Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BDORT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. W.marsh 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BDORT

BDORT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • I am withdrawing this nomination in view of the consensus that an AfD is not a suitable forum for this discussion since it hinges on a content dispute. I will be posting on the article's talk page as to how I propose to resolve this dispute.GDallimore (Talk) 09:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has a long history, so you'll have to bear with me as I explain. First, people may wish to familiarise themselves with two previous nominations for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoshiaki_Omura

Essentially, BDORT is a patented and well-documented but pseudo-scientific technique for gauging the health of a patient. It sounds pretty ridiculous to me and there have been long term edit wars on this page between those trying to support it and those trying to discredit it. I believe that both sides in the debate are expressing strong POV for or against.

There appears to be very little or no independent verification or reliable sources about BDORT. The only reliable information found on the topic is a series of New Zealand medical tribunals where a Dr Gorridge was using a technique called "PMRT" to gauge the health of his patients. During the tribunals, Gorridge claimed that his technique was based on the BDORT technique. However, the tribunal itself decided that PMRT and BDORT were not the same, to the extent that a study of BDORT would be irrelevant in deciding whether Gorridge was negligent in using PMRT on his patients.

Despite this finding of the tribunal that BDORT and PMRT are not the same, the side attacking BDORT are using the tribunal as a way to discredit BDORT in the article. This side in the debate seeks support for their position in a report on the tribunal which only refers to BDORT and a second tribunal with Gorridge where only BDORT is ever mentioned. However, neither of these other sources seek to compare Gorridge's technique (that he calls BDORT) with the patented BDORT technique in the way the first tribunal did. Thus, we have only a single reliable source comparing BDORT with Gorridge's technique and this source says that they are not the same.

I suggested on the talk page of the article [1] that, actually, this was an article about PMRT and that the article should be moved there and references to BDORT should be removed, except to clarify that PMRT is not the same as the patented BDORT technique. The only regular editors to the article strongly rejected this proposal. In the absence of consensus, I am therefore proposing the article for deletion for the following reasons:

  1. A majority of the material in the article states that PMRT is the same as BDORT. This cannot be verified against any reliable source (the only person making this claim is Gorridge, a discredited doctor) and is directly contrary to the findings of a New Zealand tribunal who analysed this claim. This material should therefore be removed as being WP:OR and failing WP:V and WP:RS.
  2. Once this material has been removed, the only material left is about BDORT as a patented technique. The only source of information on this topic appears to originate from the inventor of the process, Dr Omura. This information therefore fails to meet WP:NOTE and cannot form the basis for an article.

In summary, BDORT only potentially meets WP:NOTE because of the NZ tribunal, but the tribunal itself decided that BDORT was irrelevant because Gorridge was actually practicing a technique called PMRT which was different from BDORT. Therefore BDORT itself does not meet the notability requirements and there should not be an article about it.

As opposed to deleting the article, I would be satisfied with a redirect to PMRT and for a correction of the article's current unsubstantiated claim that BDORT and PMRT are the same. PMRT appears to meet notability requirements by virtue of the tribunal. However, this solution may not be appropriate in view of the clearly very strong feelings surrounding the topic and the high likelihood that a PMRT article or newly created BDORT article would end up in the same mess as the current article. GDallimore (Talk) 14:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I watched the prior controversy over this article and contributed and generally I agree with your characterization of the current sources. The bias I saw was mainly pro-BDORT references from one or two supporters and that appears to have been rectified. The main reason I am on the fence regarding notability is that a google search for "BDORT -wikipedia" returns, in my brief scanning of the results, a surprising number of references from what appear to be legitimate sources such as this NIH study. On the other hand, Yomura(sp?) seems to have also 'invented' many offical sounding websites, journals, and organizations to support BDORT and many of the citations might be facades.
