Talk:Robert O. Becker

Comment

I have proposed deletion for this article due to, in short, unsourced quackery. The man virtually does not exist outside this realm, all respect to his actual procedural-medicine VA practice. Please contact me if more details are needed, as I reviewed several resources on this person before making the PROD (just to be sure). SamuelRiv (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a PubMed search for Becker RO, and this returned 91 papers. Have included in the WP article the 33 listings for which Becker is first author. This can presumably outweight the fact that stupid things can be said on YouTube. Becker would certainly not try to use his microcurrent method against AIDS. Microcurrents are for achieving iontophoresis: for transporting silver ions, and this can't be done for many centimeters. Aids treatment would require treatment of the whole body. Read the book The Body Electric. It is important, and it describes the important biological issues studied by Becker. As Becker is a coauthor, he could of course have exaggerated his own position in this research, so the many articles published by Becker should be observed. (My article is an expanded translation of the Becker article in the German WP.) The phrase "twice recommended for the Nobel Prize" may have some significance if it refers to the group of people who are authorized to give recommendations to the Nobel committee. But why is this dubious quote, not mentioned in the article or its sources, mentioned? Are we simply googling for silly mentions of Becker? Any sense in such fishing? Deletion must hence be deemed unwarranted. OlavN (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of us are very quick to haul out the 20 mega-ton "quackery" bomb. Becker's research, detailed in The Body Electric and Cross Currents, is significant. Especially interesting in The Body Electric is his documentation of opposition he experienced for a couple of reasons, including interpreting neuron function in non-conventional ways. Apparently that opposition continues unabated. In any case, Becker's most important contribution was in identifying the meningeal-perineural tissue system as the medium of a subtle DC that made possible neuron function and action potential. Without this tissue system and its electrical current the neuron not only doesn't work, but dies. This research ends the 500-600 year controversy concerning electrical currents in the body. That seems important. People should know this. Becker's work sheds light into the dark areas left by B. Libet and his colleagues. Deleting reference to Becker and his work is a kind of censorship that WP wants to avoid. The reasoning behind the proposal to delete the Becker reference appears uninformed and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.188.133 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Nominations

I checked the Nobel Prize database, it does not list Becker as being a nobel prize nominee. The database lists two different Beckers but not Robert Becker see here: [1]. This raises concerns about the reliability of this source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This search is invalid, as only nominations up to 1951 are included.

The SUNY Upstate Department of Orthopedic Surgery Research History states: "For his contributions, Robert O. Becker MD was awarded the Middleton Award in 1964 by the U.S. Veteran's Administration, the Nicholas Andry Award by the American Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons in 1979, and was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize."

