Talk:BDORT/Archive 3

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

message: I've been able to Google-Locate a couple of references/publications of the esteemed Chifuyu Takeshige referenced by icaet as representative of validative authority in icaet's meaning of the term:
* Establishes that BDORT is ineffective if one's eyes are closed – perhaps this relates to the previously cited "triple-blinded" study in which the particpants avoided eye contact. 
* The esteemed professor is duly eulogized in the Journal of International Society of Life Information Science (Journal of ISLIS), which journal states in its notes to prospective authors that "The Journal of ISLIS publishes the fruits of scientific researches (e.g. original research papers, review articles) in which consciousness, the spirit or the mind, etc. figure." It features such representative work as "The Spiritual World (spiritualism) will be Illuminated in the 21st Century,"  "A Study on Physiological Changes in Shaolin Internal Qigong," "Immune Responses during Remote Qi Emission."  
These, along with BDORT remote application to rabbits, presumably with eyes wide open, it would seem to me, speak for themselves. Then again, perhaps my eyes are closed. Arcsincostan 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chifuyu Takeshige 

message: Crum375, headlines are easy to write. It also seems very clear that you have a POV re this article. You immediately deleted the improvements I made on the Work version, whereas you made no such action when others did exactly the same. When Philosphos made changes without consensus you did not revert them, mine you do and did. You set a 48 hour 'no changes' rule, just after you agreed without full consensus on some radical changes while I was offline for under 48 hours, that were made; you then claim this to be a consensus version. You recently tried to imterpret the Admin's comments to support your POV. I withdraw your temporary mandate granted by me (et al) to you as an informal mediator here. 
Now to the article. Re your: Can you help us find in the NZ report where the Tribunal says that the Gorringe PMRT method was different from Dr Omura's? Did you not read this citation quoted in the article (that you reverted)? The report itself says just this. This make all current statements re the NZ Tribunial incorrect information. The are not a comment on BDORT. I will undo the non consensus change that you made that I refer to above (see archive for detailed chronology) adding the See Also section. --Richardmalter 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Malter makes WP criteria improvements to article immediately deleted by Crum375 (whereas other previous changes made by others without full consensus were not deleted by Crum375) 

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

message: Here is my justification for the inclusion of this section's contents:
# Alternative Medicine: To the best of my knowledge, this is a non-contentious item. I was under the impression that BDORT is accepted as Alternative Medicine procedure by all parties. If I am wrong here, please correct me.
# Pseudoscience: As I noted earlier in this Talk page, I personally consider the term a pejorative, akin to calling someone 'stupid'. On the other hand, if there exists a verifiable and reliable source that says 'X is stupid' and that labeling is relevant, important and significant to an otherwise acceptable article about X, I would include it. In this case, IMO the NZ document is the most critical component of this article as it is the only reliable source we have for BDORT. In the NZ document the term 'pseudoscience' is used in relation to Gorringe's PMRT/BDORT usage several times. I think it makes sense to supply a linked WP definition of the term, so that the informed reader may reach his/her own opinion. We (WP) are not saying that BDORT is pseudoscience, only letting the user read about it so he/she can be able to decide on their own if the pseudoscience allegation in the NZ document is valid.
# Quackery: I quote from WP's article quackery:"Quackery is a term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis. Quack is a term used for a person who dispenses false medical advice or treatment."
::I think most logical and neutral readers of the NZ Tribunal's report would agree that this definition fits almost perfectly the Tribunal's description of Gorringe's activities and reliance on PMRT/BDORT. I am not saying this is Wikipedia's description of BDORT since WP must remain neutral. All WP can do is provide pertinent and well sourced information to its readers so that they can reach an informed opinion on their own. Providing this link to WP's article in the "See also" section fulfills that function. Note that both for quackery as well as pseudoscience I objected to the categorization as such, since IMO that would be WP forming an opinion about a controversial subject, which contradicts WP's policies. But including these items as "See also" for self-informing is acceptable IMO.
Now let me respond briefly to Richard Malter's comments about my apparent un-even-handedness and lack of neutrality, and my losing his support as 'informal mediator'. First, I have already admitted fully my POVness - I am committed to WP's policies of neutrality, reliable sourcing, etc. If that makes me a POV-pusher in his eyes, so be it. I only proposed my role as 'informal mediator' with assumption of unanimous support. If Richard does not accept me as 'neutral enough' - it is his decision to make. All I can do is try my best to get this article to WP standards and requirements. Perhaps Richard, as I believe I suggested in the past, can find a more neutral party to help in these issues. I would be delighted to have more neutral voices here. In the meanwhile, since this article is contentious and controversial, I do strongly suggest to refrain from making any edits that change the POV-balance of the article, without first discussing them here and achieving a consensus. Thanks, Crum375 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for "See also: Alternative Medicine, Pseudoscience, Quackery" 

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

message: It would seem to me that the following suggests the possibility of reshaping the entry, and I would ask for discussion.  Arcsincostan 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo on appropriate use of NPOV re crackpot theories 

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

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

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

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

message: Crum375, no, what you confirm with the quotes is what the quotes actually say, that those people that were considered experts in this field by the Tribunial, gave the opinion that anything to do with muscle testing, including BDORT, is not valid. This is clear, it is their opinion, there is no argument. But now you start your WP:OR and try to infer more widely. But to recap first, we are agreed that as you say I respectfully submit that my understanding is that the NZ Tribunal is opining on BDORT/PMRT as a generic technique. The Tribunial lumps these together as PMRT for ease of description which makes sense. We can clearly say in this article that this is the opinion of the Tribunial. But, they do not anywhere contradict their previous also very clear statement on page58, that Gorringe did not use BDORT. So we can also clearly say that the Tribunial made this differentiation - all we need to do is quote them word for word - how much more WP OK is possible than that? Are you arguing that we should not quote the paragraph on page 58 word for word? That really would constitute a bias - a very big one! Notice that you read the article, and pick out one interpretation and focus, I do the same and focus on something else. You have a bias, here identified, as is many times previously. I have one too. To suggest you do not have a bias in what you think here is in my opinion either dishonest or lacking understanding. Are you telling me that privately you do not have an opinion about what you think re BDORT and Omura? Are you telling me that you separate this from your WP volunteering 100%? It is humanly impossible. You are using your brain to interprete data - like all humans on planet earth your interpretation is subject to many biases including those that arise directly or indirectly from your personal opinions and thoughts. 
So I think something like:
The Tribunial noted at an earlier stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent. But the Tribunial gave final opinion that all PMRT (which they meant to include BDORT) is "not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions" and that "We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity." 
Omitting one and not the other is VERY VERY CLEAR POV bias. I will put this up. Please improve with WP guidelines. Unless you can find a WP reason this is not OK, please do not delete or revert.
Re the disclaimer idea, as long as you say according to it is all fine, we are just reporting.
Now re the See Also point. I have reiterated at least 3 times that you broke the consensus process. You repeatedly reply on the substance. You want to move on to the substance based on your non-consensus additions. You are very careful never to reply to the process point. I will remove this therefore. But about your point of labelling, have you never read an entry in an encylopedia that described anything according to the inventor or proponent and not concluded that that encyclopedia is an advertisment for the entry!?? Based on your argument all entries in all encyclopdeias of people and their inventions are advertisements. The argument holds no water whatsoever. If you want "hard facts", lets quote the Tribunial!!!. Lets also write according to in every case. Your proposed solutions again show your very clear bias, which is not a criticism, just needs to be noted and recognized. Thanks for reading.--Richardmalter 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing NZ Trial assessment 

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

message: WP is an experiment. Quite a new experiment, at that. Its processes have evolved and are likely to evolve in future. Whether it is, in the longer term, to prove an experiment that ‘succeeds’ or ‘fails’ is as yet very much an open question.
There are clearly a number of limitations in this process. In this instance, for example, I see no evidence of more than three parties actively involved in ‘editing’ this entry to date. There is no ‘editor-in-chief’ to whom to appeal when there are differences. It is, denials to the contrary, effectively an anarchic (in the non-pejorative sense of the term) process. Such processes, as any other, have their strengths and their weaknesses.
I personally think the current ‘rule’ for avoiding use of the phrase ‘according to’ is an absurdity, an attempt to maintain conventional encyclopedic voice when Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia in any meaningful conventional sense. If a given participant feels this is an appropriate ‘rule,’ fine. If not, fine. I see little point in pretending to be something one is not, other than as a form of entertainment, and Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, though it aspires to be encyclopedic.
These are not academic points in the pejorative sense in that they bear on the fashion in which editors and potential editors consider the possibility of contributing to an entry.
Wikipedia’s culture, in my observation, bears a non-trivial resemblance to chatroom culture – unsurprisingly, given its structure. The notion of creating a valid organic quasi-encyclopedic structure of such a process is appealing, to a degree, but, as in the case of extraordinary scientific claims, I feel skepticism rather than quasi-religious embrace is the appropriate stance.
These may seem idle or casual observations. I do not believe them to be. Wikipedia, because of the character of search engines with which Mr. Wales is presumably more than casually familiar from his illustrious Bomis enterprises, combined with the simple fact that it is free, has rapidly assumed a quite extraordinary presence on the web. Whether this proves, or ought to prove a more than evanescent phenomena of the moment is as yet very much an open question.
Consider this a preamble and a justification of sorts, then, for the very simple, indeed elemental observation that Wikipedia ‘rules’ are not of holy writ carried down from a sacred mountain.
They are subject to discussion.
No ‘editor’ in this entry has, so far as I am aware, any claim to authority or precedence.
I place the term ‘editor’ in quotes for the simple reason that the term is rather casually, and, indeed, one might argue disingenuously employed on Wikipedia, and this is part of the appeal of the process. Anyone who troubles herself to make a change, an 'edit,' is thereby an ‘editor.’
So much for the formerly ink-stained wretches of the world who endured years of apprenticeship.
In this space, every participant is an editor, an instant expert.
The very process will in and of itself generate at the least an approximation of the desired end.
Quite the miracle.
As to the miracle of this particular entry, then:
1) ‘According to’ is perfectly appropriate phrasing with respect to semantic import.
2) I fail to find convincing the argument that an ‘editor’ ought ‘recuse’ himself for reasons of financial or professional interest. Ought a professor of mathematics recuse herself from an entry on mathematics? She derives a salary from her position. If her position is enhanced she stands to benefit. Ought Wikipedia to be constrained then solely to self-appointed amateur enthusiasts and scholars? ‘No professionals need apply?’ Rather a peculiar notion for something that suggests in any sense resemblance to an encyclopedia.
3) This entry has, at present, on the evidence, a grand total of three sets of eyes on it. It is by its essential character controversial. Extraordinary claims are advanced for this technique. It is, unsurprisingly, therefore greeted with extraordinary scepticism – by the apparently few who are aware of its existence. To apply to this reality, as is doubtless applicable to many other entries, notions that, in time, with enough people looking in, a really swell entry will evolve, is an act of very considerable faith, as yet in my judgement unsupported by observation. I’ve seen far too many entries on any number of subjects with very little active participation, and which reflect that fact. Will they in time improve? Perhaps. Will they in time worsen? Perhaps.
‘Bottom line’ as the accounts-minded Americans like to put it: The entry is contentious. It has few eyes on it. It will reflect that fact.
This is a predictable and an inevitable outcome of this process, and this structure.
Any other questions?
Arcsincostan 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any other questions . . . ? 

message: Richardmalter, for whatever it's worth to you, I personally do not doubt your or Dr. Omura's motives. That, though, in a sense, is irrelevant. Surely you appreciate that the claims made are absolutely extraordinary. Now, granted, startling new claims, even if true, will likely be encountered by unreasoned resistance. Please, in all sincerity, however, consider, if only in your heart of hearts, that there really, truly appears to have been no meaningful attempt to establish objective validation for these claims. It would not by any means be impossible to construct, for example, epidemiological groupings. If you want, in my estimation, to have any chance of spreading what I have little doubt you sincerely believe is a wonderful series of methodologies, you or other advocates must rise to this challenge. I will not pretend I think such study would validate the techniques. I think it will fail. I would, again for whatever it's worth, in all sincerity be delighted to be proven wrong, however. Please, though, accept the possibility of considering seriously, if you believe in this process, attempting to validate in a form that will convince even sceptics, even unbelievers. That, I think you might agree, is, after all, the ultimate scientific standard. Until that standard is met, however, extraordinary skepticism with respect to these quite extraordinary claims, is the appropriate stance in my judgement. Arcsincostan 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect that acknowledgement. Tell you what. I'll make a deal with you: I will remain very very skeptical, because – and I think you'd agree on this part of my point – the claims made for these diagnoses and treatments are very very spectacular – but I will, in all sincerity, also be open to any objective evidence that shows that I'm wrong and you and Dr. Omura, etc, are right. I won't pretend to think that will happen. I think these things are well-intentioned and sincere, but on the wrong track. But I will attempt to remain open-minded if there is reason to think I'm wrong, and your side of the argument is right. All I ask is that you, for your part, attempt to at least occasionally, in the privacy of your own mind, look at this thing with a skeptical mind – skeptical in the scientific sense, not in the sense of being close-minded. Frankly, the thing that strikes me as most problematic about Omura's articles, etc, is this: He almost never really seems to seek independent checks of his readings, and so forth. He tends to diagnose a problem, if there is one, via BDORT, treat it via Selective Drug Uptake or Solar Paper, and confirm outcome solely via BDORT, with followup if and only if the patient is re-presented at a subsequent seminar. He will, for example, use BDORT to determine the acetylcholine level in a patient's brain, then prescribe treatment, then, a few weeks later, examine the same patient, again only with BDORT, and determine to his satisfaction that the acetylcholine level is improved. If you look at his report on 'Juvenile Alzheimer's' disease, you'll see the particular case I'm talking about. In this example, a young woman, college age, Asian, born in Asia if memory serves, was attending Stanford. She reported problems with sleeping and concentration, etc. Stanford ran every test they could, and found nothing. She came to New York and was evaluated at NYU. They found nothing. She then, in the company of an Asian physician, was brought to Omura's seminar, and diagnosed as reported in his Journal. He prescribed treatment. At her next visit she appears much improved, reports much improved (but not perfect) functionality, and via BDORT he notes improved acetylcholine levels. Now, look at this with a sympathetic but also skeptical eye. It seems to me, as a human being, that there is a very real possibility, if not the probability, that this was a psychological process. The young woman's symptoms at Stanford clearly suggest the possibility of stress, quite possibly academic performance related. We do know that conventional extensive evaluation by two first-rate facilities found no organic problem. Might they have missed something? Yes, it's possible. Still, with all respect and sympathy, it seems to me also very possible that the young woman was stressed, and that, attended to and diagnosed by a fellow Asian, in a group of people practicing a variation of traditional Asian treatment, in a group with a significant number of Asians, she may have been able to find release and respite from her emotional stress, and thus improved. This seems to me the simplest and most likely explanation. Is it the only possible explanation? No, it isn't. It's possible, though I think it unlikely, that Dr. Omura's diagnosis and prescribed treatment is what led to the improvement. Consider, though, the limitiations of the claims presented in Dr. Omura's Journal entry: At no point does Dr. Omura attempt to establish via any secondary means of lab diagnosis the accuracy of his diagnosis as to acetylcholine levels. Essentially, it seems to me, we have a very anecdotal report, with no apparent interest in any external confirmation, and there is no longer-term followup (last I knew) as to the outcome for the patient. Now, do such things happen in treatment? Yes. But is such an occurance something with enough self-checking to serve as a Journal entry that demonstrates the efficacy of the diagnosis and treatment? I cite this because it seems to me both typical and representative of the problem with respect to Omura's claims. I don't ask you to agree with me, but I would, with respect, ask you to, in the fullness of time, keep this sort of thing in the back of your mind, because I do think you're attempting to find alternative approaches that will relieve suffering. I don't think Omura is likely motivated by money, either. Ego, yes, but there's nothing wrong in being motivated by ego if you aspire to be the best, and to make breakthroughs. Some things about Omura's approaches seem to me at the least a little strange. I can't document this, but ask you to consider that I'm telling the truth: The man feels, in all sincerity, he can use the BDORT to evaluate the health benefits of Barbecue Potato chips, picking out which bags are healthy, and which are not. The same for underwear or socks. The same for canned food in the (metal) can, unopened. He argues strongly that McDonald's according to BDORT, is one of the healthiest places to eat. Now, there may be something going on here, but I think it's appropriate to maintain extreme skepticism against such things unless they can be demonstrated objectively. As I say, I'll attempt to maintain an open mind against the possibility that I'm wrong, and all I ask of you is that you attempt, in all sincerity, to do the same. Fair enough? Arcsincostan 05:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That said . . . 