    • It is also not clear to me what you mean by 'a redirect to PMRT', since PMRT redirects here. If you suggesting reversing the redirect, that opens up the issue of PMRT's notability. Antonrojo 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comments. I think PMRT would be notable because of the NZ tribunal. As for BDORT - if it turns out that BDORT IS notable, then I guess my AfD must fail at step 2 above. However, I still think the article is wrongly anti-BDORT as set out in step 1. How would I go about opening up a discussion on that point in the face of likely strong opposition to any edits I might make from the regular editors of the article who are promoting the fallacy (IMO) that BDORT and PMRT are the same? Is there a wiki forum that I can open this up to? I'm still learning about the different ways of resolving difficulties... GDallimore (Talk) 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That is not a NIH study. It's a paper in the Japanese journal Acupuncture and Electrotheraphy Research, included in PubMed, which does give it some minimal legitimacy. DGG 03:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Agreed. It sounds like PubMed needs to be a little more selective. Annoyingly, the journal does not seem to have a webpage to see, for example, if Yomura is on the board. I did, however, discover that they advocate canine acupuncture. Antonrojo 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question As the initial creator of this entry, initially brief, which was then seized on by proponents, then became, at least from my perspective, a long, pointless WP:Squall I argued for its deletion in the second debate. I may well be so inclined at present, as well, but I fail to see how PMRT merits notability as a freestanding entry, when its only existence seems to have been in Gorringe's mind, as documented by the NZTs. Might it make sense to simply delete the present entry and have both PMRT and BDORT direct to the entries for the New Zealand Tribunals? In a world of rational prioritization this seems to me sensible. How do others feel about this? TealCyfre0 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Or an article for Gorringe himself.GDallimore (Talk) 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is already an entry for Gorringe. Do you mean to simply redirect to it? TealCyfre0 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Missed that one. Maybe a merge of BDORT to Richard Gorringe would be appropriate, then. Losing most of the material from the BDORT article and simple adding in to Gorringe the quote from the first tribunal that PMRT (or BDORT) as practised by Gorringe was not deemed to be the same as the BDORT process patented by Omura. That should satisfy both proponents (since the disctinction found by the tribunal is made clear) and opponents (since the dangers of relying on untested techniques is also made clear).
No worries on missing anything. So far as I'm concerned this is what is sometimes referred to as a Confuddled Mess ;)
It seems to me that the present short entry for Gorringe in a sense neutrally covers the relevant ground. It refers to the relevant sources and folks can always scope them out themselves and form their own conclusions. Whenever anyone puts more than the barest minimum in an entry on this topic it seems to become an endless, pointless, swirling debate, with no real resolution available. Personally, if it were my call to make, I'd say reduce the matter to the barest, most neutral entry possible on Gorringe, and point any other terms, such as Omura, PMRT, BDORT at that entry. TealCyfre0 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've taken admin action in relation to this article and may have to again, so I won't support or oppose, but others might be interested to know that BDORT has been written about by reliable third-party sources, e.g. here. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Slim, that appears to me to be simply another example of Omura's little vanity journal of The International Journal of Flying Saucers and Finger Pulling being picked up in PubMed. There's no question he and his journal exist, but is this sufficient basis for notability? In most of the previous discussions that were somewhat widely viewed there was the feeling that he and BDORT might be notable as quackery, but then the proponents weigh in saying there's no acceptable cites for quackery. Okay, if there aren't there aren't. But then why is he and BDORT notable at all, if not for that, and if the NZTs aren't as GDallimore argues, really enough to make him and BDORT notable. Perhaps only Gorringe is notable and Omura not at all?TealCyfre0 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator for some reason ignores the fact, which was conveyed to him several times, that there are two distinct NZTs - NZT-1 and NZT-2. Both addressed BDORT, and in NZT-1 BDORT is also called 'PMRT'. In NZT-2 however, the name PMRT disappeared and BDORT alone is mentioned. The NZT is a respectable and professional government body, which published the two BDORT-related reports on its official website. This alone gives BDORT more than sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. In addition, as we mention in the article, there are monthly BDORT-related seminars, given by Dr. Omura in New York, and the University of the State of New York Education Department allows these seminars to count towards course credit for physicians and dentists seeking certification for the application of acupuncture in the course of their practice.