scientific research. --Spondoolicks 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, Spondoolicks: just as an electrician doesn't have to know electron field theory to assess a circuit board, a doctor does not have to be familiar with the methodology of a particular treatment to assess its results. - Che Nuevara 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is they did not actually assess the technique; they also did not comment on Omura et al's research and papers of the BDORT (not surprisningly because they recognized early on theat Gorringe was doing something different) - not even to dismiss them - ie they did not really comment on the BDORT at all. Further, they did not make any clinical evaluation; nothing they did can be described as 'scientific' - they did not even observe the BDORT in order to try to explain it (or refute it). They did not 'assess' the 'circuit board' because they did not even see a demonstration of the BDORT; so what you both write doesn't fit with what actually happened - need to be very clear about this. Giving an opinion is all they did. Actually, I agree with Spondoolicks who summed it up quite accurately: In the judgement of the tribunal, the effectiveness of PMRT type techniques (including BDORT) have not been properly demonstrated in repeatable, well-designed, well-executed, peer-reviewed scientific research is all you can actually say that the Tribunial commented. Shall we say this then in reference to this citation, this wording seems good. Next thing is I showed this entry snippet to a couple of people, and their unprompted reaction was that obviously including the Tribunial info and nothing more ot further about the BDORT obviously smacks of someone (or two or three) trying very hard to give their opinion about the BDORT with this entry. But if we have rough agreement on this citation, then can we go on to examining the next citation that needs our evaluation as editors (see Mediation page for this), thanks.Richardmalter 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tribunal, this wording is, in my opinion, rather conservative, but since there seems to be some disagreement about just how identical the Tribunal considered Gorringe's method and Omura's methods, it may be the best possible compromise. It should be handled appropriately, however, in a way that indicates that yes, the Tribunal is qualified to talk about these sorts of things.

Re: bias, it's important to remember the undue weight segment of WP:NPOV. Citations intended to "balance" an article actually do more to unbalance it if they are present as carrying weight which they do not carry. Additionally, if the majority of qualified opinion come down against something, that should be reflected in the article. I was involved in a discussion about this over at Democratic Underground a while ago: if a useful source which carries real weight is found, then it should be used, but a not useful source should not be used just to "balance" the opposing opinion. - Che Nuevara 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, and others here, hello. I am putting the {{POV}} back on the entry as I see it (with the NZ Tribunial citation included) as still not neutral if no other (what I believe will turn out to be through discussion if they have not already) perfectly WP:OK citations completely relevant to this entry are not included. Che, I would welcome very much your continued mediation which I appreciate very much - what do you think, are you still willing to continue? To make myself clear, this snippet including the Tribunial citation is as I understand it a placeholder which has stopped the edit war temporarily which is great - but I dont think is the last word on what will happen here in the (near) future by any stretch. Thanks Richardmalter 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The NZ Tribunal citations currently aren't in the article. There's no material in the article that could possibly be disputed; it's in stub-land now. So let's work on disputing the material before it goes in; that way the tag is unnecessary. - Che Nuevara 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I'm sorry, I had understood from the reversions you had made to include the NZ Tribunial para that that was still in, in which case what I wrote made sense. If that has now gone by agreement in the meantime, then of course there is no POV dispute. Hope you can see why I moved as I did and the situation was confusing? And yes, lets work on the material prior, agree of course.Richardmalter 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted them back in after they were deleted without comment by an IP. They've been taken out again, so it would seem that some discussion on the topic is necessary. - Che Nuevara 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon IP removed the well-sourced NZT reference, and Richard removed a lot more well-sourced material. I suggest we continue to follow the mediation process prior to making changes in the article. Crum375 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we agree that we were starting over? Why was the article reverted to its previous full version? - Che Nuevara 05:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I have no recollection, nor can I find anywhere, an agreement to 'start over', let alone to delete massive amounts of well sourced and pertinent material. We did agree for someone neutral to build a new version in his sandbox, we are still waiting for that. We never agreed to just gut the article; leaving Omura without BDORT would violate the last AfD consensus, leaving BDORT without NZT would violate NPOV, etc. If I am wrong and we did agree to it somehow, please point me to that consensus. Thanks, Crum375 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] - Che Nuevara 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, would you mind giving me a diff? The section header you are linking to is a discussion thread we had about 'starting over'. The final concept there was for a new (to this article) editor to try to come up with a brand new version in his Sandbox that could possibly replace this one. I don't see (nor recall) any agreement we ever had to reduce the article to a POV stub, that does not conform to the consensus we had after the last AfD and that includes BDORT without the most relevant and reliable reference we have for it, the NZ Tribunal report. The stub without the NZT reference is simply misleading and represents no agreement or consensus whatsoever. Crum375 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that the previous versions did not conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so I strongly support this starting over. I mean, at the end of each paragraph we had a sentence stating that none of Yoshiaki's works were proven by any official medical authority - while that may or may not be true, it is completely unnecessary to repeat these words so many times. Starting afresh is the best thing for any article with serious concerns. From here things can be built up again and individual facts can be properly referenced. Cowman109^Talk 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The so-called disclaimer statements were included near each new description of a new extraordinary claim, which has no scientifically or WP acceptable source. The inclusion of the disclaimer statements can be argued, and we have had some extensive discussions about them, but it does not mean that the entire article needs to be discarded. As far as starting from scratch, I am not totally against it, but the current stub version is totally POV - it includes only Omura's 'evidence' which is not WP-acceptable per WP:V, while it excludes the New Zealand Tribunal's document, which is the most reliable and verifiable source we have for BDORT. At this point, the article is simply an ad for a scientifically unproven procedure, which claims to diagnose and cure most diseases known to man, by the patient making an 'O' with his/her fingers. BTW, the previous version had undergone scrutiny by many people during the last AfD, and the consensus was to keep improving it, not to trash it and start from scratch. Crum375 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I chose that particular version because, if you read the entire section, you said "I am in general amenable to all ideas mentioned here" shortly after I said "It seems that no one objects to a complete rewrite of the article". - Che Nuevara 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my statement above, I am not deadset against any reasonable idea, including a total rewrite if that's the best we can do. But to start with a POV version, that includes items that are not acceptable per WP policy, and does not include the NZT, which is the best source we have for this procedure, is simply wrong. Crum375 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) The version that I have reverted to contains no sources about the procedure, except to say that he invented it; that cannot possibly be POV. The information that the anonymous IP was adding was clearly POV and I have removed it. This is a bare-bones version: it says who Omura is, the foundations he founded, and that he invented BDORT. That is all verifiable and objective fact. It doesn't say much, but it doesn't say anything biased. It is not misrepresentative in any way; it's just lacking in thoroughness. If we start from this version, we can add things as we go. - Che Nuevara 01:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the version just prior to your latest reversion. In your version, besides the fact that it's missing a lot of well sourced information that we previously had, it mentions 'BDORT' without mentioning the related New Zealand Tribunal's findings, that it is "irresponsible and unacceptable" to use it, and that the last person that used it was fined and stripped of his license. Leaving out this important and well sourced information is misleading by omission, hence POV. Crum375 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version links to alternative medicine. That contains a number of the criticisms, generally, which you wish to include here specifically. For a stub, that's plenty NPOV. - Che Nuevara 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to alternative medicine does not remove the onus to supply to the reader the most reliable and verifiable source that relates to the subject of BDORT. IMO it should be the primary focus of the article, as it is the best source. Crum375 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: My above comment was deleted by Richardmalter, I am hereby restoring it. Crum375 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Che's and Cowman's points. Crum, are you intent on another Edit War!! Your POV arguments find no consensus here. Many people are telling you the same thing - start over from a stub. Richardmalter 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Crum, by reverting the version you did, you are again breaking a mediated consensus decision that you were part of.Richardmalter 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is currently done with the article makes little difference. The issue is more of just not edit warring and discussing instead. If I find some time over the weekend I'll see if I can get a nice rewrite of the article going. It will probably not be as heavy on information on the bi-digital o-ring test as Wikipedia does not need an essay explaining how it is performed. Cowman109^Talk 04:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Cowman, give it a shot. Clearly the situation here is (surprise) once again at an impasse. I'll operate as seems more or less sensible pending your effort. What do you put the odds at? ;) GenghizRat 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask, RM, why you simply removed this without comment? [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghizRat (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Apologies - pure techincal error editing the page on my part.Richardmalter 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

At present the entry exists in stub form, with the sole basis of its having survived requests for deletion having been removed, in a form I judge utterly unsatisfactory per both rational thought and Wikipedia criteria. I therefore withdraw my provisional acceptance of the entry's shortened form, which was agreed to temporarily, pending Gzkn's sandboxed version (which never happened), as noted above, by The Stainless Steel Rat. In this context the form of the entry prior extant seems to me the most acceptable. GenghizRat 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This, as per time stamp, was made earlier, but was removed by RM without comment, prior to his comments and Cowman's subsequent comments. GenghizRat 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay everyone, enough is enough. You're taking away my options here. Richard, removing other people's comments is not appropriate. Crum and TSSR, every non-involved party who has come along has agreed that the version you keep reverting to is irreparable and needs to be rewritten. It should be obvious that not misrepresenting information is a much higher priority than including it. Are we going to work on this article, or are we going to bicker? - Che Nuevara 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, as a quick response to your comment about "every non-involved party who has come along has agreed that the version you keep reverting to is irreparable and needs to be rewritten", I'd like to take issue with it: I think that statement is incorrect. We've had many eyes going over this version (or one very close to it) during the last AfD, and the consensus there was to improve it, not to start over. Also, AntonRojo, who would hopefully be 'non-involved' by your definition (?) has just attempted to improve it, and in fact the current version is his. Crum375 12:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, this will sound like a rebuke, I think, but please appreciate that I sincerely do not mean it as one: This swirling madness has exasperated and driven away any number of folk. It may well simply be that the attempt at mediation, however well intended, is not possible. Might it make more sense, if you're still so inclined, to simply participate, as seems to you appropriate or not, as an editor rather than mediator? If it is possible to get more eyes on the entry, I think that might be helpful as well, but I don't know that that's possible. There are simply sincerely held but radically opposed positions here. They are not capable of reconciliation in my judgement, and there is far too little broad community awareness or interest to stabilize the situation. I frankly don't see how mediation, however well intended or well executed, can possibly succeed here. It was worth a try, but it seems to lead to simply another form of impasse. For whatever it's worth, you have my respect for your efforts. It's the effort that matters. The situation has simply proven infinitely frustrating for all concerned, from all perspectives. Perhaps Cowman or someone else will find an alternate path, who knows? Not every problem has a solution. We all know this. We all understand this. This may, at least for the present, be a problem of such character. So, at least, it seems to one particpant. GenghizRat 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TSSR aka GenghizRat: I would love to take part as an editor. However, there is little or no real editing going on here. There is plenty of edit warring, and little else. If mediation is futile, trying to edit constructively will certainly be counterproductive. I can't make you edit constructively, but there are forums that can.

Crum: It should be obvious that saying that Antonrojo is "uninvolved" and that "the current version is his" are contradictory. And I meant people who have come along since I got here; that is indeed true. Why are you so averse to starting over? And why do you consistently sidestep the issue with arguments ad hominem?

I'm not kidding, guys. If you're not willing to act in good faith all the time, then this will quickly fall out of my hands. And not for lack of trying on my part. - Che Nuevara 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(The Wikipedia entry for the term 'wild track,' incidentally, is substantially in error as any competent audio engineer would tell anyone in a moment, and, no, I don't intend to set it right.)

That said, a wild track of a different sort: Perhaps this is a false problem. In the RfD discussions I believe the record will clearly indicate the New Zealand Tribunal was accepted as a verificable, thoroughly reliable source per Wikipedia criteria. There is to my knowledge no record of any comparable verifiable, thoroughly reliable source per Wikipedia criteria as to Yoshiaki Omura and his researches other than the New Zealand Tribunal.

Perhaps, then, there is no basis per Wikipedia criteria for an independent entry for Yoshiaki Omura, but, rather, there ought be a minor entry for the case of Richard Gorringe, which achieved some notoriety, and apparently resulted in alteration of regulations regarding alternative medicine in Australia and New Zealand.

There is, of course, an entry for Richard Gorringe at present, which RM some time ago edited to suit his perception. Perhaps the Yoshiaki Omura entry might simply be eliminated, and appropriately neutered language with respect to an en passant reference to Yoshiaki Omura might be included in that entry.

Perhaps, in other words, other than in the context of the Richard Gorringe entry, the Yoshiaki Omura entry ought not exist.

I recognize that, given the effort made to date it might be difficult to seriously consider such a possibility, but might it not make perfectly good sense? GenghizRat 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that given enough exposure to the general community, this entry can easily pass muster. I think the current version, after its last AfD scrutiny, is not far from ideal. It may need some tweaking here and there, and we can always do that, but just the fact that one side with a clear conflict of interest refuses to accept well sourced information is no reason to give up. It is reason to carefully scrutinize everything, and I am all for it, but I would not just trash the whole article because someone doesn't like the well sourced facts. WP is all about presenting well sourced knowledge, and that should be our 'track'. Crum375 12:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I don't lightly make accusations of vandalism, but I believe that removing other editors' Talk page comments is considered clear vandalism (see 'Talk page vandalism' under WP:VAN). If you don't like someone's civil comment, unless it contains a personal attack, you can't just delete it, though you may certainly reply to it. Thanks, Crum375 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, take it easy, remember to assume good faith, it was an error. What's the WP idea of getting some ice cream.Richardmalter 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This troubles me:

Rvt to Rat/AntonRojo's last version - this is closest to post AfD - let's keep it unless Mediation finds another consensus

Truth is, it did find another consensus: we all agreed that we could start over and build from the ground up. And we all agreed to stop revert warring. Retracting those comments now does not mean that this consensus was not reached. I find this and similar reverts to be in extremely bad faith. - Che Nuevara 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am still waiting for you to point me for a diff where we actually agreed via consensus to discard our existing post AfD version and replace it with a POV stub, or one that violates the last AfD's consensus agreement. We did agree to support a neutral (and new to the page) editor to try to come up with a new version in his Sandbox. We are still waiting for it to my knowledge. We never agreed to blindly accept whatever he came up with. I also noticed Cowman offering to try to come up with his own version over the weekend - that's also commendable, and I for one would be happy to see his version. We never agreed to, nor reached any consensus for, any POV version, short or long (and as I noted above, where Richardmalter deleted my response to you, the omission of a well sourced reference that reflects negatively on BDORT is certainly POV). If we need to build up a new version from scratch, either collectively or individually, that can be done in a Sandbox. Remember that the current version by AntonRojo (in a slightly older incarnation) had a relatively wide consensus during the last AfD process. I don't see any major problem with it; if anything needs to be fixed, that can be done in a civil and orderly fashion in the Talk page. If you feel that I have done something in bad faith, please point me to the specific diff, so I can address it. Thanks, Crum375 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, lack of content, contrary to popular opinion, is not a reason to delete an article; lack of potential content in. Slowly and carefully putting the content in does not violate the AfD consensus; if anything, it's the most responsible execution of that consensus.

In addition, your claims that the stub is POV -- and at that, more POV than the version you continually revert to -- are still unsubstantiated. Lack of information does not mean bias if the appropriate information is simply yet to be added. But material added in a way which does not reflect its sources is indeed a more serious breach of NPOV than temporarily leaving out information which is potentially controversial.

Your insistence to interpret agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith. Also, three votes for delete and four for keep does not sound like "wide consensus", and if I had been the closing admin I probably would have announced it "no consensus" or relisted until there was consensus. - Che Nuevara 21:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, let me reply one point at a time.

I firmly believe that withholding a negative well sourced reference to an item is a form of POV by omission, as it clearly sways the balance to the positive side. If we are building an article step by step, it should be NPOV at every step of the way.

I am still waiting for a diff that shows we had consensus, or that I agreed to replace the article with a POV stub. We did agree to let the neutral editor try to come up with a version in his Sandbox, and we are still waiting for that.

Regarding the last AfD, maybe you consider these votes as not sufficient for a 'wide consensus'. But this was exposed to the wide community, and no one else chimed in. In any case, there was a neutral admin (who did not participate in the AfD) who decided on the outcome, and it was to Keep, and not to delete or to stub the article. If you disagree with that conclusion, that's legitimate, and we can start debating it again at any time, but we also can't just ignore the process because we disagree with it or its conclusions.

Regarding my 'lack of good faith' because I 'insist of interpreting things to the letter': First, I think we are supposed to assume good faith, until it becomes very clear it's simply not there. Are you saying that in your opinion I am not operating in good faith? Do you think I have some ulterior motive or some conflict of interest? Are you absolutely convinced of it? If you are not convinced, then I ask that you please continue assuming good faith.

Finally, Che, regarding our mediation process: Do you want to continue as mediator? I personally still trust you, I am sure you have no ax to grind and are neutral in the matter, but some of your recent statements appear to take sides. I see no problem if you wish to just become a party to the discussion and possibly let someone else take over as mediator. What do you think?

Crum375 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, just because something passed an AfD does not make it a good article. The amount of objection to the article in AfD should be a clear indication that it needs work; just because it squeaked by doesn't mean it's good.

Which of my statements indicate I am taking sides? That I want to start over because a number of editors have said it would be appropriate, and I believe that we could get a better article out of it, is not evidence of a bias. Because I believe that waiting to add information in a hotly contested article so that we can make sure it is properly used is not tantamount to "withholding information" is not evidence of a bias. The fact that a process that could and would have worked which was agreed to should not have been reneged on just because it was going slowly is not evidence of bias. And the fact that I am flabbergasted and upset that there have now been multiple promises not to continue reverting, which have also been reneged on, is not evidence of bias. This last point, by the way, seems to be a pretty good indication of bad faith. I hope that I'm wrong, but assuming good faith is getting difficult.

