Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Yoshiaki Omura

OK, here is the question again from the Work page. So far (correct me if I am misreading, Philosophos and I agree a "yes": Maybe we can have binary yes or no answers to the following:

Is Omura/BDORT Notable in itself without ANY reference to the NZ Tribunial case?

Can we establish this please either way. I say both are re the international activities around the BDORT/symposiums/continuing education for MDs, many eminent MDs/PhDs experimentation with it on 4 continents, Omura's patent that took 6/7 years for him to achieve by convinving the authorities of the objectivity of the BDORT after two failures, Omura's mainstream credentials, the length of this discussion (a WP consideration), the Shinnick reference, and WP:Importance.--Richardmalter 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get your point. In this discussion we try to establish notability. The NZ report goes a long way in that direction. Why leave it out of the equation? Crum375 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No Patents are not that hard to get, and not peer-reviewed. I lump that in with self-publications. The symposiums.. That New York Academy alone has 'symposiums' listed for nearly every day. Hosting them isseems to be a matter of course for academics, especially those who are promoting an idea. Adding the word 'international' is just fluff and doesn't actually mean anything. The publications.. any professor at an accredited university has multiple peer-reviewed publications, it's generally one of the criteria for tenure. This guy doesn't even have one (that we've found), just a single publication that is based on his work. With the scant sourcing we have turned up in this discussion, I believe any professor at any college would be 'notable'. (sorry, forgot to sign this) - Wickning1 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How many college professors do you know who have published papers and held symposia and seminars, some at mainstream academic publications/institutions, claiming to have an instant diagnosis/cure for everything from cancer to the common cold? Crum375 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How many college professors do I know who've published papers in recognized, peer-reviewed venues? Off the top of my head, that I know personally, about 10. How many host their own symposiums? I don't know any doctors, but in physics and computer science (my areas of expertise), they don't do that kind of thing - it's an attempt to avoid the system. It's much more notable for your presentation be accepted at a large conference or seminar, which is also a very common thing. I'm sure even the field of acupuncture has large conferences like this. - Wickning1 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The simple fact is that Omura makes no claim even to hold an academic position – nor does he so far as we are aware from the available record. In this sense he is sufficiently non-notable that he doesn't make even the lowest conceivable rung of the professor's test. We have claims, presented on his own sites, as to his credentials – for which we have no independent sourcing. These credentials, even if verified/sourced – an MD and an ScD – do not in and of themselves render him noteable. We have claims on his own sites as to the 'international' conferences and 'wide range' of 'prestigious' attendees, none of these independently verifiable. All we have that is verifiable is that we have a listing of a seminar. These criteria would render every person holding a graduate degree who has a seminar listed somewhere as notable – this is a significantly lower threshold even than the professor's test. TealCyfre 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, too, with respect to the one verifiable claim to fame of the BDORT, and, thus, Omura – the NZ tribunal – Gorringe is the subject of the tribunal, and not solely with reference to the PMRT/BDORT. PMRT/BDORT are evaluated by the tribunal in the course of evaluating Gorringe's defense. They concluded that PMRT/BDORT are scientifically without merit. They do not suggest any widespread application or even knowledge of the existence of PMRT/BDORT – on the contrary, if one reads the report. Rather, they offer Gorringe the opportunity to demonstrate PMRT/BDORT, which he declines, and consider PMRT/BDORT as variants of applied kinesiology. The commission's expert witness, in the course of this evaluation, faults PMRT/BDORT precisely on the basis that it isn't present in any search of scientific literature. Would one really want to argue, then, that the absence of any evidence, other than self-promotion and self-publication, constitutes evidence of notability? This seems somewhat peculiar logic, at least to me. TealCyfre 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Dr. Omura's academic credentials, when a person's personal Web site claims academic credits that are not controversial, WP:BIO policy encourages us to accept them pending a challenge. I am not aware at this time of any claim that any of Omura's impressive credentials [1][2] are false, so we should accept them at face value for now. Again, for the professor's test the issue here is that Omura is not just any old professor with some papers and lectures here and there - that in fact would make him one of many. What makes him unique, or nearly so IMO, is the fact that he is a professor with credentials from mainstream institutions, who publishes and presents his (and his co-workers') work as seminars, papers, and symposia at mainstream venues (or through mainsteam academic institutions, see some of my links above) and his primary thesis/theory/invention/creation is a simple 10 second procedure that he claims will diagnose/cure virtually all diseases, from cancer to the common cold. Now that makes him very unusual, possibly unique, and that combination makes him eminently notable. Again, Dr. Omura is not just some obscure little professor writing obscure papers in his little cubicle. Now regarding the NZ Tribunal, they had some highly qualified experts who carefully looked at Omura's BDORT procedure (which they call PMRT) and concluded thusly on their official public web site:

  "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. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible." (Tribunal Findings, para 363)[3]

They then proceeded to discipline and fine the practitioner that was using BDORT/PMRT on a patient in lieu of conventional medicine. If this does not connote notability on the disparaged PMRT/BDORT procedure, my definition of 'notability' may need some serious re-calibration. Crum375 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Omura is not, even by his own claim, even a professor. Awareness of his existence, via proper sources other than his own promotions, is confined to the patent listing(s) and the fact that PMRT/BDORT/Applied Kinesiology are dismissed as invalid in the course of a hearing of a health practitioner who is duly fined and stripped of his license. If you prefer to share Gorringe's delusions as to Omura's status that is your personal privilege. The application of WP criteria, however, indicate that he is, on the objective evidence available, non-notable, however alarming you may find his teachings. TealCyfre 20:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I try to go by published sources only. As I previously mentioned, WP:BIO encourages us to accept self published bio (e.g. on the subject's Web site) unless challenged or otherwise contentious. In Dr. Omura's case, his own CV says:

• "Manhattan College, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Visiting Research Professor, 9/1/62 – present"
• "New York Medical College, Dept. of Pharmacology, Assistant Professor, 6/1/66-6/31/72"
• "University of Rene Descartes of University of Paris, V, Visiting Professor & Research Consultant on Electroanesthesia, Electroanalgesia, & Neuroelectricity, 6/28/73 – 2/28/74"
• "University of Paris, VI, Visiting Professor of the Institute of Anesthesiology & Dept. of Psycho-Physiology, 6/29/73 – 11/30/73"
• "University of Paris, VI, Visiting Professor of the Dept. Of Psycho-physiology at St. Anne Hospital, Paris, 5/1/76-6/10/76"
• "National Institute of Health & Medical Research of the French Government (INSERM) Research Unit 95, at Nancy, France, “Maitre de Recherche” (equivalent of Professor and Associate Director of the Institute) to carry out clinical research and lectures through the Distinguished Foreign Guest Scientist Program of the French Government., 6/1/77 - 7/10/77"
• "Chicago Medical School, Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Pharmacology, 1982 – 1993"
• "New York Medical College, Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Community & Preventive Medicine, 1998 - present"

Do you need more? Crum375 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider the list, then, as having been challenged. The burden of proof is now on you to find verifiable, neutral, third-party sources, such as the institutions themselves. I wish you luck – you're going to need it. TealCyfre 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may have a misconception on WP:BIO guidelines on using the subject's own Web site as reference for his CV. My understanding is that we may use anything that is not contentious. For it to be contentious I can see 2 possibilities:

1. It defies logic in some way ("Taught Advanced Calculus to Martians")
2. It conflicts with another acceptable source - that would be another of the subject's sites that provides contradictory info, or another reliable neutral published source that provides a contradiction.

When you say "challenged", are you implying that you have a verifiable neutral source that contradicts Omura's CV? If so, please let us have it for examimation. Thanks, Crum375 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that one would on the one hand characterize a man as a charlatan and on the other say one ought rely on his own claims to posts, titles, etc, sourced to his own site. Am I missing something here? TealCyfre 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would further caution you that WP is not immune to legal processes. If you wish to argue that WP procedures entitle it to accept such 'credentials' thus sourced, and if they are accepted by WP process after having been challenged, WP will have enmeshed itself in choosing to present claims it has been warned are likely without basis – please feel free to consult counsel as to the legal advisability of this with respect to possible future vulnerability on the part of both individuals and the institution. – Or not, it's your call. TealCyfre 21:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• TealCyfre, I believe WP frowns upon making legal threats of any kind, either to individuals or WP as a whole. I believe that it is a basic WP tenet that we should not throw the risk of legal action about as a club. Do we all want to minimize WP's legal exposure and risk? Of course, but we also want to write an encyclopedia, sometimes with contentious and controversial topics. We believe that by carefully adhering to the existing and evolving policies and guidelines for notability, reliable sourcing, neutrality and due weighting, we should minimize our risk while continuing the project.

Now to reply to your point regarding Omura as a charlatan. I do not recall ever labeling him as such. Are there people that would label him as such? Possibly. As of now, I have not seen it sourced anywhere and hence it is not WP acceptable. In addition, WP:AGF applies to anyone, not just WP editors, and hence to WP subjects. We assume that a person's CV is honest unless and until proven otherwise or at least until contrasted with conflicting reliably sourced information, which we may cite with extremely careful wording. To my knowledge, no one has pointed out any acceptable source that casts any doubt on the veracity or accuracy of Dr. Omura's CV. Until that is done, we assume it is all correct, per WP policy. Crum375 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am telling you that I question the validity of that information, if only on the probability of internal evidence. Look at Omura's stated birth date, look at the claims of current professorships, see if you can find any evidence external to his own claims of those institutions listing him as on faculty. They don't add up. Think about it. You yourself have characterized the man as on the evidence a charlatan, yet you're electing to present his own claims to credentials because in your interpretation they meet WP rules of the game. As I've indicated, I believe this raises legal exposure issues for WP – no, that's not me threatening, I'm simply raising the concern – which you seem to feel is dismissable because of your notions of WP idealism and your faith that so long as you adhere to your interpretation of WP policy all is copacetic. I am telling you that in my estimation this is a dangerous misjudgement. You are, of course, entitled to it. TealCyfre 21:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not "characterized the man as on the evidence a charlatan" - if I have, please point me to it. When you say "They don't add up" - please explain. As I mentioned, logic could be used, IMO, to cast doubt on any source, but it would have to be very straightforward (e.g. dates seem to be in clear conflict, and no obvious typo or other reasonable explanation). If all you have is "he's a charlatan IMO, and therefore all he says is bunk" - that won't cut it, and may even get excised from the record as possibly defamatory. Crum375 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I will further note here that I have reverted the entry to what it seems to me is all that is manageable in adherence to WP policies and with respect to potential for legal vulnerability. This is noted on the entry's Discussion page. If any editors wish to contravene that judgement they are, of course, able to do so. I would note, however, that their doing so will be in the context of this observation. TealCyfre 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your concern. I am convinced that in your heart you want to do what it is good for WP, and we all appreciate that motivation, which we share. But for the time being, please refrain from making non-consensual edits to the article. Thanks again, Crum375 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you and WP are comfortable with your choices and their possible consequences, that's fine. TealCyfre 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it was well-intentioned, but by excising a portion of the AfD discussion to an independent entry it is unclear, particularly to a newcomer, to later admins or higher level bureaucrats, or other interested parties, what information was presented, in what order, without laboriously hunting and reconstructing the sequence. I consider this problematic in the extreme at a number of levels and would suggest the restoration of the excised material to its original placement so as to not alter the record. TealCyfre 00:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revert it, feel free to. However, I am trying to move the long discussions here, in accordance with other AfDs I have been involved in, because the actual opinions are being buried in them. --Philosophus ^T 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the heroic efforts to establish notability for Omura are, as I've said, a form of trap, however well-intended, that reveal the limitations of this process. The resultant is an entry that, on the one hand, lends more prominence to Omura than can, in fact, be found in the record, with the possibile unintended consequence that his quackery may be employed where it might not otherwise be employed, with possible legal exposure for Wikipedia for which the defense that its procedures were adhered to would prove in the event inadequate. Wikipedia is not, in my estimation, the appropriate tool for this particular task, and the attempt to apply it may prove ill-advised. TealCyfre 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]