[2][3] We also have a review of the NZT Gorringe case by a secondary source. In addition, the BDORT procedure itself is patented by the USPTO, which adds some notability in itself, especially as it was chosen as an example of 'high weirdness' by a legal firm. The notability of BDORT on Wikipedia has been established by 2 AfDs by now. I don't see any facts that have changed since then. The article is well sourced and neutrally presented. I don't see grounds for deletion or any other change. Crum375 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still up in the air on this, still deciding. I'm leaning, though, in the direction of saying Delete. There are some points in favor of notability, as Crum375 points out, but are they equivalent, say, to the Professor Test? We're talking about one old quack, with a following of probably a very few tens of people so far as we can determine, who holds a few seminars in a hotel in New York in the course of a year and one for which he rents space at Columbia in an attempt to establish a facade of 'International' reputation. There's a 'Journal' for which he contracts out, with a circulation of, what? Twenty? It's listed in PubMed - so what? Essentially no one has heard of this nonsense by any objective standards, with the sole exception of its en passant consideration in the NZTs - which I think are quite clear in their conclusion that BDORT, as a form of AK, has no claim to scientific or medical status - but anyone with a level of intelligence superior to a flea can figure that out, arm-waving of lunatic advocates notwithstanding. I simply don't know that there's any real basis for notability here. WP doesn't consider every actor, however minor, worthy of its notability. Why every lunatic 'alternative medicine' quack who publishes his own journal, holds a few meetings a year attended by a couple of dozen regulars? There's the fact that it's spectacularly lunatic, for which we have a legit cite or two, but little else, nothing major. There is, too, the problem that the Lunatic Few seize upon the entry to attempt to establish legitimacy. Hell, its very existence, even if damning to them, is arguably more useful to them than an appropriate silence as to the world's total ignorance of their particular form of madness. There are so very many forms of madness ... yet not all may merit an entry. TealCyfre0 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You may notice I did not mention Omura's publications as source for notability (I only cited one for the BDORT course material). I agree that the notability is not established by self-published materials. To me the strongest notability sources are the two NZTs - NZT-1 and NZT-2. If a procedure ends up provoking the stripping of a physician's MD degree (license to practice medicine), is found by a government body to have caused the death of a patient (by relying on it while excluding conventional diagnoses), and a tribunal (via their experts) spends the amount of investigation and study as is obvious they did in the NZT reports, to me that alone conveys more than ample notability. Add to that the fact that a mainstream New York University is relying on BDORT as a source for credit in re-certification of dentists and physicians. On Wikipedia we have separate entries for myriad Pokemon characters and some virtually unknown porn-stars - this procedure is far more notable than many topics you routinely see getting an AfD Keep here. Crum375 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken as to use of the publication. I meant it to illustrate, really, the fact that in Real World terms neither Omura nor BDORT is really on anyone's scope. The NZTs seem to be the only real cites per WP criteria. The question, though, is if they and the fact that Omura was grandfathered by NYS to teach courses in acupuncture a thousand years ago and under that rubric and inadequate/nonexistant state review actually teaches his magical mysterious finger-dowsing method of diagnosis are sufficient to establish notability for him and for BDORT. I agree there is notability for Gorringe per the NZTs and the press coverage of Gorringe's disgrace. I certainly feel that mention of Gorringe's method of quack diagnosis, which the Tribunals identified as PMRT/BDORT is appropriate. Other than that, I'm skeptical as to whether Omura or BDORT are notable per WP criteria. Previous discussions as to Delete/Keep tended to center around the quackery aspect. It seems, though, that per WP criteria we have no cites adequate to state quackery. Its notability then seems dubious to me. TealCyfre0 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you should review the AfD debates and specifically look at the kept items. Your bar for notability is set way too high in Wikipedia terms. I saw a case of a porn-star who had no sourced notability, but once sued her agent, and this was written up in some trade publication. That was sufficient for a Keep. Here we have a procedure that caused a doctor to lose his license to practice medicine over it, that is certified by New York University as a training credit for doctors and dentists, that of all the millions of filed patents was chosen by a legal firm as an example of 'high weirdness', that resulted in two separate government proceedings with lots of experts and voluminous reports, I would say this is clearly higher than our present notability bar. Crum375 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that non-notable means non-notable. I would, therefore, have been on the Delete list as to the examples you cite. That isn't an argument for me to be in favor of Keep in this case, so far as I can see. TealCyfre0 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you simply review the current practice of Keeping at the various AfDs, you will realize that your standard for notability is not WP's. You are of course entitled to your own high notability standard, but I suspect that of the 1.7M entries on WP today, a fair percentage (30%?) would disappear according to your criteria. So the point is that we need to be consistent - we can't enforce a higher standard of notability on one specific entry than the norm. The current WP:NN says: "[a] topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and the case in point certainly meets this requirement. Crum375 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Note, however, that that quote is from the 'This page in a nutshell' summary at WP:NN page head. Actual policy as to General Notability reads:
'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.'