Finally, I have no desire whatsoever to become "a party to the discussion" because I don't really care about Omura or BDORT one way or the other. I do have a desire to do my best to end the ridiculous circumstances which have surrounded this article for some time. I think that makes me a plenty neutral mediator. I also doubt you're going to find a mediator more patient than I have been.

I want to get back to actually writing this article. I want to get away from this silly bickering and reverting. Everyone who's on board with that, please let's do so. If not, let me know, so appropriate reaction can be taken. - Che 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I agree that you have been very patient, and I am not shopping for a new mediator. But I also feel very strongly that by supporting a version that IMO is a BDORT ad, that knowingly ignores the best sourced scientific reference we have for BDORT, you are not acting as a mediator but as a party with a definite viewpoint. As far as the AfD, I am not saying that just because the article passed the AfD it is automatically blessed forever and needs no improvements. On the contrary, the decision was to keep improving it, and that's we are doing here. The decision did not endorse deleting or stubbing it, and certainly did not endorse a POV version that omits the most important reference which to a large extent is the focus of the entire article. I don't think that what we have here is 'silly bickering', by any side. We clearly have Richardmalter who has a declared conflict of interest and is a single issue editor, who sells BDORT as part of his practice. We have the anon-IP that is also single issue and apparently part of the Omura/BODRT group. On the other side we have WP editors who may differ slightly in style and priorities, but I believe all are eager to see this article become another well sourced and neutrally presented WP article, with no ax to grind. I don't think any of us here are generic quack-busters or pseudo-science fighters - all one has to do is check our contrib history. So it boils down to a simple conflict between the fervent and zealous BODRT advocates, whose livelihood depends on a BODRT-friendly article, that omits the clearly negative New Zealand Tribunal's report, vs. the other editors who only want a neutral well sourced presentation. Can this conflict be resolved by mediation? I am beginning to doubt it. I think voluntary 'mediation' when one side has a financial stake in the outcome, and the others are volunteers who want to see well-sourced neutrality, may be impossible. I wonder if we have a precendent on WP for such a situation being resolved by mediation alone. Crum375 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I think you're misunderstanding my statements about the "neutrality". I'm not arguing that the version without the Tribunal citation should be the version of the article we "accept" as the long-term article. What I'm saying is that it's a good starting place. I'm not supporting the article, I'm supporting the process which is being impeded by revert warring. As far as I'm aware the Tribunal citation is the most significant (particularly given the previous AfD), so I think we should settle the discussion on it post haste. However, continually reverting back and forth will not solve any problems.

Crum, it seems to me that your primary objection to the stub is the lack of the Tribunal citation. Richard, you disagree with the current wording of the Tribunal citation. The result of the AfD was in fact that the controversy is what makes Omura notable. Crum, I can promise you on anything you like that have I have no stake or interest in Omura or BDORT whatsoever. I'm not even on a first-name basis with any doctors, E&M experts, or anyone who knows anything about this sort of thing, and my area of expertise is Modern Central European cultural history. I freely admit that I don't have the background or knowledge to make any sort of judgment on this issue. I assure you that my intentions here are only forward motion, which this most recent whirlwind has once again brought to a halt.

Would it be satisfactory to both of you if I would redact the short version of the article which includes the Tribunal citation to what I see as a both neutral and informative version so that we can move on with this? - Che Nuevara 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Che, if you read my comment carefully, I assume no real bias for anyone except Richardmalter and the anon-IP. That of course means that I fully realize that like all of us you have no ax to grind, and all you want, like all of us, is to get to a well-sourced NPOV article ASAP so we can move on something else. But you have not addressed my general point about the likelihood for success of this mediation process. Given that we have conflict of interest single-issue (COI-SI) editors (Richardmalter and the anon-IP) vs. a bunch of well-meaning volunteers (myself included), can the voluntary mediation process ever work? Take the simple suggestion you have about trying to reach a 'short' NPOV version. You agree that NZT is needed, but if you were somehow able to convince the COI-SI bunch that they must swallow it, they would then fight tooth-and-nail over every word. Remember that to them, any negative appearance to the BDORT article means potential loss of income, whereas to the rest of us it's just a bunch of ideals, and the time we spend here can also be spent elsewhere, either on WP or RL. So bottom line is that I think we need to take a step back and think whether this process has a chance to succeed in converging to a stable version. A WP precedent would be helpful, where mediation alone has settled a conflict with a zealous COI-SI group with a financial interest in the outcome. Crum375 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you would like me to do about it. Having a conflict of interest is not actually a breach of policy; it's just a bad idea. If you're suggesting arbitration, that still won't solve the content dispute, I think. I really do believe that, if we start from a stub, we can slowly but surely build the article up from the ground. That's my honest belief. - Che Nuevara 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that WP:COI is automatically in breach of policy, although the guideline sheds some light on the situation. Arbitration does not decide content and I am not suggesting going there at this point. I think you are assuming there is some minimal 'stub' that would meet the basic WP requirements except perhaps it won't be as detailed, and will be acceptable to the COI-SI as well as the others. I tend to doubt it very much. By using simple logic, it would require as a minimum BDORT (Omura alone would violate consensus in both AfD1 and 2 that only the combination of Omura and BDORT justifies WP inclusion). By having BDORT, we must have NZT, as that is the primary well sourced reference to it. Then, as I noted above, you'll fight an uphill battle getting the COI-SI group to accept the citation's wording. At this point, I just don't see it. I am trying to be realistic and save everyone's time. What I suggest at this time is to collect opinions and ideas from across WP as to the best way to handle this situation of fervent zealous financially motivated COI-SI group vs. a bunch of well meaning WP volunteers. A precedent would be helpful (all the ones I know are via ArbCom, but there may be others). Crum375 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are assuming there is some minimal 'stub' that would meet the basic WP requirements except perhaps it won't be as detailed, and will be acceptable to the COI-SI as well as the others.

No, that's not what I'm assuming. What I'm saying is that we, right now, have a stub which (by virtue of being a stub) isn't very good, but it's at least a start. Gzkn and Cowman both recommended a complete rewrite. If you are committed to the consensus of the community, as you say, don't you think it makes sense to listen to the two least involved editors who came along? The stub is not a good article, of course, because it's a stub, but we can work together to make it one. - Che Nuevara 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, the current stub version is POV and is simply unacceptable. You yourself tried to revert the anon-IP and were reverted back by him. This is clearly not an acceptable situation. There is no consensus that I am aware of that says this POV version is acceptable. The only consensus that did exist, formally at the end of AfD-2 was to keep the full version, and to keep improving it further. That was and is the will of the community as it was last expressed. Crum375 02:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You say the stub version is POV and unacceptable. Richard says the old version is POV and unacceptable. Six of one, half dozen of another. Two independent editors came along and said the article should be rewritten from scratch. I offered to put my uninterested wording of the Tribunal citation into the stub article so we can move on with said rewriting process. What objection do you have to that? - Che Nuevara 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that you are (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting the community consensus (which I still maintain is dubious at best). As far as I can see, the only editors other than you to mention the Tribunal were Philosophus (who voted keep) and TealCyfre (who nominated it for deletion). Even if there was a consensus, the Tribunal in particular was not part of it. - Che Nuevara 02:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict I'll reply to your last point separately)

Clearly the COI-SI group will consider any version that is not a BDORT ad as 'POV'. This is exactly the problem with having COI-SI editors as parties to this discussion. To them neutrality is not the issue at all - their only motivation is to get the best possible BDORT-friendly version, that will keep their accountants happy. Therefore I don't think that it is '6 of that vs. half-dozen of the other'. It is simply the COI-SI version vs. the well-sourced neutral version. If you think you can create a short version that includes Omura and BDORT (both are needed per both AfD's for the article to be included) and includes the NZT reference, with proper language, good luck to you. I highly suspect that your chances of finding verbiage that will be acceptable to both aforementioned camps, is slim to none. In fact, all that will happen is an edit conflict between the two sides, since their aims are clearly mutually exclusive - there is no middle ground. So after you invest all that effort on your short version, we'll end up reverting back and forth the same way as now. I believe in seeing a goal before embarking on a journey. At this point I need to understand how the financially motivated COI-SI zealots can ever be balanced against well-sourced neutral presentation fans, assuming they are both given an 'Edit' button. Crum375 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD consensus, please recall the history here. There were originally 2 articles, BDORT and Omura. They were both about to be deleted, but during AfD-1 editors realized that the combination of BDORT/Omura is notable and hence warrants inclusion. The main mainstream scientific reference in the BDORT article was (and still is) the NZT. This reference was in the article, facing the reviewers, in both AfD discussions. Reviewers don't need to actually specify which reference proves notability, but this was the most important (mainstream, neutral, reputable) one there. The consensus reached after AfD-1 was keep and was followed shortly by a merge decision, into the current Omura/BDORT combination. Bottom line: the NZT was and is the primary reference supporting BDORT, which was decided as 'notable' by consensus, and Omura was accepted as notable because of his connection to BDORT. Hence the NZT was the key source to both AfD's. Crum375 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that Cowman and Gzkn, who both recommended a complete rewrite, also have a conflict of interest? - Che Nuevara 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. As I mentioned above, there is only one COI-SI group, which is Richardmalter and the anon-IP. All the rest are well intentioned and neutral WP editors, who would like to see the article become a good WP article, well sourced and neutral. The only differences among the neutral WP editors have to do with style and priorities as to how to get to that target. BTW, I would also include AntonRojo in the neutral group, it is his version we are reverting to, and I think it's a pretty reasonable one. Crum375 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I think you are clearly acting in very bad faith. You have a very clear bias that was revealed in your note to Addhoc:

". . .who sells it for a living, despite the procedure (and related techniques) being declared '...irresponsible and unacceptable' by a Medical Disciplinary Review Board in NZ, please carry on. Be aware however, that the advocates, of which we have seen several, will persist until the article will look their way. When they are done, it will say that BDORT is a wonderful technique, that can diagnose and heal most diseases, from the common cold to cancer, and has simply not been appreciated by mainstream medicine. Be also aware that there are people out there, potential WP readers, who will rely on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses and treatments, as was the case in NZ, with possible dire consequences. It is clearly not WP's role to perform any WP:OR, and we must only present WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But . . . professional advocates, who will persist indefinitely, as their livelihoods clearly depend on it." [3]

You want to warn the world about perceived dangers you see in the BDORT. Your own words say what your bias is. Yet you do not 'admitt' it! Che noted it straightaway and noted that your opinions are in fact quite clear. This bias of yours that you wont declare publicly (you 'slipped up' once) explains why you wont even accept a NPOV stub. It also explains why you act in bad faith in many other cases - eg 'headlining' me as making unilateral changes very previously, when the very next thing you do is make "unilateral change" which is when I had to point out to everyone your sham mediation attempt. You also repeatedly revert complete mediated consensus agreements that you were part of and then try to weedle out of admitting it until I pin you down about it and you have nothing further to say but keep quite (see above). That is extremely bad faith. You also continue to slandar people every which way and think (perhaps like yourself in your day to day like) that everyone here who does not agree with you is motivated by money here primarily or even at all. Which you would be wrong about either way. Slandaring people, Crum, is uncivil behaviour. Even when I correct you re myself you continue to blatantly misrepresent me and many others. This is the height of bad faith and uncivil behaviour. Your acts of bad faith and completely uncivil behaviour are very prominent and many. I am trying to assume good faith towards you all the time, in action (however not thought), but your behaviour is virtually making that impossible. That is why I conclude that you have a very severe memory problem, as the only good faith solution to explain your actions by. I am sure that that makes the position clear. If it doesn't, get some help understanding it, from someone else, not me. I am guessing that you are some kind of medical doctor or aspiring medical person ror armchair expert of some kind who is fervently against anything like the BDORT. But that is just my guess. The rest of what I write above here, about your most uncivil behaviour is documented. This is not a personal attack; it is an exposure of uncivil behaviour which is unacceptable. [User:Richardmalter|Richardmalter]] 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And if TSSR AKA all the other names he switches to does not stop ridiculing me et al I will give some further 'exposure' regarding his connection to Dr Omura and the BDORT as well which will further shed light on the POVs involved here. This is not a threat; it is merely an expression of intent after many months of patience with slandar and waste of time and energy and enormously uncivil beahviour - however zanily or subtley hidden and disguised.Richardmalter 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that on the evidence it is not possible to mediate this entry.

The present active participants are, on the one hand, RM and Dots, who support a truncated form of the entry with the exclusion of the New Zealand Tribunal’s negative characterization of Omura/BDORT, and, on the other hand, Crum, AR, and myself.

Gzkn had briefly appeared, offered to sandbox a new version of the entry, and has not been heard from since.

Che has embraced the RM/Dots form of the entry in the belief that it is possible to build out a valid consensual form of the entry from this stub.

Cowman has quite recently offered to work up and present a revised form of the entry.

I am disposed to the following judgements:

1) The probability of building out an acceptable form of the entry from the present stub is effectively nil, for reasons that ought, in my judgement, be abundantly obvious.

2) As community consensus within Wikipedia is effectively demonstrable in instances where agreement cannot be reached by all participants only via the mechanism of the much-maligned (rightly so) revert war, there is simply no other mechanism available, all substantive matters having been addressed ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I will, therefore, operate on that basis, as I find no support available within my admittdly finite comprehension of what we laughingly refer to as reality for the positions represented by Omura/BDORT/Richard/Dots.

If Cowman or anyone else is able to present a suitable solution, I would hope that I have the elementary sense to recognize and acknowledge that fact. GenghizRat 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: As a bot has now happily reverted my attempt at participation, I will now leave you to your endless discussions, and Wikipedia to its course. GenghizRat 04:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I left a message with the owner of the bot assuring him that I don't believe it was vandalism, and the revert was improper.
2. I cannot disagree strongly enough that I am "endorsing a version". I am endorsing forward progress, which seems to have come to a grinding halt due to the most recent edit war.
3. Your decision to "laughingly refer to" someone else's position is over the line. You may disagree with Richard's opinions on the matter, but that doesn't automatically make them crap. Your choice to use these words pretty much negates your any claim that you, as well, are neutral on the issue.

Interpret these as you wish. If you choose to leave, I can't stop you. - Che Nuevara 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we quit the argument ad hominem, on both sides, and get back to working on the article? A simple yes or no will do. - Che Nuevara 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, with respect to you for your time and energy, I have read and will go along with your direction here. Thank you.Richardmalter 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. I realize that you both have deeply entrenched opinions, and you each believe the other to be mistaken in his point of view. But I honestly believe that the two of you can get past that if you both agree to put aside the mess and focus on the facts of this case. - Che Nuevara 07:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, in response to your question, of course I would like to continue working on improving this article. And I for one try my best to refrain from ad hominem attacks. OTOH, I think there are some unclear issues that need addressing first. I specifically asked how you think we can logically solve the impasse reached when a group of fervent, zealous and financially motivated conflict of interest single-issue (COI-SI) BDORT advocates whose income depends on a positive ad-like presentation of BDORT, are pitted against a group of well meaning neutral WP volunteer editors whose sole goal is to reach a well sourced and neutral presentation. You didn't respond to my question above as to how you think even a short version can be logically created, when it must by definition include BDORT and NZT, and the COI-SI group will fight tooth-and-nail to suppress the NZT, which by putting BDORT in a negative light directly affects their income which depends on BDORT. Unless we have some clear and logical roadmap that can explain how to overcome this clear impasse, I don't see how you plan to just forge ahead. I am simply being realistic - I think coming up with some reasonable plan makes sense for all of us. Crum375 10:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The version I have posted now includes the NZT citation in what I believe to be a very accurate way. I think, given that the AfD called for an article which explores the controversy, there are no real grounds to argue against it. I hope that Richard sees this, and believe that he will. This "controversy" is furthered, I believe, by the very pared down use of the Shinnick citation. Although this article is, admittedly, bare bones, it's my personal opinion that everything in it is fair, and I hope that Richard will agree.

The anonymous IP has yet to show willingness to join in discussion or to approach sources appropriately. If he would like to do these things, he can, but if continues to misuse sources without attempting any real discussion, I don't think our consensus-gathering effort should concern itself with him. - Che Nuevara 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, Crum reverted to the version he likes that again means he breaks his own agreement which is the height of bad faith. I reverted him. But to the version before you added the Tribunial bit. But please note, not because I object to it even now at this stage, but because I do insist that it also contain the direct quote where the Tribunial states that the materials Gorringe used appeared to them to be different from Omuras and so dont help the Tribunial much anyway. Please.

