Talk:Natasha Demkina

/Archive1 Content archived 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/reason_demkina_050128.html

(→References - -- Rm reference just added. This would need to be discussed in the talk page. Are you ready?)

This is the warning I wrote in the comment field when I removed this reference, so that people think about it twice before putting it back in. Oh well! Too late! -Lumière 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed and added references

The Skeptical Inquirer reports on Natasha Demkina consisted of 3 parts: two articles published in the May 2005 issue followed by a supplement on the CSMMH-CSICOP test statistics, by Ray Hyman, published online. The reports were meant to go together, so citing only one is inaccurate and misleading.

How about we cite none of them? The Wiki article appears to be more about the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation than it does about Natasha herself. Apparently, some believe the CSICOP/CSMMH material to be inaccurate and misleading, which led to an edit war. I don't think any of us wants that again. Besides, all the added references are to the same website - cicop.org - and the articles all link to each other. If these are there, then they should be counterbalanced with the critiques of the investigation posted on the web. Dreadlocke 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, do you know the difference between publication in a respected science magazine and self-publishing comments on one's own web site? Wiki policy sides with the former and warns against the latter. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." [1]

Because you can't cite what does not exist, you seem to be arguing to remove information solely because some people object to it. If they don't agree with the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test, let them publish their views in a credible publication so that it can be cited here. Instead of doing that, they chose to publish their opinions here in Wikipedia, in clear violation of Wiki policy. [2]

Arguing now for censorship in order to prevent further edit wars is also against Wiki policy.Askolnick 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated version of Dreadlocke's comment:

How about we cite just one of them? All the added references are to the same website - cicop.org - and the articles all link to each other. The Wiki article appears to be more about the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation than it does about Natasha herself. Apparently, some believe the CSICOP/CSMMH material to be inaccurate and misleading, which led to an edit war. I don't think any of us wants that again. If these are there, then I'm sure there will be those that believe they should be counterbalanced with the critiques of the investigation posted on the web. Dreadlocke 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew -- I'm guessing you ran into an edit conflict when you responded above, because your response included an old version of Dreadlocke's comment. Please address edit conflicts in the content before pushing them through; editing other's comments to change the meaning is unacceptable. Please read WP:TP and WP:TPG for relevant policies and guidelines. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every thing you wrote is true, except for one thing: it is not true that CSMMH and CSICOP qualify as third-party publishers. The publications of these organizations might have the title of "journals", but they are nevertheless self-published by the organizations that have designed the experiment. These organizations are not neutral third-parties here. Their publications are not acceptable as sources in the sameway as Brian Josephson's website is not acceptable: they are self-published sources. -Lumière 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is not "self-published." You better reread Wiki policy regarding what are and are not acceptable references. Just where did you come up with the rule that references have to be "neutral third-parties? Read Wiki's policy and abide by it. Askolnick 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between a third-party publisher and an (ordinary) publisher is not explicit in the policy. However, I see no way in which the Skeptical Inquirer can be considered as a third-party publisher for the Demkina experiment. Here is a quote from the Skeptical Inquirer website:

"This dynamic magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, tells you what the scientific community knows about claims of the paranormal, as opposed to the sensationalism often presented by the press, television, and movies. "

The Skeptical Inquirer is published by the CSICOP. You represented the CSICOP when you worked on this experiment. The CSICOP was involved in the design the experiment. Therefore, the Skeptical Inquirer was certainly not a third-party publisher. The details do not matter. Every one can see that the CSICOP and the CSMMH are not third-party publishers. -Lumière 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just where to you think you got the authority to declare what everyone can see? By your twisting of that term [self-published], it would apply to the New York Times and all other media that ever publish anything about themselves. This of course not the definition of "self-publish."

And your facts are wrong too. I did not and do not represent CSICOP. I have no position with CSICOP or with its magazine Skeptical Inquirer, other than being an occassional author.Askolnick 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree that references should strive for balance, just as article content should overall. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, if you have any other references that can add balance, from any reputable publication (as opposed to self-published opinions on personal web pages -- which are clearly against Wiki policy) then by all means add them. Askolnick 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not an argument for peppering the references section with one position. I am not entirely familiar with the Wiki policy on how to qualify a reference as reputable, so fill me in. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, the Skeptical Inquirer report of the Natasha Demkina test was divided into three parts - two parts in the magazine and one online supplement. Listing the links to the complete report is not "peppering" the reference section with one position. It's providing Wiki readers with the URLs to the complete report. I'll repeat, because you may have missed this: If you have credible references that provide another point of view, then add them. I think you should familiarize yourself with Wiki's policies regarding the citation of references before debating them further.Askolnick 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious Concerns About Biased References

Hi Keith, and all other editors. I think Skolnick is violating previous agreements between Natasha's "supporters" (me...) and Natasha's "Inquisitors" (He). It is true that references might have some guiding lines and even strict policies in Wikipedia. But what is being forgotten is that these references (that is, the references in the entry Natasha Demkina) are there to avoid the entry title from becoming impeditively huge. One of Wikipedia policies (one of its three-pillars) is "no original research". But what is it? From the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Primary and secondary sources

Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

So, based on the original research (primary and secondary source) done by CSICOP and CSMMH (the test with Natasha and the interpretation of its results by the researchers), some people, like Physicist and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and I (Julio Siqueira, microbiologist), among others, have done source-based research. What we have at Brian Josephson's site and at my site is not original research. Instead, we base ourselves on what is published in reputable publications (i.e. Discovery Channel and Skeptical Inquirer, the latter a Scientific Journal indexed by the prestigious institution ISI).

This material from Josephson and from me is priceless to achieve neutral point of view. There are two ways in which this material can be made available to honest readers: first, include them briefly in the references. Second, cite their reasoning lengthily in the main body of the entry itself. Technically, it is better to do the latter (and that is what I did when I first edited this entry ages ago, after which I got this talk page started for the very first time). But rationally, it is better to place these reasonings from Josephson and from myself (or from anyone else) in the reference section.

So, in order to achieve Wikipedia's goal, I suggest that a link to Josephson's page and to my page be added to the reference section. The links are:

Josephson's critique:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/

My critique, updated: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/natasha_demkina_summary_update.html

I wait for your comments before including these two priceless references myself. Julio Siqueira 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Several days ago, Julio Siqueira issued an ultimatum below that either I cite his and Josephson's "priceless" personal web pages in the Natasha article, or he will "get very Wiki" on us. Looks like that ultimatum may be moot. His free web site account with Geocities Yahoo Brazil was cancelled, apparently for repeated violation of its terms of service. So the "priceless" reference he cites above no longer exists. (This is yet another reason for not using personal web sites as secondary sources! Many have a habit of suddenly disappearing.) Askolnick 16:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so, dear Skolnick... "Getting Wiki", in my view, can be just taking part in the discussion. If you feared other kinds of actions, perhaps it is because you yourself usually do them. I have now sent an email to you and to many other interested parties concerning the hackers' activity that has shut down my Geocities Brazil account criticandokardec. There is just no way to believe that this was an action from Geocities itself because: 1- Before the shut-down of the whole account, one single page (criticizing James Randi's forum and violating no copyrights) was deleted twice in a period of two weeks, with no email whatsoever coming from Geocities Brazil to me (to the email linked to this account, [email protected], or to its alternative email, [email protected]). 2- Geocities, as acknowledged by them in an email from them to me, simply does not know how this happened, and, being a free service for millions of people, Geocities is just too slow to take prompt appropriate counter-measures. This is just no reason for avoiding citing online material. Internet contents are intrinsically volatile. Nevertheless, they are accepted for citation even by the most stringent citation regulations (including the Vancouver Style used by many medical publications and scientific journals world over). Anyway, the links are now in a better place, paid, official, fully commercial, and protected from Randi's hackers (hackers who actually do not act according to their idol's commands or desires - just remember that Randi, contrary to you, do not think "all parapsychologists are incompetent, deluded, frauds, or willfully stupid"... He has even parapsychologist friends, like Stanley Krippner, and has indeed contributed enormously for the advance of parapsychology, no matter how we may criticize him for his excesses.

The links are now below. First, the initial critique of the phony "scientific" test done by CSICOP on Natasha Demkina: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/CSICOP_vs_Natasha_Demkina.htm

Second, the updated analysis of the issue: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/natasha_demkina_summary_update.html

I hope you enjoy it... (just by the way, the page criticizing you is now at this link, and the page exposing the unthinkable vices of James Randi's forum is at this link - please remember to leave your PC speakers on ;-) ).

And getting really wiki... I am not going to edit the main entry on Natasha Demkina. Not anymore. I hope, instead, that you mature to more decent conduct in this whole issue...
Julio Siqueira 11:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

What is "priceless" is this lame rationalization for violating Wikipedia's injunction against citing self-published blogs and web-pages. Siqueira, the only way you can get your personal attacks published is to get a free web site from Yahoo to upload your opinions, falsehoods, and misrepresentions. If you could have published these attacks in ANY credible source, you would be able to cite it as a reference permitted by Wiki rules. Posting an insult-filled rant on your own web site is NOT the kind of reference permitted by Wiki rules.Askolnick 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm curious what part(s) of the following Wiki policy do Siqueira, Luminere, and Tyler not understand:

"Personal websites as secondary sources

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. ...

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." Askolnick 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He cannot cite himself in ANY credible source, but only in a reputable third-party source. However, he has a point as far as allowing his direct input in the article to report whatever is supported in reputable third-party sources. Note that even CSICOP and CSMMH do not qualify as third-party publishers, and therefore, normally, there would be nothing for him to report. However, I don't know why, but it seems that we are making exception to the rules here because publishers that are not neutral toward the experiment, such as CSICOP and CSMMH, are used as sources. -Lumière 18:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, please stop trying to substitute your views for Wiki policy. Wiki's policy for citing a reference requires a source to be respected and/or credible. It does NOT require a reference to be neutral on an issue. Once again, you're pulling a bait and switch here with Wiki policies.Askolnick 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Josephson is being cited here as a primary source, not as a secondary source, so it doesn't run afoul of the problems with personal webpages and blogs. JoshuaZ 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Josh, I'm not sure I understand your point. Josephson's web page is not a primary source. His web page is an attack on the test my colleagues and I conducted on Natasha Demkina. It is not a commentary about himself. So it's not a primary source, it's a secondary source. Our articles, about the test we conducted, are primary sources. An article about the test written by anyone not involved with the test would be a secondary source. Any such article published in a reputable publication could be cited as a reference in the Wiki article, according to Wiki policies and guidelines. However, the personal attacks written by Julio Siqueira and Brian Josephson were self-published on their own web pages. They therefore were removed as inappropriate references after the last editing war. It now looks like a second editing war has begun.Askolnick 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I would hope that, as a journalist, you would acquiesce to the importance of balance. So far in this article your only contributions have been to push the materials of CSICOP/CSMMH/SI. (For that matter Julio has done about the same, but has been willing to accept *some* CSICOP material, which is certainly a positive step towards the interest of balance.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As a journalist, I am quite familiar with the flawed principle that every article should be balanced. It's flawed because in journalism, every article should first be fair and accurate. "Balancing" claims means giving them equal weight. But when different claims are not supported by an equal weight of evidence, presenting them as equal violates the journalistic imperatives of being fair and being accurate. Competent and ethical journalists do NOT give 400 words to a story about the oldest Tyranosaurus fossile yet found (just reported last week) and balance it with 400 words from "authorities" who claim these fossiles cannot be more than 120 million years old, because the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

Whatever the definition of "balancing" is, the information contained in the critiques of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation and testing should be made just as available to readers of Wikipedia in the references section of this article so they can make their own judgments - that's fair and balanced. The fossil example quoted above is in parallel to the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation report on their website, and has validity there. However, this Wikipedia article is not that report, it is an article on Natasha Demkina. I believe a more apt comparison would be in an article on a person who is religious and believes the earth was created 10,000 years ago. References could then include both religious and archeological perspectives on the ages of fossils. There are two sides to that story and both should be represented here. Dreadlocke 20:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is flawed, it is Wiki policy: WP:NPOV. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you CONTINUE to ignore Wiki policy. What part of the following Wiki policy do you not understand? Or do you think Wiki policies should be set aside to satisfy your personal opinions?

"Personal websites as secondary sources

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. ...

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

Askolnick 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that MOH qualifies as a blog in the spirit of that policy, judging from the nearby context of "personal websites". The section you reprint above is headed with "personal websites as...", implying that the section is talking about personal websites. I wonder if the term "blog" used there is intended as "personal blog" as opposed to a focused, topic-oriented community site. Maybe it does; I think this is a question for the Village Pump. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Further reading related to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources finds that, on the discussion page, there is some question as to whether "no blogs" is a blanket rule: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Blogs. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I am not ingoring Wikipedia policy, I just simply disagree with your interpretation of those policies as they relate to entries in the "References" or an "External Links" section of an article. I also question your overall interpretation of those policies. Dreadlocke 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you are ignoring Wiki policy by interpreting it to mean something else. If I'm wrong, then you should explain why the following Wiki policy does not mean what it says:

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."

Askolnick 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read the next section WP:V#Self-published sources in articles about themselves, you will realize that website of organizations such as the Stormfront website can also be dubious. If you think about it just a little, and consider the real word out there, you will easily appreciate that large organizations also should not be trusted: they also have their own agenda, in fact even more, not to mention that, in some cases, they can be deliberately sloppy, relying on rumors, etc. The Stormfront website is an example provided in the policy. Some of these organizations might have their own publications. This is why there is the requirement for a credible third-party publisher. -Lumière 21:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, I would hope that, as a Wiki editor, you would acquiese to the importance of learning and abiding by Wiki policies regarding citation of references and not substitute your own biases. Wiki policy does not require giving every claim equal weight. And it doesn't permit the citation of Internet blogs and personal web pages Askolnick 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew and others, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. The requirement for a credible third-party source is clearly stated. I agree that, as for many other terms in the WP policy, and this is normal in any policy, the term "third-party" needs to be interpreted. I remind you that WP:verifiability is firm policy, and has priority over consensus. Therefore, I suggest that we discuss whether or not CSICOP and CSMMH qualify as credible third-party publishers. If you believe that these publishers are credible third-party publishers for the Demkina experiment, then give me an example of what is meant by a credible publisher that is not a credible third-party publisher for the Demkina experiment and explain to me the difference. You can even describe a fictive credible publisher to illustrate your concept of a non-third-party credible publisher for the Demkina experiment.

-Lumière 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry for CSICOP ("CSICOP's examinations of claims of paranormal phenomena apply accepted scientific and academic methodologies to topics that most scientific organizations ignore as fringe science or pseudoscience.") and for Skeptical Inquirer. I believe these Wiki articles already demonstrate a Wiki consensus that Skeptical Inquirer is a credible publication. And here's what the Internet Public Library has to say about the magazine" [3]

"Skeptical Inquirer

"For a fast-growing number of discriminating persons, the Skeptical Inquirer is a welcome breath of fresh air, separating fact from myth in the flood of occultism and pseudoscience on the scene today. This dynamic magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, tells you what the scientific community knows about claims of the paranormal, as opposed to the sensationalism often presented by the press, television, and movies."

Many university and research libraries subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer and rate the magazine highly, as does Princeton University's Library,[4] which has this to say:

"Skeptical Inquirer

"[Skeptical Inquirer] encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public."

I have no doubt that you will be able to post quotes from the Transcendental Meditation cult and other pro-paranormal groups and pseudoscientists, which disparage Skeptical Inquirer. But keep in mind, considering the sources of such criticism, they will more likely boost the credibility of the magazine further in the view of most rational people. Askolnick 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I understand better than you think the role that is taken by the Skeptical Inquirer. I am not interested in posting criticisms of the Skeptical Inquirer, no more than I am interested in posting criticisms of the governement of the United States or of the Vatican or of any organization reflecting a large group. I am just saying that, in the case of this experiment, CSICOP and CSMMH do not qualify as credible third-party publishers, and it is especially the third-party part that is the problem. In a different context, a similar argument could apply to the government of the United State or to the Vatican. This is not a criticism. -Lumière 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You weren't discussing the "role" of Skeptical Inquirer. You were questioning Skeptical Inquirer's credibility. I think before examining any other bias, we should examine yours. As an apologist for the TM cult, you have an obvious bias against Skeptical Inquirer and against the investigators who conducted the CSMMH-CSICOP test. Your claim that Skeptical Inquirer does not qualify as a credible publication is your opinion, which you're entitled to. But it is not the opinion of many others, who do not have an axe to grind against the publication and against anti-TM cult skeptics in general. And it is against Wiki policy to impose your bias as a filter on what does or does not count as a credible publication.Askolnick 13:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to confuse people. My intention, my opinion, etc. is irrelevant here. I am just pointing out to the policy. You seem to do every thing you can to move the discussion at another level. It won't work with me. -Lumière 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is a valid source, used as a reference in other wiki articles. JoshuaZ 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, the main issue that we should first consider is whether or not it can be used as a third party source for the Demkina experiment. Let us forget about the required credibility for the time being. If we evaluate that it is a third-party source, then the next step is to evaluate its general credibility. Only for this next step, it will be useful to see what other experiments were sourced in this journal. -Lumière 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"5 out of 7"

Article says: "correctly identify at least 5 out of 7" Surely it is feasible to put this short list in the article. Surely it gives a better insight what was happening. Were these kind of "tummy ache", "lurgy" and "swollen ass" or, rather, neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis and hemangioendothelioma? mikka (t) 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, I believe she was to match written down diagnosis with paitents. Sethie 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 6 patients out of the seven patients had a diagnosed medical problem. The seventh patient had none of these problems. Demkina was given seven cards describing these problems, including the "none of them", and had to match these cards with the patients. -Lumière 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Natasha was given six cards, not seven. And the target conditions were not "medical problems." They were anatomical abnormalities which resulted from a previous medical problem -- removed appendix, surgical staples in chest following open-heart surgery, a large metal plate covering hole in the skull following removal of a brain tumor, an artificial hip, a resected upper lobe of the left lung, and a resected esophagus. Natasha was required to match the six anatomical abnormalities to the correct subjects. A seventh subject had none of the abnormalities. Also, the test subjects were not patients. They were considered healthy and there was no patient relationship involved. Askolnick 12:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting us about the language used. I knew that they were not "patient" and not sick, but the subject of the experiment here is Natasha, not these 7 people, so I did not know how to call them. Thanks for the precision about the 6 cards, but I guess that no harm would have resulted to give her a seventh card with "none of them" on it. In fact, it would have been more clear. The way you describe the criteria suggests that matching correctly the "none of them" does not count as a match. Did it count as a match? Was it 4 out of 6, 5 out of 6 or 5 out of 7?. -Lumière 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While Natasha was the subject of our test, to Natasha, the six people with the abnormalities and the one "normal" were her subjects she was using to demonstrate her claimed abilities. She was subjecting them to her claimed paranormal abilities. I can't think of a better single word to discribe that relationship. Patient is definitely wrong. Test "objects" is too dehumanizing.

