| Revision as of 06:59, 16 January 2007 editAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers217,111 edits →Center of Special Diagnostics← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:20, 16 January 2007 edit undoDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits →Center of Special Diagnostics: attacksNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| ::I take your comment about an "insult to common sense" as a ] - and at the very least ]. I strongly suggest you moderate your comments. It is certainly not a "shameless promo", as you state in the edit summary , it is what she is doing - going to the University and being part of the Center. One has nothing to do with the reputation of the other, and I don't believe I need to show you an "independent evaluation" of the Center to add it to her list of current activities, but I will check with perfectblue to see if there is another place for this information. ] <small> ] </small> 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ::I take your comment about an "insult to common sense" as a ] - and at the very least ]. I strongly suggest you moderate your comments. It is certainly not a "shameless promo", as you state in the edit summary , it is what she is doing - going to the University and being part of the Center. One has nothing to do with the reputation of the other, and I don't believe I need to show you an "independent evaluation" of the Center to add it to her list of current activities, but I will check with perfectblue to see if there is another place for this information. ] <small> ] </small> 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :You are free to add this information anywhere else as long as you will find a reliable source. Please remember, personal websites may be used as sources about persons, but not about organizations. If thic "center" consists of 2-3 persons, then it fails any common sense of notability. That is why I wrote "insult to common sense". Any crook can open such a center. And to put it on par wath a university is a mockery of encyclopedia. And yess it is a shameless promo. If this "center" is notable to mention it as an important part of person's bio in the '''intro!''', you are welcome to write an article about it. Oh, yest, and she os not "art" of the center. She is the reason of this center to exist. She and this russian crook od a doctor who promotes her, to prey on miserable people who lost any hope in disastrous Russian medicine. `'] 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | :You are free to add this information anywhere else as long as you will find a reliable source. Please remember, personal websites may be used as sources about persons, but not about organizations. If thic "center" consists of 2-3 persons, then it fails any common sense of notability. That is why I wrote "insult to common sense". Any crook can open such a center. And to put it on par wath a university is a mockery of encyclopedia. And yess it is a shameless promo. If this "center" is notable to mention it as an important part of person's bio in the '''intro!''', you are welcome to write an article about it. Oh, yest, and she os not "art" of the center. She is the reason of this center to exist. She and this russian crook od a doctor who promotes her, to prey on miserable people who lost any hope in disastrous Russian medicine. `'] 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::From what I understand of Russian, the name of the place is "Special Diagnostic Center of Natalia Demkina", so yes it <u>is</u> notable as part of her life. You give the very reason for it's notability yourself when you say: "''She is the reason of this center to exist.''" That's exactly why it's notable and relevant for this article, and YES, in the '''intro'''! Your personal opinion that these are 'crooks' has absolutely no place in Misplaced Pages, I don't even think they belong on the talk page. I checked with Jimbo on earlier attacks you made last year against the mother and Natasha, here is his response: | |||
| :::''I think such negative commentary on a talk page is unnecessary and undignified. I would recommend that the author of it be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject. I am not sure if I would delete it from the talk page or not... I would tend to say yes, delete it, but this will depend on the full circumstances and probably should not be done lightly depending on the personality and so forth of the counter-party.--] 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::I didn't follow-up at the time because I was preparing for major surgery, but I'm not letting it pass this time. I'm considering deleting your comments, but I would hope that you take Jimbo's suggestions to heart and soften or delete them yourself. | |||
| ::] <small> ] </small> 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:20, 16 January 2007
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Paranormal Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Natasha Demkina received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
|---|
Archiving
I hope no one minds that I archived the rest of the older discussion. Feel free to put it back, if you're so inclined, but I think we need to start with a fresh slate here. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Recent rewrite
I disagree with the recent rewrite of this article, or at least with the way it was put in place, without any discussion on the talk page. In a controversial article like this one, such drastic changes are pretty much guaranteed to end in edit warring. Rl 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The content was 80% the same as the original article and used the same sources. It was just edited for POV and re-ordered. If you have an issue with an individual piece of content, then tag it. Wholesale revision smells of personal-ownership issues, which are a no-no.
perfectblue 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think Perfectblue's version is excellent, perhaps needing some small modifications; and putting into place as she did was according to Misplaced Pages policy, which says Be Bold! There has been no discussion on this article in a very long time. And please don't threaten edit warring, it's just not proper... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
New draft
There is a new draft in the wiki-memory space. Please discuss
perfectblue 09:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- We are supposed to discuss changes, not whole texts. We don't have to spend all our lives sifting thru completely rewritten texts. Please list here a what exactly you added and deleted. `'mikka 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just pick a section and start discussing it. It's not important where you start.
