Talk:BDORT/Archive 8

message: I will respond to the key issues Richardmalter brings up:
#Saying "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 not WP:OR - it's simply a summary of the currently the available references. We also have the Quackwatch article, which is a secondary source, that for its BDORT entry only mentions the NZT 1 and 2 reports. If another reference of an evaluation by a mainstream body turns up, we'll gladly include it.
#The NZT is charged with analyzing and evaluating the evidence brought before it. Whether it is qualified for its job is determined by the NZ government, not by WP
#That 'only Omura knows for sure what BDORT is, and Gorringe wasn't really using BDORT' (paraphrasing) is an OR opinion. All we can do is summarize our acceptable sources, and the NZT specifically calls it BDORT numerous times in its first report, and exclusively so in its second report, in the case of the patient death
Hopefully this addresses Richardmalter's main concerns. Thanks, Crum375 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The disclaimers are needed IMO per sub-section since the casual reader may only read a part of the article and may not see a diclaimer in one specific spot. Also, the issues that are being 'disclaimed' are different, so it doesn't make sense to have a global disclaimer that says, effectively, "nothing mentioned in this article has been evaluated or validated by mainstream medicine", as that would not be strictly true for every single item, plus the NZT did examine BDORT. So it makes sense to keep the disclaimers within their applicable sub-sections where it's clear what they are referring to. Crum375 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a WP policy that says we cannot present 'fringe theories' at all, except in their own article, when they have sufficient verifiable notability. Once such a theory is presented, it must be balanced with other prevailing views according to the 'due weight' requirement, which means that a reader must always understand where the theory stands relative to mainstream view. In this BDORT case, it is in its own article so we can mention it, although it is clearly (IMO anyway) a fringe theory, but we must balance the presentation of any claim against the mainstream views. So if we say, for example: "Omura says that Special Papers soak sunlight and acquire healing properties", we can't just leave it that way, because it would violate the undue weight requirement by presenting Omura's claim unchallenged and without mainstream view of it. If we had some reliable mainstream sources, ideally secondary, that evaluated Special Papers, we could just summarize what they say, but we have none. So, the way we deal with that lack of sourcing is simply noting what Omura says, followed by a comment that we are not aware of any mainstream source that evaluated his claim or supports it. Again, if we left that comment out, we'd be violating undue weight. And that proper neutral balance must be maintained anywhere in the article where we mention such a claim. Thanks, Crum375 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues brought up by RM 

message: I am trying a new approach of focusing strictly on BDORT and leaving Omura as secondary. Please see BDORT. Thanks, Crum375 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New version for BDORT

message: Crum, hello. All the points I mention above still need addressing. eg If we dont know as a fact that it is the only mainstream body - we cant say this. Please see that you would be very well saying the same thing if I was proposing such a speculative sentence. Actually the whole passage needs a thorough rewrite:
in the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related 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: 
The article says as follows, that the Tribunial ruled that:
reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible.
and again that
that Gorringe's reliance on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses led to the patient's death.
But we summarize thus: 
n the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body' [WP:OR - we dont know this, it is speculation], 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.
which jumbles it up. It needs to say, that:
The NZ Tribunial 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 PMRT (which they meant to include BDORT) to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses led to the patient's death and so he was stripped of his licence etc.
This is what they say. This is the reason given that we quote in both cases brought before the Tribunial. What we say so far says that (to paraphrase): 
Gorringe used PMRT (lumped together with BDORT) and because of this was dismissed.
we dont explain correctly at all. Do you see that? we dont explain the actual reason, but we do strongly suggest that it was for using what was considered BDORT itself rather than in exclusion of. Lets just first get that accurate and consistent, OK? Then when we get the top bit right, we can adjust lower down accordingly too.
Richardmalter 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This important point, which means our article is quite inaccurate about what the Tribunial ruled, is confirmed here, in Para 292, Gorringe said and emphasized with bold text and underline in the Tribunal report to document that he did emphasize this:
Any diagnosis obtained with BDORT is presumptive, and must always be considered in the context of the presenting complaints in the history, and where possible, be checked with a standard laboratory test if one is available
ie, the Tribunal found him wanting in fulfilling his own stated understanding - that follow up standard tests must be applied to confirm BDORT/PMRT (admittedly confused in the trial) findings. This is why he lost his license - the Tribunal says this explicitly in both cases we report, in their words. This has to be ammended to make this perfectly clear.Richardmalter 09:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Richard, you may want to take a look at BDORT, which is something I worked on as a suggested replacement for this entry, that will focus more on BDORT than YO. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Crum375 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, regarding your points above, I obviously disagree. I suggest however, as I did in the past, to focus on one point at a time. I'll take just one of your points then, the issue of PMRT vs. BDORT. In NZT2, where a patient died because of reliance on BDORT, PMRT is not mentioned at all, only BDORT. So we obviously can't use your proposed wording that Gorringe used 'PMRT', as that would be plainly incorrect. Crum375 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Richard, I don't see why we should say that "Gorringe used PMRT" if NZT2 says he used BDORT, and the word PMRT is not mentioned at all in it. As far as the BLP issue, I don't see anywhere in the article any "unsourced or poorly sourced" information about anything or anyone. If you do, please let us know. Thanks, Crum375 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting the lead in accurate