Heh. True; though their involvement in the test was to essentially be passive objects (i.e. human bodies) having certain qualities (i.e. the conditions). I guess it's semantic; it's just confusing to people trying to understand the test to get around the fact that the "test subjects" were not the subjects of the test. That's the confusion that led me once to erroneously refer to them as "sufferers". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no need for a card for the condition "none of the abnormalities." By filling out the six test cards, identifying the subjects with the specified anatomic abnormalities, Natasha automatically matched the "normal" condition to a subject. As has been repeatedly explained, Natasha had to match at least five of the seven conditions to the correct subjects to pass the preliminary test.Askolnick 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I always understood that there was no absolute need for a seventh card. Still, it would have been more clear to an external observer like me if the implicit matching of the "normal" condition would have been made explicit with a seventh card. -Lumière 16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, this simply makes no sense. We've been criticized and attacked by dozens of people (and praised by many others), yet no one before criticized us for not having a seventh card. Although you say that you "always understood" there was no need for a seventh card, you also say that having a seventh card would have made it clearer to you. Which is it? If it were clear to you from the start that no seventh card was needed, then there was no need to make it any clearer. You understood it just fine. Askolnick 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This all started after you made a big deal about the fact that I explained the experiments in term of 7 cards. Perhaps it was not the exact situation, but it would have been equivalent as far as the criteria itself is concerned. So why did you made a big deal out of this and wrote "This is not true..." as if I had seriously distorted the facts. Here, I am just saying that it was actually a clearer way to explain the criteria. Please do not move this discussion out of context. -Lumière 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I said this is not true is because it was -- how do I put it to make it clearer? -- because it was not true. There were six cards not seven. You didn't distort the facts. You got the fact wrong. I simply corrected the mistake. You are the one who is making "a big deal out of this." You got your facts wrong. You were corrected. That should have been the end of the story. But not for you. You launched into an argument that there should have been seven cards and that we were wrong to have used only six. Do you really fail to see the irrationality of your arguments? Askolnick 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I only see that you still interpret my argument out of context, and in a way that makes me look bad. When I first replied in this section, I provided useful information, and you made some minor corrections. Every thing else needs not be discussed further. How you make me look does not matter here. Instead, let us focus on the policy (see previous section). -Lumière 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I took nothing out of context. You -- I repeat -- you started an argument over a simple correction that there were six, not seven cards. If this argument makes you look bad, it is solely your doing. It was a foolish argument that could only make you look ridiculous. There were six cards, not seven. A seventh was not needed. End of story.Askolnick 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel anything I did makes me look ridiculous. I just feel that you are trying to make me look ridiculous, which is different, and obviously you keep doing it in the above paragraph. You are really are insisting on it. I am telling you that it doesn't matter. Can we focus on the policy now? -Lumière 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If the truth makes you look ridiculous, that's not my problem. I simply corrected your factual error. You responded with a variety of arguments that I'm the one who is at fault. And I pointed out how flawed those arguments are. Whining now about how bad this makes you look is what is making you look ridiculous. Askolnick 12:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am telling you that it doesn't matter. Can we focus on the policy now? -Lumière 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Third-party publishers publications for the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test

Let us focus on the policy now! It requests that findings must be sourced with a third-party publisher publication. Therefore, the question that we should ask here is not whether CSMMH and CSICOP are respectable organizations. The question is not whether the Skeptical Inquirer is a credible publisher publication. The question is whether the Skeptical Inquirer can be used as a third-party publisher publication for the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test? -Lumière 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of launching another yet argument, the question cannot be whether Skeptical Inquirer is a credible publisher. SI is not a publisher, SI is a magazine. The publisher is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Askolnick 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! The policy never used the expression "third-party publisher". It uses the expression "third-party publication/source". Thank you! You helped me clarify the question. -Lumière 18:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You actually point out to the issue. The CSICOP is both the publisher and an organization behind the test as it appears in your own expression "findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test". So, is the Skeptical Inquirer a third-party publication? If yes, who is this third-party? -Lumière 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What Does Mr. Skolnick Prefer?

I quote again my own words from above:

This material from Josephson and from me is priceless to achieve neutral point of view. There are two ways in which this material can be made available to honest readers: first, include them briefly in the references. Second, cite their reasoning lengthily in the main body of the entry itself. Technically, it is better to do the latter (and that is what I did when I first edited this entry ages ago, after which I got this talk page started for the very first time). But rationally, it is better to place these reasonings from Josephson and from myself (or from anyone else) in the reference section.

Now, the point is, what does Mr. Skolnick prefer? I have all the Wiki-rights in the World to add some important feedback on the main entry itself. I would add that the test (CSICOP's) was not controlled. I would add that it does not qualify as a scientific test because of one fatal flaw: no one knows, even the "researchers" themselves(!), whether the volunteers had their alleged clinical conditions or not. Never in the history of mankind has any study been qualified as "scientific" if the researchers themselves acknowledge that they simply have no idea whatsoever about their volunteers' true clinical conditions. What kind of "control" is this? Not even Benvenist or Hwang Woo did it. Only Woo Woos (and Csicopers...) would.

The right thing to do is to remove all mentioning whatsoever to this "test" by CSICOP, and all references to it. Instead, we have four references to this phony test, plus one further reference to a site that mocks professor Brian Josephson. This is ridiculous. So I hope that Skolnick himself realizes the big mistake that he is insisting on (the big social mistake, the huge public-health mistake), and that he himself adds the reference to professor Brian Josephson's critique of the test. That is what Richard Wiseman himself would have done in the first place. More than a year ago, Skolnick sent me an email where he complained that Wiseman was pressuring him to add a link in the CSMMH site to the page from Josephson criticizing the test. How come Wiseman himself does not fear it and Skolnick dreads those who disagree with him?

So, as a sign of peace and civility, I will give Skolnick ten days to ponder over these issues. After it, I will get really Wiki... Julio Siqueira 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that Siqueira abide by Wikipedia policies and not try to bully the Wiki community with such threats. I've pointed out to him several times now, what Wikipedia policy says:

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

Yet he now insists that Brian Josephson's personal web page be added as a reference to this article. Siquiera says he has "all the Wiki-rights in the world" to add what he wants. It is this attitude that got him permanently banned from ever posting on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. He insisted, despite repeated warnings, that he can post what he wants. When he was suspended for three days for repeated violations of the forum rules, he launched a campaign of defamation and harassment against the forum moderators, which got him permanently banned. It looks like he thinks he has similar "rights" on Wiki to do what he wants, or he "will get Wiki" on us.

Wiki policy is clear: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." Like Brian Josephson, Julio Siqueira likes to snipe at skeptical researchers from the safety and advantage of his own web site. If either of them want their views on this or any other matter to be referenced in Wikipedia, they should first get them published in a credible publication. Wiki policy makes it clear: Their personal web sites are not credible sources. Wikipedia is NOT the place for such authors to publish their original research, if I may call it that. Askolnick 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It would seem apparent to me that any publication that gave print to the feasibility of paranormal activity would be dismissed out of hand by you and/or by SI, so I doubt that theoretical idea would actually help. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, your comment is outrageous, not because it is a personal attack, but because it is utterly false. You would do better by finding a source that meets Wiki policies rather than resorting to such baseless insults. I know you must be frustrated over not being able to cite a credible source for your opposing views. However, you should ask yourself why you cannot. Could it be because those opposing views lack enough merit to be published anywhere other than in sleazy newspaper tabloids and personal attacks on the web sites of cranks? If so, then they don't warrant citing in any encylopedia. If I'm wrong, find a credible source and cite it. Askolnick 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, Keith. What, if any, publications that give credence to the paranormal would they approve of? Are there any pro-paranormal publications they would consider to be credible sources? Dreadlocke 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you would agree with this blatantly bogus point. The issue is not what publication I would approve of, the issue is what publication I would consider consistent with Wiki's rules regarding reputable sources. Unlike you and Keith, I do not consider angry attacks that people self-published on personal web sites to be credible sources -- and neither does Wiki policy. I'm also not suprised that you and Keith are debating a straw man argument rather than Wiki policy, because the policy does not support your agenda to include opinions from unreputable sources in this Wiki article. Askolnick 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any pro-paranormal publications that you would consider a reputable, credible, citable source that fits your view of what Wikipedia policies and guidelines permits? I see nothing "bogus" about that question. If there is even one publication that you can name, I would like to contact them to find out their opinion on Josephson's website and why they wouldn't publish it - or why they would. It's just not a "straw man" argument. I would honestly like to know what publications that give credence to the Paranormal would you agree to?

I've already stated that I do not agree with your interpretation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I expect the matter to be straightened out by the mediators or more likely, the Arbitration Committee. I have to add, that I just don't see any anger in Prof. Josephson's critique, much less it being, as you claim, "an angry rant". Dreadlocke 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you would provide a shining example of a pro-paranormal publication that you believe would fit into your view of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as a reputable, credible, verifiable and citable reference. I would genuinely like to know what publication (if any) meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. It would really help me to understand your persepective better, and possibly even give me a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Help! Dreadlocke 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't confuse my standards for a credible publication with Wikipedia's standards. When editing Wiki articles, I go by Wikipedia's published policies, not my own. And that means not citing personal web pages as secondary sources. Your question and Keith's is clearly a red herring.

So I remind you and Keith again, the question is not what you or I consider to be credible and reputable sources. The only relevant question before us is what kinds of publications are credible and reputable according to Wiki policies and guidelines.Askolnick 03:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us notice that Andrew omited "third-party" when he wrote "get them published in a credible publication". The rule is to get them published in a credible third-party publication. In the policy In the verifiability policy, the term "credible" is always followed by "third-party". -Lumière 23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, please stop making things up. The "term 'credible' is NOT always followed by 'third party.'" Indeed, I've only seen ONE reference to "credible third-party publication" in Wiki's policies -- without even a explanation of the term. Please stop trolling here with such clearly false assertions. Askolnick 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere is sounding like a cracked record, stuck on a spot of hiss, with no meaningful sound. If she really wants to argue about "third-party" publications, she should start a Talk page for Wiki's article on Jacque Benveniste and argue why it should not reference the three articles in Nature that report on the journal editor's investigation of Benveniste's claims, which he conducted with the help of Dr. Walter Stewart and James Randi. And when she's done arguing that nonsense there, I've got many other Wiki articles for her to take her dispute, from references to the Washington Post in "Watergate" to references to the Holy Bible in "God"... Askolnick 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term "credible" appears three times in the current version of the verifiability policy and each time it is followed with "third-party". I didn't check in the other policies. -Lumière 00:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, give it a break. That page also states NINE times that references must be to "reputable publications" or "reputable sources" without adding that unexplained term "third-party." And numerous other references in Wiki policies also discuss the need for references to be "credible publications," "credible sources," "reputable publications," or "reputable sources" without adding "third-party." All this is troll hissing, with nothing of value.

But even more important is Wiki's policy, which is clearly demonstrated by the enormously large number of Wiki articles that reference reports written by the writers and editors who conducted the relevant research.

"Crack... hiss... crack ... crack... hiss... " We really need to jar this broken record...Askolnick 02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that this third-party requirement appears in the section about sources, where it should appear. The fact that elsewhere they used the more general term "reputable" instead of "credible third-party" is irrelevant. Also, why exactly do you refer to other policies when we discuss the verifiability policy? -Lumière 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumière, That seems to be an odd interpretation of the rules which I don't think I've seen before. In any case, non-third party sources are generally fine as long as any possible bias or issues are clear in the article. JoshuaZ 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Never too late to see something for the first time! Maybe we discover the policy together. You seem to agree that "third-party" is not an empty word here. To help us understand the policy, you just need to tell us the difference between "third-party publication" and "publication". An example will be useful. We don't need more than that. Once we know that, the policy is clear. -Lumière 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick said of Julio, above: "It is this attitude that got him permanently banned from ever posting on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. He insisted, despite repeated warnings, that he can post what he wants." Wow!!! I would prefer not to comment on that. But since Skolnick has raised the subject, there is just no other way than to taking to it...

Technically, I did not get banned from Randi's forum. I only had my access blocked to it (muroids-jam on the way). We abide to membership agreement rules in Randi's forum. We can only be banned (technically) if we violate these rules. I did not. Skolnick and some other members there did far worse things than I did. They never got any warning whatsoever from the alleged forum's administrator (most likely only a sock puppet personality, appropriately nicknamed Da-Rat). This administrator decided to use a very nice message that I sent to suspend me there for three days. There was absolutely nothing bad in this message. No violation of the rules, and no violation of the recent recommendations that Darat had issued. Darat twisted the membership agreement rules incredibly and enormously to make something utterly unfair, non-technical, and only ideologically and politically directed against me. But he allowed Skolnick to carry on with far worse things at the very same time. I started to complain directly to Darat of this double-standard. He said he did not want to receive my complaints (and added technically wrong directions to how I should proceed...). And threatened to take out my personal messages resource. After I complained of his offenses to the membership agreement rules to other forum mods, he took my personal messages resource out. Then I sent a complaint to many people, in email. All the while I took careful note of the membership agreement rules to check if I was doing something that violated it. Just no violation whatsoever from my part. As to Skolnick and some other forum members...

So, my "banning" was actually a combination of cowardice and ideological intolerance from the part of the Randi's forum mods. Basically, something childish. I fully report it in the link below: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/pigsty-run-by-da-rats.htm

This page above has already been deleted twice by internet hackers, most likely linked to Randi's forum... Never before had I met such jihad attitude, not even from Brazilian wildest fanatic christians.

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: Siqueira's attack on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum is as reprehensible as it is false. It appears that the page in question was repeatedly deleted by the host of Siqueira's web site - Geocities Yahoo Brazil - because he was violating the copyright of others. Because he kept putting the offending web page back up, Geocities finally cancelled his account. His claim that people linked to the JREF forum may be hacking his web site was an egregiously irresponsible accusation that he had to know is false. Askolnick 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE CORRECTING THE MISINFORMATION ABOVE: my attacks on James Randi forum are fully based on documented evidence, and clearly explained at this link. Few people knew of this page criticizing the JREF forum at the time it first got deleted. Basically only Skolnick and Da-rat, a JREF forum administrator. And since Geocities has no information about how this happened (and also about how my account and full site was shut down, as acknowledged by them in an email to me), there is no doubt that this was due to hackers' activity from criminal irresponsible guys linked to the JREF forum. Obviously Randi does not approve of this. The same can be said, I think, of most JREF forum members. It seems that Skolnick is an exception in this regard too...

Julio Siqueira 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Siqueira, your account was cancelled because of your repeated copyright violation. Yesterday, the person whose rights you violated forwarded me email he/she received from the Yahoo Brazil Abuse Department:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Brazil Abuse Department.

This is to let you know that appropriate action has been taken immediately after your report. The GeoCities account was deactivated.

Best Regards,

The Abuse Team

Yahoo! Brazil Customer Care

It is mind boggling that you're going with the story that Yahoo simply doesn't know why your account was cancelled. If that were true, your account would have simply been restored. Instead, you had to set up your entire web site with another web host that you're paying for, leaving all the links that you've placed all over the World Wide Web broken. That's just not a credible story. You better check your new host's TOS. It's likely that it too has a rule barring copyright violations. If you don't want to have your account cancelled there, stop violating people's copyrights.

Also, please stop blaming me for Yahoo cancelling your account. I had NOTHING to do with it. While you've been abusing me plenty on your web site, you haven't violated my copyrights. If you had, it would have been shut down sooner. Askolnick 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Is Randi himself responsible for all of this? Personally, I think not. Randi has his vices, like all of us. But he does not seem to be that childish and that silly. He would never say, like Skolnick has said in JREF's forum, that all parapsychologists are incompetent, deluded, frauds, or willfully stupid. Randi has friends who are parapsychologists. Like Stanley Krippner. Randi has indeed contributed to parapsychology in many ways, and no informed critic of him would deny that. The same cannot be said of Skolnick, who I depict now in the link below: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/skolnick-s-bitch-fit.htm

So, what has all this to do with Natasha Demkina? Basically, the good feedbacks from the test CSICOP and CSMMH did with her have been completely destroyed by the researchers' childish behaviour. And the one most responsible for this is Skolnick himself. This issue has turned into a childish jihad war between ultra-pseudoskeptics (Skolnick) and those he labels as "Natasha supporters". But actually my suspicions have long been that in fact there is some hidden vested interests from the part of Skolnick, and perhaps from Wiseman and Hyman too. Money! Prestige! The image of respectability (no matter real or fake...)! These are the things that are at stake. Also, pride. That is, complete lack of humbleness to admit the smallest mistake. There is no science in that. There is no skepticism in that.