And how can the listing of his positions as surgeon, researcher and professor be marked Dubious? OlavN (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's from the same source which got its facts wrong already. If another source says the same thing we should be using that instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also quite obvious that they searched the database and picked out the wrong Becker, nobel prize nominees are not disclosed until after the 50 year period. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you checked the Nobel PEACE Prize database. Given his background, it seems more plausible that he was nominated for a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Location (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a generic search, no one with the name Becker was nominated for a nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine. This is why I think they made the mistake, nominations are not disclosed until 50 years after the nomination. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Searching the Physiology and Medicine database, I found an additional "Becker" (not the subject of this article): [2]. The Nobel Foundation may keep the nominations secret for a period of time, however, that does not prevent the nominators from revealing them. I believe the assertion in the SUNY link to be "reliable" for Wikipedia purposes. I find it highly plausible that the Ortho department at SUNY knows the history behind their projects and faculty and highly implausible that the Ortho department at SUNY would have manufactured the Nobel prize nominee assertion by searching the Nobel Foundation's website as you suggest. Location (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that other Becker as well, but he's a nominator, not a nominee. Also note that there is a strict rule on non-disclosure of nominee's for 50 years. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The original two you posted were nominators as well. The point is that you were searching the peace database and not the physiology and medicine database, then asserting that it was "quite obvious" that that is what others did, too. What we can tell from this is that Becker's nomination did not occur prior to the early to mid-1950s, which makes sense given the timeline of his life and work. The "strict rule" of non-disclosure is only by the Nobel Foundation. As I mentioned, it doesn't prevent nominators from revealing their nominations. Location (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then who were the nominators? and where have they disclosed it? It's actually impossible for the claimed nominations to be verified as the Nobel prize comittee won't validate it: Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged ... until at least 50 years. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no information who the specific nominators were, but we do have a reliable source (i.e. the research division of Upstate Orthopedics at the SUNY Upstate Medical University) stating that he was "twice nominated for the Nobel Prize." Perhaps SUNY didn't realize at the time that the who and where of your questions would be deemed important for building a future Wikipedia article. For the third time, the Nobel Foundation's non-disclosure stance does not prevent others from publicly disclosing their nominations, and there appears to be precedent for reporting these "unvalidated" reports in Wikipedia: Norman Simmons, Charles Theodore Dotter, William H. Dobelle, Agustin Walfredo Castellanos, William H. Oldendorf, Hayk Ghazaryan, Murray Barr, Konstantin Paustovsky, Phillip V. Tobias, Yukio Mishima, Vittorio Erspamer, William Auld, Boris Pahor, Harold Hopkins, Adem Demaçi, R. S. Thomas, Edward de Bono, Robert S. Hartman, Francisco Matos Paoli, and Mrinal Thakur are the first twenty that I found. Even though WP:ITA applies to fringe theorists rather than a historical summary of a faculty member presented by a university research department, I have no objection of using the "According to..." form of attribution for the statement. Becker's article, however, shouldn't be held to a double-standard because his work has been embraced by the New Age movement and other fringe thinkers. Location (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The first two are stub articles, the 3,4,5 are not sourced. These are stub or start class articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a start class article, too. Is it your contention that nominations that cannot be confirmed by searching the Nobel Foundation website should be stricken from articles? Location (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why there is any continuing discussion of this issue. References such as this one contain the statement "Mr. Becker was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in tissue regeneration, which laid the foundation for the bioelectromagnetics field.". I have seen nothing that casts doubt on the Watertown Daily Times as a WP:RS. I have seen nothing remotely approaching evidence that the Nobel Prize nominations did not occur. The matter seems to me quite settled. Am I missing something? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This does seem rather suspect to me. How would a local newspaper in MT have had access to the deliberations of the Nobel committee? It's more likely that the Watertown obituary was based on some other source, possibly the SUNY research history PDF linked above. Internet research can become an echo-chamber unless you are very careful. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not the slightest implication that "a local newspaper in MT had access to the deliberations of the Nobel committee". Presumably the person who made the nomination (and there are many people who are allowed to do so) made it known. But this is already pitting my WP:OR against yours. We have a WP:RS and that should be that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are begging the question. In general the Watertown Times might be a reliable source for the kinds of things that happen in Watertown. The issue we are disputing here is whether it's actually an independent reliable source for this particular statement. A local paper from Watertown, Massachusetts is probably not going to be a very reliable source concerning the secret proceedings of the Nobel Committee in Norway. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit tedious to have to repeat myself, but there is not the slightest implication that the local paper from Watertown, Massachusetts is attempting to be a reliable source concerning the secret proceedings of the Nobel Committee in Norway. The paper stated that nominations had been made. That information presumably came, directly or indirectly, from the person or persons who had made the nominations. Please stop being so wilfully stupid about this. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why bother hypothesizing the existence of a mysterious unnamed leaker? I think you should avoid flights of fancy like this. It's more likely that the Watertown Times obit writer found the SUNY biography on Google just like we did! Apply Occham's Razor! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Question Does being nominated for a Nobel prize carry any actual status? For example, like being an Oscar nominee? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only some appointed and well qualified persons can nominate to the Nobel committee. OlavN (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not trying to solicit a personal opinion here. Let me phrase this better: Is there any evidence (good sources) which show that being a Nobel nominee is something that a scientist would include on their resume, in much the same way that an actor might not having been an Oscar nominee? --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No they can't include it on their resume because the nominees are not disclosed. Also thousands of people can make nominations. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nobel_Prize_Nominations for related discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot speak for how all academics construct their CVs, however, my impression is that it is typical to list actual awards and not nominations. (For what it's worth, I'm OK with how IRWolfie- currently has the statement noted with attribution. I would also be OK with it "demoted" to a line in a footnote.) Location (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed this remark for 2 reasons: 1/ Every year, hundreds of people are nominated, hence a nomination as such does not mean much. 2/ Nominations remain sealed for 50 years. Unless Becker got nominated before 1962, there is no way that we can verify the information in the PDF posted on the university website. Given that the PDF makes a claim that obviously cannot be checked, I would treat any information in that PDF as highly dubious. University websites are generally regarded as being reliable, but all of us who work at a university know that there's a lot that you can get away with... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

For you that have not noticed it, Dr Becker passed away in 2008, and I do not think they give Nobel Prizes post-humously. And anyway his work was too far advanced and too far ahead of its time to be lumped with the run of the mill Nobel Prizer winner.76.175.194.36 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)R.A.Schep

Fringe?

Why this silly tag about fringe theories and pseudoscientific views?

Do we really need to get back Becker's 33 PubMed papers to make it clear that this research is solid and acknowledged through peer reviews? (I now insert the strongest ones - from Nature and Science - now linked.)

This physiological research is based on conventional physics. Nothing fringe here. If it leads up to unusual treatment methods, this is surgery - nothing the readers might try to do. Anybody wanting the article to contain evaluation and recommendation of surgical methods, must do the research themselves. OlavN (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Having peer reviewed publications does not gauge the acceptance of his views. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought you had understood by now that your labeling of Becker´s professor & surgeon positions as dubious was invalid. Seems this happened: You had done an invalid search in the Nobel prize database. (Only nominations up to 1951 are included.) So you completely discounted the source mentioning nominations - including the professor & surgeon position info.

I suppose the acceptance of Becker´s views is something you are curious about - or is it required by some rule (when it isn´t Fringe)? You should read WP:DONOTDEMOLISH OlavN (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that essay. WP:FRINGE requires us to put the mainstream position in perspective; "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." My insertion of a dubious tag was not invalid as the source is not reliable (and has been demonstrated to be unreliable). The source should be switched with another source that actually confirms the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't possibly fail to see the significance of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. You are behaving like this building inspector when you keep deleting large text sections whenever you think some formality is unfulfilled somewhere. Seems I have to report you to administrators for disruptive editing. And it seems I have to resubmit text and ask you to specify what is wrong, and where.

