Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 4 August 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Style

This article indirectly highlights the tension between science and religion, and has several sections which are less than encyclopedic. In particular, the section regarding the 2010 tests fails to adequately provide the scientific rigor in proving Mr. Jani's unprecedented ability or any rationale undermining it beyond some inflammatory comments. In full disclosure, I am biased against believing these claims, but I do not find enough objective information here to make any sort of informed opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.35 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 June 2010

We provide whatever information is available, as it may be helpful in forming a versatile view of the case. Currently there's not enough high quality 'scientifically proven' sources on the subject. As soon as new or better quality information becomes available it may be included into the article, or eventually replace the low quality fragments. The purpose of the article is not to make someone believe or discard the mentioned claims, but rather to provide the fullest possible information about the case. -- Nazar (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the anon that there is no scientific rigour to counterbalance these unprecedented claims. Dr.K.  04:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed info

This is about the last two removals by Escape orbit, which he/she repeatedly removed, neglecting the effort to make the paragraphs as neutral as possible after his first removals.

The second removed para is a direct citation from the source, and I think it is vital to show that there are a number of scholars in India who support the claims, based on certain theories they deem viable.

The first para Escape orbit removed is a strict informational description of the video uploaded by IRA and referred to in the article. If we remove that video overview as OR, how are we supposed to provide a balanced description of the IRA criticism? Or should we just remove all the IRA related info?

I'm restoring the removed info based on the arguments above, as well as per WP:FILMPLOT -- "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events". If you're not happy with that info, please do further improve the plot description to be NPOV, instead of blanking the para.

Nazar (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the assertion that "the clips related to the bathing procedures are from 2003 tests" your own personal interpretation of the footage? We should be quoting a reliable source on this, rather than invoking original research. Similarly, if you feel that Edamaruku's footage deliberately misrepresents the experiment by assuming there was only one camera, that should come from a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch that video first. You'll laugh at it. But, to be neutral here, I happen to be fluent in Polish and the short few seconds clip of that video related to bathing says in Polish that it is from 2003. Also, the few second long repeatedly shown clips of 'obstruction by devotees' and 'out of field of view' are obviously cut from one and the same camera footage. You can see the same background of the scene. haha. The bulk of the video (over 85% I guess) is Sanal Edamaruku's own appearances in news and talk shows. And I really don't understand how IRA got that Polish video back from 2003 now after 2010 tests... -- Nazar (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Having found the time to watch the video, I now realise I can't understand any of the languages being used in it, so I can't comment on its content. However, if the video shows Edamaruku introducing a blatantly 2003 clip explicitly claiming that it's from 2010, it's not up to individual Misplaced Pages editors to call him out on it. We should just say something like "Edamaruku introduced a clip he described as being from 2010". If a reliable source has pointed out his mistake, then we can quote that; if it hasn't, we can't add anything. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Though I am of the opinion that video does not provide any of the proofs Edamaruku says about in his critical article, I understand that the instruments currently available in Misplaced Pages do not provide adequate means to neutrally expose that deficiency of the video material. I've done my best. The rest is up to those interested in the case. Thanks! :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with users McGeddon and Escape Orbit that the video information is WP:SYNTH and it must be removed. Dr.K.  04:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only was it original research, in that it consisted of uncited, original analysis of a video, it was also sourced from YouTube. YouTube is not a reliable source as there is no way of verifying where the video came from, whether it is accurately attributed and described, or whether it has been tampered with. --Escape Orbit 07:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The unique youtube link has been used by Edamaruku in his article. Please refer there. But generally I don't mind if you remove the info. It's hard to expect a NPOV approach in a society of editors dominated by fanatic rationalism tendencies. That kind of bias should be expected and taken into account, while assessing the articles created by such a society. Thanks. And have fun screwing up the article(s) :) -- Nazar (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By "fanatic rationalism tendencies" I suppose you mean "following the rules". Seriously, if you can find a good source then you can add this. But you cannot add your own personal analysis, no matter how correct or obvious you personally may think it is. If every editor was allowed to add their own take on things then that really would be "screwing up the article".--Escape Orbit 09:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, what is done here by Dr.K.  and Escape Orbit is bending the rules to make the article look the way they like it. General common sense calls for an inclusion of the video overview into the logic of the article, as the video is the main argument used by IRA for trenchant criticism of the case. And the video is obviously (neutrally viewed) full of failures and manipulations. But I do understand that transcribing the video plot leaves a lot of space for personal interpretation and can't be as much NPOV as text references. As video materials become increasingly commonly used in Information exchange and as Misplaced Pages sources too, the rules will probably have to be amended in this regard to take that into account. But for today the situation is not in favor of NPOV exposure of the issue in question through video overview... I'm also sorry if I'm being a bit too biting in some of my comments. I admit I'm a bit too emotional there, that's my own imperfection... -- Nazar (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Can the following analysis be included in the Prahlad Jani article unsupported by a reliable source?

The video montage uploaded by IRA and allegedly showing the "loopholes" in the monitoring of the last tests is constructed mostly of the clips from the Sanal Edamaruku's own appearances in Indian news channels, with a few repeatedly shown short clips from Jani's CCTV coverage. The clips related to the bathing procedures are from 2003 tests and are overlaid with Polish comments in subtitles, and those supposedly showing the obstruction by devotees and 'out of camera' episodes are all made by one and the same camera, while the reports of DIPAS researchers explicitly state that there were several cameras to monitor the on-going event from different angles.

Dr.K.  04:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

All this is completely insufferable. When looking into something using an "encyclopedia" I expect to be provided with ALL possible relevant sources of information and allowed to draw my own conclusions, particularly in the case of something fringe or with limited research/sources of information. Anything less is deliberately of at the very least unnecessarily biasing the perspective of the reader. This lowers the quality of your publication to the base mental fishing techniques common advertisements.

This is my opinion and I believe it to be of well founded logic.

Thank you, Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.33.18 (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Alex. Since the consensus so far seems to be in favour of inclusion of the info, I'm restoring it to the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference rationalistinternational1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Experts baffled as Mataji's medical reports are normal http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_experts-baffled-as-mataji-s-medical-reports-are-normal_1380169

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles