Jump to content

Talk:Natasha Demkina/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Removed reference

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/reason_demkina_050128.html

(→References - -- Rm reference just added. This would need to be discussed in the talk page. Are you ready?)

This is the warning I wrote in the comment field when I removed this reference, so that people think about it twice before putting it back in. Oh well! Too late! -Lumière 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"5 out of 7"

Article says: "correctly identify at least 5 out of 7" Surely it is feasible to put this short list in the article. Surely it gives a better insight what was happening. Were these kind of "tummy ache", "lurgy" and "swollen ass" or, rather, neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis and hemangioendothelioma? mikka (t) 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, I believe she was to match written down diagnosis with paitents. Sethie 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 6 patients out of the seven patients had a diagnosed medical problem. The seventh patient had none of these problems. Demkina was given seven cards describing these problems, including the "none of them", and had to match these cards with the patients. -Lumière 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not true. Natasha was given six cards, not seven. And the target conditions were not "medical problems." They were anatomical abnormalities which resulted from a previous medical problem -- removed appendix, surgical staples in chest following open-heart surgery, a large metal plate covering hole in the skull following removal of a brain tumor, an artificial hip, a resected upper lobe of the left lung, and a resected esophagus. Natasha was required to match the six anatomical abnormalities to the correct subjects. A seventh subject had none of the abnormalities. Also, the test subjects were not patients. They were considered healthy and there was no patient relationship involved. Askolnick 12:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting us about the language used. I knew that they were not "patient" and not sick, but the subject of the experiment here is Natasha, not these 7 people, so I did not know how to call them. Thanks for the precision about the 6 cards, but I guess that no harm would have resulted to give her a seventh card with "none of them" on it. In fact, it would have been more clear. The way you describe the criteria suggests that matching correctly the "none of them" does not count as a match. Did it count as a match? Was it 4 out of 6, 5 out of 6 or 5 out of 7?. -Lumière 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


While Natasha was the subject of our test, to Natasha, the six people with the abnormalities and the one "normal" were her subjects she was using to demonstrate her claimed abilities. She was subjecting them to her claimed paranormal abilities. I can't think of a better single word to discribe that relationship. Patient is definitely wrong. Test "objects" is too dehumanizing.
Heh. True; though their involvement in the test was to essentially be passive objects (i.e. human bodies) having certain qualities (i.e. the conditions). I guess it's semantic; it's just confusing to people trying to understand the test to get around the fact that the "test subjects" were not the subjects of the test. That's the confusion that led me once to erroneously refer to them as "sufferers". - Keith D. Tyler 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
There was no need for a card for the condition "none of the abnormalities." By filling out the six test cards, identifying the subjects with the specified anatomic abnormalities, Natasha automatically matched the "normal" condition to a subject. As has been repeatedly explained, Natasha had to match at least five of the seven conditions to the correct subjects to pass the preliminary test.Askolnick 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I always understood that there was no absolute need for a seventh card. Still, it would have been more clear to an external observer like me if the implicit matching of the "normal" condition would have been made explicit with a seventh card. -Lumière 16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, this simply makes no sense. We've been criticized and attacked by dozens of people (and praised by many others), yet no one before criticized us for not having a seventh card. Although you say that you "always understood" there was no need for a seventh card, you also say that having a seventh card would have made it clearer to you. Which is it? If it were clear to you from the start that no seventh card was needed, then there was no need to make it any clearer. You understood it just fine. Askolnick 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This all started after you made a big deal about the fact that I explained the experiments in term of 7 cards. Perhaps it was not the exact situation, but it would have been equivalent as far as the criteria itself is concerned. So why did you made a big deal out of this and wrote "This is not true..." as if I had seriously distorted the facts. Here, I am just saying that it was actually a clearer way to explain the criteria. Please do not move this discussion out of context. -Lumière 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I said this is not true is because it was -- how do I put it to make it clearer? -- because it was not true. There were six cards not seven. You didn't distort the facts. You got the fact wrong. I simply corrected the mistake. You are the one who is making "a big deal out of this." You got your facts wrong. You were corrected. That should have been the end of the story. But not for you. You launched into an argument that there should have been seven cards and that we were wrong to have used only six. Do you really fail to see the irrationality of your arguments? Askolnick 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I only see that you still interpret my argument out of context, and in a way that makes me look bad. When I first replied in this section, I provided useful information, and you made some minor corrections. Every thing else needs not be discussed further. How you make me look does not matter here. Instead, let us focus on the policy (see previous section). -Lumière 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I took nothing out of context. You -- I repeat -- you started an argument over a simple correction that there were six, not seven cards. If this argument makes you look bad, it is solely your doing. It was a foolish argument that could only make you look ridiculous. There were six cards, not seven. A seventh was not needed. End of story.Askolnick 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel anything I did makes me look ridiculous. I just feel that you are trying to make me look ridiculous, which is different, and obviously you keep doing it in the above paragraph. You are really are insisting on it. I am telling you that it doesn't matter. Can we focus on the policy now? -Lumière 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If the truth makes you look ridiculous, that's not my problem. I simply corrected your factual error. You responded with a variety of arguments that I'm the one who is at fault. And I pointed out how flawed those arguments are. Whining now about how bad this makes you look is what is making you look ridiculous. Askolnick 12:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am telling you that it doesn't matter. Can we focus on the policy now? -Lumière 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Third-party publishers publications for the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test

Let us focus on the policy now! It requests that findings must be sourced with a third-party publisher publication. Therefore, the question that we should ask here is not whether CSMMH and CSICOP are respectable organizations. The question is not whether the Skeptical Inquirer is a credible publisher publication. The question is whether the Skeptical Inquirer can be used as a third-party publisher publication for the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test? -Lumière 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


At the risk of launching another yet argument, the question cannot be whether Skeptical Inquirer is a credible publisher. SI is not a publisher, SI is a magazine. The publisher is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Askolnick 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! The policy never used the expression "third-party publisher". It uses the expression "third-party publication/source". Thank you! You helped me clarify the question. -Lumière 18:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You actually point out to the issue. The CSICOP is both the publisher and an organization behind the test as it appears in your own expression "findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test". So, is the Skeptical Inquirer a third-party publication? If yes, who is this third-party? -Lumière 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)



Civility

Regardless of any prior history, I must ask contributors here to: remain civil, refrain from personal attacks, and to stick to the subject of this page: the Natasha Demkina article. --BillC 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the following from DreamGuuy is an example of what you mean should be avoided.
again back to more neutrall language... Lumiere has a long history of trying to slant this article, as discussed on talk, so his claims that there were no discussion is just stupid...
This was DreamGuy's comment when he reverted the work of the last one or two weeks, most of it not from me. -Lumière 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
While the civility of DreamGuy's comment may be questioned, its truthfullness is indisputable. You've been working harder than anybody to slant the article to discredit CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer. And that was the very purpose you came to Wikipedia and have put in so much of your time. It is NOT a coincidence that the only two Wiki articles you've been trying to rewrite are Transcendental Meditation and Natasha Demkina -- both of which are based at least partially on Skeptical Inquirer articles that I wrote. Askolnick 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has only been peripherally involved with this discussion, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Askolnick. JoshuaZ 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Professor Josephson’s Critique

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

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


---

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

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

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

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

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

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

BrianJ 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Kafziel's Opinion

I've just read the article itself, and aside from a few minor spelling and grammar errors, it seems relatively neutral to me. It doesn't make any claims about whether she is or is not able to perform these feats. As far as that goes, I don't see a problem.

The sources, however, definitely leave a lot to be desired. The first three footnotes are from a source that might be considered valid (although they are certainly not neutral, they are intended to supporting the skepticism aspect) but the footnote that claims to be an answer to those skeptics is also from a source critical of her and is certainly not intended to fairly represent the actual arguments of her supporters. If a biased source is to be used to debunk her claims, an opposingly biased source should be used to support them.

Still, the article does not conclusively state whether or not she can do what she claims; it just says what the test found. But because several paragraphs are spent discussing the test, it would be beneficial to find a better source for her supporters' objections and incorporate those arguments into the text to give it more balance. Kafziel 18:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "supporter's objections" is that they don't hold water. If someone finds an objection that is not properly debunked in the reference titled CSMMH, Answer to Critics, by all means. but all of them, as I see, are rooted in misunredstanding of what and how actually was tested, stemming from underinformation. "Objections" are not "facts". Everyone may say "these eggheads" screwed the test, but do we really have to mention this in the article.
To list an objection here, it must come from either the "victim" (by "natural" right of defense) or from a reputable source. The rest is idle talk. mikka (t) 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Kafziel, if you can find a reputable source that represents the views of Natasha's supporters, then please add it to the article. To date, the only sources representing those views are unacceptable -- such as the Russian sensationalistic tabloid, Pravda RU, and self-published personal attacks on personal web sites. I've asked Keith Tyler this also. So far, no one has been able to cite a reputable source for these views. That should say something. Nevertheless, this fact doesn't seem to discourage a few people here who want to cite these sources, even though doing so would violate Wiki policies and guidelines. I and others are strongly opposed to that. Wiki policies against using personal web sites as secondary sources are correct. A good solution would be to find a reputable source that presents the views of Natasha's defenders as you suggest -- not to lower Wiki standards. Askolnick 19:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel's "third opinion" does not adress my main complaint: frivolous deletion of facts under lame excuses. mikka (t) 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I addressed that by saying the article looks okay to me. If there's something specific that was deleted, you'll have to tell me what it was. I'm not about to go swimming in all your previous arguments and edit wars to try to figure out exactly what you're talking about.
As for your other points - I don't want to offend anyone here, but I find the "test" that was conducted just as absurd as the idea of a person having x-ray vision in the first place. The cites for the test are no more notable than any other sources that could offer a rebuttal. If a point of view is expressed on any subject, any source with a different point of view should be noted.
Again, the point of the section is not whether or not her claims are true, but what people are saying about it. Because the focus is on the debate itself, both sides should be represented. It's not up to you to decide whether their claims are "idle talk"; it's up to the reader - in this case, me - to decide whether they think the sources are reliable. Kafziel 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
No, Kafziel, it's not up to you to decide whether the sources are reliable. It's up to the consensus of Wiki editors to decide whether the sources are consistent with Wiki's policies and guidelines regarding citation of credible primary and secondary sources. Your comment, "If a point of view is expressed on any subject, any source with a different point of view should be noted," is NOT consistent with Wiki's policies. Please read them before making further statements about what is and is not considered appropriate editing of Wiki articles. The policies in question concern not including original research or other unreferenced material and citation of material not published in reputable publications, such as personal web pages. Askolnick 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is that you assume that I agree that csicop.org is a respectable source. I don't. I've never heard of it, and if these articles are representative of their content, I have to say I'm not impressed at all. You see, the validity of sources comes down to the opinion of the individual reader in the long run. A lot of people wouldn't trust the New York Post as far as they can throw it, but it's still a valid source. You put the source in, and if I feel it's credible, I will believe your statement. That's how it works. Both sides have their opinions, and need to be represented fairly or not at all. Kafziel 19:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Kafziel, this argument was an argument from ignorance: Because you don't know that CSICOP is considered a reputable source by a consensus of Wiki editors, you are arguing that it should be balanced by citing unreputable sources. I did NOT assume that you agree that CSICOP is a reputable source. But I did expect you to familiarize yourself with the facts and issues on this page before starting to argue for your proposed changes. Had you done so, you would know that CSICOP is considered a reputable source by Wiki -- indeed, Wiki has an article on CSICOP that makes this clear. And CSICOP's publication, the Skeptical Inquirer is cited in many Wiki articles as a reputable source.
Again, I urge you to read Wiki policy regarding sources. You appear to be dictating what Wiki policy should be: "You put the source in, and if I feel it's credible, I will believe your statement. That's how it works. Both sides have their opinions, and need to be represented fairly or not at all." No, that's not how it works here. For information to be included in a Wiki article, it must be referenced to a source in a reputable publication. Angry opinions that people put up on their personal web sites are not sources that meet Wiki's standards. You really should familiarize yourself with the issues here and with Wiki policies before making further arguments. And clearly, what you think of CSICOP or its publication has little bearing here. They are considered reputable sources by a consensus of Wiki editors.Askolnick 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I should also clarify that I'm not saying I think the point of view of her supporters deserves equal representation, because it's clearly a small(ish) group (does anyone have an exact number?). I'm just saying that if there is printed material that documents those points of view in a neutral fashion, then it should be used instead of one that actively attempts to discredit it. I doubt very much whether there's anything out there that I would personally consider credible evidence to support her claims. But surely there is a source that at least details those claims without bias. Kafziel 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll say this for at least the third time: If you or anyone else can find a source in a reputable publication that presents what you think are the views of Natasha's supporters, then cite it. But please, read Wiki policies before you claim that an angry rant published on a personal web site is a reputable source according to Wiki policy. It isn't. Askolnick 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, since there have been changes to the article since I said I supported the "current version", I should clarify that this is the version I support; the version by DreamGuy, reverted to by Hipocrite. It is succinct and npov. Kafziel 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What you call "succint and npov" I call "vague, and non-informative". I didn't add a single opinion that criticizes demkina. I added accurate and important points of description of the event. Have you ever heard a term {{stub}} in wikipedia? If yous, please explain what exactly in your opinion wikipedia's policies encourage to do with short articles. Please also point exatly which my additions violate NPOV and how. mikka (t) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, right off the bat: "The testers made it clear..." Who says they did? The testers? It's not clear to me at all. In fact, that sentence is so badly written and confusing, I can't even tell what it is that's supposed to be clear. Kafziel 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the testers claim so. Are you saying they are lying in describing the goal of the experiment? mikka (t) 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
They might be, how would I know? There's no supporting reference for that statement. In any case, I certainly wouldn't say that the testers themselves are a very neutral authority on whether or not they made the parameters of the test clear. On the other hand, the version I support avoids the problem altogether. Kafziel 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Agreed. I simplified the sentence. mikka (t) 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That looks better. Another question about that sentence: what is the phrase "strong effect" referring to? Some kind of measurement of the strong effect of her supposed psychic powers, like a strong reading on the ghostbusters' PKE meter? Or that her powers could only detect defects that had a strong effect on the subjects' bodies, and detecting more subtle things would require a different test? Or is it maybe something else that I haven't even thought of? Kafziel 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yor joke about PKE meter basically hits the nail. the "5 of 7" is the red tick a PKE meter. mikka (t) 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. It seems there are enough other "third opinions" here, and too many changes going on in the article itself to be able to keep up with them on the talk page. I'm going to recuse myself from this article; too many cooks, and all that. Kafziel 20:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear, and have for some time, that this matter will have to go up the chain. The involvement of a primary source and various limited/selective readings of a selective set of various WP policies in various efforts to justify POVs is causing a mess. It's not enough for those involved to achieve NPOV; instead, other WP policies and guidelines are being used to refute NPOV. Presumably the next stages of DR are better at handling this sort of thing. At minimum, the PA and comment deletion matter between Andrew and Lumiere is itself brewing into a mediatable matter. - Keith D. Tyler 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Title clarification

I asked at wikipedia:Third opinion for a Third Opinon about reversal by Hypocryte of my addition of documented facts. This policy is specifically about a third opinion about conflict between two people. Therefore I changed the title to avoid possible misleading: someone may think that "Third Opinion" to my request has already been delivered. mikka (t) 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood the situation, then. I thought Hipocrite was here to offer a third opinion as well. I didn't realize you were having the conflict with him.
Well, I still don't want to continue another long, drawn out argument, so I will just say that my third opinion has been delivered; to summarize, I think your version is more informative in some ways, but his version is simpler and more neutral, even if he has gone about it the wrong way.
I suggest using his version as a base, and slowly - with plenty of discussion - incorporate more details about the test itself. Kafziel 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikka added some (unreferenced) reasons Natasha gave for failing the CSMMH-CSICOP test. However, those were offered long after the test. I added the reasons Natasha provided during or immediately following the test, which she made on camera in the Discovery Channel program and/or are reported in the Skeptical Inquirer articles.Askolnick 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but why not discuss it and come to an agreement before editing the article? The disputed tag is on there, so there's no hurry; it's okay to have some contentious content while you talk it over. Your changes aren't written in stone any more than his were, so instead of editing back and forth, explain yourself first. Making changes without discussion just creates hostility betweeen editors.
This goes for everyone involved. Kafziel 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change nor am I seeking to remove Mikka's addition. Rather, I added more substance to it.Askolnick 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand; I was referring to the fact that you and Mikka's changes have been made without discussing it with Hipocrite. Mikka requested a third opinion, and I provided one by saying that Hipocrite's version should be the base to work from. But you're adding material to Mikka's version, which shouldn't even be in the article at this point. Kafziel 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as Mikka's content was included in the Natasha article, it needs to be as accurate as possible. That's why I added the referenced material and I explained why I did above.

BTW. The reference links I added don't work. I tried to find instructions to fix them, but couldn't. Can someone who know how kindly fix them? Tnx.Askolnick 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. The {{an}} template has been recently obsoleted and replaced with Cite.php referencing. This has the advantage that references can be 'reused' multiple times in the article body, which is what I think you were aiming for. Despite the drastic-looking changes to the article, I have simply brought the same references into the body of the article. Note: I haven't cross-checked that the reference numbers were as you intended; you might want to review these. BillC 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BillC, that's exactly what I wanted and the reference numbers are correct. Askolnick 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)



Demand of explanation

I demand an explanation of the deletion of each sentence from my addition. Otherwise I will have to post a complaint with respect to wholesale reverts withou a word of comment. This is not only a content disargeement, but also a blatant disrespect of fellow editors. mikka (t) 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Each one? OK!
In subsequent articles the testers stated that within the given limited setting of the experiment only the presence of a strong effect may be definitely decided
Not standard english. No idea what you are trying to say.
Exactly what is written: testers were placed in restrictred conditions of a TV show, and only if a strong effect is seen, then a definite conclusion of its presence can be made. If the effect is weak, who will pay thousands of $US to run detailed tests? If US DoD or ufologists have funds, I am sure Dr. Skolnick will happily waste some more time on this. mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is this published? It looks like your own analysis of the situation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If Natasha indeed posseses the claimed abilities, but which are weak or erratic, it would have required a much more extensive testing
According to who? Why? Pure POV
"In subsequent articles" It is a published "pure POV" of persons who conducted the experiment, i.e., persons who made decisions, i.e., of immediate relevance.mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please cite a reputable source that states this. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the influence of the "Clever Hans effect" cannot be ruled out in such a restricted setting
According to who? Why? Pure POV

Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"In subsequent articles" It is a published "pure POV" of persons who conducted the experiment, i.e., persons who made decisions, i.e., of immediate relevance. mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please cite a reputable source that states this. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think Mikka's wording is clear enough in the above, he's correctly stating the views of Ray Hyman as reported in his SI article and online supplement, which are among the references. Askolnick 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The version that was current at the start of February appeared reasonably stable and not especially contentious. Of course, it managed this by avoiding discussion of the specifics of the test; and as per its peer review, it was felt to lack a number of other details. There was, for example, no external link to Natasha's official website, nor much in the way of biographical details on her. These should be able to be added with little challenge to NPOV or verifiability. This might prove a starting point from which to build an article under mediation. BillC 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have three items for mediation.

