Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 30 June 2006

Paranormal Unassessed

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)
• /Archive2 Content archived 23:22, 10 May 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)

"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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Critique

Here is the critique in question: Critique on the CSICOP/Demkina investigation

Kept this bit for reference purposes. Remainder moved to Archive2. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA)

---

As the author of the web page concerned I'd like to make a few comments:

1. My article on the subject of the Demkina expt. is a comparatively minor matter as far as I am concerned -- who will care about the CSICOP investigation in a few years' time? I have far more important things to do with my time than to polish what I have written for publication and go through all the processes involved.

2. This business about 'self-publication' and 'personal web pages' misses the point. What is important mainly is whether this is part of my professional activity as a member of the academic staff of Cambridge University or (like my comet pictures) a personal activity. My annual report to the university includes mention of 'educating people regarding various controversial issues', of which the page concerned is an example.

3. The Department's 'research' page in the past listed every research group at the Cavendish, including my own Mind-Matter Unification project (with a link to it), which perhaps would have convinced people (with ask being an exception no doubt) that my web pages (with obvious exceptions such as that already noted) were connected with my professional activities rather than personal ones. On checking this up I see that this is no longer the case. For reasons of image, some renaming and reorganisation has taken place at the Cavendish (e.g. low temperature physics has become 'quantum matter'), and along with this some bureaucrat decided only the administrative divisions should be listed, which must irritate people in subgroups such as Geometric Algebra (you have to find that under Astrophysics > research interests now, hardly an obvious place to look!) as much as me. Anyway, the take home point is that when I decided to create a separate identity with its own appellation for my projects many years ago, no objection was raised when I suggested there be a separate link for the mind-matter unification project the request was readily acceded to. .

4. Either here or elsewhere askolnick has suggested that I am not professionally qualified to assess his experiment. Since I have a First Class Degree in Mathematics (as well as in Physics) at Cambridge University, and one of my lecture courses at the time was on Mathematical Statistics, I suspect I am better qualified to comment on the statistical aspects than askolnick is. askolnick also seems to think that the absence of the university logo shows the page is unofficial. If he will pay me for the time it would take, I will gladly add that logo to the page concerned to settle his worries. I am not the only person in our group who has not included the logo on his web pages, which is an advisory matter only.

5. That I am 'scorned by colleagues' seems to be one of these urban myths propagated by outsiders who disapprove of my ideas (though maybe I am not the person best placed to judge this, but I can't say I've ever noticed colleagues avoiding me, at any rate). It may be relevant to note that a graduate student of mine was recently approved for a Ph.D. on the subject of quantum coherence.

BrianJ 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the above statement moved to Archive2. -- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

- I do not agree with Mr. Skolnick’s interpretation of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in the Josephson Exception and Professor Josephson's Critique 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has almost become an advertisement of CSICOP. Dreadlocke 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having very difficult time keeping up with all the false and misleading statements Dreadlocke and Lumiere keep posting. Here's one that I missed. Dreadlocke should know that his statement is false: I did not "basically write the CSICOP-CSMMH reports." If he read them, which we must presume he did because he's so dedicated to discrediting them, he would know that most of the Skeptical Inquirer reports were written by Prof. Ray Hyman. I wrote the briefest of the three reports. Askolnick 14:03, 4 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)

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)

Protected

Please work out your differences here on the talk page instead of edit warring. · Katefan0/poll 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Katefan0! Askolnick 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, we have our dispute tag! -Lumière 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to list some facts

Fact: Natasha Demkina failed the CSMMH-CSICOP Test.

Fact: There is no evidence that the CSMMH-CSICOP Test was designed so Demkina would fail.

Fact: Natasha Demkina is mostly known through her participation in the CSMMH-CSICOP Test. Therefore, it is natural that the entry on her should focus on this, especially since that the test is backed by reputable sources. Unverified accounts of her life have no place in Misplaced Pages.

Fact: There is no other known reputable source for information on the notable events in the life of Natasha Demkina beyond the sources identified in the article.

Fact: Inaccurate newspaper tabloid accounts and self-published personal web pages are not reputable sources, and should not be used as such on Misplaced Pages.

Fact: Misplaced Pages has a policy against citing self-published material and personal web sites.

Fact: Victor Zammit, Julio Siqueira and Brian Josephson's websites clearly contain self-published material. They are clearly personal websites.

Fact: Brian Jospehson's comments have not been published in a science journal or other reputable publication.

Fact: Brian Josephson's website does not "belong" to the University of Cambridge.