You also have to explain what you mean with the Undue Weight tag. You will then have to demonstrate knowledge rather than POV. OlavN (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for some time. IRWolfie's changes seem to have been overwhelmingly clean-ups in response to legitimate concerns. Personally I think your objection is exaggerated and unwarranted, but feel free to engage with the administrators as you see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So you think the building inspector in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is doing the right thing? OlavN (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This source Mae-Wan Ho Bioelectrodynamics and biocommunication I do not see why it is unreliable. It one of the scholarly texts on biology and electromagnetic fields, it contains a comprehensive and up-to-date collection of papers on the role of electrodynamical activities in biocommunication.. lots of well respected research scientists contributed to the book.

Somebody also deleted a popular mechanics magazine as a source which mentions the work of Becker but this is a reliable third party source, please search wikipedia for popular mechanics and this magazine is used on many wikipedia pages. It is a well respected DIY/science magazine. GreenUniverse (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you paste the particular mechanics source you are referring to? (I'm failing to see how a DIY magazine is a reliable source for medical claims). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is it Link If that is not a suitable source then we will have to find something else I guess. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For medical claims I wouldn't say so, for verifying. It's a quite old as well, it might actually fall under being a primary source. Ask in WP:RSN, with some suggested text, for clarification maybe. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability

I've attached a notability tag to this article because the sources do not appear to meet the standards required for WP:GNG, WP:PROF or WP:BLP. I think we need to improve this article by finding some reliable secondary sources which attest to this subject's importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This question comes back (like at the top of this talk page) because a deletionist editor (IRWolfie-) had deleted the notability information - the publication list and the SUNY History quote. I have now put this back. OlavN (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The source (SUNY's history document) is not a secondary source. It's published by SUNY and therefore cannot count towards notability. We should not be cutting & pasting from primary sources, especially where there is an obvious self-interest motive (e.g. promoting the perceived importance of current & deceased faculty members). Primary and self-published sources cannot be used to infer notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that stuffing primary sources and his research papers into the article does not help demonstrate notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to assert that his notability rests on the "Nobel Prize nominee" point. Although I think it does help to highlight that others think his work was important, I agree with Salimfadhley and IRWolfie- that the case for notability needs more than just this. IMO, there are enough other sources from non-fringe sources that support Becker's notability, so I'll try to work on that next. Location (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned above the notability information - the publication list and the SUNY History quote. It should be noted that both were immediately attacked in a clumsy and destructive manner:

• • The publication list includes only peer-reviewed journals (indicating acceptance from prominent scientists: Notability). This was arbitrarily slashed in half, omitting three linked Nature articles. Constructive editing implies keeping the important points.
  • The SUNY history was called a press release. Wrong. The heading says "SUNY Upstate Department of Orthopedic Surgery Research History", and it covers 10 research projects over 45 years. An important notability/acceptance indicator here, is: "For his contributions, Robert O. Becker MD was awarded the Middleton Award in 1964 by the U.S. Veteran's Administration [and] the Nicholas Andry Award by the American Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons in 1979."

The article in Popular Mechanics should be regarded as a notability indicator, and so should the fact that The American Medical Student Association placed Beckers book The Body Electric on the organization's national curriculum list for medical students. OlavN (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A publication list in an article doesn't help towards notability. The publication list you added was an indiscriminate list, I would suggest only adding 5 of his best papers. I suggest you check the notability requirements for academics: WP:ACADEMIC. I am unable to find anything about the Middleton award or the Nicholas Andry Award. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is electrotherapy for increasing bone healing effective?

The following was added in the article: Ultimately, however, the use of electrotherapy for increasing bone healing has not proven effective.[6]

The Ref used was: cite journal |author=Mollon B, da Silva V, Busse JW, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M |title=Electrical stimulation for long-bone fracture-healing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |journal=J Bone Joint Surg Am |volume=90 |issue=11 |pages=2322–30 |year=2008 |month=November |pmid=18978400 |doi=10.2106/JBJS.H.00111 |url=

The word Electrotherapy covers many different stimulation methods: AC with various pulse types, and DC. Only DC, with the weak currents prescribed by Becker, is relevant for this article about Becker.

Another Ref is better, because it specifically mentions the DC alternative, and it gives the whole article text: cite journal |author=Kooistra BW, Jain A,1 and Hanson BP |title=Electrical stimulation: Nonunions |journal=Indian J Orthop. |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=149-55 |year=2009 |month=April-June |doi=10.4103/0019-5413.50849 |url=