I myself have pointed out to Skolnick many instances of high quality skepticism from respected members of the skeptic movement (Keith Augustine - The Case Against Immortality; Robert Todd Carrol - Skepdic Ganzfeld entry, James Alcock - Psi Wars from Journal of Consciousness Studies; Ray Hyman - Proper Criticism; etc). Why doesn't he join in? Why does he, instead, stick to this mockery of a scientific test where simply not even the researchers (!!!) have the faintest clue about their volunteers' true clinical conditions? (and numerous other flaws too!). Incompetence, imaturity, vested interests, pride, all these are playing a part. And what is being left behind?

Natasha is working! She is (still) diagnosing. This wikipedia entry could be a source of good information into that. It could be a balanced, informative, and honest feedback on paranormal in general and in paranormal healing specifically. Silly and hasty debunking will not do. It may enable Skolnick to sell a few books, or to give some further (paid... as he himself told us!) lectures on this subject in Toronto. But not much more than that. You are not going to milk much more from it, Skolnick. The cow is already pretty dry... But the social issue remains. The public health issue too. This Wikipedia entry could be one more piece of illuminating guidance. Or... it can become just another brick in the wall that separates credulous believers in the existance of the paranormal from credulous believers in the non-existance of the paranormal.

I think the former should be our aim. And that it can indeed be our final achievement!

- Julio Siqueira 13:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regardless of any prior history, I must ask contributors here to: remain civil, refrain from personal attacks, and to stick to the subject of this page: the Natasha Demkina article. --BillC 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the following from DreamGuuy is an example of what you mean should be avoided.

again back to more neutrall language... Lumiere has a long history of trying to slant this article, as discussed on talk, so his claims that there were no discussion is just stupid...

This was DreamGuy's comment when he reverted the work of the last one or two weeks, most of it not from me. -Lumière 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While the civility of DreamGuy's comment may be questioned, its truthfullness is indisputable. You've been working harder than anybody to slant the article to discredit CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer. And that was the very purpose you came to Wikipedia and have put in so much of your time. It is NOT a coincidence that the only two Wiki articles you've been trying to rewrite are Transcendental Meditation and Natasha Demkina -- both of which are based at least partially on Skeptical Inquirer articles that I wrote. Askolnick 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has only been peripherally involved with this discussion, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Askolnick. JoshuaZ 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Professor Josephson’s Website

First, the Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sources, citable material, references and external links are flexible and open to interpretation; there are few “hard and fast” rules.

After some investigation, I found the following:

1. The website by Professor Brian Josephson that critiques the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina is not classified as a “personal website.” Professor Josephson’s web pages are hosted by a department of the University of Cambridge on the University of Cambridge Website, and his critique is regarded as a part of his professional activities. The web pages are not dependent on an ISP personal account, and are going to be a part of the University of Cambridge website for the foreseeable future. Prof. Josephson is employed by the University; his page is subject to the rules and policies of the University. The University of Cambridge website is a reputable and verifiable source that can be cited as a reference. Therefore, not only can Professor Josephson’s web pages be used as a Reference, they can also be cited in the main body of the Article itself.

2. The Josephson website has been quoted and referenced by already admitted reputable and verifiable sources such as “The Times Higher Education Supplement” and is therefore a reputable, verifiable source in and of itself. That article also points out that Professor Josephson’s pages are on a “Cambridge University-hosted website”. This adds even more weight to the verifiability and reliability of the source.

Prof Josephson’s website has been cited by many other reputable scientists, and in many other reputable, verifiable sources.

The Josephson website has even been cited in regards to the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina by Professor Wiseman. As a principle player in that investigation, Professor Wiseman has commented that "I'm not saying that this experiment was perfect or that all Professor Josephson's comments are wrong.” This clearly shows that Professor Josephson’s web pages are considered to be far more than a personal website or blog and definitely rises to the level of a reputable and verifiable source.

3. Even if for some bizarre reason the Josephson website fails the Wikipedia “test” of being a reputable, verifiable and citable source, it would still fall under the Wikipedia policy regarding “External Links” and “Further Reading”. Here is the definition of that, which clearly states that links in this section to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article.

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Although this section has traditionally been called "external links," editors are increasingly calling it "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online.

Clearly Professor Josephson’s website could fall under this category, even if nowhere else.

The “further reading” section can definitely include such diverse sites as the ones created by Mr. Siquiera and many others. I must add, however, that considering “Reliable Sources” is a guideline and not a policy, and there is much flexibility in the Wikipedia definition of “verifiable and reliable,” it may be that “personal websites” can still be added to the “References” section, as well as being cited in the main body of the Article itself.

The definition and usage of “Self Published Sources” seems to be very limited in scope and subject to interpretation, so I doubt it would bar the inclusion of web sites such as Mr. Siquiera or other critics of CSICOP-CSMMH in a references section as a citable source. If it does, then it would probably also bar the usage of the CSICOP-CSMMH sites.

Based on the information above, I have added a “Reference” link to the web page critique by Professor Josephson.

Personally, I would like to see the entire article re-written with the emphasis placed on Natasha Demkina and not the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation. Both CSICOP and CSMMH have their own Articles in the Wikipedia, and perhaps these articles are the place for more details of their investigation. Dreadlocke 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is happening here is not only a violation of verifiability (because the Skeptical Inquirer and Brian Josephson's website are self-published non-third party sources), but also a serious violation of NPOV because of the disproportioned amount of space attributed to the CSICOP-CSMMH investiguation. This happens because all participating editors have their interest in this investiguation, either to support it or to critic it. Well, in principle a consensus is not supposed to violate the policies, especially not NPOV, but as they say in WP:Consensus#Consensus vs. other policies, it will happen anyway. They just say that "this is generally agreed to be a bad thing." -Lumière 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the above argument to support Brian Josephson web pages as reputable sources is that, even if Cambridge University is a publisher, which I believe is the case, the pages in their website are not considered a part of their publications. However, what follows is a much more serious problem. The author, Brian Josephson, works for the University. Therefore, I do not think that the University website, especially not the web pages in Brian Josephson's account, count as third-party sources for Brian Josephson's view. It seems to be at the least as bad as the case of the Skeptical Inquirer, which is obviously also a non-third party source. -Lumière 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Cambridge University is NOT the publisher. It is the web host of Josephson's personal web site. Josephson is the publisher of his self-published comments and opinions.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it will not make it true: The articles that Ray Hyman and I wrote on our investigation of Natasha Demkina were NOT SELF-PUBLISHED. They were published in a respected magazine called Skeptical Inquirer, which Wikipedia has an article on and is cited in many other Wikipedia articles. Hyman and I do NOT publish the magazine. It is published by CSICOP. Hyman and I occassionally contribute to the magazine. Askolnick 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, Please do not edit my posts. Do not intersperse your comments within my posting, it disrupts the flow of the post and interrupts the points being made. I would like readers to see my post uninterrupted by comments, as is the right of any poster on Wikipedia. Please post your comments after the end of my post. I have moved your comments to where they belong, after the end of my post. Dreadlocke 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick's remarks that were interspersed within my posting

Dreadlocke, this is not only your clearly biased opinion, it is entirely irrelevant. I think Wiki policy is quite clear where it says personal web pages "may never be used" as secondary source references. All your claims, even if true, are irrelevant. Josephson's personal attack on my colleagues and me are self-published on his own web site and therefore it may not be used as a Wiki reference. It is irrelevant what ISP hosts Josephson's web site. The University of Cambridge, which is his host, does not edit its faculty's personal web sites. You should know that universities are not responsible for the opinions posted by academics on their personal web sites! Nor do they EVER check them for factual accuracy.

Wiki rules require one to abide by its official policies, not cook up half-baked arguments to get around them.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The Times Higher Education Supplement did no such thing (If anything, it hinted that Josephson is a kook.) The Times cited a source of Josephson's questionable opinions. It did not cite that web site as a reputable and verifiable source, as you claim. The New York Times quoting statements from a Klu Klux Klan web site does not mean that the NY Times thinks the Klan site is a reputable, verifiable source of information. Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's nonsense. That just means the University is a web host -- not publisher or editor. Josephson has the same academic freedom that other faculty members at Cambridge have. The university does not review, censor, or even edit what he puts on his personal web site. If he wants to claim that the earth is flat and that people communicate telepathically, they will not stop him. In fact, he does exactly that and they let him (except for the flat earth part, I think). Josephson is THE publisher of the anti-skeptic rant he put up on his web site. Cambridge is NOT. Your argument is entirely without merit.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the antiskeptic rants on his web site are NOT respected by reputable scientists, nor cited positively by any reputable, verifiable source.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is more nonsense: Wiseman was commenting on Josephson's claims, not on his web site. When a person answers the attacks of a critic, it does not represent the endorsement of the critic's self-published rants. Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Wiki policies and guidelines is hard to reconcile with what is actually written:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources....

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."

I don't understand what part of this you either missed or misunderstand.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on my reasons above, I've removed that reference. You appear to be trying to start another editing war. You had no consensus to add that reference, which had been removed after the last editing war. Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, while the quotes you have pulled from Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an attempt to back your claims are interesting and somewhat relevant to this issue, I believe you are the one actually going against Wikipedia policy.

This is a very important entry on what is allowable in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other,

“Citing sources” is a guideline and not a policy. Most of the quotes above are being used against a primary Wikipedia policy regarding Verifiability, NOR and NPOV: they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Almost every single quote above by Askolnick is an isolated quote that attempts to interpret the policies and guidelines to fit his own narrow perspective, thus violating Wikipedia policy. Continued out-of-context quoting is not helping.

It is obvious to me that this article once again needs mediation or arbitration. Mr. Skolnick, I submit that your own strong bias against your critics is obscuring your view of how Wikipedia functions. This article is not about CSICOP or CSMMH, it is about Natasha Demkina, and the one sided view your organization presents violates the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Dreadlocke 03:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also let me add, that if for any reason Prof Josephson’s website is considered a “personal website” then I still believe it is citable material.

In this case, Professor Josephson is an eminent scientist critiquing a scientific experiment or process. At this level of scientific inquiry, it cannot be said that a person would need to be a “paranormal” investigator vis-à-vis Wiseman or Hyman. This is not physics, but it doesn’t have to be, it’s a standard scientific process that most scientists would have the expertise and training to comment on.

Since Prof. Josephson is a well known professional researcher and has been performing research at a professional level into the field of the Paranormal, (so much so that he has been “scorned” by colleagues and has drawn the ire of CSICOP and CSMMH) then he is a true exception to the rule of not allowing “self published” sources as a citable resource.

Prof. Josephson is probably almost as well known for his research into the field of the paranormal than he is for the research that won him a Nobel Prize. Dreadlocke 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What would be much more accurate would be to say that Josephson is more notoriously known for his defense of psychics and pseudoscientists than he is known for the Nobel prize in physics that was awarded to him more than three decades ago. Josephson is widely criticized for his endorsement of Uri Geller's claimed superpowers, for his bogus challenge to the American Physicial Society to scientifically test the pseudoscientific claims of Jacques Benveniste (Josephson shamelessly beat a hasty retreat when the APS quickly accepted his challenge!), and other injudicious and self-discrediting acts.

Josephson shared the Nobel prize for his discovery involving quantum tunneling and inventing the solid-state device known as the Josephson junction. His field of expertise has NOTHING to do with medicine or health. A search of Medline will show nothing on health or medicine was ever published by Josephson. And yet, Dreadlocke keeps insisting that the rant-like personal attack Josephson posted on his own web site be added as a reference to the Natasha Demkina article, despite Wiki policies regarding no personal web sites as second source references. It should be obvious that our test of Natasha Demkina did not involve any quantum physical devices or any quantum tunneling effects! Nor does the "reference" in question by Josephson deal in any way with quantum mechanics, physics, or any other area in which Josephson has demonstrated competence. Indeed, his comments about the alpha we used in our test shows an abysmal ignorance of Bayesian analysis and statistics in general. The reason his commentary was published on his personal web page is that it could never have been published in any credible publication.

Once again, Dreadlocke's statements misrepresent Wiki policies. He writes that because Josephson is involved in paranormal research, he -- or more correctly his personal web site -- "is a true exception to the rule of not allowing “self published” sources as a citable resource. That's a misrepresentation of what the Wiki policy says:

"A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case." Askolnick 05:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Skolnick. As it stands, the English-version Wiki article on Natasha Demkina is extremely one-sided and seems to present only the opinion of CSICOP-CSMMH. A majority of the References are links to the CSICOP website that attacks Natasha, with one of the other References being an article that, as you point out, paints one of the chief critics of the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation as "kook". This all very clearly violates the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. This issue needs mediation.

I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Wikiquette in its entirety. I don’t believe the personal attacks you’ve made here on Prof. Josephson are welcome on Wikipedia, much less the personal attacks you’ve made on various Wikipedia posters. For instance, labeling posts as “nonsense” is not polite and goes against Wikiquette – if I understand the guideline correctly. Dreadlocke 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, anyone who would read the self-published personal attacks that you want to add as references to the Natasha article would probably see your protest as rather hypocritical. Both Josephson and Siqueira's diatribes are full of defamatory accusations. I don't appreciate this hypocricy, nor the repeated attemps to circumvent Wiki policy in order to reference these two personal attacks from secondary sources, who rarely met a skeptic they didn't personally attack or abuse. Wiki's stated criteria for including sources and references remains: Are these two secondary sources published in a reputable publication? The answer clearly is no. They're both published on the authors' own web sites and have NEVER passed the kind of editing checks that Wiki policy clearly indicates are necessary to be considered reputable.

"I find it revealing that you're now arguing that the Times Higher Education Supplement reference "paints" Josephson "as a kook" when it was only yesterday that you were arguing that it shows Josephson's web page "is a reputable, verifiable source in and of itself." It seems no matter what the facts are, you will turn them one way or the other to fit your agenda.

And the reason that the majority of the references are from a skeptical view point is because they are the ONLY view points that have yet to be published in a credible publication. That's not because of a fluke. The other view points have not been published because they're simply not credible. Despite your claim, Wiki policy does not require the citation of non-reputable publications in order to provide "balance." You provide balance by citing reputable sources. If there's a lack of credible sources expressing a different view, that tells Wiki readers something they need to know. Clearly, that's the message some people here are trying to censor by adding non-reputable, self-published web rants as references to a Wikipedia article.Askolnick 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who first argued that THES "hinted" that Josephson was a "kook". My reply to your comment was that this made the References section of the article even more one-sided than I had originally thought, so that it even further violated NPOV. I used "painted" rather than "hinted" but I don't think it lost much in translation from your POV. There's no discrepancy in my two points about THES. My "agenda" is to gain NPOV and present more than one side of the Natasha discussion. Dreadlocke 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suprised you deny the discrepency between first arguing that the THES report shows Brian Josephson's self-published web attack is a reputable publication, and then arguing that it "paints" Josephson as a "kook." You clearly are willing to argue a fact in one direction and then the opposite to press your agenda.Askolnick 02:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again to try and "Argue facts, not personalities" as Wikipedia guidelines state. Your post above is nothing more than a personal attack on me. Dreadlocke 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone reading the above exchange: I do not personally think the THES article paints or even hints that Professor Josephson is a "kook." What I was trying to say is that if Mr. Skolnick is correct and the article does "hint" that Professor Josephson is a "kook" then that makes the "References" section of this article even more one-sided than I believed it to be. If I gave the impression that I thought the THES article painted the Professor as a "kook" then I apologize and withdraw that comment entirely. It was never my intent to make that statement. Chalk it up to bad communications on my part.

I will, however, dispute the comment made in the article that Josephson was "scorned by colleagues." I believe that statement is somewhat misleading, possibly leading one to believe the Professor was scorned by "all" his colleagues, when in fact, as the Professor himself quotes: "..the number of colleagues who "scorn" me for my "enthusiasm for the paranormal" can be counted on the fingers of one hand." The Professor is in fine standing with a majority of his colleagues. Dreadlocke 06:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Professor Brian Josephson continued at: Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Brian_Josephson

Corrected inaccurate description of test

Someone removed "partially" from the description of the test as having been "partially controlled." It was made clear by the investigators' published reports and public statements that the test was only a preliminary, partially controlled test. Describing it as a "controlled test" is misleading. Askolnick 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the latest change by Lumiere, which falsely implies that Natasha Demkina has anomalous powers that are yet unexplained. Lumiere changed the existing "paranormal phenomena" to "anomalous phenomena," which is inappropriate. Wikipedia's own definition of "anomalous phenemon" includes actual phenomena whose interpretations are controversal. This article does not concern any actual phenomena for which explanations are controversal. This article concerns a claim of paranormal powers for which there is no credible evidence.Askolnick 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are doing. In accordance with Wikipedia, paranormal phenomena is a subcategory of anomalous phenomena. Because of the Wikipedia redirect from "paranormal phenomena" to "anomalous phenomena", I tought they were synonymous and that anomalous was the standard term. So, I changed one expression to a less precise expression. This explains the whole thing. Every thing else is not worth a discussion. Don't you have an impression of "déjà vue": I am telling you that it does not matter. (See the end of section #"5 out of 7") -Lumière 06:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Though actually a subcategory of anomalous phenomena, paranormal phenomena are studied in the field of parapsychology, and can be divided into three main classes:"

This has been copied from the anomalous phenomenon article. -Lumière 10:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, do not insert your posts inside mines. Put your posts after. I moved down here the one you inserted above Lumière:

Oh yes, I do have a sensation of déjà vue. And I get one after every change you make that misleadingly or inaccurately slants the article towards discrediting the test, the testors, CSICOP, or skeptics in general. Lumiere, you keep arguing for NPOV, yet your changes rarely if ever have a NPOV.Askolnick 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In an article discussing the sonar ability of bats, you don't change the word "bats" to "mammals" because bats are a subcategory of mammals. Bats use sonar. Nearly all other mammals do not. The words are NOT synonyms. Neither are "anomalous" and "paranormal." If you really thought they were synonymous, you obviously wouldn't have switched them. It was precisely because of their difference that you made that editing change. And that change clearly slanted the article towards the belief that Natasha's claimed powers are real, despite the absence of any credible evidence they are. You argue for a NPOV, but your changes rarely ever have a NPOV.Askolnick 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained that I changed toward "anomalous" because I thought it was the standard terminology. My logic at the time was that "paranormal phenomena" redirected to "anomalous phenomenon", and not the otherway around. Now, I don't want to argue further because I know now that "paranormal phenomena" is the accepted expression, at the least where I checked. You do like to insist on these things. What you are trying to do is obvious, but it does not work because the situation is too simple: I did an edit that needed to be corrected and you did it. Thanks. There is no need to further discuss this issue. -Lumière 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Insinuation that the critics are the result of a systematic bias.