Fact: Just because Brian Josephson's critique "rings true" does not mean it is true.

Fact: Brian Josephson is not a primary source of information about Natasha Demkina. Brian Josephson has never tested Natasha Demkina, has never met her, has never seen or even spoken with her.

Fact: Andrew Skolnick is a primary source of information about Natasha Demkina: He has studied her, spoken with her, photographed her, tested her in an experiment, been given one of her readings, and has published several articles about her in reputable publications and web sites.

Fact: Andrew Skolnick did not and does not represent CSICOP. He has no position with CSICOP or with its magazine Skeptical Inquirer, other than being an occassional author.

SkepticReport 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)SkepticReport

I trust you can provide verifiable and reliable sources for all of the assertions above. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a talk page, not an artile, your comments are a mockery, rather than a desire to resolve the issue. You are welcome to present your position in the same simple way, in order to identify disagreements cleanly, without long rants no one would want to read, which would be a waste of time. Not to say that you ignore the very basic rule of logic: yon cannot prove non-existence of sometning (unless it is a mathematical problem). Therefore if I say "I did not steal your car", and you disagree, then it is your job to prove that I stole your car, not vice versa. Likewise, if someone says "Brian Jospehson's comments have not been published in a science journal" it is your job to easily refute this claim by presenting the publication. Do you want me to present verifiable and reliable sources that this is the way how proofs of facts work? mikka (t) 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be true in the world scientists study Mikkalai, but it's not true in the land of Woo-Woo. In the land of Woo-Woo, all things paranormal exist unless and until they are proven not to, to the complete satisfaction of the residents of Woo-Woo land. I understand it's a real fun place, where Santa Claus plays pin the tail on the unicorn with the Tooth Fairy, and the dish runs away with the spoon before Uri Geller can bend it. 67.20.18.127 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The hyperbole and presumption encouraged by such comments illustrate to me that despite my efforts, some simply do not accept the Misplaced Pages set of principles as a cohesive and complete model.

As for Mikkalai, thank you for proving my point. I agree that you cannot prove that something does not exist. In which case, such so-called "facts" of denials among those presented by the esteemed anon are groundless and not facts at all, but unfounded, baseless, and thereby non-contributory or productive assertions. They provide nothing but fuel for the fire.

Incidentally, your illustration of the logical fallacy of asserting non-existence is very apropos here. Like asserting that something has not been published, asserting that someone does not have a particular ability is equally fallacious. Some here, including you, it seems, are working under the belief that this person has no special abilities, despite the fact that you concur that a lack of existence of anything cannot be proven. NPOV dictates that we work without such presumptions, and instead, work for neutrality and balance, even regardless of our personal convictions.

I don't know why you would join the chorus of those who paint me a paranormalist when all I am doing is advocating for the improvement of balance and relevant content in the article against one-sided determinations of content and source invalidity under the principle of NPOV. I have no such history as a paranormalist in WP, or elsewhere for that matter. I am, quite frankly, equally skeptic of both the non-skeptics and the skeptics. Both have agendas, and neither one has a right to predominate in WP. WP:NOT. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the "facts" is a bit oversimplified. From the list:

Fact: Misplaced Pages has a policy against citing self-published material and personal web sites.

It's true that personal websites cannot be used as secondary sources, but under WP:RS they can be used as primary sources. The following text is in the article, "Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities." Now, if we are to include this material, why can we not use the Josephson page as a primary source here? Surely Josephson knows firsthand what his own views are? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

At which point Josephson runs headlong into WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh the irony. That aside, are you saying the Josephson material should be removed from the Misplaced Pages entry? (Incidentally, some of his remarks can be found in a published source --thus on the surface it seems like this Nobel prize winning physicist seems fairly prominent adherent regarding this case.) If we are to include the material why not use a primary source? That's what I've been asking. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Keith,

If you have any evidence that these facts are wrong, please present it. SkepticReport

Andrew, who is well-read in Misplaced Pages policies of WP:V and WP:RS, can tell you that the burden of proof on uncited material is on the asserter, not the challenger. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No evidence that these facts are wrong, then.SkepticReport

See above. One of your "facts" was oversimplified a bit. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand the work of CSICOP better now. If no one can prove you wrong, you must therefore be right. How scientific. But isn't this the same justification used to defend those very notions you seek to discredit? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with CSICOP. SkepticReport

Once again, you deliberately mislead. That's neither the "work of CSICOP" nor its position on any subject. Keith, are you allergic to speaking truthfully? If you tell the truth, do you break out in a rash and start to wheeze? I'm seriously trying to understand why you consistently misrepresent the truth. Why would you assert such blatant nonsense? CSICOP's position has long been known: All claims require sufficient evidence before belief is justified. So once again you have choosen to ignore the facts to push your own anti-skeptic POV.

