Talk:Natasha Demkina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Allowing Libel to Be Published

Despite being warned, Wikipedia continues to allow Julio Siqueira to post libelous statements. I am no more under psychiatric care than I have a "phony" degree from Columbia University. I thought the Wikipedia community would be more careful about allowing people to publish libelous material following the recent news media attention it received over another incident. Some here apparently think that it's o.k. to allow defamatory material to be posted, because you can always unring the bell. They're wrong. U.S. libel laws recognize that once rung a bell cannot be unrung. Askolnick 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So you have not started psychiatrist sessions? Ok. Now I got it... Julio Siqueira 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for Mediation was just filed. [1]. Askolnick 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Skolnick on Siquiera

Mr. Siqueira is hardly "doing a truly rational, scientific, and socially beneficial work." What he is doing is practicing character assassination through deceit -- such as deleting the M.S. after my name in this Wikipedia entry and accusing me of having a "phony" degree. Columbia University awarded me a Masters of Science degree in 1981. No one has ever accused me of possessing phony academic credentials -- until now. This is typical of Siqueria's "spotting mistakes and setting out bravely and honestly to correct them." His tactic is to make up accusations -- which he attributes to the ever-anonymous "critics" -- and demands that the "controversy" he has created be debated.

For more than a year, Julio Siquiera has been conducting a campaign of disinformation and defamation against me and my fellow researchers, who carried out the test of Natasha Demkina for the Discovery Channel program, "The Girl with X-ray Eyes." Siqueira begun his campaign by contacting me through email and pretending to be honestly seeking answers to questions about the test. I didn't realize for several weeks that his real intent was to gather statements that he could misquote for a campaign of defamation. I soon found out that, while he was sending me email calling me his "dear friend," he was writing a fellow Brazilian boasting of how he "peed on" that "moron Skolnick" and that Richard Wiseman "is a big crook" and a bastard ("calhorda").

One egregious example utterly misrepresented my answer to his question how far Natasha was from the test subjects. He rewrote my answer and sent it around to some of our critics in his campaign to make me out to be a liar. My answer to him had been, "I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject. Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, she came a foot or so closer."

He deleted any mention of Natasha's chair being two meters from the subjects and selectively quoted some of my words, while changing "closer" to "close." He said I told him Natasha "was allowed to come close to the subjects" and that she "sometimes came 'a foot or so' close to them." At the time, he was alleging that we made Natasha stand too far from the subjects to be able to see them clearly. By deliberately misquoting me, he clearly was trolling for a statement from others that he could use to accuse me of lying about how close Natasha actually got to the subjects.

The Wikipedia entry for Natasha Demkina has been written by a number of contributors including myself. Siqueira has now seriously vandalized it with falsehoods and unfounded personal opinions, such as these and other unsupported accusations:

"Skolnick has made very imprecise reports about Natasha’s claims."  

"Richard Wiseman convinced Natasha to accept these two alien conditions above using technically flawed and logically incorrect reasoning, which some say was meant to deceive Natasha."

"One of the subjects seemed to have a leak in his eyes’ mask, which also violated the protocols."

"The subjects never showed any proof of their alleged clinical conditions, also violating the protocols (not even the researchers really know if they indeed had the conditions they claimed to have)."

"(even though only the researchers knew of the controversy regarding the cut-off value for statistical significance)"

There was no controversy regarding the agreed upon level of statistical significance. It was agreed upon by all parties without a question. By claiming controversy, Siqueira believes he can create controversy.

Many other statements are clearly false, such as, "Demkina tried to say something further, which was understood by Skolnick as an insistence that appendixes sometimes do grow back in Russia; but actually her phrase was cut by Skolnick before she even finished it." This is false. The video tape of the Discovery Channel program I have clearly shows Natasha arguing that in Russia appendixes sometimes grow back following an appendectomy.

Here's an example of Siqueira's attempts to hide the truth by adding the words "in the skeptics' opinion" to a statement that is more truthful without his malicious tampering: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test in the skeptics’ opinion."' Natasha failed the test according to the written test rules which everyone had agreed to. The test said that Natasha needed to match at least five of the target conditions correctly to pass. She failed the test because she correctly matched only four. That's not an opinion. It's a fact on the record.

To refute my account of how Natasha gave me a reading that failed to find any of the medical problems I do have while claiming to see many others, none of which my doctor or I know about, Siqueira simply insinuates that I'm lying: "The critics point out, however, that, strangely enough, neither Skolnick nor any other one of the skeptics present had even a tape recorder to keep trustworthy register of this episode. They warn that in other situations Skolnick has made very imprecise reports about Natasha’s claims and about other people’s too." Those "critics" are none other than Siqueira himself. What would have been strange would my having a tape recorder to record a "psychic" medical reading, when I had no idea Natasha was going to approach me and ask to give me a reading to demonstrate her abilities after she failed the test. My account is supported by notes taken by Joe Nickell, Ph.D., CSICOP's leading investigator.

In addition, Siqueira has introduced numerous lessor errors based on ignorance or incompetence into the Wikipedia entry -- such as claiming that Natasha was given seven cards. As has been well documented in the Discovery Channel program and in published reports, there were only six cards in the test. And his claim that the surgical scars which result from removal of the lower part of a person's esophagus are "minute" is nonsense.

Siqueira's statements about the position of the appendix are absolutely irrelevant and clearly meant to mislead. He cites his reference [http://www.ghchealth.com/health-conditions/appendicitis/, but leaves out the part that explains how variations in the exact position of the appendix may make it difficult to diagnose appendicitis, based on where the patient feels pain. It does not make it difficult to find the appendix either by x-ray or by direct visualization (ie. surgery). The subhead of the article shows how Siqueria is trying to pull the wool over Wiki readers' eyes: "Why Can It Be Difficult to Diagnose Appendicitis?". It doesn't say, "Why Is It Difficult to Find the Appendix?".

It doesn't matter where the distal end of the appendix lies because Natasha was instructed to look for the site where the small intestine joins the large intestine. That's where the appendix is attached. Whether the internal organs of a person are reversed (ie. heart is on the right side, appendix on the left), the appendix is always found next to junction of the small and large intestines -- except in people who no longer have their appendix.

Harder to deal with are the many unsupported opinions Siqueira added to prop up his defamatory claim that we are incompetent liars. For example, he replaced the original account with his deceitful speculation that Natasha's mother's decision to wait outside the test room was "probably due to the emotional discomfort of this embarrassing and emotionally stressing beginning." Siqueira must know that this is false because he has a copy of email from Natasha's agent Will Stewart in which he explains that the mother chose to wait outside the test room so her young daughter would not be left alone in a strange place. It was unreasonable to expect an 11-year-old girl to sit silently for more than four hours. That's why the mother chose to wait with the young child outside the test room where the girl could talk and play -- not because she fled from the room in emotional distress. Siqueira knows the truth, but when the truth does not serve his agenda, he ignores it, substitues his "opinion," and demands that the "controversy" be debated.

There's many more dubious and deceitful statements that Siqueira added to the entry. If you want me to correct them too, I will, but it will take much more space and time.

But perhaps the most audacious of his claims is his citing his own web pages as, "Meticulous and thorough critiques of the experiment [that] can also be found on the internet." He doesn't bother to inform Wiki readers that he is the author of those self-published, so-called meticulous and thorough critiques. Those "critiques" are no more meticulous than is his malicious adulteration of the Wikipedia article.

Recently, the credibility of Wikipedia suffered a serious black eye when the news media reported how someone had used a Widipedia entry to libel another party. If Wikipedia doesn't put a stop to the dishonest use of what otherwise is a worthwhile medium and information resource, it will likely become as useless as the human appendix and just as prone to purulent infections.

24.51.86.237 [Askolnick] 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

)For an excellent article about how Wikipedia was used to defame a former jounalist and a discussion of legal remedies to prevent such abuse, see the just published article in Findlaw: [2])Askolnick 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, I followed your advice and made all the editing changes I believe were necessary. I just hope this is not going to trigger an all out editing war, since there doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it -- short of locking the entry. (I've requested that, but so far, there's been no action taking.) I am thinking of adding a new section that will briefly discuss the controversy over the statistical significance level used in the study. I would briefly cite Brian Josephsen's online attack and Ray Hyman's online explanation why you should not use a P value of 0.05 to test highly unlikely hypotheses. (Does Wiki have an entry on Bayesian analysis? If so, it could link to that entry.) Thanks again for your judicious help and I'm sorry it's been such a pain. Askolnick 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, there's a really fine Wiki entry for Bayesian inference! I must return to it when I have the time to learn much more about this rather arcane subject -- which really is vital to understanding many kinds of scientific tests. For example, as the excellent article points out, one cannot properly evaluate the sensitivity and specicity of diagnostic tests without Bayesian analysis.Askolnick 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Siquera's responses

My name is Julio Siqueira. I have an BA in biology and an MA in clinical bacteriology. I am a non-practicing biologist. I think the entry on "Natasha Demkina" has been greatly abused by the skeptics. It is time to add some balanced information into it. I sincerely hope that Andrew Skolnick will understand the simple fact that good research entails integrity of report, entails the willingness to spot mistakes and to set out bravely and honestly to correct them. Natasha may have no power. But that is no excuse for our doing away with "ours"... (that is, our power of doing a truly rational, scientific, and socially beneficial work).

Julio Siqueira December 6, 2005

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hiding under the anonymous ip 64.65.247.81, photographer Andrew Skolnick is trying to fight democracy by taking out of this entry (Natasha Demkina) all the opposing views that he does not like. It is important that we, that do not hide ourselves, fight these coward actions from people that actually seem to be interested only in personal promotion and in financial profit at the expense of human beings like Natasha. I placed back the properly balanced content. And all measures necessary to keep it balance will be taken if necessary.

Julio Siqueira December 7, 2005

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Involvement

As I'm not familiar with this topic, can each of you identify your connection to the matter of Natasha Demkina? It seems that Mr. Skolnick had some personal involvement with the research, though I don't know what, and I have no idea what Mr. Siqueira's relationship with the research is. Could you elaborate on what your involvement with the issue is? Can you provide some brief explanation of each of your assertions? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC placed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. I, too, think that Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Siqueira should disclose their involvement with this issue and be made aware of Wiki policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Edwardian 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith, I am the principle designer of the test of Natasha Demkina, that was conducted for the Discovery Channel, and executive director of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health [3](which is another Wikipedia entry that Julio Siqueira has taken a hatchet to). A little over a year ago, Siqueria began a campaign to discredit my CSICOP [4] colleagues and me by using the Internet to disseminate false accusations and disinformation. After trashing the Natasha Demkina section of the Museum of Hoaxes, he came over to Wikipedia and rewrote the Natasha Demkina entry, adding a great deal of falsehoods, errors, libelous statements, and unfounded and unfair opinions, that he attributes to anonymous "critics." He even prominently plugs his own self-published critiques that he proclaims are "Meticulous and thorough."

If I may quote a message that Wiki administrator Arcadian sent me after I had expanded the entry he began, you will see, at least in his opinion, my contributions to the entry were fair and had a neutral point of view:

"I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent work on the Natasha Demkina article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --Arcadian 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" [5]

In my lengthy discussion above, I list many but not all of the deceptive, biased, misleading and defamatory changes Siqueira made to this Wiki entry. Rather than removing them again, I am asking the Wiki community to stop his use of Wikipedia in his vandetta to misinform and defame.

Siqueira is an elementary school English teacher in Brazil who identifies himself as a biologist, a microbiologist, and a clincial bacteriologist. However, he has admitted elsewhere that he's never held a job as a biologist or in any other scientific field. He claims to have an MA in clinical bacteriology. He self-publishes his "critiques" on his own web site, on bulletin boards, and now here at Wikipedia.

Askolnick 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, your message and mine above crossed. Thanks for pointing me to the Verifiability and No Original Research pages. They revealed another serious problem with Siqueira's additions to the Natasha Demkina entry. His additions are not based on reputably published works. His "facts," and arguments are mostly his own self-published criticisms or are from other self-published attacks from other CSICOP critics. They are not from reputable publications, as required by Wikipedia policy. Obviously, it's extremely hard to verify the veracity and accuracy of sources that are identified as "critics" and "some." I propose that's exactly why he relies so much on "their" opinions. Askolnick 20:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It would be helpful in resolving the dispute if you (as well as Mr. Siqueira) would list what specific statements in the article need to be changed and why. Edwardian 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, boy! I've already spent hours today posting examples above. I really can't spend much more time on this. As far as I'm concerned, there's hardly a change that Siqueira made that is not suspect or in clear violation of Wiki policy. It's a whole lot easier and cheaper to throw a rock through someone's window than it is to repair it. Considering the high volume of false statements, unattributed statements, biased statements, etc., I think it would be fairer and more economical to ask Siqueira which statements he wants Wikipedia to keep and to provide verification for them. And thank you for your much appreciated assistance. Askolnick 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Keep in mind that it is much more time consuming for me to pick through every line in the article to verify statements in websearches than it would be if someone were to point out the specific statements that need to be reviewed. If you're counting on Mr. Siqueira to assist in the manner you suggested, I'm sure you will be disappointed with the results. I'm happy to help the victim of "character assassination" but only so far as he is willing to help me help him. Edwardian 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but be prepared. I think every change he made was done to deceive, mislead, or obfuscate. I'm going to have to find and cite every last one of them. It will take me much of the weekend, I fear. Thanks for your effort and patience. (At least, I'm finally learning Wiki's conventions :-) Askolnick 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Keith and Skolnick,

I am Julio Siqueira and I want to explain my involvement in the case, so as to enable wikipedia to decide whether my contributions can be accepted on this matter or not. Before that, I want to clarify some issues.

1- Even though I am very fresh to wikipedia editing, I have always tried to make very clear who I am, and to be open to other people's views. This can easily be seen at the talk section in the entry of Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health- CSMMH. I immediately identified myself (an important measure, since I have a dynamic IP), and ended up agreeing with the viewpoints of the other editor (Alaren). My second entry to edit, following the same subject, was the Natasha Demkina entry. In this entry, I immediately created a wikipedia account for me, for better identification and proper editing (including my email; also with Alaren at the CSMMH entry I provided my email).

On the other hand, Skolnick has been rather anonymous in his contributions to this entry. Worse, it seems that either he or someone close to him took contents from this entry AFTER Skolnick asked for mediation. At 21:52, 8 December, Skolnick made his complaint and asked for mediation. At 21:55, same day, someone, anonymous, took out all the section presenting the critics's view. The ip was 203.214.87.196. There has been no contribution from this ip before to the wikipedia, and it is not the ip Skolnick usually uses (which is 64.65.247.81). Weird. I suggest that this ip be tracked down, if possible.

2- Skolnick complained about the fact that I called his MS phoney. But it was he that, before I did this, decided to change my credentials from MA in Clinical Bacteriology to "Elementary English Teacher". What I did was not right. But was an emotional reaction to similar denial of my credentials. I ended up deciding to put back his proper credentials, and it was BEFORE he complained about it. He, instead, keeps saying that I am an English teacher, and keeps casting doubt on my MA title. He decided to accept my "claim" that I am an English teacher (it was I who told this to him!), and decided not to accept my "claim" that I have a MA in clinical Bacteriology. In a phrase: he wants to discredit me, and will not stop doing it, it seems. Not even here, at Wikipedia.

3- Skolnick talked about some of the offenses and etc that I did to him, and so on. All this happened outside wikipedia. Most of this in private emails. Neither I nor he are saints in this matter. It is foolish for him to comment on this. And irrelevant to wikipedia. If, nevertheless, wikipedia is interested in it, I will gladly go into details in that. And I never called Wiseman a Bastard. That is sheer hallucination from Skolnick.

Now I move to the core of the issue, as far as Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is concerned.

Basically, my involvement in this matter is that I, about one year ago, exchanged voluminous emails with the main designer of this test (Skolnick), and I came to understand the very many weaknesses of the experiment performed by CSICOP. Most of these weaknesses are being hidden or downplayed by Skolnick and fellows. Some of the information that proves the feebleness of this piece of "research" comes from private emails with Skolnick, and with Natasha's agent, and also with Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson. But actually, almost all the information and criticism that I have to this experiment comes from the published reports (by Skolnick and fellows) and from the Discovery Channel documentary on Natasha. And the fact that I have a BA in biology (1993 - I am a non-practicing biologist) and a MA in Clinical Bacteriology (2001 - both titles from Brazilian university UERJ, State University of Rio de Janeiro - Skolnick could check it anytime he wishes too; all he had to do is to learn to pick up the phone... Instead, he prefers to cast doubt on my credentials - I have one article published), plus the fact that I have extensive reading about paranormal issues and about skeptical investigations into parapsychological research (also having debated these issues on internet skeptic forums and parapsychological forums), lead me to believe that I can really help constructively in this entry about Natasha Demkina, so that things are reported correctly and trustworthily.

Now I move to the specif points being questioned by Skolnick or by the wikipedia moderators:

1- Edwardian said: Regarding this sentence that appears at the end of the second paragraph: "Meticulous and thorough critiques of the experiment can also be found on the internet." This statement contains a link to Julio Siqueira's critique and I presume it was added to this article by Siqueira himself. In my opinion, this addition violates some combination

Yes, it was included by me and refers to an online internet article written by me, self published. If it is not ok to wikipedia guidelines, I agree that it has to be taken out. But I think it is important to keep the information that this test has been heavily criticized. The main well known academic who has done this, on the internet, is Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate).

2- Skolnick, surprisingly enough, complained about a number of items. I stress to you that the veracity of my criticism towards these items come from the written articles by the researchers themselves, and from the Discovey Channel documentary. I will list them:

A- Richard Wiseman convinced Natasha to accept these two alien conditions above using technically flawed and logically incorrect reasoning, which some say was meant to deceive Natasha.

Natasha complained, right before the test, about two conditions: the removed appendix and the resected esophagus. She complained, obviously, because somehow she felt (or seemed to feel) that she would not be able to spot these two. Wiseman said to Natasha that if she missed the appendix and the resected esophagus, even then she would reach five and pass. What he should have said instead was: “If you cannot see the missing appendix, and if you cannot also see the resected esophagus, then there is the possibility that you will swap wrong diagnosis between THREE subjects and fail the test: the subject missing an appendix; the subject with a resected esophagus; and the subject with no condition. And this because to your eyes these three subjects will be just the same”.

B- One of the subjects seemed to have a leak in his eyes’ mask, which also violated the protocols.

It is clear in the documentary. At the very moment that the camera faces one of the subjects (the one with the metal plate in his head), he moved his eyebrow in such a way that gives the clear impression that he knows he is being spotted. So, yes, he seemed (SEEMED) to be improperly blinded. Even the researchers comment on this, I do not remember if on the published articles or on Skolnick’s webpage. I think it was indeed on the published articles. Now Skolnick comes and say that this is a lie pure and simple...

C- The subjects never showed any proof of their alleged clinical conditions, also violating the protocols (not even the researchers really know if they indeed had the conditions they claimed to have).

Yes, this is also true. This proof of their condition does not appear in the documentary. It also does not appear in any of the published articles. The researchers do not have any idea about their true clinical condition. If my memory serves me well, the researchers even say this in their published articles (of course I can track it down later).

D- "(even though only the researchers knew of the controversy regarding the cut-off value for statistical significance)” There was no controversy regarding the agreed upon level of statistical significance. It was agreed upon by all parties without a question. By claiming controversy, Siqueira believes he can create controversy.

Sometimes it is hard for me to believe that Skolnick has an MS, and that he has been an associate editor for JAMA for almost ten years! The question here is not one of “there was no controversy”. The question here is that “There Is a Controversy”. Scientific standards determine different cut-off values for statistical significance. It is common in medical science to use the value of 5%. According to that cut-off value, Natasha passed the test. A more stringent cut-off value is sometimes used, at 1%. Natasha almost reached this one too. Many claim that for “extraordinary claims” much higher levels must be demanded. Sometimes 0.1%, or 0.01%. It would be highly advisable that the researchers properly informe Natasha and helpers about this controversy that exists within science. Some scientists would consider a cut-off value of 5% quite acceptable for the type of “extraordinary claim” that would come out of the test: “further studies are warranted”. Yes, the test would not declare that Natasha was a paranormal. Instead, the test would declare something astronomically more modest: further studies are warrented. That is why some scientists would consider the 5% level acceptable in this case, and I mention physicist and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson especially, but also some other academics who have sent letters to the Skeptical Inquirer (CSICOP’s journal - the journal of the skeptics, and the one where Skolnick published his article about the test) about this issue.

E- Many other statements are clearly false, such as, "Demkina tried to say something further, which was understood by Skolnick as an insistence that appendixes sometimes do grow back in Russia; but actually her phrase was cut by Skolnick before she even finished it." This is false. The video tape of the Discovery Channel program I have clearly shows Natasha arguing that in Russia appendixes sometimes grow back following an appendectomy.

Now, this is a delicate issue. The fact is that we managed to discover that Skolnick actually has never watched the true official Discovery Channel documentary about Natasha Demkina (such is life...). He got a copy from Richard Wiseman which most likelly was a pre-release non-official version. It seems that Wiseman got this copy before September 2004, that is, before the documentary was ever broadcast. The documentary producer, Monica Garnsey, warned Skolnick that the copy that Wiseman had was an advance copy. Skolnick’s copy has portions that have been removed from the official broadcast version. He has been hiding his copy ever since we proved him to have this unofficial material, and no one can attest if he is saying the truth above or not. Perhaps if he shows his unofficial version, I may even withdraw this charge in the paragraph above. But so far as the official broadcast version is concerned, that is a perfect description of what happened. So I think we have to wait for Skolnick’s proof on this matter.

F- Here's an example of Siqueira's attempts to hide the truth by adding the words "in the skeptics' opinion" to a statement that is more truthful without his malicious tampering: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test in the skeptics’ opinion."' Natasha failed the test according to the written test rules which everyone had agreed to.

This is an easy issue. The test would only be valid if main rules were not violated by anyone of the parties involved in it. It so happened that the researchers themselves violated many rules (please see the sections that were removed by Skolnick’s aide, Mr. Respected Academic IP 203.214.87.196...). But since there were severe violations, the test can only be scientifically considered inconclusive. That is what Professor Brian Josephson stresses on his article (in his website) about this issue. We can talk more about it if you feel necessary.

G- In addition, Siqueira has introduced numerous lessor errors based on ignorance or incompetence into the Wikipedia entry -- such as claiming that Natasha was given seven cards. As has been well documented in the Discovery Channel program and in published reports, there were only six cards in the test.

I even put a link to a photo (snapshot) of the documentary showing Natasha facing seven cards. Doen’t Skolnick even know the basics about his own test???

I think nothing here shows Siqueria's methods as clearly as this outrageous example of fraud. I've been reluctant to even look at that JPG because I knew it would lead me to engage him in more fruitless debate. I don't want to do that because it's never ending. Shoot one falsehood down and he immediately replies with two or more ridiculous and dishonest allegations. But for those who don't know enough of the facts to see what he's attempting with this picture, please note: It shows eight cards -- not seven!

Six, seven or eight? Now, I am completely lost! Lumiere 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It shows Natasha holding one of the six test cards [6]. The documentary focused closely a number of times on these six, large white cards with graphics and instructions in English and Russian and described them in detail. Siqueria, who claims to be an authority on this program, obviously knows this. But seeing an opportuntity to open another attack, he jumped. He used this picture showing seven totaly unrelated, small orange-colored cards on the table (while ignoring the eighth -- the actual test card!) to confuse, mislead, and to raise doubt about the integrity of the researchers. This is the kind of "research" that he self-publishes on his web site and is now publishing here.Askolnick 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

H- For example, he replaced the original account with his deceitful speculation that Natasha's mother's decision to wait outside the test room was "probably due to the emotional discomfort of this embarrassing and emotionally stressing beginning." Siqueira must know that this is false because he has a copy of email from Natasha's agent Will Stewart in which he explains that the mother chose to wait outside the test room so her young daughter would not be left alone in a strange place.

The documentary, which is the only trustworthy source for that, clearly states that there was this attempt to take Natasha’s mother out. As I said, That indeed happened, and, according to the program producer Monica Garnsey, in an email to Andrew Skolnick on November 24, 2004, “Joe Nickell felt strongly and expressed his feelings strongly that Natasha's mother should not be allowed in the test room” (Nickell is a CSICOP fellow that helped during the test). And yes, I have some copies of the email exchanges between Natasha’s parties (including her agent then, Will Stewart) with the researchers (Hyman-Wiseman-Skolnick). As a matter of fact, if I reveal all that there is in these emails, the credibility of CSICOP will get even lower... I never did that, and I do not want to. It suffices here to say that all of Natasha’s parties complained heavily against that ridiculous beginning. If Skolnick wants, I can post Stewart’s and Natasha’s complaints here. What about it, Skolnick?

I- The appendix and the resected esophagus:

What I believe is that appendixes cannot be seen in X-Rays. Skolnick is not a doctor. I am not a doctor too. And I believe that the scar that is left in the esophagus after a portion of it is removed cannot be seen by X-Ray. I believe Skolnick is lying when he garantees to the wikipedia moderators that these structures can be seen by X Ray. Since he is no doctor, and has committed serious mistakes on these medical matters before (especially in the forum Museum of Hoaxes), I stress that true medical feedback is necessary on that.

A comment that seems to be from Edwardian: If you're counting on Mr. Siqueira to assist in the manner you suggested, I'm sure you will be disappointed with the results. I'm happy to help the victim of "character assassination" but only so far as he is willing to help me help him. Edwardian 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, I think you are already making conclusions about my personality only based on what Skolnick tells you. I kindly and humbly request from you... more time.

From Skolnick: I think we should require Siqueria to provide examples where researchers have ever sat down with their research subjects to discuss probability theory with them and the importance of Bayesian analysis when testing unlikely hypotheses.

If the subjects’ reputation is at stake, then the researchers have indeed the moral duty (and even the legal duty in some countries) to do that, that is, to give all the relevant information. What you are not telling the wikipedia moderators is that in the examples that you cite (the hundreds and thousands of articles that you claim to have read) the subjects remain anonymous.

Ok, enough for now. This is going to be a long dispute. Thanks enormously to all of you for the attention.

Julio Siqueira.

Thank you for your comments. I believe you have read far too much in my reply to Mr. Skolnick, but I am glad that you have chosen to participate here. I do have a couple pointers that might help things to go more smoothly: 1) Please keep comments as brief as possible by sticking to the issue, which is about cleaning up this article and not about any personal squabbles, 2) please sign comments with ~~~~ . Edwardian 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my "reading far too much". And thank you for the tip about the signature. I am trying to learn about wiki as fast as I can. But sometimes it is not fast enough. Sorry, and thank you. Julio Siqueira 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Mr. Skolnick, it would be helpful in resolving the dispute if you would list what specific statements in the article need to be changed and why. Thanks! Edwardian 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Resolution procedures

Gentlemen, given a dispute of this nature, I would recommend you solicit outside comment from the following places first:

• Wikipedia:Request for comments (try here first)
• Wikipedia:Peer review

These pages are visited by volunteers in the hope that those with relevant understanding of the details can come to this page and contribute comments to the matter. Fundamentally this is a dispute over article content that Mr. Skolnick disagrees with, aside from the fact that he finds them personally detrimental.

Your next step would be to purse mediation through Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation.

Presumably each of you can provide materials that support your positions. These would be helpful.

Mr. Skolnick: I strongly recommend that you create a Wikipedia account for yourself via this page, so that you can be consistently identified during discussions and other proceedings.

Regards, Keith D. Tyler ¶, AMA 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith and Edwardian, may I request that this entry be temporarily locked at the version before the disputed changes were made (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&oldid=30166513) while the dispute is worked out?

This weekend, I will compile a complete list of the additions and changes I dispute, along with a brief explanation why they violate Wikipedia policies and post it here. I'll also try to provide links to published sources that verify my claims.

Thanks very much for your help. Clearly, your efforts and contributions are worth far more than what they pay you :-) - Andrew Askolnick 13:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made the request at WP:RFP. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I would support that decision. I would even support reverting the article back to that reversion and working with Mr. Siqueira to address the parts he feel are inaccurate. Have a couple neutral parties with Mr. Skolnick's feedback should help to maintain a NPOV. Edwardian 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[Sorry Edwardian, I don't know how it happened, but I must have deleted that graph when I added the Protesting the Resolution Procedures section.]

24.51.86.237 (Andrew Skolnick) 12:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Protesting the Resolution Procedures

After reviewing the amount of work I would have to do to explain why nearly all of Siqueira changes to this entry are false, misleading, or otherwise violate Wiki policies, I want to protest the resolution procedures, which I think have turned the world on its head. As in science, it should be the claimaint's responsibility to provide verification of his claims.

Siqueira admits above that he deliberately added a false statement to this entry in anger because I had corrected the entry to make it less misleading. Siqueira has never been employed in any field of science. He's an elementary school English teacher. I replaced his misleading statement with a more truthful one. He says that's why he added a defamatory lie to Wikipedia -- claiming that I've faked my academic credentials. (What's more, padding references with biographical comments is completely out of place. References are supposed to have only the author's name and not include prizes won or personal hobbies.)

Just for your information, I followed the discussion and I think that the above paragraph doesn't sound right to me. Sequeira admitted that it was an emotional reaction, so there is no need to insist on that. A more important concern is that you continue on your side to ignore his degree. Lumiere 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still debating the claims of someone who would deliberately add a lie to a Wiki entry?

An even more important concern is that you continue to attack the individual instead of addressing the real issues. It really does not help your case. Lumiere 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still debating someone who has so great a disregard for the truth that he would tell you I was lying when I said that the appendix and esophagus can be seen by x-rays -- even after I posted two NIH web sites that show what I said is true? Why are we still debating someone who would insist, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that there were seven test cards not six? What level of lack of credibility must be reached before a person has to verify his statements before he can add them to Wikipedia?

This is why I'm protesting these procedures. The burden of proof should be on Siqueira to verify his statements before they can be added to Wikipedia. It should be clear by now that virtually none of his statements are supported by any credible published source. They're almost all based on his own opinions that he "published" on his own web site. A few are taken from a personal attack that Brian Josephson self-published on his web site. If this is the kind of scholarship Wikipedia is based on, then I think I'm contributing to the wrong place.

After considering the work that I would have to do to refute his changes, I've returned to my senses. It's much easier -- and fairer -- to ask that Siqueira cite a trustworthy source for every change he wants to make to the entry than it would be for me to explain why they don't belong in Wikipedia.

For example, flying in the face of evidence to the contrary, Siqueira claims that I'm incompetent or lying because I say there were only six test cards, not seven, and he claims he has proof. Never mind that I'm the person who actually made the test cards, because he's got the proof. The proof, he says, is the Discovery Channel program that he insists shows seven test cards. That's nonsense. If he's not lying, it's because he is too abominably stupid to know when he's lying. Yet, how am I prove to that he doesn't have a video of the program showing there were seven test cards? I could show you my own copy, but Siqueira is claiming that my video of the program is "pirated" or "bootlegged"! I've got the six test cards in my posession, every one of them bearing Natasha Demkina's and Prof. Ray Hyman's signatures. That proves nothing, I'm can hear Siqueira saying, adding that I either lost or destroyed the seventh card! There is just no way to end a dispute with a person who just makes things up.

In other words, I'm exasperated and at the point of throwing up my hands and saying Wikipedia is a noble experiment, but it's just not worth the time and frustration. I appreciate the work you guys have put into this dispute already. But I think the dispute procedures here are upsidedown and unfair. If a person like Siqueira can cause so much damage by maliciously rewriting an entry, requiring many hours of work to correct, then sorry, I just don't have the time nor the patience for it. I'm out of here. He wins and everybody involved with Wikipedia loses.

The only sensible way of dealing with this is to require a verifiable source for every change to the entry Siqueira made. Askolnick 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Skolnick,. Your protests are void. That is why:

- You keep rejecting my "MA in Clinical Bacteriology" credentials. That way, you prove that you do not belong to science.

- Your links to "prove" that appendixes and esophagus can be seen by x-ray are not valid. They only show that an appendix, if it is infected (apendicitis), can be seen, with enormous difficulty, in some x-rays, especially with the help of barium etc. Your subjects were not ill. Also, your link about the esophagus does not mention a word about spotting minute circular scars in resected esophagus with x-rays. You are trying to swindle wikipedia, you are trying to mimick Wiseman. But he is better than you at this... See what your own link says: "Plain x rays can show signs of obstruction, perforation (a hole), foreign bodies, and in rare cases, an appendicolith, which is hardened stool in the appendix.". Unbelievable...

- I have proved that it was seven cards on the table before Natasha. All you have to say is what these cards are (Further, it is clear in your protocols that they were numbered from 1 to 7 - by what miracle do you number 1 to 7 in only 6 cards...). The fact that you do not say this clearly proves that you have been caught in faulty memory, which is extremely often.

So, void protests... Julio Siqueira 14:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith and Edwardian, please, as far as I am concerned, feel free to take any action you consider apropriate. My only concern is that wikipedia listens to my point of view and to my feedbacks, and then decide whether they belong here in the entry or not. And that is already happening, that is, you are dealing very seriously and professionally with the matter. I cannot ask for more than that. Thank you. During this day I have gathered lots of material that can be regarded as more authoritative to help me support my "case". I will present this as soon as possible. If I delay it a little, it is because I am also trying to work on conciseness, which will help you (and us) enormously in evaluating things faster and better. I also want to get to know more about wikipedia policies, following the links and suggestions that you provided. Julio Siqueira 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Items

1) Regarding this sentence that appears at the end of the second paragraph: "Meticulous and thorough critiques of the experiment can also be found on the internet." This statement contains a link to Julio Siqueira's critique and I presume it was added to this article by Siqueira himself. In my opinion, this addition violates some combination Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Given that the statement previous to it notes that the experiment has been "heavily criticized", this particular statement does not warrant inclusion in such a prominent place in the article, if at all. What do other impartial editors think should be done with it? Edwardian 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Julio Siqueira wrote above: "Yes, it was included by me and refers to an online internet article written by me, self published. If it is not ok to wikipedia guidelines, I agree that it has to be taken out. But I think it is important to keep the information that this test has been heavily criticized. The main well known academic who has done this, on the internet, is Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate)." If the body of knowledge external to Wiki indicates that the test was heavily criticized (which appears to be the case), then I am OK with mention of that. The inclusion of Mr. Siqueira's link appears to violate Wiki policy given that it was inserted by himself, but I'd like to hear what other impartial editors have to say about it. I'm going to remove it from the body of the article but leave it in the "External links" section for the time being. Edwardian 05:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Edwardian. I think my article about Natasha is very thorough and meticulus indeed (even though Skolnick bitterly disagrees on that), and I have also made changes after I finished it, even including some recent feedbacks and complaints from Skolnick. Despite Skolnick's intensely insulting way of addressing me, I did made many changes to this article on my webpage, following some of his criticism directed to it in the forum Museum of Hoaxes. In this link, in my two-part message that is identified as "Posted by Julio Siqueira on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:49 AM", I indicate seven (7) changes that I was performing on my two main articles about Natasha issue on my website, following critical guidelines provided by Skolnick. So I do not know why Skolnick insists on being so unnecessarily rude. Also, and most important, my article has been carefully read by Professor Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate and referee for some respected scientific journals), which in practice amounts almost to an informal peer review, and Josephson considered the content so informative and well researched that he placed a link from his webpage to my two main articles on this issue: 1- Csicop vs Natasha, and 2- Embarrassing Answers. But of course if it is agains wikipedia guidelines, then it is perfectly ok to remove it. A good solution would be to keep the link to Professor Josephson, and keep the link to my article at the end of the entry, if that is acceptable. Julio Siqueira 09:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

2) Regarding this sentence in the second paragraph of the section entitled "The CSMMH-CSICOP test": "(according to some views, her result in the test did achieve statistical significance". According to whom? This statement needs an explicit reference to be considered for inclusion. Edwardian 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, an explanation of how and why the CSMMH-CSICOP investigators decided on which P value to use for determining statistical significance was provided by Prof. Ray Hyman: [7] We chose to use a P value between 0.01 and .001, which were the values the pioneer of parapsychology research, J. B. Rhine had used in many of his famous experiments. Askolnick 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything about this specific entry that you think is not accurate? Edwardian 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Virtually everything Siqueria added or deleted is not accurate or in violation of Wiki policies. Do you mean only about his comments about statistical signficance? If so, the entire statement is false or in violation of Wiki policy:

"Natasha Demkina, her mother, and her agent, although the researchers did not explain to them the differing views in science regarding the cut-off value for statistical significance of a test result (according to some views, her result in the test did achieve statistical significance)."

I think we should require Siqueria to provide examples where researchers have ever sat down with their research subjects to discuss probability theory with them and the importance of Bayesian analysis when testing unlikely hypotheses. Let him provide evidence to justify his nonsensical assertion. Having been an associate news editor for the Journal of the American Medical Association for 9+ years, I've read thousands of research articles. I know of no research where scientists have had to explain statistical analysis procedures to their subjects!

Siqueria is unable to cite support of his views from any credible publication. He can only cite his or other self-published on-line hatchet jobs. I can site many other published references that explain why choosing a P value between 0.01 and 0.001 is justified -- and sensible -- when testing unlikely hypotheses.

And another important point: What ever target level for statistical significance is chosen, it must be chosen before the experiment begins. It should not be changed after the experiment to fit the test results, as our critics are insisting. Askolnick 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is not evident looking at the article who exactly posted what to it. Secondly, it is not explicitly evident to those of us reviewing the article what parts are not accurate. This is why we need your help. Edwardian 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for explaining. I will help all I can, but it will have to wait until later this evening and tomorrow. I much appreciate your patience and help in dealing with this awful affair. (I just hope that, when all the smoke finally clears, Siqueira will be prevented from committing any more malicious vandalism to Wikipedia entries, considering how much time it takes to repair his attacks.) Thanks. Askolnick 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3) Regarding this sentence also in the second paragraph of the section entitled "The CSMMH-CSICOP test": "All these conditions are visible by radiology, but two of these conditions are not seen by X-Ray: the removed appendix and the removed portion of the esophagus." This is my area of expertise but aren't radiographs and X-rays the same? How can all be seen by radiographs but only four by X-rays? Edwardian 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, not all anatomical details are visible on every kind of radiological exam and some radiological images are not done well enough to capture some conditions. With that said, I cannot make any sense out of what Siqueira wrote. To clarify things: the appendix and the esophagus are both easily seen with CT scans, conventional X-rays (especially with the help of Barium swallow), [8] MRI scans, and also ultrasound. [9] Askolnick 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you write any of that sentence, or was that it entirely written by Mr. Siqueira. I'm just trying to decipher point(s) were attempting to be made. Edwardian 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain I contributed, "All these conditions are visible by radiology." Whether I did or not, it's clearly a truthful statement, as can be verified with the links above. It was Siqueira who added: "but two of these conditions are not seen by X-Ray: the removed appendix and the removed portion of the esophagus." Although I'm not certain what he means, no matter how I construe it, it's demonstrably wrong.Askolnick 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Julio Siqueira mentioned above that he does not believe that the appendix or the esophagus (or rather the scar on the esophagus) are visible via radiography. I briefly spoke with a doctor this evening who confirmed that the appendix and esophagus are visible, but maybe not as easy to see. The article currently states: "All these conditions are visible by radiology." Demkina is referred to as "The Girl with X-ray Eyes" but I don't think that anyone has asserted that X-rays literally come from her eyes. Because of this, I suggest removing the phrase entirely. If someone could provide a reference or citation for her actually claims, that might be helpful, too. Edwardian 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, who are you going to believe, Siqueira or your own eyes? (I presume you visited the NIH web sites I cited to verify that the appendix and esophagus can be seen by radiology, including x-rays?)

"I believe Skolnick is lying when he garantees to the wikipedia moderators that these structures can be seen by X Ray."

If I'm lying than the National Institutes of Health and numerous other medical authorities are in cahoots.

Yes, these organs can be hard to see with conventional x-rays. That's why radiologists use barium swallows and other radiological procedures including CT-scans, MRI scans, and ultrasound. The original Wiki text says "visible via radiology." It did not say routine x-rays. And that's the way it was stated in the test protocols. These protocols state that the target medical abnormalities would only be conditions visible by radiology.

Sorry, my error. I did not include that statement in the written test protocols. My memory failed me. I did make this statement in other writings since it was an important rule we used for choosing the target medical conditions. All the conditions had to be diagnosable by radiology -- which would rule out many diseases and disorders, such as hypertension, diabetes, anemia, hypercholesterolemis, allergies, many infectious diseases, hypothyroidism, to name a few. We limited our choices of target conditions to ones that involved easily confirmed, clear-cut anatomical abnormalities, so that there could be no dispute (little did we realize there's no such thing). ~~

Keith, Edwardian, and Skolnick, Skolnick is just acknowledging above the fact that "these organs can be hard to see with conventional x-rays". Note that he numbers the alternatives to solve this problem: CT-scans, MRI scans, ultrasound. This is what we have to point out. These structures are not easily seen by X-Ray (I do not believe that Skolnick gave barium to his subjects...). And, Skolnick, I think you misread your own protocols. It is not said in them that the conditions would only be conditions visible by radiology. Where on Earth did you get this from? And also, your protocols do mention specifically "x-ray" Julio Siqueira 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to bother replying to Siqueria's posts here because it will be (as it has been for over a year)never ending and I'm very close to just walking away from this whole aggravating situation, because it's like James Randi says, "nailing Jello to the wall.". He just goes from one made-up thing to another -- like his latest claim that there were not six test cards but seven. And I just noticed a message on top of this page indicating that it's already longer than is preferable at Wiki (it's certainly longer than I am comfortable dealing with). I'll only reply to the comments and questions of moderators. Thanks. -Andrew Askolnick 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if an external opinion helps here, but it seems that Siqueira has a good point when he says that the requirement for Barium or other stuff indicates that the X-ray alone does not seem to be sufficient. Also, why is it that Skolnick then starts to attack directly the person of Siqueira, instead of focusing on the issues. Perhaps, something needs to be further discussed, I don't see, but then let focus on the issue. Lumiere 07:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear the feedbacks from your source. In that I trust! Also, it is important to stress that it is not exactly the "esophagus" that we are talking about. We are actually talking about the scar that is left on it, the circular scar that is left after you sew the two remaining sections together. For all these kinds of "scars", including this minute circular and the larger ones (the ones on the chest, in this clinical condition, or the one on the pelvis, in the removed appendix), the documentary clearly says that Natasha claims that "postoperative scars can be confusing". Also, it would be interesting if you could ask your source (i.e. doctor) about the position of the appendix, and if that may interfere with its being identified or not in X-Rays. Skolnick passed to me, almost a year ago, the only trustworthy piece of evidence concerning the actual claims of Natasha. Believe it or not, he did not get it directly from Natasha. He relied on the program producer, Monica Garnsey, a very busy person, heavily burdened with the task of doing the documentary. Skolnick says Monica speaks russian. It is better to double check it with Monica anyway. As to the feedback from Monica, I quote what I wrote in my article: Only on December 3, 2004 (almost one month after my first contact with Skolnick...), did Skolnick present further evidence of Natasha's "extended claims" (cellular vision, etc). He showed a part of an email he received from the program producer (Monica Garnsey) nearly a month before the test, "containing a summary of Natasha's 'abilities' to help us design the test". Monica is quoted as saying that: "I double-checked a few things with her last night. ... She usually scans people all over first, by making them stand up fully clothed and looking them up and down; delivers a general diagnosis; and then goes into more detail when the patients have discussed their concerns with her. She says she can certainly see ribs, heart, lungs, initially in general 'like in an anatomy book', but can see right down to the cell level if she concentrates." . Note that there is only the briefest mentioning of "cellular vision", and that nowhere is it said if she can diagnose diseases at the cellular level, or even at the microscopic multicellular tissue level, and definitely there is nothing at all about molecular vision. Julio Siqueira 10:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

4) Regarding this sentence in the section entitled "Natasha's hits and misses": "The critics point out, however, that, strangely enough, neither Skolnick nor any other one of the skeptics present had even a tape recorder to keep trustworthy register of this episode." The "episode" refers to Demkina diagnosing Skolnick. If there is no evidence that this exchange took place, it needs to be changed to reflect that this is what Mr. Skolnick claims happened. Mr. Skolnick, is there a reference outside of Wikipedia that points to this exchange? Edwardian 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, my report of Natasha Demkina's reading of my "health problems" was published in the May/June 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer and can be read on CSICOP's web site [10] CSICOP's Senior Research Fellow, Joe Nickell, who wrote an accompanying article (which doesn't mention the reading), had taken notes of Natasha's reading and is willing to be quoted verifying the accuracy of my report. Askolnick 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, for Mr. Nickell to post something here without it appearing elsewhere would constitute original research. Your link should do. Edwardian 21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a peer-reviewed journal. Here is an extract from their web site:

The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will usually send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. It is good practice to have knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal; a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer.