I removed this phrase

"not unusual in various evaluations of paranormal phenomena by traditional scientific community."

Its purpose is not clear, and it insinuates that the critics are the outcome of a systematic bias. Insinuations are against NPOV. -Lumière 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, and now I, have replaced the material you repeatedly and unjustifiably keep deleting. It looks like you want to start an editing war again. It is you who are insinuating, when you claim that the deleted statement insinuates that the critics are the outcome of a systematic bias. Mikkalai simply states a fairly well-known fact that puts the dispute in perspective. That certainly is not a violation of NPOV.Askolnick 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is clear. It insinuates nothing. It clarifies that the disagreement between paranorms and sci experimenters happen all the time, and not just these Demkina fans. Aslo, please explain which exactly word means systeminc beas. BTW. please read the systemic bias article carefully before answering. mikka (t) 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from Systematic bias article:

"However, systematic can additionally sometimes be used imply planned human agency. Systematic bias therefore can also mean that the system produces bias as a consequence of consistent, deliberate and planned human interference."

This is exactly the meaning I was using. Now, I do not think that what you pointed out contains useful information. Most phenomena that are disputed by skeptics are called paranormal phenomena and obviously a dispute has two sides. Therefore, just because of the above, it is necessarily the case that almost each time the skeptics are involved in a dispute around a phenomena, it is a paranormal phenomena with "paranorms" on the other side. Therefore, this phrase is completely non informative. It contains no useful specific information. This in itself justifies that we remove it. Moreover, it does insinuate that the "paranorms" critics are the result of a systematic interference against the "scientific" work of the skeptics, not the result of a normal interest in true science. The insinuation is the result of the POV wording: "paranormal" on one side and "traditional science" on the other side, as if the so called "paranorms" were necessarily against science. -Lumière 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To make the story short, this phrase clearly insinuates, just by the way it refers to each side, that those who critic the critics of the skeptics on unusual phenomena are against the scientific approach. -Lumière 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it does no such thing. It infers nothing of the kind. Askolnick 04:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can better explain the problem with this sentence. The problem is that it confuses two things: (1) the controversy around anomalous phenomena and (2) the critics of the scientific methods used to analyse these phenomena. You are absolutely right that the controversy around anomalous phenomena is an obvious fact. What is not so obvious is that the design, scientific rigours, etc. of most scientific analysis of anomalous phenomena by so called respecful scientific organizations are criticised. So, you better find a source for the phrase you want to add and then you will have to attribute it. Your argument that it is an "obvious fact" doesn't work against verifiability and the notability requirement of Neutral point of view. -Lumière 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I've got what you are talking about. Tell you what, colleague. The moment they start teaching parapychology in colleges and a man will be moved to Moon by telekinesis, you will get equal stand. Until then, enjoy Steven King movies and live with "systemic bias" imposed by Nature or God, whatever you believe in. mikka (t) 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew please stop the personal attacks

Andrew, I would appreciate that you remove all references to my person in your above comments. Please focus on the article, not on the person. You make false unproven claims about me. Just as an example, you accuse me to insinuate things. I did say that a sentence in the article is an insinuation. In response, you wrote that I insinuated something. The former is not an attack against a person because it is directly about the article. The latter is directly an attack on my person. Can you see the difference? The principle is very very simple: focus on the article and forget about the persons. If you don't remedy to the situation as I suggest, I will do it myself in my own way. If you object, I will officially send you another No Personal Attack warning. -Lumière 04:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lumiere. Mr. Skolnick needs to stop the personal attacks and remove all such attacks that he has already posted here. I believe Wikipedia policy and guidelines permit editors to remove personal attacks directed against themselves or others. Those who continue to personally attack others are subject to sanctions, including being banned. Dreadlocke 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would strongly suggest reading this article: Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Dreadlocke 04:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - Please read this Policy for greater clarity on personal attacks. Dreadlocke 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did, and found: "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead. Meanwhile the WP:RPA guideline is disputed. So I recommend you don't do it.

Quite ironically, Andrew, in your responses, more than once now, you have managed to erase other people's comments without reason or explanation. (E.g. [5].) I've already asked you to review talk page and edit conflict guidelines so that you can avoid this, but I wonder why it is still happening. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Keith, 'the removal of personal attacks guideline' is disputed, and I would recommend mediation or arbitration in lieu of removal. If the offense is egregious enough, it seems that the option of removal may be appropriate. I wouldn't do it myself, but would instead opt for mediation and arbitration. The attacker's offensive comments would not bolster their position, and would probably damage it. I only mention the disputed policy because it's still an undecided issue. Dreadlocke 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Not to go into details"

longstanding agreement to not go into details, which just encourages people on both sides to try to push their views into the article

This is the most outrageous imperative I've ever heard here. To forbid adding pure, clean, simple and published facts? Replace them with weaseling phrases that say nothing about what actually happened? Just tell me who made this "agreement" and I am immediately starting a RFC against these supercensors. 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)

Thank You for Not Censoring this Talk Page

Android, thank you very much for restoring all the statements Lumiere deleted in an attempt to censor my opinions. It saved me a lot of time. Lumiere, are you intent on starting another editing war? Askolnick 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel's Opinion

I've just read the article itself, and aside from a few minor spelling and grammar errors, it seems relatively neutral to me. It doesn't make any claims about whether she is or is not able to perform these feats. As far as that goes, I don't see a problem.

The sources, however, definitely leave a lot to be desired. The first three footnotes are from a source that might be considered valid (although they are certainly not neutral, they are intended to supporting the skepticism aspect) but the footnote that claims to be an answer to those skeptics is also from a source critical of her and is certainly not intended to fairly represent the actual arguments of her supporters. If a biased source is to be used to debunk her claims, an opposingly biased source should be used to support them.

Still, the article does not conclusively state whether or not she can do what she claims; it just says what the test found. But because several paragraphs are spent discussing the test, it would be beneficial to find a better source for her supporters' objections and incorporate those arguments into the text to give it more balance. Kafziel 18:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "supporter's objections" is that they don't hold water. If someone finds an objection that is not properly debunked in the reference titled CSMMH, Answer to Critics, by all means. but all of them, as I see, are rooted in misunredstanding of what and how actually was tested, stemming from underinformation. "Objections" are not "facts". Everyone may say "these eggheads" screwed the test, but do we really have to mention this in the article.

To list an objection here, it must come from either the "victim" (by "natural" right of defense) or from a reputable source. The rest is idle talk. mikka (t) 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, if you can find a reputable source that represents the views of Natasha's supporters, then please add it to the article. To date, the only sources representing those views are unacceptable -- such as the Russian sensationalistic tabloid, Pravda RU, and self-published personal attacks on personal web sites. I've asked Keith Tyler this also. So far, no one has been able to cite a reputable source for these views. That should say something. Nevertheless, this fact doesn't seem to discourage a few people here who want to cite these sources, even though doing so would violate Wiki policies and guidelines. I and others are strongly opposed to that. Wiki policies against using personal web sites as secondary sources are correct. A good solution would be to find a reputable source that presents the views of Natasha's defenders as you suggest -- not to lower Wiki standards. Askolnick 19:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel's "third opinion" does not adress my main complaint: frivolous deletion of facts under lame excuses. mikka (t) 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I addressed that by saying the article looks okay to me. If there's something specific that was deleted, you'll have to tell me what it was. I'm not about to go swimming in all your previous arguments and edit wars to try to figure out exactly what you're talking about.

As for your other points - I don't want to offend anyone here, but I find the "test" that was conducted just as absurd as the idea of a person having x-ray vision in the first place. The cites for the test are no more notable than any other sources that could offer a rebuttal. If a point of view is expressed on any subject, any source with a different point of view should be noted.

Again, the point of the section is not whether or not her claims are true, but what people are saying about it. Because the focus is on the debate itself, both sides should be represented. It's not up to you to decide whether their claims are "idle talk"; it's up to the reader - in this case, me - to decide whether they think the sources are reliable. Kafziel 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Kafziel, it's not up to you to decide whether the sources are reliable. It's up to the consensus of Wiki editors to decide whether the sources are consistent with Wiki's policies and guidelines regarding citation of credible primary and secondary sources. Your comment, "If a point of view is expressed on any subject, any source with a different point of view should be noted," is NOT consistent with Wiki's policies. Please read them before making further statements about what is and is not considered appropriate editing of Wiki articles. The policies in question concern not including original research or other unreferenced material and citation of material not published in reputable publications, such as personal web pages. Askolnick 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that you assume that I agree that csicop.org is a respectable source. I don't. I've never heard of it, and if these articles are representative of their content, I have to say I'm not impressed at all. You see, the validity of sources comes down to the opinion of the individual reader in the long run. A lot of people wouldn't trust the New York Post as far as they can throw it, but it's still a valid source. You put the source in, and if I feel it's credible, I will believe your statement. That's how it works. Both sides have their opinions, and need to be represented fairly or not at all. Kafziel 19:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, this argument was an argument from ignorance: Because you don't know that CSICOP is considered a reputable source by a consensus of Wiki editors, you are arguing that it should be balanced by citing unreputable sources. I did NOT assume that you agree that CSICOP is a reputable source. But I did expect you to familiarize yourself with the facts and issues on this page before starting to argue for your proposed changes. Had you done so, you would know that CSICOP is considered a reputable source by Wiki -- indeed, Wiki has an article on CSICOP that makes this clear. And CSICOP's publication, the Skeptical Inquirer is cited in many Wiki articles as a reputable source.

Again, I urge you to read Wiki policy regarding sources. You appear to be dictating what Wiki policy should be: "You put the source in, and if I feel it's credible, I will believe your statement. That's how it works. Both sides have their opinions, and need to be represented fairly or not at all." No, that's not how it works here. For information to be included in a Wiki article, it must be referenced to a source in a reputable publication. Angry opinions that people put up on their personal web sites are not sources that meet Wiki's standards. You really should familiarize yourself with the issues here and with Wiki policies before making further arguments. And clearly, what you think of CSICOP or its publication has little bearing here. They are considered reputable sources by a consensus of Wiki editors.Askolnick 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I should also clarify that I'm not saying I think the point of view of her supporters deserves equal representation, because it's clearly a small(ish) group (does anyone have an exact number?). I'm just saying that if there is printed material that documents those points of view in a neutral fashion, then it should be used instead of one that actively attempts to discredit it. I doubt very much whether there's anything out there that I would personally consider credible evidence to support her claims. But surely there is a source that at least details those claims without bias. Kafziel 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this for at least the third time: If you or anyone else can find a source in a reputable publication that presents what you think are the views of Natasha's supporters, then cite it. But please, read Wiki policies before you claim that an angry rant published on a personal web site is a reputable source according to Wiki policy. It isn't. Askolnick 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since there have been changes to the article since I said I supported the "current version", I should clarify that this is the version I support; the version by DreamGuy, reverted to by Hipocrite. It is succinct and npov. Kafziel 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What you call "succint and npov" I call "vague, and non-informative". I didn't add a single opinion that criticizes demkina. I added accurate and important points of description of the event. Have you ever heard a term {{stub}} in wikipedia? If yous, please explain what exactly in your opinion wikipedia's policies encourage to do with short articles. Please also point exatly which my additions violate NPOV and how. mikka (t) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, right off the bat: "The testers made it clear..." Who says they did? The testers? It's not clear to me at all. In fact, that sentence is so badly written and confusing, I can't even tell what it is that's supposed to be clear. Kafziel 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the testers claim so. Are you saying they are lying in describing the goal of the experiment? mikka (t) 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They might be, how would I know? There's no supporting reference for that statement. In any case, I certainly wouldn't say that the testers themselves are a very neutral authority on whether or not they made the parameters of the test clear. On the other hand, the version I support avoids the problem altogether. Kafziel 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Agreed. I simplified the sentence. mikka (t) 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks better. Another question about that sentence: what is the phrase "strong effect" referring to? Some kind of measurement of the strong effect of her supposed psychic powers, like a strong reading on the ghostbusters' PKE meter? Or that her powers could only detect defects that had a strong effect on the subjects' bodies, and detecting more subtle things would require a different test? Or is it maybe something else that I haven't even thought of? Kafziel 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yor joke about PKE meter basically hits the nail. the "5 of 7" is the red tick a PKE meter. mikka (t) 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. It seems there are enough other "third opinions" here, and too many changes going on in the article itself to be able to keep up with them on the talk page. I'm going to recuse myself from this article; too many cooks, and all that. Kafziel 20:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear, and have for some time, that this matter will have to go up the chain. The involvement of a primary source and various limited/selective readings of a selective set of various WP policies in various efforts to justify POVs is causing a mess. It's not enough for those involved to achieve NPOV; instead, other WP policies and guidelines are being used to refute NPOV. Presumably the next stages of DR are better at handling this sort of thing. At minimum, the PA and comment deletion matter between Andrew and Lumiere is itself brewing into a mediatable matter. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Title clarification

I asked at wikipedia:Third opinion for a Third Opinon about reversal by Hypocryte of my addition of documented facts. This policy is specifically about a third opinion about conflict between two people. Therefore I changed the title to avoid possible misleading: someone may think that "Third Opinion" to my request has already been delivered. mikka (t) 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood the situation, then. I thought Hipocrite was here to offer a third opinion as well. I didn't realize you were having the conflict with him.

Well, I still don't want to continue another long, drawn out argument, so I will just say that my third opinion has been delivered; to summarize, I think your version is more informative in some ways, but his version is simpler and more neutral, even if he has gone about it the wrong way.

I suggest using his version as a base, and slowly - with plenty of discussion - incorporate more details about the test itself. Kafziel 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikka added some (unreferenced) reasons Natasha gave for failing the CSMMH-CSICOP test. However, those were offered long after the test. I added the reasons Natasha provided during or immediately following the test, which she made on camera in the Discovery Channel program and/or are reported in the Skeptical Inquirer articles.Askolnick 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but why not discuss it and come to an agreement before editing the article? The disputed tag is on there, so there's no hurry; it's okay to have some contentious content while you talk it over. Your changes aren't written in stone any more than his were, so instead of editing back and forth, explain yourself first. Making changes without discussion just creates hostility betweeen editors.

This goes for everyone involved. Kafziel 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change nor am I seeking to remove Mikka's addition. Rather, I added more substance to it.Askolnick 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand; I was referring to the fact that you and Mikka's changes have been made without discussing it with Hipocrite. Mikka requested a third opinion, and I provided one by saying that Hipocrite's version should be the base to work from. But you're adding material to Mikka's version, which shouldn't even be in the article at this point. Kafziel 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as Mikka's content was included in the Natasha article, it needs to be as accurate as possible. That's why I added the referenced material and I explained why I did above.

BTW. The reference links I added don't work. I tried to find instructions to fix them, but couldn't. Can someone who know how kindly fix them? Tnx.Askolnick 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. The {{an}} template has been recently obsoleted and replaced with Cite.php referencing. This has the advantage that references can be 'reused' multiple times in the article body, which is what I think you were aiming for. Despite the drastic-looking changes to the article, I have simply brought the same references into the body of the article. Note: I haven't cross-checked that the reference numbers were as you intended; you might want to review these. BillC 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BillC, that's exactly what I wanted and the reference numbers are correct. Askolnick 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The CSMMH-CSICOP test

Mr Skolnick wrote:

"The articles that Ray Hyman and I wrote on our investigation of Natasha Demkina were NOT SELF-PUBLISHED. They were published in a respected magazine called Skeptical Inquirer, which Wikipedia has an article on and is cited in many other Wikipedia articles. Hyman and I do NOT publish the magazine. It is published by CSICOP. Hyman and I occassionally contribute to the magazine. Askolnick 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What you are ignoring here is the obvious fact that the test is not just the test of you and Hyman. It is also the test of the CSMMH-CSICOP organizations. It is even called the CSMMH-CSICOP test. In your paragraph above, you write as if we have here the normal situation where some authors submit to a third-party publication. This is not at all the situation. In a normal situation, the publishers are not contributors to the study. Here, the article is mainly about the CSMMH-CSICOP test, where the CSMMH and CSICOP organizations are the publishers. Moreover, your relationship with these organizations is not just the normal author/publisher relationship. It is a much closer relationship. So, even if these publishers were not involved in the design of the test, when you sent your work to these publishers, it is very close to a self-publication. The situation is even worst here because these publishers, which turns out to be the CSMMH and CSICOP organizations, obviously have a special interest in the CSMMH-CSICOP test. In this context, what is the most logical interpretation: (1) "third-party publication" just means published by an ordinary publisher (i.e. not by the authors or any other individuals) or (2) published by a publisher that is reasonably independent of the work that is published and has a reasonable author/publisher relationship with the authors? Clearly, the former interpretation is much weaker (in terms of protecting against possible bias) than the latter interpretation, which addresses two important issues.

