Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 20 February 2006

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.

/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."

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 Misplaced Pages, in clear violation of Wiki policy.

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)

Lumiere, that's nonsense, and I suspect even you know it. Skeptical Inquirer is not "self-published." That's a moronic thing to say. 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? Haven't you been told repeatedly here and in Transcendental Meditation that YOU can't make up Wiki policy? Stop trying to replace Wiki policy with your own personal agenda. 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? Lumiere, you again are making up claims that have little or no bearing on the real world -- nor with Wiki policy. Your redefinition of "self-published" is absurd. By your twisting of that term, it would apply to the New York Times and all other media that ever publish anything about themselves. This of course is nonsense and 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.

You have a disturbing habit of trying to substitute your own agenda for Wiki policies. I'm not the first to object to this habit.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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages policies (one of its three-pillars) is "no original research". But what is it? From the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

________________________

What is "priceless" is this lame rationalization for violating Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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"

"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, which has this to say:

"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 Misplaced Pages policies and not try to bully the Wiki community with such threats. I've pointed out to him several times now, what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, they should first get them published in a credible publication. Wiki policy makes it clear: Their personal web sites are not credible sources. Misplaced Pages 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)

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," "reliable publications," or "reliable 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)

• Old requests for peer review