Talk:BDORT/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3

Unsourced material should be removed

I've added comments to the statement below. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states, "This article is about a living person and the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."

Because of this clear Wikipedia policy aimed to avoid hurting people, in addition to removing all false and misleading references based on the idea that Dr. Gorringe's use of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is the same as Dr. Omura's use, which I have shown based on the record to be untrue (Revision as of 06:34, 18 July 2006 (edit), repeated below with edits for completeness and clarity), I will also remove all references to the false and misleading idea that Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has not been independently or thoroughly reviewed, examined or evaluated, for the following reasons.

Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test passed through a number of vigorous examinations and evaluations by reputable professors in medical and dental schools, as follows.

United States Patent Documentation. The U.S. patent office took more than seven years of vigorous evaluation before granting a patent for Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. The first U.S. patent application was rejected because the claim seemed toounbelievable to be true. But when the patent lawyer demanded proof that the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test does not work, he pointed out that the evaluating officer made an incorrect judgment. Subsequently, the patent office requested more experimental and clinical proof supporting the claim. After three years of extensive research, findings were presented to the patent office. The patent office agreed that Dr. Omura obtained the results he claimed on his patent application; however, the patent officer stated there was no proof other people could obtain the same results.

Therefore unlike most U.S. patent applications, the U.S. patent office requested independent evaluations of the validity of the methods of Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, to be conducted by M.D.s or D.D.S.s with well established reputations in their specialties, or by professors in medical and dental schools. These independent evaluations took another three years. After studying and repeating the experiments, several professors confirmed the validity of Dr. Omura’s patent claim. These included Albert Cooke, M.D., Professor and former Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn; Joel Friedman, D.D.S., Professor of Dentistry at New York University; Simon Freed, Ph.D., Research Scientist of Brookhaven National Laboratory and Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry at New York Medical College; Jason Shu, M.D., OBGYN, Member of the State Board of Medicine at Pennsylvania State; Chifuyu Takeshige, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Physiology and Dean of the School of Medicine, Showa University, Tokyo, and former Visiting Scholar of the Department of Physiology at the University of Pennsylvania; Hiroaki Nakajima, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Pulmonary Division and Associate Professor of the Department of Internal Medicine, Showa University, Japan and former Visiting Professor at the Mayo Clinic, U.S.A.; Takesuke Muteki, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Kurume University Medical School in Japan; Noriyuki Tani, D.D.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor at Seijo Dental School in Japan; Yasuhiro Shimotsuura, M.D., Leader of Digestive Organ Research and Director of Medicine at St. Maria’s Hospital, the second largest hospital in Japan; Maja Tcherkezova, M.D., National Institute of Neurology in Sophia, Bulgaria; and Brother Michael Losco, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at Manhattan College, to name eleven.

These eleven well-established individuals with excellent credentials to act as expert witnesses, each studied, investigated and evaluated Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-ring Test in his own specialty, and provided scientific and clinical evidence of the efficacy of this test to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They provided this evidence supporting the efficacy of Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-ring Test by affidavits taken under oath under penalty of imprisonment if they make a false statement or claim.

Therefore, any negative statements or claims that contradict the efficacy of Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-ring Test, such as associating it with quackery or pseudoscience or different methods, and that are unsupported by actual research including experimental data or verifiable fact or clinical evidence available for public inspection, will be removed from this article according to Wikipedia Policy. Such unsupported claims are dishonest, false and misleading, and by definition such irresponsible violation of Wikipedia policy with respect to living persons is indeed quackery, meaning the actions, claims, or methods of one who, with little or no foundation, pretends to have skill or knowledge in a particular field, and presents his opinion as if it were fact.

As far as I know, patent acceptance, even after a thorough investigation by the US Patent Office, is only a sign of the plausibility of the invention or process since the office lacks the resources to conduct thorough reviews. Peer-reviewed and published research is the authoritative test for scientific research. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For example, literature searches are not actual research. The mere existence of a literature citation does not justify its indiscriminate or irresponsible use; i.e., to artificially bolster negative opinion or material and appearing to give it legitimacy by misappropriating a literature citation. Such is obviously the case in the false claim that Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has been characterized as quackery. The citation (Note 4) to bolster this false claim takes us to http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/qray.html and to an article titled, "Q-Ray Bracelet Marketed with Preposterous Claims," in which it states that the company that markets the product, "QT, Inc., claims that its bracelets can be tested by testing finger strength before and after wearing one", and then describes a test it calls the O-ring test or the Omura test, "said to have been devised during the 1970s by a Japanese doctor named Yoshiaki Omura".

I suspect you are alluding to the policy of [undue weight]. Whether these citations belong depends on whether and the degree to which pseudoscience evidence is accepted by authoritatively sources or conversely whether research on the subject is accepted by them. Agreed, a scattershot web search for published research isn't sufficient for this. On the other hand, a literature search of scholarly article databases is definitely relevant and in accord with the scientific philosophy of the null hypothesis, a lack of authoratively-reviewed evidence for the scientific claims in this article is in itself evidence that the claims are at least untested if not pseduoscience. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First, during his workshops for physicians and dentists, Dr. Omura often advises people to avoid wearing metal bracelets for reasons he explains. Moreover, any responsible person familiar with Dr. Omura's actual Bi-Digital O-Ring Test reading this description would know immediately that it is totally inadequate and unacceptable because it misses the essence of the actual test, and therefore misrepresents and discredits Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test by making it seem like a toy anyone can use after reading one paragraph. This idea is preposterous. Yet more preposterous is that the author of the Wikipedia article takes this same paragraph as his single source and sole evidence to invent and support a claim that the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test "has been characterized as quackery"! By this example, I trust the reader can see why I will remove all such poorly sourced negative material according to Wikipedia policy; it is absurd.

In conclusion, it took more than seven years of vigorous research and evaluation of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test before a U.S. patent was granted.

This is not a promising sign. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a Japanese science documentary television program comparable to NOVA in the United States documented basic research and clinical applications of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. On patients randomly selected from new patients waiting to be examined at the out-patient clinic of a major hospital, the first non-invasive diagnosis was performed using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test to pinpoint the exact location and nature of a pathology where the examining doctor knew only the chief complaint, such as abdominal discomfort in one case. Within 30 minutes, the non-invasive Bi-Digital O-Ring Test located a very small area (less than 5 mm in diameter) of this patient's stomach with a possible diagnosis of stomach cancer. Both the outline of her stomach and the exact location of the possible cancer were mapped on her body by Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing. Then the same patient was evaluated by independent specialists using the latest standard laboratory tests, including X-ray after swallowing barium, fiberoptic gastroscopic examination with indigocarmine, and biopsy. Then the results were compared and found to be identical.