I added very brief summaries of both sources, both of which are clearly supported by said sources. Everyone, please do not change them to say things that are not reflected in the sources. When in doubt, go back to the source and read it thoroughly. - Che Nuevara 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I think your effort is commendable. It remains to be seen if Richard and friends can agree to it. My concern is mostly omission. We mention BDORT, but we don't say that BDORT is a patient forming an 'O' with his/her finger and the examiner trying to pry the fingers open. We also neglect to mention a slew of other Omura inventions, like the 'Solar papers' - a piece of paper you leave in the sun to absorb the sun's energy, which then has various healing properties. We don't mention the remote-control tele-BDORT - you can have the patient make the 'O' with his/her fingers over the phone. We don't mention that Omura sued General Motors for pollution on behalf of the people of the United States. We don't mention the psychic healing by channeling to Dr. Fritz. And so on and so on. All of these dropped items of course have good sources. By the time we'll be done fixing your version, guess what? It will be our original version, give or take, after we spend many more months of work on it. And lastly, regarding the missing POV-balance, we negelect to cite the most important NZT passage:

"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 recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible." (PMRT is used synonymously with BDORT by the Tribunal)

Crum375 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I will ask this one final time. Are you, or are you not, willing to, in good faith, work with the others here, myself included, to start rewriting the article, as suggested by both Cowman and Gzkn? You are now the one being resistant to mediation. Richard has agreed to work on a rewrite. Any more accusations that "conflict of interest" is holding up this mediation are completely devoid of merit. Either you're willing to work on this in the way that two independent editors suggested, or you aren't. It's very simple. Yes or no. - Che Nuevara 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I do appreciate all the work you have done so far. I have nothing but admiration for your neutrality and dedication. But I also think that a mediator cannot become a party to a dispute. In this case, as I see it, we have three (3) neutral, unrelated contributors to the article, namely myself, GenghizRat and Antonrojo, who are supporting Antonrojo's most recent revision. On the other hand we have your own attempted version, which I personally feel is problematic and I tried to explain that in my message above. We also have the COI-SI group's version, which tries to present BDORT in the most favorable way, since any negative light shed on BDORT may impact their finances. We also have other neutral people, such as Cowman and Gzkn, working on their own private versions, that we have yet to see. Given this situation, I just don't see what is being mediated and by whom. I doubt that the COI-SI group will ever accept a version that shows BDORT in a negative light. They will fight every inch of the way to counter it. OTOH, your own short version is still not NPOV, is missing lots of well sourced material and will eventually, once completed, come back full circle to the Antonrojo's version if a neutral well sourced course is followed. Bottom line: I am not sure how this situation can be answered with a simple Yes/No. Do I want WP to have the best possible, well sourced and neutral article for BDORT/Omura? Of course. How to get there, given that we have the financially motivated COI-SI group resisting well sourced facts such as the NZT? I am not sure. Crum375 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The question's not that hard, Crum. It doesn't merit that sort of answer. It merits a yes or a no. I have said time and time again that of course a shortened version won't be perfect, but it is a starting spot. It's the type of starting spot that was suggested by Cowman and Gzkn and agreed to by Richard. Do you agree to it, yes or no? I would like an answer of exactly one word. - Che Nuevara 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No. And please let me explain why. I think we have 3 neutral contributors who agree to Antonrojo's version. We have the COI-SI group who'll never accept anything that doesn't praise BDORT, let alone denigrates it, for obvious financial reasons. Your short version is NPOV and missing many well sourced items, as I tried to explain. If we fix up your short version using the standard WP rules, we'll end up with AR's version, which we already have now, after investing a lot more time and effort. I also think that you need to decide your own role - whether you are mediating or participating as a party. Both roles are acceptable to me, but I think you need to decide which you prefer. Crum375 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, it is the role of the mediator to both foster discussion and keep discussion reasonable. I have done nothing that indicates a leaning towards either side -- I have asked you several times to support this claim, and each time you have simply repeated your accusation without examples. What I have done, however, is my best to reign in the ridiculous edit warring and outlandish behavior going on here. I will not stoop to your crass accusations that I am somehow "party" to the discussion, nor will I dignify your claim to being one of the few, the proud, the neutral.

It is quite frankly a matter of lucky for all involved here that this article did not attract more admin attention, because most people here seem to forget that edit warring in itself, even if there is no 3RR violation, is in fact grounds for blocking. You will notice, on the other hand, that my very few reverts have always been centrist and with the intention of forward progress.

It seems clear to me now, Crum, that "neutrality" at this article seems to mean "willingness to agree with whichever party is speaking at the moment", a trend which no amount of your protestations will deflect.

Please consider this case closed. I am drafting a notice of closure, a summary statement, and a recommendation for further action. I apologize to those very few who were indeed made good faith efforts in this article. - Che Nuevara 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you say that Che. Hopefully you'll at least read my response here. First, I never said that you were not neutral. I praised your neutrality every step of the way, and I agree with you that it is your strongest suit. By saying that you are a party by creating a version I do not mean for a moment that you are taking sides. I absolutely accept that you have no ax to grind. I do think that a short version that I consider POV is not a good way to proceed, given that we'll end up right back where we started. Hopefully you can see that I have invested a lot of time and effort on this entry, disproportional to other articles, that I enjoy more. The reason is simply because I came here as an informal mediator trying to help, and decided to stay until the article is stable and WP-acceptable. Obviously it's not quite there yet, but I haven't given up hope. I actually think we've made some minor headway, now that we have 3 independent contributors to the article who agree on a common version. I hope we can continue and find a way to converge on a stable version. Again I appreciate all the work you have done, all your good will, and exemplary neutrality. I wish you luck in all your other endeavors, here and elsewhere. Thanks, Crum375 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, Crum reverted to the version he likes that again means he breaks his own agreement which is the height of bad faith. I reverted him (if you review the mediation process from months back, he always tried to hold up the process, this is nothing new), but to the version before you added the Tribunial bit. But please note, not because I object to it even now at this stage, so please put it back if you wish, but because I do insist that it also contain the direct quote where the Tribunial states that the materials Gorringe used appeared to them to be different from Omuras and so dont help the Tribunial much anyway. Please. Richardmalter 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you notice, I did actually include that material, just not as a direct quote. - Che Nuevara 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Che, I did notice, and just reread it in order not to be a 'hothead' about it. Would you mind just a minor tweak and put in the direct quote? Richardmalter 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also re the Shinnick citation, I think it can be worked on, but fine for now the way you have it.Richardmalter 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Tribunal: a small tweak is alright, as long as it's indicative of the actual source. I by no means thought of my version as a "definitive" stub, just hopefully one that pointed forwards instead of backwards.

Re Shinnick: I hope it's clear that the way the anonymous IP has been using the Shinnick is a clear misuse of citation. - Che Nuevara 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To save you some time, :

"it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura [BDORT]."

is from the Tribunial report word for word.

RE Shinnick citation - I realise there was some WP:OR in it.Richardmalter 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am closing the mediation case. It has become clear to me that no amount of discussion will ever produce circumstances under which the editors involved in this case will all act neutrally and with good faith. No solution is amenable to the totality of contributors here; repeated argument ad hominem, found constantly in objections to both previous and new versions and ideas, belies the complete unwillingness of the involved to engage in discussion about content which would lead to progress within the article.

I strongly discourage any further attempts at informal mediation or resolution by any other mediators, as, quite frankly, this article has sucked away enough hours of my life, and further efforts are likely only to frustrate other mediators and waste their time as well.

I am prepared to draft formal statements for any formal action taken in any way. Please contact me if any action related to this article is taken. I will make a more formal statement of circumstances on the article's case page.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

True, a WP:RFAR would be the best option now as mediation is clearly not getting anywhere. There has been quite a bit of behavioral issues here so those can be addressed through a RFAr. Cowman109^Talk 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, do you want to proceed with your possible rewrite, let things proceed of their own, have this thing go to arbitration, or what? (I mean that as a neutral question, a simple inquiry, not a challenge.) Frankly, I'm sick of this *bleep*, and inclined to go with any reasonable suggestion – or maybe just chuck the whole deal, as I've attmpted to do at a number of points. Any thoughts or suggestions? GenghizRat 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I thank you for your efforts. They are, I am certain, appreciated and respected by all parties involved with this entry. It would seem to me that, at the very least, your efforts have established that the core problem in this situation is radically differing irreconcilable perspectives, with comparatively few parties involved. They have also established, far more importantly, that a person committed to a good faith effort to resolve conflict is a thing of very considerable value in and of itself, irrespective of the outcome. That, in my estimation, is no small thing.

Peace. GenghizRat 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, guys, I would really like to believe that it's possible, but it just doesn't seem that way. I thank you for your kind words. I honestly do believe that everyone in this dispute means well, but different people obviously have different ideas of what is right, and unfortunately there was not enough flexibility in those ideas here. I hope this won't happen again.

Peace to all. - Che Nuevara 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Peace, Che. GenghizRat 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet had time to attempt a rewrite, but a RFAR does not seem far out of reach as there clearly are behavioral disputes that people seem to want to be addressed that arbitration can address. Cowman109^Talk 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the behavioral disputes are rooted in deeply differing sincerely held radically differing perspectives and judgements. Is there no way within Wikipedia's structure to in effect determine what a community consensus may be? As I've said, in real world contexts such differences would ultimately be placed before a senior editor, editor-in-chief, whatever, who would, for good or ill settle the matter by deciding it. Here, it seems to me, there is no possible resolution other than to wait until one or more parties become so exasperated that their behavior becomes sufficient to bar or restrict them. Frankly, it seems to me an utterly inappropriate mechanism to render what is ultimately a judgement as to appropriate content. Have you any suggestion, from a more remote perspective, as to what seems best? As I've said, I'm open. GenghizRat 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done Crum, you could not even agree on a stub while we discussed. A bigger bias than that. .. You are as Che told you the one who has inhibited the mediation; as I know you have done for months.

Che, I am sorry for your result-unfruitful waste of time and energy. But I think you thoroughly succeeded in nailing down here what the problem actually is, which is given in whast you stated re Crum above.

For the closing record, I was happy to go with the stub while we worked on it. Crum was not even that. That is the summary. Thank you again for all your efforts which were very considerable indeed. Best wishes to you.

It also needs to be noted that both the Mediator and I repeatedly told Crum and pointed out to him his repeated acting in bad faith. Richardmalter 04:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, please recognize that there are now three independent contributors to the article who support Antonrojo's version. If the mediation failed, I suspect it was for a combination of reasons, partly due to my own insistence on maintaining a well sourced NPOV version at all times, but also due to the anon-IP's and your own actions. All you need to do is follow Che's edit summaries lately on the article's history and see that he was frustrated by all of us. I also recognize that as a practitioner who uses BDORT in his daily practice you feel you must defend BDORT, and the NZT is unfortunately a very negative reference for it. I assume you understand that WP's mission is to include all well sourced and neutrally presented information for a given subject, hence we must include the NZT reference with the proper quotation from it, along with all the other properly sourced information. If you really want to get results, e.g. modified verbiage as we discussed in the past, please let's address your concerns here in the Talk page, and let's try to agree on changes here without edit-warring over them in the article, which will be counter productive. Thanks, Crum375 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, please recognize that a number of people are describing your behaviour as continued lack of good faith. See above for a more detailed description. The version you refer to breaks your own agreement that I have documented. This is extremely direspectful behaviour (even though you made extensive efforts to forget your decisions). You pull the wool over no one's eyes.Richardmalter 05:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted for the record that Crum is actually another name for Satan, and is responsible for global warming, frictional losses in mechanical systems, depradations caused by quantum tunneling, and excessive shedding by certain breeds of domestic animals such as long-haired cats. GenghizRat 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, please understand the fact that you are reverting a version that contains huge amounts of WP:OR and more specifically information and presentation that ALL people here have agreed by consensus is not OK (in previous mediation - archives). It is therefore not WP:correct of you to just revert as you see fit and ignore the WP community consensus on these points. Next. Everyone here, even Crum who tries to weedle out of his agreement again and who has stopped the mediation process by his acting continually in bad faith as the Mediator and I pointed out to him, agreed to have a stub version while we Start Over. This caused a ceasation of all edit wars for some time - your actions, again ignoring WP consensus community decisions are bringing on an edit war again. Now is your turn to show extended good faith and settle with a stub version while we work through citations or get Arbitration because of Crum's behaviour - which is probably what is needed.Richardmalter 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[Looks at Richard suspiciously] Richard, have you been drinking the KoolAid again, Richard? GenghizRat 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

GR, your zany comments are here or there. If you revert this version you are breaking your own agreements. Is that or is that not clear mate? Richardmalter 05:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe, Richard, you are clearly over the revert limit. Perhaps if you didn't insist on reverting the version which three other folks active on the entry seem to prefer to work with, it might be helpful. GenghizRat 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ps: To paraphrase Chris Knight from Real Genius: Zany? Zany? Who talks like that? GenghizRat 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

GR, you agreed to go with a stub. You are acting in bad faith. This version also has things in it that you specifically and explicitly in mediation agreed against, voluntarily. This is a very poor act of good faith, if there is such a thing. Your clinging to WP:3 revert rule cant change those facts. You either act in good faith or you do not. You either obey your own agreements or you do not. It is very simple. It requires, as Che asked of Crum, a simple yes or no (that Crum weedled out of in very bad faith). You have in the past asked of my good faith, which up to now as you know I have kept, but you and Crum are as Che implied wasting people's time and productive lives with continued bad faith - I am not alone in saying this; you need to know that my intention is that there is a limit to this. Arbitration will silence all of such nonsense.Richardmalter 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Our perceptions, Richard, as you may have noted, differ. If you feel arbitration is appropriate, as you felt mediation was appropriate, I suggest, as in the case of your request for mediation, you follow your judgement where it leads you. GenghizRat 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith. You know that the mediation archives show some things were closed as agreed (by all). You are breaking objective documented decisions, as well as the Starting Over agreement. This has nothing to do with perceptions - but good faith and respect. If that is still not clear ask someone else, not me. Please revert now to the stub that Che prepared.Richardmalter 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I indicated some time ago that my understanding was that the stub was allowed to stand, provisionally, pending Gzkn's stated intent to produce a sandboxed version of the entry for all to consider afresh and that, after some considerable time, as that did not happen, and I judged your stubbed version unsatisfactory, I indicated rescission of that provisional acceptance of your stubbed entry. I fail to see how that constitutes bad faith. I'm perfectly content to stand on the record.

Please pass the cheese, thank you. GenghizRat 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets say I accept what you say in good faith. The other point, though, that you participated in a full consensus, voluntary mediation process that reached clear decisions re pseudocience citations, that you were fully part of, you now revert, and have done repeatedly. No room for interpretation there - you just are acting very disrespectfully to everyone involved now and in the past. Please revert to she most stable version we have ever had in fact - the stub that Che drafted.Richardmalter 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not my comprehension of the facts, which is, I believe, if anyone summons the superhuman patience, supported by the record. I am sorry, Richard, but I have no reason to substitute your judgement for my own. GenghizRat 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed and action taken as agreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/MediationArchive_1

What's this, a fabrication?! I guess you and Crum both have serious memory problems, is the only good faith way I can interpret your behaviour.Richardmalter 06:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, this ground has been covered, time and again. I will not reargue at length what has already been argued and reargued on innumerable occasions. The record, will, I believe, speak for itself for anyone with the infinite patience to consider it. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to desist from gratuitous insults.

If you would be so kind as to pass the cheese it would, in fact, be appreciated, thank you. GenghizRat 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So do you deny that what is documented in the archive happened? IF you do not, what agreement was made there? Bad faith, as the mediator also pointed out re Crum, extendedly. Richardmalter 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am simply pointing out, in all sincerity, that our comprehension of the conduct in question and of the record appears to differ. I believe the record will support me, and I will stand on that. I presume you feel similarly, in all good faith. We differ. That's the way it is, at least in my understanding. GenghizRat 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as I noted many times before, I agree with you that not all is perfect in our current version. And I do want to keep improving it. But the proper way to do it is without violating WP:3RR (which you have just done yet again), without ad hominem attacks, and by agreeing to discuss every change right here on the Talk page prior to modifying the article. If you will agree to these ground rules, and will promise to never violate WP:3RR again, and never to make any modification to the article prior to our reaching consensus here on the Talk page, I'll be happy to work with you and accept your inputs. Although you may not believe it, just like the day I arrived as informal mediator on this page, I still very much want the article to reflect true neutrality, and not one atom's width offset from neutrality to either side of a perfect balance. So please give this a chance. What do you say? Crum375 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you avoid the point, as usual. You are also breaking your agreements as GR is doing. Che asked you if you will have a stub while we work on it. He even included the Tribunial info - all in summary. You would not agree. The Mediator and I have told you flatly that you are acting in continued bad faith. You are. GR is doing the same. You cannot dismiss as my opinions of your bad faith, Che saw and stated the same thing. Stop weedling. Revert the stub Che prepared and we can discuss. Otherwise your reputation is of a continuous bad editor of wikipedia that has been noted by me and the Mediator as such on the record. I will in the meantime endow you with a very poor memory in good faith.Richardmalter 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, one of the beauties of WP is that everything we say is on the record and easy to retrieve as a 'diff'. If you want to discuss what I said or agreed to in the past, that's the way to do it: present the diff and I'll respond. But for us to collaborate productively on this article I would have to have your promises as I noted above. Then we can start addressing each and every one of your concerns, with or without a moderator. Remember I have no financial gain either way - all I want is an NPOV and well sourced article. Crum375 07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will again direct you to my comments above, Richard. I believe it's quite clear from the record that, as Gzkn had just appeared and offered to produce a sandboxed version of the entry within a few days, which, unfortunately, has not as yet happened, as Che had indicated he would be away for some days over the Thanksgiving Holiday, I agreed to simply, provisionally, let you have a go at a shorter version of the entry. I honestly think it was quite clear that this was simply provisional, pending time and the return of Che and the production of Gzkn's sandboxed entry as an uninvolved outsider's attempt at contributing a version of the entry on which all might, hopefully, agree to work. As time passed, as Gzkn did not return or present a sandboxed version, I eventually concluded that it was appropriate to rescind my provisional acceptance of the stubbed entry. I'm sorry if this created an appearance of bad faith in your mind, but I don't think it constituted bad faith, and I believe a close reading of the record will confirm that. That's my understanding of what you're referring to. I don't question your sincerity, Richard, but we sincerely differ here. As I said, I have no reason to accept your judgement in place of my own. GenghizRat 07:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An additional thought: I'm willing, if there's general agreement, to operate in the fashion Crum suggests. I think, though, that there must be general agreement, and that AR — I think — seems more inclined to work on the longer entry directly rather than via the mechanism of all changes being first agreed in discussion. Frankly, this also seems to me a possible valid approach. So, perhaps I seem ambivalent here, but I think it would be essential to involve AR in consideration of how best to proceed, and not neglect his contributions to date and possible desire to so contribute in future. I would think all would agree that that, too, is important. GenghizRat 07:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Crum375 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The cats away so you two are playing top mice. Crum I will start every reply to you and whenever you are mentioned from hereon with: Crum375 has been determined by the previous Mediator, Che, as having "a continued lack of good faith" and "resistant to mediation". I refer you Crum to the above re your behaviour. You avoid repeatedly, slandar, misrepresent, revert your agreements, and hide your biases. We will start from a stub or have an edit war. You have tried your tricks before. Your reputation will be relayed to the Arbitration people as well as widely in wikipedia.Richardmalter 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RichardMalter, see WP:CIVIL. Antonrojo 14:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richardmalter (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours due to yet another WP:3RR violation. Crum375 14:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a summary of disputed issues that Che listed on the peer review page which might be a good focus for consensus-building: Antonrojo 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(list below pasted from comment by Che at Wikipedia:Peer review/Yoshiaki Omura/archive1)

---

From where I see it, the actual issues are:

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

---

I have only a moment at the moment. If I may, I'd like to offer my thoughts along these lines later today. GenghizRat 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All righty, then. Simply to compare thoughts, this is the comparable list I'd draw up. I'm not saying it's superior, I'm simply saying that this is the list I'd draw up:

1: Is Yoshiaki Omura, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and/or his other researches and techniques notable according to Wikipedia criteria of notability?