SkepticReport's comments has nothing to do with CSICOP. He's not involved with the organization in any way (as far as I know). But more important, he never claimed that he is right unless you prove him wrong. That's your dishonest spin on what he said. He simply asked if you have any evidence to the contrary that any of his statements are untrue. That's a totally legitimate question in scientific debate. What is not legitimate in scientific debate is to misrepresent your opponents statement in order to make cheap shots. But apparently, that's the best you can offer in this dialogue. Askolnick 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but my dictionary says otherwise. Please try again. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

USA airing

I've just seen the Girl with the X-Ray eyes. Unfortunately I didn't have a tape to record. It will be repeated in 6 hours, and I'll tape it.

It will be on TLC, my Ch. 50 Comcast cable, San Jose, CA, 2am April 13. `'mikka (t) 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Let's put NPOV and RS and V aside for a minute and, without even thinking about those perspectives for a moment, review this article and ask, does it really serve to describe the topic in a meaningful and thorough way? I don't think anyone can honestly say it does. We can say "it's NPOV and RS/V and that's enough", but it's not. Article quality does not come simply from meeting NPOV, RS, and V. If it did, there would be thousands of FA stubs.

If you're here just to fight for the principles of RS/V, that's fine, but please don't pretend you're doing it to help the article. If you must be destructive (removing content) or obstructive (preventing content), at least try to be constructive (adding content) to make up for it.

That being said, can everyone try not to fight endless battles over sources?

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I restore this section from the archives? :) Looks like we're continuing the dispute over sources and content. Dreadlocke 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Draft rewrite

I'm working on a draft rewrite of the article. Constructive comments and help are welcome! - Dreadlocke 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Any further comments on the draft? - Dreadlocke 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan picks up too much Josephson, Content is duplicated. Either include criticism of the tests in the sections on the tests, or criticize the tests in the Criticism of Tests section. Not both.

I think you made an honest effort on this rewrite. Perhaps though you are spending too much time discussing general criticisms of skeptical paranormal research (I see lots of references near the bottom that are not specific to Demkina.) I really advise you to minimize that and focus on being specific to Demkina. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback! I agree with you and will start working on incorporating your suggestions. - Dreadlocke 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have received and incorporated valuable feedback from several editors. Unless there are substantial objections, I'm about ready to post the new version. Please let me know if anyone has further feedback! Thanks! - Dreadlocke 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Article expansion reversion

I don't believe the recent reversion and the reasons given in the edit summary for the removal meet Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.

Sources for the history of Natasha have to be from newspapers, magazines, and television reporting, as well as Natasha’s own website - in addition to the CSICOP and Disovery Channel websites. I don’t know where else to look for online sources for her history, the CSICOP and Discovery Channel websites by themselves are insufficient sources to tell the full story.

• If Pravda.RU is a “tabloid” like The Sun, then it is still a citable reference according to sources of dubious reliability. I have to add that while the Misplaced Pages article on The Sun indicates it is a “tabloid,” the article on Pravda only indicates that "the unrelated web based Pravda.ru is one of the world's most popular Russian news sources."

• Natasha's own website is an allowable reference according to: Reliable Sources, Self-published sources in articles about themselves and Verifiability, self-published sources in articles about themselves.

• As far as the comment "American scientists working for the Discovery Channel", Askolnick removed that comment saying it was false because Hyman and Askolnick didn't "work" for the Discovery Channel. This is a flawed argument for several reasons. First, if Askolnick wants to remove material just because he believes it to be false, that goes against WP:V, which states: “The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.” Secondly, I’m not so sure that it is a false statement; the Discovery Channel produced the show and engaged the services of CSICOP-CSMMH, which included the "American scientists", in essence they “worked” for the Discovery Channel in the creation of the documentary. However, if this sentence is really a problem, and even though it is verifiable from a reference, I think it can be easily modified to state something to the effect of “American scientists, at the behest of the Discovery Channel,” etc..