An American science documentary, in a style not unlike NOVA, provided documented evidence of alien autopsies. Again, peer reviewed and replicated research is the primary test for scientific claims. In the absence of this evidence, claims about the world cannot be considered scientific, especially since it is likely that entertainment and audience share are at least as important to television show producers than furthering scientific truth. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Three clinical cases with entire examinations, including a case of neck pain involving the male TV interviewer, were documented in this TV documentary. The producer and his staff spent over five years from planning to completion of the TV documentary, which was broadcast as two 30 minute science documentary programs and included interviews of professors doing actual research from various universities in Japan. These broadcasts received positive feedback by the medical viewers and the public and were later translated into English. They provided a scientific basis for Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test utilizing both animal and human research, and confirmed the validity of a Non-Invasive Diagnosis using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Because the documentaries showed that the findings obtained by using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test were proved correct by the latest standard laboratory tests, and because of the validations by many professors and experts as indicated above, a U.S. patent was officially granted in 1993.

A quick web search finds a patent for an anti-gravity vehicle, which violoates the laws of physics. A quick review of the number of patent applications, the staff budget available to review them and the scientific training of most reviewers shows that most applications get little scientific review...by extension the USPO is not equipped to review evidence from scientists...hence the need for peer review of research released within the scientific community for review and replication. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All affidavits as well as the extensive evaluation history of Dr. Omura's patent are available for public inspection upon request from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, the English version of the Japanese science documentary television programs are available through the Tokai Television Station, Nagoya City, Japan. The record speaks for itself. In my opinion, any person who with an open mind and neutral perspective reads these affidavits and watches these TV documentaries will immediately recognize the discrediting statements I am removing from the Wikipedia article on Yoshiaki Omura, M.D., Sc.D., are absolutely false, misleading, and harming the reputation of decent living persons.

On the other hand, as a small leaf can hide the sun, any closed-minded or narrow-minded person with an agenda and audacity to generate negative opinion and material about a living person, and use sources without diligently examining their relevance, validity or quality, cannot be expected to be convinced by obvious truth, unfortunately. Therefore instead of attempting to negotiate with such people, the Wikipedia policy to remove such material immediately and repeatedly as necessary is far more suitable and effective, and will be adhered to.

See WP:CIVIL. Negotiating with people who you see as closed-minded and who have the 'audacity to generate negative opinion...about a living person' are an essential part of an open academic project such as wikipedia. I suggest assuming good faith regarding others edits. The WP:BIO policy applies primarily to the promotion of unproven gossip and character assassinations--scientific claims do not get any special immunity from cricitisim by their association with a bio article. Wherever these claims appear, scientific evidence must be included supporting them to the extent that these claims are novel relative to the body of science as a whole. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on specific edits

Revision as of 06:34, 18 July 2006 (edit) Telomere+ (Talk | contribs) (Clarification of the finding of the Medical Practitoner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand) "The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test was considered by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in the course of its judgment of the case of Richard Gorringe. In the Tribunal's final report on that case, which is the only known recorded opinion of the BDORT by a mainstream medical body, the Tribunal found that '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity.'[3]

The incomplete quotation from the Tribunal's final report contained in the previous sentence requires clarification, because it leads the reader to conclude that PMRT [BDORT] practiced by Dr. Gorringe and condemned by the Tribunal equals the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test practiced by Dr. Omura. This conclusion is false. In fact, in paragraph 290 on page 58 of the 142 page document, the Medical Practitoner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand clearly stated:

"290. Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to a Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.” (DATED at Wellington this 5th day of August 2003, at the end of the proceeding.)

This paragraph clearly indicates that Dr. Gorringe’s method is different from Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Dr. Gorringe misrepresented Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test by calling it the same thing and using something different. Paragraph 292 on pages 59-60 includes Dr. Gorringe’s description of the so-called Bi-Digital O-Ring Test he used. This description clearly has nothing to do with Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Dr. Gorringe’s method is a combination of a modified German electrical diagnostic method developed by Dr. Voll and some strange form of O-Ring finger technique, which Dr. Omura never used or taught. In addition, Dr. Gorringe’s proceeding uses the other name PMRT more often and in paragraph 290 above the word ‘BDORT’ is in parenthesis. These facts support the idea that Dr. Gorringe misrepresented the Omura Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and confused it with something that is different from the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Dr. Omura developed and practices and teaches.

Finally in this regard, Dr. Richard Gorringe, M.D. of New Zealand called Dr. Omura a few times during 1993-1994 and indicated he had a problem. He claimed he was being prosecuted as a result of using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in New Zealand and asked Dr. Omura to come to defend the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. When Dr. Omura asked him how he performed the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, according to his description what he was doing had very little to do with Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and work. In addition, Dr. Gorringe’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test did not meet the minimum medical standards because he did not seek to confirm his findings by a standard laboratory test; mostly he was using a modified German electrical diagnostic method developed by Dr. Voll, for which he could not explain the basic principles.

Therefore, Dr. Omura told him he was misrepresenting the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and discrediting Dr. Omura’s work, and Dr. Omura supported the Medical Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand's effort to remove Dr. Gorringe’s license. The Tribunal never requested Dr. Omura to appear for the hearing because they had already determined that Dr. Gorringe’s method of using the so-called Bi-Digital O-Ring Test differed from Dr. Omura’s method, as quoted in paragraph 290 above.

In conclusion, the above partial quotation '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity' does not apply to Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and it's use misrepresents the conclusion of the Tribunal.

Because the Medical Practitioner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand found Dr. Gorringe’s method is different from Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, none of the conclusions of the Tribunal or opinions of the expert witnesses relative to Dr. Gorringe's method apply to Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and will therefore be removed as unsourced or poorly sourced negative material according to Wikipedia's clear policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons quoted above.

Certification. These statements are inserted as a major edit in the talk pages of Dr. Omura's article by a serious student and supporter of Dr. Omura since January 2000. As I became acquainted with Dr. Omura, M.D. (Yokohama City University, with internship at Toyoko University Hospital, Tokyo), Sc.D. (in Pharmaco-Electrophysiology of Single Cardiac Cells, Columbia University, New York), I realized his far-reaching expertise was rooted in a strong academic background involving an unusual combination of fields including experimental physics (B.S. in Applied Physics, Waseda University, Tokyo--the founder of the SONY Corporation graduated from the same Engineering School--and three years in Graduate Experimental Physics, non-matriculated, Columbia University), medical electronics (Research Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Manhattan College, where he introduced the first course in Biomedical Electronics), and basic and clinical medicine (Research Fellow in Cardiovascular Surgery, and Residency at the Cancer Research Hospital, Columbia University) from both Western and Oriental perspectives (several teaching and research Professorship appointments at various universities in Japan and the U.S.).

