Revision as of 21:08, 15 May 2006 editSnarkBoojum (talk | contribs)308 editsNo edit summary | Revision as of 07:06, 16 May 2006 edit undo203.220.167.22 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
User:Fucyfre wrote: about changes made to this article by Richard Malter | |||
A number of recent changes to this page are non-neutral in their descriptives, and the claims are unreferened. The sole external reference to support the claims made is to a site that is an advocate for the test in question and which cannot be accessed by outsiders. It is Misplaced Pages policy that articles be neutral in tone and that statements be externally verifiable by credible, preferably third-party sources. Statements not meeting these criteria violate policy. | A number of recent changes to this page are non-neutral in their descriptives, and the claims are unreferened. The sole external reference to support the claims made is to a site that is an advocate for the test in question and which cannot be accessed by outsiders. It is Misplaced Pages policy that articles be neutral in tone and that statements be externally verifiable by credible, preferably third-party sources. Statements not meeting these criteria violate policy. | ||
Richard Malter's reply: | |||
1) Certainly the whole tone of the article as written by Fucyfre is expressing of an opinion, not just giving details. I reply with Fucyfre's own statement that his/her words are clearly non-neutral. For example, from the first sentence this is evident: "for which Yoshiaki Omura claims authorship": Omura did invent, formulate and carry out the original research on the BDORT. There is no dispute in the world regarding this, which the sentence obviously suggests. Furthermore the scientifically backed research information available even just on the internet, carried out by MDs Ph.Ds. etc is enormous. The clinical results of use of the BDORT are similarly reported on the internet. | |||
2) The rest of the first sentence is again opinion only; this opinion also clearly is aimed at refuting all the documented evidence. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for expressing opinions. | |||
3) The description of the BDORT given is incorrect, inaccurate, and incomplete. This is unacceptable. I improved on it by adding further correct detail, this was also deleted. | |||
4) In the case of Richard Gorringe referenced. I did not delete the information given by Fucyfre - I improved on it by adding further details, in good Misplaced Pages faith. All of this additional information has been deleted. | |||
5) The website that I linked to is a 100% open website that can be viewed by anyone. | |||
6) The cross-reference to Pseudoscience is not correct in understanding. The BDORT has repeatably stood up to scientific method. The references for this are voluminous on the internet. In order for Fucyfre to dismiss them he/she would have to act scientifically and attempt to refute the predictable outcomes of the BDORT under rigourous conditions. Given the mass of evidence to the contary, I think he/she would fail, but he/she can try and document his/her research. | |||
7) I am fimilar with Twiki culture and have acted in good faith. I expect the same. |
Revision as of 07:06, 16 May 2006
User:Fucyfre wrote: about changes made to this article by Richard Malter
A number of recent changes to this page are non-neutral in their descriptives, and the claims are unreferened. The sole external reference to support the claims made is to a site that is an advocate for the test in question and which cannot be accessed by outsiders. It is Misplaced Pages policy that articles be neutral in tone and that statements be externally verifiable by credible, preferably third-party sources. Statements not meeting these criteria violate policy.
Richard Malter's reply:
1) Certainly the whole tone of the article as written by Fucyfre is expressing of an opinion, not just giving details. I reply with Fucyfre's own statement that his/her words are clearly non-neutral. For example, from the first sentence this is evident: "for which Yoshiaki Omura claims authorship": Omura did invent, formulate and carry out the original research on the BDORT. There is no dispute in the world regarding this, which the sentence obviously suggests. Furthermore the scientifically backed research information available even just on the internet, carried out by MDs Ph.Ds. etc is enormous. The clinical results of use of the BDORT are similarly reported on the internet.
2) The rest of the first sentence is again opinion only; this opinion also clearly is aimed at refuting all the documented evidence. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for expressing opinions.
3) The description of the BDORT given is incorrect, inaccurate, and incomplete. This is unacceptable. I improved on it by adding further correct detail, this was also deleted.
4) In the case of Richard Gorringe referenced. I did not delete the information given by Fucyfre - I improved on it by adding further details, in good Misplaced Pages faith. All of this additional information has been deleted.
5) The website that I linked to is a 100% open website that can be viewed by anyone.
6) The cross-reference to Pseudoscience is not correct in understanding. The BDORT has repeatably stood up to scientific method. The references for this are voluminous on the internet. In order for Fucyfre to dismiss them he/she would have to act scientifically and attempt to refute the predictable outcomes of the BDORT under rigourous conditions. Given the mass of evidence to the contary, I think he/she would fail, but he/she can try and document his/her research.
7) I am fimilar with Twiki culture and have acted in good faith. I expect the same.