The emphasis is mine. Clearly, not all submissions are sent for peer-review. I don't know if it matters here because it maybe that this TV event cannot really be considered a scientific study anyway. If that is the case, I wounder in which way an article on this issue fits in Wikipedia? Of course a TV event is something interesting, but is that enough to justify an article in Wikipedia? If it fits in Wikipedia, perhaps we should be careful that there is no pretention of scientific validity, only a TV event is being reported.

5) Julio Siqueira indicated above that he had a problem with the above sentence: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test in the skeptics’ opinion." Is there a reason that this should not be changed to: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test according to the rules."? Edwardian 05:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's an entirely accurate statement. Good solution.Askolnick 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion is perfectly ok for me. I will continue to provide as much feedback and help I can during this day.Julio Siqueira 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

6) Are we in agreement that Demkina was shown 7 cards? Edwardian 05:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if you want falsehoods in Wikipedia entries. There were six test cards.[11] There was no need for a seventh card. The seventh subject had none of the conditions listed in the six cards. By filling in the six test cards, she automatically chose the "none-of-above" subject. I'm afraid the way things are going, this is going to take years to resolve. I really think this is unfair. I think you should make Siqueira provide verification for every change he made and not make me disprove all his false and misleading statements. Shouldn't the proof be on the claimaint? Askolnick 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Skolnick, there is no need for us to act in an uncivilized way. I have provided a photo of the documentary where you can see seven cards on the table. Now, it is completely irrelevant whether it is six or seven cards (as far as the content of the entry Natasha Demkina is concerned; of course it would be a little bit embarrassing for you if it was indeed seven cards and not six. But nothing really bad to the entry itself). All you have to do is to tell us what are these seven cards that we see before Natasha. Anyway, Edwardian, if Skolnick is to get too emotional because of this little detail, I agree that we put it six cards, since it amounts to no difference in the test itself. Julio Siqueira 23:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Skolnick, just an afterthought. In your protocols it is really mentioned six cards, and many times. So you are right in this. But in your own protocols there is also a paragraph (rule number 4) that leads us to expect seven cards... And, in the documentary, we see seven cards. Take a look at your own protocols: "4-A test card for each condition will be created. On each card, a target condition will be clearly described using non-medical terms in Russian and in English. The card may also contain a simple illustration of what Natasha should look for, such as a drawing of an artificial hip joint, or a drawing of a human body showing a missing left kidney. Below that will be numbers 1 to 7 corresponding to the 7 subjects who will be identified only by number and not their name. Natasha will be required to circle the correct patient number that matches the target medical condition.". Julio Siqueira 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Skolnick (even though you do not like me). I may not agree with your points of view, and in fact I think you lie a lot in this issue about Natasha. But I am utterly against any kind of suppression of your works on it. You must be allowed to show your viewpoint on this matter in the entry Natasha Demkina. Of course we have to abide to wikipedia rules, I think. Anyway, I cannot help presenting my view on this matter here now. Julio Siqueira 14:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Skolnick, the one who took out Edwardian comment leaving the moderation was ip 24.51.86.237. It is the same hacker that changed my name (Julio Siqueira) in the external links to my name + "elementary English teacher", on December 5, 2005. This was before I started editing this entry. Most likely, this hacker is either you or one of your aides. There is no way to stop you, it seems... Julio Siqueira 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia but I got interested in the Wikipedia policies and just decided to pick this case to see how these policies can apply. It seems to me that one approach to the above dilemma is simply to recognize that this is not really a scientific study. It was not published in a peer-reviewed journal (see my comment that I inserted above). The verifiability policy states that a reputable source should have some form of peer-review. It was designed in a month or so for a TV event. Let us take it for what it is. I really don't think this article fits in Wikipedia. In the best scenario, it could simply be a report of the TV event, but I don't think that this kind of TV events need to be reported in Wikipedia. They should conduct a real study and try to publish it in some peer-reviewed journal, if they feel it is worth it. Lumiere 07:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oupps! I was editing the section Items, and thought I was reading the entire page. So, I didn't read the remainder of the page before I wrote the above conclusion. So, I should continue to read, and perhaps revise this conclusion. Lumiere 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing from resolution process

This article, and the resultant name-calling on the Talk page, is a prime example of why Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have been followed in the first place. Given that Andrew Skolnick and Julio Siqueira are closely connected to the subject matter, neither should have been, or be, permitted to directly edit this article. No one wants to suppress the views of primary sources of information, so they should be encouraged to post recommended changes on the Talk pages; however, the best way to ensure that articles contain valid and accurate information is for impartial editors to do the editing. I'm done here. Edwardian 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) edited 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

After I came to Wikipedia back around April to correct some mistakes and add material to this entry, I received this message from Wiki administrator Arcadian:

"I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent work on the Natasha Demkina article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --Arcadian 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" [4]"

So I'm confused: a Wiki administrator said that "seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best." Now I'm being told that this is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Who's right about this?

And by the way, shouldn't the validity and accuracy of the information added to Wikipedia be more important than the authorship of that information? Askolnick

This section above was restored by Julio Siqueira 14:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, but still it seems to me that I didn't see anywhere stated in the policies that an editor cannot be the author of the event (a study, a TV event, etc.) that he reports. To the contrary, the policy says that the editor should simply try to have his story (or study, etc.) published in a reputable source, and then include it in Wikipedia with this reputable source in support. The key point in the verifiability policy is the reputation of the source, irrespectively of who are the Wikipedia editors. Lumiere 07:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Julio Siqueira Withdraws from Editing

Having read what Edwardian wrote above (and knowing that he has read my first reply to his original paragraph - he has now rewritten it, with some minor modifications), I now quit all editing involvement in the entry "Natasha Demkina" at Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that the editors remove my original contributions, and that they think about the appropriateness of my feedbacks on this matter, so that they can decide for themselves whether to include them at the entry or not (in part or whole). I thank very much Edwardian (and Keith) for their patience and dedication on this matter, and congratulate Wikipedia in its effort to create a fast and free yet trustworthy source of information on the web. Julio Siqueira 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(P.S.: as to what Skolnick himself should do from now on in this entry, I leave this to his psychiatrist...)

Comments and Suggestions by Julio Siqueira

Hi Keith and everybody. I am starting this section in the talk page to input my feedbacks to the entry. Feel free to use them the way you consider appropriate. You, and everybody, is of course welcome to directly append any of your comments to mine.Julio Siqueira 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Number 1: Keith, I have now read the entry the way you rewrote it. I think it is quite acceptable, some parts of it being nearly perfect indeed. Surely I will have very few suggestions. I will have some comments (feedbacks) to it, and to this talk page too, later on. Best Regards. Julio Siqueira 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've partially rewritten the article, taking into consideration the content added by both Skolnick and Siquiera, based on long-scale diffs. I did not integrate any external information. I did make some rewords that were inferred from combinations of details among the edits. I took pains to remove POV, biased, or even content that showed bias in tone, focus, or reinforcement.

Remember I said at the beginning that I was not taking any side in the matter. What insights I have gained on this topic from this process remain my own. To be honest, it was somewhere in between the positions of the two disputants here.

I would ask that both of you contribute your concerns about the current version to the Talk page, and refrain from editing the main page from now on. This request has less to do with the fact that you are primary sources (or at least closely involved with the topic) but the fact that you are disputants over its content, and it is best to bring your disputes to the side, rather than take the conflict out on the main article.

I am going to update my request for protection to the version I just wrote.

Regards, Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Keith. As I had already said before (even before, strangely, Skolnick posted his protest against the mediation...), I fully support measures like this one that you are taking, aiming to guarantee neutral point of view and trustworthy information (I said that half an hour before Skolnick added the "Protesting the Resolution Procedures" section). And I stopped making any changes to the entry "Natasha Demkina" from the moment the dispute started. Only now did I see the so many changes that Skolnick made to the entry AFTER the dispute began. Unbelieveble. And Shameful (but, unfortunately, typical of his conduct). I will contribute with suggestions to the entry (the way you reworked it) as soon as possible, and congratulate you, Edwardian, and Wikipedia for the attempt (highly successful, I believe) of making a trustworthy and informative source of information on the web. Julio Siqueira 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Protected the page. Work it out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Letter

Sorry - just temporary measure, see my reply at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Posting emailed content disputes --Francis Schonken 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My responses to second letter

I've asked if I can post the contents of Mr. Skolnick's second email to this page. Until I receive his approval, I am posting only my responses to that email here. Missing content from Mr. Skolnick will be represented by ellipses in parentheses, followed by a summary, in italics

(...) (I should be embarassed over my rewrite)

I'm not embarassed. I've defended my work and clearly defined what work I did and how I did it.

(...) (I am placing NPOV over accuracy)

No, you're misrepresenting what I've done. I'm not planning to research Demkina. I took an immediate action to attempt to resolve libel and neutrality disputes. I've taken on your accuracy concerns one by one, and I don't believe you've responded to them all.

(...) (re Julio Siqueira's post to Museum of Hoaxes after my revision)

I don't see what Siqueira posts anywhere has to do with editing work at Wikipedia. It seems to be that while he is satisfied to have his perspective included in the article, you are increasingly dissatisfied with that. This is, of course, aside from accuracy questions, which like I said, I've responded to individually and am still awaiting your responses on those discussion points.

(...) (bringing up Siegenthaler)

Well, that issue has been exhaustively discussed and dealt with among Wikipedia participants, so I do not agree with your use of the word 'allow' as if to imply that Wikipedia knowingly permits slander. Such an allegation is itself slanderous, as I'd expect you'd recognize.

In any case, it seems to me there is a point where the ramblings of (someone you see as) an anonymous online troll on (what you seem to think is a website of poor refute) should cease to worry you. I hope for your sake you never reach a higher level of fame, because you will be very, very busy fretting over the negative words of others. It would rather seem to me in the realm of parapsychology or counter-parapsychology that those sorts of attacks from (what you presumably see as) the nutjob fringe would be part and parcel of the territory.

(I feel compelled to justify the above paragraph as an attempt to relate to Mr. Skolnick's perspective in order to make my point. It is clear that he does not hold Mr. Siqueira, the Museum of Hoaxes, or Natasha Demkina's supporters in high regard.)

(...) (The relevance of appendicitis misdiagnosis to the difficulty of locating the appendix)

I'm still not understanding why you don't follow the relevance. I think I've explained the reasoning. Appendicitis is difficult to diagnose because the appendix can be difficult to locate. Therefore, the appendix can be difficult to locate.

Ultimately -- The opposition view of your experiment is that being asked to find an appendix is unfair because the appendix can be hard to locate. The appendix can be so hard to locate, in fact, that medical doctors can have difficulty diagnosing appendicitis. Those are both accurate statements.

Whether or not I think that is a sensible objection is not relevant. (I have no basis on which to judge that.) It is in fact the objection of the critics of your experiment. Including the objections of your critics is essential to NPOV. WP does not make value judgements of the scientific veracity of your opponents' beliefs. (If WP did that, imagine what a mess articles on religion and other certain topic areas could become -- in fact has become, in some cases, because of such attempts at value judgement.) It does include their views, though.

But I've been over this already.

(...) (Possible misuse of the term "sufferer")

Responded to already and to date ignored.

(...) (Possible misuse of the term "ailment")

Responded to already and to date ignored.

(...) (Question of "better than average", lack of baseline, and also possible misuse of the word "ailment")

Been over this. You are repeating your last email. Clearly you have seen my responses to them.

(...) (Accusing me of incompetence)

I do not know on what basis you judge my incomptence. Regardless, calling me incompetent is simply argumentative.

(...) (Skolnick's intention to keep content issues private vs. my intent to keep them public)

The article is a public matter. I have no interest in it being a private issue between yourself and myself.

(...) (My lack of professional medicine knowledge and the limits of the amount of research I did in my rewrite)

I already pointed out that I only based my rewrite on what was contributed to the article over time.

(...) (My failure to read the published reports of the test)

Yes, I pointed this out.

(...) (My therefore inability to understand the sum of false positives and false negatives)

You could save your vitriol and explain them to me.

(...) (My lack of qualifications and my motivation for attempting to improve the article)

Because it needed attention. And letting only one primary source define the article would serve no one except that person. And no one else was available, and you were alleging libel.

(...) (Whether a story about a negative experience is a negative story)

Writing a story that illustrates only a negative experience is a negative article.

(...) (A story specifically only about a negative experience can be fair and accurate)

I find it ironic that you insist that your one-sided article amplifying your (in your view) negative experiences with Wikipedia would be fair and accurate, but my article including both sides of a dispute is biased and incompetent.

(...) (Whether or not I truly know that the SI will publish a negative article based on that fact that Mr. Skolnick said he intended to do so)

Well, the possiblity exists. You told me so yourself that you would intend to do this.

(...) (My violation of common netiquette in publicly posting to WP a private email about a public WP matter without first gaining explicit permission)

Then we're even, because you continue to violate the open collaborative principles of Wikipedia by trying to contain your disputes behind a closed discussion. I advised you -- both you and Siqueira -- that further disputes should be on the talk page, as is Wikipedia standard practice in a dispute. You've refused to abide by that request.

(...) (I am grossly ignorant, unsuitable to be an editor, and disregard for courtesy or fairness)

From now on, irregardless of your response to my question regarding this email, consider any email you send to me on this topic to be a public matter. I have become far more embroiled in this matter than I ever intended to be.

But if you are going to insist on targeting me as the new source of your dissatisfaction, I expect you will actually provide constructive responses to my own responses on your issues. That form of discussion is the only form which will bring about a resolution of the concerns. And I urge you to carry that out on the article talk page, so more eyes than just my incompetent ones can see it.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith, you are doing an excellent work. Skolnick simply offends anyone he gets in touch with if they do not follow the rules dictated by our Little KingSkolnick. He had a big fight with the other researchers at the test (Hyman and Wiseman). His stand is so arrogant and disgusting that the Discovery Channel ended up not interviewing him for the documentary (remember that he was the main designer of the test...). They interviewed the two other researchers involved (again, Hyman and Wiseman), and a lot. But Skolnick is not interviewed not even once! (Joe Nickell was only a helper with them, of little importance). If he just would stop quitting his psychiatrist sessions, this would not be hopeless. But the way it is, we are all at a loss while he is around. Best Regards, Julio Siqueira 11:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This last comment, and in particular its penultimate sentence, has just come to my attention. It has absolutely no place on Wikipedia and should be removed as an extreme example of personal attack. --BillC 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bill. And what about the offenses from Skolnick to me? Are they to be allowed? Please take a look above where he says: "Siqueira admits above that he deliberately added a false statement to this entry in anger because I had corrected the entry to make it less misleading. Siqueira has never been employed in any field of science. He's an elementary school English teacher. I replaced his misleading statement with a more truthful one.". Isn't it an offense for him to claim that it is misleading (and "more truthful", or better, "less of a lie"...) for me to say that I have an MA in clinical bacteriology? Why don't you speak about it? Skolnick removed my MA credentials TWICE from the external links, the last time against Edwardians strong recommendations (he made 29 changes to the entry after edwardian's recommendations to the contrary...). This last time he said he was removing my MA credentials because they are improper bio information for a reference list table. So why before he replaced it with "Elementary English Teacher". What do you think about it? Julio Siqueira 01:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bill, while you're at it, please ask them to remove the same libelous comment Siqueira made three days ago, along with the rest of the defamation he's been allowed to post here -- without any Wiki editor, moderator, or administrator telling him to stop. And please, stop using weasel words like "extreme example of personal attack. Wikis are so terrified of that "L-word"! But calling libel "extreme example of personal attack" will not protect the Wikipedia community from being held responsible for allowing the publication of defamation. Falsely stating that someone is under psychiatric care is libel. Period. Look it up in a reliable encyclopedia.Askolnick 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And thank you for being one of the only Wikis to recognize that such libelous attacks don't belong here. Askolnick 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keith,

I want to make some comments on Skolnick’s "Forbidden Letters". I will respect his feeling that the exact phrasing of his lines be not reproduced. My intention in commenting on them is to clarify some issues, and to highlight some mistakes from him. I will number the items below:

1- First, a comment from him before his dark letters (or black emails, or blackmail, if you prefer): To clarify things: the appendix and the esophagus are both easily seen with CT scans, conventional X-rays (especially with the help of Barium swallow), [8] MRI scans, and also ultrasound. [9] Askolnick 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC). He further said, in his Dark Letters, that it is difficult for clinicians to diagnose appendicitis, but that it is not difficult for them using radiology to find an appendix. So I directed the following question to two doctors here in Brazil. My question below and their answers.

Question: is it possible to identify, using X-Ray tests, if someone has an appendix or not? And is it possible to identify, by X-Ray, if someone has a scar in the esophagus due to the removal of a section of it and the subsequent sewing together of the two remaining portions? And what about CAT scans and MRI?

Answer from doctor1: Not possible by X Ray. Using CAT scan or MRI something might be said about the esophagus. But for the appendix, both methods do not work.

Answer from doctor2: something fundamental to undertand radiological exams is the use of a substance that provides contrast, without which it gets impossible to identify several structures. The air serves as contrast in conventional X-Ray tests most of the times, but it is almost impossible to identify the appendix, except with contrast using barium ingested orally, but even with it it is extremely rare. There is no doubt that this kind of exam has no value for this kind of identification routinely. As to the esophagus, the most that could be seen in conventional radiographies (X-Ray test) is the decrease in its extension, that causes a big change in the position of the estomach upward. But most of the times, it would be necessary to use barium or even to inject air for one to be sure of the position/lengh. About CAT scan: to identify the appendix, it is very difficult in many cases, without contrast. With contrast, however, it may be more or less easy. As to the scar on the esophagus, I believe it is very difficult to see by any radiological exam, unless there is too much fibrosis in this scar (hypertrophic scar).

We must remember that Skolnick himself is not a doctor. In many situations I have been able to identify severe weaknesses in his interpretations of medical issues. I am not a doctor myself. I have a MA in clinical bacteriology (2001 - UERJ Brazil), and a BA in biology (1993 UERJ Brazil - I am a non-practicing biologist, though). My experience and academical knowledge has helped me enormously in identifying his several mistakes. He does not like when one does this, and takes to offending the person. But we all have to stick to our credentials and true experiences on the subjects of issue.

The bottom line in this issue of the appendix and scar in the esophagus is that they seem clearly to be a little bit beyond Natasha's actual claims, as far as the researchers have been able to identify what her claims are. Also, these conditions are a little bit beyond the example conditions provided in their own protocols. I will make clear these two points in my nest message.

I will make some comments afterwards. Julio Siqueira 12:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Geni's comments

opening paragraph

Should read

Natasha Demkina (Наталья Демкина) (198?-), called "The Girl with X-ray Eyes," is a teenage alleged medical psychic from Saransk, Russia. Demkina claims to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical diagnoses. Believers of her power claim these diagnoses are often more accurate than those of doctors. She has appeared on television shows in the United Kingdom and, more recently, in a documentary for the Discovery Channel titled "The Girl with X-Ray Eyes" where she was asked to demonstrate her claims. After the latter demonstration, researchers rejected the likelihood of her having such an ability, though her believers criticize the methods and conclusions of the researchers.