In addition, because of my own positive experience and the spectacular results I witnessed over the years on difficult patients brought by their physicians during seminars and workshops, as well as observing Dr. Omura's relentless dedication to his research and the exciting progress in his application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, I volunteered to assist Dr. Omura several days each month during his seminars and workshops as well as in writings such as this to clarify his work, since 2005.

I have now spent many long days (often working day and night until close to sunrise) and untold hours with him doing research, documentation, clarification, teaching, and especially clinical application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. I hereby testify under penalty of perjury I have repeatedly seen and heard amazing, yes almost unbelievable clinical results--documented whenever feasible by standard laboratory tests such as X-ray, MRI, blood chemistries, etc.--both initially and during follow-up visits of various severe conditions often beyond the reach of conventional medicine and dentistry, in my opinion.

The hallmark of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test performed by physicians well trained by Dr. Omura is the early non-invasive diagnosis of medical conditions and their safe and effective treatment. Such diagnosis is often achieved within 30 minutes, and often long before any known laboratory test can detect any abnormality or malignancy. It can involve both asymptomatic or unmanageable conditions. Moreover, it can save or prolong lives, because safe optimal doses of effective medicines can be determined and administered quickly, and by special methods delivered directly to the areas of need, avoiding side effects. Such precise non-toxic effective treatment customized to each individual can achieve amazing results in minutes, hours, or days depending on the pathogenic factors unique to each individual. Through virtual drug testing, another important benefit and application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, harmful drug interactions, allergies, and toxic doses can be detected and avoided without ever exposing people or animals to any potentially offensive substances.

Such effective diagnosis and treatment, the reader may agree, redefines the standard of both conventional and alternative medicine, and does sound too good to be true. That is the reason I have spent my time and effort to investigate the premises, claims, and methods of Dr. Omura and his Bi-Digital O-Ring Test since January 2000, both for myself and my patients, and have found them to be true and effective, as almost unbelievable as they are. The famous founder of SONY, Mr. Masaru Ibuka, having studied and evaluated the validity and application of Dr. Omura's Bi- Digital O-Ring Test with his close associates, was so satisfied with what he found he served as the honorary President of the Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society, described Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in his autobiography, and stated publicly, "The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is a necessary tool for the paradigm shift from 20th century medicine to 21st century medicine."

The content of this edit is based on direct communication with Dr. Omura (a verifiable source) as well as my personal knowledge and experience of using Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which when used correctly as taught by Dr. Omura has great potential merit in my opinion, as indicated above. I certify under penalty of perjury that every statement I have made in this edit is true and complete to the best of my diligent investigation, knowledge and belief. I further certify under penalty of perjury that every statement I will remove from this article or its talk pages according to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, is irrelevant, invalid, dishonest, preposterous, false or misleading negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, having little or no foundation, to the best of my diligent investigation, knowledge and belief, so help me God. Signed on September 4,2006 Telomere+

I have removed the mention of the particular doctor being stripped of his license from the opening section as that in itself is irrelevant to Yoshiaki Omura, though as a neutral third party, it does indeed appear entirely neutral to state that The Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand believes that Yoshiaki's test is not ascientifically reliable technique. This is indeed clearly sourced, and no one is stating that the beliefs of the above organization are to be taken as true. That is the essence of the neutral point of view, such that opposing arguments can be shown. Now, if the statement was simply saying that his methods were useless, then that indeed would be removable per biographies of living people, but simply stating that a certain organization believes that his methods aren't reliable appears to be in line with policy. If there is indeed a belief that the doctor was simply not well practiced in this technique, then a secondary source should be found that illustrates that, but we must rely on verifiable information to refute the point given in the article. On a side note, Telomere, you may want to look at WP:AUTO and recognize that we all have subconscious biases, and as you are clearly so heavily involved with Omura, you may indeed be subject to such bias yourself (in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view, it is usually best for neutral third parties to deal with potentially inflammatory information, for example). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking through it again, I also added the information that the methods may have differed. Either way, however, I am getting a feeling that all of this is innapropriate for a page that is concerning Yoshiaki Omura, and should instead be on a page specifically for the method he uses. That is another issue, however. Do these changes seem acceptable? Cowman109^Talk 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you will find upon considered review of this short-lived but much-controverted entry that, in fact, it was initially separate entries. It was also listed twice for deletion. The consensus was that the only basis of notability for Omura was his armamentarium and practicum, and that, in turn, the only basis for a claim to notability of his armamentarium and practicum was that it presented a series of quite extraordinary claims with no basis to claim for scientific or medical validity localable in the scientific or medical literature, and that, in turn, the only credible scientific or medical consideration given Omura, his practicum, or his armamentarium, was that of the NZ medical tribunal which upon expert witness and evaluation concluded that neither Omura's procedure nor the variant form utilized by Richard Gorringe, the proximate subject of its consideration, presented any meaningful claim to rising to the level of science or medicine, and that its utilization was in every sense intolerable. The sole basis for notability of this entry, and its inclusion in Wikipedia, upon review and discussion – twice – is that it is pseudoscience and/or quackery. Proponents of Omura's practices and/or Omura have seized upon its inclusion in Wikipedia as an opportunity to present their multitudinous marvels to the world as established and recognized science. That, sir, is the lay of the land. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the terrain if you intend to travel it. Arcsincostan 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree that entirely reverting the article to an older august 8th entry is appropriate - many grammatical and content-related changes have been made since then. And Wikipedia is also not a place to display one's view that Omura is a joke - we need a neutral representation of this article. Could you please explain your reasoning for reverting to that version? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure I was clear - this is also not a place to say that his methods are fine or not, but instead it should simply be stated what secondary sources have to say about Omura, and if the mainstream view is indeed that his practices are innapropriate, that should indeed be made clear. I'm not sure if this revert war is productive to get this article to proper NPOV standards, however. Cowman109^Talk 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's immediately clear that you're unfamiliar with the article and its history. I would suggest you might find it of some small use to acquire such familiarity rather than offering suggestions as part of a personal learning process.

The entry in the form to which it was reverted was the most nearly-stable extant prior to the initiation of an aborted process which effectively attempted to placate a revert war in which there was general agreement as to the form of the entry with the sole exception of one particular acknowledged professional advocate and proponent of the technique as well as a series of drive-by unsourced rants of the sort for which you corrected formatting. The consensus in the proposal for deletion discussion(s) was, as I indicated, that Omura is notable solely on the basis of his practices being pseudoscience. It is absurd, I would argue, to allow proponents to then shape the entry as a 'neutral' statement of claims and suppress the 'detail' that there is no basis for those claims to scientific status other than that of a small band of proponents. As Crum has argued, WP policy requires a balanced entry. Balance requires that if a claim is made on the sole basis of Omura's own sites and a small circles of sites which echo it, with no meaningful scientific or medical evaluation other than that of the NZ commission, that the entry reflect their claims with appropriate notation, point for point, that, oh, yes, by the way, there's no known validation of the claim. Arcsincostan 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

State of Play

I reverted to what seems to me the most nearly-stable form of the entry prior to what proved in my judgement an abortive attempt to placate a professional advocate.

I then removed the Dominic Lu cite which had a link made dead, one presumes, by Omura's advocates so as to not have one of their own key people on the record denying one of their claims.

I then added balancing statements so that the long, long list of claims made by Omura and his proponents, and sourced only to their sites, are noted as, in fact, finding no external evaluation or validation. This seems to me to be elementary balance as to claim made vs available independent evidence for that claim. Arcsincostan 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

waiting for mediation

Arc, this is nowhere near a stable form, I will revert it now. Your statements above about notability are totally inaccurate (of any consensus ever). I hope a new mediator turns up soon. We are back to selective quoting, excluding WP:OK citations because they dont say what you want them to say etc etc. I think all concerned should have waited for the new mediator. You have also put back citations that we agreed under mediation were not WP:OK. This is sheer bias and anti-WP. It is also disrespectful to the mediation process and other editors generally. I assure you that your time will be wasted: if you put back information that has been disagreed under mediation and arrived at by complete consensus after careful consideration (including by yourself) of WP policies then I will revert your edits straightaway, indefinitely. I will also consider this vandalism and see if anything can be done in formal WP policies to block you editing.Richardmalter 12:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you are a professional advocate of this practice who was able to enlist the good faith, well intended efforts of mediation, which has stalled. I see no reason to allow a professional advocate to slant the entry in favor of Omura in the face of available evidence. Only evidence and balance are relevant, not the preferences of professional proponents who desire an advertisement. Arcsincostan 12:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You may not add citations that are not WP OK - especially ones that you have not been able to defend in mediated discussion, etc etc - this is vandalism. Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Richardmalter 12:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Arc,

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Richardmalter 12:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Granted, Richard, your new-found skills at cutting and pasting *passes scissors* are very exciting. Nonetheless, an edit you disapprove of does not by virtue of your disapproval constitute vandalism. Arcsincostan 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Arc, you have again put up information that you and the other participants in the mediation process together with the mediatior have determined finally are not WP OK. You have also disrespected the mediation process and not waiting for a replacement mediator but instead changed the article against WP criteria (noted above) to your liking including many edits that have also been decided in mediation by all that are not WP OK. There are many more other non WP OK changes you have made. All of this compromises the integrity of a WP joint-edited effort. I am reporting you for vandalism now.Richardmalter 12:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

These edits are not vandalism, and perhaps the vandalism warning templates innapropriate. This is a simple content dispute (see Wikipedia:Edit war), and we must all remember to assume good faith of one another and recognize that we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia in some way. The fact stands that reverting other's edits is unproductive, and we are much better off adding to and tweaking the article than simple removing everything other editors have added.

Cowman, both definitions of edit war are practices for which editors can be blocked. The first is a violation of WP:3RR and the second is stated in the link you provide as cause for blocking. Antonrojo 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Content-wise, I believe from an uninvolved third person perspective that the addition of a sentence at the end of many of these paragraphs stating that Omura's practices are not scientifically proven is unproductive as it is simply redundant and is much easier explained in the overview about his method. Perhaps we can go on from there and work to improve the article? On a side note, administrators are not forced to only block you if you violate the three revert rule - edit warring in itself is grounds for blocking, despite the number, so I ask that you all cease reverting eachother's edits. Now then - how about we focus on specific paragraphs and what we would like to change about them? Cowman109^Talk 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about Cowman109's point regarding the non-scientific balancing statements. Since we are forced to include claims that are not adequately sourced by WP requirements for wild scientific claims, we must have an NPOV balance. The statements add that balance. They are not repetitive or redundant since each refers to the specific claims in its own specific section, and WP policy is to try to keep every paragraph or at least section neutrally balanced. Crum375 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps another method of solving this dispute could be to work on complete rewritings of sections that can be first proposed here, and then moved to the article? We could work from the opening and down, for example. Cowman109^Talk 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely acceptable to me. Crum375 13:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, hello, I'm glad some more people are here; I appreciate what you are saying 100%, but Arc was involved in the paused mediation process, and he knowingly is putting up lots of things that were specifically and definitely agreed in mediated consensus which including him that were not acceptable. Even the 'scientifically not proven' repeats have been discussed. This makes it more than a content dispute: it is knowingly going against WP guidelines and mediated decisions. I have reported Arc for vandalism and I hope he will be blocked. Can I please ask you to review the mediation page and discussion so far, thank you. I hope a new mediator comes along soon. Crum375, you know that your argument re this has been twice disagreed by two neutral parties including by the mediator during mediation. Richardmalter 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope Cowman109 will be able to stick around and not give up in disgust like all the rest. I suspect that if any neutral mediator who has WP's rules in mind will stay until the work is done, the article will get to proper NPOV balance. I support, as always, the suggestion made by Cowman109 to prepare edits here first. Crum375 13:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, you too are knowingly putting up information (in your last revert) of your liking that two mediator's, one unofficial and one official, have told you is not "appropriate to WP". Do you intend to stick to WP criteria? I would agree to Cowman's proposal except for the past experience that Crum375 and Arc do not keep to WP policy when it does not suit them, and that Crum375 always agrees to this type of proposal after his preferred version is up as a reference, once even when he admittedly made "unilateral" changes whilst disalowing anyone else to do so. I suggest we revert to the version that was left of during the current mediation pause.