This article concludes that "the true efficacy of DC has never been investigated in a randomized and blinded comparison, leaving its treatment effect subject to speculation". When case descriptions tells about persistent non-unions being changed to recovery after the stimulation, the effect should be clear enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlavN (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This still verifies the original text. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A general statement about electrotherapy, including various AC and pulsed stimulations, is irrelevant when we know that Becker's method only involved weak DC stimulation. OlavN (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That in 50 years, no randomized trials have ever been done on Becker’s work, throws up serious questions as to the viability of the “treatment”. Anecdotes do not count as proof in science. The reference User OlavN has added is good, and together with the other reference helps to reinforce the text: electrotherapy — whether AC or DC — for bone healing has not been proven effective. If eventually there is a body of work that encompasses enough trials for a meta-analysis to be conducted, like the Mollon et al meta-analysis cited here, and it shows that DC stimulation is effective, then we can change the text. --papageno (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Another Electron Quack Everybody knows that electrons cannot exist in the human body. They are negative and evil! After all current flows from positive to negative. The proton, the positron, and the ion, even the negative kind, are ok. As for ionars and ergonars, a firm consensus doesn't seem to exist yet, so they may be evil for all I know. Admitting that electrons have anything to do with any body process would be akin to accepting the writings of Joerg Lanz von Leibenfelds and his "divine elektron" theory which he expounded in "Theozoology". His writings were so extreme even the Nazis banned them. In conclusion, I consider this Baker guy not only a quack, but also a racist of some kind, and I vote for prompt deletion of this article. 67.206.184.79 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) - This preceding post quacks for itself, er... I mean speaks for itself.76.175.194.36 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)R.A.S Huh? Electron transfer is one of the foundations of biochemical metabolism. (T. Bell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.156.13 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for consideration of article rewrite

Includes discussion related to May 2018 addition of {{COI}} template to article --papageno (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

—————————————————

On 11 April 2018 I wrote the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team and asked: A biographic article on Robert O. Becker (so titled) currently exists as a Wikipedia entry at Robert_O._Becker. Working with others who are familiar with his life and career, I have written an entirely new article that gives Becker’s professional life a more substantial, better researched, and more fully documented accounting for posterity. (See sandbox article, User:EEAndygator/sandbox.) The current article is inadequate and occasionally misleading both in details and in the overall view of his work, and it is insufficient to demonstrate Becker’s deserved place in the history of biology, medicine, and public health. The new article provides a fully documented account of Dr. Becker’s specific research projects over his entire career and explains their significance. Further, the narrative explains the relation of his research purposes to his vocation as a medical doctor, and it shows the connections among his various experimental and clinical projects. All of this material is supported by references to scientific papers, books, public testimony, letters, and other sources. There are 99 references, all but a few to primary sources and most of them retrievable on the internet. After a brief account of his formative years, there is an overview of Becker’s professional life from 1958 to 1980. Following this is the central portion of the article, six fully referenced subsections on his interconnected areas of research and the results of his experimental and clinical work in each area. The article concludes with brief sections on his retirement and on his professional activities thereafter. The current Wikipedia article is virtually silent on the most significant aspects of Becker’s discoveries and hypotheses; it does not indicate that his research career was an evolving project over 20 years; it does not present the details or scientific implications of his research initiatives; it does not indicate those who influenced him or those who criticized his work; it does not place his public health concerns in sufficient scientific context for them to be understood. For these reasons among others, it is not feasible to edit the current article piecemeal. I request your guidance regarding the optimal path to take in order to replace the current article entirely. EEAndygator

On 14 April 2018 I received the following response: Dear EEAndygator, In almost all cases, improvements to an article are done organically. That is, additions, improvements and corrections are made to the article itself, rather than to a standalone document intended as a replacement. On rare occasions, editors of an article will reach a consensus that the existing article is sufficiently flawed that organic improvement is problematic, and a standalone replacement should be written. Once that is completed, a consensus of editors can be used to replace the old version with the new. It is extremely rare (and may have happened, but not in my recollection), that an independent editor chooses to write a replacement article without a discussion among the editors and a consensus that such an approach makes sense. That obviously has occurred, and the second step is to open a discussion on the existing article talk page and persuade a consensus of editors that the replacement article is superior and should be used to replace the existing article. While my first glance suggests that the propose replacement is superior, it is also likely that this nonstandard approach will engender some pushback from existing editors. I called it the second step, because the first step is additional work on the existing draft. It uses nonstandard headings. At a minimum, though should be brought into compliance with the manual of style. It is up to you whether you wish to make those changes before opening a discussion with the editors to determine a consensus for replacement or after. It is obvious you've gone to considerable time and effort to write this article. It is unfortunate that you chose a nonstandard approach; I hope it doesn't end up being a problem. If you're not familiar with the manual of style, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style If you require additional information regarding headings or other questions: Experienced editors willing to help new editors hang out at the teahouse, where questions like this are answered: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions Yours sincerely, (User:)Stephen Philbrick

Reply to Mr. Philbrick: I have made changes in the headings, and believe the results to be appropriate. By means of this request I am following Mr. Philbrick’s advice that I seek the comments of the present editors. In addition to the serious limitations noted above, the current article on Robert O. Becker fails to meet the minimum Wikipedia standard for showing the subject's "notability,” and it lacks authority, as the references are secondary or tertiary and constitute little more than hearsay. The new article (User:EEAndygator/sandbox) is clear, focused, accurate, balanced, and incisive. By urging your direct comparison of these two articles I hope to convince you that editing the current article is not feasible, and that it should be fully replaced by the new one. I am ready to correct any inadvertent violations of Wiki rules or style guidelines either before or after the new article is adopted as a replacement.EEAndygator (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The proposed wholesale replacement of the article raises a lot of red flags for me.