Tokyo
When dealing with the paranormal, self published material is sufficient to provide an overview of extraordinary claims as part of a chronology of events about them that is primarily supported by external sources. So long as it is provided in context, and is not passed off as an independent scientific document.
I have made some modifications to the section and restored it. If claims are spurious, then they are spurious, what matters is that it is recorded that said claims were made.
perfectblue 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources
All Misplaced Pages articles ought to be built from reliable sources. Without reliable sources to back up all of the content, the content is not Verifiable. Sources such as Demkina's own website are of dubious reliability at best. Certain information may be reliably sourced from her website. However, claims that her abilities have been scientifically confirmed in any way must not be sourced to her website. She is making extraordinary claims, and extraordinary evidence is needed before those claims can be reported here as truth. Given the lack of any sort of peer review for the website, and given Demkina's financial conflict of interest, such extraordinary evidence can never be found in her own website. Nick Graves 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think Demkina's own website is perfectly acceptable as a source as long as it is cited as the reference. As in the section on Self-published sources, her site is relevant to her notablility, not contentious, not unduly self-serving, not talking about third-parties, and we definitely know who wrote it - and as perfectblue says above:
- "When dealing with the paranormal, self published material is sufficient to provide an overview of extraordinary claims as part of a chronology of events about them that is primarily supported by external sources. So long as it is provided in context, and is not passed off as an independent scientific document."
- Remember, this is a biography of a living person, not a scientific article in a scientific journal. We're not reporting her claims as "truth" here, we're just reporting her statements, very clearly attributed as to be "according to accounts on her personal website."
- Dreadlocke ☥ 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Center of Special Diagnostics
Regarding the removed edit: "and a member of the Center of Special Diagnostics; a unit which specializes in researching folk healing, traditional medicine, and claims of unconventional healing abilities." this not an "advert", it's what she does! And there's no "judgement" here either, I clearly see the word "claims" in there. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Putting University and of diagnosticg Center who consists of Demkina and unknown who else is an insult to a common sense. Show me an independent evaluation of this "Center", please. `'mikka 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I take your comment about an "insult to common sense" as a personal attack - and at the very least uncivil. I strongly suggest you moderate your comments. It is certainly not a "shameless promo", as you state in the edit summary , it is what she is doing - going to the University and being part of the Center. One has nothing to do with the reputation of the other, and I don't believe I need to show you an "independent evaluation" of the Center to add it to her list of current activities, but I will check with perfectblue to see if there is another place for this information. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are free to add this information anywhere else as long as you will find a reliable source. Please remember, personal websites may be used as sources about persons, but not about organizations. If thic "center" consists of 2-3 persons, then it fails any common sense of notability. That is why I wrote "insult to common sense". Any crook can open such a center. And to put it on par wath a university is a mockery of encyclopedia. And yess it is a shameless promo. If this "center" is notable to mention it as an important part of person's bio in the intro!, you are welcome to write an article about it. Oh, yest, and she os not "art" of the center. She is the reason of this center to exist. She and this russian crook od a doctor who promotes her, to prey on miserable people who lost any hope in disastrous Russian medicine. `'mikka 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- From what I understand of Russian, the name of the place is "Special Diagnostic Center of Natalia Demkina", so yes it is notable as part of her life. You give the very reason for it's notability yourself when you say: "She is the reason of this center to exist." That's exactly why it's notable and relevant for this article, and YES, in the intro! Your personal opinion that these are 'crooks' has absolutely no place in Misplaced Pages, I don't even think they belong on the talk page. I checked with Jimbo on earlier attacks you made last year against the mother and Natasha, here is his response:
- I think such negative commentary on a talk page is unnecessary and undignified. I would recommend that the author of it be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject. I am not sure if I would delete it from the talk page or not... I would tend to say yes, delete it, but this will depend on the full circumstances and probably should not be done lightly depending on the personality and so forth of the counter-party.--Jimbo Wales 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't follow-up at the time because I was preparing for major surgery, but I'm not letting it pass this time. I'm considering deleting your comments, but I would hope that you take Jimbo's suggestions to heart and soften or delete them yourself.