message: :: I dont know how to make this any clearer, so all I can do is repeat:
in 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
strongly suggests or actually, actually says that Dr Gorringe, used BDORT and was found guilty of malpractice for this reason. This is defamatory to Dr Gorringe also, because of para 292 where Gorringe emphasizes in his defence his understanding (and the Tribunial notes Gorringes' strong emphasis) that all BDORT findings must be confirmed by standard tests; and because he did not do this, the Tribunial dismissed him; they say this in both cases explicitly. But this sentence in the lead in describes him as being found guilty for just using BDORT (ignoring his other statements where he declares he knows he should not do this). But first of all, it is defamatory to Dr Omura for the same reasons: it says that a doctor was guilty of malpractice for using BDORT - which is seriously damaging to Dr Omura and is not what the tribunial actually said or ruled; the Tribunial ruled in both cases that because he used BDORT to the exclusion of standard confirming tests, he was 'guilty' of malpractice. But currently it says that just for using BDORT Gorringe was dismissed - which implies to the whole world that doctors should not and/or will be found guilty of malpractice for using BDORT - and since Omura is the developer of this technique - it is seriously damaging to him (because it is totally inaccurate).
This is double BLP serious defamatory statements, and must be ammended immediately viz WP BLP policies, aggressively, if necessary. If you do not delete or modify this, I will, and/or ask for immediate Admin intervention. This is an absolutely no joking matter. If you want to discuss, we can after' it is ammended - re WP policies. I will not tolerate any more real life harm being done to reputation or otherwise. Please ammend in good faith, immediately. Thanks. Richardmalter 09:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have 3 main sources that describe the Gorringe cases: NZT1, NZT2 and the summarizing (secondary source) Quackwatch article. I invite any interested neutral parties to read these sources fully and carefully and then decide if the current article's wording is reasonable. I would be more than happy to consider other suggested wordings that properly and neutrally reflect the sources that we have. Thanks, Crum375 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Immediate''' deletion/ammendment of BLP defamatory material necessary

message: I have redirected this entry to BDORT, which is essentially the same, but focuses on the BDORT procedure, with a separate section for Yoshiaki Omura. I removed the General Motors lawsuit in the process, as I think it becomes less notable and pertinent in the move. Also Dr. Omura's personal details were removed since the article is now focused on BDORT. Crum375 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: I created this entry by modifying the Yoshiaki Omura entry to focus on BDORT, as that is the primary subject. Crum375 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New entry

message: I have now redirected the Yoshiaki Omura entry to here. Crum375 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoshiaki Omura now redirected here 

message: I've merged the page histories as requested, but I left the talk pages separate, which is standard practise. Let me know if you'd like those to be merged too. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the much appreciated help, SlimVirgin. I believe leaving the Talk pages separated is better, since the current BDORT entry is focused on the procedure, while the old Yoshiaki Omura entry was focused on the man. This way, despite the merge, there is a logical distinction between their respective Talk pages. Thanks again, Crum375 11:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page histories