2: If he and/or they is/are notable, on what basis, precisely?

3: If he and/or they is/are notable, what is the principal focus of the entry, and what, if any, are its subsidiary foci, and in what hierarchy of importance?

4: Does the basis or bases of notability define or constrain the entry in any fashion, or, once notability is established, is the entry then open beyond the established basis or bases of notability, and, if so, in what fashion?

5: Are there any particular considerations as to appropriate sourcing and/or expertise other than the standard considerations within Wikipedia practice which apply to this entry, and, if so, what are they?

6: Ought there or ought there not be any consideration given to an editor’s assertion of expertise or declaration of professional and/or financial interest in the matters under consideration? GenghizRat 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite and add a few of mine:

1. What are the criteria for categorization of an article as pseudoscience and/or quackery, and does this article meet them?
2. Should we include the quackery-related reference from quackwatch.com that was discussed here?
3. I think we should explain what the NZT meant by saying "The Omura materials were not helpful" while still equating BDORT with PMRT.
4. I think we should carefully go over every source Richard has produced, and decide whether/how to use it

I'll add more items if I think of any. Crum375 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it might be helpful if Dots worked within this context rather than independently, which, it would seem to me is less than ideal. GenghizRat 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above would fool the beginner here but not those with any experience of you.

The following facts sum up the situation:

(1) Crum and GR have continuously reverted full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully party to.

2) They have denied (1) above repeatedly - until I showed them the archives where there words and agreements are documented. Then they try to weedle out of it.

3) Crum has continuously "resisted the mediation" in the words of the last Mediator, to the extent that the Mediator gave up. Crum shows no real intention to do anything totally unbiased or act in any kind of good faith way:

4) Crum has displayed a "continual lack of good faith" during the mediation process, in the words of the Mediator. He has in fact acted in continuous bad faith throughout.

5) Crum and GR have teamed up to out-revert me in order tomaintain (1-4) above and in so doing make a mockery of WP.

6) GR and Crum have serious memory problems in good faith - otherwise we have no option but to understand that they are just prepared to lie whenever it suits them.

7) I will be requesting Arbitration ASAP. Richardmalter 06:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that to be the appropriate course, I would suggest you do so. GenghizRat 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just reversed your reversion to your and the Anonymous Dots form, restoring the version as per the efforts of myself, Crum, and AR. I would once again ask you to refrain from personal attacks. If you feel you can make arguments in discussion to convince others of the merits of your positions, please do so. Alternatively, if seeking arbitration seems to you the most appropriate course, please do so. GenghizRat 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard: please do not quote me out of context or ascribe motives to me which I have not expressed. I closed the mediation because it was getting nowhere, as every possibly avenue was rejected by some disputant or other, not necessarily by Crum. Just because Crum was the last person with whom I was frustrated before I decided to close the case does not mean he was the only person with whom I was frustrated. I suggest that you allow me to recount what I said as I deem necessary, because the last thing I want is comments I made in a good faith but ultimately frustrating attempt to mediate turned into barbs devoid of context used against other editors. If you're going to fight, please do so with your own words, not with mine. - Che Nuevara 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Afterthought: please notify me on my talk page if an Arbitration case is opened. - Che 07:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, again, for the effort. GenghizRat 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Che, much appreciated. Crum375 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, because Crum and GR are prepared to act in such an underhand way, I have little choice but to use reliable neutral third party citations, such as your own, to describe their actions. I do not hold it against you one bit for giving up; but please realize that in actuality I have been left again after months of my efforts to resolve this through mediation, acting in good faith, 'against' two people who will lie if necessary or perhaps just have terribly bad memories is kinder to say about them - if they want to. Your comments are public record and I will recall them word for word in proper context. You said to Crum:

Truth is, it did find another consensus: we all agreed that we could start over and build from the ground up. And we all agreed to stop revert warring. Retracting those comments now does not mean that this consensus was not reached. I find this and similar reverts to be in extremely bad faith

Your insistence to interpret agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith

You are now the one being resistant to mediation. Richard has agreed to work on a rewrite. Any more accusations that "conflict of interest" is holding up this mediation are completely devoid of merit. Either you're willing to work on this in the way that two independent editors suggested, or you aren't. It's very simple. Yes or no

You never said to me that I was acting in bad faith, nor that I was blocking progress - because I was not, I agreed with and stated so about just about everything you proposed, if not everything, be it both procedural and content. Crum blocked this all the way and stretched every reasonable effort by you to ridiculous, underhand lengths. Above on this page you will find that he tried to lie his way out of his agreements in the previous round of mediation - until I pinned him down about it and then he still tried to weedle his way out of it by calling them "minor technicalities" - which were in fact usages of citations (hardy minor technicalities as this is exactly what he continually blocked your efforts by arguing ad infinitum over to the point of you giving up). Your words form third party reliable statements as part of this record. I will certainly notify you re Arbitration. Do you suggest this is the best way to go?Richardmalter 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, my afterthought, I am guessing you know this, but what they really want, especially Crum, is to keep this completely WP unacceptable version up as long as they can and protract and discussion ad infinitum - that way Crum considers that he is 'winning'. He wont admit it but that is the reality - that is why he would not leave a stub. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade and accept that someone has no good faith whatsoever. Richardmalter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I will assume that despite all the harsh words you have for me, which you have repeated many times here and on Che's Talk page, somewhere underneath the critical rhetoric you do understand that all I want is what's good for WP, and that deep inside you still trust my integrity and honesty (although you may not externally admit it). Even if I am wrong, and your lack of trust goes all the way down to your core, it may still be worth your while to listen.

As I see it, you have 2 choices. You can continue to work on the Talk page with the three of us who support the current version (GR, AR and myself), and any others who may join us, to try to make it better. As you may note, all three of us have listed issues that we think need work, and this includes Che's list also. You are more than welcome to participate with us here on the Talk page, by providing your personal perspective of BDORT. If you do choose this option, I would appreciate if you refrain from editing the article directly, as you clearly have a conflict of interest, per your web page, with your name being listed alongside Omura's and others on some public documents. We will pay careful attention to all your comments and will ensure that anything that meets WP's requirements will be properly reflected in the article.

Alternatively, you can file for Arbitration. This is purely your choice, and you are free to do so at any time.

Thanks, Crum375 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat myself (hopefully) clearly: I closed the mediation because all paths I could conceive of were thwarted in some way or another. There were times in this mediation, both in the archives and in the period that I worked, when everyone acted in a less than exemplary fashion. I tried my best throughout the entire mediation to refrain from commenting on these incidents because I believed it served the interests of neutrality. By the bitter end I was nearly to the point of losing my religion and called Crum out on behavior which I found frustrating. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I stand by my claim that my comments stand on the page in context. If you believe what you are saying of Crum, then you can support that with your own words, and it should suffice. I once again respectfully request that you leave my words to express my opinion, not yours. As far as Arbitration goes, I cannot and will not give advice on whether and how to file the case, as it would compromise my position in the process. Thank you for your understanding. - Che Nuevara 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I think everyone here understands your frustration. Indeed, from our varying perspectives, I believe we've all shared it. As I've said, my comprehension of this situation is very straightforward: There are sincerely held opposed perceptions both as to reality and as to what is appropriate for this entry per Wikipedia criteria. I respectfully suggest you consider your course and make your decision as to whether or not in fact you wish to pursue arbitration. GenghizRat 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is GR, that you don't even have the good faith and will to start from a stub that many people said is obviously the sensible way to go. I have explained above why Crum will not agree to this. You also both do not keep to agreements. I will not bother repeating more than this. You and Crum are unique in that documented mediated consensus decisions - you pretend did not happen and revert. You wont keep to your agreements. You are trying to 'liberalize' and be 'objective' and hide the hard facts. Did you or did you not participate in mediation that resulted in the words "discussion closed and action taken as agreed"? When you have the decency to keep your agreements, and Crum too, then I will start to listen, not before. Crum, I have no faith in you whatsoever regarding this entry, your behavior as I have documented it is the reason. I have told both of you that you must have serious memory problems or that you are liars. It is documented above - Crum tried to say that he agreed to nothing "whatsoever" until I forced him to admitt it. You GR are much the same. Richardmalter 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated, my perception is that there are markedly different perceptions as to the underlying realities and Wikipedia processes. I am perfectly content to stand on the record. I would appreciate it if you would desist from personal attacks. I would again respectfully suggest that you either offer arguments and evidence in an attempt to convince others to your positions or, alternatively, seek arbitration or similar appropriate mechanism. GenghizRat 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GR, I consider lying a personal attack. I ask you to desist from it immediately. The point is GR, you perception may be whatever you dream it is, but that you don't even have the good faith and will to start from a stub that many people said is obviously the sensible way to go. I have explained above why Crum will not agree to this. You also both do not keep to agreements. I will not bother repeating more than this. You and Crum are unique here in that documented mediated consensus decisions - you pretend did not happen and revert. You wont keep to your agreements. You are trying to 'liberalize' and be 'objective' and say 'everyone is frustrated etc' and hide the hard facts. Did you or did you not participate in mediation that resulted in the words "discussion closed and action taken as agreed"?? The answer is you did. When you have the decency to keep your agreements, and Crum too, then I will start to listen, not before. Crum, I have no faith in you whatsoever regarding this entry, your behavior as I have documented it is the reason. You would make a politician worthy of the worst of them. I have told both of you that you must have serious memory problems or that you are liars. This is not opinion, it is documented above - Crum tried to say that he agreed to nothing "whatsoever" until I forced him to admit it. You GR are much the same. I hope that is clear. Richardmalter 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Another afterthought GR. You once asked me to keep your real identity private. In good faith I have as I said I would. You have not returned my good faith. When you keep your agreements, I will know that you have decided to - not before. I will only judge by actions not by any words that you will write here.Richardmalter 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it then you are now making real world threats against other editors? GenghizRat 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual GR your 'perceptions' differ widely from reality.Richardmalter 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm content, as I've indicated, to let others judge by the record. I would ask you to state explicitly, then, that you intend no such attempt, if you would be so kind. GenghizRat 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, Did you or did you not participate voluntarily in mediation that resulted in a discussion that ended in the words that you did not contest: "discussion closed and action taken as agreed"??

GenghizRat AKA all the other handles you have used, Did you or did you not participate voluntarily in mediation that resulted in a discussion that ended in the words that you did not contest: "discussion closed and action taken as agreed"??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/MediationArchive_1

Answer just 'yes' or 'no'. Richardmalter 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I would once again ask you to desist from attacks and threats. I have previously indicated a significant part of my motive in periodically changing handles was precisely conern over this issue. I raised it early in moderation as a concern. I have never overlapped use of handles, and admins can easily track my contributions as I have never changed my actual IP. My concern is precisely the reason why Wikipedia offers contributors the option of handles. I must insist you desist from personal attacks and threats. GenghizRat 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GR, first, you did not answer the Test of Honesty. Will you not? Second I make or made no attacks or threats. You have a fantastic imagination. Now, the Test of Honesty still stands.Richardmalter 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The record speaks for itself on all counts, in my judgement. GenghizRat 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as I assume I am not under interrogation, and you are not my interrogator, I think you'd allow me more than just a 'yes' or 'no'. On the assumption that you do, let me continue. I searched the archives for your quote above, and found it in 2 cases.

One had to do with the 'Quackery' categorization. You know my general opinion about that issue, which has not changed much from day one. I also included it as a question in my list of issues that need clarification above. Also, since that time when that discussion was held, we found and discussed a new source, so that specific discussion is obsolete due to new evidence.

The second place I found the quote was in the Lu discussion. What happened there was that a link that was negative to Omura 'mysteriously' disappeared (became non-functional) after it was used a reference here. My only agreement in that case was that we can't use dead links (although I understand there is some proposal now to allow the use of cached links, probably irrelevant in this case).

In both cases above, I don't see any contradiction between my position then and today, although some new material was discovered since and may require further discussion. I don't know if this makes me pass or fail your 'honesty test', but it is my honest attempt to reply. Crum375 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Crum you fail. We discussed:

reference in the article, Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant.

Nothing since then has changed this consensus. Do you dispute that the consensus for use of this citation for this purpose has remained unchanged and never been challenged?Richardmalter 02:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, regarding that issue, I agreed that the reference needs to be changed to a different sub-page in the same Quackwatch site, which will show that BDORT is considered as Quackery by that specific reference. When we get to actually edit the version then we can make that minor change. I also have other outstanding items on my todo list above. I have not changed my mind about this, if this is your point. Crum375 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, Richard, if you offered argument and evidence. It seems to me there is clearly a sincere difference on the part of all parties as to matters of interpretation. GenghizRat 02:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Crum, as Che the last mediator said of you [though I understand he is trying to remain neutral] Your insistence to interpret agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith. You have just restated that as it is unacceptable as is - we still have consensus; then why don't you take it out. Without even a beginning of good faith from you are not taken seriously. Arbitration will follow as soon as I get a minute to register it.Richardmalter 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I have refrained from making any edit myself to the article (besides selecting other people's versions) in a very long time - maybe months. I do intend to start making some edits myself at some point, once we agree on a working mode. Right now, I don't know yet how we plan to proceed, and I guess we are waiting for you to decide if you'd like to be working with us on this Talk page, going thru all our outstanding items in our combined lists, and maybe adding your own, or not, per my offer to you above. If you are starting ArbCom, then we need to work on the ArbCom case. It's your call. Crum375 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To repeat Che's words to you: the neutral Mediator that you wore down:

Truth is, it did find another consensus: we all agreed that we could start over and build from the ground up. And we all agreed to stop revert warring. Retracting those comments now does not mean that this consensus was not reached. I find this and similar reverts to be in extremely bad faith

Your insistence to interpret agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith

You are now the one being resistant to mediation. Richard has agreed to work on a rewrite. Any more accusations that "conflict of interest" is holding up this mediation are completely devoid of merit. Either you're willing to work on this in the way that two independent editors suggested, or you aren't. It's very simple. Yes or no

His comments stand. He was the Mediator. He said the above. He knew what he was saying.Richardmalter 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mediator, Che, also said that you were misrepresenting the community consensus. He gave you the benefit of the doubt about it; I dont.Richardmalter 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, Richard, if you let us know whether you intend to press on for Arbitration, so that we may prepare to present the matter properly, or if you prefer to continue here. If you would prefer to continue here, I would again ask that you advance arguments and evidence for your positions. GenghizRat 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, despite all your derogatory/defamatory comments towards me, I harbor no ill feelings towards you, as I suspect you are just frustrated. I do want you to participate with us productively, as I offered above. But to do so you will need to start focusing on the subject at hand, BDORT, and not on Crum-bashing. I think you've made your points, Che responded to them, I responded to them, and now it's time to move forward. Thanks, Crum375 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an intrinsically difficult situation. The question, I agree, is how best to proceed. GenghizRat 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have said nothing derogatory; whereas you have about me and others many times. You avoid the point of discussion repeatedly in a clever sounding way which pulls wool over no one's eyes; just like you did repeatedly with Che. You refuse to keep to mediated consensus agreements. (GR does not even try to defend himself). How do you expect progress to be made' I cannot take you or your good faith seriously. As Che said

Truth is, it did find another consensus: we all agreed that we could start over and build from the ground up. And we all agreed to stop revert warring. Retracting those comments now does not mean that this consensus was not reached. I find this and similar reverts to be in extremely bad faith

Your insistence to interpret agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith

You are now the one being resistant to mediation. Richard has agreed to work on a rewrite. Any more accusations that "conflict of interest" is holding up this mediation are completely devoid of merit. Either you're willing to work on this in the way that two independent editors suggested, or you aren't. It's very simple. Yes or noRichardmalter 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, while he can clearly speak for himself, he may or may not be actively monitoring this strand at present – I think Che was quite clear a short time ago, Richard, that he felt you ought not represent his opinions sans context in this space, but allow him to speak for himself. Perhaps I misunderstood, but that was my reading, and, frankly given the hell he went through attempting to mediate, for which I think we all bear a share of responsbility, I think that wish ought be respected. GenghizRat 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IT IS A FACT AGAIN DOCUMENTED JUST ABOVE THAT YOU (and GR) REVERT AND MAINTAIN A REVERSION OF MEDIATED CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS THAT YOU WERE FULLY PART OF. THIS IS BREACH OF PROCESS IN ANY KIND OF GOOD FAITH Richardmalter 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, please stay off the caps, I understand you are frustrated. I suggest you take some time and decide your best course of action. If you do want to work with us here on the Talk page to try to improve the article, the door is always open, as I mentioned above. Thanks, Crum375 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you indicated above that I am avoiding responding to your 'charge.' I'm not avoiding it. This ground has been covered a thousand times. I simply don't feel it appropriate to respond to your demands. If you wish to see my thoughts, simply revisit the record. GenghizRat 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest the same. This has been a trying process for all parties involved, and it might be best to take a bit, get a bit of perspective, and simply decide on a course of action as seems to you appropriate. GenghizRat 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, please keep to agreements. If you do want to work here in a way that is appropriate to good faith then please do. Until you do: IT IS A FACT AGAIN DOCUMENTED JUST ABOVE THAT YOU (and GR) REVERT AND MAINTAIN A REVERSION OF MEDIATED CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS THAT YOU WERE FULLY PART OF. THIS IS BREACH OF PROCESS IN ANY KIND OF GOOD FAITH

I respectfully request that you keep to agreements. I am simply making sure that you actions are well documented.Richardmalter 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, all our words and actions are automatically recorded on WP - you don't need to shout in caps to make them 'stick'. Again, please take some time to decide what you want. If you want to work here on the Talk page with us as I offered above, please let us know. If you want to file for Arbitration, that's your choice. But please take your time and decide what you want, just posting capped messages is counter-productive. Crum375 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IT IS A FACT AGAIN DOCUMENTED JUST ABOVE THAT GR (AKA all the other handles he has used) REVERTS AND MAINTAINS A REVERSION OF MEDIATED CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS THAT HE WAS FULLY PART OF. THIS IS BREACH OF PROCESS IN ANY KIND OF GOOD FAITH Richardmalter 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would again ask that you refrain from personal attacks and either move for arbitration or advance an argument and evidence for any proposed changes in the entry. GenghizRat 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I make no attack whatsoever. I document facts. 'Getting offended' is a poor way to avoid the question and a well known strategy to avoid facing up to your lack of faith; keeping to agreements would do you much more credit; - again your perceptions are fantasies; are you a poet?Richardmalter 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Richard, you've indicated quite clearly that you're a practitioner in this area. Perhaps this is inappropriate on my part and out of bounds, so feel free to rebuke me if I'm wrong to pose the question, but why not simply put together a demonstration or experiment for outside review and scrutiny per Wikipedia criteria as to verifiability and settle the matter? Alternatively, you indicated a fairly brief time ago that you had flown to New York to attend Dr Omura's Symposium. Were there any papers presented there or referred to in discussion that you might offer for consideration? GenghizRat 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A long time ago you asked me this; look up the answer. However there would not be much point if you and Crum were involved - since you do not keep agreements anyway. There is no point. When you show some good faith by keeping agreements and not showing continued lack of good faith and resist mediation - as the last Mediator, Che told Crum, we will have a procedural base. Richardmalter 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might have since become willing to present BDORT or some of Omura's other practices and procedures to outside scrutiny, or that someone else might have done so, and you might have learned of it while attending Omura's New York Seminar.

Do you mean to indicate, then, from your comment above, that you are unwilling to offer argument and evidence for your positions? GenghizRat 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it would indicate my advice to you that you would be foolish to proceed with anyone who did not keep their agreements. Richardmalter 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Another aspect of the dilemma here may be the marginal notability of this entry. I had previously nominated the entry for deletion on that basis, and the consensus went against me. Simply to repeat the point, for whatever it's worth, not to reargue it, it seems to me that the only clear basis for notability per Wikipedia criteria is the New Zealand Tribunal. All other sources are, at least to my eye, dubious at best as to acceptability. Hence, I think, part of the reason for this maelstrom. GenghizRat 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the voluminous discussion during the last AfD addressed these issues in excruciating detail. The consensus, after cutting down a small virtual forest, was that the combined Omura/BDORT was/is notable, though it requires further work. It's our job here to keep improving it. Crum375 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It has always been my belief that the NZ tribunal source is the only significant source that can be considered reliable for WP:V. Without it, we don't have anything to base the article on. --Philosophus ^T 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. GenghizRat 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I'm not attempting to reargue the issue. I'm aware we had opposite perspectives in that debate. I accept that it was settled as notable. I mean, though, to flag, once again, that I think a core dilemma with the intractability of this entry to date stems from the paucity of sources acceptable per Wikipedia criteria. GenghizRat 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing it to many articles I have worked on and typical WP articles in general, the current version is actually fairly reasonably sourced. I do agree, as I have noted many times here, that the NZT reference is the most important and reliable source for this article, around which all the rest revolves. Crum375 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. GenghizRat 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Has been requested because:

(1) Crum and GR have continuously reverted full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully party to.

2) They have denied (1) above repeatedly - until I showed them the archives where there words and agreements are documented. But still they avoid their agreements.

3) Crum has continuously "resisted mediation" in the words of the last Mediator, Che, to the extent that the Mediator gave up. Crum shows no real intention to do anything totally unbiased or act in any kind of good faith way:

4) Crum has displayed a "continual lack of good faith" during the mediation process, in the words of the Mediator. He has in fact acted in continuous bad faith throughout.

5) Crum and GR have teamed up to out-revert me in order to maintain (1-4) above and in so doing make a mockery of WP.

[4]

Perhaps I'm in procedural error here, Richard, but I believe you ought now make your points in arbitration rather than here. GenghizRat 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets just keep the record straight here for future reference.Richardmalter 05:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you've made your position clear, Richard. I suggest you make your arguments, and offer evidence. GenghizRat 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as noted here on your discussion page [5] I believe you are again in violation of 3RR, having made by my count 4 reverts within the last 24 hours under both your user name and anon IP. If my understanding is correct, I would respectfully suggest you restore the previous version of the entry as a minimal sign of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules and processes. If I am in some way in error, please feel free to correct me. GenghizRat 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I regret that as you've taken no action to self-revert, I've reported you as once again in willful violation. GenghizRat 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would again suggest, Richard, that you simply attempt to make your case, offer your arguments and evidence, in an attempt to persuade others, either here or in Arbitration, rather than apparently insisting on your 'right' to violate the rules and processes of the community because you find yourself in disagreement with others. GenghizRat 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an attempt to group and summarize the 'issues for discussion' listed above. If this doesn't seem accurate, edits are welcome:

1. Notability:
   1. Are both Omura and BDORT reliable topics by themselves? This is important because it has a bearing on...
   2. Should medical techniques used by practitioners who draw from Omura's work be discussed, and if so in how much depth?
2. Reliable sources:
   1. How judge reliability of new age/non-established science? Specifically, who can be considered an expert and can the notability of the 'expert' be judged? (Shinnick citation)
   2. Should an editor's personal knowledge or experience with the subject give their opinion more weight than other editors?
   3. Should a lack of sources be mentioned? Specifically, a relative lack of research on the BDORT procedure.
3. Can term BDORT pseudoscience?
   1. Should this be a member of Category:Pseudoscience and should the Quackwatch website citation be mentioned?

(list started by Antonrojo 02:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

---

1. Notability

In the deletion debate, as I recall and understand it, the consensus (limited, in a sense, as there was limited participation) was that Omura/BDORT is notable per appropriate sources on the basis of the New Zealand Tribunal. This raised the peculiar dilemma that proponents who argue that the NZT is not itself applicable to Omura/BDORT then seem to argue that Omura/BDORT are independently notable, but, by my understanding, they are not, as there seem essentially no sources available other than those of Omura and a seemingly small number of echoes of Omura's sources in generally unknown or very little known 'alternative medicine' journals. GenghizRat 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Reliable Sources

Regarding the question about personal knowledge of the subject, I think that edits should stand on their own merits, whoever makes them. On the positive side, experts on a subject may have a better ability to find good cites and to make convincing arguments. On the other hand, an editor who is very close to a subject may also be emotionally or economically invested in it. One extreme case is WP:AUTO. I think that expertise and potential bias should be essentially ignored. And of course any undocumented knowledge editors have picked up though personal experience is WP:OR.

As to personal knowledge, I agree that it may be useful, of course, but that it's extremely important that edits stand of their own per appropriate sourcing, and with appropriate language which attempts to accurately characterize the information available in the source. Such sourcing and language inevitably reflect 'personal knowledge' if only in the sense that an editor, even one otherwise without personal knowledge, brings her or his personal knowledge to bear in forming their understanding. Personal knowledge, however, must not serve as an 'argument from authority' as to the validity of any source or the language appropriate to its presentation. These must rest on argument and evidence offered, in my judgement, not on any 'personal knowledge.' GenghizRat 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm of the opinion that a lack of research on a subject should not be mentioned often if at all. I think it is better to attribute doubt about and claims to the scientific merits of something than to give disclaimers about a lack of research. For example, I'm thinking of statements like "Omura says that this technology can cure many diseases. XYZ Medical Board published a report stating that 'there is no way that it could do that'". This section from the Holocaust denial article looks like it might be a good model. Antonrojo 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the dilemma here is that we seem to have a multiplicity of assertions and claims, all of which seem to find sourcing only either directly on Omura's US or Japanese web sites, or in his own Journal, whereas, with the sole exception of the New Zealand Tribunal, no one has been able to find an acceptable verifiable source which addresses his assertions and claims. I don't claim to have any perfect solution for this dilemma, and perhaps no solution at all. I'm simply saying this is the dilemma as to presentation as I understand it. GenghizRat 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Pseudoscience?

Here the question as I understand it is what constitutes appropriate latitude within NPOV as to the characterization of a source. One argument is that if claims are presented as to scientific validity with no evidence of their having been subject to standard methods of independent scientific evaluation, then they are perforce pseudoscience. One might refer to this as the 'if it walks like a duck...' argument. On the other hand, the argument has been made that unless an appropriate source explicitly uses the term 'pseudoscience' the term may not be employed because it is a pejorative and the use of a pejorative violates NPOV. GenghizRat 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/gorringe.html, Gorringe caused a patient to die by relying on BDORT in lieu of conventional diagnosis:

Most of these conditions were diagnosed with BDORT and "treated" with homeopathic products. Noting that the Smith had reported blood in his bowel movements and abdominal symptoms over a 3-year period, the tribunal concluded that Gorringe had negligently failed to perform adequate diagnostic investigations and that by the time the another physician diagnosed the cancer it had spread too far to be treatable. Smith died six months later.

Should this be included in the article? Crum375 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum, it is boring, and I have outlined your biases. But the fact is the Tribunial recognized that what Gorringe actually did was not BDORT. As you said previously, they just ruled on PMRT generically. Is quckwatch a reliable site to overide the Tribunial's own words, no. Your bias distorts things as usual.Richardmalter 04:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to grasp your argument, Richard, as I have in the past. If the Tribunal supposedly drew a distinction between Gorringe and BDORT how do you explain these quotes from its official Findings:

Testimony used by tribunals in their decision Several doctors provided testimony at the MPDT tribunal: ‘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.’ – Professor Mark Bryden Cannell, Expert Witness called by the Tribunal, with whose testimony it concurred – Tribunal Findings, Paragraph 306[5] ‘BDORT is operator dependent, meaning that what actually happens is that the operator diagnoses whatever it is that he believes in. One cannot scientifically evaluate “belief”. In the context of testing, then, it would be impossible to challenge the practitioner’s belief in his apparatus. – John Charles Welch, MD, Expert Witness called by the Tribunal, with whose testimony it concurred – Tribunal Findings, Paragraph 314[5] ‘I think the big problem with the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is the fact that it’s not been properly tested to make sure that the results are reproducible. As Professor Cannell alluded to in his evidence, the key thing about science is a naive observer anywhere in the world should be able to reproduce the results using the same apparatus.” – John Charles Welch, MD, Expert Witness called by the Tribunal, with whose testimony it concurred – Tribunal Findings, Paragraph 316[5] Note: The Tribunal specifically equates BDORT’s claims of scientific validity with those of Applied Kinesiology and Gorringe’s personally preferred terminology of PMRT. Cf Paragraphs 100, 280, 290, 297, 305, 306, et alia[5] GenghizRat 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the hasty copy-paste, but you're certainly familiar with this from the entry, yet you seem to keep denying the NZT conflated BDORT. How do you reach that interpretation? GenghizRat 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just now noticed that this NZT report which I'll label NZT2 is different from the old NZT reference that we've been using, which I'll call NZT1 for now. The new one (new to us anyway), which is the one cited in the section just above, refers to the death of the Smith patient. I searched NZT2 for 'PMRT' and could not find it even once, while a search for BDORT comes up with 14 instances (it's only a 19 page document, vs. 142 for NZT1). One reference I see to BDORT is in the finding: "The negative notation in relation to cancer followed a BDORT which Mr Gorringe accepts is not a serious test that should replace traditional testing". NZT1, our original reference, is "DATED at Wellington this 5th day of August 2003", while NZT2 is "DATED at Auckland this 10th day of May 2004". Bottom line: it seems that NZT actually saw Gorringe again a year after the first NZT1 decision. The second time he was reviewed, 'PMRT' is noticeably absent, and only 'BDORT' alone appears in the report. The second case apparently is about a patient who died due to use of BDORT in lieu of conventional medical procedures. In the Quackwatch article, the two reports are described, and it seems that they refer to 2 separate cases. It is unclear to me why only the term 'BDORT' is used in the second one. Crum375 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, reading the Quackwatch article, the picture becomes clearer. The problem I had was how was Gorringe still around in 2004 for NZT2 if he was stripped of his license in 2003? Well, it's explained in that reference as follows:

In October 2003, Gorringe was ordered to pay NZ$104,096 and was struck off the Medical practitioner's register, which means that he can no longer legally practice medicine. However, he has continued to practice as a naturopath.
In May 2004, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that Gorringe had negligently failed to diagnose cancer in patient named Murray Leonard Smith.

As I now understand it, Gorringe was 'demoted' in 2003 from a 'Medical Practitioner' to a 'Naturopath', which still allowed him to diagnose and treat patients. At that point he was charged in the case of Mr. Smith, who died when he was misdiagnosed by BDORT in lieu of conventional techniques. During the second case in 2004, apparently both Gorringe as well as the NZT stopped referring to 'PMRT' (which they considered equivalent to BDORT in NZT1) and use exclusively the 'BDORT' terminology in NZT2. Also of note is that NZT1 was held in Wellington and NZT2 in Auckland. Comments? Crum375 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it from newspaper accounts he was stripped of his licence as an MD, but legally that still left open the option of practicing 'alternative medicine.' The NZT2 transcript is applicable, it seems to me, and appropriate both to this entry and to Gorringe's own. GenghizRat 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood it then, but I thought he was stripped of his license as a Medical Practitioner and became a Naturopath, per my above quote from QW. Do we have any reference for his ever being an MD? In any case, I agree that clearly this reference is applicable both for BDORT as well as the Gorringe article. Crum375 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The NZT is a Medical Practitioner disciplinary tribunal, it only disciplines Medical Practitioners. It refers to Gorringe as 'Mr.', whereas MD's are referred to as 'Dr.' (see items 3 and 6 for reference in NZT2). I believe when NZT2 say "Mr Gorringe graduated in 1977 and worked in general medical practice", they mean he was educated and worked as a Medical Practitioner, not a Medical Doctor or Physician. Crum375 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading some more about Registered Medical Practitioner I am more confused about it. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this issue? Crum375 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more info: the QW reference says Gorringe's titles are 'MB' and 'ChB'. NZT1 paragraphs 77 and 78 say:

77. Dr Gorringe is a registered medical practitioner, conventionally trained and holding a current practising certificate. At the relevant times he carried on practice at the Hamilton Medical Clinic at 168 Cambridge Road, Hamilton.

78. Dr Gorringe is educated in both science and onventional medicine. His qualificationsinclude but are not confined to the degrees of Bachelor of Science majoring in biochemistry and microbiology (1972) and MB ChB (Otago) (1977). He is also a trained teacher.

He's called 'Dr.' by NZT1 and 'Mr.' by NZT2. NZT2 makes no reference to NZT1 that I could find so far. It would be nice to get a definition of MB and ChB. Crum375 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP's article Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, these degrees are "the Commonwealth equivalent of what is known elsewhere as the degree of Doctor of Medicine (MD)". Crum375 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

When the page is unprotected the Quackery category can be deleted as it has been dropped through the CFD process. --Lee Hunter 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Coolness. Thanks, Lee. GenghizRat 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. The heading Affiliations/Credentials is particularly misrepresenting, as it suggests that Dr Omura has dishonestly attempted to affiliate himself professionally, which is a completely false suggestion. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.