message: I again urge all parties to refrain from non-consensual edits. Please present any ideas or suggestions you have for changes here, and we'll discuss and consider them fully. Thanks, Crum375 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree that anyone can do anything. My point, which I made earlier, is that unless we cooperate, collaborate and try to reach consensus right here on the Talk page, we'll just spin our wheels and get nowhere. Thanks, Crum375 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I've restored Richardmalter's edits, after some consideration. It isn't that I'm in agreement with them, but they seem to me clearly not unreasonable on his part, and I don't think it fair or reasonable that he be effectively excluded from being able to adequately participate in shaping the entry and restricted to pleading his case in discussion. The edits, I feel, should be addressed directly as to merit or lack of merit. Arcsincostan 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree all of everyone's suggestions should be considered. But that should be done here, in a contentious article, lest it become a childish daily see-saw. Crum375 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then why not present your criticisms here, and wait for Richardmalter's response? He is, it seems to me, not unreasonably frustrated that the article arrived at a state of semi-fixedness without his opinions being fully reflected. These frustrations are reflective, in my judgement, of the process itself, as is your perfectly reasonable concern that the result may be a see-saw. That, however, is the character of this structure, as you yourself have pointed out with respect to the grand-contentiousness of many other entries. Arcsincostan 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Richardmalter Edits 

message: So far as the evidence of previous discussion indicates, in my understanding, there had been for a period an agreement, suggested by Crum375, that any substantive edits would be subject to consensus having been reached first on this page. Over time, however, that suggestion's support eroded, until, so far as I can see, of the grand total of three active participants in this discussion, only Crum375 sought to continue on that path, the other two participants having found it ineffective. At that point Richardmalter made a series of edits, which seemed to me, though I did not agree with them, not unreasonable in that others might hope to work with them. At that point, however, Crum375 seemed to insist on his course as the only reasonable course, though it is not, of course, any WP policy, and insisted on reverting any edits not agreed to via his methodology in discussion. It would now seem that, in order to gather support for this preference, he has enlisted SlimVirgin's assistance, though she has not been actively involved in this entry, and has not stated any reason for her revert. I find this problematic. It represents an insistence on having one's preferred way though that preference is not any WP policy. I fail to see why the entry ought not be allowed to evolve via the customary WP pattern of edits, with discussion accompanying. In the name of averting a revert war, Crum375 would seem, in my judgement, to have evoked one, complete with insistence on a course of conduct which, while not unreasonable, is no policy of WP of which I am aware, and with the enlistment of an admin with whom he has collaborated on other entries, but who has not been on the evidence actively involved in this entry or its discussion in any meaningful way for some time.
Precisely what WP policies does this reflect?
Arcsincostan 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policies exist more as an attempt to describe the practices of editors rather than as a set of axioms. Edits do not need to necessarily reflect certain policies. In the case of articles about pseudoscience like this, the policies become extremely difficult to deal with, and, in my opinion, IAR and common sense, along with and understanding of the tenets of the policies themselves, must be used to prevent the process from falling apart. I've seen many articles like this get stuck in labyrinthine wikilawyering that only became resolved through the application of common sense (Aetherometry, Research into health benefits of Falun Gong, and so on). The general idea with controversial edits like RichardMalters is that they should be discussed on the talk page first, instead of being added and then discussed. This isn't really reflected in any policy, but is just part of the culture. --Philosophus T 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: No Original Research, Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia: Biography, Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons
*An assertion of fact in and of itself is only an assertion of fact. An assertion which explicitly or implicitly claims scientific status for an individual or individuals, their procedure or procedures, and which fails to adduce as per the criteria listed above evidence as to the factual status of those assertions fails in the presentation of its claims. Arcsincostan 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria 