1. Inclusion of the Professor Josephson Website. As I’ve indicated in some detail in this talk page, I believe Prof. Josephson’s website is fully citable Reference material according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

- The main opponent of the Professor’s website inclusion is Mr. Skolnick. My belief is that Mr. Skolnick does not want it included because it is an excellent critique of CSICOP's Natasha investigation and of Mr. Skolnick's work in that investigation. Mr. Skolnick’s bias can be clearly seen by his mischaracterization of the Professor’s article as an “angry rant” “diatribe” written by a “crank.” Anyone reading the Professor’s site can easily see that this is patently false and misleading. The Professor’s writing is clear, professional and not in the slightest bit “angry.” And the Professor is clearly not a “crank.” Here is the website: [Josephson.]
- I do not agree with Mr. Skolnick’s interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they relate to the Josephson website, and I feel that the inclusion of the Josephson website is critical for NPOV purposes. I've gone into more detail as to why I believe the Josephson website is acceptable as a citable Reference for Wikipedia in the Josephson Exception and Professor Josephson's Critique sections of this Talk page.
- I should add that Étincelle has stated that both the csicop.org/SI material and the Professor’s should be left out; but I think for different reasons than Mr. Skolnick.

2. Broadening the article to give more information and history about Natasha. I believe everyone agrees on this, except perhaps on what information to include and how to present it. Rohirok in the section below, is absolutely right in his views that the current Wikipedia article on Natasha is just like reading the SI article. Rohirok is also right that the Wiki article should not really go into such depth about CSICOP's methods and findings - as if it were written by one of the SI/CSICOP/CSMMH investigators – which it essentially was. Nor should the history and other information about Natasha’s life outside CSICOP be slanted towards the SI view of her abilities, life, intelligence and statements.

- Since Mr. Skolnick was major part of the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina, and has been a driving force behind the dispersion of what can be considered negative information about Natasha, he has a certain perspective that I am not entirely comfortable with. Mr. Skolnick basically wrote the CSICOP-CSMMH reports that we want to include criticism of. I only point this out because some posters may not realize that connection. I am not certain that Mr. Skolnick should be directly editing the Natasha Demkina article at all, since he is so close to the subject and has written extensively on the one side of the issue.

3. Item number two leads into this one. Reduction of CSICOP-CSMMH material. As Rohirok so wisely states below, CSICOP's test of her is significant enough for a brief mention and a brief description of their findings. References can be made to the CSICOP-CSMMH website and Wikipedia entries, but the article on Natasha should not be an article detailing all the information already on the Referenced CSICOP-CSMMH site. The Natasha article on Wikipedia has almost become an advertisement of CSICOP. Dreadlocke 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having very difficult time keeping up with all the false and misleading statements Dreadlocke and Lumiere keep posting. Here's one that I missed. Dreadlocke should know that his statement is false: I did not "basically write the CSICOP-CSMMH reports." If he read them, which we must presume he did because he's so dedicated to discrediting them, he would know that most of the Skeptical Inquirer reports were written by Prof. Ray Hyman. I wrote the briefest of the three reports. Askolnick 14:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BillC, can you post the link to the Natasha website you mentioned? I’d like to take a look at it. Thanks! Dreadlocke 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the article as an external link. BillC 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Wow, there are a lot of links added! Excellent! Dreadlocke 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina's Web Site

As BillC mentioned, there should be a link to Natasha Demkina's web site. That is appropriate under Wiki guidelines. Also, the article should be updated to include the fact that, although only a first year medical student, her web site says she has formerly hung up her shingle to practice medical diagnoses. She has opened a diagnostic and treatment center for patients in Moscow, where she is "supervising" other "degreed specialists."

I ran her web site through Altavista's Babelfish for a crude translation, which says she has established a "Center for Special Diagnostics" in Moscow and is heading its "Office of Energy-Information Diagnostics," where she is providing patients with diagnosis and supervising their treatment -- all without a medical degree or license.

Here's the Babelfish translation:

On the center
The center of special diagnostics of man (in abbreviated form TSSD) is created in 2005. From January 2006 TSSD opened in Moscow the office of energy-information diagnostics of Natalie demkinoy.
The Director-General OF TSSD is Taranenko Albert viktorovich.
TSSD is created in order together with rendering aid to population in the diagnosis, to assign on the joint operation of specialists, who possess uncommon abilities, people healers and professionals of traditional medicine. In our opinion, this association will help not only to raise to the new level the methods of diagnostics and treatment, but also to complete breakthrough in many scientific directions, connected with human health.
We invite to the collaboration of all interested in this persons.
Services
1. In the center works the diagnostic office of Natalie demkinoy, where energy-information diagnostics of human organism is conducted.
This form of diagnostics provides for the survey of entire organism of patient to the presence in it of the most significant pathologies and, most important, are determined the reasons for disease. Support is done to the survey of interaction of all systems of organism (hormonal, cardiovascular, central nervous system, etc.). Often it is necessary to supervise of the processes, proceeding at the cellular level, revealing in this case even virus diseases.
2. In the center the office of classical and segmental- reflector massage also works. The estimation of the quality of the work of these degreed specialists passed under a strict control by Natalie demkinoy.

Someone competent who can translate Russian should add this information to the article because it is 1) essential and 2) based on an acceptable source according to Wiki guidelines. Askolnick 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the above information about Natasha's new medical center in Moscow, I am reminded of what Ben Franklin said more than two centuries ago: "There are no greater liars in the world than quacks——except for their patients." Askolnick 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above, when properly translated, should be presented in a neutral way. Proponents will see it as positive. Opponents will see it the other way. We should just present the facts. Also, Andrew, I feel that you try, without saying explicitly, to justify your silly sentence about Natasha affirming that appendixes grow back. None of the above is a justification for this sentence. Again, we have no idea what is the real situation. Maybe she did not say anything about appendixes growing back, and it is only your misinterpretation. Maybe she mentioned something about appendixes growing back, but we don't know exactly what. Unless you can provide the facts that support your claim, this part of the article is not acceptable. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Etinecilly formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, you say, "Again, we have no idea what is the real situation." You must have a tape worm, because you're not the Queen of England and you are NOT in ANY position to speak for the Wiki community. Anybody can see this fact by looking at all the complaints and derisive comments other editors have directed against you on your personal talk pages (which you keep trying to bury by constantly changing your name). Your spin on what the Discovery Channel program shows is not just bizarre, it's largely irrelevant since the fact that Natasha insisted appendixes grow back was reported in the Skeptical Inquirer. Yes, I know, you don't consider the Skeptical Inquirer a reputable source. No TMer does. Any publication that exposes the highly profitable con schemes of guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his smiling band of Yogic Flyers is disreputable to his followers. Got news for you kid: They're not flying. They're simply hopping on their bums and claiming that they're chasing hurricanes away, making peace throughout the world, and ridding the streets of crime. And appendixes? They don't grow back. Askolnick 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we on the Demkina talk page? When I read the above, I am not sure anymore. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Protected

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

Thanks Katefan0! Askolnick 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, we have our dispute tag! -Lumière 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to list some facts

Fact: Natasha Demkina failed the CSMMH-CSICOP Test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I trust you can provide verifiable and reliable sources for all of the assertions above. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Since this is a talk page, not an artile, your comments are a mockery, rather than a desire to resolve the issue. You are welcome to present your position in the same simple way, in order to identify disagreements cleanly, without long rants no one would want to read, which would be a waste of time. Not to say that you ignore the very basic rule of logic: yon cannot prove non-existence of sometning (unless it is a mathematical problem). Therefore if I say "I did not steal your car", and you disagree, then it is your job to prove that I stole your car, not vice versa. Likewise, if someone says "Brian Jospehson's comments have not been published in a science journal" it is your job to easily refute this claim by presenting the publication. Do you want me to present verifiable and reliable sources that this is the way how proofs of facts work? mikka (t) 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That may be true in the world scientists study Mikkalai, but it's not true in the land of Woo-Woo. In the land of Woo-Woo, all things paranormal exist unless and until they are proven not to, to the complete satisfaction of the residents of Woo-Woo land. I understand it's a real fun place, where Santa Claus plays pin the tail on the unicorn with the Tooth Fairy, and the dish runs away with the spoon before Uri Geller can bend it. 67.20.18.127 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The hyperbole and presumption encouraged by such comments illustrate to me that despite my efforts, some simply do not accept the Wikipedia set of principles as a cohesive and complete model.
As for Mikkalai, thank you for proving my point. I agree that you cannot prove that something does not exist. In which case, such so-called "facts" of denials among those presented by the esteemed anon are groundless and not facts at all, but unfounded, baseless, and thereby non-contributory or productive assertions. They provide nothing but fuel for the fire.
Incidentally, your illustration of the logical fallacy of asserting non-existence is very apropos here. Like asserting that something has not been published, asserting that someone does not have a particular ability is equally fallacious. Some here, including you, it seems, are working under the belief that this person has no special abilities, despite the fact that you concur that a lack of existence of anything cannot be proven. NPOV dictates that we work without such presumptions, and instead, work for neutrality and balance, even regardless of our personal convictions.
I don't know why you would join the chorus of those who paint me a paranormalist when all I am doing is advocating for the improvement of balance and relevant content in the article against one-sided determinations of content and source invalidity under the principle of NPOV. I have no such history as a paranormalist in WP, or elsewhere for that matter. I am, quite frankly, equally skeptic of both the non-skeptics and the skeptics. Both have agendas, and neither one has a right to predominate in WP. WP:NOT. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
At least one of the "facts" is a bit oversimplified. From the list:
Fact: Wikipedia has a policy against citing self-published material and personal web sites.
It's true that personal websites cannot be used as secondary sources, but under WP:RS they can be used as primary sources. The following text is in the article, "Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities." Now, if we are to include this material, why can we not use the Josephson page as a primary source here? Surely Josephson knows firsthand what his own views are? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
At which point Josephson runs headlong into WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony. That aside, are you saying the Josephson material should be removed from the Wikipedia entry? (Incidentally, some of his remarks can be found in a published source [though one that functions as a secondary source rather than a primary one]--thus on the surface it seems like this Nobel prize winning physicist seems fairly prominent adherent regarding this case.) If we are to include the material why not use a primary source? That's what I've been asking. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Keith,

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

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

No evidence that these facts are wrong, then.SkepticReport

See above. One of your "facts" was oversimplified a bit. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand the work of CSICOP better now. If no one can prove you wrong, you must therefore be right. How scientific. But isn't this the same justification used to defend those very notions you seek to discredit? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not affiliated with CSICOP. SkepticReport

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

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

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

USA airing

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

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

Final thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

Draft rewrite

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

Any further comments on the draft? - Dreadlocke 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A quick scan picks up too much Josephson, Content is duplicated. Either include criticism of the tests in the sections on the tests, or criticize the tests in the Criticism of Tests section. Not both.
I think you made an honest effort on this rewrite. Perhaps though you are spending too much time discussing general criticisms of skeptical paranormal research (I see lots of references near the bottom that are not specific to Demkina.) I really advise you to minimize that and focus on being specific to Demkina. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the great feedback! I agree with you and will start working on incorporating your suggestions. - Dreadlocke 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have received and incorporated valuable feedback from several editors. Unless there are substantial objections, I'm about ready to post the new version. Please let me know if anyone has further feedback! Thanks! - Dreadlocke 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Article expansion reversion

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

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

  • If Pravda.RU is a “tabloid” like The Sun, then it is still a citable reference according to sources of dubious reliability. I have to add that while the Wikipedia article on The Sun indicates it is a “tabloid,” the article on Pravda only indicates that "the unrelated web based Pravda.ru is one of the world's most popular Russian news sources."
  • As far as the comment "American scientists working for the Discovery Channel", Askolnick removed that comment saying it was false because Hyman and Askolnick didn't "work" for the Discovery Channel. This is a flawed argument for several reasons. First, if Askolnick wants to remove material just because he believes it to be false, that goes against WP:V, which states: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” Secondly, I’m not so sure that it is a false statement; the Discovery Channel produced the show and engaged the services of CSICOP-CSMMH, which included the "American scientists", in essence they “worked” for the Discovery Channel in the creation of the documentary. However, if this sentence is really a problem, and even though it is verifiable from a reference, I think it can be easily modified to state something to the effect of “American scientists, at the behest of the Discovery Channel,” etc..

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

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

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

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

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

Yes it is true, you removed it without discussion and I’ll be happy to explain to you exactly where that comes from.
The subject of whether or not these sources are allowable in this article has never been given a final judgment because you refused to participate in formal mediation and then gave verbiage that indicated to some that you were leaving Wikipedia because you were “discouraged,” asking “Why should I or anyone else concerned with scholarship and accuracy contribute to Wikipedia” – this followed by your complete non-responsiveness to queries on your intentions, [1], (now archived), and your unresponsiveness to the requests for feedback starting on May 25 on the draft rewrite. Others may have thought you were “gone,” but not I - I suspected that you were doing exactly what it appears you were doing, waiting for the draft to be actually posted before re-engaging in the discussion. Very unwikipedia-like behavior.
Back in early May, I expressed my disbelief that you were actually gone, but then tried to expand the article as discussed on this talk page, asking for feedback from many sources. You didn’t participate in that at all, then almost immediately jumped in and deleted the new material without consensus or discussion.
Now that we are all clear on your intentions, I do not intend to engage you in another endless, circular battle on allowable sources. If consensus allows these sources, then the only question is one of article quality. If consensus is not clear on the sources, then we need to go to arbitration, since we’ve already been through the other steps of dispute resolution.
Dreadlocke 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. ([WP:V])
Dreadlocke, have you done that in every case? ---J.S (t|c) 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi J.S, thanks for the feedback! I tried to adequately attribute all the sources I used for the article expansion, check out the draft article located here and let me know what you think. Dreadlocke 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Liar! It's not an inch over 25 inches. Askolnick 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mikka for your advice, but I did very carefully read the policies I quoted. I also read the background on the two points you present, from WP:BLP and the in-progress discussion of those two points in the RS discussion page. IMHO, those points do not prevent Natasha's website from being used as a source for the article. Note I said, "a source" it is not the sole source for the article - as opposed to your...ahem.. 30 inch example. Dreadlocke 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But you did NOT quote Demkina's web site since it is in Russian. You cited your interpretation of what it said. You need to cite a verifiable source of the translation so that it can be verified. But you did not. Askolnick 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect, I can use the Russian language website as a direct source, please read the guideline on sources in languages other than English. If you are aware of a suitable translation, then please provide it - otherwise, as the guideline states: "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources." Dreadlocke 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You are entitled to your HO, just like I am entitled to disbelieve her claims. Notice that I did not say that you cannot use it. But one must be judicious in what to pick and how to present. Once again, there is an undue weight to telltales of a clearly non-neutral person. `'mikka (t) 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted article expansion issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were no "British researchers" who studied Demkina. As the sleazy tabloids that Dreadlocke insists are reputable sources do, he simply made up that "fact." He was told before that no British scientists tested her. But like those tabloids, he prefers a good-sounding story over the facts. Askolnick 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If you could provide a source for who exactly was involved in the London appearance, that would be helpful. I don't recall being told before that no British scientists tested her, so I'm not sure where that comes from; nor am I "making things up" - everything is sourced. I ask again that you comment on the article, not on me: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
Dreadlocke 06:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What would be most helpful would be for you to NOT put falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims into Wikipedia articles. I previously pointed out that Natasha was never tested by British scientists. Your inabillity to recall things here is most convenient. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMES NATASHA WAS TESTED BY BRITISH SCIENTISTS. It is your duty to back up your claims with reputable sources. Please cite the source of your claim that Natasha was tested by British scientists. She was never tested by British scientists. It appears you just made this up or are simply parroting another disreputable source of disinformation. Askolnick 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I was merely asking for your help in finding a better source than the one I've already provided. I don't see what's so "convenient" about my "inability to recall;" that statement just appears to be an implication which strikes me as another personal attack from you. Dreadlocke 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Japanese scientist is named in the article: Yoshio Machi, a Professor at Tokyo Denki University Tokyo University. I didn't see evidence that he is a "crook," and if there is, I'm sure it can be included somewhere. As for specific British researchers, good question, I was unable to find a list of names, perhaps you can help me source that - or change it to something more acceptable. Dreadlocke 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The evidence is that in his demonstration Natasha have read the "insides" of people from photograph (at least this was reported). For me this is shameless cheating. Or a breakthrough in photography: this act would require not only Natasha's x-ray vision, but "x-ray imagery" ability of a photocamera. `'mikka (t) 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, but I don't think we can call him a "crook" in the article based on that type of evidence. I'm sure there is a source by reputable skeptics that expresses doubt about the photo demonstration. Dreadlocke 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's yet another example of why Wiki policy shuns the use of sensational tabloids and other disreputable sources: (like Dreadlocke) the sleazy tabloids rarely bother to get their facts right. Machi is a professor of Engineering and he is NOT at Tokyo University. The tabloids Dreadlocke insists are reputable references seldom bother to get their facts straight. He shares their reckless disregard for the truth and is working hard to make Wikipedia as intellectually worthless as those sensational tabloids.Askolnick 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Much like Dreadlocke, tabloids like Pravda RU, the Sun, Weekly World News, etc. don't bother to fact check. That is the reason Wiki policy say such tabloids are to be shunned as references. Dreadlocke doesn't care that they don't check their facts. I do. That's why I'm standing up to him and will continue to resist his efforts to include them as reputable sources. Askolnick 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Pravda.RU is an acceptable source for this article as stated in Wikipedia policy. I don’t know where you are getting your information on what is allowable in Wikipedia as a WP:RS, but please read the relevant sections in the policy and the guideline. If Professor Machi is not at the University of Tokyo, then please correct that. Are you disputing the statement that Natasha was in Japan at the behest of Professor Machi and underwent tests of his design? Are you disputing events, or just sources for those events? I attempted to properly check the facts, and asked for assistance from others. I would appreciate your not commenting on me and instead focus on the article. Dreadlocke 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on Askolnick's feedback, I found that Professor Machi is with Tokyo Denki University instead of Tokyo University and I've made the change. But I haven't yet found a suitable translation site for the University's site. See, a little teamwork and we can get the draft into great condition! Dreadlocke 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Denki" is "electricity" in Japanese. (By the way, I find this incomplete translation of the title is ringing a certain bell to me: making it sound as a Japanese exotics probably atttracts stupid americans like flies on manure) This is a private university where an expert in superpowers Prof. Machi studied brain waves and successful telepathy of Uri Geller, along with other supermen and superwomen. Probably they make much money on students who are willing to learn tricks of various other con men. `'mikka (t) 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How shocking! Dreadlocke 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Source dispute

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

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

  • I think this poll is unlikely to be of much value since the acceptability of a source critically depends on what you intend to use it for, and this you have not declared. The Sun, for example, might well be an acceptable source for the statement that Demkina visited the UK and appeared on the This Morning TV show, but I would not find it acceptable for many other claims. BillC 21:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good points BillC. Per your suggestion, I've gone through and separated out the references I sourced from Pravda.RU (I think I got them all). Most of the references are quotes from Natasha and her mother, as well as a description of the visit to Japan. I haven't been able to find other sources for this, so if you (or anyone) can help source it better, that would be most welcome. Dreadlocke 22:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It would seem to me that a reasonable inference is that the sources listed are intended for use as they were in Dreadlocke's draft. In any case, it's not unheard of to state one's concerns in one's vote. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tyler, I expected you would pull something like this. You and Dreadlocke demanded a vote and when the vote turned clearly against you, you pull "a Sen. Joe Liberman." If the votes supported your effort to use information from one of the most disreputable of sleazy news tabloids in the Demkina article, you wouldn't be groping here for post hoc excuses. The only newbie vote I see is articulett's. If you ignored that one, the "nays" would still be 50 percent more than the "yeas." This is not sour grapes - it's sour "road apples." Furthermore, your implication that I'm voting under other names is typical of your irresponsible conduct and repeated disregard for the truth. I've never posted anything to Wikipedia under any other identity. If you actually believed I'm using sockpuppets, you would have reported me to administrators. This insinuation is as baseless as are your arguments to elevate one of the sleaziest news tabloids in the world to the status of a reputabl Wiki resource.Askolnick 13:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for participating in the survey. Interesting results, and I’m not just talking about the votes.