BTW, is it on purpose that "CSMMH-CSICOP test" do not appear any more in the article? We may have changed the title and removed the expression "CSMMH-CSICOP test", but is still remains that this article is almost entirely about the CSMMH-CSICOP test, not about Demkina, which makes this article strongly biased toward the view presented by the CSMMH and CSICOP organizations. At the least, the critics should be as much represented. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Have you changed your name so that these long-discredited arguments would appear fresh? Why do you keep changing your name? To confuse readers? I've addressed these arguments before. I cited examples of Wiki articles that cite reports written by journal editors and writers about investigations that they themselves conducted. And I offered to provide you many other examples that show your argument is bogus. There is nothing wrong nor against Wiki policy in citing first person sources that are published in reputable journals and there is nothing wrong nor against Wiki policy when the authors are editors or writers at the publication. You simply ignored this, changed your name, and are reposting the same bogus argument as if your argument wasn't answered.

AGAIN: By your argument, Wiki's article on Jacque Benveniste would have to be rewritten and references to the three Nature articles removed. That's absolute nonsense. AGAIN: your definition of "self-published" is not the definition recognized by Wiki policy -- or probably anyone else. You often redefine terms to fit your agenda -- as you did again today when you switched "anomalous" for "paranormal" in the article. You NEED to read and ABIDE by Wiki's policy regarding self-publication and not try to substitute your own meaning. AGAIN, you keep ignoring the fact that the Natasha article is biased only towards information published in reputable publications. And it should be because that's a bias REQUIRED by Wiki policy. And AGAIN you keep ignoring the fact that Wikipedia recognizes Skeptical Inquirer and its publisher CSICOP as credible, reputable sources.

But you are absolutely right about one thing: the critics of the test should be equally represented. So as I've repeatedly told Keith and Dreamlocke, go find a credible, reputable published source that represents the critics' view and cite it. And when I say reputable published source, I mean according to Wiki's writen policies, not yours, not mine, not Siqueira's, not anyone else's. You, Keith Tyler, Dreamlocke, and Siqueira really need to abide by Wiki's policies and quit trying to force your personal biases on everyone else.Askolnick 05:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Jacque Benveniste article. There are many non sourced statements in this article. It clearly did not receive the required attention or worst perhaps it did receive a lot of attention, but one side got tired. Therefore, whether or not a non-third-party publication is used as a source in this article does not mean much. Another important problem with this example is that there is no comparison between the two situations. Nature is really a publisher. Nature is not an organization with a specific agenda with regard to the paranormal, which turns out to also play the role of a publisher. Nature did not associate its name with the experiment except indirectly through the intermediary of one of its editors. The experiment was not known as the "Nature-test". Also, I did not check which specific journal of the Nature publishing group was used, but it was most likely a peer-reviewed journal, which reduces the role of the Nature editor that was involved in the experiment. It remains that a publication in Nature in this case, because of the participation of one of its editors in the experiment, was nevertheless not a perfect third-party publication. I would say that this should be taken into account, but alone does not seem to be sufficient to reject the source. It is a question of degree together with other factors to consider. On the other hand, the case of the Skeptical Inquired for the Demkina experiment is the worst case possible. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresent the truth in pursuit of your agenda. Sir John Maddox, was not "one of its editors," Sir Maddox was editor in chief who very much ran Nature. And Nature very much associated its name to the investigation. As with the case of the CSMMH-CSICOP test of Demkina, Brian Josephson and other defenders of Woo-Woo also strongly criticized the Nature investigation. (In fact, Josephson made a fool of himself before the world of science with his "courageous" defense of the pseudoscientist -- when Josephson's challenge was accepted by scientists, he beat a hasty retreat and hid.) So go to it, Etincelle, aka Lumiere, aka Amrit -- grab your axe and evasculate the Jacques Benveniste article. Do not let a skeptical point of view go uncensored... Askolnick 06:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(Anyone interested in hearing a radio news report on the Nature investigation of Benveniste's bogus science, can listen to it here: [6] It features comments from my interviews with Sir John Maddox, Dr. Walter Stewart, James Randi, and Dr. Jacques Benveniste. I reported and produced the report for American Medical Radio News back in 1988. Ouch! Benveniste went on to receive the [dis]honor of being the first person in history to win two Ig Nobel prizes! I and others have been lobbying the Ig Nobel committee on behalf of Josephson. Perhaps 2006 will finally be his year.) Askolnick 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to indent your post. You can revert it if you want. It is just to respect Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Ok, the two situations are more similar than I first thought since the editor was the editor in chief of the journal. So, Nature was much less an ideal third-party publication for the Benveniste investiguation than I first thought, but, as I mentioned above, the fact that the editor was involved in the investiguation should be seen in the light of other factors which make the two situations completely different. The points that I mentioned still remain valid. Nature is really a publisher: Nature is not an organization with a specific agenda with regard to the paranormal, which turns out to also play the role of a publisher. Also, the journal Nature is peer-reviewed, which makes a big difference because the view of the editor is less important in such case. You mention "Nature Investiguation". I know that the expression "CSMMH-CSICOP test" is used in the CSMMH website, and not in a personal page in this website. Are you saying that Nature did the same for the Benveniste investiguation? This would be another important difference. Moreover, again, this other article is not well sourced, an indication of a lack of attention or of some other problem, so it is not so significant. An editor in this other article could point out to the Demkina article like you point out to this other article here. This would be a cyclic reasoning. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 07:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are just making things up to support your attempt to circumvent Wiki policies. Peer-reviewers in science journals do not make decisions. They are usually outsiders who make only recommendations to the editor, which he or she may follow or reject. And editors regularly reject the recommendations of one or more peer reviewers when they don't agree. All major publishing decisions are made by the editor. And Nature's editor drew heavy criticism from scientists around the world -- not for having debunked Benveniste, but for having published his pseudoscientific claims in the first place. Please stop making things up.Askolnick 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that peer-reviewers do not make decisions, but in the long run the scientific community will notice if the reports of the referrees are not considered, so the editors consider seriously these reports. Also, the journal might not succeed to maintain its bank of referrees if they ignore them. I don't know about Nature, but I know by direct experience that in many peer-reviewed journals, the reports are very important. This is why I said that in peer-reviewed journals the view of the editor is less important -- I didn't say not important at all. You do understand what "less important" means. You added that Nature was critized to publish the original study. What was your point? The critics against Nature was directed toward its role as a publisher, not as an investiguator. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Did the Skeptical Inquirer receive similar critics for its decision to publish an article on the Demkina experiment? This would be very surprising. The CSMMH and CSICOP organizations were criticized for the entire investiguation-- a completely different kind of criticisms. It seems to indicate another distinction between the two situations, if anything. So, you kind of failed to reject my argument -- you may even have supported it. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Josephson

I read more about Brian Josphson interest in this other investiguation, and as far as I can see his point was only to encourage well established neutral scientific organizations to study the phenomena. He never said that he will conduct himself such a research and I understand that he was hesitant to participate in some other setup that have the purpose to discredit those who are interested in these research. Perhaps that he didn't have a definitive opinion as to whether or not this particular phenomena is real: it is not because you propose a study that you are convinced in advance that the result will be positive. It just means that you think that there is a significant chance that it will be positive. So, we don't need this kind of setup where the career of a scientist depends on the outcome of the experiment. I suspect that Brian Josephson was calling for a more neutral and relaxed set-up. It seems that it was not possible to obtain, so it did not happen. That's all. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is for the discussion of the Wikipedia article titled "Natasha Demkina." Please constrain your remarks to that topic. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to add an indent to your post. You can revert it if you want. It is only to respect the recommanded layout Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. To understand the current situation with the current article Mr. Skolnick wanted to consider related articles. I think it does make sense. We still maintain a clear connection with the Demkina article. Also, it is natural to consider the credibility of sources in the talk page. If Mr. Skolnick would agree to retract his meaningless criticisms toward Brian Josephson, I would also remove my reply. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not modifiy my comments, ever. This talk page is for the discussion of the Wikipedia article titled "Natasha Demkina." Please constrain your remarks to that topic. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because four participants in this discussion are arguing that criticisms Brian Josephson self-published on his own web site should be included in the Wiki article on Natash Demkina, Josephson's credibility -- or lack thereof -- is a relevant topic. We have four people here arguing that we should ignore Wiki policy and include the pseudoscientific views of a crank, which he could only self-publish on his own web site. That is exactly the kind of source that Wiki policy says is NOT reputable nor acceptable.Askolnick 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not evaluate the bias of sources. If there is a major controvercy about a source, we note the controvercy. If the Josephson info is included, a note should also be included to the effect that Josephson has been "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal" according to the THES. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please explain to me where you got "bias of sources" from? I did NOT say ANYTHING about evaluating the bias of any source. I was CLEARLY discussing the CREDIBILITY of sources and whether or not they are REPUTABLE. And THAT'S exactly what editors are expected to do when choosing sources and references for Wiki articles. If I sound annoyed it's because I'm sick and tired of having to reply to so many red herring and strawman arguments here. AGAIN, Josephson's biases have no bearing on this discussion. What does is whether his opinons are published in a credible, reputable publication. They are NOT. They were self-published on his personal web site and therefore do not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reputable source:

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." Askolnick 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Luminare, who quotes policies to try to win arguments, I have substantial experience with this encyclopedia, and know that policies are designed to reflect the way things are supposed to be done, rather than designed to guide the way things should be done. The goal in preventing the use of personal websites is to avoid including "some guy off the street said." Josephson's personal website is a great deal like the personal website of a notable figure in the controvercy, and should be included as the discussion of the test continues to grow beyond my preferred version (which the wp:3o, and all of the other experienced, reputable editors agree with also). However, lest we give Josephson undue weight, it needs to be made clear that he is viewed by mainstream scientists as a nutter. This is done admirably by the THES quote. Please do not attempt to use the written policies to get the article to look like what you want - they are not a club to help you get what you want. Additionally, please review the third opinion kindly given by Kaz above - that we revert to my preferred version [7] Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This last comment of Hipocrite illustrates very well the situation in Wikipedia. The policy does not mean much. You are certainly not welcome to use it to defend your view. Like you, Andrew, I felt it was the most natural thing to do. I felt that it was very civilized that editors that are in disagreement refer to the policy to determine how things should be done. Moreover, I felt that the policy should not be ambiguous so that it clearly can help in this kind of situation. The less ambiguous it is, the less there is room for dispute. However, as we can see in Hipocrite's comment, the situation is not like that at all. In fact, if you propose anything that makes the policy more explict about anything, you are guarantee to receive a large amount of critics. Similarly, if you refer to a part of the policy that you believe is already clear to defend your view against established wikipedia editors, you will also be criticized. If you insist and they really do not like your view, you will be called a troll, a spammer, etc. In your case, they will not go that far because I think essentially the general view that you defend is appreciated by the Wikipedia community. So, you are OK - they won't call you a troll or a spammer, but you will still have to deal with this situation. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'm sorry you object to my citing Wiki policies. But I'm going to do so again, because they were established for a reason -- to help editors decide what are and are not credible sources for citing in Wiki articles. When editors fight over this issue, as they are doing here, those policies are what are supposed to guide us. I think your accusation misses the mark. It seems to me people who are trying to bully their way into getting the article they want are those who are arguing against following Wiki policies.

Your representation of the Wiki rules falls far short of what the policies actually state. You said: "The goal in preventing the use of personal websites is to avoid including 'some guy off the street said.' Josephson's personal website is a great deal like the personal website of a notable figure in the controvercy, and should be included as the discussion of the test..."

I disagree for the following reasons based on Wiki policies:

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."

When kooks self-publish their opinions on their personal web sites, they are NOT reputable publishers.

Self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

You seem to be claiming that an exception for Brian Josephson's self-published web attack because he's a Nobel prize winning quantum physicist. But this is ignoring another Wiki guideline regarding an acceptable authority:

"Beware false authority: Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. [8]

For the very same reason, we shouldn't be citing someone with a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics as an expert on how to evaluate medical diagnoses! Josephson has no expertise in health or medicine. He has never published anything in these fields -- except on his own web pages. Which brings us back to:

"Personal websites as primary sources: A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing."

And Josephson has absolutely no professional or academic standing in this area of study. He's never published anything related to health and medicine and hasn't a clue how to evaluate diagnostic procedures. Indeed, his writing in question shows he either doesn't know or is pretending not to know why Bayesian analysis is important in designing scientific studies. That's why he's forced to "publish" this personal attack on his own web site. He could never get it published in any reputable publication. As such, his web rant doesn't come anywhere near being a reputable publication that meets Wiki criteria.

Reliability: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

Here again, Wiki policy tells us how unsuitable Josephson's web rant is. It's nothing but a personal attack on researchers in the area of health and medicine, an area totally outside Josephson's field of study. We should NOT be going to a quantum physicist for advice on diagnostic medical procedures! Except for the diatribe he's self-published on his own web site, Josephson has published nothing in the area of health and medicine.

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources: That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. ... The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case."

However, in this case, we do know. Scientists are supposed to publish their findings and opinions in journals and other reputable publications. Josephson (and Siqueira) "publish" their opinions on their own web pages. It doesn't take a "psychic" to see why. Askolnick 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Hipocrite for bringing some clarity to this situation, your views of Wikipedia reflect what I understood to be the case. From the way this talk page looks, I’m sure the issues around this article will end up going all the way to the Arbitration Committee to establish whether or not Prof. Josephson’s website is a citable “Reference” for this article and if the Wiki Natasha Demkina article meets all the Wikipedia requirements, including NPOV. I think the current English-version article on Natasha fails the test of NPOV miserably.

Exception for Professor Josephson:

I firmly believe Professor Josephson meets all the criteria for an exception to the Wikipedia policy on “Self-published sources” Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Josephson is a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field (the paranormal) and his work in the field of the paranormal has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Josephson may be a well known physicist, but he is also a well known professional researcher in the field of the paranormal. His work at the University of Cambridge is related to the paranormal. He has had his work in the paranormal field published in many credible, third-party publications, and his website is eminently qualified for the “exception to the rule” on Self Published websites.

I contacted Professor Josephson and the University of Cambridge directly and found that his website critique is considered to be part of his professional activities. The University hosted website is clearly not the average, guy-off-the-street website that the Wikipedia “personal website” policy refers to, as the very Wiki-experienced and knowledgeable Hipocrite points out.

Interestingly enough, considering some of the earlier remarks on the “Times Higher Education Supplement”, the Professor himself has had some of his work on the paranormal published in that particular credible publication: One of his paranormal articles was published in the Times Higher Education Supplement on 12 Aug. 1994.

The Natasha Demkina article is about her presumed paranormal abilities. One of the CSICOP researchers, Prof. Hyman is trained as a psychologist and worked as a magician; the other, Prof. Wiseman, was also a magician who was trained as a psychologist. What makes them more of a “professional researcher” in the paranormal than Prof. Josephson, who was trained in Physics? It sure isn’t magic. It may be interesting, but in the end, the comparison doesn’t really matter, because Prof. Josephson is a well-known, professional researcher in a field highly relevant to both Natasha Demkina and CSICOP. Dreadlocke 21:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you seem willing to pawn off on us the most outlandish and irrational arguments. The one about Josephson publishing his "work" on the "paranormal" in the Times Higher Education Supplement is a real lulu. The publication is a NEWSPAPER not a research journal, for crying out loud. And what Josephson published there was not research. Josephson hasn't ever published any parapsychology research. He just publishes his irrational opinions and misrepresentation of facts -- as you're doing here. You repeatedly claim that Josephson is a "professional researcher" in parapsychology. That's not true. Prove me wrong by citing original parapsychology research that he's published in peer-reviewed science journals. And I pray that I don't have to explain to you again the difference between a newspaper and a peer-reviewed science journal.Askolnick 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Appendixes cannot grow back and other facts

Hipocrite, I reverted some of the changes you made in the article. I don't understand why you replaced clear explanations with obfuscatory verbiage. One doesn't have to be medical professional to know that a person who has no surgical scar on her lower abdomen likely still has her appendix, or to know that a person who has no large surgical scar over the top of her stomach couldn't have had part of her esophagus removed. Seeing the presence of those scars would help anybody identify subjects who had those operations and those who did not. And when a person insists that a human can grow a second head or a second appendix, where I can from, we say they are wrong. We don't report that in all the annals of medical research and publication, there doesn't appear to be a reported case of a person regrowing a head after losing their first one. When a person says they can regrow a head or an appendix, they are simply wrong. More importantly, I provided a reputable reference for the original simple statement. I did not see a reputable source listed for the change you made.Askolnick 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your version, except that I must insist that you attribute "should" to someone. IE - "which, according to *person* should have." This is how we write for NPOV. Additionally, I find the statement "Demkina also claimed that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy. The medical community has no documented cases of a regrown appendix," to be far more damning than the statement that she wrongly claimed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Attribution is no problem: It could be something as simple as "which the investigators said..." I'll make the fix. However, I disagree with your position about the added verbiage for two reasons: One, I don't think it's more "damning" because Natasha and her supporters claim she knows things that the medical community still hasn't recognized. I was willing to go "out on the limb" in the Skeptical Inquirer article by saying, appendixes do not grow back either in Russia or anywhere else. Her incredible statement, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is wrong. So I provided a reputable reference for asserting that her claim is wrong. However, there is no reference for your statement that the medical community has no documented case of a regrown appendix. Proving such a negative would be exceedingly difficult. Even though I knew her statement was nuts, I did a Medline search (not surprisingly found nothing) and spoke with a couple of medical gurus. So while I found overwhelming evidence to conclude her statement is "wrong," in no way could I claim that there has never been a reported case of a regrown appendix. Making such absolute statements are very risky. The human organism is full of surprises. So I think it unwise to claim that no one ever reported a regrown appendix (hell, such a case might involve an incomptent physican who removed the wrong organ and claimed the patient's appendix miraculously regrew!). It is safer -- and much simpler -- to simply state that Natasha's claim that appendixes grow back in Russia is wrong for the same reason it is justified to say that pigs can't fly, even though it would be next to impossible to prove no one has ever reported seeing an exception to the rule.Askolnick 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Demand of explanation

I demand an explanation of the deletion of each sentence from my addition. Otherwise I will have to post a complaint with respect to wholesale reverts withou a word of comment. This is not only a content disargeement, but also a blatant disrespect of fellow editors. mikka (t) 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Each one? OK!

