| Revision as of 08:28, 16 May 2006 editRichardMalter (talk | contribs)193 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:45, 17 May 2006 edit undo58.166.28.217 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| User:Fucyfre wrote: about changes made to this article by Richard Malter | |||
| Completely absurd article. Somewhat high in ghits, but I propose that it is still non-notable. A variety of ghits are on absurd patent sites. No real verifiable sources, mostly questionable papers, and some suspect sources - why is the clinic on the website of some random ISP instead of the hospital website. Also, searching on google for the award mentioned gives only two hits, one of which is to the baobab site. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Richard Malter's reply: | |||
| * '''Comment''' utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? ] 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| *'''Keep''' - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - ] 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' – As the original creator of the article I would simply point out that the article as originally created, however imperfect, would seem to meet Wiki criteria. So far as I can determine the alterations/additions which prompted the nomination for deletion were made by a proponent, and that their insupportability speaks for itself. I'm a comparative newcomer to this process, so please pardon any infelicities on my part. ] | |||
| This article clearly stands up to Misplaced Pages criteria. There is no original/new research: the article refers to and points to in the external links already published research. The research mentioned is also by reputable sources - they are medical doctors, scientist etc all with the standard doctoral or medical doctor qualifications. The idea expressed here that the information or that the Test itself is unscientific is flatly incorrect. The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc. The claim of "pseudoscience" itself needs to be examined. Are any of the commentators here scientifically trained to Ph.D level? especially regarding electromagnetism? The BDORT deals with electromagnetic phenomena. This is a neglected paradigm in orthodox western medicine, but not among all doctors, which is a key point. See for example the many presentations by US doctors, scientists etc at Google: Whole Person Healing Summit. In other words, to say that it has no scientific value etc, is an opinion, that is, it is non-neutral. Are the commentators here seriously claiming to be able to refute the many published research papers of around 50 recognized scientists/doctors around the world?! On what basis is this credible? It is of course not. This is an absurd idea. The original author of this page obviously, as with some of the other contributors to the page, does not 'like' the BDORT. But that is not sufficient. You cannot call it names because of that. They are giving their opinion throughout their text - which is not Misplaced Pages practice. Their comments are therefore very biased indeed. When I simply added further information, as for example in the case of the NZ doctor, rather than deleting the existing text, my additions - which were extra information about the subject - were deleted. This outrightly violates Misplaced Pages policy. This needs to be 100% clear. What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors. On that insufficient basis, the different Misplaced Pages criteria are being sited, but erroneously as I have explained. Phrases like "and that their insupportability speaks for itself" sounds impressive, but are not substantiated in any way given. Regarding my non-neutrality, I am of course an advocate of the BDORT. But I have aimed in my last big rewrite to only include '''information''', facts, figures etc. If people wish to improve on the neutrality of the information I have written, then please do, but please also note, that that does not equate to deleting '''information''' - which is the basis of what an encyclopedia is for. ---- RichardMalter | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] 08:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:45, 17 May 2006
Bi-Digital O-Ring Test
Completely absurd article. Somewhat high in ghits, but I propose that it is still non-notable. A variety of ghits are on absurd patent sites. No real verifiable sources, mostly questionable papers, and some suspect sources - why is the clinic on the website of some random ISP instead of the hospital website. Also, searching on google for the award mentioned gives only two hits, one of which is to the baobab site. Philosophus 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --Philosophus 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --Philosophus 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - Richardcavell 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment – As the original creator of the article I would simply point out that the article as originally created, however imperfect, would seem to meet Wiki criteria. So far as I can determine the alterations/additions which prompted the nomination for deletion were made by a proponent, and that their insupportability speaks for itself. I'm a comparative newcomer to this process, so please pardon any infelicities on my part. Fucyfre
This article clearly stands up to Misplaced Pages criteria. There is no original/new research: the article refers to and points to in the external links already published research. The research mentioned is also by reputable sources - they are medical doctors, scientist etc all with the standard doctoral or medical doctor qualifications. The idea expressed here that the information or that the Test itself is unscientific is flatly incorrect. The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc. The claim of "pseudoscience" itself needs to be examined. Are any of the commentators here scientifically trained to Ph.D level? especially regarding electromagnetism? The BDORT deals with electromagnetic phenomena. This is a neglected paradigm in orthodox western medicine, but not among all doctors, which is a key point. See for example the many presentations by US doctors, scientists etc at Google: Whole Person Healing Summit. In other words, to say that it has no scientific value etc, is an opinion, that is, it is non-neutral. Are the commentators here seriously claiming to be able to refute the many published research papers of around 50 recognized scientists/doctors around the world?! On what basis is this credible? It is of course not. This is an absurd idea. The original author of this page obviously, as with some of the other contributors to the page, does not 'like' the BDORT. But that is not sufficient. You cannot call it names because of that. They are giving their opinion throughout their text - which is not Misplaced Pages practice. Their comments are therefore very biased indeed. When I simply added further information, as for example in the case of the NZ doctor, rather than deleting the existing text, my additions - which were extra information about the subject - were deleted. This outrightly violates Misplaced Pages policy. This needs to be 100% clear. What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors. On that insufficient basis, the different Misplaced Pages criteria are being sited, but erroneously as I have explained. Phrases like "and that their insupportability speaks for itself" sounds impressive, but are not substantiated in any way given. Regarding my non-neutrality, I am of course an advocate of the BDORT. But I have aimed in my last big rewrite to only include information, facts, figures etc. If people wish to improve on the neutrality of the information I have written, then please do, but please also note, that that does not equate to deleting information - which is the basis of what an encyclopedia is for. ---- RichardMalter