As Keith points out, Askolnick should read the policies on single purpose accounts and soliciting meatpuppets – as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIV. The “newbie” editors should read up on all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines prior to future voting. One should also note that this violates this. Amazing.

Rohirok’s attempt to refactor the page was far superior to what the sections look like now – which is a confusing mess. Thanks for trying Rohirok!

For those experienced editors who rejected Pravda.RU, I’m curious about their stance on the Wikipedia Policy for dubious sources as it relates to this source. Is that policy to be ignored, or is Pravda.RU a tabloid that somehow doesn’t meet a level of quality unstated in the policy? The policy explicitly uses the tabloid The Sun as an example, I don’t think you can get more “tabloidy” than that. Fortunately, I believe we can source the Japan appearance from material on Natasha’s own website, so the question around Pravda.RU becomes less important.

This straw poll is not binding, it was just a survey to see where everyone stood on the issues, but if we take away the WP:SPA entries, we seem to have majority on allowing Discovery Channel, Natasha’s own site, and the Josephson critique – all of which meet Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines for inclusion anyway – but with the history of this article, I’m sure this will need to be confirmed by higher authorities to avoid the possibility of edit wars or other problems. Dreadlocke 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and personal attack dispute

What I find "amazing" is this blatant hypocricy. I solicited others to vote in response to Dreadlocke's solicitations, such as these:[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. As far as violating WP:SPA nothing I've done compares with Dreadlocke's inviting Brian Josephson to create his SPA account. Dreadlocke even created Josephson's Talk page for him! Now that's amazing. (My big mistake was doing what Dreadlocke was doing. Sorry. Now that I know such solicitations are Wiki no-nos, it won't happen again.) Askolnick 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good lord man, no you did not “do what Dreadlocke was doing". Dreadlocke was working within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines – each one of the examples you provided are clear examples of me following proper Wikipedia policy! You, however, clearly broke the rules in a completely unacceptable manner, [8], [9], [10], and you were warned about doing this by administrators!
Then you choose to attack me with false accusations of doing the same thing? This is an unacceptable personal attack by you and I ask that you withdraw your false allegations. Dreadlocke 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to withdraw my comment because it's not false. Not only did you solicit votes ONLY from people you believed would vote in your favor, you repeatedly pressed one of them to change his vote after he didn't. Twice you posted messages on his talk page urging him to change his vote.[11] [12] [13]
And not only did you bring a meatpuppet to Wikipedia to defend your position, you even personally set up his user talk page for him! [14] You really shouldn't be accusing me or anyone else of setting up "meatpuppets" and Single Purpose Accounts. Such hypocricy is absolutely maddening. Askolnick 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. Everything I did was by the rules, and I certainly did not solicit any meatpuppets or single purpose accounts. Your accusations are false as are your characterizations of what I did and why. I solicited votes from editors who had previously expressed interest in this article but had not yet participated in the survey. I didn’t need to solicit you or your supporters because you were all participating. I had no idea how those I solicited would vote, such as [15] [16], and I had every right to express to them on their talk pages my reasoning – something you engaged in here, but in quite a different manner - you actually threatened and attacked those who didn't vote your way! Actions you were warned about!
You know, I really wish I could take credit for inviting Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to create a Wikipedia account, it would have been an honor to have been the one who inspired that action. But I was just as surprised as anyone when he began posting here. Indeed, I have been communicating with Prof. Josephson for a long time – well before I joined Wikipedia. At some point I did apprise him of the situation here, and was very happy to see him actually involve himself in the discussion – but even if I had invited him to create an account in order to contribute here, there's nothing wrong with that, it's perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia rules. Especially when another Wikipedia editor was insulting and defaming him, something Askolnick was engaging in long before Josephson began posting here.
It is truly unbelievable that Askolnick would try to place some kind of blame on me for inviting a Nobel Laureate to contribute to Wikipedia! I would really like to hear what Jimbo would have to say about that, it’s beyond the ridiculous! Then to try and compare that with Askolnick’s solicitation of meatpuppets in his attempt to stuff a ballot box with voters from an external forum…well, that’s just beyond the beyond!
As for “creating” Josephson’s talk page, I did not - someone else welcomed him to Wikipedia [17]. I “created” his User:page when I provided an informational link to his own article on Wikipedia, and I only did that after I saw this: [18] - two full months after Brian stopped editing - some conspiracy there.
That’s what editors do, by the way, help other editors and improve the encyclopedia. - not just attack others and keep information out in favor of their own POV.
And indeed, I was hoping Professor Josephson would continue contributing to Wikipedia, but after Askolnick’s personal attacks against him,[19] I can understand why he (or anyone else) would be reluctant to participate in Wikipedia. At the time, Askolnick seemed quite thrilled to have Josephson join, [20], apparently so he could attack him directly - right here on Wikipedia! More unwikipedia-like behavior from Askolnick. This discussion has gotten way off track because of Askolnick's personal attacks and false arguments.
My apologies to everyone for having lengthened this discussion, but I felt I had to respond to these false charges. Dreadlocke 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the more I think about it, the accusation that I "brought a meatpuppet to Wikipedia" by inviting a Nobel Laureate to "defend [my] position" is absolutely hilarious! I'd love to see the accusations if I brought presidents, kings and bishops to defend me! I wish I had invited Josephson! Dreadlocke 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Rule of thumb" dispute

And I'm curious what part of "As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves," do you not understand? It is the 4th sentence in the dubious sources section you cite, and we must presume, read. It clearly states disreputable sources of information, such as Pravda RU, should not be used as sources of information about others. And unless you can show that Natasha Demkina is publisher or editor of Pravda RU, this rule says Pravda RU is NOT acceptable as a source for the Natasha Demkina article.
Likewise, you cite but then ignore key parts of Wiki's guidelines concerning personal web sites and self-published sources. The guideline clearly states that self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used so long as:
  • It is not contentious; (which these dubious sources clearly are)
  • It is not unduly self-serving; (which the claims on Natasha Demkina's clearly are)
  • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;(which these dubious sources clearly do)Askolnick 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling you would attempt to narrowly define the "dubious sources" policy by the "rule of thumb" element, which I do not believe is how one reads the policy. Here is the significant part:
"Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun...""
If your reading were right, then all the section would need to say is "don't use dubious sources such as tabloids unless in an article about the tabloid itself."
As for your reading of the policy on "personal websites and self-published sources" regarding sites such as Natasha's own, I think you are wrong, and I've already addressed that, [21].Dreadlocke 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So your answer obviously is the whole part: You simply choose to reject Wiki's "rule of thumb" because it too narrowly defines "dubious sources" to fit your needs. Sorry, Dreadlocke. You are not allowed do that. It's one of Wiki's specified "rule of thumbs," and it's not your perogative do ignore it because you don't want to abide by it. Askolnick 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look up “rule of thumb,” I don’t think you quite grasp what it means. I am not “rejecting” the rule of thumb, I’m appropriately taking it into account as an element of the entire “dubious sources” policy – it is not the whole policy. Apparently, it is you that is ignoring or “rejecting” what the policy actually says – and that is, statements from tabloids can be used if they are important to an article and cannot be found elsewhere, as long as they are attributed to the tabloid. The “rule of thumb” means that in general, tabloids should be used only in articles about themselves, but this does not mean they cannot be used in other articles – that’s why it’s called a “rule of thumb”. If not, the policy would not even need to use the phrase “rule of thumb” because there would be no exceptions to it.
In any case, the argument is now moot. I am sourcing the statements from Natasha’s own site and from several other Russian language sources. Dreadlocke 20:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll save you the trouble: rule of thumb “A useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation.” Dreadlocke 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Vote Tally

Discovery Channel (Which was never disputed as a source.) [22]

Voters accepting this source: 4 —— Voters rejecting this source: 1


Pravda.RU [23] (The comments sourced from Pravda.RU are here)

Voters rejecting this source: 7 —— Voters accepting this source: 4
Change vote to limited Accept for documenting the claims made by Demkina and her mother (which should be identified specifically as claims). Rohirok 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Prof Josephson - University of Cambridge [26]

Voters rejecting this source: 6 — Voters accepting this source: 3
Votes for restricted acceptance: 2


Natasha's Official website [27]

Voters rejecting this source for any statement other than about Natasha herself: 6
Voters accepting this source: 4
  • Accept as a source of quotations of Natasha about herself --
  • Accept only if translation comes from a reliable source --
  • Accept only if translation comes from a reliable source --
  • Reject as a source of any other publications by anyone else. articulett 13:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The votes along with voters' comments

Discovery Channel [28] (this one is already accepted, but comments from it were removed.)

It's pointless to take a vote on accepting a source that already is considered acceptable. Duh! Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You removed content from the article that was sourced from this site, so I'm making sure it is an acceptable source. Dreadlocke 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe voters have payed sufficient attention to this one. Note the pro-Natasha skew of the article actually linked at the top of this source vote section. This is a different source from the Discovery Channel documentary itself, and I believe it is an unreliable one. I hope the voters will reconsider their votes in light of this. Rohirok 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pravda.RU [29] (The comments sourced from Pravda.RU are here)

  • Accept. Dreadlocke 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject --InShaneee 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Accept The way the info is used now is satisfactory but still the site itself is border line acceptable --Mahogany 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept for the "Appearance in Japan" section, as there does not appear to be any other online source for what is a relatively important event in Demkina history, as per (as DL rightly points out) the specific guideline under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. However, this limitation is a concession to those who insist that Pravda.Ru is an unreliable source. In fact, no one has presented any evidence why Pravda.Ru is any less reliable than, say, People Magazine or the Washington Times. The only reasons presented against its use are undefended accusations of its character. We aren't talking Weekly World News here. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject - While some may think a sleazy tabloid, which publishes sensational rubbish, will report reputably when describing paranormal events in Japan, I do not. Some editors appear to think that sleazy sources are o.k. when what they publish suits their personal agenda. I don't; a disreputable source is a disreputable source. Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject as an ultimate source. Acceptable its quotes a reputable source. Journalist's description is not a reputable source. (wikipedia:Verifiablity) `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject as per mikka. To set this in context, the following headlines are to be currently found in Pravda.ru: "On the evils of American 'Multiculti'", "Men with biggest reproductive organs all live in England", "US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs", "Dana Borisova: Sex symbol of the Russian Army", "Anna Kournikova made the whole world respect Russia", finally urging its readers to: "Read sensational news stories". BillC 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
BillC, I have a feeling that Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler are each wondering, "What's wrong with those headlines? Those stories are no less true than the one about the girl with X-ray eyes." Here's a couple more Pravda RU dreadlines from today's "science" section:
"Mankind descended from civilization of Atlanteans in the Arctic""[30]
"Aliens probably build their bases on Earth’s seabed disturbing submarines"[31]
Still, I can understand why Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler call Pravda RU a "reputable source." It's where they got their knowledge of science and medicine. Askolnick 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject as unreliable. Observe this headline, found in the Science section: "Animals can be faster than bullet and stronger than locomotive." Rohirok 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Change vote to limited Accept for documenting the claims made by Demkina and her mother (which should be identified specifically as claims). We have no reason to suppose that Pravda.RU is misrepresenting the claims that Demkina and her mother are making. Rohirok 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, this is almost too silly for words. What we have is no reason to BELIEVE that Demkina or her mother said even one word of what was reported in Pravda.RU. Nothing published in Pravda RU is at all credible. Rohirok, have you NOT been paying attention to what we've been saying about this sleazy tabloid? Its writers get paid by the lie, not by the word! Or are you just trying to retaliate because I didn't give into your dictatorial demand and let you unilaterally rearrange this Talk page? You are only hurting your own credibility by now claiming there's no reason not to trust the truth of what Pravda RU reported. This hilarious statement is going haunt you in Wikipedialand for a long time. In fact, I'll add it to your talk page later. It will help others judge your credibility. Askolnick 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Skolnick: As others have already pointed out, you have made a habit of violating WP:NPA. Here, you say that I am being "too silly for words," and on my talk page, you said that my words were "thoughtless" (and by implication, me). Is it not enough to say that you disagree with someone and then explain why? Ad hominem attacks only inflame the discussion and distract from the important work of improving articles. You have elsewhere insisted that Wikipedia policies regarding sources etc. must be strictly adhered to (though I disagree with some of your interpretations). Why wouldn't you also hold yourself accountable for strictly following WP:NPA? Have you not yet read that page? If not, you ought to. And if you have, you ought to start following the policy.
Now, back to discussing the actual article. Here's why I believe that Pravda.RU is a reliable source as far as documenting the fantastic claims made by Demkina. The publication is clearly sensationalistic and not at all averse to reporting unproven or patently false information with regards to science. On that much, I think we can agree. So, given the publication's penchant for sensationalism, they would have no motive for misrepresenting Demkina and Co.'s sensational claims about her own powers. They're on Demkina's "side," so when they report that she said X or that she can do Y, we can be reasonably sure she did say X and that she did claim to do Y. That's as far as I believe this publication can be trusted, and this does not imply acceptance of the view that claims they make about science are true. Rohirok 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Rohirok, the "this" cleary refers to your comment, not to you. Your comment really was almost too silly for words. And I said your words were thoughtless. I didn't say you were thoughtless. I do not doubt that you have a great many thoughts. If you don't want your words criticized, you should take Mark Twain's advice to heart: It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and put all doubts to rest.
Speaking of which, you've just added one of the most ridiculous arguments to a page that is chock full of them. You admit that Pravda RU shamelessly makes stuff up. You then claim to be able to tell which of their reports can be trusted, in essence arguing that Pravda RU writers don't need to make things up when writing about a quack because the quack will do it for them. This rationalization rivals the plea of the boy, who killed his parents and then asked the judge for mercy because he was an ophan.
Once again I direct you to read Wiki policies and guidelines. What establishes a source as being reputable enough to be cited in Wiki is whether it has a regular fact checking process.wikipedia:verifiability Pravda RU has no fact checking.
Do you know how to tell if a Pravda RU writer is making things up? His or her fingers are striking keys on a keyboard. That's how. Askolnick 16:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Rohirok has Wikipedia policy on his side, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. You, however, are only violating Policy by your constant personal attacks. Dreadlocke 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to give Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler the benefit of doubt, that they felt such a strong need to cite any "scientific" evidence for Natasha's paranormal powers, they didn't bother to check what kind of "news source" Pravda RU really is. But now seeing what kind of nauseating nonsense Pravda RU calls "science news," will Dreadlocke and Tyler change their vote from "accept" to "reject?"
Or are they going to stick to their opinion that Pravda RU is a credible and reputable publication? Unless they change their vote, we can only conclude that they think reputable publications do publish "science" stories claiming that the U.S. is building "homosexual bombs" to fight "heterosexual soldiers," that the men with the biggest penises in the world all live in Great Britain, that little green men from another planet have built alien bases on the world's sea floors, where they're disturbing submarines, and other such "science news." I don't think anything they've done to date shows what kind of editors they are as much as their insistance that Pravda RU is a "reputable" publication.Askolnick 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Duh! (I can't believe I have to explain this -- again.) Dreadlocke, if you can't trust what Pravda.RU says about scientists who claim to have measured all the penises in the world, and scientists who've found Martian bases on the sea floor, and about American scientists who have built a "homosexual bomb," then you can't trust what Pravda.RU says about scientists who tested Natasha Demkina -- or in fact about ANYTHING else. It is a shameless rag that publishes sensationalistic stories which its editors know are false.
Clearly, Dreadlocke, you and Keith Tyler don't care that Pravda is a disreputable publication that will publish any kind of sensationalistic trash. Pravda RU's editors don't care a bit about truth. And apparently neither do you. I hope other editors will join me in not letting editors like you turn Wikipedia into a similarly disreputable source of bogus information.Askolnick 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
By now it is abundantly clear why you, Keith Tyler, and now Rohirok are fighting so hard to use one of the world's sleaziest tabloids as a Wiki source. It's the only way you can find to add blatantly false information into the Natasha Demkina article. You are determined to add pro-paranormal faslehoods -- like the claim that Demkina was studied by scientists in the United Kingdom who all found her powers real. That's utterly false. You've been told this repeatedly. No British scientists ever test her in the U.K. One did in New York City and found her claims bogus. Pravda RU just made it up, as it makes up much of its "science" news. But your determination to promote the paranormal view is enough for you to insist that Pravda RU is reputable enough to use it as a Wiki source so that you can include such blatant falsehoods into the Wiki article. Askolnick 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask you again to refrain from violating WP:NPA. As for inclusion of material from tabloids, I suggest you voice your opinion on the policy talk page for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, perhaps you can change Wikipedia policy to reflect your views. Are you disputing the report that Natsaha went to Japan? That's what I'm sourcing - if the Japan visit and what it entailed is not under dispute, then I don't think we even need to cite a source. Do you dispute her mother's quotes? Dreadlocke 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. We can't seem to make this editor understand that it doesn't matter whether information reported by Pravda RU is outrageously sensational or mundane. No information published by Pravda RU can ever be trusted because the editors of Pravda RU routinely do not fact check. If they did, the could never publish the kind of "science" news articles they do -- like these from just today's list of tabloid trash -- U.S. scientists are developing a "homosexual bomb" to attack "heterosexual soldiers"; scientists have discovered that out-of-space aliens have built bases on the bottom of the world's oceans and are interfering with submarines; scientists have discovered that "mankind descended from civilization of Atlanteans in the Arctic"; and scientific research shows the men with the biggest penises in the world all live in the United Kingdom! Take a look for yourself to see the kind of trash publication that Dreadlocke continues to insists is a reputable enough source of information to use for the Natasha Demkina article.
If Pravda RU reported that it rained the day Natasha was tested, that claim could not be trusted any more than if Pravda reported that Natasha leaped tall buildings in a single bound, after she demonstrated her X-ray vision for the Japanese scientists. Pravda RU editors pay absolutely no attention to fact checking. That's why they wrongly reported Natasha Demkina was tested at Tokyo University -- which Dreadlocke put into his draft article on Demkina. Pravda RU writers have no incentive to get their facts right. Indeed, they're given incentives to write the biggest whoppers. It is the absence of fact checking that makes this source unuseable for any Wikipedia article. This has been explained to Dreadlocke many times, but he continues to deny Wiki policy applies to the Natasha Demkina article, or at least to the dubious sources that he insists on citing. But Wikipedia's official policy is clear:[32]
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. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.
It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important.Askolnick 03:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Lord! This just keeps getting more ridiculous. I just took a look at some new "science" news published by Pravda RU - that reputable publication Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler are so eager to give credence to. Were you as ignorant as I that Einstein's famous equation E=MC squared is "fatally wrong"? That's right. It's mathematical flaws are described in Pravda's news article which has this to say about Einstein's blunder:
"The highest speed ever is light-speed. Physically speaking, it cannot be multiplied. Einstein himself gave the proof for this. But nevertheless: mathematically it can be multiplied with itself. But light-speed is nearly an indefinite figure. Multiplying an indefinite figure by itself results in a number that could be set equal to infinity. So the formula of Einstein is perhaps applicable for the Big Bang, but never for making explode a simple atomic or hydrogen bomb. Never."
That sounds like it could be a direct quote from any number of cranks or crackpots. Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
So I guess the Cold War was over nothing and 200,000 or so men, women, and children died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to a mistaken belief. Anyone with a even a little mathematical or science literacy can see this article was written by someone not quite right in their mind. It is just science jargon jumbled together to prove a nonsensical premise. This is the kind of "science" that Pravda RU loves to publish. And that's why this trash tabloid is so "valuable" for editors like Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler, who wish to back up pseudoscientific claims in Wikipedia articles.
Here are a few more from today's Pravda RU: "Birds seem to be approaching the intellectual level of humans" [[33]](probably so if you're only considering humans who consider Pravda RU a useful source of information). "Russia accused of artificially generating freak hurricanes over America"...Russian military specialists ...using a special electromagnetic generator they have perfected a secret meteorological weapon, capable of striking innocent people from any distance and destroying their homes."[34]
Next they may publish an article calling on the United States to capitulate to all of Russia's demands or else they'll have Natasha Demkina turn her X-ray eyes on us and burn our cities to the ground. If so, I'm sure Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler will insist on citing this too in the Wikipedia article. Askolnick 03:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And here are a few more great headlines from today's Pravda RU[35]:
"U.S. scientist says scores of UFOs fly around the Sun"
"Dragons came down to Earth from Sirius to share their wisdom with humans"
"Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ"
"KGB ran secret laboratories to study extraterrestrial civilizations"
"Blind Russian mystic discerns colors by touch"
"Russian X-ray girl thrills Japanese scientists with her remarkable gift"
Whoops! That last headline is the one that Dreadlocke and Keith Tyler actually want you to accept as a source of information for the Wiki article. Sorry, that one is not from today. My mistake.
I think this is a good place to recall what Keith Tyler, one of the two defenders of Pravda RU as a reputable source, wrote above:
"In fact, no one has presented any evidence why Pravda.Ru is any less reliable than, say, People Magazine or the Washington Times. The only reasons presented against its use are undefended accusations of its character. We aren't talking Weekly World News here. - Keith D. Tyler"
We aren't talking Weekly World News here? Does Keith hold his nose whenever he reads Pravda RU so that he honestly doesn't know what Pravda RU is? Or is he simply not being honest? Askolnick 05:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one for you Keith. It might explain why the woo-woo editors here act so ... well, a... alien:
"Aliens implant mini-transmitters in human bodies to control Earth"[36]. Askolnick 15:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject The key is verifiability. Even the sleaziest rag can publish something of value, but it has to be independently verified. Not merely copy-pasted from some other publication. However, if Wikipedia is to have any credibility at all, the sources must be of the highest possible quality. I would rather not have the information present, than have dodgy information mixed with sound information, to a point where nobody can tell the difference. Pravda RU is on par with National Enquirer. SkepticReport 15:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually SR, it's very much above par. National Enquirer actually does have fact checking (believe it or not, when I was a graduate journalism student at Columbia University back in the days newspapers were written by monk scribes, I was paid [handsomely] to fact check a medical story for the National Enquirer. Yes, the paper does check facts, especially its medical stories. My fact checking led to the medical story being killed.) Back around 1981, the Enquirer took the path away from publishing irresponsible medical stories and started turning to leading volunteer health organizations to check its facts. As far as I know, it continues to shy away from irresponsible reporting that can harm people with health problems.
Pravda RU is actually on par with Weekly World News (published by American Media, Inc -- which also publishers the National Enquirer, Star, National Examiner, and other tabloids; as H.L. Mencken noted, one can never go broke underestimating the taste of the American public.) Askolnick 18:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
In my continuing effort to change Keith Tyler's mind about Pravda RU's credibility, I am sharing this news report from today's Pravda RU.[37]
Headline: "Petrified scull of an alien found in Russian province"
"A petrified scull of an alien was found in a small Russian village of Nivenskoe. It was an old lady Tatiana Murachinskaya who found the scull. The scull has two eye-sockets, two nostrils and two holes where ears should be. Pravda.ru has already published several articles about aliens, UFOs and other strange phenomena. For example, research of the clothes alien Aleshenka (found in the Ural region) was wrapped in, revealed that this creature has nothing in common with human being, it was an alien..."
The Pravda RU article goes on to describe reports of aliens among us, including how Brazilian farmer Antonio Vilas Boas was attacked by three aliens and taking aboard their flying saucer, where he was medically probed and had sex for hours with "a beautiful naked blond" alien. "When she was walking away," Boas said, "she turn around, pointed at her stomach, smiled and pointed up to the sky."
Keith Tyler says there's no reason for thinking Pravda RU is less credible than People Magazine or the Washington Times. So maybe we should accept today's Pravda report as reputable. And if those claims are reputable, why shouldn't Pravda's reports on Natasha Demkina's more down-to-earth claims be accepted as credible? Keith, what do you think? Askolnick 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I don't know what to say. I've been completely uninvolved with this discussion for at least a month if not longer, and Andrew continues to talk to me, trying to convince me that I should give up on trying to find the best available sources for an article that has long been in sore need of expansion. I'm not sure what the goal of that is -- perhaps it's more like what the lead character in "Thank You For Smoking" said -- he's not really interested in convincing me of anything, but more of trying to convince other people.
That being said, I won't apologize for trying to find sources for the article. If the best that both Andrew and myself (and others) working independently could find for information on Natasha's history and to establish notability is Pravda.Ru, then that's what there is. Thankfully, Wikipedia policy has considered this, stating that sub-perfect sources may be permissible if they are all there is.
Andrew is clearly a very black and white person. Either a publication is reputable -- say, for example, the publications Andrew has sold his work to -- or it is crap.
There is an interesting and yet problematic side-effect of the unyielding blackout position of Andrew et al. Natasha Demkina is a person who claims to have psychic powers. As a result, mainstream media is not likely to give her the time of day (although Discovery Channel covered her, and both ITV and a Japanese station have had her on). What media is likely to give her the time of day -- and moreover, less likely to be biased against her -- are exactly those publications that would tend to be considered unreputable.
The real problem here is the way bias and reputability are colluding here. By giving any benefit of the doubt to Demkina (et al), or reporting the statements of others that do so, a publication immediately becomes unreliable. As a result, positive secondary sources are automatically ruled out. Therefore, we cannot have a balanced article as we can only base the article on sources which reject (or at best, derisively belittle) Demkina's own opinion of herself. Unfortunately, that does not make for a good article, either.
At very least, Pravda.Ru reports on what people tell them. Whether or not the people who talk to them are nutjobs, they're unbiased about it. And they at least state someone who is telling them these things (for example, in at least one story Andrew has posted, the BBC). If I say, "Dave told me the earth was flat", that's a true statement. And I can record Dave telling me that, so I have proof it was said. What I don't have is proof that Dave is right or wrong. But I'm not concerned with the flatness or roundness of the earth, I'm concerned with what Dave said. I can prove Dave said it -- and I can tell others that Dave said it -- without having any effect on the truth of what he said. It's up to the listener to determine whether or not Dave is an adequate authority and whether to thereby believe that the earth is flat or not. Likewise, the reader can choose whether or not to accept Demkina's statements, or the doctors at Children's Hospital No. 1 [38], or Whidbey Island doctor Maddy Nolan [39], or even freelance journalist and (former?) CSMMH executive director Andrew Skolnick. Moreover, it is not WP's, or any encylopedia's, job to tell people who and who not to believe.
- Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: This interview with Demkina would otherwise probably be good material for the article. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA)
Keith Tyler mispresents what I've been trying to do. I have NOT been trying to convince him that he should give up trying to find the best available sources for the article. I've been trying to convince him to find the best available sources. What I want him to give up are his efforts to force nonsense gathered from disreputable and sleazy sources into the Demkina article. Keith, who claimed that nobody has shown any reason to believe Pravda RU is less reputable "than say People Magazine or Washington Times," continues to defend the sleazy tabloid. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he holds up Pravda RU as a credible source of information. And he also misrepresents Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the need for reputable sources. Those guidelines tell us that editorial review and fact checking are necessary for a source to be considered reputable. Sources that don't have proper editorial review and fact checking are not reputable and should not be used for Wikipedia articles (except for certain kinds of information about the sources themselves). Even though Keith says otherwise, reputable sources do NOT print or broadcast whatever people tell them. Reputable sources run the information they collect through editors, producers, fact checkers, copy editors, and the like. Every step in the process is aimed at removing errors and improving the reliability of the reports. That's what makes them reputable. Sources that do not fact check, like Pravda RU, are not reputable.
But I think the most amazing statement I've ever read on this talk page is this: "Natasha Demkina is a person who claims to have psychic powers. As a result, mainstream media is not likely to give her the time of day." What person who lives on earth and reads and watches mainstream media would believe that the media are biased against psychics? Helloooooo? Keith, is that your best answer for why this elephant still lurks in this room blowing peanut shells in our faces? That there's a vast conspiracy of news media AGAINST reporting paranormal claims?! Well, at least I give you credit for not going with the worn-out "conspiracy-led-by-doctors-and-the-drug-companies-to-protect-their-profits" explanation. Askolnick 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Can one find a reliable source for the information the Pravda RU writer fabricated? If that's your question, then the the answer is of course not. Demkina was NOT tested by Tokyo University scientists. The American researchers who tested Demkina in New York do NOT work for Discovery Channel and never did. They received no compensation except for travel expenses. Demkina was NOT tested by scientists in Great Britain. The test the woo-woo researchers did in Japan was NOT similar to the one conducted in New York... and so on. The only reason Dreadlocke, Keith Tyler, and Rohirok are insisting on using such disreputable sources to put this bogus information in Wikipedia is to support their pro-paranormal views. Askolnick 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was mainly speaking of the quote4s, which my be verifyable from a reliable source. But if any of these things can't ber verified from a reliable source, then I think they should be left out. Bubba73 (talk), 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Prof Josephson - University of Cambridge [40]

Nice three-card-Monte shuffle, there, Keith. But it won't work. The topic of the article is NOT Brian Josephson. It's Natasha Demkina.
And Brian Jospehson has nothing to say about Natasha Demkina and her claimed supernatural powers. He's never examined her. He's never met her or seen her. He's never even spoken with her. He's never published anything even remotely about her in any publication (other than his personal web site). Again, the topic of this article is Natasha Demkina, not Brian Josephson. Askolnick 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The relevant policy does not say "topic of the article". Only you do. No one can work with you if you insert words where they don't exist. The intent of the relevant policy is not to be used as a saw to exclude information that we don't like. It's to prevent us from using secondary information as primary detail, which is not the goal of using Josephson's comments. When talking about what someone says, there are few more appropriate sources than that someone themselves. In any case, we could trivially end-run your spurious complaint with an article named Brian Josephson opinion on CSICOP Demkina test, where, by your careful interpretation of WP:RS, the source would be allowed. But then, if we were to do the sensible thing, and merge such an article into Natasha Demkina, by that interpretation, we could not merge in the information sourced from Josephson's site. That is clearly not the intent of WP:RS. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather say that the Josephson opinion article would be happily voted for deletion. By the way, Josephson's opinion is duly noted in the article, with reputable reference. If someone wants to read other josephson's rants against modern science, they may easily use google. By your logic and applying the fairnes and NPOV principle, we may also want to write an article A. Skolnick's opinion about Brian Josephson opinion on CSICOP Demkina test, and open the whole can of worms here. We report someone's opinions as long as these opinions are notablr enough to be reported in serious press, not in blogs and personal websites. `'mikka (t) 22:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You said, "Josephson's opinion is duly noted in the article, with reputable reference"-- but something is a bit fishy here (and brings us back to a question I’ve been asking). If we are to include Josephson's opinion, why not use a primary source for it, as this is allowable under Wikipedia policy? --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Mikka, that's exactly what I have in mind. I've been waiting to see if Keith Tyler and Dreadlocke are successful in their efforts to use this disreputable source in the Demkina article. If they succeed in opening this can of worms, I will "publish" a reply to Brian Josephson's disreputable hit piece. Since self-published, personal web sites will be permissible sources, editors will be able to use my own web page as a source of information to provide appropriate balance. Readers will be able to judge for themselves how dishonest Josephson's comments are.
For example, my web page will counter Josephson's defamatory charges that we had rigged the test so that Demkina would fail and that we did that by chosing a passing score with a P value of approximately 0.02. He accuses us of acting "unethically" for not using the customary P value of 0.05. Readers should know how dishonest those charges are. While a P value of 0.05 is commonly used as the level for statistical significance in many scientific studies, lower values are also widely used in many scientific studies. Indeed, J.B. Rhine, the pioneer of paranormal research, usually used P values that were even lower than the one we used. Josephson knows this. But he chose to ignore it in order to falsely accuse us of rigging the test. Wiki readers need to know how Josephson is misrepresenting the facts. If Brian Josephson's self-published attack piece is added as a source to the Demkina article, my answer to that attack piece will be "published" on my own web site. Wiki editors will then be able to use my personal web site as a source for the Wiki article -- since personal web pages will have become "reputable" Wiki sources for information about others. Askolnick 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You said this same thing several months ago, I'll answer with the same response I gave then: [41]. Dreadlocke
That "0.02" is very misleading, because that it the probability that the results are due to chance, but the way the experiment was run, that doesn't mean that it is highly probable that she does have x-ray eyes. It means that it is highly probable that she has x-ray eyes OR is using other means. Josephson says that the experiment was set up to make it likely that she would fail, but the reverse is true. By not controlling other factors, it made it more likely that she would pass the test. Bubba73 (talk), 04:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Very true. Josephson also misrepresents the nature of the test. It was not blinded. While the odds of Demkina blindly guessing at least 5 of the 7 matches correctly was approximately 1 in 50 (0.02), she was NOT blindly guessing. She would not agree to a blinded test. Therefore our test allowed her to examine the seven subjects -- which she did for four hours instead of the few minutes she usually spends reading her subjects! She could have collected a wealth of normal sensory clues that would have helped her achieve a higher score. Josephson knew this, but chose to ignore it in his campaign to attack us and promote his belief in the paranormal.
Keith Tyler's proposed method for getting around WP:RS#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources reminds me of a very old joke about a drunk who was just sentenced to 30 days for disorderly conduct. When he angrily protested his sentence, the judge added another 30 days for contempt of court. "Your honor," said the drunk. "Is there a penalty for merely thinking?" "No, of course not," said the judge. "In that case," the drunk said, "I think you're a stupid son of a two-bit whore." Dreadlocke and Tyler wish to get around Wiki's guideline against using a personal web site as a source of information about other people, by claiming the rule allows them to include what the web site owner "thinks" of other people. Unfortunately, Tyler's argument is no joke.Askolnick 06:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject - based on Wiki guidelines - NO self-published personal web pages. Considering that Josephson is a Nobel laurerate, he would have had no trouble getting this piece published in a scientific publication or other reputable third party publication. Instead, he published his attack piece on his personal web site. It is clearly the kind of unreputable source that the Wiki guidelines warn not to use.Askolnick 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If this Nobel Prize winning physicist is a prominent objector (does anyone dispute this?) using his words as a primary source of what his own objections are seems allowable under Wikipedia policy. You yourself have not pointed to any bit of Wikipedia policy that would prevent this source's use as a primary source regarding his own objections of scientific methodology and conclusions on the experiment (the one the Discovery Channel aired). --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should not be used as a source about Demkina, but what about as a source regarding his own objections on the experiment this Wikipedia entry contains? If he is a prominent objector, this particular use seems consonant with Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject: the topic for Josephson's comments is not Josephson, but Demkina. His webpage is suitable for referencing his comments in an article about him, but not about someone else. BillC 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept only as a primary source for Josephson's views, just as did the Times Higher Ed. Supp., itself a reliable secondary source. Never to be used as a secondary source for information about Demkina. Rohirok 03:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Josephson's self-published hit piece is not about Josephson or about his views on Natasha Demkina -- whom he never tested, never met, never even spoken with. It's his personal attack on my colleagues and me. The subject of this Wiki article is Natasha Demkina. It is NOT an article about what Brian Josephson thinks of skeptical investigators (the world already knows he holds them in contempt). Brian Josephson is NOT the subject of this article. It is an article about Natasha Demkina.Askolnick 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Of course not. You simply choose to ignore those who disagree with you as well as Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Askolnick 03:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to explain this again: The subject of this article is Natasha Demkina and evidence for her claimed supernatural powers. It is not about what Brian Josephson thinks of skeptics. I don't doubt that Josephson is an authority on how much he hates skeptics. If you want to reference his self-published thoughts in the Wiki article on Brian Josephson, be my guest. Your argument would hold some water. But referencing his personal web page in the Natasha Demkina article would go against Wiki policies and guidelines. His personal web site is NOT an acceptable source of information ABOUT OTHERS. There was a reason such a well-known scientist "published" that defamatory hit piece on his own web site and not in a reputable publication. That's a clue. I suggest that you take it so that you will finally have one. Askolnick 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject Brian Josephson's hermit attitude is in direct conflict with how science should be conducted. He is most welcome to (re)join the scientific community, if he accepts the scrutiny. Until then, his website is definitely not a source to be considered. SkepticReport 15:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Josephson's webpage is misleading. He talks about the 50 to 1 chances against the outcome, but the problem is that the test didn't isolate the factor being tested - the X-ray eyes. The hits she obtained could be the result of x-ray eyes OR external clues. Note that she said that even though her x-ray eyes could see through flesh and clothes, they couldn't see through a cloth partition! Therefore she was able to see the person's reactions. In one test the translator said what was being tested - she could watch for a reaction from the person with that condition. One person had a lung problem - she could look and listen for one making more effort to breathe. These, and other things, made it more likely that she would get hits not due to x-ray eyes. A criteria of five hits was agreed upon in advance (and not met), although she said that she was 100% accurate. Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Limited accept, but only for his statements directly about the case and attributed to him in the article. Also a hard call. since I think his statemenst are misleading. Bubba73 (talk), 03:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about Josephson, the more I think that if his statements are included in the article, it must be made clear that it is the opinion of a small minority, and we must be careful not to give undue weight to it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Limited accept--I agree with Rohirok and others about using Josephson's statements only as primary sources of what his own objections are (this appears allowable under Wikipedia policy). Josephson is a Nobel Prize winning physicist and an apparently prominent objector—and thus seems to be a voice for the “significant minority” viewpoint in this case. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Natasha's Official website [42]

In that case, I approve. Yes, I know how bad the problem is in Russia. I'm half way around the world, don't speak Russian, and yet two of their most "famous" dark age wonders have come to convince me of their magical powers. If Russia could can and bottle all that bull, it would probably sell as well as Coke.Askolnick 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As the Sources in languages other than English guideline states, "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." As required, I've provided a clear citation of the original. Here's a couple of translation sites to check for yourself: [43] [44]. Dreadlocke 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept as a source of qoutations of Natasha about herself. Reject as a source of any other publications by anyone else. Other reasonable diligence per wikipedia:verifiability is applied as well. For example, claims about tests by unnamed doctors in unnamed clinics and other nonverifiable statements about "one patient that had cancer but didn't know": serious claims must be seriously documented. While it is reasonable to present a couple examples of such claims, we are not going to copy her whole webpage here, do we? `'mikka (t) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As per mikka. BillC 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Source dispute debate section

The above section was intended as a way for editors to vote on the acceptability of certain sources so as to determine if there is any consensus about them. It was not for "lengthy discussions on reasoning," and "[d]etailed discussions can be held in a different section once we see what exactly is disputed." I have started this subsection for that purpose, and I suggest that detailed discussions started above be moved here by the editors who authored them, so that the current consensus (or lack thereof) on sources may more easily be determined. Rohirok 04:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, why do you think anyone would have trouble seeing and counting the votes???. They're in bold face, they are preceded by bullets!, and they stand out like flashing neon signs. No one can possibly have difficulty seeing and counting how others voted. In addition, in his vote, Keith Tyler made a false statement to persuade Wiki editors to vote to approve his source. He said:
"In fact, no one has presented any evidence why Pravda.Ru is any less reliable than, say, People Magazine or the Washington Times. The only reasons presented against its use are undefended accusations of its character. We aren't talking Weekly World News here. - Keith D. Tyler"
The long record here clearly shows how false this statement is. The sleazy and untruthful nature of Pravda RU has repeatedly been pointed out to Keith Tyler and to Dreadlocke, along with plenty of examples of the false and sleazy trash the tabloid routinely publishes. It is mind boggling that Tyler would state that "no one has presented any evidence" other than "undefended accusations of [Pravda RU's"] character." I insist that the information be kept where it is so that others can see how blatantly false and irreponsible that statement was, to help them cast an informed vote about whether this trash tabloid is a reputable enough source of information for Wikipedia.Askolnick 06:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I never saw anything from you on the topic of Pravda.Ru other than ad-hominem attacks until I made that statement, after which you listed a few headlines (not here, or on Pravda, but on my talk page). Regardless, for the matter at hand (Natasha Demkina), you're ignoring out of hand the fine print of WP:RS. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you posted your demand that this talk page be rearranged to suit your purpose. Within minutes of your posting that dictatorial demand, while I was responding to it, you went ahead and rearranged the page without waiting for anyone else's comments. You are not allowed to unilateraly edit other people's material on this page. You ought to know that.