In subsequent articles the testers stated that within the given limited setting of the experiment only the presence of a strong effect may be definitely decided

Not standard english. No idea what you are trying to say.

Exactly what is written: testers were placed in restrictred conditions of a TV show, and only if a strong effect is seen, then a definite conclusion of its presence can be made. If the effect is weak, who will pay thousands of $US to run detailed tests? If US DoD or ufologists have funds, I am sure Dr. Skolnick will happily waste some more time on this. mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is this published? It looks like your own analysis of the situation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If Natasha indeed posseses the claimed abilities, but which are weak or erratic, it would have required a much more extensive testing

According to who? Why? Pure POV

"In subsequent articles" It is a published "pure POV" of persons who conducted the experiment, i.e., persons who made decisions, i.e., of immediate relevance.mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable source that states this. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the influence of the "Clever Hans effect" cannot be ruled out in such a restricted setting

According to who? Why? Pure POV

Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"In subsequent articles" It is a published "pure POV" of persons who conducted the experiment, i.e., persons who made decisions, i.e., of immediate relevance. mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable source that states this. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think Mikka's wording is clear enough in the above, he's correctly stating the views of Ray Hyman as reported in his SI article and online supplement, which are among the references. Askolnick 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why citing Discovery Channel for the appendix story?

Demkina also claimed that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy, a claim the investigators dismissed as simply not true.<ref name="Discovery"/><ref name="skolnick"/>

I keep removing the reference to the Discovery channel because it has nothing to do with the sentence. The Discoverty Channel is cited at the beginning of the paragraph (of which the above is the last sentence) in a way that makes clear that it is the a source for the remainder of this paragraph. However, I think it is important to see that the last sentence about the appendix story is not sourced in the Discovery Channel. We should not confuse the readers and let them think that the Discovery Channel article backs up this kind of silly remark. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Etincell-formerly-Lumiere-formally-Amrit, what is "silly" is someone who repeatedly makes statements that are clearly untrue when editing an encyclopedia. Have you bothered to watch the Discovery Channel program? The Discovery Channel program shows Natasha trying to get out of identifying the subject who had an appendectomy by claiming appendixes grow back. And it shows me explaining to her that no, they do not, followed by her insistence that they do grow back in Russia, and my final insistance that they do not. Please stick to the facts and not your personal agenda.Askolnick 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference that I removed is an article in the Discovery Channel website, not a reference to a video of the TV show. The information that you mention is not available in the article. Moreover, a reference to a video of the TV show can only be used as a primary source. We must be very careful where to use primary source materials such as video of interviews or TV shows because they are not filtered by any publisher. Usually, they should be complementary to a secondary source, especially if the primary source is used to discredit a person. The article in the Discovery Channel website is a secondary source, but it does not contain the information, and this is because they filter the information. They don't filter the information in an arbitrary way. The purpose of citing a reputable secondary source is exactly to take advantage of the fact that they filter information: they check for accuracy, fairness, etc. In your case, you separately provide a secondary source, and in such a case, it may be acceptable to also include the primary source (a video of an interview or TV show). What must be clear is that the Discovery Channel is not the required secondary source: it is not what is being used to back-up the sentence. Therefore, it is enough that it appears at the beginning of the paragraph. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you think that the above is not based on policy, please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources, in particular:

"In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate."

The emphasise is mine. The "In most cases" instead of "Always" is because for some non controversial article such as Apple pie, it is fine that the article is only based on primary sources. An evaluative claim, such as a comment on Demkina's understanding of the human physiology, is an example of a material that requires a secondary source. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, the above argument is so moronic, I'm almost at a lost of words. First, the reference you wrongly removed IS a reference to the TV documentary. It clearly states: The Discovery Channel, 2004, The Girl with X-Ray Eyes. That is clearly a reference to the documentary. You are arguing that the documentary is not a secondary source. That of course is also not true. And then you claim it should not be cited because it violates Wiki's guideline about sources being "verifiable." What can be more verifiable than for people to watch the program AND SEE NATASHA DEMKINA AND ME MAKE THE STATEMENTS THAT ARE REPORTED IN THE WIKI ARTICLE?! I think it may be time to change your name again. Askolnick 13:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me try again, but this time one step at a time. Let us just consider the first two statements that I wrote. When I followed the reference, I did every thing I could to find some information that back up the sentence, but there was nothing. In particular, there was no way to obtain a video of the TV show. Is the TV show published? If yes, please provide a reference. Please provide an exact reference for a source that is published by the Discovery Channel and contains information about the sentence. This will take care of the first step. To keep things simple, we will consider the other issues later, even though they are very important. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all sources need be available on the Internet. Printed books, documentaries, and the like are cited as references all the time. android79 21:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Contact the Discovery Channel and obtain a transcript of the show. BillC 21:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not telling me anything that I didn't know here. However, I still don't know if the Discovery Channel publishes such transcript. Are you sure that we can actually get a transcript of the show? Maybe I am just ignorant of these things, but the burden to know where to get a complete reference is not on me. It is on whoever tries to source the material. So, please provide the address where to write and make sure that indeed it is the right place to request a transcript. Make sure that this transcript is indeed published. This is was my point. Why is it so complicated? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, indeed, the burden is on you. Peer-reviewed papers typically contain many references to other papers, without instructions specifically where to obtain copies of them. Today's featured article, Médecins Sans Frontières, for example has a reference to "International Review of the Red Cross (314): 512-531." One is not told where to get that from. In addition, very often a document retrieval fee or subscription will be required. For example, Keratoconus has a reference to "Surv Ophthalmol. 1984 Jan-Feb;28(4):293-322", yet a fee of $30 is required to obtain that paper. Are both articles to be deprecated since they neither tell you where to obtain the document nor is it provided online for free? However, I will give you this link: [9]. You can compose a meesage there. I have already done so. --BillC 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about. Wow! The examples you gave are references available in a library. If they don't have it, they will find it for you. There is no comparison with the situation here. And why are you telling me about price? Of course, I know that you might have to pay for a book, for example. You totally miss the point. The source must be available in library, in bookstore or on the web or otherwise it is not considered published. The transcript is not avaible in bookstore or in library, and it is not obvious at all that it is available on the web. I am trying your link, but I am not sure if it qualifies. There is nothing to request a transcript in the page. If it is acceptable, it is borderline. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The source must be available in library, in bookstore or on the web or otherwise it is not considered published. Says who? android79 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Says EincelleformerlyLumiereformerlyAmrit. She makes things up like this all the time. When she has no better reply, she makes up a rule. For an example of a Wiki article that demonstrates how absurd her latest made-up rule is, see the entry for Talk of the Nation. [10] Askolnick 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources. It is said that the source must be available through the web or a public library. I thought I saw in one of the guidelines that bookstores are also fine, but I cannot find it anymore. Anyway, what is the problem here? The policy is just asking for common sense. To publish something means to bring it to the public attention. If the transcript is not available from the web, not available from a library (and also not available from a bookstore), then how the public can access it? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The documentary is available on the internet. You can purchase a download from Discovery Broadband for the princely sum of £1.50 for 24 hours. I'm watching it now. Does this count? --BillC 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! This is a direct link. BillC, this is a much more useful answer! Of course, we need this kind of references. That's all what I was saying. We will need to adjust the reference and make sure that it is clear that it is a video of the TV show, a primary source. What supports the sentence is the secondary source, not the primary source. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 02:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that I do not know what I am talking about? --BillC 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Not when I consider your last answer! I am sorry if you were offensed by what I said before. I think I could have presented it in a different way.

Now, I have seen the primary source (the video of the TV show), and I disagree with the fact that we can infer from it that the statement above is true. The video does not show Natasha saying that appendixes grow back. We only hear Dr. Skolnick saying that appendixes do not grow back and then Natasha replying that the body regenerates. Dr. Skolnick has a tendency to interpret what his opponents say in the worst way possible. Therefore, maybe Natasha said something that is not included in the video, Dr. Skolnick replied that "appendixes do not grow back" because he misinterpreted what Natasha said and Natasha simply reexplained again what she meant, which is not necessarily that appendixes grow back. Without the context, including a translation of every thing the interpret said to Natasha, it is impossible to draw a conclusion. In any case, the video does not show Natasha saying that appendixes grow back. Therefore, it is misleading to use a reference to this video to support a claim that Demkina clearly affirmed that appendixes grow back. It is Dr. Skolnick that claims that she made this affirmation, and Dr. Skolnick's claim is reported in a secondary source that he wrote himself, not in the video. This is an example that illustrates why, even though we can cite primary sources, any analysis or evaluation on top of these primary sources must be supported by secondary sources. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, we should question the relevance of this sentence. I only see it as an attempt to say that Natasha knows not much about the human physisology. Natasha does not claim to have an intellectual understanding of the human physiology. Therefore, this sentence has no relevance to the topic of the section. It only discredits Natasha on a very silly ground. This is why I said that it is a silly remark, which can only come from Mr. Skolnick. It is not fair to attempt to attack Natasha's understanding of the human physiology. Mr Skolnick is so completely blind to his mission to discredit the paranormal that he is ready to attack any supporter of the paranormal in any way possible, fair or not. He would destroy the career of any scientist that openly supports more standard and careful research on the paranormal. He does it through publications in magazines or journals that are published by its own clic of skeptics. So, I think we should remove the sentence, which is only supported in such a magazine or journal. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This clic of skeptics is obviously full of respectable scientifics, and their journals or magazines have achieved some level of scientific respectability. There is no question about this. Again, the issue is that these respectable scientifics all have adopted a very precise agenda. They are not neutral and do not represent the totality of science. It is my understanding that the policy, through its requirement for a "third-party" source, says that we should not source material about the work of these organisations (or of their employees) in journals or magazines that these organizations publish. If the work of these organizations is so interesting and valid, the authors should have no difficulty to publish such a work using a third-party publisher. The explanation why this kind of work is not published using a third-party publisher and the explanation why some scientists publish in their own website is one and the same explanation: the material would not pass the test of an independent third-party review process. When these are two opposite views in the debate, and that both views are equally not yet accepted by a third-party review process, it is not fair to accept one view and not the other view. We just need to interpret the policy in a fair way here. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What is too silly for words are the twisted apologetics above that remind me of the drunken man's wife's explanation for the strange bowler hat lying next to their bed: "That's just a lovely chamber pot me mother sent to me." Only Wiki editors are not old drunken fools. What is the silliest of the silly statements is her claim that it is unfair "to attempt to attack Natasha's understanding of the human physiology." After all, why should a young woman who diagnoses illnesses in people (for a fee) know anything about human physiology? Whenever I think such spin can't get more ridiculous, I'm surprised as I am here. No wonder Etincelle formerly Lumiere, formerly Amrit keeps changing her name. One doesn't need "X-ray vision" to see that. She does so whenever her personal talk page gets filled with stinging criticisms, complaints, and a record of disciplinary actions. By changing her name, she makes herself a clean slate. Askolnick 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit even got my credentials wrong. I am not a doctor.Askolnick 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very poetic Andrew. You wrote a long paragraph with a very colorful description of my person. You are very good at what you are doing. I will not try to compete with you. Ok, but if I try to extract from your paragraph some real content about the points that I made, and not about my person, what do I get? You only said that the lack of expertise of Natasha in human physiology is relevant because she charges people to diagnoze them. Perhaps, I did not describe accurately what was your purpose with your silly sentence. The purpose was to suggest that she naively believes and claims things outside traditional science, things that she could not verify herself. This is a much more fundamental attack than just pointing out that she is not an expert in physiology. This attacks her basic common sense. I am not an expert in physiology myself, and I don't know if I should trust you about the fact that appendixes do not grow back. However, this is irrelevant. What is important here is that you claimed that she affirmed a fact that you present as well known amongst experts to be false. Your purpose is clear. Well, if we do a good job here, you will fail. You have no proof that she made such an affirmation. After I have seen the video, I was very impress by her common sense and good judgement. Moreover, your point would have been valid if she claimed to be expert in human physiology, but she said herself without your help that she is not expert, more precisely, she said that she does not even know the correct terminology. So, there was no need at all for this silly sentence. You could quote her directly and then mention the fact that she has not any degree (yet) in medecine. Of course, this would not have been enough for you. You had to discredit her person at a much more fundamental level. As I said, Mr Skolnick is so completely blind to his mission to discredit the paranormal that he is ready to attack any supporter of the paranormal in any way possible, fair or not. This was one of my main points, and this main point together with everything else that I wrote, which Mr Skolnick did not even address, remain entirely valid. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Following Wiki Policy

Editors involved in this debate should carefully consider the following Wiki recommendations regarding the use of reliable sources: [11]

There is sometimes no one prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it generally tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors should not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy.

Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia. However, although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Significant-minority views should be reported as that, and should not be given the same amount of space in an article as the majority view.

Simply make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers, rather than: "Some say that ... (vague, unattributed theory), but others believe ... (vague, unattributed theory)."

The article as currently written follows these guidelines closely. It makes readers aware of the controversy and cites a reputable published source that reports on the controversy ("Scientists fail to see eye to eye over girl's "X-ray vision", Times Higher Ed. Supp., 10 Dec 2004). Yet it does not falsely elevate that minority view by citing a crank's non-reputable, self-published web page as a reputable publication. Efforts to do so are in opposition to Wiki policy that directs editors not to "create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position," in addition to violating Wiki guidelines that say personal web pages should NEVER be used as secondary sources. Askolnick 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As further evidence of the wisdom of Wiki's policies regarding never using personal web pages as secondary sources, one of the sources some editors here have been insisting should be cited in the Natasha article no longer exists. The source's web site was hosted by Geocities Yahoo Brazil, which apparently cancelled his account for repeated violations of terms of service. That's clearly not evidence of a "reputable published source." Wiki's policies clearly make good sense. Those who argue against following them, do not. Askolnick 16:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeating someone else's stated opinion is not original research, so I don't know what your point is, except to repeat the same things you've already said in order to block opposing content from the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, you went ahead and ignored Wiki's guidelines against citing sensational accounts published in sleazy news tabloids and personal websites. And I removed those references. You've made it clear that you don't believe those Wiki policies need to be followed. Until I'm told there's a Wiki consensus that those policies are empty words, I will continue to remove links to non-reputable sources. I left the links to the non-personal web sites, because they are consistent with Wiki rules and guidelines. Askolnick 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was sure to read Wikipedia:External links before adding those links, and none of them ran afoul of the precepts there. So, I'd like you to show me how each of the links you removed violated Wikipedia:External links. You have confused the policy for external links with the policy for sources. Two different things. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This has gone on far long enough. It seems like Dreadlocke, Lumiere, Julio Siqieria, et al, want to add opposing content, but Andrew Skolnick rejects such material as coming from invalid sources. Will Andrew and others agree to Mediation? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Dreadlocke 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would.

However, I want to correct something. I do not object to adding opposing content. But I believe such material needs to be be based on reputable sources. I've repeatedly welcomed you and other editors to add any opposing opinions that you can find in a publication that meets Wikipedia's standards for credible and reputable sources. The personal attacks from two cranks that were self-published on their own web sites are not reputable sources, according to Wiki policies. Indeed, one of the two sites was shut down by his Web host because of repeated copyright violations. He now has it set up on a new web site. This is hardly evidence of a reputable publication. And yet some people here still claim his self-published web site rant is a "reputable publication." I will trust mediation to see through such claims. Askolnick 21:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes sure.

It is so interesting to see Andrew write a correction, a paragraph of 10 sentences, that basically says that he rejects opposing content as coming from invalid sources. Andrew, what did you correct exactly? Keith D. Tyler description was pretty accurate and direct to the point. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have my correction to propose. A third alternative was ignored, which is to shrink the whole section about the Skolnick test to a reasonable proportion, not only on the basis that the Skeptical Inquirer is a dubious source for the current article, but also on the basis that an over-representation of this specific experiment is in itself non NPOV. This is not an article about Skolnic test, but an article about Demkina. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The version that was current at the start of February appeared reasonably stable and not especially contentious. Of course, it managed this by avoiding discussion of the specifics of the test; and as per its peer review, it was felt to lack a number of other details. There was, for example, no external link to Natasha's official website, nor much in the way of biographical details on her. These should be able to be added with little challenge to NPOV or verifiability. This might prove a starting point from which to build an article under mediation. BillC 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have three items for mediation.

1. Inclusion of the Professor Josephson Website. As I’ve indicated in some detail in this talk page, I believe Prof. Josephson’s website is fully citable Reference material according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

- The main opponent of the Professor’s website inclusion is Mr. Skolnick. My belief is that Mr. Skolnick does not want it included because it is an excellent critique of CSICOP's Natasha investigation and of Mr. Skolnick's work in that investigation. Mr. Skolnick’s bias can be clearly seen by his mischaracterization of the Professor’s article as an “angry rant” “diatribe” written by a “crank.” Anyone reading the Professor’s site can easily see that this is patently false and misleading. The Professor’s writing is clear, professional and not in the slightest bit “angry.” And the Professor is clearly not a “crank.” Here is the website: [Josephson.]

- I do not agree with Mr. Skolnick’s interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they relate to the Josephson website, and I feel that the inclusion of the Josephson website is critical for NPOV purposes. I've gone into more detail as to why I believe the Josephson website is acceptable as a citable Reference for Wikipedia in the Josephson Exception and Professor Josephson's Website sections of this Talk page.