1. The proposed article was created in the Sandbox of and mostly edited by Patricia416 (talk), but it is EEAndygator (talk) who is proposing the adoption of the new article. What is the relationship between the two users? Did Patricia416 write the text herself? Did EEAndygator write the text and give it to her to enter? Did he use her account to make the edits? The transfer notice moving the article from Patricia416's sandbox to EEAndygator's says he owns the content and wanted to take control.
2. EEAndygator says he worked "…with others who are familiar with his life and career…". Who are these other people? What are their qualifications and relationship to Becker? There is the potential for conflicts of interest. In fact, I believe I know who both Patricia416 and EEAndygator are: keeping in mind Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, I believe it is appropriate to recommend they read Wikipedia:COISELF and declare themselves properly.
3. Why the unorthodox approach of wholesale replacement? User:Sphilbrick's comments by email to EEAndygator note the unusual nature. In fact, Patricia416 more than four months ago posted a question to the Wikipedia:Teahouse asking for advice on editing this Becker article. The advice trended to "go to the talk page and broach your changes piece-meal". Three months elapsed before the sandbox article was started. In all that time, why did neither user come to this talk page? I'm trying hard to assume good faith, but my suspicion is that this is an end-run around proper scrutiny.
4. Aside from a few other trivial edits, both EEAndygator and Patricia416 are single-purpose accounts. Patricia416's request at the Teahouse is titled "Extensive edits to inadequate article". Again, why assume and not test that purported inadequacy on this Talk? EEAndygator repeats the inadequate claim above.
5. EEAndygator makes a lot of assertions above that are not borne out. The statement "The current article is inadequate and occasionally misleading both in details and in the overall view of his work, and it is insufficient to demonstrate Becker’s deserved place in the history of biology, medicine, and public health" is almost hyperbole. Becker had some early interesting ideas that weren't borne out by subsequent research. Later ideas drifted ever more into fringe theories. The proposed new article ignores both these aspects completely.

Be happy to consider any changes to the existing article where there are errors or falsehoods, or where there are simple details about Becker's personal life that could be added. Those changes should be outlined here on talk for discussion. --papageno (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

↓Start of comment by User EEAndygator timestamp 16:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)↓

On April 23 I wrote to Mr. Philbrick:

Mr Philbrick

I followed your advice and received a very harsh response from user:Qui1che. Apparently he had been editing for a while, and has become a "reviewer," which I guess gives him authority to block a new article irrespective of its merits.

Qui1che writes about Canadian rivers and has written nothing about Dr. Becker except for a 2012 comment on the talk page that was unfairly and inaccurately critical.

Qui1che accused my assistant and me as having "single-purpose" accounts, implying that we are suspect because we have not done any other Wikipedia work, and that we are likely involved in promotion or advocacy in favor of our interest. His assumption seems to be that if someone proposes any work for Wikipedia that person should be mainly interested in Wikipedia rather than in the subject itself. To my mind, his assumption is absurd because it amounts to advocacy for a concept of Wikipedia for Ignorant Dummies.

My colleagues and I have much knowledge and experience regarding Dr. Becker's life and would be delighted to describe all pertinent details of our connections with him, but we have not been given an opportunity to do so -- we were attacked right out of the gate.

Qui1che's assertions regarding our honesty are repugnant, not at all something we bargained for when we set out to write an article for Wikipedia. In his eyes an expert on a topic is self-interested and untrustworthy for reasons of single purpose. He seems to live in a Kafkaesque world and is certainly in no position to scrutinize our article.

I have been a user of Wikipedia for a long time, and a monthly financial supporter for a while. It was never my intention to become a professional reviewer or routine contributor to Wikipedia because writing a fine piece takes great effort, and at my age I have only a few such efforts left and intend to make them in other forums. I wrote the article about Dr. Becker because Wikipedia seemed to an authoritative source of knowledge, and I regarded it important that the best truth about him be told. Then came Qui1che. Rebutting him would be easy, but to what end?

I am prepared to write a detailed response to each of his baseless comments, but do you believe this would be the appropriate response path for me to follow? With Qui1che as my "reviewer," I would feel like the defendant in Judge Roy Bean's courtroom who looked out the window and saw the scaffold already under construction. Can I be certain that the decision regarding my article does not rest in his hands? EEAndygator (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Qui1che:

After I receive a reply I will respond to what I regard as Qui1che’s intemperate and wildly inaccurate observations. In the meantime I urge other Wiki editors to read the present Robert O. Becker article and the article I and my colleagues drafted and posted in my sandbox. In my world, working with colleagues in the preparation of a literary piece is a virtue. My sense is that Qui1che regards it as a vice. If I believed for one moment that was the prevalent opinion of Wiki editors I would withdraw my article from consideration.

I understand that the Wiki culture favors evolution not revolution regarding changes in posted articles. That is clearly a sensible and prudent policy considering the prevalence of hot-tempered, ignorant, and biased commentators that seem to surround us in every medium, with Wikipedia as no exception. I will shape my subsequent strategy regarding a reply to Qui1che after I have heard from Mr. Philbrick. In the meantime, some of Qui1che’s remarks were needlessly offensive, thereby demanding an immediate response, incomplete as it must be.

The numbered paragraphs below roughly follow Qui1che’s numbering system.