Geni 15:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The CSMMH-CSICOP test

The parameters and conclusions of the test have been criticized by believers of paranormal abilities, and the prior bias of the research team has been questioned.

Needs a source

The work in this particular field by these researchers has drawn much criticism from other paranormal investigators, particularly believers.

Source? Names of critics?

Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Geni, good sources for this are the webpage of Professor Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate physicist) and my own webpage (Julio Siqueira, MA in Clinical Bacteriology). Skolnick usually cites Australian Lawyer Victor Zammit too. Actually Zammit is the only critic that Skolnick allowed to be cited in his comission (the CSMMH) webpage (Skolnick even turned down repeated requests from his fellow researcher Richard Wiseman to include a link from the CSMMH page to Josephson's page). So I think Skolnick would not like to keep Zammit away from citation.Julio Siqueira 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references point by point.Geni 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment of abilities

The researchers' basis for including these (as well as the other) conditions was reportedly from third-party descriptions of her ability as being able to see organs inside the body.

reportedly? Source? Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The appendectomy candidate

Every part of this sention needs sourceing.Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Inconclusive conclusion

This needs sourceing.Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Other irregularities and questions

This needs sourceing.Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Refraining

Since I have suddenly found myself to be a disputant over the article content, I am refraning from further editing of it for the time being (FWIW it is still under protection ATM). I never intended to make a perfect article, merely one that approached proper NPOV and avoided the earlier charges of Libel. This not being satisfactory to all parties, I am soliciting more eyes. I have posted a request for help in a number of other articles related to paranormal research. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

False Balance

I think this article has issues with false balance. She was tested according to parameters she and her handlers agreed to. She failed. We should be done already. According to Wikipedia policy, we aren't obliged to include every extremist position on every subject. I do think a better way to organize it would be a Point/Counterpoint list concerning individual criticisms of the test itself. I do urge participants to not take things personally. And I do think that the word libel has been bandied about far too much lately. I hope everyone realizes that libel only applies if you can prove a detrimental effect of the alleged libelous content. --DocJohnny 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, DocJohnny. The article is giving undue prominence to a certain viewpoint. The goalposts have been constantly moving since the tests. I have been wondering if what this article is more of need of is a complete rewrite, stripping the whole thing down to a bare-bones biography, and merely commenting on the controversy. As the article currently stands, it's overlong and the sort of page that no-one would want to read. --BillC 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• DocJohnny, I fully disagree with you, and I fully agree with BillC: You wrongly say that Natasha "was tested according to parameters she and her handlers agreed to.". She was not. You wrongly say that Natasha "failed the test". She did not. Did you read the material here at Wikipedia explaining all this. If not, why not? I could go over it for the thousandth time, but what I stress is that my conclusions do not come from the believers' point of view (I am not a believer in Natasha). My conclusions come from the published articles by the "researchers", skeptics actually, in their own private journal: Skeptical Inquirer. Also, from the information in their private webpage: CSMMH. And from the broadcast final official version of the documentary made by Discovery Channel. So you are badly wrong when you say "we aren't obliged to include every extremist position on every subject.". First, because this is precisely what Wikipedia has been doing... That is, some wikipedians, especially MS Skolnick, have been using this entry as a way to express their extremist and unbased point of view. Second, you are badly wrong because what I am proposing is that the fair and proper view be shown. How can you, or anyone, claim that she "failed the test" if the rules of the test were actually not followed? (rules to which she agreed). They attempted to exclude her mother from the test room (violating their own protocols), and they did it in a rather brute way, according to program producer Monica Garnsey; they presented two clinical conditions that clearly seemed beyond her actual claims as identified by the researchers; they convinced her to accept these two off-the-cuff conditions using technically and logically flawed reasoning, and in such a way that most judges would consider that from that point on she was agreeing to be tested not on seven conditions but on five conditions only; the "subjects" (those who had clinical conditions that Natasha was trying to identify) never showed any proof of their alleged clinical conditions. All this, against the test rules. What do you think of this? Well, I will tell you what I think of this, and what I told Skolnick. I said, Skolnick, if you really think this sloppy test that you did was in any way "scientific", then send it for publication in some prestigious scientific jounal. State in the "material and methods" section that "We presented to her seven subjects, each one of with a clinical conditon for her to identify; we do not have the least idea if they in fact had these conditions, for they did not show us any proof of it whatsoever, and they were not even properly screened for, since we ended up having two guys claiming to have had their appendix removed". Let's see if it gets published... Not even in Uri Geller's site... But I fully agree with BillC. I think this entry has to be brought back to its bare bones conditions. Only a very brief description of who Natasha is, what is said about her claims, and some brief comment on the controversy over her alleged powers.Julio Siqueira 10:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Please write such an article. --BillC 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• DocJohnny, you are wrong to state that libel applies only if a plaintiff can prove detrimental effect. That's not true. According to libel laws in most if not all U.S. states, certain kinds of false speech is defamatory per se -- which means no harm has to be proven for a plaintiff to win a libel or slander suit. Examples of such defamations are false charges of adultery or false attacks on a woman's chasity, false charges of drunkeness or other drug addiction, false charges of having a venereal disease, false charges of having mental illness, false allegations of criminal conduct, and many other kinds of damaging false allegations. A well-known case was Carol Burnett's successful multi-million-dollar libel suit against the National Enquirer. Ms. Burnett only had to prove that the newspaper had falsely printed a story that she had been behaving drunk at a restaurant, and (because she was a public figure) that it acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. Defamation laws have long recognized that certain labels are indisputably harmful to a person and a victim of such false labeling need not demonstrate any actual injury to bring a successful defamation suit. (Of course, by demonstrating actual injuries, the court is likely to grant a larger award to the plaintiff.

An example of such actionable conduct has been going on right in this thread. Although I've put the defamer and the Wiki community on notice, his libelous speech continues to be posted. I believe Wiki's refusal to do anything to stop the ongoing publication of defamations, despite being asked repeatedly to stop it, constitutes reckless disregard for the truth. And yet again this morning, the person, Julio Siqueira, falsely stated here that I am under psychiatric care. As stated above, falsely accusing someone of mental illness is defamation per se and requires no evidence of injury to collect damages from the offender or defenders in court. Siqueira has long made it public that he is seeking to discredit me ("piss on that moron Skolnick" was one way he put it). I also brought this fact to the attention of the Wiki community. Yet it continues to allow Siqueira to use Wikipedia in his campaign of defamation. Something is seriously wrong here and it clearly cannot continue.Askolnick 00:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I protest against this libel above from Skolnick. I never placed in public that I "piss on that moron Skolnick". Skolnick has said many lies against me, just because I am from a poor country with poor resources, and that I will most likely not be able to win a lawsuit against him if I try to start one (an international and complicated and expensive one). He has also repeatedly, even here at the wikipedia, humiliated my MA title in clinical bacteriology (a third world MA title...). Because he has contact with people with some power (CSICOPers and JAMA), he thinks he has the right to say as many libel as he wants. He has repeatedly taken out of the wikipedia my MA title. Also, he claims that I am no biologist, which is a lie from him too. Nevertheless, judging himself a king, he does not care to any protests from me... I took once his MS title from wikipedia, and soon after I myself placed it back. I called it a phoney MS title, meaning that the holder is a phoney MS (a phoney Magister Scientiae), not that the institution that gave it was phoney (that is, even though he is not a phoney MS, he behaves as such in my opinion...). He said that I had called Wiseman a bastard, which I never did, and against which I had already protested in the forum Museum of the Hoaxes, so he has no excuse to use this faulty translation of the term I used against Wiseman. Libels from Skolnick will never end, it seems. I suggest that he sues Wikipedia for allowing his own libels to be posted... Julio Siqueira 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some sanity needed

I agree with those above that this article fails the NPOV test, and quite severely. The majority of this article are EXTREMELY biased. The fact that parties involved in this event are trying to influence the article and making false legal threats here is just ridiculous.

So here's the deal:

1) If you are personally involved in this case, GET THE HECK OFF THIS ARTICLE. You are too close to it to be objective. We take Wikipedia:Neutral point of view very seriously here, not to mention your presense here violated rules against self-promotion, soap-boxing and etcetera. Editors should also not directly contact those involved, as that's clearly original research, which is prohibitted.

2) If you want to make legal threats, GET OFF WIKIPEDIA before you get kicked off. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. Note that that's whether these threats are fake (as most of these are... what a bunch of nonsense I see here) or real. Even if you have a case, which you don't, but even if you do, you are not allowed to make threats here. Talk to a lawyer and have them contact Wikimedia Inc.

3) The shorter the article is, the more objective it can be. Each time you go into some detail, all the different sides are just going to want to screech about it.

4) We really have to clean up those external links. We cannot put a description claiming that someone can sue somebody, as that looks like Wikipedia is of that opinion. Wikipedia has no opinions. Call it "So and so's website" or whatever.

5) Let me stress again: Wikipedia has no opinions. The article should just be, there is this girl, she claims so and so, she was tested, the people who ran the tests said so and so, other people complained about the tests... as everyone who was ever tested for psychic abilities and failed always does. We don;t need to go into all the detail from the people complaining about the tests, as they agreed to the tests (and shut up about this crap that yo didn't, of course you did, that's how these tests work, you agree beforehand) and badmouthing them later may be expected but shouldn't take up the bulk of the article. That's just sour grapes.

Now, do we need a bullwhip here or what? Because the actions above and the article itself are simply inexcusible.

[I've confirmed from page history that the text above is from DreamGuy 12:14, 16 December 2005, as Julio Siqueira correctly surmises just below -- Steve Summit (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

Hi DreamGuy I think what you said above is almost perfect. I just think that you overlooked the fact that the rules to which Natasha accepted were actually violated in many ways by the researchers themselves. Most important of these are the facts that the subjects never showed proof of their alleged clinical conditions, and that the researchers issued terminal verdicts on Natasha's alleged powers; both of these items are strongly against the rules that were provided by the researchers themselves (it seems we do need a bullwhip to get people to understand it, despite its being so very simple...). But I think that despite this, let's put it this way, flaw in your exposition, what you said above is highly sane and constructive, and it paves the way to a happy ending in this entry Natasha Demkina. Julio Siqueira 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new version

Natasha Demkina (Russian: Наталья Демкина) (1987–), is a teenage alleged medical psychic from Saransk, Russia.

Demkina is claimed by her followers to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical diagnoses. Since the age of ten, she has performed readings in Russia and in 2004, on television shows in the United Kingdom.

Appearance in New York

In May 2004 she was brought to New York City by the Discovery Channel to appear on a documentary entitled The Girl with X-Ray Eyes, and carry out a reading under controlled conditions. The test was arranged by Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and Andrew Skolnick of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH).

In the experiment, Demkina failed to reach the parameters agreed beforehand, and the testers concluded that she did not possess the abilities described. The methods, scientific rigour and conclusions of the experiment have subsequently been the subjects of considerable claim and counter-claim.

Demkina has since graduated from school and passed entrance examinations to Semashko State Stomatological University, Moscow. She no longer carries out readings.

References

• The Girl with X-ray Eyes, The Discovery Channel, 2004.

---

--BillC 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bill. I liked your version very much. I just do not know if it is true that she no longer carries out readings. So, if you could check it out, it might be helpful. Also, for the references, I suggest (just suggest) that you include one reference to the article of Ray Hyman, and one reference to the article of Brian Josephson. Julio Siqueira 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice, BillC, very nice. One comment: your statement "the testers concluded that she did not possess the abilities described" may be a notch too strong. In the existing version of the article (written, as I understand it, primarily by the skeptics) the conclusion was that the "researchers rejected the likelihood of her having such an ability". So you might want to use that statement instead, or insert the word "likelihood" in yours and remove the bald "did not". Steve Summit (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I recommend that if and when we get an article, that this whole talk page be struck from the history. --BillC 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with this rewrite... old talk comments should be archived but not live, to put the old controversy behind. Of course there will undoubtedly be people trying to start it back up, but all the old stuff shouldn;t be here for more back and forth. We need an objective article, like the rewrite above, and that should prevent most of the problems the page had. DreamGuy 07:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FTR, I generally am opposed to minimization of content as a way to short-circuit the increase of NPOV issues with expansion of content. Removing content due to controversy is the wrong way IMO to inform the reader.

I took two POVs and tried to give them equal credence from a neutral standpoint. I don't believe that method is a mistake. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Less opinionated speculation, more factual description

This article has WAY too much back and forth speculation about what may or may not have affected, invalidated, vindicated, etc, the performed test. The factual description of the test and the major points of critical discussion around the test can be described without all that fluttering and speculation. The problem here is that we seem to have a collection of editors determined to prove their point to the world, and use this article to do it. That's not how it's supposed to work here...

No element of this article should be trying to assert whether or not Natasha Demkina actually possesses any ability, nor should the article be trying to "convince" the reader that she does or does not possess any ability. The article should describe Natasha Demkina, describe the ability she claims, describe the history of these claims, describe the nature of the test that was performed, present the statistical analysis of that test, and present the major points of critical discussion surrounding the test without trying to convince anyone in any part of the article which of those major points is correct. FRJohn 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but we don't need (or want) to overdo the presentation of the statistical analysis. In particular, I think that the table, the equations, and perhaps the additional paragraph on statistical significance you propose just below are somewhat "over-the-top", and unnecessary in the article as it now stands. Steve Summit (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of an article with more factual analysis and description, and less speculation, allow me to present the following, which should be placed in the article as soon as it is unprotected:

Statistical analysis of CSMMH-CSICOP test of Natasha Demkina

Number correct (c)	Probability of exactly 'c' correct	Odds of 'c' or more correct
0	0.367857	1 : 1
1	0.368056	1 : 1.5819
2	0.183333	1 : 3.7866
3	0.0625	1 : 12.383
4	0.013888	1 : 54.783
5	0.004167	1 : 229.09
6	0	1 : 5040
7	0.000198	1 : 5040

$w(0)=1;w(1)=0;w(2)=1;w(n)=(n-1)\left[(n-1)w(n-2)+(n-2)w(n-3)\right]$

$p(c)={\frac {w(7-c)}{(c!(7-c)!)}}$

Along with this chart, the statement:

"At the end of the test, she had correctly identified four of the ailments with their sufferers from among the candidates, falling one short of the agreed-upon passing mark. The researchers concluded that, having failed the test, the existence of her special ability was dubious."

should be replaced with:

At the end of the test, she had correctly associated four of the seven conditions with the correct people, falling one short of the agreed-upon passing mark. The written test parameters stated that a passing mark would be correctly associating five or more ailments, a result which would occur by chance only once out of 229.09 times. The actual result of four out of seven is a result which would only occur by chance once out of 54.783 times. According to the standards of statistical significance, results which would happen by chance less often than once out of 20 times are considered "statistically significant", so the test results were statistically significant, but did not pass the agreed upon testing parameters.

This is somewhat of a delicate point, I fear. The wording tries to be nicely evenhanded, conceding to the skeptics that 4/7 did not meet the agreed-upon criteria, but also conceding to the supporters that 4/7 might be statistically significant. But correctly interpreting statistical significance can be tricky (as we've seen elsewhere on this talk page), and I'm not sure that this little article is the place to delve into the issue, or that any of us is expert enough in statistical analysis to do the "delicate point" justice. I'm tempted to try to say something weaker like "the actual result fell short of the mark but, depending on who you ask, might or might not have been stastically significant anyway", except that's badly worded and way too wishy-washy. Steve Summit (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All "statistical significance" means is that the event which occurred is unlikely to happen simply by chance, which means, if you run the same test a large number of times, you would get that result only a small number of times if chance is the only factor. It doesn't mean the result is "correct", nor does it mean the experiment was done correctly, it simply means it is unlikely to happen by chance. It seems to me that objection over this is based more on confusion about the meaning of statistical significance than about its correctness. Regardless, I believe the most essential facts can be expressed without addressing this point, so I am making an edit which simply describes the probability for the two cases to occur by random guessing, and worded in an accurate way to avoid confusion. FRJohn 00:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning the test without describing what was tested is simply removing encyclopedic information to avoid a controversy, and I agree with Keith that minimization of content is not the answer to NPOV issues. I would also say that mentioning the test without at least a mention of the probabilities for a score of at least four (and for a score of at least five) would be a failure to achieve NPOV because many readers will lack the statistical intuition to estimate that probability. My concern is that most readers will have an intuition which makes them think 3.5 correct is the chance expectation value, rather than the actual value of 1. So if we neglect to mention the actual probabilities, then many readers will misinterpret the results due to a lack of information. So I have included it, with an attempt to minimize any possible objections. FRJohn 00:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked FRJohn’s fuller version of the article which included the information on statistical signficance, and I thought Keith Tyler’s version was very robust and nicely covered both sides of the controversy surrounding Natasha Demkina. After all, this is an article about Natasha, and not specifically about that one test, so we need to see both sides to make sure the entire story is covered from an NPOV. At the very least, I think a bit more on the statistics used in the test is necessary to clarify that the researchers used a slightly higher bar for passing than would normally be expected. I agree with both Keith and FRJohn that removing encyclopedic information and minimization of content is not the answer to NPOV issues or to avoid a controversy.Dreadlocke 08:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The following two sections, "Criticism of the test" and "Defense of the test" need to be largely deleted as most of it is speculative and nonencyclopedic. The remaining material can be merged into one unified section titled "Critical issues regarding the test" which PRESENTS the critical issues that were raised, and argues for none of them. FRJohn 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another good example of the reasons I gave up trying to help Wiki editors write an accurate article on Natasha Demkina. Editors like Keith and FRJohn appear to believe they can write an accurate article without reading the only major published sources. If FRJohn read Ray Hyman's article, he might not make such a misstatement about Natasha's test score being statistically significant. He also appears not to have paid attention to my attempts here to correct mistakes. For example, he uses the word "ailment" -- despite my correcting the previous editor's inaccurate substitution of "ailment" for "medical condition." I repeat, the test target conditions were not "ailments." We deliberately set up a test that would not require Natasha to identify "ailments." They were long healed anatomical abnormalities. None of the conditions were ailing the people and none of them required any medical care. The use of the word "ailment" is inaccurate and hides an important factor in the design of the test.Askolnick 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hyman's comments about statistical significance are nonsense. You don't choose one set of standards for statistical analysis of things you believe, and another set of standards for statistical analysis of things you disbelieve. You use the same standard science has used for most of the 20th century and into the 21st century, and then if you want to demonstrate consistency, you test again, and then you test again. This is the way it has always been done, and it is a tried and proven method. Shifting the definition of "significance" for things one disbelieves is not called statistical analysis, it is called confirmation bias (which incidentally, is also a good article to read). FRJohn 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should report what is, and what I described above is what is. FRJohn 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

FRJohn, your arrogance is illuminating. But your argument not so much -- especially your appeal to authority (with you being the authority). If you knew the history of testing paranormal claims you would know that J.B. Rhine, the pioneer of paranormal research, set the statistical significance bar higher than we did in our Natasha Demkina test, in many of his ESP experiments. (In order to have more "successes" to publish, many paranormal investigators have since lowered that bar -- well aware that by doing so, they will be able to publish successful results from 1 in 20 experiments by chance alone.) I'm aghast at your argument, "You don't choose one set of standards for statistical analysis..." You do know that scientists don't have to obey you, right? It's a good thing many don't. For example, when testing the effectiveness of diagnostic procedures in medicine, the use of Bayesian inference is essential for determining a test's sensitivity and specificity. I don't put much weight in the argument, "It is so because I say so." I'd be happy to cite authoritative sources for the above. For example, I'd refer people to the the Wiki entry on statistical significance to see that it doesn't say what FRJohn says it says in his posts above:

"one may choose a significance level of, say, 5%, and calculate a critical value of a statistic (such as the mean) so that the probability of it exceeding that value, given the truth of the null hypothesis, would be 5%. If the actual, calculated statistic value exceeds the critical value, then it is significant "at the 5% level". Symbolically speaking, the significance level is denoted by α (alpha).

"If the significance level is smaller, a value will be less likely to be more extreme than the critical value. So a result which is "significant at the 1% level" is more significant than a result which is "significant at the 5% level". However a test at the 1% level is more likely to have a Type II error than a test at the 5% level, and so will have less statistical power. In devising a hypothesis test, the tester will aim to maximize power for a given significance, but ultimately have to recognise that the best which can be achieved is likely to be a balance between significance and power, in other words between the risks of Type I and Type II errors. It is important to note that Type I error is not necessarily any worse than a Type II error, and vice versa. The severity of an error depends on each individual case."