I strongly suggest that we wait for a mediator to save ALL our times and energies. Richardmalter 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue of user behavior is irrelevant to me - we need to focus on content, not on the contributor if we want to get anywhere here, so I ask that you all just drop the notion that others are acting in bad faith. Clearly there are problems spread out through the article, so why don't we point out what problems people have with the opening, first? Cowman109^Talk 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

~~I think the current opening (13:32, September 9, 2006 Richardmalter), which was suggested by the last mediator, is OK as it avoids discussing BDORT.~~ See below. Crum375 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This entry was twice nominated for deletion. In the ensuing discussion it was agreed that the entry was notable on the basis not of Omura's claims, but on their status as pseudoscience. He was not found otherwise notable in those WP discussions – claims of Omura and his proponents notwithstanding. As it is the point of an introductory section to state the basis of notability, the introduction must include what is the agreed basis of Omura's notability on WP, not serve as a 'neutral' listing of his many claims as if they were found to be of independent merit – there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case, and it was not the consensus of the delete debates. Arcsincostan 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask, Cowman, if you intend to attempt to mediate this entry, that you indicate that you have done your homework. Have you or do you intend to thoroughly dig through the cites present in the entry in its present form and familiarize yourself thoroughly with them, as well as with the voluminous discussion, or do you see it as our task to educate you with the materials as you make an en passant effort? In real life a mediator is expected to be familiar with all aspects of the matter under mediation. Do you intend to operate in that fashion, or in some other? Arcsincostan 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Arcsincostan. I have changed my opinion about the lead above because I forgot the notability issue and the AfD discussion consensus. I agree that the NZ Tribunal results must be summarized in the lead, for 2 reasons: a. It is a vital part of the article (the only reliable scientific source) and as such it belongs per WP lead policy in the lead; and b. Per AfD discussion and notability criteria it must be stated in the lead to justify WP inclusion. Please forgive my vacillation here. Crum375 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Arcsincostan, you can't expect every single editor who stumbles upon this page to be entirely familiar with the history of this article :) - I'm just more concerned about helping you guys get on track again instead of edit warring. I don't have the time to attempt to mediate this issue extensively so I've left the issue still up for volunteer mediators at the Mediation Cabal, (which is an entirely informal procedure, I might add, so one should not expect volunteers to be up to the task of researching the entire history of the article). I myself must be inactive during the week, so I just hope that you guys refrain from edit warring, and instead seek further discussion. Cowman109^Talk 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust? ;^) (hey, thanks anyways) Crum375 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Cowman109, I'm a volunteer too, who came in as an informal mediator and got stuck in this black hole ever since. I did read thru most of the history at the point I came in, but of course it was much smaller then. Well, this would be a good test for WP to see if we (collectively) can bring this article to its required standards. Crum375 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, you are again selectively interpreting the past discussions, and I repeat going against the mediation discussion agreements. Do you intend to stick to WP criteria, processes or not?? I assure you we will not have a stable article until you do.Richardmalter 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you are in violation of 3RR yet again. Crum375 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Crum375, and you have violated the mediation process and discussion outcomes and doing what you like against WP criteria. Can you see that this wont work? We have a few choices:

1) wait for mediation 2) agree a minimum entry that we can leave up and work from (the one I just reverted I would consider OK to work from, not your version) by consensus here first 3) have an edit war: I will just revert your unilateral changes while you are sleeping so at least half the time we will have an alternative to your unilateral agreed "non appropriate" edits.

Your comments?Richardmalter 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments are that WP:3RR violation trumps a content dispute, or 'ignoring a mediation process' which is voluntary to start with. Of course I don't think I have ignored any process, but that's besides the point. Richard, to play in this game you must know the rules. You must be able to distinguish between 3RR violation and content dispute, and between vandalism (with which you accused Arc) and legitimate edits. BTW, even extremely POV edits are not vandalism (not that I think that Arc's edits are POV, but again that's besides the point).
BTW, this situation can be avoided if we ourselves do 'self-mediation' by pre-discussing everything here prior to editing the article. But that idea, which I proposed (many times) a long time ago, has not been accepted. It would also help if everyone, regardless of POV, understood and followed the WP policies. Thanks, Crum375 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, you signed in agreement to the mediation process. A pause in this is not a reason to do what you like (against WP guidelines). You have now reverted a version that you know contains citations and other information that has been decided in mediation (including yourself) to be WP unacceptable. Please revert your changes. Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Richardmalter 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be going back to reverting the article (I would like to note that there have been several 3rr violations by separate parties, which you could have been blocked for), I have full-protected the article. Please discuss the issue here instead of edit warring on the article, as things are much more productive this way. Cowman109^Talk 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109, I do appreciate your effort, and I don't disagree with the page protection, but I think that if you are aware of parties that are violating 3RR you should name names. Otherwise, everyone gets tainted with a broad brush. If you know of anyone else besides Richard Malter who has violated 3RR here, please let us know. Thanks, Crum375 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I found the 'other party', so I stand corrected. Thanks, Crum375 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109, I completely agree with page protection. But you have stopped at a version that is wildly against the version we were up to in mediation and which contains many issues that have been ruled against and discussion closed re them in mediation. Please could you revert to the version we left off from during mediation. Thanks.Richardmalter 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Richardmalter, I am not aware of a single issue that was 'closed' or 'ruled against' during the short mediation, which was aborted and never really took off. Thus, I am not aware of any consensual version from that process. Crum375 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I still have qualms with the version I protected - but administrators always protect the m:The wrong version. If I were to revert to a certain version, it would be inappropriate per the protection policy. Cowman109^Talk 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, all you have to do is read the archive of the mediation page. You know that. For example, the citation for "quakery" and "pseudoscience" was ruled, agreed by consensus (that you did not object to and participated in), and closed as not a proper citation at all. SlimVirgin (another Admin said the same thing months ago). It was therefore removed during mediation. We have a real problem with your selective memory and application of WP criteria for a long time now.