message: The results of separate AfDs for the Yoshiaki Omura article and the BDORT article were to keep each article.  Why are the articles now merged? -- Jreferee 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this clarifies the history and current status. I myself joined this article right after the original YO/BODRT merge took place and was not involved in that decision. Thanks, Crum375 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yoshiaki Omura article separate from BDORT article

message: User:Richardmalter has filed a request for comment on this article citing concerns with biographies of living people and original research, and has posted a list of suggesteed changes on his user talk page.  All editors should be aware that Richard Malter is banned from editing this article or its talk page, and that making edits on behalf of a banned editor, or proxy editing is a bannable offense.  (That is, editors who make Richard Malter's suggested changes face the possibility of being banned from this article as well.)  Editors are encouraged to discuss Richard's suggested changes, and if there is a broad consensus that the changes are reasonable, to implement them.  Unilateral changes on behalf of a banned editor, especially changes against consensus, are likely to be viewed as improper proxy editing. Thatcher131 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: According to Microsoft word, Pry means to interfere, snoop, meddle etc, theefore I changed it to 'prise', is this not a word used in other parts of the world? Ram4eva 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To "pry apart", as to separate by force, is by far the more common term. Googling the term "pry apart" comes up with 42,200 hits, vs. only 778 for "prise apart". Crum375 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pry

message: Here is what the paragraph says:
We have already discussed this paragraph at length in the past. Our conclusion is that the words "relating to PMRT (or BDORT)" mean that the NZT consider PMRT and BDORT to be effectively the same. What they are also saying is that the technique that Gorringe used is different from the one Omura used, so the Omura materials were not useful. The only way to understand this is that the NZT is saying that they consider PMRT and BDORT to be practically the same from the scientific point of view, therefore their experts do not distinguish between them, but the specific technique is different, clearly not enough to make any difference in the evaluation. I don't see any other logical way to interpret this paragraph, especially in the context of the entire NZT-1 report, and we have been through this discussion before and explain it in a separate section in the article. It seems to me that we need to get past this paragraph to move forward, because the other items in 1garden's list hinge on this point. And again, in the second case of NZT-2, PMRT is not mentioned at all, only BDORT is used, so the PMRT/BDORT issue is non-existent there. Crum375 15:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1garden, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you find this source confusing, and therefore we are not allowed to use it. Can you name the specific Wikipedia policy on which you base this conclusion, and show us the applicable wording there? Crum375 23:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important to bear in mind, 1garden, that two previous discussions as to notability have concluded, in essence, that BDORT is noteworthy by Wikipedia criteria solely on the basis of the findings of the New Zealand tribunals, which consulted expert opinion as determined by an official board as duly constituted by the government of New Zealand, and that the findings as they pertain to BDORT as made en passant in consideration of the case of Richard Gorringe were that BDORT is a particular example of the form of alternative medicine evaluation most commonly referred to as Applied Kinesiology, and that both Applied Kinesiology in general and BDORT in particular were found, in the final conclusions of the New Zealand tribunals to be without scientific or medical claim to credibility and were and are, therefore, not a fit basis for diagnosis. It is on this basis that the present entry rests. The fact that the particular form of testing Richard Gorringe employed was not identical to BDORT as defined by its originator, Yoshiaki Omura, while duly noted by the New Zealand tribunal, in no way bears on its more general finding that BDORT in particular and Applied Kinesiology in general are without any meaningful claim to empirical validity. Perhaps if Yoshiaki Omura had seized the opportunity to present his methods for evaluation, as Richard Malter has repeatedly noted he failed to do, we might have an even clearer statement. Extant consensus with respect to this entry, however, to date has been that the findings of the New Zealand tribunals do indeed clearly state what is, in fact, stated in the entry in its present form. If you have new information, it would doubtless be welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TealCyfre0 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 290 in NZT-1 

message: Simply wanted to note the patent link information so helpfully provided by GDallimore and the further refinement of the presentation of that information as well as the incorporation of an illustration from the patent materials then, in turn, so helpfully added to the entry by Crum375. – Very nice, clear, useful, helpful information. – For my part, my thanks. TealCyfre0 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Note-Worthy Event 