This also of course shows the intent of GenghizRat - the author of this section - to try desperately to spread disrepute about Dr Omura. Richardmalter 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As Richard Malter has recently pointed out [6] in his presentation of Evidence in accord with his presentation of Yoshiaki Omura's demands [7] re the entry, the cite as originally referenced in Yoshiaki Omura: Affiliations/Credentials has now been 'corrected' on the Brazilian site which appears to be affiliated with Omura's work. I have therefore taken the liberty of replacing this previous citation with the three citations I located and placed in Evidence after noting Richard Malter's citing the 'corrected' cite in Evidence. [8] Though I recognize that as the entry is now in Arbitration it is likely most sensible in general not to lay hands on it, this correction seemed appropriate. If not, please advise. GenghizRat 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone here really going to argue that the Affliations section is not 100% WP:OR?

I think the only decent thing to do is revert the stub, which if it is not disallowed by Arbitration I will do. Richardmalter 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, please refrain from edit warring while Arbitration is ongoing. The current version is well sourced, and supported by User:Antonrojo, User:Philosophus, User:GenghizRat and myself. If you have a specific problem with a specific source or any issue, please discuss it here. Just saying it's "100% WP:OR" is not specific enough. Thanks, Crum375 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like a neutral party to step in, please let me know. Things seem heated here. Just H 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently under Arbitration. We would love to have neutral parties (and even well-behaved non-neutral ones), however, and your offer to help is very welcome. Thanks, Crum375 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is renewed activity by anonymous throwaway accounts which are not engaging in discussion on the Talk page. The current version is well sourced and is supported by 4 neutral contributors to the article who have no conflict of interest - Antonrojo, GenghizRat, Philosophus and myself. I suggest we leave this version alone while the issues are being arbitrated. Civil and productive Talk page comments are of course always welcome. Crum375 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the wrong version of this article temporarily due to revert warring. Please discuss any changes here and lift the protection as soon as it is feasible to do so. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When all the arguments about the diagnostic technique has been settled, one would still be left with an article that has no value as a biography (one sentence). From reading the link to his CV, it would seem that Dr Omura is indeed worthy of a proper biographical article in WP. Would someone be prepared to check the accuracy of that single biography reference, and maybe write a slightly shorter version of it, as well as a description of Dr Omura as a person? At least that would be an article on its own, and a good background for whatever one wishes to say about BDORT, i.e. a perspective on why the doctor has developed and promotes his ideas on healing. I say this as a passing "browser" who happen to find the article, and saw all the effort being wasted on non-biographical things. --Seejyb 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the reason for the relatively small amount of information on Omura the man vs. his BDORT diagnostic technique is that there were 2 previous AfD's (see links at top of Talk page) that essentially concluded that Omura is only notable because of BDORT, and BDORT is only notable because of the NZT report(s). This explains the relative amounts of information in the current article. Notability and available reliable sources play a major role of course. Crum375 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that if you can find any relevant reliable information about Dr. Omura, it should certainly be considered for inclusion into the article. Crum375 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreded that the B-DORT must be a separate (much less repetitive) article. I would probably be prepared to consider it appropriately documented & notable as pesudoscience. We can see what is left of the bio subsequently.DGG 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that change, if we do it, would be mostly a formality, since the BDORT procedure and related issues already figure prominently in the article and BDORT is redirected to it. Omura would clearly have to be mentioned, probably in a section, and presumably, if it is decided that BDORT is his main documented claim to fame, would be redirected to this article. We could then end up with almost the same article, give or take. As far as WP:BLP considerations, they would still apply, since BLP rules must be followed whenever living persons are mentioned, regardless of whether they are the subject of the article or not. So I see no major advantage to the change, but OTOH I can see it may make more sense logically as BDORT is clearly the more prominent and documented subject. Crum375 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is authorized to be published here by Dr Omura with the intention of informing WP editors regarding his biography and statements and false suggestions made about him. Other parts of this statement that reveal private information about some editors here have been sent to ArbCom.

[]Concerning Wikipedia's false denouncement of my work.

[]The accusations are not based on my public statements or my published statements, but rather on misrepresentations or misleading statements made by completely different persons than myself, including Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003). I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me. I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.). Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology. If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data. Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings. After he lost his license, he came to New York in the spring of 2004 to learn my technique for the first time.

In addition, I found that in the entire copy of the hearing, the following statement, according to page 58, paragraph 290:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

The question is why [WP editors are] making such irresponsible denouncements in an incorrect and distorted presentation that attempts to discredit myself and my work (and, indirectly, many MD’s, DDS’s, PhD’s, and paramedical professionals involved with the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test) by presenting claims that are contrary to the existing facts. All of the descriptions of Omura’s work are very superficial. Some of my published works listed on Wikipedia are not relevant to my important work. In addition, some of my important work had been completely eliminated, including:

1) Non-invasive, early detection of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, & autism (often the diseases and their possible causes can be detected long before standard laboratory tests can detect them) and their safe, effective treatment

2) Beneficial effects of one optimal dose of DHEA (compared with side effects from the currently used daily toxic overdose of DHEA) and how to maintain the beneficial effect

3) Role of asbestos in contributing to intractable medical problems including malignant tumors (often before standard laboratory tests can detect them, cardiovascular disease, intractable chronic pain, and their safe, effective treatment) and how to remove already deposited asbestos

4) Non-invasive estimation of approximate distribution of medicines taken by patients, various neuro-transmitters, bacterial and viral infections, other toxic substances, etc. at various parts of the body, measured using Bi-Digital O-Ring Test resonance between two identical substances

5) How to localize the location, shape, diameter, & depths of true acupuncture points on different meridians corresponding to specific internal organs

6) Discovery that a number of acupuncture points are written and taught at slightly incorrect locations, as there is no method other than BDORT to find this basic, important information for acupuncture treatment

7) Pulse repetition rate-dependent electro-acupuncture therapeutic effects

8) Pharmaco-electrophysiology of single cardiac cells in-vivo and in-vitro (For part of this research the Doctor of Science (Medicine) degree was awarded from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University in 1965)

Also, nowhere does the Wikipedia article mention that, in 1965, I received the degree of Doctor of Science (Medicine) from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University. Also, I was a visiting research professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering of Manhattan College and taught one of the first courses in the USA on biomedical electronics for more than 20 years. I received my undergraduate degree in Applied Physics from the best Japanese private university engineering school. I spent 3 years studying graduate experimental physics at Columbia University as a non-matriculated student. I have one of the best reputations in acupuncture research internationally and in the USA, with a list of close to 100 lectures given at institutes and meetings internationally, books and chapters in books, and more than 50 research articles on electro-acupuncture as indicated by my stolen CV.

In the final statement, the Wikipedia article claims that:

There is no known statement of the Office of the Professions of the New York State Education Department that state that accreditation to teach acupuncture constitutes certification or endorsement of the full range of Omura's methods

In New York State, all approved acupuncture courses must propose their program first in order to be approved. The original applications already included Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, since it is the only method available to accurately localize the location, shape, size, depth of true acupuncture points and meridians that correspond to the specific internal organs. After giving each meeting we have to submit the entire 3-Day Seminar & Workshop’s program and the evaluations from each meeting. It has been highly evaluated by the majority of participants. The course has also been evaluated by both program and site visit. Our course by the International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics has been given as an accredited course for over 25 years, with no one ever objecting to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. About 10 years ago, our meeting was attended by one doctor who believed in the high doses of vitamin C promoted by Prof. Louis Pauling. She was a strong believer in Prof. Pauling’s theory. However, in my course I mentioned that vitamin C potentially inhibits most of the effects of anti-bacterial and anti-viral agents, and therefore one should never give large amounts of vitamin C to patients while they are taking anti-bacterial or anti-viral agents. She was extremely disturbed and complained to the New York State Board of Medicine that Dr. Omura was teaching the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which she said has nothing to do with acupuncture without studying the subject. In response to her letter, Mr. Monahan (the head of the state boards of medicine, who authorized our acupuncture training course including the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test) asked me to give an answer to this question. We stated that Bi-Digital O-ring Test is the only method that can accurately determine the location, shape, diameter, and depth of true acupuncture points. By evaluating existing acupuncture point by using BDORT resonance phenomenon between two identical substances, we found a few serious mistakes in the locations of relatively well known traditional acupuncture points taught and described in existing textbooks. There is no other method that can accurately localize acupuncture points and their correct shapes and sizes. In addition, in order to perform acupuncture safely and in limited time, BDORT can provide a quick, inexpensive means of evaluating the condition of the patient before ordering the necessary laboratory tests, since inserting a needle in the infected area, there is a possibility of spreading infections. If the needle is inserted into cancer, it will spread the cancer. Using the BDORT, the presence of bacterial or viral infection can be detected non-invasively and quickly. Therefore, we stated that BDORT is absolutely necessary and essential in order to study and practice acupuncture accurately and safely and that, ideally, it should be taught in every acupuncture course, though there are not many people who are qualified to teach it. The doctor who complained to the New York State Board of Medicine also complained to the AMA, but in both cases, both organizations rejected her complaints after evaluating the case. Furthermore, before 1988, there were only about 15 acupuncture courses in the USA approved by the New York State Boards of Medicine & Dentistry. When every existing approved course in acupuncture was reevaluated in 1987 based on the proposed program and background of the faculty members, for a while (from January 1988-mid 1988) our course by the International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics was the only approved course in the USA that was approved by the New York State Boards of Medicine & Dentistry which included the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and Electro-Acupuncture. As a result, many doctors requested that we give our 3-day weekend acupuncture courses more than once a month. We could not increase the frequency to two times a month, so we requested that Mr. Monahan approve a few more courses However, he said that other applications did not satisfy the minimum essential training subjects including basic pharmaco-electrophysiology of electro-acupuncture & practical clinical electro-acupuncture, how to evaluate electrical stimulators using an oscilloscope or other means, how to evaluate whether or not the localized acupuncture point is real, and how to find the shapes and diameters of true acupuncture points. When I was asked whether the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test should be a necessary part of acupuncture training in other courses, I told him and his female associate who is the director of the non-physicians acupuncture program in New York State that while, ideally, it should be taught in all accredited acupuncture courses it was not necessary to make the BDORT part of all required courses, since I was the only one able to teach the technique at that time and I had no spare time to teach in other courses.

The article also makes the following statement:

Omura's credentials suggest affiliation with Columbia University, [27][28][29] though he is not known to have any affiliation with Columbia. Similarly, Omura's sites prominently feature the statement that he has long held and continues to hold an 'Annual International Symposium on Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics' at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. [30][31][32] There is no known credible independent source to confirm Omura's presentations which suggest affiliation with Columbia University, nor known reference to him on any site or publication of Columbia University

Concerning the article’s claim that I have implied that I am affiliated with Columbia University: that is absolutely false. Although I performed several years of my post-doctoral work at Columbia University and received the degree of Doctor of Science from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, nowhere have I stated that I am affiliated with Columbia University other than that we have used Columbia University’s facilities at the School of International Affairs for the annual international symposium. That has nothing to do with claiming that I am a faculty member or that I am affiliated there. Simply, any qualified person or organization can rent a conference room from any university if the room is available. I had the choice of renting space at New York University or at a hotel, but have used Columbia University because, of these choices, it is the most conveniently located for me, I am the most familiar with the Columbia University campus, and it is my Alma Mater. The fact that I use the conference room frequently or that my organization holds its symposium there cannot, to any reasonable person, suggest that I am directly affiliated with Columbia University or its School of International Affairs, where our symposium is held annually. This space was initially recommended to me by a professor at the university. Therefore, any claims the Wikipedia article makes to the contrary are false and the references the article uses (27-32) are misleading and false.

Because this Wikipedia article is a biography of a living person, it must be held to the strictest standards. Any article that attempts to discredit or denounce a living person, particularly when it contains information that has been publicly stated to be false, misleading, and damaging should have special requirements. My position and the position of the lawyers that I consulted is that in the case of biographies of living persons:

 1) The person writing an article harming, distorting, or discrediting another person should be 
     willing to disclose their true identities, including name, address, telephone number,            
     background, and other pertinent information, and those unwilling to do so should be 
     removed.  
 2) Wikipedia should make it a requirement that such information be provided by those writing
    articles on living persons, particularly when the writing is misrepresenting or contrary to the 
    facts and damaging to the living person’s reputation, and should remove those unwilling to do 
    so and eliminate any writing that they have made, unless their true identity is given.  If the 
    person is pretending to be several different persons by using aliases, they should not be 
    permitted to post any additional information on Wikipedia.
 3) Reliable references on scientific matters should be based on actual research and not the 
    quoting of a 3rd person’s unreliable statements that are not based on the actual data.
 4) In the case of any biography of a living person, the article should only be allowed to be 
   written and posted if that person is directly consulted and given a chance to present their case
   even when the person the article is written about may not be familiar with the computer, and if    
   all statements made about the person have no accurate, solid basis.  This is particularly true 
  when the article contains misrepresentations of facts that are denouncing someone or are 
   damaging.  It is also particularly important when the person writing the article is 
   just quoting superficial, misleading, or incorrect statements made by other people. 
   Otherwise, the person the article is written about has no way to discuss the issue 
   directly with the writer or the responsible person in Wikipedia in a legally responsible way.
   Any person who falsely denounces another person without a solid basis, without providing
   their true identity, and using several aliases to make it seem like more people are presenting 
   their opinion should not be legally permitted to post this information on Wikipedia.

Richardmalter 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject is welcome to provide information, as he has on this talk page; however, except for the most basic information a reliable source should be cited. All information should have a reliable source; that is especially important in the case of negative information. Fred Bauder 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology. If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data, along with the true identity of the person who claims to be publishing original research on the BDORT.

Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings, as I always emphasize in my teachings. After he lost his license, he came to New York in the spring of 2004 to learn my technique for the first time. At that time, he had not told me that he had already lost his medical license

In addition, some of my important work had been completely eliminated, including:

3) Role of asbestos in contributing to intractable medical problems including malignant tumors (often before standard laboratory tests can detect them), cardiovascular disease intractable chronic pain, and their safe, effective treatment) and how to remove already deposited asbestos safely and effectively

4) Non-invasive estimation of approximate distribution of medicines taken by patients, as well as various neuro-transmitters, bacterial and viral infections, other toxic substances at various parts of the body, measured using Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Resonance Phenomena between two identical substances

5) How to localize the location, shape, diameter, & depths of true acupuncture points on different meridians corresponding to specific internal organs using the corresponding organ’s microscope tissue slide and BDORT Resonance Phenomena

6) Important finding that a number of well-known acupuncture points are written and taught at slightly incorrect locations, as there is no method other than BDORT to find this basic, important information for acupuncture treatment with better effects 7) Basic principles of manual and electro-acupuncture

8) How to analyze electrical stimulators using an oscilloscope

Also, nowhere does the Wikipedia article mention that, in 1965, I received the degree of Doctor of Science (Medicine) from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University. Also, I was a visiting research professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering of Manhattan College and taught one of the first courses in the USA on Biomedical Electronics for more than 20 years. I received my undergraduate degree in Applied Physics from Waseda University, the best Japanese private university engineering school. I spent 3 years studying graduate experimental physics at Columbia University as a non-matriculated student, with my emphasis on more effort on experiments on electro-magnetic resonance phenomena. In May 1982, I performed, along with my associate, the first (outside of China) successful use of acupuncture as analgesia for surgery at the University Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine under the supervision of Dr. Orkin, who was the chairman of anesthesiology. I have one of the best reputations in acupuncture research and clinical practice internationally and in the USA, with a list of close to 100 lectures given at institutes and meetings in the USA and internationally, books and chapters in books, and more than 50 research articles on electro-acupuncture as indicated by my stolen CV. Because of my work and reputation, I was an invited speaker at many of the most important acupuncture conferences, and many state boards of medicine asked for my opinion concerning the basic requirements for acupuncture courses.

In the new final statement added, the Wikipedia article claims that:

There is no known statement of the Office of the Professions of the New York State Education Department that state that accreditation to teach acupuncture constitutes certification or endorsement of the full range of Omura's methods.

In New York State, all approved acupuncture courses must propose their program first in order to be approved. The original applications already included Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, since it is the only method available to accurately localize the location, shape, size, depth of true acupuncture points and meridians that correspond to the specific internal organs. After giving each meeting we have to submit the entire 3-Day Seminar & Workshop’s program and the evaluations from each meeting. It has been highly evaluated by the majority of participants. The course has also been evaluated by both program and site visit.

Also, using a reference, [the WP editor] claimed that BDORT is pseudoscience and quackery. However, the quotation [the WP editor] is referencing is from an advertisement from a company that makes a metal bracelet which they claim was found to be beneficial using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura. [the WP editor] uses this reference to make the BDORT appear to be pseudoscience and quackery. However, in many of my lectures, I not only discuss the side effects of wearing such metals but I also describe briefly why such metals should not be used by explaining a reason why these metals can be harmful. Therefore, the article’s statement is contrary to the facts. Most of the references the article uses have a similarly misleading or false nature.

posted by Richardmalter 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am officially asking you as an Admin in line with BLP to remove content from the Omura article immediately viz Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion .

The article clearly violates:

No original research

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately

The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

Richardmalter 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, can you say which material you want to have removed, and say exactly why for each example? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. This section needs removing: [9]. The reason is that it is WP:OR to strongly suggest that Dr Omura has dishnoestly affiliated himself to Columbia University, using honest mistakes in other websites that attribute that he is 'of' or 'from' Columbiua University (which is the problem with the idea of third-party reporting BTW). Dr Omura has stated clearly that this is an absolutely false suggestion that has no basis in fact. See Concerning the article’s claim that I have implied that I am affiliated with Columbia University: that is absolutely false. here [10]; furthermore it is deliberately intended by GhengizRat to be malicious by using WP as a tool to defame Dr Omura and make it difficult for Dr Omura to continue with his Symposiums at Columbia University as a simple renter of space (you have read the statement about GhengizRat and his real world malicious actions). Moreover, this statement has already done and continues this minute to do real life harm to a living person confirmed as fact by Dr Omura in his statement when he relates the response of Columbia University to this passage remaining public which Columbia University also knows to be falseby This WP:OR is malicious, deliberate attempt by GhengizRat to construe an argument based on patched together citations that do not actually say what the paragraph strongly and deliberately suggests.

Next instance for immediate deletion: re Use of categories : Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. WP:BLP. This is especially the case when it is intentionally malicious.

Omura is the creator of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), a form of applied kinesiology[2] which has been characterized as pseudoscience,.

First this has already been discussed months ago in Mediation with Aguerriero as the Mediator, who I think was also an Admin. It was agreed in full consensus [11] Discussion closed and action taken as agreed. that this citation cannot be used as it is here (even though Crum375 and GhengizRat have edit warred to keep this up). In the second round of Mediation with Che it was agreed again by full consensus. (You also stated yourself many months ago that this is saying loud and clear "that you dont rate it" to these editors who put it up originally.) The citation does not discuss the BDORT directly which is why GhengizRat has had to label the citation note [12] en passant. Most importantly, it is a malicious and deliberate attempt at labelling and catagorizing Dr Omura's work. The Catagories section [13] catagorizing of Dr Omura's work as 'Pseudoscience' is also based (solely) on this agreed inproper use of citation. Furthermore, Dr Omura has stated that:

Also, using a reference, [the WP editor] claimed that BDORT is pseudoscience and quackery. However, the quotation [the WP editor] is referencing is from an advertisement from a company that makes a metal bracelet which they claim was found to be beneficial using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura. [the WP editor] uses this reference to make the BDORT appear to be pseudoscience and quackery. However, in many of my lectures, I not only discuss the side effects of wearing such metals but I also describe briefly why such metals should not be used by explaining a reason why these metals can be harmful. Therefore, the article’s statement is contrary to the facts. Most of the references the article uses have a similarly misleading or false nature.

and

Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology. If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data.

[14]

This means that, in addition, this section is referencing citations that are contrary to the facts and claims stated by the subject of the entry about himself. And Dr Omura is the best source to say what he thinks and claims about himself.

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ^[2]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." ^[3]

Thanks.

I will document more instances soon. Richardmalter 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• SV, I don't know whether you know about the ArbCom case surrounding the Omura article, but it is important to note that the motions passed in the proposed decision will ban Richardmalter from editing the article once the case is closed. While I would like to assume good faith, this request does look rather improper from that standpoint. --Philosophus ^T 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Philosophus. I think it makes sense to let the ArbCom case finish, and then continue working on the article in its own Talk page. Using SV's Talk page for arguments about the issues is inappropriate and I recommend that this thread be moved to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura. We do have a list of issues we plan to address there as soon as the ArbCom case is closed. Despite Richard's assertions about the other editors, we plan to take a hard look at all the BLP issues he raises, as well as others he hasn't, and see if we can further tighten the article to avoid any appearance of WP:NOR or 'synthesis', even if every individual item is well sourced. We also plan to add new sources that have been discovered in the meanwhile. Our goal is to have the article conform 101% to all of the WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and sourcing requirements. I would like to take this opportunity to thank SV for all her help on this article and case so far. Crum375 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (I apologize for spamming your talk page, SV, as I continue to spam) I think this is fine here. It appears that what RM is trying to do is contact an individual administrator to intervene with BLP issues. While I can't understand why he would choose to contact SV out of all the admins here, this is not unusual or improper, except that he isn't mentioning the fact that the material is currently the subject of an ArbCom case, and that the ArbCom is expected to ban him from editing the article shortly. For some reason, I seem to recall him using a very similar tactic before with SV. Am I actually recalling another editor with another case? --Philosophus ^T 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is well aware of the Arb case. She has been helping me with a non-harrassment version of Dr Omura's statements. Both of you should realize the WP policies say in cases that I have listed here that defamotory information (that causes real world harm) should be removed immediatetey. Without any assumption of lack of good faith, the reality for both of you is that you arguing that we should not follow WP policies in these cases, makes you effectively complicit in real world harm to a living person; no comment that you can make here changes that fact. Since I trust that neither of you want to help or perpetuate real world harm, I know you will agree immediately. Neither of you have read the whole statement about GhengizRat (whose real identity and real life actions are known and have been reported in detail) submitted to ArbCom which has acknowledged it. You will effectively be aiding a malicious attempt by GhengizRat, that will be your reality, again without any assumption of lack of good faith towards you, and nothing you can say here will stop that except the immediate removal of these passages and others I will document soon.Richardmalter 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would encourage you to work on this in the open (SV, would you be so kind as to confirm this?). I do think that parts of the article need reworking and strengthening, and I believe that both Crum and GR acknowledge this as well, but we've been busy because of the case and concerned about editing the article while it was arbitration. I might start editing it today. At the very least, the boilerplate disclaimers are very annoying and could probably be reworked in a more tactful manner. The affiliations section that you take issue also needs work - it seems to be taking a rather specific interpretation of the sources (of which many no longer seem to work), and could certainly be rewritten in a more appropriate manner. The category problem is part of a larger issue with the Pseudoscience category that needs to be resolved at a more general level. However, Dr Omura is certainly not an appropriate source for what he claims publicly, and many of the assertions you make need to be backed up by sources (eg, Columbia being aware of the affiliations section issue). If you could get a public statement from Columbia clarifying the issue, for example, your case would be helped considerably. Also, GR has emailed me his side of the off-wiki story, so it would be nice if you could email me Omura's side of the story. I already know that they are very different even in basic facts like conference attendance. But please continue this discussion on the Omura talk page. --Philosophus ^T 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I will say this just once, and be advised that you may soon be banned and/or blocked from WP if the ArbCase goes where it seems to be going. First, please desist from making accusations about other editors. The statement you just made above about GR constitutes a personal attack of a WP editor. It doesn't matter what you believe the facts to be - WP is all about sourcing rules and neutrality rules etc. - attacking other editors is simply unacceptable and interferes with our mission here to build an encyclopedia. Either the sources are acceptable or not, the NPOV language can be tweaked where required, these should be our focal points - not attacking our fellow editors. Normally I would revert your message here, as it contains an attack, but I am leaving it intact for now, so you understand my points. BTW, as I noted above, as soon as the ArbCom case is done, we do intend to keep improving the article in all its aspects, including the BLP, NPOV and sourcing considerations. Crum375 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philosophus, I've not had a chance to look at the issues Richard raised, but I'll try to do it later this evening, or tomorrow. I corresponded with Richard briefly about a statement from Omura that he wanted to post to the ArbCom page, because his first version contained BLP issues; that's the extent of my recent involvement. I'll perhaps post something to the article talk page once I've had a chance to look at Richard's complaint. The behavioral issues and the editorial ones are separate, as the ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues as a rule, although I've not looked at the case in any detail. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I understand the personal attack issue and will be more careful. However, the fact that real world harm is being done is a fact confirmed by Dr Omura. You will effectively be, and are in fact already, complict in this even if you do not understand this, dont think this, dont want this, dont intend this, etc etc, if the paragraphs and others I note (that you have edit warred to keep up), remain. This is just the reality of the situation. You can then choose to act as you do, but the real world harm is being done, and this is against WP policies; and WP policies state that such material should be deleted immediately. It is also noted that regardless of the ArbCom outcome you have consistently not kept to full consensus mediated agreements that relates to this real world harm; again, no statement that you can write can change back the real world harm that has been done. This is again your reality and the reality of the situation, regardless of whast your motivations are. Hopefully you will act well immediatetely regarding your responsibility in this case.Richardmalter 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Richardmalter 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, I have not published the detailed sections about GhengizRat's real life actions after discussion with ArbCom and SlimVirgin, for privacy reasons; I cant see any point in sending them to you as you are not a judge. However you can know that there are also an official statement from a witness confirming part of Dr Omura's statement (the other parts where not visibly witnessed due to their nature). But in the instance of Columbia University, I would hope at the very least that you act in a precautionary way and accept that this real world harm is taking place and act accordingly.Richardmalter 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Columbia thing as it implied dishonesty and we can't do that in a BLP without a reliable source saying it explicitly. I also removed another sentence about accreditation that looked like original research. I made both these edits as an admin responding to a BLP complaint; I'd prefer not to get involved here as an editor in case I need to take further admin action. I'd also suggest removing the pseudoscience claim, in part because there's no source saying it about BDORT explicitly, which we need for a BLP, and in part because it doesn't really mean anything — it implies that science is good and pseudoscience is bad, but that's a POV, not a descriptive thing. However, that issue is less pressing than the Columbia allegation so I've left it in for the regular editors to decide. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I understand your concerns, and I think we can live with your changes for now. We do have other sources we have discovered in the meanwhile, which we plan to introduce. I agree that in WP:BLP cases we should be extra careful and conservative and go the extra mile to avoid synthesis. I plan to propose some additional language to WP:NOR to clarify this point. I have started making some edits myself, which I have not done in many months, and I plan to add in some of the new material also. Thanks again for all your help, it is very much appreciated. Crum375 13:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to incorporate both reports into the NZT section. I have also removed the 'Pseudoscience' category as I feel that categorization is essentially WP itself expressing its own opinion, which would only be possible for non-contentious issues and total unanimity. Crum375 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I also revised the lead to reflect both cases. Crum375 15:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also added the NY seminars to the lead, as I think that it is a significant point that shows a mainstream institution at least indirectly endorsing BDORT. Crum375 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for all that; much overdue but good nonetheless. That's a lot better - ie closer to what I understand as NPOV - than it has been. I have some questions and comments, I will not make these edits myself in good faith while I am still allowed to it seems:

1) please put back the {POV} as I think it is still needed, but hopefully for not too long.

2) Question, can Dr Omura's comments above re the NZ Tribunials be used at all? Re that he states that the BDORT was not actually used after he questioned Gorringe about what he was doing and it turned out to be a variation on Dr Voll's methods (and he is the expert in the world that can say this or otherwise - ie if it was BDORT or not). Also for the second reason that it can be read from his statement above that Dr Omura agreed with the Tribunial decision because standard lab tests were not ordered to confirm BDORT findings. This goes with his statement also that he considers his major contribution to be early diagnosis that should be followed up by standard tests, not instead of it, which would be grossly misrepresentative of Dr Omura's ideas.

3) The direct quote from the NZ Tribunial that Dr Omura also qoutes above should be included as a quote from the Tribunial. Otherwise it is selectively quoting and I cant see how that is not a form of POVing.

4) The Applied Kinesiology item: can Dr Omura's statements be used re this. For the reasons that: a) he does not consider it this at all, b) he started with AK and actually criticized it and went from there (I have quoted from Dr Phillip Shinnick's paper on this somewhere - I will dig it up again, however it is not online) - which means that the article is not being accurate (in the very least) about what Dr Omura 'claims', c) that the AK entry has a 'pseudoscience' link in it prominently - and as AK is in the lead in it is still immediately characterizing BDORT as such.

Thanks.Richardmalter 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, posts to Wikipedia can't be used as sources. For that material to be usable, it would have to be published by a third-party reliable source, or by Omura himself in one of his journals or on his website if he has one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Here is the ref to Omura and Applied Kinesiology (AK) I mention above. It is not online.

Yoshiaki Omura trained as a physician (MD), electrical engineer (MS), did a Surgical oncology residency at Columbia Medical School and did advanced (the first to measure the potential of a single cardiac cell) work in pharmacology and electric-physiology (Sc.D.) then became a heart disease research director, and author of a book on Traditional Chinese Medicine. (He is also President of the International College of Acupuncture and Electrotherapeutics and Editor of the International Journal as mentioned.) All these are manifest in his 25 years of research that started with the investigation of Applied-Kinesiology and ended with the discovery of the BDORT (Bi-Digital-O-Ring Test) with his innumerable applications. He criticized the traditional arm pull method by showing unreliability in arm strength, fatigue from changes in brain circulation, and a time-bound ghost effect from each attempt. BDORT was discovered in the late 1970's while testing grasping strength of the hand while being subjected at close proximity to a battery-generated positive and negative electro magnetic field. Positive or negative electro-magnetic fields were shown to have an effect on the hand and finger grasping strength along with various sounds and keeping the eyes opened or closed. Dr. Omura, discovered the O-ring phenomenon during the course of investigating pain threshold and grip force in relationship to brain laterality. He noticed that when applying pressure to create pain, the grip force decreased. He observed that (a) induced pain would decrease the grip force, and (b) even a light pressure on skin areas (very often) related to "previous pain" also reproduced this phenomenon. However, pressure applied upon "normal" areas did not cause decreased grip force. Quoted from: Shinnick, Phillip PhD, American Academy of Medical Acupuncture, vol 14/#3, reprint, 2003. Can that be used?Richardmalter 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, Shinnick is a coworker of Omura, as you asserted in your statement to ArbCom. As such, he would not be construed as a neutral 'third party' source on Omura. Crum375 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true, he definitely was. He has not been for more than 10 years, does that change anything? BTW To clarify, that excerpt is the full printed version of the shortedned online version[15].Richardmalter 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he worked with Omura for 8 years, and just recently issued a statement for him at the Arb case, I would consider him closely involved and not a neutral 3rd party. Crum375 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the publication by Omura referred to [16].

It also contains a statement about his surgical use of acupuncture as a first in the USA, which was a widely reported event: Dr Omura received his medical degree from the School of Medicine, Yokohama City University, Japan. He came to the United States after an internship and worked as a Research Fellow. Dr Omura introduced one of the first acupuncture training courses for licensed physicians and dentists in the United States in 1972. He was also involved in the first successful U.S. surgery using acupuncture in 1972. Richardmalter 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This one may or may not be acceptable - it requires more research. We may need to email the author of the book review. My concern is that if the book review version of the CV is based strictly on the book itself, then that would still not meet WP's criteria for controversial items. We do allow a subject to use his/her own publications for non-controversial items, but when they claim being "involved in the first successful U.S. surgery using acupuncture" we need to have some third party attesting to it. If the book reviewer is only citing the book iself, then that would not suffice, IMO. Also, it is unclear to me what 'involved' means - maybe it's described further in the book, but that again would not come from a neutral third party. Crum375 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK.Richardmalter 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, can you clarify for me please,

1) what does "the most basic information" referred to by Fred Bauder above cover exactly?

2) if Dr Omura puts his above statement on his website, can his comments then be used?

3) as an eg, if above here on WP, in Dr Omura's statement, Dr Omura says that he thinks "the sky is blue" can his statement here above be used to say that "Dr Omura thinks the sky is blue"? Thanks.Richardmalter 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not SV, but I'll barge in anyway with my own answers:

1. 'Most basic' typically refers to non-controversial information about one's schooling and life history; when controversy or an exceptional claim is involved, we need neutral third party reliable sourcing
2. Anything written by the subject, unless possibly when published in a very prestigious and reputable publication, would still fall under that limitation
3. If Dr. Omura says he was born in 19xx, and it sounds logical and is uncontroversial, we can accept it, similar for schooling, etc. In fact, we have already relied on his web site for such information

Crum375 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So can ANY of this be used: Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings. After he lost his license, he came to New York in the spring of 2004 to learn my technique for the first time. ? P.S. did you see my question above re the Shinnick article?Richardmalter 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SV can chime in when she wants to, but IMO if there are delicate personal BLP-related allegations like what Gorringe said or didn't say to Omura, or his loss of license, etc., these would certainly not be in the 'basic' category. Crum375 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I follow; what about what Omura above states he said?:

Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.

Also re the acupuncture surgery involvment:

[17] If you log in here on a free 14 day trial you can see the whole article, search terms 'omura' 'acupuncture' 'surgery':

Acupuncture Is Used to Anesthetize a Patient Here New York Time May 30, 1972, Tuesday Page 24, 254 words:

Acupuncture, the ancient Chinese technique of needle therapy, was used to anethetize a surgical patient in a hospital in New York City last week, it was learned last night.