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

message: The criteria here are straightforward, as noted above: Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: No Original Research, Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia: Biography, Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons
There is no justification for attempting to shape the entry to one's personal preference by simply deleting distasteful properly sourced properly presented information, nor for adding infinitely long stretches of OR with no verifiable citations whatsoever. Presumably this entry aspires to credibility as encyclopedic, not as a personal essay of proponents unable to verifiably source their claims.
Any other questions? Arcsincostan 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That said . . . 

message: ==== Pseudoscience ====
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the  pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes  as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant.  However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view."  However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. 
*The above is official WP policy. Note the following points: NPOV as policy requires that no statement be made in the entry in the form of an assertion that the pseudoscientific belief(s) is (are) false. It does not require obfuscation of the description of the main views. Bear in mind further, that as per WP policy with respect to verifiable reliable sources, the only sources we have re Omura's practices indicate that it is pseudoscience and quackry. The NZ Trib and the Quackwatch cite are verifiable, reliable, as per WP criteria. Omura's journals, etc, are acceptable only to the extent of verifying the claims made – not as proponents are attempting to shape the entry, the validity of those claims.
*It seems to me clear, then, that with the combination of the Quackwatch cite, which, even if only in passing clearly and unequivocally identifies BDORT and Omura's practice as quackery, with Quackwatch clearly a verifiable reliable source, in combination with the NZ Tribunal, for which I have made clearer than ever in the entry itself BDORT is clearly and unequivocally judged on expert evidence to be 1) a form of applied kinesiology (which is established in WP, according to proper sourcing, as pseudoscience) 2) without any claim to scientific validity, it is appropriate to identify the character of this entry explicitly as one treating a form of pseudoscience and quackery. To evade this fact, for which verifiable reliable cites have been provided, because it makes proponents unhappy is not a valid approach. The object is an appropriat entry to appropriate criteria, not the comfort level of proponents of a practice who have provided no verifiable reliable sourcing for their claims but instead have resorted to revert wars and attacks. Arcsincostan 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP NPOV FAQ Quote re Pseudoscience 

message: How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the  pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes  as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant.  However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view."  However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. 
*The above is official WP policy. Note the following points: NPOV as policy requires that no statement be made in the entry in the form of an assertion that the pseudoscientific belief(s) is (are) false. It does not require obfuscation of the description of the main views. Bear in mind further, that as per WP policy with respect to verifiable reliable sources, the only sources we have re Omura's practices indicate that it is pseudoscience and quackry. The NZ Trib and the Quackwatch cite are verifiable, reliable, as per WP criteria. Omura's journals, etc, are acceptable only to the extent of verifying the claims made – not as proponents are attempting to shape the entry, the validity of those claims.
*It seems to me clear, then, that with the combination of the Quackwatch cite, which, even if only in passing clearly and unequivocally identifies BDORT and Omura's practice as quackery, with Quackwatch clearly a verifiable reliable source, in combination with the NZ Tribunal, for which I have made clearer than ever in the entry itself BDORT is clearly and unequivocally judged on expert evidence to be 1) a form of applied kinesiology (which is established in WP, according to proper sourcing, as pseudoscience) 2) without any claim to scientific validity, it is appropriate to identify the character of this entry explicitly as one treating a form of pseudoscience and quackery. To evade this fact, for which verifiable reliable cites have been provided, because it makes proponents unhappy is not a valid approach. The object is an appropriat entry to appropriate criteria, not the comfort level of proponents of a practice who have provided no verifiable reliable sourcing for their claims but instead have resorted to revert wars and attacks. Arcsincostan 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

