Talk:BDORT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: Richardmalter is banned from editing this article or its talk page indefinitely.

The user specified has been found by the Arbitration Committee to have edited a related article inappropriately. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Posted for the Arbitration Committee by Newyorkbrad 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before even considering re-nomination: Keep - nomination was withdrawn, BDORT AFD 17 May 2006 Keep, (as 'Yoshiaki Omura', since merged), AFD 19 June 2006.

Contents 1 New entry 2 Yoshiaki Omura now redirected here 3 Page histories 4 Yoshiaki Omura article separate from BDORT article 5 BLP 6 Request for comment 7 Pry

[edit] New entry

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)

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura now redirected here

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

[edit] Page histories

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)

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)

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura article separate from BDORT article

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)

• Here is the history as I understand it:
  • There were originally 2 separate articles created, BDORT and Yoshiaki Omura (YO)
  • There was an AfD ("AfD1") initiated by Philosophus (P) to delete BDORT as non-notable
  • The consensus in AfD1 (which convinced P) was to retain BDORT, as sufficient notability was shown with the New Zealand Tribunal's (NZT) report
  • Shortly thereafter, there was consensus on the Talk pages of both articles to merge the 2 articles into one, entitled YO, with BDORT redirecting into it
  • After a few months, there was an AfD (AfD2) to delete the YO article (which now included BDORT), based on an assertion that there was still insufficient notability, despite the NZT report
  • AfD2 ended in 'Keep', as YO's notability is established via his BDORT invention, which is described in the published NZT report, which confers notability
  • For several more months BDORT and YO remained combined under the YO title and focus
  • Near the end of 2006, an Arb case was filed asserting various allegations, including BLP violations by one party, along with tendentious editing, COI, sockpuppetry, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. by other parties
  • The Arb case was decided unanimously, with findings and remedies as noted above
  • At this point we decided to maintain the same substantial information as in the YO article, but shift the focus to the BDORT procedure rather than its inventor, thus changing the title to BDORT and redirecting YO to it, while retaining the old YO Talk page and its archives for reference purposes
  • The current article is now focused on the BDORT procedure, while YO, who does not have direct notability, is redirected to BDORT, thereby reducing BLP concerns

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)

[edit] BLP

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry. Since the topic is BDORT and not Dr. Omura, the article needs to be written focusing on BDORT, with only necessary reference to Dr. Omura. For example, the sentence "Dr. Omura's initial BDORT patent application was rejected by the US Patent Office" brings the article under BLP because it addresses Dr. Omura's actions. It may not violate BLP, but it none the less brings the article under BLP. Given the history of this topic (e.g. all the way to ArbCom), it may be best to try to reword the article to focus only on the device rather than people with the goal of removing unnecessary biography material from the article about a living person. If the sentence "Dr. Omura's initial BDORT patent application was rejected by the US Patent Office" were written something like "The first time the US Patent Office reviewed the BDORT technique, it was rejected," this would remove some living person biography material. Where the article reads "according to his own account", isn't that more about Dr. Omura rather than BDORT? (Generally, the news article pharase "according to" is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.) Here is another example. Look at the sentences "We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity." That is a quote from one of the cited sources. There is no BLP information in that quote. It is all about the technique. That is what the BDORT article needs to move towards - being all about the technique. -- Jreferee 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points - I will try to implement them. Thanks, Crum375 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to implement your suggestion - please review. I do have a question here:

The BDORT is capable, according to Omura and his colleagues, of a wide range of applications in the diagnosis, prescription of treatment, and evaluation of efficacy of treatment of, amongst others: heart conditions, cancers, 'pre-cancers,' allergic reactions, viral and bacterial infections, a range of organic and/or environmental stresses, as well as the precise location of acupuncture points and meridians previously unknown or inappropriately identified.

How do you suggest to remove the 'according to' in this case? Crum375 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Use the text from the U.S. Patent. That text was reviewed and approved by the United States and has the effect of a private federal law. Some more living person items: "Gorringe guilty of malpractice" may be refocused (if true) as BDORT's use was the main problem behind a malpractice finding. "Seminars held by Dr. Omura" has to do with Omura, not BDORT. The focus should be changed to BDORT and course credit. "With further effort and the assistance of Dr. Omura's 'associates in clinical fields and basic sciences, both in Japan and the United States', the USPTO finally issued the BDORT patent in 1993" may be rewritten "After receiving expert testimony regarding BDORT, the USPTO finally issued the BDORT patent in 1993." Remove "Omura claims that it is possible" and replace it with whatever the U.S. Patent says. There are other changes that should be made. Omura should be mention as the inventor, but most of the other references to Omura might not be relevant. -- Jreferee 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the USPTO only ruled on the basic BDORT, not on any of the variants that are in the section you are referring to. Also, I believe the USPTO does not rule on the merit of a patented process or device, only that it is novel and appears to be non-trivial improvement over anything else. But again, they don't address the variants AFAIK, so it would be moot anyway for the 'variants'. In any case, I'll carefully review your suggestions and try to act on all of them. Thanks, Crum375 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits along the lines you recommend. If you have further suggestions, please let me know. You can also try to edit the article directly - I can always tweak it if necessary. Thanks for all your suggestions and efforts so far. Crum375 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I Saw the requests for comments, I am happy to look soon1garden 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

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)

[edit] Pry

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)

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)

Fair enough, thanks for your explanation, Ram4eva 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I read much of the information about this topic, its complicated and interesting! I have no coflict of interest. My notes are these and I read also the ideas of richardmalter. I read some Arbitration messages in addition. 1. I think that the article has been written in a way, which attempts to form 'a point ' and has much POV. 2. The article has very confused information. I know that he is forbidden by the Arbitration however his idea, Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand did not use this technique - bi digital O-ring test is exact. The article is not exact. He says that there are three sources, which say that this is true and I think that this is true - is my thought. So it must be written again. The Tribunal speaks about ' PMRT ' generally and copies Richard Warwick in which he says about his techniques. 3. Richardmalter says that n the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body is not true and not citationed. But New York State Board of Medicine (NYSBM) is not a medical body (educational), therefore I think that I disagree with him - it is not a medical body , as the Tribunal is. But the idea, in the only well-known independent evaluation of the BDORT , is like estimating. 4. About the technical accuracy I that we must examine this with an expert, no? I think like it was mentioned befores, that to use the exact words of the patent is the best way otherwise there are mistakes. But its important to be right about the details. 5. This It is unclear from the tribunal's report whether the 'Omura materials' presented by Gorringe are related to any distinction between BDORT and PMRT or not, since paragraph 290 itself seems to equate them, and the tribunal seems to also equate BDORT and PMRT and use them interchangeably in the rest of the Wellington report is 'original research' and intepretation of statements of the Tribunal. So I think we have to make full edits to this article.

1garden 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)