I'd also like to point out that Askolnick removed a large amount of data without having consensus for it’s removal, and without bothering to engage in the discussion or providing any feedback as other editors provided on the draft proposal. Dreadlocke 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to add that some of the information removed by User:Askolnick was sourced from the Discovery Channel website, which produced and aired the CSICOP investigation into Natasha, and is already listed as a citable reference in the current article. Dreadlocke 03:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a big problem. A very well sourced section of the article was removed without discussion. Tabloids are shaky sources, but for this type of subject they are aproriate when used with care. ---J.S (t|c) 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. There's been discussion ad nauseum. Dreadlocke, thinking it was finally safe to add material from disputed and disreputable sources, went ahead and added it. But those sources are no more reputable now than they were during the heated discussions in this talk section.

You know, every time I'm waiting on line at the grocery store checkout, I peruse the headlines on the sleazy tabloids. I always shake my head in disbelief that people pay good money to read "news" about three-headed babies spawned by women taken aboard UFOs and mated with aliens; about Big Foots who steal and eat campers' babies; about invisible cloaking devices now being used on U.S. Navy ships, etc. ad nauseum. I wonder what idiot could possibly take these newspapers seriously. But that's naive: People obviously do, because millions buy them. And here we have Dreadlocke insisting that these publications are credible enough references for an encyclopedia. Such publications should only be used as references in articles concerning disreputable journalism -- or to illustrate the truth in H.L Mencken's great quote: "No one's ever gone broke underestimating the taste of the American public." Unfortunately, that truism also applies to Russia and the U.K. where sleazy tabloids are also read by millions. Askolnick 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is true, you removed it without discussion and I’ll be happy to explain to you exactly where that comes from.

The subject of whether or not these sources are allowable in this article has never been given a final judgment because you refused to participate in formal mediation and then gave verbiage that indicated to some that you were leaving Misplaced Pages because you were “discouraged,” asking “Why should I or anyone else concerned with scholarship and accuracy contribute to Misplaced Pages” – this followed by your complete non-responsiveness to queries on your intentions, , (now archived), and your unresponsiveness to the requests for feedback starting on May 25 on the draft rewrite. Others may have thought you were “gone,” but not I - I suspected that you were doing exactly what it appears you were doing, waiting for the draft to be actually posted before re-engaging in the discussion. Very unwikipedia-like behavior.

Back in early May, I expressed my disbelief that you were actually gone, but then tried to expand the article as discussed on this talk page, asking for feedback from many sources. You didn’t participate in that at all, then almost immediately jumped in and deleted the new material without consensus or discussion.

Now that we are all clear on your intentions, I do not intend to engage you in another endless, circular battle on allowable sources. If consensus allows these sources, then the only question is one of article quality. If consensus is not clear on the sources, then we need to go to arbitration, since we’ve already been through the other steps of dispute resolution.

Dreadlocke 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. ()

Dreadlocke, have you done that in every case? ---J.S (t|c) 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi J.S, thanks for the feedback! I tried to adequately attribute all the sources I used for the article expansion, check out the draft article located here and let me know what you think. Dreadlocke 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The removed piece is written in an absolutely inacceptable manner: it is written as a truth story. There is absolutely no reason to believe whatever Natasha's mother say. She lies without winking her eye. I have a part of the Discovery Channel taped; I know Russian language and it is a fact that this mommy lied without any doubt. Quite a few statements in the deleted text are word of mouth coming from the person who is interested in lying. Legends and speculations allowable in a tabloid have no place in encyclopedia. If dreadlocke wants this piece here, each and every fact must be phrased that it is a tale of a person who is vitally interested in propagation of fantasies. The deleted piece did say that Demkina collects lots of money. Dreadlocke is probably very young and does not know to which lengths people may go for money, especially to get rid of poverty of a deeply provincial Russian town. `'mikka (t) 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write it as a "truth story" and I don't think it is. I reported on what was stated, clearly indicating where comments came from, (e.g. "According to her mother,...). Perhaps her mother is lying, perhaps not, but again WP:V states: “The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.” It can be verified that her mother made those statements - lies or not; and if you have verifiable evidence she lied - include it. Your request for the article to be written in a manner in which "each and every fact must be phrased that it is a tale of a person who is vitally interested in propagation of fantasies" completely violates WP:NPOV. My draft proposal attempts to give both sides of the story, Natasha's view and the skeptic's view. Dreadlocke 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To those who likes quoting policies I suggest them to read them carefully befor quoting, in particular in application to our case, Reliable Sources, Self-published sources in articles about themselves specifically states

1. not contentious;
2. not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;