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

text: Richard, I don't really want to get into a long argument about this, but try to reflect for a moment: If I really were an anti-Omura/BDORT POV-pusher as you imply, wouldn't I revert back to Arcsincostan's current version rather than the original post-AFD one? Crum375 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion of POV pushing, as seen from the perspective of advocates, seems to me a pseudo-issue. I do not question the sincerity or the intent of those attempting to shape the entry to a form which would read as favorable to Omura. The key problem however is the simple fact that there are no verifiable, reliable cites as yet identified to justiry such a presentation. Indeed, the more one digs, the more one tends to come across appropriate cites which, from the perspective of Omura-enthusiasts are problematic. Consider, eg, the fact that we've had a number of attempts to re-shape the entry in which the claim is advanced that the patent demonstrates scientific/medical status – this in the form of argument with no cites whatsoever. Yet, if one then digs around, one finds the quote from one of Omura's principal colleagues, a regular presenter at his seminars/workshops according to the cite provided, in which he indicates in no uncertain terms precisely the opposite. The quarrel the proponents have, to date at least, is with the reality of the available information beyond their own self-reinforcing little world. If they have appropriate cites to back their preferred form, fine. To date, however, we seem to be waiting on that. Arcsincostan 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Similarly, proponents have argued that the NZ commission indicates that Gorringe did not use BDORT and therefore that it rendered no judgement on BDORT. Well, they're right that it drew that distinction, but they're wrong that it didn't evaluate BDORT and render judgement, so quotes and cites making that quite clear and thus providing useful background to any of the reader were presented – to which the reaction of the advocates is to repeat their assertion, without evidence to back it, that the Tribunal effectively cleared BDORT, and to summarily attempt to remove the now more-extensive quotes and cites which cast BDORT in a negative light. If they have appropriate cites for their perspective, fine. To date, to repeat, they haven't presented them, nor has anyone else been able to locate them. Arcsincostan 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For whatever it's worth, I was attempting to dig something up to see if it were possible to find an appropriate positive cite at the Japanese hospital the advocates had pushed. What I stumbled across, instead, in that process, was the Lu quote as to the lack of medical/scientific meaning of the patent. The reality here, as best I've been able to determine to date, is that very very few people have heard of Omura, BDORT, etc. That the only positive assessements seem to be from a small self-reinforcing circle of enthusiasts and their self-publication and promotion. That external, objective assessment is scarce, but that what their is is negative, often in the extreme. That reality, to the extent one can establish reality by WP criteria, is reflected in the entry, and, understandably, proponents are not keen on it. It is, however, by WP criteria, the appropriate reality reflected, I believe in the entry. I'm sincerely open, improbable though this may seem to the proponents. Evidence, however, is required, according to scientific criteria, is they wish to claim they are a part of science as opposed to something else, and that evidence must be verifiable and reputable. To date they haven't even presented credible verifiable evidence of attempting to subject themselves to meaningful evaluation by conventional scientific method, only 'triple-blinded' experiments published by proponents in their own journal, where by 'triple-blind' they mean the three people avoided eye contact. Yet they wish to claim that there exists obvious proof that Omura and BDORT are objectively 'scientific.' Fine. Where the devil is it, then? If you have it, present it. I, for one, have a skeptical attitude to any new and surprising scientific claim – any whatsoever. That is entirely appropriate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I fail to see how that brands me a POV pusher other than as a skeptic. One is *supposed* to be a skeptic in such matters. Arcsincostan 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Richard, I described to her that there is a 'stable' version that survived the AFD and 2 wildly varying ones. The post-AFD stable one was essentially unchanged for several weeks, not necessarily due to total consensual agreement but because we de-facto agreed to try to hash out our differences on the Talk page prior to article changes. The wildly varying versions were yours vs. Arcsincostan's. You know your version, so I don't need to describe it. Arcsincostan's version, like his name, is constantly evolving, but has changed from a mere stub to a complete and utter debunking of Omura/BDORT. If you have a better way to neutrally describe the situation, be my guest. If you feel my description was 'fictitious' you are of course entitled to that opinion, but I can tell you I tried my best to describe the situation neutrally as I saw (and still see) it, and I hope you accept that. Crum375 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I, in turn, have, indeed, meant what I've said. If evidence as to fact, per criteria, is appropriately advanced, I'll be delighted to accept it. Personally, if I'm allowed to shape the cosmos to my preference, I will be more than happy to include swift, painless, efficacious diagnosis and prescription of effective treatment via BDORT. On the evidence offered to date, however, this particular cosmos seems not to have been constructed along that line. If other, appropriate, evidence is presented I will be delighted to acknowledge that fact. I await such evidence. Arcsincostan 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process 

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