Note, too, that the subject is noted as subject to 'active debate' within Wikipedia. The NZTs do not address BDORT directly, but indirectly, en passant, in the course of taking and evaluating the validity of evidence as to Gorringe's conduct. They are valid as sources, without question, but they do not satisfy the WP definition of 'significant coverage' – they do not address the subject 'directly in detail,' but only tangentially and not in detail as to either PMRT or BDORT. The entry for BDORT (and for PMRT) therefore fails to meet WP criteria for notability. Gorringe, however, is indeed, as the subject under investigation, evaluation, and judgement, addressed 'directly in detail' as per WP criteria for notability. There is, therefore, no basis for an entry per WP criteria for either Omura, BDORT, or PMRT – only for Gorringe. TealCyfre0 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll address your point about WP:NN. It says: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Note that it does not say the overall publication has to be dedicated to or focused exclusively on the topic, it should only address it 'directly in detail'. Clearly the NZTs have paragraphs and sentences that specifically address BDORT directly in detail (e.g. par. 100,280, 297: "...there is no evidence that BDORT [PMRT] has been subjected to a randomised placebo-controlled trial...", 306, etc.). If every WP article needed a publication or article totally dedicated to it, WP would get much smaller. Crum375 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Crum375 ignores the fact, that I have already mentioned in the nomination, that there is not a single source that says that Gorringe's technique (which he happens to call BDORT) is the same as Omura's patented BDORT technique. Perhaps Crum375 doesn't fully understand how synthesis of sources can result in WP:OR. We have a source that says Gorringe is using a technique he calls BDORT. We have another source that says Omura is using a technique he calls BDORT. In the absence of anything to say that these two techniques called BDORT are the same, it is OR for the article to do so. This is particularly true when the only source to compare Omura's technique with Gorringe's technique says that they are not the same. There is nothing linking PMRT and BDORT except the assertions of a discredited doctor - he is not a reliable source! GDallimore (Talk) 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
GDallimore, can you please give us your understanding of this statement from NZT1?

“… there is no evidence that BDORT [PMRT] has been subjected to a “randomised placebo-controlled trial”. This of course is the gold standard in medicine for evaluating new therapies. Blind testing is essential to isolate the beliefs of the tester, and patient, who could otherwise influence the results through wishful thinking. The lack of this process with BDORT [PMRT] means it is not correct to claim, “the scientific method supports its clinical use".”

– para. 297, NZT1

Please address the following: 1) Does the use of "BDORT [PMRT]" in the above statement mean that the expert writing it believes that BDORT and PMRT are equivalent? and 2) Is the expert saying that his evaluation is based on Gorringe's specific use of BDORT/PMRT, or is he being generic? Many thanks, Crum375 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
First thing to note, the quoted paragraph is not a statement by the tribunal, but a quotation by the tribunal of a statement by a Dr Doehring. The specific answers to your questions are 1. It is impossible to tell and 2. it is impossible to tell. Therefore, none of this can counter the only clear and unequivocal statment concerning the equivalence of BDORT and PMRT, made 7 paragraphs earlier by the tribunal themselves (who, it should be noted, are quite consistent in using the term PMRT during their summary of the charges) that "the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura".GDallimore (Talk) 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You may notice if you read the entire NZT1 that the tribunal relies on expert testimony for its verdicts. In the case of Dr Doehring, the tribunal states in para. 356: "The Tribunal was similarly assisted by Dr Doehring and Dr Isbell whose evidence it accepts on this issue." So the tribunal asked Dr. Doehring to testify as an expert, and then endorsed and accepted his view as evidence, which included the equivalence between BDORT and PMRT. We as Wikipedia are simply reporting what reliable sources are saying, as the tribunal accepted and summarized the views of Dr Doehring and the other experts. Crum375 18:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're saying that the expert's opinion is notable and possibly reliable. Fine, I can accept that, although I would say the finding of the tribunal is more reliable than expert witness statements (if you want an example of why, take a look at this). However, from the passage you quote it is still impossible to tell whether the expert is talking about BDORT as used by Gorringe or BDORT as used by Omura. The only opinion on whether these two techniques are actually the same comes from the tribunal and the tribunal says "no". This argument is getting fractured. I'm going to try to collate it under a new comment below.GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