Suppose on my website I write I have a penis 30 inches long. It is real claim of notability. Can you base a wikipedia article on my website without independent confirmation? `'mikka (t) 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Liar! It's not an inch over 25 inches. Askolnick 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mikka for your advice, but I did very carefully read the policies I quoted. I also read the background on the two points you present, from WP:BLP and the in-progress discussion of those two points in the RS discussion page. IMHO, those points do not prevent Natasha's website from being used as a source for the article. Note I said, "a source" it is not the sole source for the article - as opposed to your...ahem.. 30 inch example. Dreadlocke 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But you did NOT quote Demkina's web site since it is in Russian. You cited your interpretation of what it said. You need to cite a verifiable source of the translation so that it can be verified. But you did not. Askolnick 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, I can use the Russian language website as a direct source, please read the guideline on sources in languages other than English. If you are aware of a suitable translation, then please provide it - otherwise, as the guideline states: "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources." Dreadlocke 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your HO, just like I am entitled to disbelieve her claims. Notice that I did not say that you cannot use it. But one must be judicious in what to pick and how to present. Once again, there is an undue weight to telltales of a clearly non-neutral person. `'mikka (t) 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted article expansion issues

OK here is an example of bullshit: "Because Natasha didn’t know the proper names for internal organs". Come on! An 11 year old person does not know words "guts", "heart", "liver", "kidney"? `'mikka (t) 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• So, the comment that "The investigators also claim that Demkina stated that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy, which is impossible" is fine, but the "11 year old child not knowing proper organ names" statement is an issue - even though it's a verifiable statement and part of the presumed origin of Natasha's presumed powers? I can full well see my 11 year old niece calling "guts" a vacuum cleaner hose - but then, I don't know how much internal anatomy is taught in Russian elementary schools at the 6th grade level. Should the comment be removed or modified? I’m not sure what you think should be done with it. It is a comment from the Discovery Channel website, as well as Pravda.RU. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, as to "In Natasha’s hometown of Saransk in Western Russia, doctors at the children’s hospital performed... In one test... Disagreed..." The question is: how many there were tests? 2 positive reports may well be a lucky guess. The second question: source of this statement. Admissible is only interview with doctors, not Natasha's mommy nor a journalists's unreferenced babble. `'mikka (t) 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Would it be possible for you to find those doctor interviews? That would be very helpful! If not, I'm not sure how or why that would be the only admissible statements on the testing performed at the Children’s hospital. I believe this testing is sourced in several places besides "mommy comments" or "unreferenced babble" by a particular journalist. I don’t want to make it seem that this was a truly scientifically acceptable test, but I think it needs to be mentioned as a part of how Natasha got where she is. Once again, this is information from the Discovery Channel website, as well as Pravda.RU. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Natasha claims to be able" piece OK with me as long as it does not go in infinite lengths. `'mikka (t) 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cool. Nothing infinite, I definitely agree with that. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Natasha became an icon in Russia" a gross overstatement and certainly not of encyclopedic style. `'mikka (t) 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, well did she become an "icon" to some folks in Russia? Do we take "icon" in the religious sense of the word, or is it a "cultural icon" that transcends mere celebrity? Icon can cut both ways, from what you seem to express, she is an "Icon of Fraud" to you.. :) This reference, by the way, is from the Discovery Channel so it could be changed to something like “According to the Discovery Channel, Natasha became an icon in Russia” (one assumes this is how Discovery Channel found her in the first place.) Modify or remove?. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"British researchers" whio are they? Are they researchers at all? "Japanese scientist." Stop right here. It was a Japanese crook who propagated Uri Geller and other charlatans in Japan. `'mikka (t) 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There were no "British researchers" who studied Demkina. As the sleazy tabloids that Dreadlocke insists are reputable sources do, he simply made up that "fact." He was told before that no British scientists tested her. But like those tabloids, he prefers a good-sounding story over the facts. Askolnick 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide a source for who exactly was involved in the London appearance, that would be helpful. I don't recall being told before that no British scientists tested her, so I'm not sure where that comes from; nor am I "making things up" - everything is sourced. I ask again that you comment on the article, not on me: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Dreadlocke 06:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be most helpful would be for you to NOT put falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims into Misplaced Pages articles. I previously pointed out that Natasha was never tested by British scientists. Your inabillity to recall things here is most convenient. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMES NATASHA WAS TESTED BY BRITISH SCIENTISTS. It is your duty to back up your claims with reputable sources. Please cite the source of your claim that Natasha was tested by British scientists. She was never tested by British scientists. It appears you just made this up or are simply parroting another disreputable source of disinformation. Askolnick 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I was merely asking for your help in finding a better source than the one I've already provided. I don't see what's so "convenient" about my "inability to recall;" that statement just appears to be an implication which strikes me as another personal attack from you. Dreadlocke 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Japanese scientist is named in the article: Yoshio Machi, a Professor at Tokyo Denki University Tokyo University. I didn't see evidence that he is a "crook," and if there is, I'm sure it can be included somewhere. As for specific British researchers, good question, I was unable to find a list of names, perhaps you can help me source that - or change it to something more acceptable. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is that in his demonstration Natasha have read the "insides" of people from photograph (at least this was reported). For me this is shameless cheating. Or a breakthrough in photography: this act would require not only Natasha's x-ray vision, but "x-ray imagery" ability of a photocamera. `'mikka (t) 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but I don't think we can call him a "crook" in the article based on that type of evidence. I'm sure there is a source by reputable skeptics that expresses doubt about the photo demonstration. Dreadlocke 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's yet another example of why Wiki policy shuns the use of sensational tabloids and other disreputable sources: (like Dreadlocke) the sleazy tabloids rarely bother to get their facts right. Machi is a professor of Engineering and he is NOT at Tokyo University. The tabloids Dreadlocke insists are reputable references seldom bother to get their facts straight. He shares their reckless disregard for the truth and is working hard to make Misplaced Pages as intellectually worthless as those sensational tabloids.Askolnick 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Much like Dreadlocke, tabloids like Pravda RU, the Sun, Weekly World News, etc. don't bother to fact check. That is the reason Wiki policy say such tabloids are to be shunned as references. Dreadlocke doesn't care that they don't check their facts. I do. That's why I'm standing up to him and will continue to resist his efforts to include them as reputable sources. Askolnick 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pravda.RU is an acceptable source for this article as stated in Misplaced Pages policy. I don’t know where you are getting your information on what is allowable in Misplaced Pages as a WP:RS, but please read the relevant sections in the policy and the guideline. If Professor Machi is not at the University of Tokyo, then please correct that. Are you disputing the statement that Natasha was in Japan at the behest of Professor Machi and underwent tests of his design? Are you disputing events, or just sources for those events? I attempted to properly check the facts, and asked for assistance from others. I would appreciate your not commenting on me and instead focus on the article. Dreadlocke 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on Askolnick's feedback, I found that Professor Machi is with Tokyo Denki University instead of Tokyo University and I've made the change. But I haven't yet found a suitable translation site for the University's site. See, a little teamwork and we can get the draft into great condition! Dreadlocke 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Denki" is "electricity" in Japanese. (By the way, I find this incomplete translation of the title is ringing a certain bell to me: making it sound as a Japanese exotics probably atttracts stupid americans like flies on manure) This is a private university where an expert in superpowers Prof. Machi studied brain waves and successful telepathy of Uri Geller, along with other supermen and superwomen. Probably they make much money on students who are willing to learn tricks of various other con men. `'mikka (t) 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How shocking! Dreadlocke 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And hey, thanks for working with me on this, Mikka. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Source dispute