Askolnick 15:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please try to be polite. I am not here out of any vested interest in the Natasha Demkina case, but simply because there were requests placed for people to come here and review the work here, to help resolve the dispute that the current batch of editors has been drowning in. So take everything I say with that in mind. Please also realize as a prerequisite, that the approaches you have been using here for this article are not working, and are not leading to a stable encyclopedic article. Therefore, we need to change them, and we need to discuss (as civilized individuals) how to write something more encyclopedic. FRJohn 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I make no appeal to authority, except perhaps to the authority vested in standard statistics textbooks. Alpha of 0.05 IS the standard value. That's just fact. As I already stated quite plainly, she did not pass the parameters of the test. That's fine, and that's also fact. Regardless of any criticisms regarding the test design, it is fact that she got 4 correct, and it is fact that the test defined 5 correct as passing. The statistical analysis in the table given above is also fact. That alpha of 0.05 is the standard value is fact. That the result she did receive only occurs once in 54.8 attempts by pure guessing is fact. FRJohn 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep repeating Bayesian inference, but to use Bayesian inference you must use it correctly. Allow me to quote Mathworld, "Bayesian analysis is somewhat controversial because the validity of the result depends on how valid the prior distribution is, and this cannot be assessed statistically." [12] Thus, the only way to use Bayesian analysis correctly in a statistical analysis is to have a valid prior distribution that does not suffer from confirmation bias. In this case, since the hypothesis being tested is that Natasha Demkina has a unique ability, a proper Bayesian analysis would use all the previous tests that have been conducted on Natasha Demkina as the prior distribution. Attempting to use ones pre-existing belief about Natasha Demkina as a prior distribution is not statistical analysis, because it cannot be assessed statistically. FRJohn 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are implying an argument, based on your bolded excerpt, that the significance of the demonstrated effect should be measured against the possible consequences of her making medical diagnoses, then the proper approach is not to shout, but to simply compare the given significance demonstrated in the test with the significance typically demonstrated by professional medical diagnosis. In fact, I would find this to be a highly insightful contribution to the article, and a meaningful comparison. So if you can locate a study assessing the success rates of doctors in making a diagnosis, then we can cite it and add a comparison with it to the article. This would be the proper way to statistically assess the relative value of Natasha Demkina in medical diagnosis from behind a curtain, given the limited information available of a single experiment. FRJohn 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

FRJohn, I think you are unnecessarily introducing more problems into this article (please, see this as contructive criticism from me). I strongly recommend that Wikipedia stick to a very raw bone entry, as suggested and sketched by BillC. Details about the test, and details about the criticism to it, are very rich and interesting, but they are very very thorny, tricky, subtle, hard to explain briefly, etc. It is a pandora's box: hope at the very bottom; but problems all the way down to it. I agree with Skolnick that you seem not to have read all the relevant information properly. So, you are bound to write lines that will seem inacurate for the testers and/or for the critics. This is something we should try to leave behind. For example, Skolnick thinks you misused the word "ailment", and I think you did not. He thinks Natasha's result at the test cannot be considered statistically significant, but I think it can. I can refute these two views from Skolnick above, fast and easily, but imagine if the article keeps getting bigger and bigger... My strong recommendation is so: Very brief entry plus references to Discovery Channel, Ray Hyman, and Brian Josephson. I will say (just a little below) why I think Skolnick is not right in his two opinions above. Julio Siqueira 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why Skolnick May be Wrong in His Two Opinions Above: Skolnick thinks the word "ailment" is being improperly used when referring to his "subjects". I do not think he is really wrong to point out this problem (his alternative term is the one that should indeed be used, I think), but at least some of the clinical conditions might be considered ailments (or may be actual ailments to these specific subjects): the resected lung and the artificial hip joint. Of course I will really love if he can assure us that the artificial hip joint is perfectly ok and is no ailment whatsoever. That would completely eliminate the possibility that Natasha got clues about it if she saw this subject walking outside the test building. Ditto for the removed upper third of a lung. As to the statistics, I think he is very wrong. Sometime ago, here at this very talk page, he protested against my opinion that there is a controversy regarding their cut-off value for statistical significance in testing Natasha. I stressed that they did not warn Natasha of this controversy, and that they should have done so. Skolnick replied that such controversy does not exist at all. So, now I append to this message the proof for the existance of this controversy. First, there were letters, even by some scientists working in American universities, sent to the Skeptical Inquirer, complaining or challenging the cut-off value used by the researchers. At this link (We could also cite Nobel Laureate physicist Professor Brian Josephson as a further example). Second, Hyman dedicated one full article to deal with this controversy... At this link. So the controversy exists in science as to the choice of the cut-off value. And the controversy exists in this specific issue involving CSICOP's test on Natasha Demkina. The question is, is it a valid controversy in this specific test? The testers say that since their claim is an extraordinary one, then more stringent cut-off values should be used. That is fair. But they would not conclude from the test (if she succeeded) that she was a paranormal. The conclusion would be astronomically more modest: "further studies on her are warranted". Now, there is a number of reasons why we can say that further studies with Natasha are warranted and needed. The topmost one is the fact that she is actively diagnosing people. So the best thing is to have good scientists (not blind believers) perform some additional tests with her, for the benefit of public health. The outcome of the test was a very bad one, as far as public health is concerned. So that is my reason (and the reason of some of the people that sent letters to the Skeptical Inquirer too) for considering that, in this specific situation, either the cut-off value should have been considered four, or the controversy should have been explained to Natasha beforehand. Julio Siqueira 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't choose the word "ailment", I copied it. I have no objection to replacing it with "condition", as this more accurately describes the arrangement, considering that one individual is without an ailment. In similar line, "their sufferers" should be replaced with "the correct person". (In fact, I am editing it now...) FRJohn 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And again, opinions about statistical significance are not relevant compared with the standard definitions of this. Opinions would be POV, and any opinion expressed here is an overwhelming minority POV in comparison to the long history of using those standards for statistical significance. FRJohn 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The central point here, is that the people here seem to be bickering over two POVs, both of which are wrong. Neither POV is NPOV, you can't mush them together to make something NPOV, and you can't fight out a "balance" to make them NPOV. Instead, back up a bit, don't try to convince anybody of anything, and just describe what's there. FRJohn 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

To all parties. It is my intention to ask that the main article be unblocked. I intend to place in it an article essentially the same as I posted at Proposed new version, after taking on board the small amendment proposed by Steve Summit. I would also recommend inserting a one-sentence description of the test: "The test required Demkina to match volunteers against specified medical conditions". This will go at the end of the paragraph currently ending with "(CSMMH)". The final sentence about her no longer carrying out readings should probably go, as any evidence and references for it are not strong.

I thought carefully about the possibility of adding more external links as references, and my view is that it is in the wider interest to not include any more. I will repeat my request to have the content of this talk page removed from online access some time after the main article is unlocked and a 'stable' version placed there, though I acknowledge that that may not be everyone's desire. That decision will be in the purview of the Wikipedia administrators. --BillC 17:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi BillC. I support what you said above. I stress again that I will not anymore (till doomsday) edit this entry Natasha Demkina, following the recommendations of wikipedians mediators (you will never see from me something like those 29 desperate changes done by Skolnick at the dead of the night...). I will make only some brief and point suggestions to the entry as it gets changed. Julio Siqueira 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Assertions of scientific fact and NPOV

For an example of where NPOV does not assume or passively accept assertions of scientific fact, particularly in controversial areas, I offer as an example some sentences from the article Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which is an FP article today.

The school board claims there are "gaps" in evolution, which it claims is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life.

Opponents ... contend that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical: the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes.

He also argued that intelligent design was not science in its infancy but rather was not science at all.

Note that the article, in achieving NPOV on a controversial science-related issue, does not make assertions of scientific (or even semantic) fact. It only reports on such assertions as a neutral party and does not pretend to have determined their validity or otherwise assume such, even when such a conclusion would seem obvious or is generally accepted.

In covering controversial topics, WP cannot assume the legitimacy or accuracy of one source over another. Such treatment is not NPOV. K. v. D gets this right. I tried to do the same here -- and without the cost of removing content.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not start down that road again.

I've reverted the entry to remove the misleading statistics. Their inclusion would necessitate further inclusion of material explaining why they are misleading. --DocJohnny 13:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop this POV insertion. The testers conclusions are available on their website. That is indisputable.

This seems to be a wrong argument. Perhaps you meant that is available in some reputable scientific publication. Otherwise, please read the policies again. It is clearly stated that Web sites aren't accepted as reputable source. Also, I would like to recall that the main criteria for inclusion, as counter intuitive as it may appear, is verifiability (i.e. the source must be reputable), not truth [or indisputability]. The idea being that it is not the job of Wikipedia to do the original research required to discriminate between truth and non truth. Lumiere 19:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are discussing this vis a vis Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. To respond to your 2 points. 1) Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources again. Nowhere is it stated that websites aren't accepted as a reputable source. In fact in this instance it is the MOST reputable source for the information we are reporting. We are reporting CSICOP's and CSMMH's conclusions regarding this test. Their websites are primary sources. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Get_close_to_the_source. 2) I agree that verifiability is an official wikipedia policy. I am just not sure how that relates to your argument.--DocJohnny 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a Wikipedia guideline, whereas Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy. Here is the paragraph from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources:

Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia.

Your opinion about that validity is POV. That others have contested the validity is true and is addressed in the next sentence. The original sentence is a statement of fact. The testers did conclude that she did not have the powers. See CSMMH and CSICOP. Again, CSICOP/CSMMH are the testers. CSICOP/CSMMH both made statements that they concluded she did not have the powers that she stated. All the doubt came from people who were not testers. --DocJohnny 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless to discuss whether the phrase "the tester concluded that she did not have the powers" is true or not. This phrase is really only there to suggest that she did not have the power. This is so clear here because the testers are in fact the authors of the TV show, this so called "experiment". The article could have contained directly the sentence "she does not have the power (<a reference to the article written by the testers>)" and it would have provided the exact same content. It is too easy to simply write the "authors say Y" instead of simply "Y (<reference to the article written by the authors>)", and argue that it is a fact that the authors say Y. In fact, even the statement "Bush, the president of the United State, concluded that..." would not be acceptable, if the goal is to support a scientific claim. With this kind of argument any kind of rubbish statement Y could be indirectly included in a Wikipedia article. Again, it is whether or not we have a reputable source that must be first considered, not truth Vs non truth and not how prestigious are the authors. If the authors are truly well established experts, they should first publish in a reputable source and then cite this source in Wikipedia. Lumiere 19:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you disagree with a non-negotiable policy of wikipedia (NPOV), you may want to take that up with Jimbo. Please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, specifically to the section by Jimbo Wales "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."

Perhaps both of us simply misinterpret it. This was taken from the original statement of NPOV, which for some reason was kept unmodified. It will be useful to consider what else the Wikipedia policies say on that matter. Consider this from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources:

Beware of including material published by unreliable sources in articles about those sources. For example, a Wikipedia article about a tabloid newspaper should not repeat any arguably defamatory claims the newspaper has made, on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories, unless the claims have also been made elsewhere, or the tabloid's stories have been written about elsewhere, in which case these third-party sources may be quoted, so long as they themselves are credible.

Are you telling me that the story will become acceptable if we indicate who wrote the story in the tabloid, the criteria being that the opinion should be attributed to real people, not a tabloid? This seems weird. Again, it will become so easy to essentially bypass what is given as a policy above. Lumiere 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And as to your last point, how can you contest that the official website of an organization is somehow not a reputable source about that organization's conclusions?

I understand but my point is that not all verifiable statements of the form "X said Y" are acceptable, even if the website of X is given as a source. I know, you gave me the paragraph from Jimbo Wales to support your point, but I have given you an example to show that your blind interpretation of this paragraph is weird. Lumiere 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And actually the testers are not the authors of the tv show. The testers were the two organizations mentioned. The TV show was produced by the discovery channel.

This is a minor point. The testers are the designers of the test, which is the essential content of the show. Lumiere 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem may lie in what you think is a "reputable source". DocJohnny 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the issue is whether or not the Skeptical inquirer is reputable source to support a so called scientific test. Lumiere 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

now who is spouting blatantly in accurate dribble?Prycon 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is obvious. --DocJohnny 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

then why do you continue if its so obvious that your spouting nonesense?Prycon 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This article had achieved a careful and hard-won consensus, and had become stable. The factual accuracy of that version was no longer contested. Reverted to the 26 Dec version. --BillC 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And I've put this back on my watchlist and will revert any POV-pushing, especially by User:Gimmiet and his sockpuppet User:Prycon. DreamGuy 09:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is your contention that the "researchers could not make effective conclusions", then you need to demonstrate why this is so and obtain a consensus that this is the case. If it is your opinion that the researchers could not make effective conclusions, then this is POV. Please post something of substance in this talk page before changing the article back again. --BillC 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that we are NOT saying she has no powers. We ARE saying the testers concluded she had no powers. That is a verifiable fact.

I really disagree with this argument. We should not create a precedent of accepting this kind of argument. Even if it is an obvious fact that some person X said a statement Y, it does not mean that this fact is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. With this kind of argument, any diffamatory statement Y from a person X can be indirectly included in Wikipedia. The statement "X said Y" or an article of X that says Y must first be found in a reputable source before it can be included in Wikipedia. This is particularly important when the statement Y has a scientific pretention. Lumiere 19:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Again please refer to WP:NPOV. And please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The whole point of WP:NOR is that it is not up to us to judge the content, only to report the facts. --DocJohnny 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree about where the disagreement is. You say all statements of the form "X said Y" is acceptable if we have a source to prove that indeed X said Y. I think that this is weird, and I supported that with an example. This rule is much too strong. Using that rule any editor can add difamatory statements in many otherwise interesting articles in Wikipedia. The counter argument that the other editors can simply explain that the author X is unreliable or go into the details of the statement Y as an attempt to explain why it is incorrect does not work. The paper might become a long argument against a sequence of difamatory statements. In fact, it might even be impossible to argue against that non sense because of the no original research policy: we cannot expect that all non sense or difamatory statements have been previously addressed in a reputable source. I am not saying that we have this extreme case here in the current paper. I am using this extreme case to show that the general rule that you propose, from your interpretation of Jimbo Wales, is weird. If we strictly adopt your rule, the entire paper of Skolnick can be inserted in the article, and I think that you will not even agree that we do that. Lumiere 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

They DID say that as I have repeatedly stated and given sources for. Whether we believe they are correct is not the issue. We accurately have reported their conclusions. We have also accurately reported that some people have contested their conclusions. That is NPOV. Repeated insertions of unsourced opinion is nonsense. --DocJohnny 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments were directed at Prycon; apologies if that was not clear. --BillC 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments were also directed at Prycon; apologies if that was not clear. --DocJohnny 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened here? things have changed a lot since I last saw this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&oldid=13903277 I think there is a lot that could be put back. Onco_p53 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To find out what happened, simply read the comments above. The pared down version is less likely to cause POV-based edit wars. DreamGuy 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has been watered down severely, based on the whims of a few people with strongly held beliefs. It now contains so little material I didn’t understand the full story until I googled and found the website. It seems remarkable that all of these external sites (compared to my previously linked version) have been removed, surely they do not add significantly to the POV of the article. Hopefully the one link that I added will remain so people can read the study for themselves, since they won't be getting the information from Wikipedia. That said I have no wish to start an edit war, so I will not further edit this article. Onco_p53 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you mean by "people with strongly held beliefs". Actually the current decimated size of the article is not really the result of either of the interested parties; it's more a matter of which philosophy of NPOVification had less resistance. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

About the result of this long process

While I was reading this talk page, I made a few comments along the way. At one point I reached the conclusion that this article did not really have a place in Wikipedia, my argument being that nothing was submitted to peer-review in a reputable journal. It is just an event that was designed in one month or so for some TV show. I must say that I have some concerns about the final result in [13] because there is some pretention of scientific validity. The article should not suggest that she has failed in a well conducted test because we don't know that. In particular, I would remove the part about the agreed parameters and the part about the conclusion of the testers, not because it is false or true but because it suggests that it was a well conducted test, and we don't know that. The article should only say that she failed the test in this TV event and mention the controversy. At the end, there should be no assertion that this young girl has some X-ray power, but no suggestion that she failed in a well conducted scientific study either. Again, this was just a TV event and there was no publication in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The article should make this young lady a notable person, but just because of the TV events. Perhaps some scientists will eventually conduct a real scientific study and get it published in some reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and then she might become notable for something else, and every one can guess what this something else will be. Lumiere 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can hear some people saying that never a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal will accept to publish something about this type of phenomena and no scientist will invest money and time to even attempt to have such a publication. If that is so, we are back to my original point: why should Wikipedia go for it? What I am saying is that, if Wikipedia does include an article on this young girl, it should not be about the scientific part, not until after it get accepted in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Well, that makes no sense. If it really happened, and its recorded, then its includable. How it is included, that is, how it is portrayed, is the remaining issue. -- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I did not say that there was a policy that says that we cannot report the event. Where did I say that? I do think that we should not report it because the event is not so important, but this is not because of a policy. Indeed, it is the fact that we report it as if it was a well conducted scientific study that is the problem. Lumiere 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article do we say it was a "well conducted scientific study". In fact, the article says the scientific rigour of the experiment was questioned. --DocJohnny 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point made me step back and consider what exactly did happen in the above discussion (previous section). Please note that I was more concerned about the arguments that were proposed than about the specific actions that these arguments were trying to support. I don't care that much about this article. For me it is just an example to illustrate how the Wikipedia policies can be reasonably applied in general. Please read my points with this in mind. I do have some specifics to say about the article. It will come soon. Lumiere 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks too much like a well conducted scientific study: an example.

Look at the statement "Demkina failed to reach the parameters agreed beforehand". What is this? This is a very bad way to pretend that the design was fair. Since when an agreement with the subjects is a criteria for a well designed test? This young girl and perhaps her mother might have agree, but it does not mean at all that it was a fair test. To the contrary, after I read this talk page, and considering only the facts on which both parties agreed, I got convinced that the test was not well designed, irrespectively of an agreememt with the subjects or not. Lumiere 03:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreements with the subjects is integral to tests involving claims of paranormal powers.

I did not know that. Ok then. It is certainly not sufficient, but if it is a minimal requirement I see another reason that explains why it was stated. Lumiere 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is contradicting your statement. If you think agreement with the subjects is not a criteria for a well designed test, how can you say that it "looks too much like a well designed test? --DocJohnny 05:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that it gives the impression that the test was well designed, which is not necessarily true. It took a while for me to go beyond this first impression and take the other angle. So, there is no contradiction. Lumiere 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation and application of the verifiability and NPOV policies

Also, there is no balance between the point of view that this test was not well designed and the other point of view. The first sentence

In the experiment, Demkina failed to reach the parameters agreed beforehand, and the testers concluded that there was no evidence that she possessed the abilities described.

presents the test as if it was well designed with expressions such "agreed before hand" (see above) and it includes the very strong assertion "there was no evidence" instead of "not enough evidence". (By the way, what was her rate of success? ) This is one side. Next should come the other side:

The design, methods, scientific rigour and conclusions of the experiment have subsequently been the subjects of considerable claim and counter-claim.

Ouups! The two sides again! Perhaps the second sentence should simply give the other side, no more. Lumiere 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the crux of your argument relies on your personal judgment that the test was "unscientific" which is both POV and Original Research.

This is not my argument. My argument is that there is no reputable source to support that the test was well designed and therefore it is reasonable to take all precaution to make sure that there is no misinterpretation at this level. I am refering to the verifiability policy which states that the content of the article should be supported by reputable sources. If you want to suggest that editors should not evaluate sources, you are wrong. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines (I can point to specific paragraphs if you want) say that the editors are actually required to evaluate sources. Lumiere 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you think the test was unfair, so you don't want us to report the tester's conclusions.

No, I don't have to evaluate whether the test is fair or not. It is sufficient that I evaluate the sources, the magazine Skeptical Inquirer and the TV show. These are not sufficient sources to support the claim that the test was well designed, or even a suggestion that it was well designed. This is where I feel that there is a lack of balance. I know that I did mention that I personally see that the test was not well designed. This might have confused you. I mentioned it because I think that even though it cannot be the argument, it cannot hurt to say it. I don't know if you read carefully the talk page, but I think it is hard to miss it. You are right that it cannot be the argument, but still it must be said in this talk page so that the editors can see it for themselve and use it as they wish. Lumiere 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, according to policy, official websites of organizations are good sources for information regarding that organization. That is called a primary source. And again, NPOV is not my rule. It is a wikipedia rule. WP:NPOV. --DocJohnny 06:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but the content that needs a valid source here is whether or not the test was well designed, and the organization that designed the test cannot be a reputable source for such a content. The Skeptical inquirer is not a better source for such a content because it includes no form of peer-review. You might say that the article does not claim that, but it should also be the case that it does not suggest it. This is where a good balance becomes relevant. In particular, I do maintain that the last sentence in the crucial paragraph should, therefore, explicitly be about the fact that the validity of the test was contested. This is a point of view, and I think that in the current situation, because there is no valid source to support a suggestion that the test was well designed, this point of view should be expressed in a very clean way without mixing it with the opposite view. This will remove the suggestion that the test was well designed, which is necessary. You might not like it if you are on the side of the testers because it diminishes a lot the scientific validity of the conclusion, but that is NPOV. It is our desire to maintain an impression of scientific validity that is a POV without a reputable source to support it. Lumiere 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, You say that the "the content that needs a valid source here is whether or not the test was well designed". There is no such content. The article as it stands makes no evaluation as to the scientific validity of the test. It simply reports what the testers concluded, and that others have contested those conclusions and the parameters of the test. An article does not need a valid source for things that it does not say.

I am actually very happy that we have an agreement that it should not have such a content. Perhaps, I should be more precise. The article cannot have any scientific content with regard to the experiment because it does not have a reputable source to support any scientific assertion with regard to the experiment. (I could also make it even more general and remove "with regard to the experiment", but I don't need that level of generality.) You must also agree with that because the logic is the same: there is no reputable scientific source. Do you agree? Lumiere 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you do agree, the issue is whether or not the article have such a content. Do you maintain that the article does not have such a content? Lumiere 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You also suggest that the second sentence should "give the other side, no more". To do that is to ignore the testers' well-publicised rebuttals of the criticisms and hence to imply that it went unanswered. --BillC 08:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the first sentence had already presented the other view point. I think there is nothing wrong in having one sentence that presents one point of view and another sentence that presents the other point of view, without mixing the two point of views in anyone of the sentence. If you think it is more fair, we can swap the order. Actually, this issue might be resolved differently if we come to an agreement that this article should not even contain a single sentence with a scientific content (see above), and we should be careful that a sentence does not sound like it was scientifically grounded while arguing that it has no scientific content. Lumiere 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lumiere, As BillC has stated, as I have stated before, and as you acknowledge in the above paragraph, this article does NOT claim that the test was "well-designed". That it suggests "well designed" only seems to apply to you.