GDallimore, this is a very straightforward situation. We have a Wikipedia article about X, an expert (one example of many) testifying about X, also equating it with Y, and a tribunal endorsing and accepting the expert's testimony, publishing the report on their government website. I submit that this clearly meets the letter and spirit of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NN. Crum375 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep – I fail to see any credible basis per Wikipedia criteria as to notability for an entry for BDORT, PMRT, or Omura. I see valid basis per Wikipedia criteria only for a minimal entry for the case of Richard Gorringe. TealCyfre0 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think you are using a misinterpretation of 'notability' on Wikipedia. Please see my message above about the fact that a publication need not be dedicated to a topic to make it 'notable', it only needs to address the topic 'directly and in detail', and the NZT publications certainly do that, in many paragraphs and sentences therein. Crum375 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Our judgements differ in this matter. Mine is effectively the same as when I nominated what was then the Omura entry for deletion nearly a year ago. Further, WP criteria evolve incrementally. Think of this as my judgement as to rational criteria for notability applied within WP's matrix as an incremental shift. I don't feel the need for a papal mandate, nor a crowbar, a judgement as to the particulars is, to my mind, sufficient and appropriate. I say Delete, with only an entry for Gorringe, as at present extant, appropriate per rational and Wikipedia criteria. We differ. Let others have their say. TealCyfre0 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
On further consideration of the arguments I've reconsidered. I've concluded that there is sufficient basis for the notability of BDORT per WP criteria to support its existence as an entry in Wikipedia, and as an example of quackery as pointed out by Someguy1221, as was the consensus of the two previous nominations for deletion. It's a minor example of quackery, granted, with respect to its microscopic following and application, yet its existence contributed to at least one documented death and at least several instances of documented grave suffering/injury. Injury, suffering, and death trump all other considerations. TealCyfre0 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also note, also on further consideration, that the entry is appropriately BDORT rather than PMRT or subsumed within the entry for Gorringe. There is merit, I think, to GDallimore's argument, yet I am ultimately persuaded by the fact that, as per the NZTs, PMRT was simply one man's term for a variant form of BDORT, which is, in turn, a particular form or application of AK. These particular distinctions are clearly made in the present entries for BDORT and Gorringe, and the NZTs are appropriately cited as well for consideration of the reader in weighing through the particulars. BDORT is the term for the diagnostic as invented, patented, and promoted by Omura and his adherent quacks and patients, and BDORT is the term for the diagnostic as it is generally known, to the extent it is in fact known. BDORT is the diagnostic which two New Zealand government tribunals found was contributory to death and suffering of patients, and BDORT is the term appropriate for the entry, with PMRT noted as term for a variant application as practiced by Gorringe. TealCyfre0 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The NZT tribunal does not say that Omura's BDORT is related to Gorringe's technique or that it is a form of AK. Only Gorringe suggests that his technique had its origins in Omura's technique and the only tribunal to question that assertion said they were different and refused to consider Omura's technique in their reasoning. Consequently, the tribunal's findings that Gorringe's technique was a form of AK, that is was subjective, or anything else, cannot be said to be true of Omura's BDORT. It also canont be said that there is a reliable source saying that PMRT is a subset of BDORT. For the article to do any of these things is WP:OR. I repeare, there is nothing linking PMRT and BDORT except the assertions of a discredited doctor - he is not a reliable source! GDallimore (Talk) 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As you have indicated that you have read and familiarized yourself with the previous discussion re this matter I assume you are familiar with the arguments advanced. I assume as well, therefore, that you are familiar with my arguments with respect to this matter, and that there is no need to repeat them. Repetitious insistence on the ‘obvious’ truth of your interpretation, however strenuous, however well intended, lends your argument as to proper interpretation no additional weight. TealCyfre0 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one pushing an interpretation. Tribunal 1 says uneqivocally that Omura's BDORT is not the same thing as Gorringe's PMRT (that he calls BDORT). Tribunal 2 does not mention Omura's BDORT at all. These are facts. The article is interpreting these facts to say that Omura's BDORT is at least comparable with Gorringe's PMRT, but this flies directly in the face of the unambiguous statement by tribunal 1 and is an interpretation which finds no direct support in tribunal 2. I've yet to see any rational explanation of this interpretation from anything I have read. This argument is getting fractured. I'm going to try to collate it under a new comment below. GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please reply to my query above about this point. Thanks, Crum375 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is an unfortunate fact that some quackery is notable, this is an example. Simply reading the references on the