- I should add that Étincelle has stated that both the csicop.org/SI material and the Professor’s should be left out; but I think for different reasons than Mr. Skolnick.

2. Broadening the article to give more information and history about Natasha. I believe everyone agrees on this, except perhaps on what information to include and how to present it. Rohirok in the section below, is absolutely right in his views that the current Wikipedia article on Natasha is just like reading the SI article. Rohirok is also right that the Wiki article should not really go into such depth about CSICOP's methods and findings - as if it were written by one of the SI/CSICOP/CSMMH investigators – which it essentially was. Nor should the history and other information about Natasha’s life outside CSICOP be slanted towards the SI view of her abilities, life, intelligence and statements.

- Since Mr. Skolnick was major part of the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina, and has been a driving force behind the dispersion of what can be considered negative information about Natasha, he has a certain perspective that I am not entirely comfortable with. Mr. Skolnick basically wrote the CSICOP-CSMMH reports that we want to include criticism of. I only point this out because some posters may not realize that connection. I am not certain that Mr. Skolnick should be directly editing the Natasha Demkina article at all, since he is so close to the subject and has written extensively on the one side of the issue.

3. Item number two leads into this one. Reduction of CSICOP-CSMMH material. As Rohirok so wisely states below, CSICOP's test of her is significant enough for a brief mention and a brief description of their findings. References can be made to the CSICOP-CSMMH website and Wikipedia entries, but the article on Natasha should not be an article detailing all the information already on the Referenced CSICOP-CSMMH site. The Natasha article on Wikipedia has almost become an advertisement of CSICOP. Dreadlocke 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

BillC, can you post the link to the Natasha website you mentioned? I’d like to take a look at it. Thanks! Dreadlocke 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the article as an external link. BillC 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, there are a lot of links added! Excellent! Dreadlocke 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A Mediation request has been filed with the Mediation Cabal. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I've boiled the points down to a general issue. I think the general case covers the stated cases. I don't think "reduction in CSICOP material" is an issue if some more contrary material can be added. I also strongly urge those interested to add material about Demkina's life outside the test. Note I added some external links the other day (see my edit, as A.S. removed some), which may be a starting point. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Keith, it looks good to me. I agree with your assessment of "reduction in CSICOP material" if more balance is brought to the article. I also believe that Professor Josephson's website meets the criteria for a citable reference under the exceptions to the policies and guidelines around "self-published" or "personal" websites, as I have detailed in the Brian Josephson and Professor Josephson's Website entries above - as well as being a critical reference for NPOV purposes.

I note that Mr. Skolnick has added his own views to the Cabal Mediation request you submitted, and I believe that Mr. Skolnick may be confusing the policies and guidelines around "citable references" with the guidelines for links that can be placed in the "External Links" or "Further Reading" sections of an article. There is quite a difference between the two, and a site that doesn't meet the requirements for being cited in an article can still be mentioned in the "Further Reading/External Links" section. Perhaps the Mediator can shed some light on this issue as well. Thanks! Dreadlocke 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina's Web Site

As BillC mentioned, there should be a link to Natasha Demkina's web site. That is appropriate under Wiki guidelines. Also, the article should be updated to include the fact that, although only a first year medical student, her web site says she has formerly hung up her shingle to practice medical diagnoses. She has opened a diagnostic and treatment center for patients in Moscow, where she is "supervising" other "degreed specialists."

I ran her web site through Altavista's Babelfish for a crude translation, which says she has established a "Center for Special Diagnostics" in Moscow and is heading its "Office of Energy-Information Diagnostics," where she is providing patients with diagnosis and supervising their treatment -- all without a medical degree or license.

Here's the Babelfish translation:

On the center

The center of special diagnostics of man (in abbreviated form TSSD) is created in 2005. From January 2006 TSSD opened in Moscow the office of energy-information diagnostics of Natalie demkinoy.

The Director-General OF TSSD is Taranenko Albert viktorovich.

TSSD is created in order together with rendering aid to population in the diagnosis, to assign on the joint operation of specialists, who possess uncommon abilities, people healers and professionals of traditional medicine. In our opinion, this association will help not only to raise to the new level the methods of diagnostics and treatment, but also to complete breakthrough in many scientific directions, connected with human health.

We invite to the collaboration of all interested in this persons.

Services

1. In the center works the diagnostic office of Natalie demkinoy, where energy-information diagnostics of human organism is conducted.

This form of diagnostics provides for the survey of entire organism of patient to the presence in it of the most significant pathologies and, most important, are determined the reasons for disease. Support is done to the survey of interaction of all systems of organism (hormonal, cardiovascular, central nervous system, etc.). Often it is necessary to supervise of the processes, proceeding at the cellular level, revealing in this case even virus diseases.

2. In the center the office of classical and segmental- reflector massage also works. The estimation of the quality of the work of these degreed specialists passed under a strict control by Natalie demkinoy.

Someone competent who can translate Russian should add this information to the article because it is 1) essential and 2) based on an acceptable source according to Wiki guidelines. Askolnick 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the above information about Natasha's new medical center in Moscow, I am reminded of what Ben Franklin said more than two centuries ago: "There are no greater liars in the world than quacks——except for their patients." Askolnick 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above, when properly translated, should be presented in a neutral way. Proponents will see it as positive. Opponents will see it the other way. We should just present the facts. Also, Andrew, I feel that you try, without saying explicitly, to justify your silly sentence about Natasha affirming that appendixes grow back. None of the above is a justification for this sentence. Again, we have no idea what is the real situation. Maybe she did not say anything about appendixes growing back, and it is only your misinterpretation. Maybe she mentioned something about appendixes growing back, but we don't know exactly what. Unless you can provide the facts that support your claim, this part of the article is not acceptable. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Etinecilly formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, you say, "Again, we have no idea what is the real situation." You must have a tape worm, because you're not the Queen of England and you are NOT in ANY position to speak for the Wiki community. Anybody can see this fact by looking at all the complaints and derisive comments other editors have directed against you on your personal talk pages (which you keep trying to bury by constantly changing your name). Your spin on what the Discovery Channel program shows is not just bizarre, it's largely irrelevant since the fact that Natasha insisted appendixes grow back was reported in the Skeptical Inquirer. Yes, I know, you don't consider the Skeptical Inquirer a reputable source. No TMer does. Any publication that exposes the highly profitable con schemes of guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his smiling band of Yogic Flyers is disreputable to his followers. Got news for you kid: They're not flying. They're simply hopping on their bums and claiming that they're chasing hurricanes away, making peace throughout the world, and ridding the streets of crime. And appendixes? They don't grow back. Askolnick 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we on the Demkina talk page? When I read the above, I am not sure anymore. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like something straight out of Skeptical Inquirer

I have been a subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, and interned once at the Center for Inquiry, CSICOP's international headquarters in Amherst, New York. I agree with CSICOP's aims, and tend to trust their methods and findings. However, when I read this article, I get the feeling that I'm reading something straight out of Skeptical Inquirer. That's a problem. The article is supposed to be a descriptive and neutral article about Natasha Demkina. It's not the proper place for an evaluation of her alleged abilities. CSICOP's test of her is significant enough for a brief mention, and a brief description of their findings is also appropriate. However, this article goes into depth about CSICOP's methods and findings, as if it were written by one of the researchers. Witness these quotes:

• "In addition, the influence of the 'Clever Hans effect' cannot be ruled out under the lax conditions of the preliminary test." (emphasis added)
• "She said that she should have looked longer and deeper to find the subject who has a metal plate covering a missing section of his skull, even though the outline of the large metal plate could be seen beneath the scalp from up close." (emphasis added)
• "She said surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected esophagus and removed appendix, although those surgical scars should have helped her identify the correct subjects, the researchers explained." (emphasis added)

The emphasized statements are evaluative in nature, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. While it is possible to neutralize these evaluations somewhat by specifying that they are the views of the CSICOP researchers (as was done in the third sentence I quoted), the fact remains that this is an article about Natasha Demkina, not an article about one particular study of Natasha Demkina. The study and its findings bear mentioning, and key articles (even ones that have a specific POV for or against) about the study ought to be referenced, but in-depth analysis and evaluations are beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. If readers want that, they can follow the reference links and judge for themselves. Rohirok 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you say this Wiki article is "not the proper place for an evaluation of her alleged abilities." That's true. But it is the proper place for reporting findings of an evaluation of her alleged abilities published in a reputable publication.

The reason the Skeptical Inquirer reports carry so much weight in this article has much more to do with the fact that very little has been published about Natasha Demkina outside of sensational accounts in sleazy tabloids, like the British Sun (which apparently had a commercial deal with Natasha), Pravda RU, and the personal web sites of crackpots like Victor Zammit, Julio Siqueira, and Brian Josephson. I've been arguing in support of Wiki's guidelines that say such sources are NOT reputable and should not be used. Others here think otherwise. You don't quite say whether you agree with them that this Wiki article should reference those sleazy tabloids and personal web sites. Do you? Askolnick 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How complicated can this be? Personal webpages are not valid sources for wikipedia except under certain very specific circumstances. The most common exception is if a personal webpage is a primary souce for the relevant data. Is the claim that Zammit, Siquiera or Josephson constitute relevant primary sources? If not, then they stay out. (that said, Askolnick, I think that letting a comment from the Sun with a remark about their commerical interest/ sleaziness (simply calling them a tabloid should do it) might not be unreasonable). JoshuaZ 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper, tabloids or not, are source of news, but not of POV that deserves inclusion in encyclopedia. (Even forgetting that journalists have a nice habit to misunrestand what was said to them.) Only POV of persons reputable in the field in question is valid (e.g. George Bush has no say here). If you want "the other side of the story", you must find an opinion of a reputable expert in paranormal phenomena (I mean the one who was never caught hot-handed in bullshitting). mikka (t) 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. You have convinced me. JoshuaZ 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made. For instance, one could cite Demkina's personal website to document the fact that she claims to see people's organs. One could also cite a tabloid to document other sensational claims being made about her alleged abilities. I happen to believe that certain religious scriptures are disreputable, but that doesn't stop me from citing them to show that a particular claim is made in them, nor should it. To say in the article that "Sleazy tabloid X says that Demkina can do Y" is fine, though you might just want to omit "sleazy." But to say "Demkina can do Y" and then cite sleazy tabloid X is obviously unacceptable.

Some people think Skeptical Inquirer is disreputable. Shocking, I know. But, with all due respect, it isn't exactly Nature. It does have an agenda against paranormal claims (do you know any paranormalists on its board or among its fellows?), and though I happen to agree with that agenda, Wikipedia isn't the place to push it. Citing SI to document what CSICOP researchers found is fine. But writing in Wikipedia that Demkina's alleged abilities have been definitively disproven, and then citing SI to back that up is a violation of NPOV.

After reading the article again, I think it's pretty much ok as is. I still think it reads a bit too much like a case study, rather than an article about a person, but I think that's just because no one has taken the time to add anything else about Demkina. The article doesn't say outright "Demkina is a sham" or "Demkina is a miracle worker," which is good. Rohirok 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you said, "Writing in Wikipedia that Demkina's alleged abilities have been definitively disproven, and then citing SI to back that up is a violation of NPOV." Please show where this is written -- or anything even like it. I don't see anything even close to that statement. Why make such a strawman argument? Askolnick 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Askolnick. Sorry, that was just an example of what would constitute a violation. You're right, the article does not in fact do that. You'll see that I admit as much in my last paragraph above. To expand on my example: if the article were to cite the claims made by notable critics who are skeptical of CSICOP's methodology as if those were definitive, that too would be a violation of NPOV. But to merely describe them would be fine, and would tend to balance the article, which currently goes fairly in depth into CSICOP's skeptical treatment of the issue. Do you disagree? Rohirok 05:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rihirok, you haven't addressed the main point I have been arguing throughout this thread. Describing opposing points of view is fine and proper. However, Wiki policy requires all such information to be based on a verifiable, reputable source. I support that policy. Some here, however, are asserting that attack pieces written and self-published on personal web sites meet Wiki's standards for reputable sources, when that's CLEARLY not the case. I keep citing Wiki's guidelines and they keep arguing that they really don't have to be followed. Wiki guidelines are clear about this: Personal web sites should "never" be used as secondary sources.

What Rohirok is saying that such a source is inappropriate for factual information on the main topic, but not for showing that sources with such opinions exist. Such sources become sources on their own existence and their own statements, but not otherwise as factual sources. Compare:

Natasha Demkina is a girl from Saransk, Russia, who can see inside people's bodies and make medical diagnoses. [12] An American institute, CSICOP, attempted to discredit her on U.S. TV by submitting her to a test full of pitfalls. [13]

Natasha Demkina is a girl who claims to be able to see inside people's bodies and make medical diagnoses. [14] She was subjected to a test by CSICOP, which was aired on U.S. TV. The researchers performing the test concluded that she had no such powers (ref), but critics of the test charge it was full of pitfalls. [15]

This is largely the philosophy I used to make my infamous rewrite, to NPOVify the CSICOP/CSMMH-biased version that had existed up to that time. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites can only be used as primary sources. This means that we can only report on a personal website in an article that is about the owner of the website or directly about the website. In addition, the policy says that we should check [in secondary sources] that what we report is accurate. The part in bracket is from me, but what else can be used to make sure that what we report is accurate? We cannot blindly rely on primary sources. Clearly, we are not allowed to use the work of Prof. Josephson as a primary source in the Demkina article, and we would not be interested anyway. We want to use the work of Prof. Josephson as a secondary source. What we should consider is the argument of Dreadlocke, which explains that the website used by Prof. Josephson is not his personal website, but a website provided by the University to allow him to present his scholarly work. Professors may have their personal website in addition to the pages that are provided by the University for the presentation of their scholarly work. These are two different things. It is true that there is no peer-review and that the review process provided by the university is minimal, but there is some review. The policy does not require a peer-review process (though I think it should.) Therefore, it is not against policy to use Prof. Josephson's work as a secondary source. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason that the two cranks had to publish their attack pieces on their own web sites. They do not meet the standards for any reputable publication. That's one of the main reasons behind the Wiki policy.

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer: I'm all for including other opinions based on reputable sources. However, I am strongly opposed to calling reputable the web sites of two kooks, who use deceit to attack the people they disagree with. Wiki policies and guidelines exist for good reasons. I'm insisting that the guidelines be followed. Askolnick 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok wrote above: "But to merely describe them would be fine, and would tend to balance the article, which currently goes fairly in depth into CSICOP's skeptical treatment of the issue."

"In depth"? You mjst be kidding. Not nearly scratching the surface. You probably don't read Russian and don't know how much bullshit she managed to utter, making crowds of easy-believers pay her tuition which she previously could not afford. At the same time she is smart enough to distantiate herself from snake oil peddlers claiming she can only "aid in diagnosis" and always directing to a real doctor. I fact, in her little act she is now paired with a real doctor, who of course benefits of this cooperation and thus babbles various important-sounding texts in here defense. It is also a kind of puzzle why she decided to become dentist - such a waste of her alleged talent. Wait! I know this one! Dentists help people with toothache. In Soviet Russia people with toothache help dentists (it has been the most profitable medical occupation in Russia). mikka (t) 07:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it goes fairly in depth into one particular investigation of her purported abilities for a Wikipedia article. But more importantly, it utterly lacks a description of counterclaims made by other notable observers, such as less skeptical figures prominent in paranormal studies. Over 75% of the text is dedicated to this one test, and none of the critics of the testers' methodology are heard from. Because of this disproportionate focus on one test from one perspective, this article does not treat the subject neutrally, and does not give the readers a well-rounded view of the issues raised concerning her purported abilities and the tests conducted.

I'm not asking for you or anyone to believe the paranormalists' claims. I don't believe their claims about the paranormal. I'm not asking for the article to take a stance for or against Demkina's purported powers, or even for or against CSICOP and the methodology used in the test. I'm only suggesting that the readers could benefit from learning in this article about other perspectives from notable observers, including people who happen to be less skeptical about Demkina, and more critical of CSICOP's methodology than Skolnick.

I understand that you and others might think Demkina is a crook, her defenders are kooks, CSICOP's critics are kooks, and that vulnerable members of the public have been duped into throwing away their money and endangering their health by paranormal claims. I mostly agree with those thoughts. But our evaluations of someone's level of "kookiness" is irrelevant to whether they are notable persons who have defended Demkina, or criticized the test methodology.

I hope we can come to consensus on this, and I believe we can improve the article if we do so. Let me ask this question of everyone: If we can find sources that reliably document counterclaims made by notable defenders of Demkina, or notable critics of the test, can we agree that it is acceptable to non-judgmentally describe those counterclaims in the article? Rohirok 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to stop whinning and describe something else from her life.

Bring'em. What's your problem? So far all attemps (at least from the moment I noticed it) were aimed at crippling the article rather than expanding.

I wrote all this merely to show that you are overpanicking. I didn't attempt to add anything of this into the article.

This is a pointless question, which shows that you are not listening. The problem is that you people prefer to waste time at this talk page rather than to look for some serious "second opinion" elsewhere. Don't play "plea bargain"; just you find it, and we will talk. mikka (t) 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka's last point. I must have repeated five, six, or even more times here that I welcome additional information and opinions from other sources, as long as they are from reputable sources and not hatchet jobs that crackpots like Siqueira, Zammit, and Josephson self-publish on their personal web sites. Using such sources is clearly against Wiki policies and guidelines. Yet all I read here is griping that the article is unfair, that it's unballanced, that it doesn't have a neutral point of view. Well, stop complaining and fix it, for crying out loud. I repeat yet again: Find a reputable published source of criticism and cite it. And Rohirok, kindly stop acting as if it's suddenly your idea to find information from reputable published sources. I've been repeating this request over and over and over -- and each time I have been ignored. Several disputants here would rather twist or totally ignore Wiki's policies and use material from the crackpots' personal web sites rather than find a reputable source of published criticism. Clearly, their agenda is something other than improving or even maintaining the credibility of Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopedia. Askolnick 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In rereading Rohirok's statement from higher up, I have something else to add:

"It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made. For instance, one could cite Demkina's personal website to document the fact that she claims to see people's organs. One could also cite a tabloid to document other sensational claims being made about her alleged abilities. I happen to believe that certain religious scriptures are disreputable, but that doesn't stop me from citing them to show that a particular claim is made in them, nor should it. To say in the article that "Sleazy tabloid X says that Demkina can do Y" is fine, though you might just want to omit "sleazy." But to say "Demkina can do Y" and then cite sleazy tabloid X is obviously unacceptable."

I'm not sure if Rohirok is telling us that this is Wiki policy or his personal point of view. All the policies and guidelines I've read make it clear that news tabloids are not "fine to reference" as a source for ANYTHING other than statements about the tabloids themselves.

The fact that a tabloid says, "Ms. X claims to have five belly buttons is NOT documentation that Ms. X claims anything of the kind. It's only documentation that the tabloid made such a non-reputable statement. And based on the history of tabloids, it is quite possible -- probable even -- that Ms. X said nothing of the sort. If a tabloid claims that President Bush is an extraterrestrial from a distant hell planet -- even though I find it sadly plausible -- I would not cite it as evidence that some people claim Bush is part a space alien plan to take over Earth. However, if we're writing a Wiki article on the crackpot things reported in tabloids, it would then be appropriate to cite it.

Just look at the sentence: "It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made." How can an editor for a credible reference work say it's fine to reference disreputable sources? If Pravda RU or Sun printed a story that says Tom Cruise now claims he is gay, should Wiki include a statment that Tom admits to being gay, according to the tabloid? "Disreputable" means not to be believed -- or at least not to be elevated to any level of credibility by any reputable encyclopedia.

Rohirok gets one thing right: It would be fine to cite Demkina's web site for the claims she makes. Why? Because Wiki policies clearly say so. Those are claims that she is making about the owner of the web site, as Wiki guidelines state:

"Personal websites as secondary sources Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."

Wiki policies do not support Rohirok's point of view. If I am wrong Rohirok, please cite the policy that backs up your position. All I've read basically says one thing: Only reputable sources can be used for informatioin added to Wiki articles, except for statements made by the source about itself. Only then can information from a non-reputable source be used.

If you, Siqueira, Dreadlocke, Etincelli formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, Keith Tyler, or others want to change Wiki policies, you should be arguing that on the appropriate policy pages rather than here.Askolnick 14:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This all depends on whether or not the demkina.ru site is a personal website or the site of an organization or company. Which is admittedly going to be one of those things that is difficult to prove either way. Considering it is "demkina.ru", showcases a picture of Natasha, and is introduced by her, lends it a personal feeling. However, the site also represents a "center for special diagnostics" that invites both patients as well as other sixth-sense medicinal practitioners, which lends it an organizational and commercial aspect. (This I deduced from running the site through Babelfish.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW there is another translation available here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶

Mr. Tyler, you should know better than that by now. Nothing on that person's web site can be relied on to be truthful or accurate. This kook has an admitted habit of rewriting people's quotes. Indeed, he recently confessed to the "dangerous habit" of putting quotes around his own version of what others write and defend his "habit" by claiming he never changes the meaning! Of course, he hasn't bothered to explain why someone whose English isn't that good would have the audacity of rewriting what people say rather than actually quoting them. Must I point out to you that putting quotes around words a person never said is universally considered dishonest? Askolnick 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy and Guideline Dispute

Mr. Skolnick keeps arguing that some of us advocate "ignoring Wikipedia policy" or want to “change Wiki policy”. This is completely untrue. My belief, backed up by the opinions of experienced, long-time Wikipedia editors and administrators, is that the Policies and Guidelines are far more flexible than Mr. Skolnick maintains. Wikipedia policies have many exceptions to the rule, and the guidelines are just that - guides that reflect the way things are supposed to be done – not hard and fast rules.

One clear example is when we look at the "Exception” to the “Self Published Sources policy.

Mr. Skolnick maintains that being categorized as a “well known, professional researcher in a relevant field” for the Natasha Demkina case is limited to being a health professional, while I think it’s clear that the Natasha Demkina case is largely, if not almost completely, about the Paranormal - that's why CSICOP was involved in the first place. Since Prof. Josephson is a well known, professional Researcher in the Paranormal – he fits the “exception” perfectly. Even Wikipedia notes the Professor as a “Famous Parapsychologist" I have posted more detail on this in the Brian Josephson and Professor Josephson's Website sections.

I believe Mr. Skolnick misrepresented what Hipocrite wrote in the Brian Josephson section as well as what others have stated here. From what I understood, Hipocrite was not saying that the policies and guidelines were to be ignored, as a matter of fact; I don’t think anyone has said that here - I certainly haven't.

My perception is that Mr. Skolnick is trying to bully us by using narrowly defined, out-of-context, isolated quotes that completely ignore the exceptions, flexibility, intent, and the interconnected relationship of the Wikipedia policies on citable sources. I believe he is doing this in an attempt to maintain the article's current single, one-sided viewpoint on his own investigation into Natasha Demkina. Dreadlocke 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Entirely unlike Dreadlocke, I regularly quote Wiki policies and guidelines in my arguments. Dreadlocke repeatedly claims that I misrepresent those policies, that I take them out-of-context. He never quotes or even cites Wiki policies and guidelines for a very good reason: He knows they do not support his claims. If he could find anything to support his claims, he would cite them. But he can't. It is he who is resorting to bullying and blustering. He is following the old adage about how to practice law: If the facts do not support your side, pound the law. If the law does not support your side, pound the facts. If neither fact nor law supports your side, pound the table. Unable to cite fact or Wiki policy, Dreadlocke just pounds the table.

Dreadlocke, I'm sick and tired of your false claims that I'm misrepresenting Wiki policies and taking them out of context. Either you show us exactly where and how I've misrepresented anything, or took anything out of context to distort its meaning, or else shut the hell up. Askolnick 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke also grossly misrepresents what the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health - CSICOP test examined. His statement above is false. The purpose of the test was not to see if Natasha has any paranormal power. The test was designed to see if she can do what she claims she can do -- that is, diagnose medical abnormalities in people merely by looking at them. It was a test of her claimed diagnostic abillities, not a test of whether she has any paranormal powers. We cannot conclude from our test whether she does or does not have any unusual powers. As we made clear in our reports, the number of subjects in the test were too few to measure for existance of weak or inconsistent paranormal powers. What we tested was her claimed ability to see medical abnormalities. And we concluded that she cannot do what she claims.

Dreadlocke also is speaking falsely when he claims Josephson is a recognize authority in paranormal research. He is not. Josephson pontificates and makes public statements in support of various quacks and charlatans (ie. Uri Geller and Jacques Benviste), but he has not published research in the field. I repeat again, Josephson has no credentials outside of quantum physics. If Dreadlocke wants to claim otherwise, he better put up or shut up by citing medical and/or parapsychology studies published by Josephson in peer-reviewed journals.

Dreadlocke's claim that Josephson's web site is actually a Cambridge University web site is nonsense. The university is merely the web host. Josephson is the publisher of what he puts up on his personal site. The university does not edit or in any way controls the content of its faculty's personal web sites.

Also, Dreadlocke misrepresents what Wikipedia says about Josephson. The article on him does not identify him as a parapsychologist, because he isn't. He's never published research in the field. He just likes to publicly pontificate in support of various charlatans. The Wiki article on Josephson describes him instead as "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." [16] Askolnick 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond by first saying that I did not misrepresent anything in the Wikipedia article on Professor Josephson. Mr. Skolnick is looking at the wrong thing. All one has to do is click the link I presented to see what I was referring to.

Mr. Skolnick, most of your post above is nothing more than a personal attack on me. Contrary to your assertions, I have referenced Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to back my beliefs and I have pointed directly to what I believe to be out-of-context or misinterpreted information from you – I just don’t waste space by repeating the same information over and over again. In good faith, I have presented my arguments in a logical and forthright manner, as Wikipedia policy states – I only ask that you do the same. And, as you well know, I have already asked for Mediation on the issues I raised - including whether or not the investigation was of the Paranormal. That's what the "P" in CSICOP stands for, if I'm not mistaken..."Paranormal". Professor Josepshon has published articles on the Paranormal, I've referenced one in an earlier post. Peer-review isn't a requirement for published articles in the Policies and Guidelines I've referenced in my Mediation request.

I'm sure nothing I say will sway you, so the only other response I will make to you is what I have stated before, and that is to try and "Argue facts, not personalities" as Wikipedia Wikiquette guidelines state. And direct you to the section on No Personal Attacks as well as this page’s own: Andrew please stop the personal attacks - -Dreadlocke 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, if you don't want me to criticize your conduct, then kindly stop misrpresenting facts and twisting arguments in defense of your position. Stop baiting and switching words and errecting strawman arguments. For example, being published in a peer-review journal isn't a requirement for published articles in Wiki's Policies and Guidelines, but it IS a requirement for calling someone a "professional researcher in parapsychology." Where are Josephson's published research articles in parapsychology? What science journals has he published them in? You don't want to answer that question, because he has none. So you pulled a dishonest bait and switch. The fact is this: your claim that Josephson is a well-known professional researchere in parapsychology is bogus. He's published no parapsychology research in peer-reviewed science journals. He is nothing more than a cheerleader -- or as Wikipedia describes him -- an "advocate" for pseudoscientific claims and the paranormal.

No, you have not cited Wiki guidelines to show how I supposedly misrepresented them or took them out of context. You make those assertions, but you don't back them up with any proof. If I am wrong, show us how I've misused any of the policy text.

Again, Dreadlocke you're chosing to ignore what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia has an article on Brian Josephson and it describes his "work" in the field of parapsychology this way: "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." The Wikipedia article accurately describes Josephson, not as a parapsychology researcher, but as an advocate for belief in it. Dreadlocke prefers that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He insists that Josephson is a "professional researcher in parapsychology" -- pay no attention to what Wikipedia has to say about him. And never mind that he cannot cite any original paranormal research Josephson ever published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Dreadlocke says that Josephson is a highly renowned "professional researcher" in parapsychology, so it must be so. Askolnick 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you continue to attack me. It is not just my desire that you remain civil and address the facts and not personalities, it is Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines that ask that of all posters - including you. I don't answer to you Mr. Skolnick, nor do I respond to those who cannot remain polite and civil - as you apparently are unable to. Most, if not all the questions you raise, can be answered by merely reading my previous posts. I will answer any of the points you raise, but only to a Mediator, an Arbitrator, or any of the other posters here that I feel are making an honest effort to move the discussion forward; and unfortunately, this does not include you. Dreadlocke 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As a mainly uninvolved observer, it looks to me like Mr. Skolnick is leading a 1 man defense against whitewashing, POV edits, and use of unreliable sources. JoshuaZ 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No known mechanisms in the range of traditional science.

though the the researchers countered that those surgical scars should have helped her identify the correct subjects,

All parties agree that the mechanisms used, if there are such mechanisms, are outside the range of traditional science. It is obvious that the term X-ray is just a metaphor. Without known mechanisms, scientifics have no basis to conclude that surgical scars should have helped her. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's such blatant nonsense. Why do you always insist black is white and up is down? Natasha claims she can see everything inside of person's body down to the cellular level. According to her claims, she can easily see surgical scars. Well, finding scars in the area where the appendix should be would be a dead giveaway of a removed appendix! (Are you following along with us, Etincilly formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit?) And seeing those very large scars at the cite where the esophagus joins the stomach would likewise be a flashing neon sign saying "here I am -- esophageal resection!" In case this is still too dificult for you to follow, let me explain it this way: Anyone with NORMAL eye sight, who could have seen the seven subjects without clothing on, would have matched all seven correctly just by looking for the surgical scars on their skin! Askolnick 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Normal eye mechanisms may have nothing to do with Natasha claimed abilities. Actually, you prove my point. To argue you had to refer to known mechanisms. Of course, you have to. The problem is that they are not known to be the proposed mechanisms. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was sure you couldn't follow a train of thought even if I had tied you to the caboose. Thanks for showing I was right. Natasha says she can see through clothing. She says she can see surgical scars. If that were true, she would have easily and quickly matched all seven subjects correctly. But her claims are not true. That's why she failed the test. Askolnick 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

She might see surgical scars, but not as easily as she can see a removed organ without them. When we don't know the mechanisms, we cannot argue against this simple possibility. There may exist other explanations that we cannot think of because we don't know the mechanisms (and also because, at the least me, I do not know much about surgical scars). -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Let's try a different problem: How much is two plus two? It's four. Do you see how easy it is? Just like it should have been for Natasha. She sees some surgical scars. Then she knows the subject had surgery at that spot. When she sees no surgical scars at the site, she knows that person didn't have surgery there. Still scratching your head? Let me try again: A person who has a scar on his lower right abdomen didn't get that from brain surgery (although, in your case, I wouldn't rule it out). And surgeons don't remove a part of a person's esophagus from through the person's skull or from the lower abdomen where the appendix is. See how simple that is? No? Well, that's probably because you just don't want to. Askolnick 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. It is obviously a possibility that, even though she might see surgical scars, she might not as easily see them as she can see a removed organ without them. In this case, the scars will just be a disadvantage for her. This a very natural and logical possibility, which you cannot rule out. Period. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that you, Lawson? Askolnick 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Completely unrelated (hopefully) to the rest of this discussion... Andrew, would you have any pictures of Natasha and/or the CSICOP test that you would consider releasing under a free-use license, that we could include in the WP article? It occured to me that there ought to at least be a picture of Demkina in the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish I could, but I give income from reproduction of these photos to the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. I would gladly allow Wikipedia to use one or more without charge, but I will not surrender copyright by releasing any under a free-use license. Would it be permissable under Wiki rules to use a link to the photo(s) on the Commission's web site? I'd have no problem with that.Askolnick 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How the Skeptical Inquirer passes the test?

Here is how we should evaluate a publication according to policy:

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable".

• Openly partisan? Yes
• Does it have a large or very small readership? Need to be checked and compared with other publications.
• Is it a vanity publisher? I guess not, but must be confirmed. Do we have to pay to publish in the SI?
• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? I guess they don't have a large permanent staff, but need to be checked.

Here is the main one:

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? Definitively, it is clear that anyone in this situation should be terrified. The answer is (a). According to policy, we should not use it. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, I would have strongly answered b. JoshuaZ 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As is Etincelle formerly Lumiere formally Amrit's habit, the only statements she every gets right are those in which she says she is not sure, it "needs to be checked." It wouldn't take much to have checked, but E-f-L-f-A would not have an argument if she did.

Clearly E-f-L-f-A is desperately grasping at straws to suggest that the Skeptical Inquirer may be a vanity publication that charges authors to be published. That's just more of her baseless nonsense. Skeptical Inquirer has a publisher, has an editor in chief, has a managing editor, has circluation people, has an art staff, has copy editors, has web designer/editor, has a considerable number of other permanent support staff, has a large number of columnists and regular contributors and an even larger number of sometime contributers. It uses an inhouse attorney and sometimes outside legal advisors. And articles are often submitted to outside experts for review. Yes, SI is openly partisan. It is very partisan towards scientific inquiry and is strongly opposed to superstitious beliefs and irrational claims. I can understand why E-f-L-f-A objects to this. The magazine frequently publishes articles that threaten her superstitious and irrational beliefs.

Last, but not least, Wikipedia considers Skeptical Inquirer a reputable publication [17] and frequently cites articles published in the magazine. I've pointed this out to Etincelle formerly Lumiere formally Amrit. Yet she continues to ignore all facts that do not support her agenda.Askolnick 05:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is at the gossip level, not for an encyclopedia.

Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate in physics also known for his enthusiasm for the paranormal, charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one. Richard Wiseman responded that Josephson's criticism is not credible, since he has no record of publishing on parapsychology, and Josephson's criticism was published on his personal website without going through peer review.

I know that it only reports what Wiseman said, and therefore it is accurate. However, this is exactly the way gossips are propagated: Mrs. Y says "Mrs. X said that ... ". Mrs. Y says the truth, but she is still propagating gossips. Please do not interpret Wikipedia policy as it if it says that it is fine to propagate gossips or, in our case, ad hominen fallacious arguments. As editors, we have the responsibility to evaluate the message that Mr. Wiseman is communicating. It is original research to include such evaluation in the article, but it is certainly not against policy to use our judgement to decide what we should include. Prof. Josephson communicates a logical argument. Trying to attack this argument using an attack on Prof. Josephson is exactly what is called an ad hominen argument. The policy says that we should evaluate sources to determine if we are going to use them or not, but if it says that we should discredit the author of an argument so that people do not accept the argument, then we have a policy that officially supports ad hominen fallacious arguments. This is not our policy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, do you ever post anything that is not utter nonsense? Only you would try to spin this whopper: a statement from an authority reported in a highly credible publication is "gossip." What an assinine thing to claim! What Wiseman said is both true and very relevant. That's why it was reported in the indisputably reputable Times Education Supplement. Josephson has no standing in the field of parapsychology. He's nothing more than a celebrity cheerleader who stands on the sidelines and cheers every charlatan that enters the field while attacking every skeptical scientist who exposes their tricks. That's not science. That's advocacy -- which is precisely how the Wikipedia article on Josephson describes him -- he's an "advocate" for paranormal beliefs.

Wiseman was correct to point out that Josephson has never published research in the field of parapsychology and that he self-published his irrational diatribe against Wiseman, Ray Hyman, and me on his personal web site, rather than in any scientific publication. Only someone utterly blinded by a pathological bias would attempt to dismiss these important points as "gossip."Askolnick 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)