message: I believe this article contains WP:OR. Having now read up on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes I will make some bold edits to remove what I view to be OR and, should these edits be reverted we can then discuss specific edits rather than the generalities of the dispute as on the recent AfD. If this discussion fails to reach agreement, then perhaps a Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be appropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw your switch of Signage. Fine, I have no problem whatsoever with that. I disagree, but for the moment it seems perfectly reasonable from your perspective. TealCyfre0 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving the dispute 

message: This article has undergone extensive scrutiny and vetting by editors and admins, and was even part of an extensive ArbCom case. Inserting blanket templates is not constructive. If you have an issue, let's discuss it here first. Crum375 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've removed the AfD template as the nom was withdrawn. Anyone have a problem with that? TealCyfre0 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All previous scrutiny relating to this article has been over notability. I've seen nothing extensive about content. If there has been something on this point, please point me towards it as I have asked several times already. GDallimore (Talk) 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow. You'd indicated you'd read the article's preposterously extensive history. There has been infinite discussion as to content and sourcing. TealCyfre0 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only arguments I've seen to support equating Gorringe's BDORT with Omura's BDORT are that they are both called BDORT and that Gorringe said his technique originates from Omura's. Is there another argument? Is there another source that compares the technique practiced by Omura with the technique practiced by Gorringe? GDallimore (Talk) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GDallimore, perhaps you are not aware that this includes much of the history and numerous mediation sessions of this article, when it was under that title. Be sure to read the eight (8) archive pages. Also, you may want to read the ArbCom case related to this entry (also under its previous name). Crum375 15:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, the previous version was focused on the inventor, whereas this version is focused on the techique, but much of the content is the same, since the technique played a major role in both versions. Crum375 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Adding templates does not improve the article one bit; in fact it tends to deface it. If you have specific issues that you feel need to be addressed, let's do that here. I strongly suggest that you pick one specific issue at a time, then we can review its history on the talk pages, look at the sources, and see if any changes are needed. Crum375 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already said that I do not intend to edit war and I'm sticking by that. However, Crum, there are three editors indicating that such "defacement" of the article is appropriate at the present time. Please don't revert against such a consensus should another editor choose to revert your edits. GDallimore (Talk) 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for any of the templates. Adding a template, especially for an entry that underwent extensive scrutiny by many people for a long time, does deface the article. If there is any specific issue, let's address it here first. Crum375 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding templates

message: Crum, good call.  The problem for me is calling it a diagnostic procedure; it is not accpeted as such other than by proponents, obviously.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision#Flat statements of fact; I still think we should reword to make it clearer that this is more contentious than your regular alternative medicine topic. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am more inclined to lump all AM procedures together; if you have a reliable published source stating that this procedure is significantly more controversial than the average, then it would merit a mention. Crum375 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact of it having provably resulted in a death and striking-off is not insignificant, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but to reach the conclusion that it is therefore more contentious than the average would require a reliable source, or else it would be OR. Crum375 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I've added additional new information, with appropriate cite. Any comments or thoughts more than welcome. TealCyfre0 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courses 

message: There is disagreement over whether a New Zealand medical tribunal is discussing the same procedure as practiced by a Dr Omura and described in a granted patent. 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The cited sources say Gorringe used BDORT. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The cited sources say that this is not the same as the patented technique. GDallimore (Talk) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *GDallimore, this has been regurgitated to death, the latest can be found here. The NZT is clearly discussing BDORT; NZT2 only mentions BDORT, nothing else, and NZT1 includes numerous statements focused strictly on BDORT, not even mentioning Gorringe. For example, see my comments on this issue here (e.g. see Professor Cannell's statement, NZT expert witness testimony, par. 306). Crum375 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *NZT2 does not mention Omura at all, though so there is nothing to show that Omura and Gorringe are doing the same thing and a very explicit statement that they are not as I have now shown in the intro to the article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *NZT2 mentions BDORT and this is an article about BDORT. Crum375 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *According to your recent edit, this is an article about BDORT as practiced by Omura. NZT1 and NZT2 are about BDORT as practice by Gorringe which NZT1 said was different from BDORT as practice by Omura. Therefore anything that NZT1 or 2 says does not belong in this article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is an article about BDORT. BDORT was invented by Omura. NZT1 and NZT2 talk about BDORT generically, as well as the specifics of the Gorringe cases. They are therefore very pertinent and relevant for this article. Crum375 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *NZT1 and NZT2 never say they are talking about BDORT generically. Therefore it is OR to say that they are or that they are relevant to BDORT as practiced by Omura. In fact, they are far more likely to only be discussing BDORT as practiced by Gorringe since that was the case before them to consider so it is also most likely incorrect to use NZT1 and NZT2 in a discussion about Omura's technique. GDallimore (Talk) 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment2 