Cowman109, I understand the point. However, it is a fact that even at the early stages of the mediation process of evaluating the text and citations, certain things were agreed and closed (please see Mediation archive). This is not my bias, it is a statement of fact about the bias of the mediation outcomes - ie mediated agreement. What you have done effectively disregards the mediation process, in process. I do not suggest of course that this is your aim, just the effect. Arcsincostan, reverted to a very old version that he knew contained citations that had been specifically ruled against by consensus in the mediation process just a few days ago (that he had participated in and not objected to). This made his edits clear vandalism. You have frozen that version. Why not halt at the version that was duly arrived at as work-in-progress during the mediation??! - otherwise you negate the very mediation process via the Cabal that has taken considerable effort and time and that you (I understand from your personal page) are directly involved in. I hope you will follow the logic I am suggesting here.Richardmalter 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Richardmalter, my 'selective memory', as you call it, tells me that we started a mediation process. It also tells me that we started addressing issues, that the mediators just started learning the subject, and that you (Richard) and I were far from agreement on many/most topics. Well, to bolster this inadequate memory I just re-read the mediation page and I fail to see any compromise version being agreed to there by the parties before our mediators left us.
I repeat yet again my proposal to go over the article section by section, paragraph by paragraph, one item at a time, right here in the Talk page, and make changes to the article only once we reach consensus here. Thanks, Crum375 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And Richard, one more point regarding your usage of the term 'vandalism'. If you read the WP:VANDAL policy, you will note that an edit made where the editor in his/her own mind believes improves the article (and hence WP as a whole) is not vandalism. For example, if you go to page X where there is total consensus among all other editors that Y is black but you personally believe that Y is white and edit the page to say Y is white, this would never be vandalism, since you personally believe Y is white, and by making the article more accurate in your own mind you are improving the article and WP. You could be guilty of violating other policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:V, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR or tendentious editing, which in some egregious cases can get you banned from a page or even WP as a whole, but it would not be vandalism. So please, before using the term, always try to consider what the 'offending' editor had in his/her mind - as long as it was not a clear desire to deface WP and reduce its quality, it is not vandalism. Thanks, Crum375 10:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has done any vandalism here, for the record. This is just a content dispute. The only possible blockable offense in such a situation would be violating the three revert rule. Cowman109^Talk 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, were some points archived, "Discussion closed and action taken as agreed" or not? (see Archives of mediation, quackwatch reference.) Re your proposal of wanting to discuss everything here first, it would be fine, but you are always happy to do this once a version is currently up that you like. (Why did you choose all of a sudden to revert this version after you reverted other versions just previously).

Cowman109, what do you think re the point I asked for your comments on? I am eager to trust first re good faith, but when repeatedly there are repeated problems, howvever 'clever', and as soon as the cat's away. .. this runs very thin. Ignoring events does not equal civility. Hence I asked for mediation. [User:Richardmalter|Richardmalter]] 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Richardmalter, regarding your questions to me: I am not sure I fully understand them, but let me try. As far as the QuackWatch issue, yes we did address it. And as we continue the discussion here about future changes, I suspect we can address it again and fix what needs to be fixed in the process of creating consensual changes. As far as reverting to specific versions, if your question is why I reverted once to my own version and later to Arc's, the reason is that as I noted above I realized that I was mistaken in agreeing to remove the NZ Tribunal reference from the lead, and since by that point Arc added the balancing statements that I needed in the other sections, I decided his latest version is better than mine and reverted to his version. And regarding discussion of changes here and reaching consensus prior to modifying the article directly, I have always promoted that method, and will continue to do so in the future, regardless of the state of the current version. Thanks, Crum375 01:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, whatever way you put it, yes we did address it and the "Discussion [was] closed and action taken as agreed". You knew that. You reverted changes that break that agreement (that you were directly party to). You and Arc both broke agreements made (by you) in the short space of time that the mediation was paused. Whatever you write, however many words you use, in whatever way you try to construe it, does not change that fact. Your agreement is documented. Your action that breaks that agreement is documented. I will refer to this as necessary as a documented fact.Richardmalter 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109, if a definite, specific, archived, documented agreement is reached by mediated consensus regarding content, and then a participant in that mediation knowingly breaks the agreement and reverts it, does WP consider this vandalism? (I think it does clearly.) If not, what else in WP terms? Richardmalter 08:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Using formatting

It would make things a lot easier if everyone used proper formatting, including section headers, to help divide up what's being said in order to make it easier to follow.

If you are replying to someone, please indent your comments using an asterisk (to bullet) or a colon (to indent).

You can increase the level of the reply by adding more of whichever one you are using.

If you want to make a numbered list

You can
do so
like this

You can even combine them to produce

appearances like
this list

Please also notice the talk page header at the top of the page. It has some useful tips as well. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though useful for short and simple discussions, the indentation method breaks down when you have long and complex ones like ours here. We do use the indents, lists and numbers as you mention sometimes, but when you have long and deep nesting levels, and where you may address not just the immediate message above but others as well, they are just not always correct or practical. So what we do here is a combination - sometimes we use them and sometimes not, as you can see if you follow our (very long) archived history. Anyway, thank you for your kind suggestion. Crum375 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

mediation and article direction

Hey all! I wanted to take a few minutes to comment on what's going on here. After that, if you folks would like me to stick around and work on this, I'd be more than happy to help. But I'd like to point out a couple of things about the discussion to date.

Vandalism: WP:-( (my favorite Wiki shortcut) is pretty clear that well-intentioned edits, no matter how misguided they may seem, are not considered vandalism. It would be useful to keep this in mind as the discussion goes on.

Vandalism is not the only blockable offense, for example with POV warriors who manage to avoid 3RR, yet make every effort to avoid the weight of consensus. Without the ability to warn and block editors who refuse to use discussion over repetitive editing to get their point across, some articles will become POV quagmires which remain in that state because no-one has the wherewithal to constantly police the article. Of course, this should only be pursued when reasonable attempts at dialogue have been exhausted. A request by an editor that contributors to an article read all related background discussions and articles is not a reasonable attempt at dialogue. Antonrojo 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: According to WP:RFM, mediation is strictly non-binding. This differs from arbitration, which is binding. So, while users are strongly encouraged to stick to compromises reached during the mediation process, it's not a blockable offense or vandalism. One could make an argument that it is poor Wikiquette, but such arguments generally are more trouble than they're worth.

Blocking: A discerning look at WP:BLOCK will remind the reader that blocking is not a punitive measure. Admins (which I am not) are encouraged to use blocking sparingly, and only in the capacity that it will aid in the cessation of destructive activities. That is, blocking a vandal is to force the vandal to stop vandalising, not to punish him for doing it.

Good Faith: It is extremely important to maintain good faith and to assume it, no matter how heated a discussion gets. Saying things like "I will consider such-and-such vandalism" or "You clearly are whatever" encourages others to not assume or act with good faith. I think we can all agree that, without good faith, a disagreement will never get anywhere.

Those are the meta-issues of this dispute, as I see it. The real issues of subject matter are a little more complex. I'd be more than happy to stay and work on them, if you folks are all on board to really work this thing out.