Later on reads (para 7): The members of the team, it was learned, were Dr Frank Z Warren, a New York anesthiologist and psychiatrist; Dr Pang L Man and Dr Yoshiaki Omura. end paraRichardmalter 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. did you see my question above re the Shinnick article?Richardmalter 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, once it gets into sensitive BLP allegations, it doesn't matter who said what to whom - the entire subject matter would be outside of the 'basic' category. As far as the NYT article, it does not mention Dr. Omura's actual role, does it? Could he have been in some support capacity? Or just learning? We would have to know if it's notable, and what he actually did, IMO. And I already answered your Shinnick question before. Crum375 03:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I missed it. Re what Omura says he said, I would like a second opinion, I cant understand this part of the policies or/and wish to question intepretation. Maybe we can ask SlimVirgin. Also if Omura puts this on his website does it make any difference? Re the newspaper, it is quite clear that Omura was there as and did acupuncture. If I also correlate with a printed version of the New York Post May 30 1972, Frank Z Warren who headed the team and other members list Dr. Yoshiaki Omura, acupuncture, I think its clear. Dr Omura's ICAET training course supplement also correlates, gives the electro-acupuncture circuit diagram used as performed on 2 patients on may 26th 1972 by Drs F Warren., P. Man., Y.Omura and (surgeon G. Efron) supervised by L.R. Orkin at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Richardmalter 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked SlimVirgin here [18].Richardmalter 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having SV's opinion would be useful, but I believe that any publication by Omura may generally only be used to source the 'basic' non-controversial or non-exceptional information, as I noted above. As far as the ICAET training course supplement, that's an Omura publication and can't be used as a source. You say "it is quite clear that Omura was there as and did acupuncture", I still don't see Omura's actual role mentioned in the NYT account, e.g. to preclude that he was in a support capacity or learning, as I noted above. Crum375 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, will will wait for SV's take. Does the New York Post article also not satisfy what you think is necessary? Also, again, please put back the POV template above the article - for reasons I mentioned above etc. Thanks.Richardmalter 09:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the NYT article says he was involved in it, then I think it is safe for us to say that he was involved in it, without specifying the capacity --Philosophus ^T 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing we have from the paper, AFAICT, is that his name is included in the 'other members' list. It doesn't actually use the word 'involved'. Crum375 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so it seems to me that it could be used as a source to say that he was involved in some capacity. Saying that he was involved in it doesn't imply that he actually did anything at the surgery, or was even present. --Philosophus ^T 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But what if, hypothetically as you say, he was not even present. Then we would be using a primary source, which a 'fresh' newspaper account is, to support a relatively exceptional claim, that Omura was involved in "the first successful U.S. surgery using acupuncture". I believe we need a secondary source, i.e. some reliable publication published well after the fact that points to that event with some perspective. For one thing, how do we know that this was the first such event in the US? the paper doesn't mention that AFAICT. For another, does being merely listed, and possibly as you say not even present, establish notability for a WP article? Note that I am not at all disputing the possiblity that all this is gospel truth, but we need reliable sources (secondary sources for exceptional claims) and notability for WP article inclusion. Crum375 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, still waiting for SV, and willing to wait too re the acupuncture surgery citation - though it seems clear IMO, but can be added to the other list of citations that need going through (again!). But re the {POV} template, please put back; I dont mind doing it. I still dispute the neutrality of this article, that it is disputed is a fact - though as I said hopefully for not too long; regardless of my direct pending block on this page or not; and I am still a 'WP editor' at large. For just one example, not including as a direct quote from the Tribunial, without any surrounding diminishing WP:OR wording, neither with any strategic or placing within the text in such a way to diminish it, the quote of the Tribunial that Dr Omura notes above, as a direct quote from the Tribunial equal with the other quotes, there can be no question that an effectively selectively quoted report is POV. There are other a number of other examples. I also dont mind inserting it myself, but hoping someone here will do it first.Richardmalter 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is reasonably neutral as it stands. Even if there are minor issues, that hopefully we'll keep improving, that's no reason to label the entire article as POV, since by that logic most contentious articles on WP would have to be so labeled. By sheer logic, if a contentious article is exactly and perfectly neutrally balanced, both sides in a given dispute would see it as being POV, as it would be slightly skewed in the 'other' direction from their perspective. Therefore, I don't think that small amounts of perceived bias by one side justify the POV template, as by definition you'd have to use it on nearly every contentious article. Also, I am not sure I understand what specific issue you believe is POV here, perhaps you could explain it in clearer language. Thanks, Crum375 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, this whole section inclusive needs to go in:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

Selective quoting or/and omission of this obviously key bit of info in its entirety is POV, loud and clear.

Also the AK link up front goes to the AK page, where guess what another edit dispute about 'pseudoscience' etc etc with this word obviously strong POV shoved in there - so this is obvious POV for the lead sentence etc etc. There is a fair bit to do first. But first the {POV} plate back in. There are other major issues too. In fairness, I am asking for the template back, it is still not slightly but massively POV. The two above examples I have given. Richardmalter 03:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "Omura materials do not assist" quote, I would include it if we could get a secondary source explaining its significance. As it stands, it sounds confusing and would simply confuse the reader who would not understand what it means. As I myself currently understand it, the Tribunal is saying that there are some differences between Gorringe's technique and the Omura material that Gorringe provided, but the Tribunal still proceeds to label the PMRT and BDORT techniques as essentially synonymous later on. Thus it is not clear if Gorringe provided the wrong Omura materials, or the Omura materials were correct but the differences were on the one hand enough to make the materials unhelpful, while on the other hand the Tribunal still labels the technique 'BODRT' in many places in its report. Bottom line: I believe that this paragraph is confusing and should only be introduced if it is explained and refered to by a secondary source.

Regarding the AK link, I have not been following the AK entry, but the NZT specifically calls BDORT/PMRT a form of AK, thus it should be wiki-linked there. If the AK entry has problems as you say, they should be corrected there.

Regarding the entry being 'massively POV', I think as it stands it is fairly neutral, as I noted above. Crum375 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Crum. 1) the neutrality is disputed. You cant dispute the dispute. It is the priveledge of a WP editor - it is a positive mechanism for such cases. All of what you write re the quote from the Tribunial is WP:OR. You cannot judge what sounds confusing or not to other people. It has to go in, otherwise it is selectively quoting. The simple solution is to include the quote and let people read and make their own minds up. Unfortunately the AK issue makes the BDORT labelled pseudoscience straight up, albeit indirectly. I will put the POV template back up - please dont edit war over a template :-)Richardmalter 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are missing the points, so let me explain again. If we have a primary source that is confusing in a contentious issue, we cannot include it as a quote unless it is referenced and explained by a reliable secondary source as it will just confuse our readers, and we cannot explain or interpret it ourselves, as that would be original research.

Regarding the AK, the fact that some other WP entry is POV in your opinion does not allow you to then refuse the wiki-link to it. The NZT clearly labels BDORT/PMRT as AK, and WP defines AK in its own entry. If the AK entry needs fixing, then it should be fixed, but that's no reason to refuse a wikilink to it.

Regarding the POV template, I explained my rationale for not having it here, as this entry is fairly neutral. I think all contentious WP entries would have POV templates if one side in a contentious issue disagrees with a compromise neutral language. Crum375 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, please refrain from editing the article directly, as it is clear that you are representing the subject and have a conflict of interest. You are welcome to post your comments here on the Talk page for now. Crum375 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Crum375 I strongly disagree. But I wont edit war with you. I'll get some Admins in. What you write is 100% POV WP:OR and what you write could apply to any other quote from the Tribunial. Richardmalter 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What I write in the Talk page as my own private understanding of a primary source is not WP:OR, since this is not article space. All I am saying is that it would be confusing to the reader and would thus require some secondary source to interpret or explain it. The other quotes that we cite have no such confusion. Crum375 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, that is just as far as I see it your personal take and has no basis in WP policies. It is just selective quoting. It would of course change the whole article. Che when he was involved did not exclude it, for another take on it, he included it even in his stub. There is no way you can convince me of this. It seems to me one of those arguments that only you support - like the disclaimers. I will ask for Admin help. It seems any agreement just doesn't work or wont work.Richardmalter 08:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to get some fundamental things sorted before I get blocked - if that is what happens.

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said either about the Tribunial and BDORT involvment and/or to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue? ie can any of these be used:

a) Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003).

b) I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me.

c) I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

d) It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).

e) Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

and/or?

'f) Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used moreso? If so in what way further.

3) Next please. Crum375 has reverted the POV template I put above the article, saying that it is not very non-neutral as a whole. I have said that as a WP editor who strongly disputes the neutrality of the article, I have the right to have this template up, is this correct or am I mistaken?

4) A critical statement from the Tribunial, from exactly the same official NZ Tribunial citation being used for all the others states that:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

Crum375 is arguing that this is "confusing" and so not allowed. Obviously it is important because it makes the Tribunial have a different 'light' on things altogether. It also corresponds with what Omura states in the above quote from his statement. I strongly contest this and see this as clear POV omission, and see no reason to omitt it except POV. Can you help with this please.

Thank you.Richardmalter 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

Re: 1. Nothing that Omura or anyone else has posted on Wikipedia may be used as a source.

Re: 2. Anything that Omura self-publishes on his website or in one of his journals may be used as a source so long as, in the opinion of the editors on the page, (a) it is relevant to his notability; (b) it is not contentious; (c) it is not unduly self-serving; (d) it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; (e) there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. See WP:V.

Re: 3. The POV template may only be used if you've made suggestions for NPOV improvement that are actionable within our policies, and those suggestions have not been implemented. The templates can't be used simply to signal dissatisfaction. I would suggest leaving the template off, and working instead to find ways to improve the text.

Re: 4. Regarding the statement from the tribunal, I can't tell whether it's confusing without reading everything else that they wrote. It may be that it's confusing out of context, because there may be other things they say that qualify the part of the statement you posted on my talk page.

What I'd suggest in general is that you try to form a good working relationship with Crum375. He's a very good editor, he's familiar with the policies, cares about following them, and wants to make sure the article is well-written and fair. Your best bet is to try to work with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also support Crum's position that you shouldn't be editing the article yourself, because you've made it clear you're representing Omura. You're encouraged, of course, to make suggestions on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

Re, Re: 3. The POV template may only be used if you've made suggestions for NPOV improvement that are actionable within our policies, and those suggestions have not been implemented. SV

1) I have made suggestions: this critical quote from the NZ report be included. There is no WP reason on the planet not to. Che, the last Mediator, even in his stub version included it. 2) It is so obviously critical to the whole thing, excluding it cannot really be NPOV. It is the sole quote that Omura mentions himself. Why cant WP readers just get all the rounded info, not selective, and decide for themselves?? Who said WP is not a tabloid? There is no way excluding this is not POV.Richardmalter 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So having met the requirement of a positive suggestion that can be implemented, and has been by other editors, if Crum disagrees, can I not exercise my right to put the POV template up?Richardmalter 09:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be editing the article, even to tag it, because you're representing Omura and BDORT, which places you in a conflict of interest. I'm also not sure you've met the requirement of a suggestion that can be implemented within our policies. Crum seems to feel that interpreting the tribunal will involve some OR. I don't know whether I'd agree because I've not read the tribunal's findings, and I don't have time to read them today, but Crum really is an excellent editor. Please try to work with him, not against him, because I'm certain he'll be fair to Omura and BDORT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, even the removal of obviously blatant defamatory material, has taken tons - months and months - of arguing and time, while real world harm was done. It would be very, very hard for a reasonable person not to form strong opinions about this. I noted that no one even thought to apologize. If I kicked you without knowing it, and then found out, my basic decency would say "sorry" to you. Many people I show this too who have nothing to do with Omura/BDORT simply say, "yeah, they dont like Omura/BDORT on WP do they". I feel forced to use WP policies to the limit I can, so if I am allowed, and have the right to use the POV template, then I will; if you say I cant - is that a final decision? I asked for Mediations for these reasons. And as I stated in the Evidence to ArbCom, I went along with both process and content - even the last stub that was proposed. So it looks like back to square one. I do try to work with Crum375, I think you do an injustice. But there are some things he insists on that no one not even other Admins have agreed with. And this omission, which you have to admitt is pretty critical to the Tribunial report, by any kind of reading, and that others have had no problem with who were completely neutral, like Che, is just another example. The 'disclaimers' another one.Richardmalter 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you shouldn't edit the article at all, not even to tag it. The problems on this page stem from your trying to add positive content about BDORT, and then, as you've argued elsewhere, some people on the other "side" may have pushed just as hard in the opposite direction in an effort to oppose you. (I don't know whether they did, but I'll take your word for it). However, that's in the past, and Crum375 wasn't one of them. He really is trying to create a neutral, well-sourced page that adheres to our policies, so please work with him.

Regarding the statement, it's confusing. It says:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

It's not at all clear what it means. On the one hand, it seems to equate PMRT and BDORT. At the same time, it attributes a different technique to Gorringe from that used by Omura. It doesn't explain the significance or otherwise of that difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal reading of that passage is that PMRT and BDORT are the same thing in substance, and any small differences in technique are irrelevant; for that reason, the Omura submissions, which dwell on that detail, miss the point, so we're going to ignore them. But that's my OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the way I understand it too, and in fact I suspect it is the only logical explanation. And as I noted above also, this would still be just our own OR interpretation and we may not editorialize in a contentious issue. Crum375 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've taken a very quick look at the tribunal findings. What I think I'd probably do here is add a sentence to the NZ tribunal section saying something like: "There is confusion regarding the extent to which the tribunal found that Dr. Gorringe's treatment, which he called PMRT, was essentially the same as Dr. Omura's BDORT. Although at times the tribunal appeared to equate the two treatments, it also found there were differences in technique. The tribunal did not explore whether the differences were such as to render their judgment inapplicable to BDORT." Or " ... did not explore whether the similiarities were such as to render their judgment applicable to BDORT."

Then I'd add a footnote in which I'd quote para 290 from the findings here (pdf); the other paras (320 and 325) mentioning Omura could be quoted too, although that might be confusing given they mention the names of other doctors.

This is just my opinion based on five minutes of reading the judgment. It's up to the regular editors whether to do something like that, because they know the background and the rest of the material, and I don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds acceptable to me, although I am always concerned about WP itself expressing its editorial opinions and analyzing primary sources. But given that this could be construed as an 'extenuating circumstance' for the BDORT proponents, I can see we may need to do it and override OR to achieve better NPOV. So I can go with either suggestion. Crum375 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about this some more, I decided it made sense to include this PMRT/BDORT issue in a separate and dedicated sub-section, which I now did. I added the 3 relevant cites to this issue: NZT-1 (Wellington, 2003), NZT-2 (Auckland, 2004) and the Quackwatch article which summarizes both, and tried to incorporate all of them in comparing BDORT and PMRT, while minimizing OR. This is of course open to comments and criticism. Crum375 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[19] I have added a motion to ArbCom. I will comment on the above, which needs much more discussion soon. Thanks.Richardmalter 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. here goes. Crum, I think my edit suggestions are generally quite if not very good; I can see that SV for example can readily find a way to implement what I suggest - even if it is not exactly as I would myself. I hope you will look at the following in the same way - and find positive ways to make use of what I suggest in order to improve this article.

the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s variant and derivative treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT') on his patients, was guilty of malpractice and the Tribunal found that "...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity."[4][5] In the second case Gorringe was found by the Tribunal to have relied on BDORT to the exclusion of traditional diagnoses, which ultimately led to the death of a patient.[6][5] As a result of these findings and conclusions, Gorringe was fined and stripped of his license to practice medicine.

To quote you quite correctly, everything needs to be citated. You will recall how you argued over every word when Che was proposing things. Well, I expect that you should and will want to apply that same stringency to this passage, otherwise it is not consistent.

'the only known independent evaluation - do we have a citation for this? We don't. All we can really say is that The NZ Tribunial considered etc etc . . - otherwise it smacks of point-making. As it is, without a citation, it is POV and WP:OR.

evaluation is the wrong word as I have explained many times. Of course evaluate means try something out and see what you think. They didn't do that. What they did was give an opinion. Evaluation misleads, far more than many instances that you argue for in great detail.

You cant say they gave opinion about BDORT, because further down we admit the confusion. That's why Che's version had the quote about the Omura materials being different up top in the lead in. Now anyone who was looking for it, would say that not putting that sentence higher up is clear POV and certainly confusing even more. Actually you were spot on when you said some time ago that they gave their opinion on PMRT generically - and that is all we can accurately say. Do we have a citation for "evaluated" ie that this is what the Tribunial did? No. We can only say they gave an opinion.

Basically the whole first sentence is speculation.

''the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s variant and derivative treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body, is entirely giving seemingly accurate WP:OR on the basis of lack of other citations.! We cant do this. All we can say is that, "The NZ Tribunial did such and such". Its WP:OR. Again there is no citation for these words, we dont know tha it is the only opinion, we cant guess at that. I can hear you say very similar things if I had written this sentence and you were correctly critiquing it. So we must be consistent. The whole sentence is not citated, is WP:OR and needs rewriting much more factually and accurately.

Of course it was impossible for them to give a scientific evaluation because a) they tested nothing, and b) no one there had the qualification in physics to be able to opine on a resonance phenomenon between two identical substances, which as you know is what Omura claims is the basis for the BDORT. So we are very very inaccurate with what we have at the movement. And above all its not citated, its WP:OR. Everything has to be citated, as you say. And your rigor has to be applied consistently you will of course agree.

The whole things needs a rewrite up to here.

Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT')

is also very confusing. Also inaccurate. BTW we also know he didn't use BDORT or if he did from the Tribunia report - Omura says he did not - and ONLY Omura can determine this because he defines what BDORT is (and Gorringe didn't use it). You, SV etc are non-experts and cant decide this; what seems similar to you perhaps or SV in the eyes of an expert is heaven and earth in technique etc. But we cant use Omura's statement, but we can be informed by it. BTW this is also the problem with third party reporting - which if a journalistic article would render it of a very low researched quality - ONLY Omura can say what is BDORT or not. That cant be contested - he patented and defined it. Certainly not a non-expert like you or any other editor, that's not a judgement just a factr;l like I cant comment on skydiving - I have no experience, I can just describe it. So the whole thing as currently written is very confusing, and inaccurate, and not citated, and carries a big POV with it, for those reasons.

Now that's just that para, and many others need a rewrite to. But please start with that and in the spirit of SV way of finding ways to implement my comments in concrete editorial ways, see what you can come up with please, thanks.

Also, since you have argued very strongly for the disclaimer statments, can you explain exactly in WP terms why you wish to include them; no one has been able to so far; and I think we might need an Admin opinion on it. Thanks.Richardmalter 09:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)