article lead me to this conclusion. Someguy1221 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. On another note, deleting an article is not the way to solve a content dispute. Someguy1221 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that the patented BDORT technique has no relationship with the accusations of quackery except in the arguments of the quack that were dismissed by the tribunal. Therefore the only reason BDORT appears notable is because of a mistaken and WP:OR association of Gorringe's and Omura's different techniques, which they both call BDORT. GDallimore (Talk) 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please reply to my query above about this point. Thanks, Crum375 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I find your interpretation, GDallimore, to be unsupported by rational interpretation of the evidence. The matter has been previously addressed at preposterous length, and I have no intention at readdressing it at comparably preposterous length once again. Feel free to reconsider, and if your interpretation remains at variance, so be it. Repetition of your argument, however, as noted above, lends it no additional weight. TealCyfre0 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not putting any interpretation on the evidence. I'm quoting from the tribuanal who said that Omura's and Gorringe's techniques are difference. Where is there a reliable source that says otherwise so equivocally? This argument is getting fractured. I'm going to try to collate it under a new comment below. GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The problem though with leaving he present Gorringe article (which version of course satisfies those here wishing to discredit anything to do with Dr Omura) is that it is also heavily biased by those editors who obviously have a mission to dismiss Dr Omura and his methods, by using the Tribunal's parroting of Gorringe's claim to have used the BDORT - which the Tribunal states he obviously did not from quick persual, so leaving this as is with mistaken reference to Gorringe using what he claimed was BDORT would also be unacceptable. Whether it is deleted or kept (I vote deleted to avoid further malice already done), the main point is that the Tribunal refs 1 and 2 cannot be used as sources for a BDORT article - as the Tribunal, as a reliable source, clearly states they are different. I have been saying this for months. It is very clear.Richardmalter 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, it should be noted that the ArbCom received from me information how one of the editors commenting here deliberately tried to do harm to Dr Omura by using WP as a way to represent him having falsely claimed certain things about himself, and who has a record of disagreement with Dr Omura in real life, that SlimVirgin had to delete at my insistance; while another editor here defended this version for many weeks tenaciously. The point is that personal biases are deeply entrenched here; which is why it has been noted above that the side attacking BDORT [the editors I make note of] are using the tribunal as a way to discredit BDORT in the article.Richardmalter 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment.Yes, re above comment. But please note that I 'aggressively' tried to revert a version that contained the blatant BLP problems I note above; after real world harm had been done which no one in WP ever apologized for or took measures to prevent happening again; and that as SV has pointed out to me, the ArbCom rules on 'behaviour' (as they see it), not content. As a content dispute, the analysis by GDallimore, which has been also arrived at by 1garden (who has been editing the article recently), and which I have been stating for months - is clearly verifiable: Gorringe did not use BDORT, therefore notability for BDORT due to the NZ Tribunals is zero.Richardmalter 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful, Richardmalter, if you offered evidence and argument derived from evidence. I, for one, would be delighted to see fresh evidence. Please feel free to offer it, at any time. TealCyfre0 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Richardmalter is not only banned from editing the article and its talk page, but he has also had several sockpuppets or meatpuppets banned after the decision. If WP:SOCK were being more strictly enforced, he probably wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia at all, much less make an entirely inappropriate !vote in this AfD. --Philosophus T 08:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Tying together some of the discussions above since it's getting fragmented: perhaps Crum or Teal can cite a single unequivocal reliable source that says that Omura's patented BDORT technique is the same as Gorringe's technique that he called PMRT and/or BDORT. I can't even find a reliable source that says they're even similar. GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The arguments have been made, at length, in previous discussion, with which you've indicated you're familiar. I've addressed them. I'm not going to repeat them. If you find them less than compelling, so be it. TealCyfre0 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This topic has been discussed at length on the talk page of the article, in the two previous AfDs, and in the ArbCom case involving the article. There are two NZ tribunal reports, and the second one addresses BDORT specifically. The argument about PMRT and BDORT not being linked is actually the argument that several now-banned editors used to try to hide the NZ tribunal finding and bias the article. --Philosophus T 08:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is certainly adequately sourced to citations, I think the issues that should be addressed here are not grounds for an AFD, but rather modifying the article to include other viewpoints, and academic criticism if published in reputable sources for citations. Smee 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Please could you let me know what IS the correct forum for addressing what I see to be a blatant OR in this article, then, in the face of editors who, as can be seen from the above, are not willing to discuss the matter further.GDallimore (Talk) 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible a petting zoo? Preferably in a less-caffeinated state? TealCyfre0 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure that this is notable or if not is, Im not completely understand. but definetely article has confusion about this Tribunal 1 and 2 and much 'pov' to make a point. This DR gorringe did not use this bdort technique of this DR omuras- three source say this and is very clear. So article needs major edits. I say also many times what GDallimore says also independtely.1garden 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find myself in agreement with Smee, amongst others with respect to the observation that this isn't really an AfD discussion but a content discussion. The fact that a given editor or minority of editors are unable to win consensus for their position(s) seems to me a poor reason for re-casting a debate on content and presentation as a debate as to the appropriate existence of the entry. Perhaps I'm missing something. TealCyfre0 00:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My reasons for the deletion vote were that it was clear from the fractious history of this article that my trying to fix what I believe to be problems with it would probably only lead to an edit war. I merely wanted to get some independent views on the content and, as I don't often get involved with content disputes, was not aware that AfD was not a suitable forum. I have asked several times what a suitable forum would be. Is someone willing to answer that question even if noone is willing to answer my other questions? GDallimore (Talk) 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Believe it or not, I'm in a sense sympathetic to your dilemma though I disagree with your particular postions. The history of this entry reflects numerous well-intentioned attempts to get a wider 'audience' of folks via requests for comment, the enlisting of arbitrators, etc, all of which, in effect, failed for what seems to be the simple reason that there isn't sufficient interest. This poses, I think you might agree, a core dilemma in that the entry appears to be polarized between two tiny handful of folks. My perspective, for instance, as to my own contribution, is that while I'm a critic of the practice, which I, like most folk, see as pseudoscience and/or quackery, I've attempted to be fair in presentation, and that the only Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing, scant though it is, is critical. Proponents, on the other hand, have engaged in endless character assassination, accusing me of personal vendetta, as they have Crum375 in similar terms, all the while insisting that Omura (the principal early entry) was eminently well known, respected, scientific, etc. I sincerely haven't any answer to this dilemma of inadequate 'audience' for the entry. I, too, am open to suggestions. TealCyfre0 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Add'l Thought: I simply think that Wikipedia doesn't function at all well in this sort of situation. It's premised, amongst other things, on reasonably wide scrutiny. Yet here one has very narrow scrutiny, and attempts to widen it have largely failed. In real life one has editors, an editorial board, whatever, presumably of some intelligence and judgement, to decide such matters. Here there is only an endless, open miasma. In the case of this particular entry it's been complicated, at least from my perspective, by adherents committed to construcitng any reference to Omura and BDORT in positive terms, and they long ago exhausted the patience of those attempting to present a more balanced perspective. I recognize that you and I appear to have differing judgements as to the particulars you raise, but I don't see that set of differences as the problem, as in a more professional context they would be judged or resolved one way or another. Here, it seems to me, there really isn't any appropriate mechanism for doing that, and the mechanisms that do exist are vulnerable, or so it also seems to me, to exploitation by fanatics committed to the notion that Omura and BDORT are perfectly sound science. Bear in mind that the present titling of the entry is reflective of attempting to deal with those realities within the context of Wikipedia. Originally this was an entry on Omura and BDORT, which most folks in early AfD debates found marginally noteworthy as quackery, but which was then relentlessly assaulted as inappropriate personal attack on Omura, etc, etc. As I've said, I think the core problem here is Wikipedia's limitations, though some doubtless feel otherwise. TealCyfre0 01:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I feel the need to elaborate much here. I am only stating that the technique obviously exists and is in practice. Whether or not it is legitimate is another story, there could very well be some OR in the article, but that is not grounds for an AFD. Smee 05:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.