If Keith Tyler and Dreadlocke can include false and misleading statements with their votes, then I and others must be allowed to refute them, alongside those false and misleading statements, and not buried in a separate section, where people considering their vote may not see them. Rohirok, I've accused you before of gross unfairness. Once again, your actions have been grossly unfair, and your reasons equally unsound: It's very easy for readers to see the votes. They're in bold face, bulleted and stick out clearly.

Yet if you think some people might have vision problems, or too short an attention span, I suggest reiterating just the votes at the very top of the section: Just their "Accept" or "Reject" followed by the voter's signature. In that way all arguments will be displayed fairly along with the person's vote. But you are NOT this Talk page's editor-in-chief.Askolnick 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick: It is not uncommon for talk pages to be rearranged and cleaned up for better organization and ease of reading. No title as editor in chief is needed to take such action. No content was deleted in my rearrangment. You object to my unilateral rearrangement, yet you did not hesitate to unilaterally undo my edits. Do you think you are editor in chief? You are free to insist that the voting section be kept the sloppy eye-sore that it has become through willful disregard of the reasonable request for simplicity made by the person who started the section, but other editors are not obliged to obey your wishes. You have so far been the only one to object to cleaning up the section. But since there is a disagreement, I will solicit the opinions of other editors. Please vote Agree if you believe the voting section ought to be reserved for voting only, and not used for back and forth debates. Please vote Disagree if you think it's appropriate to continue debating in the voting section. Rohirok 02:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree The voting section was and should remain a place for people to briefly express their evaluation of whether a particular source is acceptable. Keeping debate in a different section makes it much easier to keep a tally. Rohirok 02:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you two are intent to edit this Talk page in order to bury my arguments while keeping the pro-sleazy tabloid comments together. Your claim that you only did this to make the votes easier to tally is nothing but a ploy. I proposed a simple fix to just add on top of the section each person's vote and signature, while leaving the robust debate below intact and not broken up.Askolnick 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your objections are now moot. I added a bare-bones vote tally section above the votes in order to leave the debate below un-edited by you.Askolnick 04:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for conceding. Rohirok 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:CIV

In an earlier section, I wrote: Skolnick: As others have already pointed out, you have made a habit of violating WP:NPA. Here, you say that I am being "too silly for words," and on my talk page, you said that my words were "thoughtless" (and by implication, me). Is it not enough to say that you disagree with someone and then explain why? Ad hominem attacks only inflame the discussion and distract from the important work of improving articles. You have elsewhere insisted that Wikipedia policies regarding sources etc. must be strictly adhered to (though I disagree with some of your interpretations). Why wouldn't you also hold yourself accountable for strictly following WP:NPA? Have you not yet read that page? If not, you ought to. And if you have, you ought to start following the policy...

Skolnick responded: Rohirok, the "this" cleary refers to your comment, not to you. Your comment really was almost too silly for words. And I said your words were thoughtless. I didn't say you were thoughtless...

Regarding WP:NPA: I believe Skolnick violated this policy in the aforementioned comments. You might claim "technically" that you're talking about the words someone wrote, and not about them, but the implication and effect of this rewording is the same as if you had applied the adjectives directly to the editor to whom you are responding. Imagine if someone responded to your posts by writing something like "your words are stupid beyond belief," or "your argument is utterly devoid of intelligence." I think the implication from such words that the author is stupid or unintelligent is pretty clear, and it is only through splitting hairs that one can claim that these are not personal attacks. In any case, such comments are gratuitous, adding nothing but emotionality to the debate, and are still clear violations of WP:CIV no matter how much clintonian parsing of meaning one attempts. Instead of using this charged language, why not try saying something like "your argument is invalid because it contains the following fallacy," or "your argument is unsound because it relys on the following false premise." The person you respond to is much more inclined to take your response seriously if respond in a civil manner. Rohirok 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Rohirok, I stand by my opinion: Your argument in favor of using one of the world's sleaziest news tabloids as a reputable source for the Natasha Demkina article is almost too silly for words. To call it "unsound" or "invalid" as you suggest would be like calling Joseph Stalin, "bossy" -- a ridiculous understatement. Askolnick 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Saying an editor’s edit is “too silly for words” is a personal attack, and is uncivil behavior, plain and simple. It is a clearly abusive remark according to Wikipedia Etiquette: "Don't label or personally attack people or their edits, Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner." Dreadlocke 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dreadlocke, accusing another editor of being "abusive," "uncivil," "impolite," and "unconstructive" is hardly an example of civility. Please set an example yourself by being more polite.Askolnick 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what I said was not only very civil and polite, it closely follows Wikipedia policy as well. Your remark about Rohirok's edit is abusive according to Wikipedia etiquette. My pointing out uncivil behavior or personal attacks is not itself uncivil behavior, neither is my quoting from the relevant policy - which is what describes labeling edits (or editors) with statements like "too silly for words" as "abuse" and "unconstructive" behavior.
You really need to read and understand WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIV, as you still seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what they say and mean. Perhaps an administrator can help educate you on the subjects of civility and no personal attacks. For now, I’d suggest you apologize to Rohirok, strike your uncivil remarks, promise to never, never do it again, and move on. Dreadlocke 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Regretfully, asking you politely to be more civil doesn't seem to work.Askolnick 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I really have no idea what you're talking about, and I think you need to read the policies that have been quoted to you again and again. If you honestly think I'm personally attacking you or being uncivil, check with an administrator or take it to WP:PAIN and file a complaint. But I suspect you already know what the truth of the matter is: that I am being perfectly civil and reasonable in my explanations and requests that you refrain from incivility and personal attacks yourself. Dreadlocke 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Presuming what another editor knows or does not know, as you do here, is hardly civil. I ask you again to please practice more closely what you preach. Askolnick 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Askolnick, I stand by my opinion - an opinion based on evidence and experience with you. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Pravda.RU

Below comments were on my talk page. Dreadlocke 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be wondering why any Wiki editor would ever want to use one of the world's sleaziest tabloids as a source of information for Wiki articles. Just in the very short section above, which is based on Pravda RU articles, there's a multitude of falsehoods:
  • Natasha was NOT invited to London for "scientific experiments." No "scientific" experiments were ever conducted in London.
  • The British researchers did NOT unanimously acknowledge Natasha's remarkable gift." In fact, the only British researcher who ever examined Demkina was Richard Wiseman, who concluded that her claims are bogus. And the only "remarkable gift" Demkina has ever demonstrated is her ability to keep a straight face as she goes through her cold reading routines.
  • Natasha did not pass a "similar test" in Tokyo. Unlike the researchers who tested here in New York, the Japanese researchers let Demkina set her test rules.
  • Japanese scientists did NOT "confirm her paranormal vision." The scientists endorsed her claims the same way they endorsed the claims of Uri Geller[45] and many other charlatans. Indeed, Yoshio Machi, the engineering professor who ran this test, has endorsed every person who claims supernatural powers that he has tested. That is why he's a star of sleazy tabloids like the Weekly World News and Pravda RU.
  • These "scientsts" are NOT from prestigious Tokyo University as Pravda RU reported. They are from low-ranking [46] Tokyo Denki University.
  • The American scientists who tested Demkina NEVER worked for Discovery Channel. And they received no compensation from Discovery Channel except for their traveling expenses.
Despite all this, several editors are insisting that this false information be included in the Natasha Demkina article because they claim Pravda RU is a reputable enough source. Here are some "science news" headlines just from today's Pravda RU -- for a clue just how "reputable" it is:
"US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs"
"Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ"
"KGB ran secret laboratories to study extraterrestrial civilizations"
"Dragons came down to Earth from Sirius to share their wisdom with humans"
"Blind Russian mystic discerns colors by touch"
"U.S. scientist says scores of UFOs fly around the Sun"
"Aliens probably build their bases on Earth’s seabed disturbing submarines"
"Men with biggest reproductive organs all live in England"
If you are wondering why any Wiki editor would stubbornly insist on including false and dubious information from such a source in a Wiki article, you are not alone. But this editorial struggle has been going on for many months.Askolnick 21:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly surprising at all. Of course you don't want readers there to see that the information you keep trying to insert into the Demkina article is bogus. You can't defend your campaign to insert these falsehoods, so you simply resort to censorship. Askolnick!

They can read your "information" here, where it belongs - not on my talk page. Dreadlocke 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprise that you think only false information belongs on your talk page. I think readers of your talk page should know that you've ignored all requests to back up those false statements with a credible source. For example, you've been told repeatedly that Demkina was never tested by any scientists in Great Britain. Yet you refuse to withdraw that bogus claim and you refuse to back it up with a credible source. So it's pretty darn obvious why you don't want readers of your page to know any of this.

And instead of crying again about how you're being personally attacked, why don't you prove my accusations are false? Provide us with credible evidence for the bogus statements you are trying to insert into Wikipedia. I think we all know why you won't. Askolnick 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m not refusing to back up anything, the entire purpose of my specifying exactly what I sourced from Pravda.RU is to show editors what I sourced from a tabloid, which is by definition a “dubious source” which is allowable under the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. Under the circumstances, to demand that I “back up” comments taken from Pravda.RU with a “credible source” is disingenuous – or have you not read the relevant policy? If you think the claims are bogus, then supply a better source. It is widespread knowledge that Natasha went to Japan, so it’s clearly not falsehood.
You continue to misrepresent my position and make false statements against me, continuing to engage in personal attacks – which I will continue to “cry” about as long as you continue to engage in such conduct, which only serves to damage your own credibility and place you at risk for official censure.
As for my presumed “bogus claims,” you are wrong, for instance, there is no reference to "British Scientists" in the draft; that was changed a long time ago, [47]. There are references to British “journalists”, “researchers” and “investigators,” but nothing about British scientists. As a matter of fact, the draft specifically states, “In London, journalists tested her ability but no doctors were present at the examination.”
Besides, they’re not “my” claims, I’m not claiming anything – that would violate WP:NOR - and with credible feedback that shows the sources to be wrong, I am perfectly willing to make changes – that’s why I posted my draft and widely asked for feedback! Yes, there may be some incorrect information from Pravda.RU, such as the “Tokyo University” error, but even the Discovery Channel documentary, which you were heavily involved with, incorrectly describes you as “Doctor Skolnick.” Yes, it’s a tabloid, we’ve all got that, thank you.
I have to say that your list of "falsehoods" are just your opinion. For instance, “British researchers” is not specific, as you are tying to make it out to be – a group of British journalists could be considered researchers…heck, it could be a class of seventh graders. I’m willing to change it to something like “British Investigators”, but unless you can come up with a reliable source that has these specifics, then it has to be a general statement. Same with the Japanese researchers and their scientific tests. Your opinion, as mine, is just original research and not material for Wikipedia. We know she went to Japan, and this is one of the few sources from which to draw that material - and it's use falls under a policy you continue to ignore: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability.
As far as the cry of “censorship” that’s truly a “road apple’ of mammoth proportions, the “information” – which includes another personal attack by you - was moved here, where it belongs, if anywhere – certainly not on my user or talk pages. The only censorship being done is by those who are not allowing the full story and history of Natasha to be told and limiting the bulk of the information to the viewpoint of the skeptics and CSICOP. Now that’s censorship. Dreadlocke 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't throw accusations around. "skeptics'" part of the article is only about what "skeptics" did, and they answer for their words and deeds. Who answers about legends from Demkina's life? Paparazzi? Demkina's mother who shamelessly lies right in front of TV camera? So please don't turn tables around. If you cannot find a reputable source, it is not because of skeptic's conspiracy. `'mikka (t) 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely censorship not to allow any information into the article besides that which fits only the view of CISCOP and the 'skeptics' - and that’s all the current article is. In my view, no one has yet had a convincing argument that Josephson's critique or Natasha’s website can’t be used as sources – so I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say "cannot find a reputable source". As for your other comment, it's up to the reader to decide if Natasha’s mother is doing what you claim, her comments are fair game for inclusion and should not be subjected to your censorship because you think she is “shamelessly” lying. Remember, it is “verifiability, not truth” that’s the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. If everyone who lied or was thought to be lying couldn’t be included, I think Wikipedia would be a much smaller place.
On that note, twice now you’ve accused her mother of being a liar, even presenting it as a “fact” “without any doubt”. WP:BLP states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page" I'd suggest you remove your negative comments about the mother, unless you have WP:RS for them...
I should point out that when you ask someone not to throw accusations around, you shouldn’t then proceed to throw accusations around yourself. Table turning, indeed. Dreadlocke 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of censorship, while I merely moved comments to what I felt was a more appropriate location, Askolnick actually deleted rebuttal comments by KeithTyler on Keith's own talk page: [48]. This was a rather interesting rebuttal by Keith, showing that the much vaunted Pravda.RU “sleazy and sensational” headline about "US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs" was actually sourced from BBC News! [49]. I think this puts an interesting spin on Askolnick’s comment: “we can only conclude that they [Keith and Dreadlocke] think reputable publications do publish "science" stories claiming that the U.S. is building "homosexual bombs" to fight "heterosexual soldiers,"”
Not to mention the other references Keith researched, here's the deleted entry:
  • "Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ"
Goes on mostly about the history of shroud of Turin. The headline is sensational.
  • "Men with biggest reproductive organs all live in England"
Searched for both "reproductive" and also "England" and couldn't find this story. It is probably a summarization or reprint of a story at menstime.ru [50] which references a 1935 (or 1893) study known as the "Jacobus survey". Whether or not it (i.e. the Jacobus survey) is accurate, it is verifiable.
  • "KGB ran secret laboratories to study extraterrestrial civilizations"
This is a summary of a TNT movie [51] which I see your associates have already critiqued [52].
  • "US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs"
Compare with that article's stated source: [53]
In the future, let’s calm down a bit on the rhetoric, shall we?
Fortunately, at this point, we no longer have to look at Pravda.RU as a potential source – but to dismiss it entirely doesn’t match what policy states. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Dreadlocke, your accusation that editors are practicing "censorship" because they refuse to accept sleazy news tabloids and self-published personal web sites as reputable sources is not just nonsense, it's uncivil and a personal attack. You are quick to scream "personal attack" whenever someone criticizes you. If you want to be treated civily, you need to start acting civily yourself.
It is certainly not civil to accuse another editor of "censorship" because he removed statements from his writing that he never made. But that's just what you did. Your accusation is a gross misrepresentation of what occurred and a personal attack. I ask you again to stop making such personal attacks.
What you described as the deleted entry is false. That's not what was deleted, -- and you know it. What was deleted was only the unsigned statements Keith Tyler had inserted into my signed comment.[54] Because I never wrote those statements, I removed them. It is a violation of Wiki rules for Keith Tyler to rewrite another editor's comments. It is not "censorship" for an editor to restore the integrity of what he wrote.
Dreadlocke, making such a false and ridiculous accusation is hardly the way to "calm down a bit on the rhetoric." Indeed, coming so long after the event in question, it appears instead to be an attempt at heating up the rhetoric.
Clearly, your campaign to include material from sleazy newspaper tabloids and self-published personal web sites has not gone your way. I think the smart thing would be for you to stop defending Pravda RU's sleazy headlines and move on. But, if you or Keith would like more such headlines to defend, here are a few from the "science news section," of today's Pravda RU web site[55]:
"British researcher says infrasonic wave sounds create ghosts"
"Russian woman stops sleeping for eight years out of fright"
"Stones are living creatures that breathe and move"
"Creationists right on entropy, evolution"
"Soviet intelligence used remote viewers to spy on American presidents from afar"
In this last article, a "scientist," who says he worked in the secret Soviet labratory, claimed, "Our clairvoyants were affecting wheat seeds and they were growing through faster. They could also make fruit riper and juicer, flowers were blossoming longer than usual too. We studied the fields of crystals that were categorized as something intermediate between living and non-living objects. It became known that such crystals were growing when affected by clairvoyants."
No matter how some may try to spin the nonsense Pravda RU publishes, it is clear the sleazy news tabloid does not do the kind of fact checking Wiki rules and guidelines require to consider it a reputable source of information. And respecting these rules and guidelines is not "censorship." It's called good editing. Askolnick 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, puh-leaze, I’m not trying to “defend” or “spin” Pravda.RU, I recognize its limitations – and I also understand the application of Wikipedia policy as it pertains to that type of publication. No, I was merely helping to point out the inaccurate observations about some of the headlines and ultimate sources that were misidentified by editors on this talk page.
As far as your continued references to Pravda.RU headlines, I think you’re wasting your time because there’s really not a good track record here in representing what they say – that’s why I posted what I found from Keith’s talk page, not to “heat up” the rhetoric or even “defend” poor little maligned Pravda.RU, I just thought it was an interesting and informative bit of information on the vaunted “homosexual bombs for heterosexual soldiers” headline as reported by the BBC – not Pravda.RU as some editors incorrectly claimed. That’s the sort of rhetoric I was talking about calming: incorrect rhetoric. And it wasn’t all that long ago. Besides, it gave you a good opportunity to quote more sensationalistic headlines. Fun! But hardly productive.
Let me see if I have this next part straight. You believe it is a personal attack to say that an editor is practicing “censorship” because that editor removed information or didn’t allow information to be added to an article. Interesting. And what, pray tell, do you think censorship actually is? I’ll let you in on a little secret, any type of control on speech or expression, even when it’s done according to the rules, is defined as censorship. Look it up. So, yes, removing or not allowing information, even when done according to Wikipedia policy, is still called censorship - as 'nonsensical' as that may seem to you.
I stand by my comments about censorship, I do think that’s what’s going on here regarding elements of Natasha’s life that aren’t being allowed into the article. And I don’t think this censorship is being done by the rules.
You definitely deleted what someone else wrote, I’d call that censorship, no matter what your excuse for it is – besides, it was clear to me that those properly indented comments were responses by Keith to your post on his own talk page. I seriously doubt anyone could possibly think it was part of your own posting – your post was not “rewritten,” it was responded to. If you felt that strongly about the posts not being signed, then there’s always {{unsigned}} to fall back on, rather than deletion. One wrong turn doesn’t excuse another. That brings up another point contrary to one of your assertions, “If you want to be treated civily, you need to start acting civily yourself” - wrong, you are not allowed to be uncivil even to those who you believe are being uncivil to you. As you’ve already been informed, [56] it’s against policy.
And, as I said before, if you really think I’m engaging in personal attacks, then please take your complaint to WP:PAIN. However, you are quite incorrect in your claims that I have personally attacked you, and once again I direct you to examples that are not personal attacks, which states “Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.” Nowhere have I made comments involving your personal character – unless you believe calling you a “skeptic” is somehow casting an aspersion upon you.
You obviously do not understand WP:NPA or WP:CIV, that’s why I directed you to an administrator so they could explain them to you.[57] Your latest post on Josephson, [58] where you attack his character is another in a series of personal attacks [59] against a fellow Wikipedia editor, don’t you see that?
Anyway, we’re off track here and I’m tired of dealing with your continual attacks and distortions. Let me try to get back to where we once belonged.
Dreadlocke ☥ 20:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Bravo! I think the above collection of obfusations, double-talk, and hypocricy has achieved a new high level: It should be bronzed. Askolnick 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Investigations

While an attempt to write an article "Skeptical Investigations" I failed to find a confirmation that this website is a reputable source of information. It is a self-published partisan site of heavily biased science bashers. It looks like it is a relatively new site and is barely visible in the 'net. Therefore it fails the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. Just the same I could have paid $30 and set a website to publish worldviews of me and my buddies about things I don't like. Titles like "Hyman the Terrible" speak for themselves. Websites that use this kind of language are just as good source of information as "Talk:Natasha Demkina" pages. `'mikka (t) 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is especially funny how they don't like that "Hyman the Terrible" decided to discontinue testing Natasha. They have quite a few "skephical investigators" on their roster. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is and test Demkina themselves? Demkina will only be happy to meet "real" skeptics. `'mikka (t) 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. On the page "About CSICOP" it says, "Some of the founding members of CSICOP included scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others. A list of CSICOP fellows is published in every issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine."[60] It is not a brand new website, and the group was founded in 1976. -Will Beback 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
My mistake -Will Beback 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I ran smack into an editing conflict when I tried to post this - you mistake correction is acknowledged.) Will, you've confused the dishonest ruse web site "Skeptical Investigations" with the well-known magazine of science and reason, Skeptical Inquirer. It's not mere coincidence that these anti-science researchers have chosen such a confusing name. Their entire effort is meant to confuse people about the scientific investigation of supernatural claims.
I would like to point out yet again that Rohirok, Keith Tyler, and Dreadlocke have only been able to come up with such a blatantly bogus web site, sleazy news tabloids, and personal web sites as "sources" for the "scientific" information and views they want to include. After many months not being able to find anything but these disreputable sources, one would think that they'd come to the conclusion that the "facts" and opinions they want to add are obviously not reputable. Here we have an alleged phenomenon that - if it were real - would earn any scientist who tested and confirmed it a Nobel prize! And yet, the only sources for these claims are two of the world's sleaziest tabloids, personal web sites, and a disreputable web site that's trying to fool people -- and too often succeeds as we see above. Again I will try to get this undeniable point across: real researchers do NOT have their work published in Pravda RU or the British Sun. Nor do they first publish their research on their own personal web sites. They publish their research in peer-reviewed journals and other respected publications. Askolnick 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Skolnick: You have distorted the issue. I do not believe, as you falsely charge, that ASI ought to be used as a reputable source for scientific information. I believe it ought to be linked to provide the readers with a source of other notable POVs concerning Demkina and her alleged paranormal powers, for the purpose of expanding their knowledge of the controversy concerning these supposed powers and the tests performed. Such controversy is already acknowledged (though uncited) in the article with the words: "The design and conclusions of the experiment were subsequently the subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the investigators." Except for one brief perspective from Josephson (taken, by the way, from a secondary source which itself relied on his university website which has been dismissed by you and others as a source of a critical perspective), the task still remains to more fully document this controversy. Yet this task cannot be accomplished so long as sources documenting paranormalist viewpoints are rejected out of hand for having come from people with paranormalist viewpoints!
I direct you to Wikipedia:External links, under the section entitled "What should be linked to," where you will find the following style guide: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)"
You might object to ASI's name, and believe they aren't true skeptics. That's fine. I don't think they're nearly skeptical enough of paranormal claims either. But that's the name they've chosen for themselves, so that's the name they must be referred to as. It is inappropriate and highly POV to editorialize on their supposed hypocrisy by putting quotation marks around the name, or making a counterpoint to their link by linking to sites that call into question their claims of skepticism. Rohirok 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BLP and scientific bias

Askolnick’s focus on “scientific information,” "peer-reviewed journals" and "research," illustrates what to me is one of the major disconnects here. This isn't a scientific article in a scientific journal. This is a biography of a living person in an encyclopedia. We're not here presenting just the scientific facts in the case of Natasha Demkina, we're telling her story - or we're supposed to be telling that story. We’re not here to prove whether she has powers or not, we're supposed to be telling all sides of her history, giving readers a full picture of her life.
Yet all we have we really have in the article is the CSICOP testing and the presumably ‘scientific’ perspective, and a distinctly negative slant. Not only does this violate all kinds of policies and guidelines regarding WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but there's a lot more of her story to tell than that!
For instance, we have a Nobel Laureate who weighed in on Natasha and her Discovery Channel CSICOP test, but we aren't allowed to fully reference his own words? It doesn't make sense to me. How many BLP's have commentary by notable professors who have won a Nobel Prize? It's unusual, it's notable, it should be included.
She went to Japan. We know that, yet we aren’t allowed to state what happed there - apparently just because the ‘skeptics’ don’t want anything in the article except for what agrees with their POV. I think the whole “disreputable” sources routine is an incorrect reading of policy that comes across as just a false argument that serves to keep the article completely one-sided. This becomes even more apparent when you consider the rules that are being completely ignored such as dubious sources, WP:NPOV, RS:Self-published and even WP:IAR. So, let’s stop going there and try to find a way to include other material relevant to Natasha’s life, eh?
I’m not even going to bother commenting in detail on the validity of the removal of the Skeptical Investigations website from the External links section – I think Rohirok did a fine job of clarifying the issue. On the surface, it’s removal seems to be another attempt to keep the CSICOP perspective unopposed. You know what really says it all? The extraordinary language an editor attempted to add to the link description for the Skeptical Investigations website, [61], as well as the entire “balancing” link that was added, [62] which had nothing at all to do with Demkina - but was clearly only meant to try and discredit the other external link. Unbelievable. And to me, this shows an obvious pattern of biased editing that has nothing to do with concerns about WP:RS.
As Rohirok rightly points out, not a single one of “the accused” have said that Pravda.RU or Natasha's website are to be used as sources for 'scientific information'. I'll say it again, this is a biography of a living person in Wikipedia, not a scientific article in JAMA or Nature.
I think we've gone about as far as we can in trying to discuss sourcing issues amongst ourselves, so it's probably time to move this up the chain. Again. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Dreadlocke, please stop misrepresenting the arguments that have been made for not using sleazy newspaper tabloids and self-published personal web sites as Wiki sources. You know that the argument is not that these sources are not "scientific articles in a scientific journal." The argument is that these are not reputable sources, according to Wiki policies and standards. Such misrepresentation of the debate is uncivil conduct.
Dreadlocke, in the past you've made false and misleading claims about the meaning of Wiki rules and guidelines. Are you now arguing that the rules and guidelines regarding reputable sources only apply to scientific articles and not to biographies? That argument is utter nonsense. Wiki rules and guidelines severly restrict the use of disreputable sources and self-published personal web sites. And these rules and guidelines apply to biographical articles as well as articles about science. You keep talking about the need for civil conduct. Deliberate misrepresentation of Wiki rules or an opponent's argument is in no way civil conduct.
And then you state, "She [Demkina] went to Japan. We know that, yet we aren’t allowed to state what happed there - apparently just because the ‘skeptics’ don’t want anything in the article except for what agrees with their POV." Here again, you deliberately misrepresent the argument why you're not being allowed to add what happened in Japan to the article. You can't add that information because you DON't know what happened when she was in Japan - at least you don't have any information about what happened from any reputable source. If you had a credible source, you could add some information. But you don't. Without a credible source, you are not allowed to include contentious material. Those are the rules.
These rules have been explained to you time and time again, and yet you deliberately misrepresent the reason you're not being allowed to add this dubious material. It's not because of what "skeptics want." It's because you have NO reputable source for the dubious and contentious information you insist on adding. Making such false allegations against editors you don't agree with is clearly uncivil. I am asking you again to start practicing what you preach: If you want other editors to show you more civility, you better stop making uncivil comments and personal attacks against them. Askolnick 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you are wrong on every count. I stand by my opinions and statements – I’m not misrepresenting anything, and never have – not intentionally anyway…. I call ’em as I see ‘em, and that’s the way I see it. I used the word "apparently" because, given the evidence, it certainly appears that way to me. If I find I’m wrong, then I’ll apologize and make the appropriate corrections.
Let me tell you, all editors on Wikipedia have treated me with the utmost respect and civility, with the single exception of yourself. I have made no personal attacks against anyone, and I remain completely civil in all that I do here – your accusations are false. Your comments twist and distort what I say, as well as Wikipedia policies and guidelines - so you'll have to pardon me if I don't accept your "explanations" of the rules; I don't find you to be a credible source. Perhaps it's because you truly don't understand the rules – including WP:NPA.
For instance, you misinterpret what "contentious" means in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they relate to Natasha's own website; it certainly doesn't mean contention between editors. Are you claiming that because you and I are in disagreement about it, that this somehow makes it “contentious” and therefore unusable as a source? Sorry, that’s not it. That would actually violate several Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V.
Her entire claim of having paranormal powers is obviously contentious, so that’s definitely not it!
Her website is clearly not contentious material that would keep it from being used as a source. It’s biographical information on her website that shows she went to Japan and was tested there – no matter what you think of the quality and results of those tests. I’m not trying to show that the Japanese test was proof that she has powers. That’s sorta what I’m talking about when I say this cannot be limited to only ‘scientific facts’ - it’s a BLP.
And yes, there are different rules for scientific articles versus biographies – heck you can find one right at the top of this talk page – something about 3RR, check it out – that one is there because you can’t libel an atomic structure like you would a BLP – but I think you may see what I mean. Read up on the other differences when you get a chance, start with In science, avoid citing the popular press, then move on to WP:BLP. This should provide a clue as to what I was talking about when I mentioned a "major disconnect."
I think you actually prove my point with your comments on why I’m not being allowed to add what happened in Japan. Her own website describes what happened there, and it’s an allowable source according to Wikipedia policy and guideline – yet you attempt to disallow it with your misinterpretation of the rules.
We’ll see if you’re right in your interpretation of Wikipedia policy – I don’t think you are - heck, you even misunderstood the use of the "rule of thumb", and that’s why I’m taking it up the chain. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and I'll admit it – but I don’t think I am.
Dreadlocke ☥ 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Whew! After reading so much spin, I need to take some Dramamine and go lie down. Askolnick 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed fictional account of the test

Rohirok, please pay more attention to the record that is published in reputable sources and less attention to accounts published in the tabloids, which do not bother to fact check. As the reputably published record shows, the CSMMH-CSICOP test did not have a "first" and "second part." There was only one part. If you read the reputably published record - which includes the actual test protocols - you would have realized that what you added to the article today is fiction. That so-called first part of the test was in no way part of the test. It was a demonstration for the Discovery Channel camera, set up the the Discovery Channel people. Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman observed it, but neither they nor I had any part in setting that demonstration up.Askolnick 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick: The Guardian is not a tabloid, but a reputable news source. Everything in the paragraph that I contributed is drawn from this reputable source. If you believe they mischaracterized the preliminary readings as part of the CSMMH-CSICOP test, then the onus is on you to provide a reputable source disputing this. Wholesale deletion of a section about a series of readings that, by all accounts actually did take place (whether administered by CSMMH-CSICOP researchers, or instigated by the Discovery Channel) is not justified. In the interest of avoiding a reversion war, I will reinsert the section on these readings, along with Wiseman's reaction, but will edit the prose so that it not inconsistent with your contention that CSMMH-CSICOP had nothing to do with administering that demonstration.
As an aside, the comment that accompanied your last reversion indicates an assumption of bad faith, and goes against a a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Please be more civil toward your fellow editors. Rohirok 03:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, if you read the primary source reports of the test, you would have known that what you added was a fictional account. The Guardian mangled that reporting badly. What you refer to as "part one" of the test was not a part of any test. It was a demonstration orchestrated by Discovery Channel and Natasha. Natasha was just allowed to do "her thing" and give her cold readings.

While the Guardian has won some impressive news reporting awards, it is not known for great care in the delivery of that news. The Guardian is famous for its gaffes and careless mangling of text. The newspaper once even mispelled its own name! Rohirok, if you think the Guardian is the unimpeachable judge of what did and did not happen, you better change its name in the article to "The Gaurdian," as it once called itself. Askolnick 03:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki principle you cite directs editors to "assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." I do assume that. And I am civil to most Wiki contributers. However, I'm not always so polite to the relatively few people who REPEATEDLY try to push false information into a Wiki article.

Your proposal for rewriting the account of Demkina's demonstration the day before the CSMMH-CSICOP test sounds like a reasonable solution. Askolnick 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, just read your rewrite. It's spot on. Good job.Askolnick 03:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I had continued to revert your deletions because my edit was based on a story in a reputable source. If you had corrected the incorrect portions of my edit, I think we would have come to agreement sooner. None of what I had written was intended to present misinformation. The mistake was partially due to my overinterpretation of the source (the Guardian never identified exactly who had asked Natasha to make her diagnoses--I naturally assumed it had been the researchers who evaluated her responses) and partially due to some misleading text in the source article (the Guardian made no distinction between who had designed and administered the two "parts" of the test, and went from a paragraph about the the researchers who had designed the experiment directly to a description of the readings--which weren't part of the experiment at all). I have no cable television, so I have not had the opportunity to see the documentary (I believe it aired on the Learning Channel a few days ago)--I wonder if a clear distinction is made for the viewer between the originators of the two tests in the documentary itself.
I had read the SI articles, which of course did not mention the uncontrolled readings, but I assumed that a description of this "part" of the test had been omitted. Of course, this turned out to be a mistaken assumption. I had thought it rather odd that the skeptics would have put Natasha in such an uncontrolled situation, where clues and cues for potential conditions (both real, and imagined by the volunteers) would have given Natasha even more of a chance to make seemingly impressive evaluations than in the partially controlled conditions of the actual experiment. The mystery is now solved. Thank you for the correction.
Regarding the Grauniad's reputation for mistakes: a reputable source isn't necessarily an infallible source. I never said it was unimpeachable, but simply that it was reputable. Despite the misleading text concerning who designed and administered the "two part" test, it does contain some reliable information that has been useful in expanding the article.
Concerning assuming good faith: Someone can try repeatedly to put false information into the article and still be acting on good faith if they believe that this false information is true. Such was the case when I inserted the earlier version of the description of the separate tests depicted on the documentary. What's needed in such cases is a note of correction and an edit that retains the reliable information, while deleting the error. An accusation of bad faith is quite often incorrect, and in any case, usually unproductive. Rohirok 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and the source dispute: Balance is needed

Dreadlocke's recent comments have reminded me of something I read in Wikipedia's policy:

"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." (emphasis mine)

That these three policies "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" is particularly pertinent to the content of this article. In the debate over sources, I think a lot of lawyering has gone on with regard to the guidelines on sources, to the detriment of maintaining a neutral point of view. The result is that a lot of admittedly dubious (but relevant) sources have been rejected wholesale (even as primary sources for their own content), resulting in a skewed and incomplete coverage of the article's subject. Even with recent additions to the History section, over half of the text of this article is still dedicated to discussing a single test from a single point of view, as advocated by a single organization (CSMMH is a closely affiliated offshoot of CSICOP).

In the source dispute, I think people have also overlooked the note at the top of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, which reads: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (emphasis mine) Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives guidelines for which exceptions may be found, but these guidelines do not supercede policies such as NPOV, which are non-negotiable.

Given the above, I think a NPOV overhaul is overdue. Natasha's website and the tabloid coverage she has received should be treated in accordance with guidelines concerning sources of dubious reliability with respect to extraordinary claims and scientific information, but not rejected altogether. This is a paranormal subject whose widest publicity has come from the tabloids, and a balanced treatment requires a description of the coverage she has received from them--especially with regard to certain details, such as her trip to Japan, which have not been covered by the mainstream press. The section documenting CSICOP/CSMMH's evaluation and criticism of Demkina ought to be trimmed and balanced with notable paranormalist points of view concerning the test. The article ought to avoid presenting a "last word" on Demkina's claims, but present the various notable points of view reliably and neutrally. Rohirok 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Josephson

Maybe we should also mention that Josephson ignores the fact that Natasha did not comply with the test conditions? In spite of the regulations, she arrived early at the place where the tests were held, and watched the test persons enter the building. Thus it was easy to identify the person with the artificial hip. Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick were very generous in not taking that person out of the test. Josephson also ignores that some of the illnesses diagnosed are correlated with age. In other words, the expectation of hits and misses is not random, and a higher significance level is justified.

In short, Josephson's Nobel in physics is much less relevant than his utter incompetence and ignorance of non-physical science, and if we mention the Nobel, we must also mention his stupid blunders. --Hob Gadling 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hob, very good points. I don't think Josephson's actions for the past 30 years have been stupid blunders. He's obviously smart enough to know what he's doing. Three decades ago, he abandoned honest scientific inquiry to promote his crackpot mystical view of the world. When he misrepresents facts - as he did with his false and misleading comments about the statistics used in the CSMMH-CSICOP test -- it's not a stupid blunder. It is intentional. He knows there's nothing unethical about using an alpha value lower than 0.5. But science and truth are no longer Josephson's guiding stars. They haven't been since the early 1970s when he abandoned science for mysticism and became an outspoken defender of all kinds of kooks, charlatans, and quacks.
By the way, he received his Nobel prize for work he did as a graduate student nearly half a century ago! When he shared the 1973 Nobel prize in physics, he had already abandoned reason for belief. He had all but endorsed the Israeli charlatan Uri Geller and his magic act as genuine. Uri's no charlatan, Josephson declared. The spoon-bending huckster has made much of Josephson's endorsement[63]. Askolnick 13:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blind to the elephant in this room

A few editors here have been acting as if they do not see the elephant in this room. Even if they really cannot see its big, imposing form, they surely should smell the peanuts on its breath. The elephantine point they continue to ignore is their failure to find ANY reputable source for the dubious information they insist on adding to the Demkina article. So instead, they continue to defend the non-reputable sources they've come up with. However, the pachyderm in this room is too big to be ignored.

The fact that they are unable to find any reputable sources for the claims of the young Russian quack is that her claims are only grist for the mills of the sleazy newspaper tabloids, like the one they insist on citing.

A century ago, German physicist Wilhem Roentgen announced his discovery of an invisible form of light that can be used to see inside of human bodies. At first, his announcement was met with skepticism and even accusations of fraud. But in literally a matter of a few months, Roentgen's discovery was published in a major science journal, was widely replicated by scientists throughout the world, and was publicly hailed as the monumental discovery that it was.

Fast forward one century: a Russian school girl claims she can use a mysterious vision to see inside of people's bodies and diagnose their illnesses. A Russian and then a British tabloid touted her claims alongside articles on haunted houses, alien abductions, and the finding of Noah's ark. The tabloids announced a discovery that, if it were true, would be far greater than the one Roentgen announced a century before.

So where are the scientific publications that reported the "experiments" "scientists" performed on this girl that were described in the tabloids? Where are the reputable newspaper accounts on one of the most remarkable phenomena ever discovered that could benefit humankind even more than the discovery of X-rays? They don't exist, for good reasons. As Wikipedia rules and guidelines acknowledge, reputable publications fact check. They do not willingly participate in the promotion of frauds and hoaxes - especially fraud that can harm sick people. Sleazy news tabloids and countless self-published personal web sites have no such scruples.