1. The rhetorical question is impertinent and I think biased because it suggests the possibility of some improper activity simply because I had help synthesizing the new article. She is my friend and coworker and has been for more than 40 years. She keyboards much faster and more accurately than me and is a clear thinker who has been of immeasurable help to me. I did not inquire who helped you write articles about Canadian rivers, and I suggest that it is ethically and morally out of bounds for you to make the comment that you did.
2. This allegation also seems to me to spring from a jaundiced perspective. I met Dr. Becker in 1964, worked in his laboratory for 16 years, and was in routine correspondence with him continuously until he died in 2008. He left me his notes and records. I personally knew every scientific friend and enemy that Becker had throughout his career, and I have consulted with many of them during the long process of constructing the present draft. I would have no difficulty naming everyone, but until I hear differently from Mr. Philbrick I categorically reject Qui1che’s implicit assertion that he has the right to make such a demand. If it were the case that Mr. Philbrick told me that Qui1che had such a right, then I would reject Wikipedia. As for identifying myself, I will certainly do so.
3. The language is nonsensical because I explained why I proposed wholesale replacement. The assertion of a lapse of 3 months in writing the article is untrue. The obvious reason I didn’t come to the talk page earlier than I did (I am the point of contact with Wikipedia regarding the article) is that I was not ready to do so, bearing in mind that I have produced a complete, polished, and fully substantiated piece on Robert O. Becker. I can only imagine Qui1che’s toot if I had commingled inaccuracies with his biases.
4. The suggestion is similar to that of Mr. Philbrick and that may ultimately be what happens. I was fearful that such a course would lead to an enormously complicated record that few people would have the time to parse, with the ultimate result that the present superficiality in reasoning and analysis present in the posted article, and in my judgment manifested by Qui1che, would result in a worthless literary piece. If Qui1che would simply read the article in my sandbox, I think it would be obvious that the optimal and efficient procedure would be to start there and make the necessary modifications. I still hope that turns out to be the case. I am knowledgeable about Robert O. Becker and that’s what I wrote about. To imply that knowledge disqualifies me from Wikipedia for the reason that I do not hold myself out as an expert in other areas, is absurd.
5. Not borne out for a good reason. My proposal was that a higher structural level regarding the task of creating the best Robert O. Becker piece should be constructed. Qui1che’s comments regarding Dr. Becker are wildly incorrect and would not be made by any rational human being who knew him or knew of his work. I wrote about a complicated, nuanced human being, not something simple, like a river in Canada. Pending the advice I receive from Mr. Philbrick, you can be certain that I will inquire into the basis of these allegations by Qui1che.