message: "The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), characterized as a form of applied kinesiology" THis is characterized by one expert as a form of Applied Kinesiology. THe father of Applied kinesiology and the ICAK, and Omura do not recognize BDORT as a form of AK. I would like to remove this characterization. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have eminent experts testifying that BDORT is a form of AK, as noted in the article. Wikipedia is based on Reliable Sources, not hearsay or Original Research. If you have high quality reliable sources stating that BODRT is not a form of AK, we could include that. Omura himself would not be considered reliable in this case, except when talking about himself. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it would probably be more appropriate in the second sentence -- "BDORT is a patented alternative blah blah blah.(ref) It has been called a form of applied k.(ref)" It would seem to me that the most important thing about BDORT -- the first thing a viewer should read -- is what it is, not what people call it. - Revolving Bugbear 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the first sentence should be what it is. But mentioning the general category it belongs to, per very reliable mainstream sources, is an essential part of "what it is." Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * There is one expert testifying about AK. Professor Mark Bryden Cannell, who at the time of the hearing held the Chair of Physiology at the School of Medicine at the University of Auckland before which he held a personal Chair as Professor of Biophysics in the University of London. Most of his scientific work has centred on the biophysics of muscle contraction." He has published extensively in international journals on excitation contraction coupling and is recognised as a world expert in this area. He was called as an expert.
Does Dr. Cannell qualified to determine whether BDORT is associated with Applied Kiniesiology? Applied Kinesiology is not his expertise. He was not called in to confirm whether AK is part of BDORT. He was called in to give this opinion.
"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...
His comments have to do with whether an electrical field is produced during BDORT or AK test. Well AK has never asserted that an electrical field is produced during a BDORT test or treatment. While BDORT claims that electrical fields are produced, AK has never made that claim. BDORT is not AK, all muscle testing methods are not AK. Some people seem to believe thats the case. Anthon01 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) If it were unequivocal from the sources provided that it is AK, then I would agree with you, Crom, regarding the opening sentence completely. But since the sources we have here apparently only permit us to go so far as to say it is "characterized as" such (and admittedly I know very little about medicine), the phrase would seem to represent an assessment -- albeit an expert assessment, from the looks of it -- instead of an uncontroversial fact. In my opinion, it's always best to start the lead with the most straightforward and indisputable definition of the subject in the first sentence. The facts of it being alternative medicine and the brief description of the procedure seem to me to be resolutely more important than the label of AK. - Revolving Bugbear 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we are not, as Wikipedia editors, saying that BDORT is a form of AK, but only that it has been characterized as such. As it happens, the source that identifies it as AK is the most reliable one we have, and in fact the only reliable mainstream source in the article. So we are using this as a way to explain to the reader who  only wishes to read an outline, i.e. the first sentence of the lead, where to go to get more information on the general class of AK. If there had been another reliable source of equal caliber contesting this classification, we would have included it also, but I am not aware of any, and we must follow the reliable sources we do have. Crum375 (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we would have included it in the lead ... but not in the first sentence. Contentious claims don't go in the first sentence. There is other information that is much more important than the AK claim, so there is no reason to have the AK claim first and foremost. It's POV by undue weight. - Revolving Bugbear 10:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point in including this characterization. How does the mention of AK in the first sentence help the reader? Why use the characterization of an expert on the "biophysics of muscle contraction" to WP:V a claim the is outside his expertise?  Anthon01 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Sentence