The founders of Wikipedia and the vast majority of Wiki editors have those scruples. And that's why efforts to ignore this elephant are not going to succeed. Wiki guidelines[64] instruct editors to avoid using dubious sources of information - like newspaper tabloids and self-published material on personal web sites. They tell us that if something is important enough to report, editors should be able to find it in a reputable source, and that it is preferable to wait until reputable sources have had time to review or comment on claims made in non-reputable sources. In other words, they tell us to watch for the elephant and not to pretend it doesn't exist. The few here who inisist on citing personal web sites and sleazy news tabloids would prefer us to ignore the elephant. Askolnick 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

  • There is a dispute over sources and content for the Natasha Demkina article. 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements on RfC issues

Statement by Dreadlocke

  1. The article does not give a full picture of Natasha’s life, it leaves out the descriptions of several major incidents in her life (e.g. her appendix surgery that she says led to her gaining powers, the initial children’s hospital testing, her appearance and testing in Japan, and other significant material).
  2. The current article is skewed towards the “skeptical” CSICOP POV, and without sufficient opposing commentary, the overall material in the article seems designed to guide the reader toward a particular opinion, that Natasha is a fraud; thus violating NPOV Space and balance.
The above two concerns are especially harmful in a biography of a living person.
  • There are several sources under dispute:
  • Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson’s critique of the Discovery Channel documentary CSICOP investigation into Natasha Demkina. [65] This critique was created as part of Josephson’s professional work at the University of Cambridge, and is posted on the University of Cambridge website.
The inclusion of Josephson’s critique is critical to the NPOV and completeness of ND because it gives the opposing viewpoint of the CSICOP test. Since some of Josephson’s statements are already referenced in the article, linking directly to his critique makes sense. It is notable, it is relevant, and it is verifiable as Josephson’s own statements.
Opponents claim that Josephson’s critique is on a “personal website” and is a “misleading” “angry rant” by a crackpot, and is therefore only suitable for inclusion in Brian Josephson’s own article. This is all clearly untrue.
  • Natasha Demkina’s own website. [66] All information from there should be available for inclusion in accordance with WP:RS:self-published sources in articles about themselves and BLP:RS, but the disputing editors restriction that Natasha’s site can only be used for “quotations by Natasha about Natasha” seems to be unreasonable and doesn’t match Wikipedia policy on the subject.
Natasha’s site contains information about her and her history that is highly relevant and important content for the article. For instance, quotes from Natasha’s mother about Natasha are on the site, as well as comments by Japanese Professor Machi about Natasha’s appearance in Japan – this is included in material from interviews and articles from other publications (including tabloids) that has been presented on her site. Information such as this should be allowable – and not just limited to information contained only in direct quotes by the article’s subject.
  • I would also like comments on allowing inclusion of material from an article written by Russian journalist Svetlana Kuzina, which contains a post-Discovery Channel and Japanese appearance interview with Natasha. It has been published in several different publications, and can be found online here: [67]. Here is an english translation of the article.
  • I have been working with several other editors on a new draft version of the article that uses these sources in an effort to tell more of the full story of Demkina’s history: Natasha Demkina Draft

In sum, the current article is highly partisan and contains a majority representation from the critic’s perspective, violating WP:BLP/Opinions of critics and WP:NPOV, and lacks a significant amount of Natasha's history. The article needs expansion from more sources to mitigate these problems.

Dreadlocke ☥ 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Statement by Askolnick

Unfortunately, this RFC continues to misrepresent a number of the issues and makes a few outright falsehoods. For example, the Josephson attack piece was NOT "created as part of Josephson's professional work at the University of Cambridge and is posted on the University of Cambridge website." Josephson's personal attack is SELF-published on the personal web space his university provides him. The page carries absolutely no University of Cambridge identification. If it did, the researchers he defamed would ask the university to remove it. Because libel laws in Great Britain are far less tolerant than in the U.S., British universities do not knowingly publish such defamatory material. His personal attack on the researchers who tested Demkina is solely his personal opinion and was not produced by or for the university. It was not approved, reviewed, edited, or fact checked by any university official.

  • Without independent editing or fact checking

The RFC author ignores the reason at the heart of Wiki's restriction against using most personal web sites: Almost none of this self-published material undergoes fact checking or independent editorial review. Being the celebrity he is, Josephson would have had no difficulty getting honest criticism of scientific research published in either a science or respected lay publication. The fact that he self-published his comments on his personal web page should tell us something. The debate over this source would not be going on for well over half a year if Josephson published it in any reputable publication. But he didn't. Does Dreadlocke believe newspapers and magazines would turn down an essay from a Nobel laureate, without a good reason? Before he argues that Josephson preferred to self-publish his attack piece on his own web site, he should consider this: Scientists know how disrepected self-publication is. In science, self-publication is the hallmark of the kook. Science marches forth on the back of peer-review; crackpottery slithers along on self-publication. Dreadlocke is free to argue that Josephson preferred to act like a kook than a scientist. He'd get no argument from me.

  • Neither an authority on Natasha Demkina nor on testing medical claims

Dreadlocke also argues that Josephson is a respected authority and therefore his comments should be included in the Wiki article on Natasha Demkina. What does Josephson know about Demkina? Virtually nothing. When he self-published his attack on the researchers who tested her, he had never examined the girl nor her claims. He never tested her, met her, saw her, or even communicated with her. He really had NOTHING actually to say about her. His entire article consists of a personal attack against the skeptical researchers (Profs. Richard Wiseman and Ray Hyman), with whom he has long held animosity (at the time he posted his attack, he didn't know me from Adam).

  • Hoping the side door is unguarded

In what appears to me to be an effort to get around editors' resistance to include material from Pravda RU - one of the sleaziest news tabloids in the world - Dreadlocke has come up with some web sites that published an article written by the Pravda RU writer Svetlana Kuzina. (Please see one of her Pravda RU articles, in which she didn't bother to get almost any facts correct[68]. I counted five glaring errors in just one small paragraph - such as identifying Richard Wiseman as the "head of the Commission for Paranormal Phenomena." Wiseman is but one of dozens of fellows of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, which is headed by executive director Barry Karr.) After failing to drum up support for including information from Pravda RU (7 editors voted against; only 4 for), Dreadlocke retreated from a frontal assault and is now banging on the side door. He wants to cite other web sites that publish the Pravda RU writer's error-filled articles on Demkina.

Kuzina makes a living feeding sleaze into tabloid machines. She doesn't bother to check any facts, because that is never required by sleazy tabloids. Indeed, fact checking is considered story-killing in the world of sleaze journalism. An interesting case to illustrate this point involves the National Enquirer, which back in the late 1970s retreated from publishing sleazy news stories involving medical claims out of concern for the egregious harm such reports can cause. They turned to the American Cancer Society and other respected medical associations to fact check their medical articles. When I was a student at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, I was hired to fact check an article on birth defects for the National Enquirer. The facts were not true. The article was killed. The reporter got his kill fee, which he gave to me (Boy, do they pay their reporters well - I got $200 for making one phone call.). The National Enquirer has a policy not to publish false or unsupported medical claims. Pravda RU has no such scruples. Indeed, the more sensational and outrageous the medical claim, the more likely Pravda will publish it.

If the Pravda RU reporter's story were true, it would describe one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. So why can Dreadlocke only find this information in a sleazy tabloid (or sites that like to rerun stories from the tabloid)? Please see the Elephant in the Room section above[69]. It addresses a vital part of Wiki guidelines regarding reputable sources: If something is important enough to be included in a reputable encyclopedia, then it should be important enough to be found in a reputable source. Except for a few narrow uses, sleazy tabloid news sources are not reputable and should not be used as Wiki sources.

  • Independent editing and fact checking is the "touchstone" of reputable sources

Dreadlocke's essential argument is non sequitar: We need more information from more sources for the Demkina article, therefore, he should be allowed to include information from sleazy tabloids and self-promoting, self-published personal web sites that have not undergone independent editing or fact checking. As Wikipedia guidelines tell us, independent editing is the touchstone for reputable sources.

  • Restricting discredited and non-credible information is not "partisan"

Dreadlocke's complaint that the article is "highly partisan" is no more valid than arguing Wiki's flat earth and Flat Earth Society articles are highly partisan. Both of those articles have a palpably clear bias against the flat earth belief. The reason for that non-neutral point of view is as clear as it is warranted; Wiki guidlines tell us not to give fringe beliefs the same weight that we give to widely held and well-documented ideas. Obviously, not all editors agree with this point of view, especially those who have fringe beliefs to promote.

Dreadlocke's arguments ignore all parts of Wiki guidelines that do not support his position. For example, the guidelines tell editors to refrain from using self-published web sites for information that is contentious, overly self-promoting, or not subject to verification by other sources. Here are the five conditions for judging whether to include self-published sources in articles about themselves, as they are spelled out in the Wiki guideline [70]. The material should be:

  1. relevant to the person's notability,
  2. not contentious, such as basic biographical information.
  3. not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  4. about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  5. be subject to verification by other sources.

The material Dreadlocke wants to include from Demkina's web site fails on three of those five rules of thumb: it is very contentious and is being used to promote her "clinic" in Moscow, where she is practicing medicine without a license (while going to medical school - hey, only in Russia!). And it is not subject to verification by other sources.

  • The fat lady sings

The take home message is this: Natasha Demkina claims to have scientifically confirmed supernatural powers. And she is charging people to use her so-called powers to help heal them. If her claims were true, it would be one of the most revolutionary discoveries in medicine and science of all times. If false, it would mean that Demkina is yet another charlatan who is out to fleece the desparately ill. It's been more than two years since Demkina became a news tabloid darling. Yet, not one reputable publication in the world has reported her claim that her supernatural powers have been "scientifically" confirmed. This alone should tell us all we need to know. The only nonsense song missing from this discussion page is the argument that this is the result of a conspiracy led by the drug industry and the AMA to keep the truth from getting out and hurting their income. I give Dreadlocke credit for recognizing that this argument would not persuade many Wiki editors. Askolnick 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments by RfC responders

  • I see no problem in adding more (sourced) biographacal information. How about moving the section on her Discovery Channel appearance out of this article and to its own article? (with a link to it, of course). Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" - Self-published sources are often' used for background information. Secondary sources might be preferred but are often impossible. ---J.S (t|c) 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Still more biographical information? The article has too many trivial details, not to mention too many unbelievable details (speaking at six months??) as it is. I'm a little appalled at Dreadlocke'd proposal to "expand" the article, as it's already over-long, and the Discovery Channel text is a quite unacceptable source. In the first place, the text has Natasha's mother claim, without contradiction, that the girl was speaking at six months old and was reciting Pushkin by the age of one. These utterly unbelievable claims are enough to discredit the whole. What did the baby say at six months, "pass the salt, please"? Show me an actual pediatrician who considers it remotely possible for even the most exceptional six-month-old baby to speak words--the usual meaning of "speak"--and I'll accept the Discovery Channel text as a proper source for a single line in a Wikipedia article.
  • Secondly, if the Discovery Channel text were a decent source, as it's not, it's spread too thin. It's only a blurb, with desultory details about Natasha's childhood as narrated by her mother (or purportedly narrated by her mother, according to the journalist who perpetrated the piece). It's the kind of thing that should be briskly summarized, if it were usable at all. I have shortened the History section a little, on this principle. Natasha Demkina should be based on the creditable sources. For the article to give any weight, let alone equal weight, to the credulous "psychic" interpretation of Demkina's "gift", would grievously fail the Undue weight criterion. Dreadlocke is proposing trashing the article. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC).
Yes, it is entirely possible for children to begin speaking at six months of age, it is a well documented fact - especially in cases of child prodigies. For instance, Michael Kearney “spoke his first words at four months. At the age of six months, he said to his pediatrician "I have a left ear infection". He learned to read at the age of ten months.”
On the subject of the Discovery Channel site text, have you seen the Discovery Channel documentary itself? The link to the Discovery Channel site is meant to cover both the text and the entire documentary. The contents of the Documentary covers what’s in the text blurb – the blurb is just used as a reference. Besides, it’s all from Discovery channel and definitely considered a WP:RS. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Bravo for raising these points Bishonen. I've long wanted to, but glad you did it because you did it so potently. The tall tales of Natasha, the Miracle Child have a lot in common with similarly eye-rolling accounts of supernatural characters of legend, from Jesus of Nazareth to Paul Bunyon. I would also have included her mother's other claim that Natasha learned to drive a ski mobile at three years of age. Hello? Any brain matter there? A three-year-old child cannot reach and control the handle bars to steer the vehicle and her hand would not be big enough to squeeze the hand brake. It's sad, but people who need to believe miracles often will swallow just about anything. And some of them, for better or for worse, are Wiki editors. Askolnick 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of chronology, I'll respond to Dreadlocke here rather than top-posting above Askolnick.
Speaking at six months: Well, no, I said I'd accept it as a source if an actual pediatrician can be shown to state it's remotely possible. A professional pediatrician who has conducted a study under decent conditions and reported it in a peer-reviewed journal; not a webpage quoting even more ludicrous claims made for an even younger baby in a book by the baby's parents. (Clearly the claims need to be removed from Michael Kearney as well--don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia!)
About the Discovery channel site text, let me emphasize that I was talking about the "History" section (which comprises Demkina's actual bio, all of it) and that section's reliance on the blurb on the Discovery site. The section contained a lot of semi-quoted details from the (utterly uncritical) blur, before I removed some of the more mundane/incredible details. No, I haven't seen the documentary, I assume it's the basis for the "Discovery Channel appearance" section, and it appears that a test--a failed test--of Demkina's supposed abilities is an important part of it? Am I right? That would make the documentary a horse of a different color from the blurb--but I don't rate an opinion about the documentary, and didn't mean to comment on it. The blurb is the source that I've been able to form an opinion of, and my point is that it's a terrible source, and a terrible basis for a bio. Look at that blurb! It's called "The Girl with X-Ray Eyes"--begging the question at all? It starts like this:
Natasha Demkina has an extraordinary gift that means she can quite literally see right through people. Her story sounds like it has come straight from the pages of a science fiction comic book, but doctors have yet to disprove her amazing abilities. Natasha is able to look into people’s bodies and correctly diagnose their medical problems, without any help from ultra-sound or x-ray equipment.
Slanted, anyone? Parasitic on human credulity at all? It goes on in this vein. I'm sorry, but the article needs less, not more, reverential reliance on lousy sources like that. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
Like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Yes, the Discovery Channel Program is one of the only three or four reputable sources of information on Natasha Demkina (vs. literally hundreds of sources of twaddle). It was Discovery Channel that moved Demkina out of the pages of the sleazy tabloids (where no doubt they eventually were going to get her to perform her "diagnoses" in the skimpiest of bathing suits in order to simultaneously satisfy their male and female readers). The program gets many facts wrong (ie. identifying me as a "medical doctor," claiming that Demkina's mother was forced out of the test room, placing Saransk 600 miles from Moscow instead of 360, etc.) Considering that it's a television program on the paranormal, it is fairly good. Most of these programs are garbage dumps of dishonest nonsense - like the one on the Bermuda Triangle, which included ships that disappeared near the coast of Africa and even in the Pacific Ocean -- now THAT's paranormal!
As for babies who can talk, I'm afraid you may not be aware of other sources that show young babies can speak within months of birth. For one, there's the trash-talking baby in the movie Who Killed Rodger Rabbit? Not only can infants speak precociously, they can do other remarkable feats. When infant Heracles was in his crib, Hera sent two large serpents to kill the illicit child of her husband. But Zeus' baby grabbed the serpents in his fists and crushed them to death. Face it, by comparison, Natasha Demkina singing all the lyrics of H.M.S. Pinafore at age 6 months would be ... well, child's play. I say we should keep the background information about Demkina's tender years because it's so interesting. And we also might add some more, like when she was teething, she got so angry she threw a kerosene lamp out the window and it flew so fast and so far it burned a swath across all of Africa. And that's how the Sahara Desert was created. Askolnick 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen, I think you’re at a bit of a disadvantage in editing this article until you’ve actually seen the documentary, it’s available through the Discovery Channel website, or perhaps it will be aired in your area one day.
As for the peer-reviewed cases on children speaking at six months of age, I’ll see what I can dig up for you when I get a chance – and the energy! In the meantime, I think it should be allowed to add the mother’s statement about that – even if you don’t think it’s possible for a child to speak at six months. You’re welcome to make a counterstatement in the article, saying that it’s impossible for children to speak at that age (similar to the appendix re-growth statement) – but you’ll have to cite your sources for that – a citation that will be probably be needed if you make a change like that in the Michael Kearney article – I don’t think you can just remove the statement from that article, there are a lot more sources for the claim about Kearney besides the parent’s book and a webpage, which by themselves are sufficient sources for that claim. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Dreadlocke, get with the program, man. Bishonen is an administrator. Editors don't tell administrators what they can and cannot do. Administrators tell editors what they can and cannot do. Askolnick 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for your concern about my disadvantages, Dreadlocke. I think I'll manage. I don't know if you noticed I've only edited the "History" section, which comprises Demkina's actual bio, not the "Discovery Channel appearance". As for me making "a counterstatement in the article" about the speaking baby, no, thanks, there won't be any of that. Let's try to keep this encyclopedic. (I have a poor opinion of the appendix regrowth statement, too.) The article is no place for my opinion, or your opinion--those go on the talkpage, if anywhere--it's for the cited opinions of experts. What "I think" is possible or impossible doesn't come into it, per WP:NOR. It's not "for me" you would be digging up these experts if and when you found the time, it's for verifiability. Have you noticed the terse advice that comes up right below the edit window every single time you edit: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"? That's how central the verifiability policy is. If you intend to restore mention of the speaking baby, please supply a decent source for such a thing being possible.
Btw, Askolnick, admins are just editors as far as content disputes go. They don't get to throw their weight around. It's true that they have to know about policy, though (see WP:ADMIN), and I do feel that Dreadlocke can use some guidance on the spirit and the letter of WP:NOR and WP:V. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC).
Bishonen is on solid ground in her objection to including Natasha's mother's claims that contradict the widely held views of child psychologists and pediatricians. She is also correct about Wikipedia guidelines that warn against including such dubious information without compelling support: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" and among those are "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."[71]
In opposition to the prevailing view of the relevant academic community of child psychologists and pediatricians, we have the claims of Natasha's mother - who has already received great profit through the promotion of her daughter as a miracle worker - and who made the clearly false statement her daughter has never ever made a false diagnosis, even though the record shows many of Demkina's diagnoses are false.
Clearly, Demkina's mother has publicly spoken falsely about her daughter's abilities. And her motive for doing so is not just a mother's pride. She and her daughter have already enjoyed great income from Demkina's readings (earning up to 40 times the average government worker's income in Saransk, with her part-time, after-school "job." [72] And she and Demkina stand to reap even greater wealth by convincing people that her daughter's diagnoses are 100 percent correct. Such exceptional, self-serving, and profiteering claims do not constitute exceptional evidence. They are far more consistant with the trumpeting of a quack. Wikipedia is not a medium to be used by quacks to promote themselves. That is why Wikipedia has guidelines concerning reputable sources - such as the one that directs editors to ignore exceptional claims that contradict prevailing views of the relevant academic community in the absence of exceptional evidence. Bishonen is absolutely right. Such self-serving and highly dubious claims do not belong in Wikipedia without compelling support from reputable sources. Askolnick 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence taking at 6 months

Please read what Bishonen said more carefully. She asked for a report in a credible scientific publication BY a pediatrician - not a report about a pediatrician in a non-peer reviewed book.Askolnick 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing pro and anti Demkina facts

A true factoid can become quite misleading from the context it appears in. I have removed one anti- and one pro-Demkina fact.