Since you basically repeat a previous argument, which is fine, please simply read the above and consider it as my reply. Lumiere 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, all this suggests is that you are trying to give "undue weight" to this girl's claims. NPOV does not mean "false balance". --DocJohnny 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot expect that I will agree that I was trying to give "undue weight" to this girl's? It is obviously wrong to give "undue weight" to anyone. You really mean that my understanding of the issue is not the same as yours, and therefore I expect a different content in the article. Lumiere 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I really can't understand the point you're getting at, Lumiere. What, exactly, are the words in the current article that you consider to be 'scientific content' and should therefore be excised? Is the line you're angling to that there is no reputable scientific source, therefore we must treat each side absolutely equally, and give each absolutely equal weight? The test description was not subject to peer-review, but neither have any criticisms of it. The experimental conditions are as described, the conclusions have been presented, some people have raised criticisms and Demkina won't speak to sceptics any more. (BTW, I would prefer you not to interleave your comments amongst other people's text: it has the effect of breaking up their writing and the line of their argument.) --BillC 14:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you agree that there are no reputable scientific source to support any form of scientific content in this article. So, the main question is what exactly is a scientific content in this article, and thus should be taken out? I am afraid that the whole thing has a pretention of being scientific. For example, consider the phrase "... carry out a reading under controlled conditions." The article is not saying that these controlled conditions are well controlled or well chosen etc., but it does not matter because it remains a scientific statement. Nobody uses this kind of expressions outside the scientific arena. By default people will normally attribute some valid scientific content to this statement, and this content is not supported by a reputable source.

It is because I hesitated to suggest a rewriting of the entire article to remove anything that presents itself as scientific that I proposed instead that we compensate by a clear statement that presents the opposite viewpoint (with no mixing). Since you don't support this alternative, and because I still feel that rewriting the entire article is a lot to ask, I have another possible alternative to propose. We can simply add a disclaimer of the editors at the beginning or the ebnd of the article. Such an editorial disclaimer is sometimes used in scientific publications. In our case, this editorial note would simply state that the test and its analysis were never submitted to scientific peer-review and the current article cannot be used to conclude anything scientific in support or against Demkina's abilities. This would directly address the main issue. If it seems provocative, consider the possibility that it is because it contradicts something that some people would like that we understand from the article, but that something is exactly what is not supported with a reputable source and should not be understood from the article. Lumiere 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article is not a scientific paper, then I don't see how it needs a disclaimer saying 'the sources reported in this article were not subject to peer review'. Manchester United F.C., Lundy and Taekwondo, to pick three at random, all have no references to peer-reviewed articles, yet contain no such disclaimers.

The phrase "controlled conditions" is in widespread use outside science, see for example [14][15][16]. I will accept your earlier point about the bluntness of: "the testers concluded that there was no evidence that she possessed the abilities described". Strictly, the event in New York was a preliminary test to see if there was an indication as to whether further study was justified. Hence I suggest that this section be replaced by: "the testers concluded that they saw no evidence of an ability that would warrant further study." If a reference is needed to report on the criticisms of the test, then I recommend this archived article from The Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 December 2004. --BillC 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That as may be, but in fact here, whether or not the conditions really met a generally accepted definition of "controlled conditions" is disputed -- even, it seems, by the test administrators themselves. So the use of the term presented as encyclopedic fact in the current context is debatable. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Even in the above paragraph you indicate that you see this article as a scientific article. For example, you suggest that we add a reference that critics the validity of the test!!! Of what kind of "validity" are you talking about? If it is not of scentific validity, then it is misleading. Lumiere 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If at the least the reference that you proposed made the correct point, which is that the test has no scientific validity because there was no peer-review process. Instead, the reference that you propose says immediatly in its first paragraphs that Brian Josephson is backing up Demkina's claims, which is beside the point. In fact, it supports the opposite point since it appears as a scientific debate. Interestingly, your reference does make the point that Josephson's opinion has not much significance because it was posted without any refereeing process! Lumiere 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My main argument remains that most sentences in the article seem like a part of scientific discussion. You took only half of the phrase "... carry out a reading under controlled conditions." and said that it is in widespread use outside science. This is not a very good counter argument! Even if the entire phrase was in widespread use outside science, which I doubt, the point would remain that in its specific context it is intended to convey a scientific content. Give me a break! Lumiere 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You also have the argument "If the article is not a scientific paper, then I don't see how it needs a disclaimer...". This is playing with words. The point is that it shows itself as if it had a scientific content. Please go to the essential! Therefore, unless the article is entirely rewritten, what is needed is a clean disclaimer that makes sure that the article does not attach any validity to the design, methods, analysis and conclusion of the test. Lumiere 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that I will not pursue this discussion further. As I said before, I am not so much interested in Demkina's claims. This was just a way to see how the verifiability policy can be apply to a concrete example. I will consider other examples together with this one in a neutral context. Do reply if you think it is useful, but if I do not respond back, it is not that I agree. It is just that I am moving ahead with other examples and want to consider them in a neutral context. Thank you. Lumiere 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion

Hmm, the effects of what you propose would be an adoption of a false balance stance towards pseudoscience and the paranormal. Since reputable journals don't even conduct studies of these subjects, and the refutations are left in the hands of skeptics, you would have us categorically dismiss all their refutations while allowing the claims themselves? The fact remains that this person who claimed paranormal powers was tested by people with credibility dealing in these issues and was found wanting. That it was not published in a science journal is irrelevant. This is not someone making scientific claims. --DocJohnny 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I will not reply, not because I agree with your evaluation of the different elements but because I am moving ahead with other cases. Thank you. Lumiere 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Any_further_comments_before_the_rewrite_goes_live.3F Lumiere 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was pointed to this page by Lumiere's posting on WP:V, above; and I find myself rather totally mystified by Lumiere's argument. AFACS, the article makes no unverifable claims, and arguments about wheather or not the tests "were scientific" should, maybe, be included in the article, or another one, but has little bearing on wheather or not the statements are verifable. I am confused by how Lumiere considers this a case involving WP:V, and I appreciate and thank everyone involved for remaining civil during this discussion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will give one sentence that in my opinion is the main message that the article convey, even though no individual sentence says it by itself:

The Girl came to carry out a reading under controlled conditions as part of a scientific experiment to verify some claims that she made and the conclusion [of the testers] was that she failed to prove her claims.

Do you agree that the article conveys this message? The expression [of the testers] is optional because it is understood that the testers followed some fixed rule to draw their conclusion. The actual conclusion in the current version of the article is that there is no need for further study, but this implies that she failed the test. The word "scientific" is justified by the overall context, in particular the fact that the designers and testers are explicitly associated with their scientific affiliations indicates that they are acting as scientists. If you disagree, we are apparently not reading the same article. My point is that such a message requires a reputable scientific source to support it because it includes the claim that a scientific experiment was executed and its conclusion. The fact that there is not one specific sentence that by itself conveys this message is not so important. Also, the fact that there was possibly no intention to convey this message is not so important. The point is that it is the message that will be received by most readers. Can you tell me what exactly totally mystified you in such an argument? Lumiere 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud your civility and restraint, your argument is not based on actual policy.

1. 1. Nothing in Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that science articles only cite peer reviewed journals. In fact the only proscribed sources mentioned are blogs, personal websites, and tabloids.
   2. While Wikipedia:Reliable sources suggests peer reviewed journals as sources for science and medicine articles, it does not in any way prohibit citations from other sources. And it is a guideline, not policy as you mentioned above. And the section on science and medicine specifically enjoins you to seek scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is that paranormal powers do not exist. Sources from textbooks, biographies, and other books are routinely included in science articles, as long as they are verifiable.
   3. This was a notable person article which included a notable event (the experiment). It is not a science article. This article did not introduce some new scientific concept that had to be verified, nor was it an explanation of a current scientific concept. This was NOT a science article.
   4. For your argument to become logical, two things would have to change. First there would have to be a policy that scientific articles could only use peer reviewed journals as sources. Second, this would have to become an article about science, as opposed to an article about a person who claimed paranormal powers. --DocJohnny 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your list is impressive, but let see what it really contains. Your point 1 and first part of point 2, which go together, say that a scientific content does not necessarily have to be supported by a peer-reviewed journal. The second part of point 2 is about consensus. If I remenber well, the principle of a scientific consensus means that one good source is not enough if there are many other good sources that support the opposite. So, this part of your argument cannot be used to justify something with no adequate source. The third part of point 2 also does not mean that a scientific claim (that is not so well established that it is part of a textbook) does not require a peer-reviewed journal. The point 3 is the most interesting. Does it mean that you disagree that the article conveys the message that is described above: the one sentence that I gave? Point 3 also claims that only a new scientific concept requires a reputable scientific source. You have to be wrong here. It would mean that an editor can critic any proposed theory, say that it is false, etc., without having to provide a reputable source since he does not introduce its own new theory, but only critics a new theory that is proposed. The policy does not say that. You need a reputable source for both sides of an argument. Point 4 is just a summary. Lumiere 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So, what do we have? You are basically saying that (1) peer-reviewed journal is not an absolute requirement and (2) the article does not have a scientific content. I think that the point (2) is weak. You did not convince me. Please address the argument that I proposed above in more details. If you somehow believe that the article has no scientific content, of course your evaluation of what kind of source is needed is biased. So, we must clarify (2) before we can discuss (1). It is clear to me that, after we appreciate that there is a scientific content, the source is not acceptable because it is a magazine published by one of the designers of the test -- an obvious conflict of interest, in addition to the fact that it has no peer-review. However, I am interested in the general point about peer-review. So, I will check again for point (1). I will come back. Lumiere 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from the verifiability policy are general, not specific to scientific journals, and the reliable sources guideline does not say that it is an essential criteria. Therefore, I agree that the current policies and guidelines contain no clear statement that peer-reviewed scientific journals are required to support a scientific content. From what I understand the important is that the journal does a good job to exclude papers that are questionable, difamatory or biased, etc. The policies and guidelines only say that in practice this is achieved through peer-review. It makes sense not to be too restrictive, but I cannot see anything else than some form of peer-review process to achieve the goal. I think the revised policy should say that reputable scientific journals usually use some for of peer-review and give examples of exceptions, if they exist. Do we agree on that? Lumiere 18:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am engaged in dialogue with Lumiere on these exact same issues on the Transcendental Meditation page, and would LOVE some outside voices to participate in the dialogues. Sethie 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

About the phrase "the testers concluded ..."

The most serious problem with this kind of articles with a negative result is that they could prevent an interest in further study. We might not care in this particular case, but the principle is important. In an honest attempt to respond to my concerns, BillC actually emphasized in the article the exact point that is problematic. Lumiere 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

the testers concluded that she had not demonstrated evidence of an ability that would warrant further study. That statement is undisputed. What you dispute is the opinion of the testers. Take it up with them. Wikipedia accurately reports their opinion. The article does not present that (or any other) opinion as its or WP's own. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was just that the new phrase, irrespectively of whether or not it is acceptable, contains a message that is even more problematic, or controversial if you prefer. I do disagree with your argument that the phrase is acceptable, but I was not discussing that in the above comment. Before I discuss your argument, can you confirm that you refer to The original formulation of NPOV written by Jimbo Wales. I just want to make sure that I do not misunderstand your point. Lumiere 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I realize that I do not need to know the details of your argument about NPOV. Let Y be some statement that implies that the test failed. For example Y = "no further study is needed" or Y = "there is no evidence that she has the ability claimed". To apply the basic NPOV rule that you have in mind, it would be necessary that the phrase "the testers concluded Y" only reports the opinion of the testers, but it is not the case. This is because the process used to obtain the conclusion refers to the application of a fixed rule on which all parties agreed in advance. We could have replaced the testers by a sophisticated machine that would have written down the conclusion in accordance with this fixed rule. The phrase "the testers concluded Y" cannot be more acceptable than the simple phrase "the test failed" because it convey this information to the readers, and even more. The phrase "the test failed" is not just the opinion of the testers. It is the conclusion of an experiment. The problem lies in the fact that the experiment is presented as being a scientific experiment, which means that this phrase and every other phrase about this experiment would require a reputable scientific source to be acceptable. I say more about the fact that the experiment is presented as a scientific experiment in my reply to DocJohnny in the next section. It is needed because I know that some people are not getting the point. Lumiere 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall an indication that Demkina or her handlers agreed that failure of the test under the agreed-upon bar of achievement meant that she had no powers or was no longer worth studying. She simply agreed to a given test and a given set of pass/fail requirements for that particular test. Just because a person fails Physics 3 one semester doesn't mean they shouldn't take the class again. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why I say that this phrase implies even more than just the fact that she failed the test. You are saying that part of the conclusion was not based upon a rule on which all parties agreed, but upon some convention that the testers fixed for themselve. I am not even sure if that is true, I think that they have discussed that aspect with the subject (Demkina) and her mother, but this is beside the point. The point is that every one understand from the phrase that Demkina failed the test in accordance with a rule on which all parties agreed. A very important information that is being conveyed by this phrase is not just the opinion of the testers. Lumiere 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A comment re scientific method.

My understanding of the scientific method of experimentation is that you have a variable, whose behaviour or characteristics are not known and which you want to study, and a control, whose behaviour is known and you provide as a reference to compare with the variable.

The subject of the experiment is the item or scenario which behaviour you do not know, i.e. the variable. The purpose of the experiment is to determine the behaviour of that variable.

Mr. Skolnick repeatedly referred to the individuals with the known medical conditions as the "subjects" of the study. Clearly this is an improper use of the term. These individuals were part of the test apparatus. Their behaviour or characteristics were not unknown variables, in fact they were quite clearly known (or presumed to be known). So they were not the subjects of the study. Demkina was the one whose behaviour they wanted to study, therefore she was the subject of the experiment.

It seems as if this misuse of terms led to an interesting way to attempt to introduce a "control" in the study, by having an extra "wildcard" choice who had none of the selected conditions. This person was referred to as "the control subject". This person was not in fact a control in the experiment; instead they were part of the test apparatus, meant to expand the scope of the test beyond mere identification of conditions but to also include identification of lack of conditions.

In my rewrite, I condensed some sentiments by saying that Demkina had fared better than a typical person would. This was based in part on an assessment in Skolnick's contributions that put the odds of Demkina's test result at 1 in 50 (or higher; the exact number eludes me). Since even odds would be 1 in 2, I figured that approaching a result that has odds of 1 in 50 is to perform above average.

Anyway, Mr. Skolnick chided me on that statement, by admitting that his team has no idea what an average person would do in the study, since they did not perform the test on another person. Therefore in fact there was no control to to the test. Instead, an artificial and apparently arbitrarily chosen bar was agreed upon. There doesn't seem to be a record of any discussion of the basis upon which that particular bar was suggested.

I guess one point being missed in our efforts at neutrality is that whether or not Demkina agreed to this artificial bar and whether or not Demkina passed that bar does not make the test conclusive, beyond that she did not pass the given bar. It does not mean that she does not have an ability beyond the average person. IMO it is valid (and not O.R.) to indicate that, or at least that others have argued such. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable analysis. A better experimental method would have introduced both a double blind and a control, or better yet, multiple controls. If the testers themselves had been blinded to the "subjects" and their ailments, that would have been helpful. And of course, a few runs through the experiment by control subjects would have added a lot. I still think the other user's application of "scientific standards" to the reporting of this article is erroneous. If we have an article on a winner of a national science fair, we don't need him to have published in a peer reviewed journal to report the results of his experiment. This is not an article about science. This is entertainment. Now if this article were claiming a new cure for cancer, a peer reviewed source would be indicated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming people do not have paranormal powers is not extraordinary. We don't need a published peer reviewed article to report that water is wet. --DocJohnny 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you are saying that it is obvious, and therefore it does not need a reputable scientific source. To be consistent with yourself, you add that this entire experiment was just an entertainment [because a true valid scientific experiment was obviously not needed.] The difficulty that I have with this argument is the long scientific discussions that many people had in the talk page. I didn't see much discussions about how entertaining was this show, and how we could have made it even more entertaining, etc. Also, it is strange that as a result of this entertainment it was concluded that no further study was needed. If it was really presented as an entertainment with no care for scientific validity, I agree that no reputable scientific source would be needed. However, I do not buy it. Try something else. --Lumiere 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The facts of the matter are obvious. You continue to ignore the facts that the statements in the article are verifiable as per policy. Not even the subject's proponents challenge the facts as stated. Your interpretation of policy would have that no article can include any content remotely connected to anything you deem "scientific" without a peer reviewed source. Your interpretation would leave wikipedia in a state of false balance with all pseudoscience and paranormal issues, since peer reviewed journals do not generally address nonsense. Since I am not trying to sell anything, and I tire of repeating myself, I will yield the floor to you. I congratulate you on promoting the cause of pseudoscience using scientific rigour as an argument. --DocJohnny 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, doc, but i quite agree with lumiere. Also, you must realize that your being a POV warrior more then he ( or she, whatever) is.Gimmiet 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The above user's record speaks for itself. His support should prompt some thought. --DocJohnny 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I went to check the users Gimmiet and DreamGuy immediatly to understand why DreamGuy took out Gimmiet's comment with no explanation whatsoever and inserted the comment below instead. No one should take out the opinion of another user in a talk page, certainly not without even discussing it. DocJohnny decided to put it back together with his last comment above just to discredit my position. This whole process is very strange. However, I appreciate the comment of Gimmiet. Lumiere 16:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You are factually wrong. I put it back, as the edit history and summary clearly show. DocJohnny simply replied later. There's no indication as to whether he even noticed it had briefly disappeared. BillC 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I didn't see that, but it doesn't change much the situation as far as DreamGuy is concerned, and DocJohnny is still using guilt by association to discredit my position. Even if Gimmiet was a murderer, he could still be very clever about other aspects and his support cannot be used to discredit my position. --Lumiere 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is suppose to be here. Report the conclusions of the study, period. Arguing about the conclusions is both highly POV and Original Research. I don't care what Lumiere thinks about the scientific method, that has nothing to do with this article. Report what the peoplpe involved said. Period. End of story. DreamGuy 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference I added has as its footnote #1 the debate the testers went through as to what to refer to the members of the volunteer lineup. I don't see how this is really an issue as the article makes no mention of 'subjects'. An issue has however been raised over the use of the words "controlled conditions" which do appear in the article. If someone can think of a more appropriate, yet NPOV, term with which to replace it, then they should do so. (As a side issue, I can answer the question about blinding: the reference I added explicitly states that everyone in the test room, including the one tester there, the TV production crew and Natasha's team, were all blinded as to which volunteer had which condition, the only exceptions being the volunteers themselves and one videographer.) --BillC 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, apparently you did not get the point that my argument doesn't even need to analyse the scientific methods used or the conclusion. This article does much more than just reporting what people said. It reports a scientific experiment and what was concluded. So, this article should be supported by a reputable scientific source. Period. --Lumiere 16:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you think that is the way it should be Lumiere, however please show a Wiki policy that says it must be that way. Exclamation mark.Sethie 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review." -Wikipedia policy

I already conceded before in this talk page that the Wikipedia policy did not discuss specifically the case of scientific content. However, clearly the idea is that the content must be checked for accuracy, etc. by some experts. How can we have this form of peer review for a scientific content if the publisher is not a scientific publisher. The editors of the journal need to know a lot about the community of researchers in the given area to contact the appropriate experts for this peer review. I agree that it will be better if the case of scientific content was discussed explicitly in the policy, but what I am saying here can be derived from the policy just with common sense. Lumiere 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us agree on what we disagree

Points of disagreement:

1. A scientific content requires a reputable scientific source.
2. A reputable scientific source must have some form of peer review.
3. This specific article has a scientific content.
4. The Skeptical Inquirer is not a reputable source for this content.