Since there is a dispute over allowable sources to expand this article as indicated in the draft, I thought it would be good to see what, if any, consensus there is. This section is basically just to vote either accept or reject for each source, and not to engage in lengthy discussions on reasoning - although including a short note would be fine. Detailed discussions can be held in a different section once we see what exactly is disputed.

It would also be good to note if you consider the source to be a “tabloid” and if you do not believe it is allowable under sources of dubious reliability.

• I think this poll is unlikely to be of much value since the acceptability of a source critically depends on what you intend to use it for, and this you have not declared. The Sun, for example, might well be an acceptable source for the statement that Demkina visited the UK and appeared on the This Morning TV show, but I would not find it acceptable for many other claims. BillC 21:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good points BillC. Per your suggestion, I've gone through and separated out the references I sourced from Pravda.RU (I think I got them all). Most of the references are quotes from Natasha and her mother, as well as a description of the visit to Japan. I haven't been able to find other sources for this, so if you (or anyone) can help source it better, that would be most welcome. Dreadlocke 22:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a reasonable inference is that the sources listed are intended for use as they were in Dreadlocke's draft. In any case, it's not unheard of to state one's concerns in one's vote. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Channel (this one is already accepted, but comments from it were removed.)

• Accept. Dreadlocke 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept --InShaneee 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept --Mahogany 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless to take a vote on accepting a source that already is considered acceptable. Duh! Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed content from the article that was sourced from this site, so I'm making sure it is an acceptable source. Dreadlocke 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pravda.RU (The comments sourced from Pravda.RU are here)

• Accept. Dreadlocke 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject --InShaneee 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject --Mahogany 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept for the "Appearance in Japan" section, as there does not appear to be any other online source for what is a relatively important event in Demkina history, as per (as DL rightly points out) the specific guideline under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. However, this limitation is a concession to those who insist that Pravda.Ru is an unreliable source. In fact, no one has presented any evidence why Pravda.Ru is any less reliable than, say, People Magazine or the Washington Times. The only reasons presented against its use are undefended accusations of its character. We aren't talking Weekly World News here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject - While some may think a sleazy tabloid, which publishes sensational rubbish, will report reputably when describing paranormal events in Japan, I do not. Some editors appear to think that sleazy sources are o.k. when what they publish suits their personal agenda. I don't; a disreputable source is a disreputable source. Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject as an ultimate source. Acceptable its quotes a reputable source. Journalist's description is not a reputable source. (wikipedia:Verifiablity) `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject as per mikka. To set this in context, the following headlines are to be currently found in Pravda.ru: "On the evils of American 'Multiculti'", "Men with biggest reproductive organs all live in England", "US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs", "Dana Borisova: Sex symbol of the Russian Army", "Anna Kournikova made the whole world respect Russia", finally urging its readers to: "Read sensational news stories". BillC 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BillC, I have a feeling that Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler are each wondering, "What's wrong with those headlines? Those stories are no less true than the one about the girl with X-ray eyes." Here's a couple more Pravda RU dreadlines from today's "science" section:

"Mankind descended from civilization of Atlanteans in the Arctic""

"Aliens probably build their bases on Earth’s seabed disturbing submarines"

Still, I can understand why Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler call Pravda RU a "reputable source." It's where they got their knowledge of science and medicine. Askolnick 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reject as unreliable. Observe this headline, found in the Science section: "Animals can be faster than bullet and stronger than locomotive." Rohirok 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to give Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler the benefit of doubt, that they felt such a strong need to cite any "scientific" evidence for Natasha's paranormal powers, they didn't bother to check what kind of "news source" Pravda RU really is. But now seeing what kind of nauseating nonsense Pravda RU calls "science news," will Dreadlocke and Tyler change their vote from "accept" to "reject?"

Or are they going to stick to their opinion that Pravda RU is a credible and reputable publication? Unless they change their vote, we can only conclude that they think reputable publications do publish "science" stories claiming that the U.S. is building "homosexual bombs" to fight "heterosexual soldiers," that the men with the biggest penises in the world all live in Great Britain, that little green men from another planet have built alien bases on the world's sea floors, where they're disturbing submarines, and other such "science news." I don't think anything they've done to date shows what kind of editors they are as much as their insistance that Pravda RU is a "reputable" publication.Askolnick 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it does appear that Pravda.RU is a tabloid, thanks for the exciting headlines! That would definitely mean it falls under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability and is therefore an acceptable source for some information for the article– as I have maintained from the beginning.

If I understand what Mikka and BillC are saying, they reject Pravda.RU as an “ultimate source”, but accept it for certain things. Things like the quote from Natasha’s mom: “Overall,” her mother says, “she was just a normal kid. Never was she able to see through humans!" as well as the general outline of the trip to Japan. After all, there’s no doubt that she went to Japan at the behest of Professor Machi, and that he proclaimed her to have passed his tests, right?

In no way do I intend on using the Pravda.RU source as an equivalent to the CSICOP or Discovery Channel Documentary sources for scientific or qualitative purposes, but just as a general “outline” of what happened. I don’t seem to have much choice, and it seems to fall well under the “tabloid” policy. I’m not advocating citation of it as scientific proof, that’s for sure.

And please temper your comments, Askolnick, you continue to comment on the contributors – a violation of WP:NPA. Dreadlocke 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Duh! (I can't believe I have to explain this -- again.) Dreadlocke, if you can't trust what Pravda.RU says about scientists who claim to have measured all the penises in the world, and scientists who've found Martian bases on the sea floor, and about American scientists who have built a "homosexual bomb," then you can't trust what Pravda.RU says about scientists who tested Natasha Demkina -- or in fact about ANYTHING else. It is a shameless rag that publishes sensationalistic stories which its editors know are false.