Peace - Che Nuevara 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Che, welcome to this article and thank your for your 'pre game analysis'. I would encourage you, if you are serious about wanting to help, to read through the extensive history archives of this entry. It is neither short, nor simple, so be ready to invest some serious reading time. Please read also the last AfD discussion, as it contains the last set of views by a wider audience, in contrast to the 'usual suspects' that normally operate here. Note that some of those 'suspects' are semi-retired from WP, so access to them may be sporadic at best. The most important question to you is: do you have what it takes to take on a non-trivial case, that may take a lot of your time, and has caused the last few well-intentioned mediators to mysteriously disappear for various reasons? If you too will soon turn tail, it will not be constructive. If you truly intend to stick it out and make a difference, then let us know. Thanks, Crum375 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to make a long-term investment in this article; it's definately worth it. And, in the case that my schoolwork catches up with me on a particular day (I'm a senior in college) I can assure you that it won't keep me away from here for long. If there are any doubts as to my commitment: The last article that I mediated for was Democratic Underground, a discussion which I joined on 28 June, and (as you'll see if you check out the talk page) I still keep up with the discussion on the article three months later, even though the issue has somewhat cooled down.

As for the discussion itself, I will indeed take the time to sort through the debate to date; I've already read large portions of it. Before I do that, however, I think it would be beneficial for all involved to sum up the issue from their point of view. That is to say, if everyone could give me a brief summary of what you think the issue is and what you would like to see happen, without commenting on other people's summaries, that would be an excellent place to work from. I find that often, in an issue such as this, the debate digresses so drastically that people lose sight of what the issue is and where they disagree with the other people involved.

If everyone could take five minutes to that, not only would it help me immensely, but I think it would help everyone else to find a fresh starting point. Thanks! - Che Nuevara 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is my take (briefly). As background, I came to this article trying to (informally) mediate, but got stuck here for the last few months. I think the present version of the article is actually pretty good, not far from ideal. It does need some minor tweaking, however. Given the contentious mode in which we operated in the recent past, I strongly recommend to leave the article protected and agree to any/all changes here prior to requesting an admin to unprotect so we can incorporate the changes. I think you will hear from Richard Malter, a BDORT advocate and a medical practitioner who has admitted (here) to 'sometimes' using BODRT in his practice (and therefore is not exactly neutral in the matter), that he feels that there are lots of good references (in his opinion) that would support Omura's claims that BDORT can easily diagnose and cure most diseases known to man. Other editors don't agree that those references are scientifically valid or otherwise WP-acceptable per WP:RS, WP:V, Jimbo's comments about fringe science, etc. We do have what many consider a highly reliable and respectable source evaluating BDORT, the NZ Tribunal's report, but Richard and his colleagues dispute the quality and/or applicability of that reference. So it boils down to which sources are acceptable and which are not, and once that's established, how to present the acceptable data. I'll let Richard take over and explain his perspective. Crum375 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Che, nice to meet you. I do really appreciate your expression of willingness to long-term help out. I also readily and easily understand how you present the meta issues. But I think that there is a more underlying layer of 'meta-issues'. As I see them they are basically:
1. people are not, when it comes down to it, in actuality willing to edit by WP criteria. If they dont like some content for whatever their well-intentioned reason, they will either argue tirelessly for a new "precedent" interpretation of WP criteria (real eg: like putting disclaimers at the end of every paragraph that 3 Admins have said repeatedly is not "appropriate to WP"), or argue tirelessly against WP OK citations by arguing about such things like (real eg:) the phrase "peer-reviewed since 2003" doesnt necessarily mean after the year 2003 etc, etc, etc. ie they want a certain article and that's that.
2. People will not stick to mediated consensus decisions (which they fully voluntarily participated in) even if the decision was "closed and action taken as agreed" in a fully participatory mediated forum. This is a huge waste of time and energy. This leaves me thinking that mediation wont work. And that formal Arbitration will be the only way a stable article will ever result. I think I have enough 'evidence' now to request Arbitration formally on the basis of what has happened re the last mediation attempt while waiting for a replacement mediator.
3. Re mediation: yes, we have had a problem with people dropping out all the time. However underlyingly that doesn't matter if people will revert concensus agreements anyway at some later time. The only way I see mediation possibly working is if people here would sign an agreement that they will be bound by decisions made during mediation including those already made (for simple economy of energy and time).
4. I have become habituated to being endlessly misrepresented - but I guess this goes with WP.

Cheers.Richardmalter 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this seems as good a place as any to dive in. It seems to me that the only editors still involved, for the moment anyway, are the two of you, but if more people become involved that won't be a problem.

Richard, I understand your distress concerning mediation and arbitration. There may indeed be a valid ArbCom case here, and if you really believe that this is where this should go, then you can take it there. My personal opinion, however, is that, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, arbitration doesn't typically make anyone particularly happy and doesn't do a lot to help the article in question. It has its place, but it's not a pretty one.

Your suggestion for a quasi-'formal' mediation is reasonable, but I'd like to suggest something else. It's my experience that, when people are forced to sign onto things, to 'agree or disagree', they become quickly dug in to a polemical modus operandi and are less likely to compromise or see things from a new point of view. It corners them, makes them feel like they have to defend themselves. It escalates tensions and makes people less likely to understand opposing points of view. I'd actually like to take things a step back from from where Aguerriro had them and try this organically. If you don't think it works, well, then we'll change gears or you can seek another solution (like ArbCom). But I think that there is progress that cna be made here.

What I mean by organic is this: Too often in a content dispute becomes, very quickly, more about the dispute than the content. ArbCom isn't going to change that. But if everyone here makes an honest effort to get back to the content, then I really think we can come up with the best possible article with the least possible fallout.

So here's what I'd like to do: I'm going to go through all points of contention, solicit your opinions, and generate a constructive discussion about it. Wikipedia policy and guidelines aren't bedrock, but there's usually a "best" solution out there. And I think that's what this article needs -- the best solutions reachable.

I'm not going to ask people to sign on to things. I'm not going to ask people to vote agree or oppose. I'm going to ask what you really think, and then attempt to work on the issues that arise therefrom. (Yeah, I just made up a word, but whatever.) Are there deeper issues, like disagreement on policy and guidelines? Sure there are, but discussion about the issues at hand are how to get to the bottom of the issues. That's one thing ArbCom can't do.

Crum, your comment on bias brings up an important point. We all bring an inherent, (practically speaking) inescapable bias to the table. And, as long as we recognize that bias and admit it to ourselves, it shouldn't stop stop us from working on an article. Indeed, just the opposite is the case: passionate editors write better articles. But everyone involved ought to remember their personal biases and reflect on how they influence their contributions to the article and to the discussion.

I will request one thing, and that is this: Think very carefully about responses you make to each other. I encourage you to express whatever opinions you have (as long as they're expressed in a civil fashion), but reacting to other people's opinions is a dangerous business. I'm not saying don't do it; I'm saying be cautious about whether what you say could be considered argumentative or critical. Even if you don't mean it that way -- and I encourage everyone to continue assuming and acting with good faith -- that's how disputes find their way to ArbCom.

Thoughts? If there are no objections, I'll start on actual content soon. - Che Nuevara 18:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Che, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I just wanted to address a couple of issues you mentioned. One, you correctly noted that I used the word 'bias'. I fully agree with you that all humans have some internal bias - it's what makes us tick. And we all know, as WP editors, that we should check it in at the door. The only reason I mentioned it here, was that in Richard's case I wanted to highlight the fact that he is a single issue editor whose livelihood depends, to some extent, on the article, as he has admitted (on this Talk page) to 'sometimes' use the BDORT procedure in his professional practice (and it is prominent on his Web Site). I am not saying such a clear advocate cannot still make a useful contribution to a WP article about BDORT - clearly since this is what he advocates and does for a living (at least partially/sometimes), he would know a lot about it, and may be able to find errors or verifiable sources that we otherwise miss. But his direct editing the article has proven to be very one-track-minded. In conclusion of this point, this is not your everyday WP editor that happens to be a Liberal while editing a Conservative-related article.
The second point I'd like to address is civility. Richard had been mostly very civil (as I have always tried to be), so I am hoping this will continue as we try to improve the article.
Thanks again, Crum375 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted, Crum. What I said wasn't an indictment of what you were saying -- what you said simply reminded me to make that point. I'm aware of Richard's relationship to BDORT and to this article, and I'm investing the good faith in him that he'll do the right thing. And thanks for pointing out the civility issue. Naturally, you're right to make a point of it. - Che Nuevara 21:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Che for the ideas; I will reply more anon. But I have again been misrepresented, regarding my livelihood. I have set this out at detailed length on Addhoc's talk page in reply to Crum375's previous comments which were very far from fact. I refer you both to them. In summary, Crum375's comments are factually incorrect. Good Faith would include me being able to say straightforward factual things about me most reliably. Richardmalter 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Che, OK, its a nice day, please continue. But I really think that the content dispute has to be solved in the way that Aguerriro began doing - that is, getting consensus agreements on what citations, and for what for, are WP OK or not. But I am open to see what happens. I think that if this does not work then it will be a good case for Arbitration even if it means sadly a much poorer article. Thanks.Richardmalter 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I don't want to work towards consensus agreements -- I just meant that I think formal 'consensus-voting' (especially with only two disputing parties) discourages consensus. I'll explain my approach in a mement. I would also like you to know that when I said I was 'aware', I meant exactly that -- I know that you use the procedure sometimes, and I know that you've extensively edited this article; nothing more.

I'd like to really discuss the contended issues, not just try to find the 'least offensive version'. What I propose is this: I'll create a subpage for disputed content. Any time you'd like to identify content -- whether a link or actual article content -- that you dispute, list it there with the reason you dispute it and what you propose should be done, whether a removal, a rewrite, or the like. And we'll take it from there. It's really the same idea, just from a different angle.

More later; I've got class in the morning. Peace! - Che Nuevara 03:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Che, you did not actually address my point I made firstly, that if people are not willing to go by WP guidelines, then any effort is very likely to fail. I realise that you think (and may have) a useful approach, but if you ignore issues at the outset, I think they will become a nemesis all too soon. My understanding of Good Faith is that people will go by WP guidelines. For example, when I have repeatedly shown, and all participants in the Mediation including the official mediator have either positively agreed or not been able to refute, that a source is third party, Reliable and Neutral (and even USA Board Certified MD peer reveiwed), some people continue to argue that it is not for non-WP criteria reasons. I understand they are doing this because their bias leads them to do this. This is why I asked for mediation originally. But if this is not addressed - I think at the outset - how do we ever expect to get a stable agreement? It is all very well, asking for people to act in good faith, be civil etc, but I think these words has very little real meaning in cases like the one I note here. Actions speak not words. Please go ahead and try your approach, but I am very doubtful because of the analysis of the situation I give here that we will succeed. That's not a pessimistic comment; just a realistic one.Richardmalter 12:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually getting there, but I broke up my responses to avoid writing the Great American Novel. I'd like to break up my discussion about policy into two parts: conduct policy and content policy.

While I firmly believe that conduct policy should go without saying, Richard is correct in saying that they need to be addressed. We all know what the conduct policies on Wikipedia are, and we all know that we should follow them. However, we also all know that, sometimes, in a dispute, people don't do what they should. So I will put this very bluntly: the idea of mediation is based on the premise that the involved parties want to be mediated. Mediation requires active cooperation. Active cooperation necessitates good faith, civility, not being a dick, not making personal attacks, and not climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. These issues are non-negotiable; they are completely essential to any wiki-process. I'm not an admin; I can't handle breaches of these issues without getting an admin involved. And I hope you'll all agree that getting an admin involved in admin capacity would be bad. But if I'm not allowed to mediate, it's out of my hands.

Content policy is a little more tricky, and is the point of much more contention than conduct policy. However, a quick look at the Foundation Issues will assure anyone that NPOV is non-negotiable. On English Wikipedia, we take that to imply that verifiability is also non-negotiable. Everything else stems from that. WP:RS, WP:EL, and the like are guidelines created in the spirit of the core policy issues. That means that we use these guidelines as aids in applying the policies, which must be adhered to. Contrary to what one might think, the purpose of mediation is not to find a solution amicable to all involved; it is to bring those involved together to an appropriate solution. The repercussions for ignoring these policies is having your work deleted, of course, but they have wider implications: an unwillingness to edit according to the Wikipedia policies does in fact display an unwillingness to be a productive part of the 'pedia. That goes bad places.

Now, I'm personally a fan of WP:IAR, but IAR does not mean that you get to do what you want. The foundation issues -- that means neutral point of view -- are tantamount. IAR exists to allow exceptions that are in the spirit of the encyclopedia.

So, assuming that the involed understand and agree with these basic principles, which are inherently a part of Wikipedia and not my own, we can go forward with this. I will take further participation in this process to mean an understanding and acceptance that this is the way things work. If all involved understand and actually believe these things, then there is no reason why this shouldn't work. I'm not going to threaten "If you don't do this, I'll do that" or anything like that, but I think it's pretty clear what the implications of these things are.

I'll include commentary on the concrete issues themselves, as pertain to this article, on the subpage. For ease and consistency's sake, we'll use the now-archived /Mediation page.

Che Nuevara 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Che, thanks for all that. I didn't mean to drag you into a long digression of the actual process of working things out; I am ready to see what happens. Thanks for the effort, I'll watch the Mediation page from now on.Richardmalter 07:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)