This is your POV and it is a clearly biased one based on your long-held personal animosity towards one of the authors. Skeptical Inquirer is regarded by many as a reputable source. Its articles are widely cited by many peer-reviewed science journals. As others here have pointed out repeatedly, your argument that most articles in Skeptical Inquirer are not peer-reviewed is a red herring. Many reputable science publications, such as Scientific American, as well as most science books, are not peer reviewed. Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there more? My position is expressed in 1, 2, 3 and 4. My argument for 1 and 2 is that they can be derived from Wikipedia policies with common sense. My argument for 4 is that the Skeptical Inquirer offers no peer review and there is a conflict of interest. I am curious to know the position of others --Lumiere 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please identify this conflict of interest. The only conflict of interest I see in this debate is your own long-held personal animosity towards one of the SI authors.Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below: #Lumiere's reply to Askolnick --Lumiere 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All irrelevant, whether or not your points are accurate or not. Skeptical Inquirer is the leading source of information on this topic. It is biased to try to censor them or to try to argue against them in the article itself. NPOV policy says we can't take sides. We objectively report what they say without taking their side, and thus there is no problems. This article is not a scientific content article, reputable scientific sources on topics scientificic or otherwise do not have to have peer review. If you are biased against the mag, that's your own issue, but it has no bearing on this article. Anything you can claim about that publication not being reliable or scientific or whatever would go 100 times as strongly for any pro-Demkina source. The whole thrust of your argument above is a massive violation of the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. DreamGuy 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, her bias is even more inappropriate. Lumiere has a great deal of personal animosity towards one of the authors. It is the reason she came here to take over the Natasha Demkina discussion.Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy is right. We just report what Skeptical Inquirer said, without judging whether they were right or not. Readers can draw their own conclusions based on the reputation of that publication. If we had a wealth of sources, yes, we might pick and choose which ones to use, based on their percieved reliability, but I don't think we have that luxury in this case. Friday (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly... and if we DID have a wealth of sources, Skeptical Inquirer would still be the leading source, as they are the most well known and most well respected publication on topics like these from a skeptical viewpoint, with the people running the tests being on the board of directors. As one primary involved party out of two in this whole incident, they obviously HAVE to be listed here. What Lum is trying to argue for here is the censorship of one entire side of the debate just because he disagrees with them and their methods. That's completely ridiculous just on the face of it. DreamGuy 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said, DreamGuy. Plus there's her personal vindetta against one of the SI authors. Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below: #Lumiere's reply to Askolnick --Lumiere 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So, your argument is that it is just the viewpoint of the Skeptical Inquirer that is presented. There is no claim of scientific validity. Whether it has a scientific validity is left to the readers to evaluate. Well, I do not see that the article present this angle enough. However, I agree that this brings another aspect to the debate that I did not consider just above. I did consider this aspect before though. This is a very important issue in my opinion. It presupposes that editors do not need to evaluate sources because this task is left to the readers. I will come back. Lumiere 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that for a second. However, I doubt anyone here is buying your personally biased assertion that Skeptical Inquirer is not a respected science publication.Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It will help me to know if you consider that your above argument is general and that the points 1 and 2 and whether any article has a scientific content is always irrelevant. If it is not a general argument, what makes the Skeptical Inquirer, which claims to be a scientific journal, special amongst other scientific journals. Lumiere 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider on this topic, invited here from the Verifiability talk page, may I ask what statements are being spoken about? There is no doubt that information must be referenced to a reputable source - and, of course, deciding on whether a source is reputable for any statement requires one to know what that statement is. If someone could say what edits they wish to make to the article (or which ones they object to), and say what there source is, it would make it easier for outsiders such as myself to opine on what should go in Wikipedia. By the way, DreamGuy is wrong in that we do not insert unreferenced information into articles to balance POV. If that means an article for a while is incomplete because one side is not represented for lack of sources, then so be it (and there are many tags to show incompleteness), jguk 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The testers in question were associated with Skeptical Inquirer, the magazine published by CSICOP. Lumiere is contending that although SI has scientist contributors, its articles are not peer-reviewed, and so this article cannot quote the testers. The testers' opinion is a matter of public record, and, for example, appears twice in the article's Testing Natasha reference: 3rd para under 'The Test Protocol' and last two sentences before 'Acknowledgments'. That others have contested the experiment, and its conclusion is also a matter of public record[17], and is also covered by the next sentence in the article. That last reference was offered to Lumiere, but did not meet with a favourable response. I am unable to find anything in the article that is either POV or unverifiable, but rather that it merely objectively reports an event that took place, the conclusions of those that conducted the test, and that others have contested those conclusions. For those that feel that the CSICOP reference is biased, it should be pointed out that the Discovery Channel reference recently added has a decidely pro-Demkina stance. --BillC 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

what the testers concluyded was that they could not come to a definitive conclusion. thats waht the literature andthe program said. saying otherwise is inacurate.Gimmiet 00:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gimmiet, that's utterly false. Why do you keep misrepresenting what my colleagues and I concluded? Have you no shame? Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

you may not edit this artivcle if your invblolved. to bad... any hoo, im not misrepresnting anything, if you had no real control ove r the experiment, which isthe case, then your entire experiment can not be held as scientific.Gimmiet 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gimmiet, neither your false characterization of what my colleagues and I concluded in are study of Natasha Demkina nor your personal POVs are appropriate for Wikipedia. What part of this don't you understand?Askolnick 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. That's not what was said. Please leave your POV interpretations out of this. DreamGuy 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the article does not state that they came to "a definite conclusion". It says: "the testers concluded that she had not demonstrated evidence of an ability that would warrant further study." The source article used to reference that statement reads as follows: "Rather, Natasha and her supporters had the responsibility to show us that she could perform well enough to deserve further scientific investigation. This they failed to do."[18] BillC 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion "she has not demonstrated..." is precise, explicit and clearly defined, so quite definite. It is also big. No further study! Moreover, the conclusion was taken in accordance with a fixed rule that was agreed by all parties, so it is superficial that the article says "the testers concluded" -- every one understand that it means that she failed the test in accordance with a fixe rule. The phrase "the tester concluded... no further study" cannot be more acceptable than the simple phrase "she failed the test" because it implies that simple phrase, and even more. Note that in my opinion we are going into too much details. It is clear that there is a scientific content in the article.

My understanding is that DreamGuy and Friday want to escape the need for a reputable scientific source using the argument that what appears as a scientific content in the article is just the opinion of the SI, with no claim of scientific validity from WP. BillC and DocJohnny might have a similar argument. My problem with this argument is that it can be systematically used to escape the requirement to have a reputable source, unless we single out the SI as a special case. --Lumiere 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious why an apologist for the Transcendental Meditation movement would be hostile towards Skeptical Inquirer, which has long published critical information about the pseudoscientific-religious cult. And it is also obvious why the apologist would be especially interested in discrediting one of the SI authors, who she is also trying to discredit over in Wiki's Transcendental Meditation article. The author wrote the landmark JAMA article in 1991 that exposed many of the deceptive practices the TM movement was using to gain at least the appearance of scientific credibility. Lumiere is trying to take over this discussion out of her long-held animosity towards SI and that author. Askolnick 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below: #Lumiere's reply to Askolnick --Lumiere 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation required:

"The design, methods, scientific rigour and conclusions of the experiment have subsequently been the subjects of considerable claim and counter-claim."

I do not see evidence of this is any of the references, or on the talk page. Can someone provide citations for the above? I also aruge that it needs to be attributed - CF: "The design, methods, scientific rigour and conclusions of the experiment have subsequently been the subjects of considerable claim and counter-claim by Ronald Dohrman." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Done BillC 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the characterization of the party making the claim from the article and included it also. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the above. However, similarly there is a need for adequate sources for the remainder of the article. What is needed is a tag that says that this article is not supported by adequate sources, but I don't know if there is a tag for the case where a source is provided, but is inadequate. If there is none, we should create one. Lumiere 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Information without citation can be removed from the article by any party. If you find uncited information, please remove it from the article and request citation here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are looking at a different issue than me. It is true that part of the verifiability policy is to guarantee that every content as a source. However, clearly the verifiability policy is much more than that. It is also about having a reputable source, which is adequate for the content that it supports. I could extend your approach to this more general concern, but I am not interested. My focus is on reaching a consensus on the policy itself. Lumiere 20:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You can discuss policy concerns at WP:V. Please do not do so here. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we want to see how the policy apply to this article, I think it is best to do it here. If we were to follow your proposal, the verifiability talk page would get overloaded, and the context of each discussion will not be as easy to get. I only meant to say that I did not want to edit the page myself, I prefer if someone else does it, but of course I always refer to the Demkina page when I discuss here. More importantly, you avoided the main point in my comment, which is that we want more than just a source, but also a reputable source for the content of this article.Lumiere 20:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposed change to WP:V is best discussed there. Please stop discussing policy concerns here. If you find material that is uncited, or whose cite does not back up the statement that it is purported to, please remove the material in question and request a citation here. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How many times I will have to tell you that it is not about a new policy, but about the current policy! I am not discussing change to the policy. I am considering how the current policy applies to this page. You are just avoiding to discuss how the current policy applies to this page. I have seen you acting in other pages. Your approach is to do plenty of edits with little discussion, and I belive that it is not productive. Lumiere 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A dubious sentence about a dubious experiment

Prof Brian Josephson, who, according to the Times Higher Education Supplement has been "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal", claims that the experiment was "a fix" designed to ensure she failed.^[19]

was modified to be less POV. According to WP policies or guidelines, one should avoid expressions such as "claims" that tend to be POV. Also, a paper reflects the opinion of its authors more than the opinion of the publisher. Moreover, unless the authors are prestigious on the specific subject, which is the person of Prof Brian Josephson in this case, it is sufficient to cite the paper.

Note that I made this edit [20] to slightly improve the situation, but I think this sentence, even the improved version, decreases the quality level of the article because it reports gossips exchanged between colleagues only for the purpose of supporting a POV. Lumiere 15:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore my edits, I jumped in with a full grasp of this issue, I reverted back to last edit before my first edit. Sethie 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to the BillC version. Change the word "claims" to whatever you would prefer the word be. The Times Higher Education Supplement is a notable publication, and their statement that Brian David Josephen is scorend by colleagues for his enthusiam for the paranormal is cited. The newspaper is the source of the statement, not the source of the scorn. Hipocrite 18:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is more accurate to attribute the statement to the author than to attribute it to the media. Moreover, it is easier for the reader to just cite the source article at the end, but you insist to mention the source explicitly because you feel that it supports your POV. Because you are so POV oriented, the current article becomes less easy to read. More importantly, it is reduced to report gossips that were reported in a newspaper. These gossips might not be the opinion of the article, but it does not matter, it still is innapropriate to report them. Here is what we get:

Prof Brian Josephson, who, according to Phil Baty of the Times Higher Education Supplement has been "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal", says that the experiment was "a fix" designed to ensure she failed.^[21]

It's not an opinion piece. The author is not relevent. Please review the rest of the encyclopedia. Hipocrite 16:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere's reply to Askolnick

Askolnick claimed at several occasions that I have a personal animosity against him. Here is my reply:

I have no animosity against you. I did not contest your Jama paper, except when you wanted to extend the conclusion to other work on TM without making clear what was the source, but I never contested your work on TM per se. If it can help, I think this paper of yours is one paper that is critical of the TM organization and appears to have some real basis behind it. I got sincerely interested in the Wikipedia policy after I got interested in the Wikpedia TM article. When I chosen the Demkina article as an independent example to analyse the Wikipedia policy I did not know that it was related to you. I just picked one Rfc that seemed interesting, it was in the Medecine section of the Rfc page, which is not where the TM Rfc is listed, and it was the first one that I picked-- I did not reject any other choice before it. What triggered my interest was that this Rfc started with "POV", which relates to the NPOV policy. I also did not know that the SI was involved. I don't know if it is a pure coincidence. Maybe you wrote many articles that show up in the Rfc page or maybe there is another explanation, I don't know. The only thing I know is that I did not know that you or the SI were related to the Demkina article when I picked this article in the Rfc page. You and the SI don't appear in the Demkina Rfc.

Also, I have been interested in the area of scientific communication for years. So my interest in the Wikipedia policy stands by itself. I felt that we should analyze the Wikipedia policy in terms of many examples, and wanted to make sure that there is no special emphasis on any article. In exactly the same way, I think we should continue to consider other examples beyond this one. If you want to propose the TM article, fine. My point is only that the Wikipedia policy should consider uniformly all articles, and not be written or interpreted in view of a particular POV in one article. Lumiere 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You should look at the Rfc that I wrote in the Science and Thechnology section of the Rfc page. I thought for a while before writing this Rfc, but finally I wrote it. I do want to avoid an emphasis on the TM article or any other article as explained above, but still my Rfc for the TM article specifically invites people interested in the Wikipedia policy. Lumiere 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the Demkina article

Please understand that the purpose of article talk pages is for discussion of the article itself. They are not intended as alternatives to internet forums in which a range of topics may be discussed. If you have an interest in scientific communication, and wish to discuss Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV and WP:V, then this is commendable, but this article talk page is not the place for it. There are pages set aside in WP for discussion of policy, and these are the places such discussion should be taken. If you wish to discuss scientific communication in general, then there are many internet forums where you will find no shortage of people who are happy to engage you in debate on the subject. If you wish to discuss the Demkina test with the experimenters, then they can probably be contacted at their respective organisations. Demkina can probably be contacted via her website. Please do not continue to burden this article talk page with such lengthy communications, and tie up editors who would prefer to be productively contributing elsewhere on WP. If you feel that other articles beyond this one are in need of attention, then there are over 900,000 articles to consider. I for one will continue to watchlist this article and make such edits as I see fit, but I will not further engage you in debate on off-topic material on this page. Thank you. BillC 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I do not intend to discuss any improvement to the Wikipedia policies in this talk page. I did it before once, just one sentence, and I apologize. Beside this sentence (and beside my reply to Ascholnic's multiple accusations), all my discussions were directly about the article. The fact that my objective is an interest in Wikipedia policies is irrelevant. I would like to discuss the Demkina article in this talk page with others that are also interested. I believe that we can work together with a focus on the Demkina article, even if some of us have an interest in the Wikipedia policies at the same time. So, we will continue to discuss the article with the help of the policies, but not to improve them. By the way, since your comment is important in itself and has nothing to do with my reply to Ascholnic's multiple accusations - I believe that you confused two different things, I created a new section for it. I felt that it was necessary to avoid confusion. Lumiere 00:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding info about no peer-review

The following sentences were added

Unfortunately, as far as the Wikipedia editors who wrote this article can verify, the design of this test have never been evaluated in a peer-review process.

However, as far as the Wikipedia editors who wrote this article can verify, the methods used in this test and the analysis of the results have never been evaluated in a peer-review process.

This is entirely NPOV because it says about who's knowledge we are talking about. Moreover, these statements are self sourced in the article -- they are and can only be supported by the article itself.

WP:ASR Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a small issue that can easily be taken care of. We just have to write "as far as the authors can verify", which does not not refer to Wikipedia. However, thanks to pointing out this subtle point. So, I propose the following sentences instead of the previous ones:

Unfortunately, as far as the authors can verify, the design of this test have never been evaluated in a peer-review process.

However, as far as the authors can verify, the methods used in this test and the analysis of the results have never been evaluated in a peer-review process.

Note that WP:ASR do contain example of acceptable statements that refer to the article in which they belong. I read the entire rule, and it only says that we should not refer to Wikipedia, the website. The purpose of this rule is that the article still makes sense if it is moved elsewhere outside Wikipedia, which is allowed by Wikipedia. Moreover self reference is used all the times by authors in scientific articles. There is nothing wrong with that. Sentences such as "To our knowledge,..." are of common usage. Hipocrite, I believe that your are against censoring Wikipedia. Are you trying to censore these sentences on the basis that they are unprofessional in an encyclopedia? I think that, as soon as we accept to open the door to all kind of opinions in Wikipedia, we must also accept self references to the authors. Lumiere 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also note that self reference to the authors is not absolutely needed to achieve the goal of these sentences. We could write "the SI does not have a peer-review process to evaluate...", and then we could cite the the SI web site. However, I prefer not to point to the SI because this is not about the SI, but about the fact that there was no peer-review. Lumiere 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a scientific article; it is an encyclopaedia article. Sentences such as the one you are proposing do not appear in encyclopaedias. Why is it written twice? Who feels that it is 'unfortunate'? --BillC 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(A technical point: Please stop indenting when there is no need. This is a natural sequence of comments, with no need to indent.) The "unfortunate" can be modified, fine. Twice, but not the same content each time, and each sentence will occur at the appropriate place in the article. I am not sure that such sentences never occur in an encyclopedia. However, even if it was true, Wikipedia has a no censoring attitude that is strongly supported by Jimbo Wales and is not seen in standard encyclopedia. Therefore, I do not think that this last argument has much weight. Lumiere 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, A) Indenting is how we do things here. Stop telling people that they don;t need to follow how things are done here. B) Your arguments have been dismissed time and time again here as missing the entire concept of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Continuing to say the same things and trying to sneak your idea that some magazine needs peer review before it can be mentioned here is just nonsense. WE work by consensus here. Many editors have explained to you why what you are trying to do is wholly unencyclopedic. I don;t particularly care if you don;t think the arguments have weight, because your POV obviously isn;t letting you be objective about things. We have consensus here, work within that and follow the policies or else you won't get anywhere. DreamGuy 00:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant that there is no rule here about indent, and you did not appreciate that I try to impose one. I don't want to impose a rule about indent. I made a polite request to you, but should have made a polite suggestion instead. I will reply to the remainder of your comment about peer-review and consensus later.Lumiere 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

About peer-review see my reply in #About peer review --Lumiere 02:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

About consensus see my reply in #About concensus --Lumiere 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The enthousiasm of BJ for paranormal presented with NPOV

The following question was added

Why is a Nobel price in physics interested in Demkina's ability?

The goal is to present the following statement in a more neutral way.

According to Phil Baty of the Times Higher Education Supplement Prof Brian Josephson has been "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal".

With the help of this question, the last statement appears more just like a neutral information that is not intended to discredit Prof. Brian Josephson. The readers can conclude by themselves whether or not the enthousiast of BJ for paranormal can influence his integrity. We should not suggest anything that is POV. We should just state the facts.

This is an encyclopedia, not a story. Tell the facts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to guess that you are suggesting to remove the question. The problem is that the purpose of the sentence "According to Phil Baty of the Times Higher Education Supplement Prof Brian ..." will then be unclear. I know that the sentence is true because it only reporta what Phil Baty wrote, but truth is not the only criteria to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. The statement must also be purposeful and relevant to the article. This is mentioned in the last paragraph of the Wikipedia verifiability policy. Therefore, either we remove the sentence because it has an unclear purpose or else we rewrite it in such a way that its purpose is clear. There are two possible purposes for this sentence. The first is to mention in a neutral way the general interest of BJ for the paranormal, not just an interest for the case of Demkina. The second is to imply that the BJ statement is not reliable because he was biased by his enthousiasm. This second purpose is not acceptable because it is strongly POV. So, we either remove the sentence or else rewrite it in such a way that it is clear that its purpose is only to mention in a neutral way the general interest of BJ for the paranormal. The question was just one way to explain the purpose of the sentence, but I am open to other suggestions. Lumiere 23:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Please review the NPOV policy, DreamGuy, paying specific attention to the section titled "Giving equal validity" NPOV does not mean treating minority views with equal weight to majority views, it means attributing views to the person that holds them. Stating that the scientist is in the minority on this specific issue is in according to our NPOV policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Hello, you KNOW I know NPOV policy, and specifically that section, because I was the one who originally pointed it out to you when we were both trying to improve the Otherkin article and I went into great detail on that section to the people present. But while we do not have to give equal validity to two sides, it is a clear violation of NPOV to go out of your way to try to make a side look bad. Objectivity means presenting things as they are in nuetral language and letting the readers decide, not arguing for something in the text of the article itself. Stating that a scientist is a supporter of paranormal already tells anyone reading that he is on a certain side and his claims should be treated critically. Claiming that all his colleagues think he's nuts, as you originally sad, or pointing out now that he's in the minority, is just way too much and makes you and the article look bad and biased. It's completely unnecessary and slanted. And I suggest you please review the rest of the NPOV policy so you can treat the matter in context instead of focusing just on that one section I told you about. DreamGuy 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I never said that his collegues think he's nuts. I found a reliable source which I cited and quoted that said "has been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal." If anyone has ever said that his collegues don't think he's nuts, they should find a reliable source that says that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All supporters of the paranormal are controversial

Prof Brian Josephson, a controversial supporter of the paranormal, claims that ...

This statement somehow discredit BJ as being controversial, but this controversy is only a consequence of the fact that the paranormal is not mainstream science. If the goal is to point out that the paranormal is not mainstream science, let us just say it directly. Nobody will contest that. There is no need for a personal attack against BJ. A more appropriate description will simply say

Prof Brian Josephson, a supporter of the paranormal, which is a controversial area, claims that ...

Really, discrediting BJ's opinion about the paranormal in anyway whatsoever because he is interested in the paranormal is a cyclic reasoning. The starting point is that we reject the paranormal. Using that basis, we classify as controversial all those that support the paranormal. Then we discredit the opinion of BJ about the paranormal on the ground that he is controversial. It does not matter where and at which level of our community this reasoning occurs, it is a cyclic reasoning. Lumiere 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that we should mention that BJ is a Nobel prize winner because it is relevant. I read somewhere in a Wikipedia policy or guideline that we must be careful when people attempt to censor some information on the basis that it is irrelevant. The point was that the very fact that many people want to remove the information may actually be an indication that the information is relevant and should not be removed. Lumiere 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, even the sentence "a supporter of the paranormal" might be a biased POV. I read the web site of BJ on the Demkina experiment and his focus was more on the details of the experiments, its analysis, etc. than on Demkina's abilities per se. He was concerned with the quality of the experiment. Therefore, a more accurate statement will be

Prof Brian Josephson, Nobel prize winner and a supporter of careful scientific studies on the paranormal, which is a controversial area, says that ...

--Lumiere 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would you outright reject the paranormal when science can't explain all things....Gimmiet 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me? --Lumiere 00:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

yup. and anyone who treats science like a religion Gimmiet 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer not to answer this question. I hope you don't mind. --Lumiere 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

s'ok... methinks that answers it anyway...Gimmiet 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it cannot answer it. I did not want to answer you because of the provoking tone in your comment that followed the question. It had nothing to do with the question in itself... --Lumiere 02:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

you read to much into everyrthing, sir or madam., all i am is blunt. flavourfull language is for my creative writing, not for this.Gimmiet 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Gimmiet: Lumiere seems to be on your side. I don't think s/he ever advocated rejecting the paranormal. You don't need to be that blunt. Both of you: How about:

Brian Josephson, a Cambridge physicist who supports scientific study of the paranormal, says that ...