Clearly, Dreadlocke, you and Keith Tyler don't care that Pravda is a disreputable publication that will publish any kind of sensationalistic trash. Pravda RU's editors don't care a bit about truth. And apparently neither do you. I hope other editors will join me in not letting editors like you turn Misplaced Pages into a similarly disreputable source of bogus information.Askolnick 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Prof Josephson - University of Cambridge

• Accept. Dreadlocke 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept --Mahogany 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, used specifically as a reference exhibiting the author's statements, per WP:RS#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources, which specifically says they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The topic for which the source is used is Josephson (i.e. his statements, attributed as such), the source's author. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice three-card-Monte shuffle, there, Keith. But it won't work. The topic of the article is NOT Brian Josephson. It's Natasha Demkina.

And Brian Jospehson has nothing to say about Natasha Demkina and her claimed supernatural powers. He's never examined her. He's never met her or seen her. He's never even spoken with her. He's never published anything even remotely about her in any publication (other than his personal web site). Again, the topic of this article is Natasha Demkina, not Brian Josephson. Askolnick 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reject - based on Wiki guidelines - NO self-published personal web pages. Considering that Josephson is a Nobel laurerate, he would have had no trouble getting this piece published in a scientific publication or other reputable third party publication. Instead, he published his attack piece on his personal web site. It is clearly the kind of unreputable source that the Wiki guidelines warn not to use.Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject Prof. Josephson is not an immediate source of info about Demkina. His opinion is a hearsay. `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject: the topic for Josephson's comments is not Josephson, but Demkina. His webpage is suitable for referencing his comments in an article about him, but not about someone else. BillC 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept only as a primary source for Josephson's views, just as did the Times Higher Ed. Supp., itself a reliable secondary source. Never to be used as a secondary source for information about Demkina. Rohirok 03:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Josephson's self-published hit piece is not about Josephson or about his views on Natasha Demkina -- whom he never tested, never met, never even spoken with. It's his personal attack on my colleagues and me. The subject of this Wiki article is Natasha Demkina. It is NOT an article about what Brian Josephson thinks of skeptical investigators (the world already knows he holds them in contempt). Brian Josephson is NOT the subject of this article. It is an article about Natasha Demkina.Askolnick 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Josephson’s critique has content about Natasha and the test CSICOP performed on her – that is what’s relevant. As Josephson himself indicated on this talk page, Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Professor_Josephson.E2.80.99s_Critique, his comments on statistics and testing methodology are suitable for inclusion in the Natasha Demkina article. His critique located on the University of Cambridge website is a primary source for his comments about Natasha and the CSICOP test.

I daresay that Askolnick's own statement helps justify the inclusion of Josephson’s critique “(the world already knows he holds them in contempt).” Notability on the subject of an article is a cornerstone for using WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources.

In any case, Askolnick, as I’ve already stated, I don’t intend to get into another of your endless, circular discussions on sources. Dreadlocke 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Natasha's Official website

• Accept. Dreadlocke 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept --InShaneee 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept --Mahogany 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, per WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept only if translation comes from a reliable source. I do not consider Dreadlocke in any way a reliable source. Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem here. I can verify the translation. And there are other russian wikipedians without kookiness noticed so far. Unfortunately they are not at all interested in this bullshit. Post-Soviet Russia has been flooded with exrasensors, healers and other buddhists, and Demkina is a small blip. `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I approve. Yes, I know how bad the problem is in Russia. I'm half way around the world, don't speak Russian, and yet two of their most "famous" dark age wonders have come to convince me of their magical powers. If Russia could can and bottle all that bull, it would probably sell as well as Coke.Askolnick 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • As the Sources in languages other than English guideline states, "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." As required, I've provided a clear citation of the original. Here's a couple of translation sites to check for yourself: . Dreadlocke 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept as a source of qoutations of Natasha about herself. Reject as a source of any other publications by anyone else. Other reasonable diligence per wikipedia:verifiability is applied as well. For example, claims about tests by unnamed doctors in unnamed clinics and other nonverifiable statements about "one patient that had cancer but didn't know": serious claims must be seriously documented. While it is reasonable to present a couple examples of such claims, we are not going to copy her whole webpage here, do we? `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per mikka. BillC 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the rest of the sources used in the ND Draft are deemed acceptable. If not, please add them to the list:

• List of proposed references
• List of current references.

• Biography articles of living people
• Unassessed paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• Old requests for peer review