1. I can understand Qui1che’s concern that Wikipedia’s high ethical standards be rigorously maintained and enforced, and that violators of the standards be barred from the platform, and under normal circumstances would applaud his enthusiasm. But his harsh analysis is neither justified nor deserved, and amounts to an attempt at literary lynching.
2. Qui1che ignores the central question that I posed. If the community looks at my article and the posted article, would optimal efficiency in producing a high-quality article be achieved by starting with my article and making changes in the direction of the existing article, or vice versa? It is a fundamental rule of Wikipedia that all rules can be broken, given a proper justification. Even if it were true that that my suggestion were illegal—definitely not the case—then I should still be allowed the opportunity to determine the consensus of the editors regarding my suggestion. It seems that Qui1che would deny me that right, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.
3. I will happily respond in any way that the community thinks appropriate to provide any and all relevant information concerning my background, motives, and experience, with regard to my article. But I will not respond directly to a bully who specializes in making “are you still beating your wife” allegations.
4. Everything about my background that the community could possibly want to know can be accessed at my website, andrewamarino.com. When I initially signed up as a Wikipedia editor my user name was EEAndrewMarino. Then I read Wikipedia articles suggesting that using of one’s actual name was problematical, so I changed to EEAndygator. I never imagined that doing so would open me up to charges with scurrilous implications. I am an experienced writer but new to the Wikipedia culture, and did not appreciate how aggressively I would be attacked by an experienced but biased Wikipedia editor. I think it would be appropriate for Qui1che (formerly known as papageno) to identify himself so that the community can evaluate his qualifications and credibility.
5. I think it would be appropriate for Qui1che to publish his website address so I can judge his expertise. He has given the community far more reason to suspect his background, motives, and experience relevant to the article than he imagines I have done.
6. I know the subject well. I categorically reject the implication that my knowledge makes me an inappropriately conflicted author. It would be shameful if that were Qui1che’s allegation.
7. Qui1che applied the term “single-purpose account” to me as if it denoted moral decay, like Hester’s scarlet A. This is my first article, so by definition, I suppose, I am a single-user in the sense this is the first (“single”) time I wrote for Wikipedia. But it’s ludicrous to suggest that my status entails a foul odor. Maybe I’ll write another or maybe I won’t. Either way, that issue is irrelevant with regard to my present article.
8. Qui1che violated a cardinal Wikipedia rule when he wrote “Becker had some early interesting ideas that weren't borne out by subsequent research,” because it was a cheap shot unsupported by any clarification, citations, or nuanced analysis. If he thinks such information should be included in my article, he must say so explicitly and provide supporting arguments. Standing alone, as it now does, his allegations shows acute bias.
9. Qui1che also wrote “Later ideas drifted ever more into fringe theories, ” an outrageously cheap shot. Even Einstein had fringe followers, but that doesn’t invalidate his theories. What aspects of the “fringe” are discussed in the article should be a matter of careful consideration—too much or too little could be misleading. I would be delighted to engage in a discussion regarding the issue, even with a biased reviewer, but the reviewer must make rational arguments founded on knowledge. I urge Qui1che to consider how he would react if I went off on a toot concerning his subject of expertise, Canadian rivers, complaining to the community that Canadian rivers are mere sewage ditches and undeserving of consideration on Wikipedia. Some rivers in Canada are sewage ditches—I saw them—but that observation is hardly generalizable. It is disappointing that Qui1che failed to show similar restraint.
10. Qui1che rhetorically asked: “What is the relationship between the two users? Did Patricia416 write the text herself? Did EEAndygator write the text and give it to her to enter? Did he use her account to make the edits?” I ask: “Who cares, besides you? Why do you ask those questions? Aren’t they utterly irrelevant?“ If Qui1che answers my questions, I’ll answer his. He certainly will be severely disappointed if he expects to find any wrong-doing.
11. Qui1che wrote: “The transfer notice moving the article from Patricia416's sandbox to EEAndygator's says he owns the content and wanted to take control.” Again I ask: “Who cares, besides you?” If Qui1che’s words have their plain meaning, they are irrelevant and wildly out of place in the context of a response to the question I initially posed: In the interests of efficiency whose article should we start with? I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that Qui1che is engaged in egregiously inappropriate mud-slinging while standing in a cesspool. He should post an apology for his rude undeserved attack on a Wiki newbie, and go into a temporary exile from Wiki editing activities to contemplate the rectitude of his actions. When he returns we could begin a serious discussion of my question. But he is a classic example of verbal diarrhea, having made 9425 total edits on Wikipedia, a mockery of the Wikipedia process; perhaps he should retire and leave the issue I raised to the sober consideration of more qualified and trustworthy people.
12. Qui1che, also known by the user name papageno, comments frequently (hundreds of edits) on matters relating to the general area of Becker's work, almost always to oppose the thrust of his work and to argue that environmental electromagnetic energy poses no health risks. His arguments are rarely balanced or supported by any reliable citations. Such a reviewer, with a demonstrable, consistent antagonism to Becker's significant public health conclusions regarding EE and health, should not be involved in making any decision for Wikipedia on the outstanding question of how to proceed with the new article, or indeed allowed to participate in any revision or editing of either the present article or the proposed new one.

--EEAndygator (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

↑End of comment by User EEAndygator timestamp 16:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)↑

I have manually reverted User EEAndygator edits (and subsequent cleanup edits by bots and other users) imposing his article rewrite. No consensus was achieved here. I have also added a {{COI}} template to the article and a {{Connected contributor}} template to this talk page in accordance with WP:COI.--papageno (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I thank User EEAndygator for verifying his conflict of interest in editing this article. This requires that any edits or approaches suggested by him be reviewed with an impartial yet critical eye. I cannot believe that a wholesale replacement of the article is justified, especially since he and his associate had been advised months ago that this was not a recommended course of of action (something the commenters then would have no doubt emphasized even more had they been aware of the COI); though I believe in WP:AGF, the emails to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team look to me as attempts to circumvent established good practice at Wikipedia: that users, working together, improve articles. Further, no evidence has been offered that the present article is "inadequate and occasionally misleading", despite me asking. I appreciate that, as Dr. Becker's graduate student and long time staff member, the Dr. Becker is close to the heart of User EEAndygator. However, special pleading and approaches contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia practice are not the way to honour Dr. Becker. I repeat my offer to to consider any changes to the existing article where there are errors or falsehoods, or where there are simple details about Becker's personal life that could be added. Those changes should be outlined here on talk for discussion. --papageno (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately Qui1che nee papageno chose to ignore the seminal issue regarding the Wikipedia biography of Robert O. Becker which is: What should be the starting point, the original article or the new one that I wrote?

I earnestly solicited a discussion of this issue but it was ignored by Qui1che/papageno, who seems to regard the original article as the only basis for discussion. He is wrong. The original article which Qui1che/papageno re-installed is fatally flawed, and repairing it sentence by sentence is not a reasonable option. A basic Wikipedia principle is that when bold action is needed and can be justified, it should be taken. Qui1che/papageno, in contrast, is fixated on the past and insists on raising mostly trivial or irrelevant points. If he opposes the article I wrote, he must defend his position, based on reasoned analysis and supported by citations.

His Talk piece reflects the lack of wisdom in his actions because the topics discussed are mostly irrelevant or downright silly. I therefore replaced his apparently preferred version of the biography with mine and intend to continue to do so, assuming that the appropriate authorities at Wikipedia will take cognizance of the present situation—that Qui1che/papageno is ignorant regarding Becker’s work and is threatening to do great and wholly undeserved damage to Becker’s reputation.

The plain fact is that Qui1che/papageno is ignorant of Becker’s life and I am knowledgeable. I see the present situation as a significant threat to the integrity of Wikipedia, because a threat to knowledge is being mounted by a force of ignorance. I have revealed all details regarding who I am, my background, and my connection with Becker. I doubt that Wikipedia authorities will decide that deep knowledge of a subject disqualifies me from writing about it, and that the unsubstantiated opinions of an unqualified novice who refuses to disclose his identity (other than to admit to an interest in Canadian rivers) as authoritative should be accepted.

I suspect that most of Qui1che/papageno’s passion and the goofer dust he raises stems from serious ignorance concerning Becker’s work. If he would disclose who he is and support his relevant points with evidence, his motivations could be better understood, and if there were a nugget of validity in his position it could be appreciated.

It is appropriate to speak directly to Qui1che/papageno:

1. You do not constitute a consensus by yourself. You must recognize that no one except you has added a single opinion after Mr. Philbrick, who merely said that replacement by an independent editor would be "extremely rare," and acknowledged that my article was probably “superior.” “Consensus” means effective agreement among those entitled to make a judgment. True consensus on whether to replace the old article with the new would depend on more than your opinion.

2. Your opinion about the new article, given your history of antagonism to the thrust of Becker's work, manifest in your many edits, is less than worthless.

3. If you want to understand "inadequate and occasionally misleading," as well as all the other stated weaknesses of the old article, all you have to do is READ the new article and compare it with the present one. You are standing behind the Wikipedian "culture" and rules, some of which are laudable, and some unworkable, to inhibit the documentation of an important researcher's most significant work (there is virtually no documentation in the old article).

4. Regarding "special pleading," you need to look up the term as you are inaccurate in applying it to my remarks, and personally ridiculous in asserting such.

5. The situation of a writer, with the deepest information available to anyone alive, using that information to write about his colleague is NOT conflict of interest. You simply repeat a mantra you don't understand. Or maybe you understand it all too well, given the biased pattern in your own edits? EEAndygator (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not restore your version again. You do not have consensus in favour of this change, and the fact that you describe your COI in detail and still deny it is rather troubling. The starting point, as you put it, should be the previous, stable version and not the new version. Please have a look at this information. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that my name has been invoked. If it isn't clear, I was acting as an OTRS agent responding to an email inquiry sent to Wikimedia. Roughly speaking, my summary was that this discussion should take in the talk page. I'm not particularly interested in the underlying subject matter and my only goal was to help someone understand the best way to move forward. That seems to be happening.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

COI designation

I have no conflict of interest in the matter of Robert O. Becker. I never met the man, never studied his work, and have no opinion about him one way or the other. I am the epitome of a disinterested party who simply helped the original writer.Patricia416 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

More on the attempted rewrite

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team <info-en@wikimedia.org> wrote:

My apologies that I missed your response of 23 April. Is a place that keeps track of all of the tickets assigned to me that are still open and it's not in there. I stumbled across it while trying to do some overall cleanup. However, you don't care about our internal processes or shortcomings.

I'm sorry to hear that your interaction with another editor didn't go well. However, before I try to provide some useful advice I realize it's been quite some time and my guess is that the situation has changed materially. I hope it isn't the case that you have given up but if you could provide an update, I'll try to respond in a more timely fashion.

On the chance that your response falls of the cracks, if you respond to me and I don't get back to you within two days, drop a note on my talk page and I will look into it immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sphilbrick

My response: Mr Philbrick

I appreciate your interest in my case but have lost interest in writing for Wikipedia. You can consult the talk page at the Becker site to get a full view of what happened after you failed to respond to my request for help.

The egregious Qu1che, who knows nothing about Becker’s life and work, successfully intervened as a committee of one and arbitrarily took down a carefully researched and balanced presentation by two experienced authors who knew him well. Qu1che succeeded because he is a plugged-in Wiki professional who knows its arcane and obscure rules, a system that primarily serves him rather than the public.

Even if Qu1che ceased to exist, someone like him would appear because the system is designed to enhance the influence of the ignorant and the nitpicker. I’m not interested in maintaining eternal vigilance against trolls.

I had known about the strength of Wiki and was impressed to the point of making continuing monthly donations. Now I know about its weakness—a source of only superficial evanescent knowledge.EEAndygator (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this debate before now, but I have been absent from WP for years - repelled by the power games and ignorant deleters. I wrote the initial (full-length) version of Robert Becker (and The Body Electric). I find it ok that somebody rewrites the article - as long as this editor has an interest and a positive attitude to the topic. The new article is certainly fine, but the optimism in this project certainly reflects inexperience with the harsh world of Wikipedia. Editors should observe the history of articles and notice how ignorant sceptics (who in this case hadn't read any of Becker's books) often delete large parts of an article so that it reflects their disinterest in the topic. This slaughter is a harsh example. OlavN (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge book

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge as proposed. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Merge The Body Electric (book) into Becker's article. Both articles are short, the book's needs to be trimmed even more imo, and neither is getting any longer since the guy's dead and his views only get more fringe as they age. Selden seems to just be the prose guy and not a contributor of academic content, so even if he ever got an article it wouldn't be an important piece for him. Perhaps most importantly for a book intended for lay audiences, the book hasn't gotten any significant outside coverage other than the obligatory reviews (also note the NYT review is not the prestigious full-length kind). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree --papageno (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.