I think this is good, because:

• "Prof" is not needed, and I don't think it's standard style.
• Mentions that he's a Cambridge physicist. Just basic background.
• Doesn't mention that he's a Nobel Prize winner. I think that's a bit much detail. It's right at the top of his article, anyway.
• Doesn't mention "controversy", because as Lumiere did say, the paranormal is always controversial.

~~ N (t/c) 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks very good! I am happy with that. Lumiere 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not. Dr. Josephson is in the vast minority of scientists. This is a point that is cited (via the times higher ed suppliment) and relevent, but not noted. This is a failure of NPOV - specifically, "equal weight." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why Gimmiet was fighting against me. I think that he does not like that I do not take position for the paranormal, but only maintain that we should only present well supported scientific content in WP. We should not accept any phenomena as being scientifically proven if it has never been proven in a carefully designed peer-reviewed study. In fact, I think that there is even a need for more than just one study. This is just an ackowledgment of what science is. It has nothing to do with believing in it or not. You can be very critical of science, see all of its many limitations and have a completely non religious attitude toward it, but you still have to accept it as it is. If the paranormal can be carefully proven scientifically, the above position is in support of the paranormal. Otherwise, it is against the paranormal. Gimmiet, you decide if I am against or in support of the paranormal. --Lumiere 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

again you take my words too harshly... and by the vby, if it can be scrintifiaclly prooven, it ceases to be paranormal...

You are right, but until it happens... --Lumiere 04:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

also, science may onw day be able to proove telelkinetic power, for example, but it has a lot of learning to do before then. also, i am not fighting, only looking to find answers.Gimmiet 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is OK. So, what do you think of the last proposed sentence? Did you dislike the last one that I proposed so much? Or is it just that you like to argue about science and religion? --Lumiere 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

my response was the question, if people can justify it beyond reasonable doubt, then i would follow it, but as it stands i see no reason to have it be the way it is.Gimmiet 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

About peer review

Some people say (see at the end of #Adding info about no peer-review) that requiering that a new scientific content must be sourced in some reputable peer reviewed scientific journal before it can be included in WP is just non sense. I think it is clear that I disagree, and I already explained in this talk page how my position on this issue is consistent with the WP:V policy and the WP:RS guideline.

However, my last line of arguments (see #Adding info about no peer-review) was not even about this issue, but about not censoring information instead. If we go as far as accepting a new scientific content such as a new kind of experiment without a peer-review process, we should at the least not censor this fact. --Lumiere 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what 'censorship' means in terms of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't imply the automatic right to inclusion of any sentence, but refers instead to material that some might find offensive, such as articles on sex, or lists of swearwords. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. 'No censorship' cannot be used to try to evade blocks on non-encyclopaedic material or sentence usage that would not find their way into more conventional encyclopaedias. BillC 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to this specific policy, but to the principle that anything that is not against the policies and is relevant can be included. So, my point is simply that I see no policy against the inclusion of the fact that the experiment was not peer reviewed, which fact is relevant. You got confused with the term "censor" and thought that I was referring to the policy against protection of minors -- it's funny -- my point has obviously nothing to do with protection of minors. --Lumiere 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the text you added to the article: Unfortunately, as far as the authors can verify, the design of this test have never been evaluated in a peer-review process., and that when questioned on it, you replied here: "Are you trying to censore these sentences on the basis that they are unprofessional in an encyclopedia?". I have no objection to noting that the article was not peer-reviewed; however it would be improper to imply that Josephson's opinion was of equal weight since his view was not refereed either: he merely posted his criticisms on his personal website. Regards, BillC 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitively agree with the fact that BJ's opinion was not peer reviewed either. However, note that the problem originates from the fact that the experiment was not peer reviewed to begin with. Had the experiment be published in an independent reputable peer-reviewed journal, BJ would have submitted his critic to the same journal. Still, I will not oppose to anyone that wants to mention this fact. It only emphasizes that the whole thing was not peer-reviewed, which in a way supports my point. --Lumiere 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as "equal weight is concerned", I think that the use of the term "paranormal" does the job by itself. The principle of not equal weight is not that we must suppress the opinion of a minority, but only that the fact that it is the opinion of a minority should be clear. In our case, there is no need to insist that the paranormal is not mainstream science. Every body know that it is not mainstream science. Adding a sentence to explain that the paranormal is not mainstream science, will make the opponent to the paramormal appear to be on the defensive. --Lumiere 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree that "Everoyone knows the paranormal is not mainstream science." If the reason we are not including this well sourced, cited fact is that it's embarassing to people, then the fact needs to be included. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was that it should be embarassing for the opponent of the paranormal to have to insist on it. I think it can only improve the situation as far as the pro-paranormal are concerned. Really, the term "paranormal" does a very good job just by itself. Trying to add anything to it, might just go the opposite direction. --Lumiere 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

DON'T CRY FOR ME, ARGENTINA! I'll defend those evil scientists against how terrible it makes them look when they say that paranormal is outside of the mainstream! Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am lost in the subtle points of your last sentence. It does not matter because whether or not the article explicitly says that the paranormal is not main stream science is not an important issue as far as I am concerned. So, let me retract whatever I said about that specific subject. We can spend our energy on other issues. --Lumiere 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What I don't retract is that we should not have any form of personal attack against BJ. Therefore, I will modify the main page in accordance with the last proposal of the external editor N. If someone wants to add a separate sentence that says that the paranormal is not mainstream, I will not begin a discussion on this other issue. --Lumiere 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your information contained non-verifiable and uncited claims about Josephson. In addition, they were POV. If you can find a verifiable reliable source that says that Josephson believes what you say he believes, please reinclude that information. If your only source for the information is quotes by Josephson, please be certain to follow WP:NPOV and describe it as his claim about himself - I will include conflicting claims from others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could write

denounces what he calls a "scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda" against unusaul phenomena that are classified as paranormal,...

This is a quote from his article which can be used as a source. Note that we put this sentence because there seems to have a common desire to present BJ as a supporter of the paranormal. However, in accordance with NPOV, we must do that with a respect for the way the person himself will express his opinion. You can follow this sentence with a critic that replies, but a critic that is on the topic, not a critic against the person of BJ. If you want to critic BJ, do it in an article about him. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, your critic of BJ is just non sense: you critic his opinion because he has this opinion. It is like saying "Your viewpoint has not much value because every one knows that you are a partisan of that viewpoint". --Lumiere 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

About concensus

Some people confuse consensus with majority (see at the end of #Adding info about no peer-review). WP works with consensus, but not with majority. WP is not a democracy. I have been working in good faith and continue to work in good faith to obtain a consensus. --Lumiere 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - you have no history whatsoever with anything in this encyclopedia outside of your POV fight about trancendental meditation and the paranormal. If you honestly want anyone to take your policy perspectives seriously, you're going to need to find an editor - one that's not biased to your POV, with a substantial editing history outside of the topic - to agree with you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to take the part "one that's not biased to your POV" out of your argument because otherwise it is too easy: you will classify any editor that will agree with my policy perspectives as being biased to my POV. With this part out, I think that what you say is still only partially true. There is no need that anyone agrees exactly with my perspective. This will never happen. It is enough that we join together in some common perspective. You seem to think that we are very very far from the goal and that there is no progress. I am not so sure about that. I am seeing progress here. --Lumiere 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Find an editor who agrees with you about this policy, has a substantial editing history on the encyclopedia, but none in paranormal subjects. This can be done via RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

None in paranormal subjects, huh? I guess I'm out, since I once rewrote this page to try to settle a dispute. Handy. Anyway, I agree that a lack of peer review can be included if it can be sourced as having been pointed out by someone else (i.e. other than those whose only relation to this topic is via WP). BTW this page has already been to RFC. I think maybe its time for PR. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think that anyone disagrees with your above point. If someone said something about how a study was not peer reviewed, we can clearly attribute such a statement to them and write it here. If the mentioner of no-peer-review is in the vast minority of the scientific community, that should also be mentioned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is simply that a responsible source of information at the encyclopeadic level that goes as far as reporting an experiment and its conclusion when nothing has been verified through peer-review should do it in a way that makes clear what is the situation. At this time, I see only one simple way to do this and it is to state that nothing was sent to peer-review as far as the authors can verify. I will accept that it appears in a footnote. I agree that it is not usual, but I would like to see an example of an article in a standard encyclopedia that reports a scientific experiment that has not been the subject of peer-review with the objective to educate the readers about the subject of the experiment and related conclusions not to tell some interesting notable story around the experiment per se. The emphasis in this last sentence is important. The purpose of reporting the Demkina experiment and its conclusion is to inform the public about Demkina'a ability, but the experiment has never been peer-reviewed. This is not encyclopeadic.

Let me be clear. There is no policy that says that we cannot add the footnote saying that there was no peer review as far as the authors can verify. Your argument is only that it is not encyclopeadic. I can use the same type of argument to reject that we even report this non peer-reviewed experiment and related conclusions to begin with. So, we decide whether or not we want to be encyclopeadic, but we must be consistent. Lumiere 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change - in fact, the majority of contributors (everyone save you) thinks it is bad. Perhaps this should tell you something? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If there was a consensus, there will be no need to discuss the issue. It is because there is no consensus that we must discuss it. --Lumiere 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As the editor in contention has repeatedly stated her lack of interest in the actual topic, this entire discussion seems to be for the benefit of the above editor making a point about wikipedia policies.--DocJohnny 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A consensus doesn't mean a complete absence of dissenting voices. That is probably unachievable. BillC 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you are saying that consensus is the same as large majority. I am not even sure that this is correct. I think that what is correct is that when no consensus can be achieved then we must rely on other means such as arbitration. I don't want to insist that we continue a discussion on this talk page. However, this article will remain of interest to me, and I will be back to discuss the above issue about peer review and reputable source (in the context of this article) with some new points to add. --22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read it. It contained just common sense. Thank you. --Lumiere 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again an ad hominen argument on Brian Josephson

Brian Josephson, a Cambridge physicist with no known record of publishing on parapsychology, and who has been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal says that the experiment was "fixed" to ensure she failed,^[22] despite the fact that the test was agreed upon by all parties beforehand.^[23]

The above use an attack on BJ to critic the logic that is presented by BJ, which can be found in the cited source. This is an ad hominen fallacious argument [24]. This is the first kind of fallacy that any one can learn in a logic course. The fact that the attack makes use of sourced facts does not make the argument less fallacious. Moreover, the attack itself is part of a fallacious cyclic reasoning: Hipocrite uses the fact that BJ supports [careful] scientific study on the paranormal to discredit his opinion against non careful scientific study on the paranormal. It is the logic of the overall sentence that is completely fallacious, and the overall sentence is not attributed to someone, but appears as the opinion of WP.

Also, I don't understand why Hypocrite switches from "paranormal" to "parapsychology" in this sentence. Is the paranormal a sub-division of parapsychology? Also, in which parapsychology journals BJ should have published? Do you mean that the problem is that BJ never published in the Skeptical Inquirer or some other journals of skeptical organizations? If not, which are these independent journals and why the Demkina experiment was not submitted to these independent journals? --Lumiere 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. But so is using Josephson as an authoritative source with which to criticise the experiment: see Appeal to authority. It doesn't matter if he is the holder of a Nobel Prize or a swimming certificate: Josephson's personal webpage is only a reliable source for quoting Josephson, and attributing those quotes to him. This article is not about Josephson. I would be happier if it never mentioned him at all. BillC 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but we did attribute the statement to BJ with "says...", so where is the problem? I do agree that we do not want to present the view of one person, but in accordance with NPOV we must present the view of every significant minority, and NPOV says that the best way to do that is to cite a prominent adherent to that view. Are you saying that the paranormal does not even represent the view of a significant minority? --Lumiere 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. And though I would prefer this article not to mention Josephson, and thus get bogged down in details about him, it is okay to mention him as one of the critics. It is not okay to describe him as 'a supporter of careful scientific study into the paranormal', because (a) it's only him saying that he is; (b) who defines what is 'careful' study? (c) it's a very strong implication that this test was not careful; (d) this article is not about Josephson. Josephson can be mentioned as an example of the critics of the experiment, and any quotes attributed to him should clearly be identified as such, but it should not imply that his views on the paranormal are representative of mainstream science, nor should any of the wording of this article be crafted for the purposes of establishing a case for the disreputability of Skeptical Inquirer. BillC 19:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there is too much on Josephson, and there is no point in specifically pointing out anti-Josephson irrelevancies. Josephson's identification as a physicist is sufficient to reflect his connection to paranormal research without going to pains to discredit him in a WP article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. His connection is far deeper than that of a "physicist." My father is a physicist. Josephson is notably connected beyond his "physisicst" status. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so he's a noted physicist. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he's notably enamored with all things paranormal. He used to be a physicist. Now he's not. Are you here as an advocate for a party, or are you just being disruptivly ruleslawyery? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we going for Phil Baty's opinion in a magazine?

Why would Phil Baty's opinion in a magazine be better than Brian Josephson's opinion in his website to present Demkina's side? I would like to see an answer to this question in terms of precise reference to wikipedia policies. I thought that the idea of NPOV is that we try to express as best as possible the opinion of all sides, including the sides that are not meanstream. The NPOV policy uses the expression "write for the enemy". It is fine to clearly say that one of the sides is not mainstream (and I think the term "paranormal" does it very well just by itself) --this is what no equal weight mean, but it does not mean that we should not try to present the best of all sides. Obviously, Phil Baty's article is not neutral when it presents both parties. Here is an excerpt:

The professor [Brian Josephson], who has been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal, has claimed that an experiment for a forthcoming terrestrial TV documentary that apparently disproves Ms Demkina's claims was "a fix" designed to ensure she failed.

Richard Wiseman, professor of psychology at Hertfordshire University and a key member of the respected Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, who helped design the experiment, hit back this week.

The emphasizes are mine. Clearly, Brian Josephson is being discredited using a non sense logic of the kind "your viewpoint has not much value because every one knows that you are an adherent to that viewpoint" and as someone that makes claims to support claims, whereas Richard Wiseman and the CSICP are respectively presented as a key member and the respectable scientifuc people that hit back!!!

I would like to emphasize that I am very much open to the idea that we suppress Brian Josephson's viewpoint, but I want to see a clear explanation in terms of WP policies. --Lumiere 00:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That reference is being used to support the statement in the WP article simply that dispute has occurred. Are you able to find another, reliable reference to support the statement that dispute has occurred that meets with your approval? BillC 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll add: that reference is, as I said, being used to support the WP article's assertion that dispute has occurred. Am I right in thinking that your objections lie not in this, but in the other material in that reference? The other material in the THES piece is not being used for the WP article. If one doesn't care for some of Baty's editorial opinion, that is not reason enough to reject it as a reference. Once more: Josephson is not the subject of this article. It is obvious from the THES article that dispute over the test has occurred; its title alone makes that clear. The THES is a highly respected journal and makes for a reliable source about such simple facts. BillC 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know what part of the Wikipedia policies you are using to justify a suppresssion of Brian Josephson's article. I never heard that WP:NPOV or any other WP policy says that we must only point out that there is a debate between different viewpoints. To the contrary, NPOV says that we must present as clearly as possible the viewpoints of all sides, every side being presented the best possible from their respective perspective. So, you did not answer my question. I am open to anything. --Lumiere 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is little reason to specifically mention Josephson in this article. He had nothing to do with the experiment or the parties involved. He adds no special insight other than his personal POV. His field of expertise is unrelated. Other than his personal notability, his relevance is no more than that of any other pundit. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 11:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So, the part of the policies that you want to use to suppress Brian Josephson viewpoint from this article is relevancy. If it is so irrelevant, why is it that Phil Baty's article, which is the only article currently cited in this article to give the other side, mainly refers to Brian Josephson? Don't you feel here that there is actually simply an intention to suppress a clear statement that represents the viewpoint of the other side? Again, NPOV does not say that it is sufficient to mention that there is a controversy, but says that the article must clearly present the viewpoint of each side. --Lumiere 15:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil Baty's article wasn't mentioned until someone inserted Josephson into this article. Phil Baty is only relevant vis a vis Josephson. And the viewpoint of the "other side" was that they constested the result of the experiment. And there is no consistent "other side". A variety of internet pundits have weighed in with a variety of objections. It is all well summarized as "The design, scientific rigour and conclusions of the experiment were subsequently the subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the testers." --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So your argument seems that the other side is vague and thus cannot be really represented. I think that all arguments of this kind would eventually find their place in Wikipedia:Information suppression. You need something more serious than that to justify that we supress Brian Josephson statement. --Lumiere 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Hipocrite! This supports what I am saying here. You did that by pure honesty, I guess. If you search a little bit more, you will also see that we must also make sure that every side is represented the best possible. I do agree that it is fine to say that one view is not mainstream, but this does not mean at all that we can suppress that view. --Lumiere 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&oldid=35692461 does a great job of that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet looked at the version proposed by Hipocrite. I just would like to mention again that I am open that we suppress Brian Josephson, but I did not see yet that someone pointed any part of the policies that will justify that we do that. --Lumiere 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The version proposed by Hipocrite is the one discussed right at the beginning of #Again an ad hominen argument on Brian Josephson. The problem with this sentence is that it has many sourced parts, but the overall sentence has its own meaning which is not sourced. Moreover, the logic of this sentence is fallacious. This was previously discussed in details in #Again an ad hominen argument on Brian Josephson. So, even if it was sourced, it will not be acceptable. Also, I think NPOV says that there should at the least be one sentence that directly presents in a very clean, simple and direct way, the viewpoint of the other side. This is not what this sentence is doing. Note that this is not an article about human perception in general. If it was an article about human perception in general, the viewpoint that X-ray vision is possible could perhaps be reduced to 1% or even a smaller percentage of the article. However, this is an article about Demkina. Clearly, in an article about Demkina, the viewpoint in favor of Demkina must be fairly represented. --Lumiere 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we look forward to you also writing about the team of testers and represent them as 'the best possible'? If the THES article is to be rejected because of its editorial attitude to someone who was merely commenting upon the test, are we also to reject the Discovery Channel reference, which presents not a solitary contrary word about Natasha? Is that to be considered a fair, even reference? As a suggestion, rather than keep posting on this talk page, why not write your proposed version on a subpage of your user page and then invite people here to comment on it? Make it a complete version of the article, from beginning to end, and complete with the references you favour. BillC 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No thanks for your suggestion. I am interested in this article. Also, you are arguing as if I am against citing the THES article. I might be against it, but this is not the issue here. My question is what part of the policies justify that we suppress Brian Josephson statement. In principle, we could have both. So, even if I would support that we cite the THES article, my question would still remain wide open. I am trying to get an answer to my question in what you wrote. I think that I might have found one, but I need you to confirm. Is your answer that there is a WP policy that says that a web site of Cambridge (this was not a personal web site) with no refereed process is not acceptable to source the statement by Brian Josephson? Is that it? Can you provide the exact policy paragraph(s) which you are using? --Lumiere 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not my answer. As has been said earlier, Josephson's webpage is an acceptable source of information for quoting Josephson. If you can find an acceptable way of including both in the article, then please do so. I will add that I found your rejection of my proposal a little disappointing, for I thought it a constructive one, and one that could have come some way in closing the gap here. As you are interested in this article, this would have demonstrated to everyone what your idea of what it should look like. Any agreed text could be cut and pasted into this article. This was exactly what I did in mid-December in an attempt to end the earlier edit war. BillC 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that that is not a personal website, exactly? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I checked again and it is his personal website. I did not see the ~bdj at first. However, it seems that, if I look at BillC's reply, that it makes no difference. In accordance to BillC, we are allowed to quote Brian Josephson from his web site. Do we have a consensus about that? I will check myself if there is no paragraph that indeed would allow a suppression of Brian Josephson web site in our particular context. --Lumiere 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You will need to demonstrate the relevance of any quotes, make clear that they are his opinion, and in all likelyhood be prepared for someone to come up with a 'counterquote'.BillC 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Once we accept that a statement of BJ from his web site is acceptable, the only aspect that remains to be considered is the subject matter of the statement. Is it really needed that I argue for the relevancy of a statement about the design of the test? --Lumiere 19:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the counterquotes prepared already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it is not a personal attack against BJ. --Lumiere 19:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'll listen to you, so sorry. What you call "personal attack" is what I call "correctly identifing people far outside the scientific mainstream using cited reputable sources." Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You misundertand the no equal weigth NPOV policy. No equal weight means that you can identify one view as a minority view. The key point here is that it is the view that you qualify, not the person. You can say creationism is not adopted in standard textbook (though this might change - if we follow Bush), but you cannot try to discredit some scientist opinion on creationism saying that he is a partisan of that view. You must stick to the view itself. --Lumiere 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You have worked on two articles for two months - both of which you appear to have a strong connection with and a strong desire to support one POV - and that is the extent of your contributions to article-space. You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of policy as gospel. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you should read WP:NPA. In any case, you do not have to take my words. Consider the opinion of experts. See for yourself. We work by consensus anyway. --Lumiere 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, can you explain, in a single sentence, what you think the overall 'message' of this article should be, because it seems to be that you think there should be one. Thanks, BillC 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Paranormal