  • Firstly, the statement that the show's physician was subjected to risky tests as a result of Demkina's "reading" of his health status: ok, he was, but I disagree with Askolnick, I think making that point here is editorializing, c'mon! (And who asked a physician to be so credulous, anyway?)
  • Secondly, I have also removed the statement that "her alleged abilities were tested" in Japan. No doubt they were, but saying that and saying nothing about the results becomes insidious when the sentence is footnoted to Demkina's personal site which claims that the Japanes test conclusively proved her "gift". At least, that's how I understand "There it(she) participated in numerous experiments on testing the gift(for nothing), and not only in public, but even on animals. Natasha with honour also has correctly was tested all. Japanese have very highly estimated(appreciated) results of the lead experiments." (Sorry about the machine translation, I'm not trying to make fun, but I can't read Russian, and this is the translation recommended in the article.) I'm assuming good faith here, but the probably accidental implication is that Demkina's paranormal claims are now proven. Out it goes. Bishonen | talk 04:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
Bishonen, you mean Natasha's superpowers are NOT proven? What?! I thought they were. Why else would Dreadlocke and Rohirok keep adding information to this article indicating that they were? I mean, Pravda wouldn't report it if it weren't true and Dreadlocke and Rohirok wouldn't keep trying to include it if it the claim were false or dubious, right?
Oh, this is all so confusing. I simply don't know what to believe any more. I think I need to consult my psychic. She always sees the truth. And if for some reason that doesn't work, I'll sacrifice a chicken and read its entrails. That never fails and then I can make chicken soup.Askolnick 13:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)








Why are some defending Pravda RU as a Wiki source?

Some people may wonder why the fight over whether Pravda RU should be used as a source of information for the Demkina article has gone on so long. The reason may be that some editors see Pravda RU as a useful source for the Wikiproject Paranormal. A couple of editors who are in favor of using Pravda RU identify themselves on their talk pages with the Wikiproject Paranormal template that says they are "dedicted to expanding all paranormal articles." [73] It certainly would be a lot easier to expand paranormal articles if editors were allowed to cite Pravda RU articles. It is often difficult to find reputable sources for many dubious claims of pseudoscientists, psychics, quacks, and other New Age charlatans. Pravda RU, however, is an online goldmine for uncritical reports on the claims of crackpots and charlatans. If Pravda RU were an acceptable source for Wiki articles, expanding Wiki articles on the paranormal would be a snap: An editor could simply search an appropriate key word on the Pravda RU site and he or she would likely find several reports to cite for expanding almost any paranormal article. The more sensational and dishonest the claim, the more likely one can find it featured in an article in Pravda RU. Try it. Just plug in any pseudoscientific claim into the search box and see how easy it is to find published "evidence" for just about any crackpot or dishonest claim: Here are some I gathered this evening:

Russian scientist invents a camera that takes pictures of ghosts, ancient wariors, dinosaurs, and other things from the past[74]
Invisible forces attack humans shear their hair and inflict terrible wounds[75]
With the help of wooden pyramids an inventor makes people healthier and food better[76]
Aliens take samples of semen and ovule from human abductees for their genetic experiments[77]
Aliens live on Earth, under the ground: A lot of respectable scientists and writers believed that Earth is hollow inside[78]
Do not offend water: it remembers every word you say: One day theoretical science will no longer have doubts about water's memory while high tech specialists will be making “water” computers controlled by telepathy[79]
Russia accused of artificially generating freak hurricanes over America: The hurricanes which have been raging recently off the American coast were created by Russian military specialists. Using a special electromagnetic generator they have perfected a secret meteorological weapon, capable of striking innocent people from any distance and destroying their homes. This accusation was recently made by American meteorologists.[80]
Earth to stretch sideways and then turn into a cold star
According to even modest estimates, this dust adds at least 1 billion tons every year. Some experts say that dinosaurs became extinct because of the planet's growth and the proportional increase of gravitation; under those conditions dinosaurs could no longer bear their own weight.[81]
Mysterious amphibious human-like creature spotted in the Caspian Sea[82]
Psychic security department protects Russian presidents from external psychological influenceL Americans have created radiators of modulated signals, which control people's behavior thousands of kilometers from afar. [83]
Human eyes possess destructive power of laser: It was known long ago that people could kill with their eyes[84]
Ukrainian man eats only sunshine and lives by the law of flowers [85]
Russian scientists create perpetual space motion machine [86]
Coffee to Cure Baldness [87]
Autotrophs: new kind of humans appears who neither drink nor eat [88]
Ancient Egyptians used helicopters and airplanes for battles? There is a scientific theory that says that Egyptians descended from Martians who had once visited this planet [89]
Scientists from the Russian city of Voronezh managed to produce milk and coffee from…blood. Scientists from a[n unidentified] technological academy located in the Russian city of Voronezh developed a revolutionary technique of producing an entire array of food products such as milk, yogurt, chocolate and coffee from blood.[90]
Terrible mutations may turn humans into plants or animals:(Features report of a teenage girl who is turning into a cactus.) [91]
Were Cro-Magnons Biologically Engineered by Extraterrestrials?
(The article says yes.)[92]
Meteor showers to devastate planet Earth: Someone in deep black space deliberately bombards the Earth with meteorites [93]
No food, No water...for 68 years: A 76-year-old Indian Prahad Djani has mesmerized doctors and scientists. He has not been eating or drinking in the course of 68 years. He has not been defacating either [94]
Russian woman can see her past lives [95]
Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ
[96]
Specialists find scientific explanation to phenomenon of living dead: Humans believe in the possibility to bring the dead back from their graves, although the eerie perspective evokes nothing but fear [97]

Here's one of my favorite Pravda RU headlines:

Astronomers find the gate into parallel worlds... Only housewives believe in three-dimensional space. None of the serious scientists would dare support such a stupid idea. [98]

Anyone who wants to expand paranormal articles should do so with reputable sources and not ones that claim Natasha Demkina has x-ray vision, that humans are cloning another Christ from the DNA of God, and that "only housewives" are "stupid" about the shape of space. Pravda RU lies in the gutter of journalism. The sleazy tabloid is a disreputable source of information on any subject. Any writing that is based on Pravda RU will be just as disreputable. I don't believe any Wiki editors should defend Pravda RU as a source of information for any Wiki article. Askolnick 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This illustrates my point earlier perfectly. Andrew, in this statement, indicates that he defines "reputable source" based on whether or not they make statements that conform with his (and his associates') worldview. What he continually fails to acknowledge is that Wikipedia is not here to conform to his worldview. The proper attitude is one that does not presuppose a particular POV as fact. As one long-time Wikipedian once said, we are not here to determine what is true and not true. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What is "perfectly illustrated" here is another of Keith Tyler's personal attacks, in which he deliberately misrepresents my position and my comments. This latest is a pure crock: Nowhere have I defined "reputable scource" as being "based on whether or not they make statements that conform with my worldview." I have repeatedly cited and defended Wiki's definition and guidelines on reputable sources. Having failed to convince the Wiki community that the trash tabloid Pravda RU is a reputable publication, he's returned to attacking me for blocking his attempt to use these pages of pestulence as a Wiki source on pro-paranormal claims. Askolnick 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


A source that claimed something as ridiculous as that would be deemed completely inappropriate on just about any article on a scientific topic on Wikipedia. It would be dismissed as a crank source, and rightly so. Why should it be any different here? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Because the aligned (i.e. "pro") POV in the topic area of the article's subject matter is best represented by such a source, and much less so by mainstream sources. To achieve NPOV, significant POVs, no matter how wacky, oddball, spurious, or of any other subjective adjective; or even no matter how misstated, confused, misled, or mistaken, be included. If there wasn't a significant amount of people who believed in e.g. the powers alleged by Demkina (et al. ad inf.) were possible, CSICOP and CSMMH would not exist, Andrew would have to find a new photog gig, and this WP article would have been CSD'd. But such people do exist, and in notable number. This needs to be recognized, and covered fairly. Such a principle would be the rule in any WP article in any other topic area. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines for reliable sources which rule out sources like Pravda RU. There's a big difference between noting the fact that some people believe in XYZ, and using as a source a tabloid that prints fictional accouts of XYZ happening as if they were truth. KarlBunker 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, because Keith Tyler and a few other editors are determined to put pro-paranormal material into this article to support Natasha Demkina's claim of having supernatural powers. Unable to find material to support that view in any reputable publications, he and Dreadlocke have been arguing that Pravda RU is reputable. When I respond by posting examples of the dishonest drivel the sleazy newspaper pumps out, they switch to personally attacking me. Works for them, I guess. The rest of us, I'm not so sure. Askolnick 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Askolnick, this is your last warning. Mention another editor like you have above and you will be blocked. Keith, that goes for you too. --InShaneee 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
InShaneee, instead of responding to my complaint on WP:AN/I[99] -- or to any of the editors and administrators who have agreed your actions were unjustified -- you continue to harrass and threaten me for any criticism of pro-paranormal editors. And here you turn a blind eye to Keith Tyler's personal attack, but threaten to block me for responding to HIS attack! Not only are Wiki administrators not allowed to use their blocking powers to censor content they don't like - as you blatantly did - they are not allowed to discriminate and use their power to protect editors on the side of an editing dispute they support. Repeatedly, you have stood by and watched Tyler and Dreadlocke post one personal attack after another, while using your administrative authority to threaten me. Such conduct is an abuse of the authority giving to you by the Wiki community. This latest threat doesn't leave me wuth any real options. Unless you can show where you ever threatened to block Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke, and Andrew Homer for their personal attacks, I will begin the mutually unpleasant process of filing a Wikipedia:RfC over this and your previous abuse of administrative authority. Your choice. Askolnick 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Karl you're not completely right here, because I was quite wrong. Somehow, I did not see the last sentence in which InShaneee warned Keith too. I'm withdrawing this complaint and apologizing to InShaneee for saying he's never warned Keith not to make personal attacks. I hope now I can expect more even handed treatment. Askolnick 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So are we all agreed now? Okay. No more personal attacks and let's please try to get this article as best as it could ever posbiyly. be.Smith Jones 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I object. I've been misrepresented for months, derided as a "woo-woo" pseudoscientific ninny, all because I strongly believe in the objective and unbiased principle of NPOV. Only now does an admin say anything about it -- and lumps me in, too, despite my being painfully civil and objective nearly this whole time. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edit warrior keeps trying to hide info re the 'Association for Skeptical Investigation'

Anon. user 195.93.21.38 keeps removing correct information about the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation. This front group of Woo-woo researchers is run by pro-paranormal researchers including Brian Josephson, Larry Dossey, Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz, and Rupert Sheldrake, none of whom has ever met a skeptic he didn't disparage or a psychic who isn't genuine. These characters have been criticized by skeptics around the world for their active support of the pseudosciences. So now they've formed this deceptively named Association for Skeptical Investigation solely for the purpose of attacking the skeptics. This is very much like the tobacco industry creating the "Tobacco Research Institute" for the purpose of investigating every possible health effect that may be due to smoking. In reality, it was a propaganda group, led by tobacco lawyers and PR folk, that was aimed at buying and publishing research that showed smoking is really a healthy "choice." [100] Askolnick 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous edit warrior's later version looks okay to me. The sentence "The site contains many articles by contributers [sic] sympathetic to the paranormal and to Natasha." appears to capture the obvious bias of the site in question. – Besides, and I'm playing the devil's advocate here, if the statistical outcome of an investigation critically depends on whether you assume the subject at hand is bunk [101], it's no wonder that those who believe in this paranormal stuff see the investigation as a confirmation. – What's up with the asterisk in the External links section? Rl 07:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's no wonder that those who believe in this paranormal stuff haven't bothered to learn how science works and how testing impropable hypotheses requires more stringent statistical standards to reduce false positives. We can't do much about what they think other than to educate them. And isn't that a good purpose for an encyclopedia?
Replacing the fact that this front group is run by pro-paranormal researchers for the purpose of attacking skeptics and confusing people about scientific skepticism, with a weasely statement about having articles sympathetic to the paranormal is not acceptable. It would be like describing the defunct "Tobacco Research Institute" as a tobacco industry funded group that sponsored research to discover possible health risks from smoking. It wasn't. It was a giant con-job run by tobacco industry lawyers and PR flaks aimed at countering the increasing body of science that was showing how deadly the industry's product was. Similarly, the facts - documented by reputable sources - are these: There is not one skeptical investigator among the researchers who run that deceitful organization. Calling itself the Association of Skeptical Investigators is a deliberate deception. It's an association of highly prominent pro-paranormal investigators established to attack their critics. This is a fact that is well documented. Withholding it from Wiki readers would be wrong. Askolnick 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration well, I've been involved in similar battles. Fighting crackpots and moneyed interests is no fun, because they tend to have more resources than you, and they insist on playing by the rules only when it suits them. And I know how tempting it is to leave the high road. – The comparison of your opponents with the tobacco industry seems a bit extreme: they are nowhere near as powerful as the tobacco industry was, and I suspect many of them actually believe what they say. – Your evidence is vulnerable because statistically you arrived at your conclusion under the assumption that the phenomenon was probably not real; if you had taken the prior "evidence" brought forward in support of the girl to mean that she likely had some paranormal abilities, the conclusion would have been different. It is regrettable that the girl was lucky, but it did cause the results to turn out rather inconclusive. – It seems indeed that the Association of Skeptical Investigators is mostly skeptical of science and scientific investigations (care to write an article about them?). However, if an organization is suspect not because of its methods but because of its membership (which is what you seem to imply), then you have the opposite bias in the CSICOP. Is the CSICOP a propaganda front because you will be hard pressed to find believers of paranormal phenomena among their supporters, and should the Skeptical Inquirer be discounted as a reference because it was clearly established to attack paranormal and fringe science claims? – I am not trying to give you a hard time. I just want to encourage a focus on the things that actually set science apart from cargo cult science. Rl 14:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But you are giving me a very hard time by talking reasonably, but disregarding much of my arguments - and disregarding most of the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation of Natasha Demkina, which reached a very sound conclusion. You apparently do not understand why researchers going back to J.B. Rhine did not use P values commonly used to test plausible hypotheses when testing highly improbable one. The use of Bayesian inference in medical testing and research is a sound practice. Most of the diagnostic tests used today would not exist if they were not based on this statistical approach in research and practice. To discard this and conduct research carelessly because believers won't understand or may misrepresent the study methods is not a convincing argument. You say, "if you had taken the prior 'evidence' brought forward in support of the girl to mean that she likely had some paranormal abilities, the conclusion would have been different," is not consistent with the scientific method. You don't come out with more accurate answers by putting false data into your analysis. I don't think you understand how Bayesian analysis works. You don't choose you experimental level of statistical significane by how some phenomenon looks. You choose it based on the occurrence of such phenomena in the past. And to date, there has never been a teenage girl claiming supernatural powers who has ever been confirmed as real. History is filled with one young charlatan after another. The chance that the next teenage girl coming along claiming paranormal powers will be genuine is extremely small, probably close to the chance of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi actually levitating to prove he's not a charlatan.
Furthermore, had we matched our test to Demkina's claims, the test would have allowed NO wrong answers. What Demkina was required to do was much easier than what she does in her normal readings (which her mother claims have never been wrong). We cut her a great deal of slack and allowed her two wrong answers out of seven. She failed to even get that. And from that, we drew only one conclusion, which our critics continue to misrepresent. Based on Demkina's failure to reach the minimum score, we concluded that we saw no evidence to warrent a more carefully controlled study. Nothing else was concluded from that failure. Our conclusion that she's using cold reading to convince gullible people that she can help heal them is based a large number of other information gathered in our investigation and described in our reports. Have you read our reports?
Also, you totally ignored virtually my entire argument to focus on a point that I did not make. I never said that the misleadingly named Assoc. of Skeptical Investigators is suspect because of its membership. My argument was and remains this: Readers should know that this is a group of pro-paranormal researchers who are dishonestly pretending to be skeptics in order to attack the skeptical scientists who criticize their incompetent and often dishonest work. Readers should know that this group has chosen a name to deceive the public. The "skeptics" who run this group are not skeptics. They are major targets of skeptical criticism. This deliberate hoax would be as deceptive as my setting up an organization called, "Association of Psychics Defending Honest Mediumship" to attack these charlatans while falsely pretending to be one of them. One of the things that "sets science apart from cargo cult science" is that science does not use such deception, pseudoscience does. We should focus on that. Askolnick 15:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, while it may not sound like it in the above, I like your efforts, even if I don't like some of your arguments. Askolnick 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand the points made about statistics and the scientific method quite well, but you appear to largely ignore my arguments. The real problem, however, is more likely that we are both pretty good at misunderstanding each other (well, that and Wikis are bad tools for discussions). That's fine, I basically dragged you into a hair-splitting competition (unintentionally, of course) and that's always tricky. So let's leave it at that, we can revisit the arguments should the issue ever come up again. Needless to say (I hope), I'm glad to have you here. Rl 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
none of whom has ever met a skeptic he didn't disparage or a psychic who isn't genuine. Can you, Andrew, name a genuine psychic or a pro-paranormalist (or even an NPOVist) you didn't dismiss as a crank? Limited perspectives (and a certain lack of reflexive introspection that seems to go hand in hand) has been the scourge of this and other articles which would otherwise be NPOV instead of toeing the CSICOP/CSMMH/SI line. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the "genuine psychic" part of that question should be pretty easy to answer. :-) And since a pro-paranomalist is by definition someone who believes in something for which there is no good evidence, that part isn't too hard either. Rationalism is only a "scourge" to those who prefer the irrational. KarlBunker 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (channeling Askolnick)
What a lot of people don't get is that balance means each person's perspective of right and not right needs to be checked at the door. This is not a scholarly publication, but an encyclopedia of human knowledge -- right or wrong. If there's doubts, even solid, sensible doubts, then they get stated; they don't negate the inclusion of the information they challenge. It is not our job here to make decisions about truth. While Andrew et al don't directly deny this, as it is something he seeks from his opponents, he has not shown much willingness to abide by it, either. The irony is that this firestorm started when Andrew complained that the article painted him in a negative light, accusing libel. But words like "woo-woo" and "deceptive", terms he uses to describe ASI, aren't exactly what I'd call objective. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. It only makes a debate more acrimonious when one editor characterizes another editor, or those who disagree with him in general, as either a member of the "woo-woo" crowd or as a knee-jerk sceptic. We all need to be more willing to accept the POV of others, even as we insist that that POV doesn't get written into an article, and we all need to be less willing to broadcast our own POV, even in a discussion page. KarlBunker 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Keith Tyler: This is not a scholarly publication, but an encyclopedia of human knowledge -- right or wrong.
I just wanted to point out that it would be at odds with Wikipedia's No original research policy. Wikipedia (ideally) should be an encyclopedia of verified human knowledge, and that can be best achieved by using reputable, peer-reviewed publications. --Tail 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
"Verified human knowledge" does *not* mean "verified correct human knowledge", at least not in the sense that an article can only include the fact that someone says or believes something only if that person's statement or belief is provably correct. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this article a biography or not?

It starts out like this:

Natasha Demkina
Natalia Nikolayevna Demkina (Russian: Наталья Николаевна Демкина; born 1987), usually known under the hypocoristic naming Natasha Demkina, is a young woman from Saransk, Russia, who claims 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. In 2004 she appeared on television shows in the United Kingdom and on the Discovery Channel. Since 2004 Demkina has been a full-time student of the Semashko State Stomatological University, Moscow.

The article is absolutely biographical in nature and for the purposes of rules governing biographies put in place to prevent libel and subsequent legal action, it qualifies as a biography. Anyone doubting this should post a request for commentary. Anyone violating the rules regarding biography or removing the biography tag on the talk page is clearly putting the Wikipedia project at risk. -THB 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the bio question comes up. It seems pretty clear that if the article title is a person's name, then it's a bio. Despite the unfortunate prominence of a particular event in the article, it's still a bio, not an article on that event. This is, of course, the crux of the ongoing saga of this article -- how to expand it beyond that event. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Check the page history for this talk page. KarlBunker is in another edit war , claiming that this article is not a biography! -THB 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina/Archive_3&oldid=1053169982"