Talk:Prahlad Jani/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Style

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

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

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

Removed info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment

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

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

Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(Looks like this RFC drew no comments before it expired.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only the RFC but also my report at the original research noticeboard which closed with no replies. Maybe it is such a clear-cut case of original research that no one wants to bother. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And maybe people just don't want to get into an issue which is unclear yet. Because examination of Edamaruku's criticism easily reveals its flaws and confidence trick style of argumentation. -- Nazar (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it's just chance that nobody saw it. If you still disagree that the quoted paragraph demonstrates original research, you are free to relist the RFC. Just put at the top of this section. --McGeddon (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the quoted paragraph may be only a technical one. It may be reconstructed or better referenced to illustrate the point in accordance with the current Wiki Policies. But there's practically no doubt about the point itself: "Edamaruku's criticism is a con, based on no objective evidence, and exploiting the gullible nature of the 'scientifically educated' audience". Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we get the idea that you don't like Edamarku - other editors intentionally aren't discussing their personal opinions on this, because it isn't what this talk page is for. That Wikipedia articles don't include the personal interpretations of individual editors is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS, and is much more fundamental than a mere "technicality". --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to get it. I like Edamaruku and his job. And I'm very much supportive of inclusion of his objective criticism and real facts related to exposure of frauds related to spiritual claims. But in the case discussed above the way his criticism is rendered is tendentious. The rendering lacks neutrality and fails to show the flaws of the material, which are obvious for any neutral observer. It's not about my personal view. It's about the quality of information we provide in the article. -- Nazar (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We say that Edamarku "felt" some monitoring was insufficient, and that he "accused" Jani of interference. True, we say that he "pointed out" other problems, but I mentioned this elsewhere as being problematic, and have now changed it to "claimed". Where is the neutrality lacking in the current version of the article? --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The video material is the main argument for Edamaruku's criticism. And the irony is that 90% of the readers would not watch it at all, while 90% of those who do watch would not pay attention to the dating and other failures. And when these are exposed, the whole basis of his criticism becomes equal to none; moreover, it becomes obvious that his rendering of the material is manipulated. But I do not accuse you of not being neutral enough. You did your best to ensure neutrality based on the available text information and the current set of Wiki Policies. Thank you for doing that. I, however, think that this wasn't enough. If I find a way of amending it, I might come back to this issue later. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The video is irrelevant - we have a Guardian article written by Edamarku in which he makes these allegations, and that is the only source we're using. I don't see any reason why this source doesn't meet WP:RS. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why should the video be irrelevant, if in the same Guardian article Edamaruku claims: "an official video clip revealed (here he gives a direct link to the video) that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view; he was allowed to receive devotees and could even leave the sealed test room for a sun bath; his regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored and so on." And when we watch the video from that link, it actually reveals nothing of the above. Moreover, it comes out that this video is not an official video recording of 2010 tests. haha. -- Nazar (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This article says nothing about the video revealing anything, or that the video is objectively true; it merely says that Edamaruku has made various comments in the Guardian newspaper. --McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To help pinpoint synthesis and original research points on the proposed paragraph I just added a few more tags. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

haha. good job! bravo! sandbox would be a proper place for you to play more with those colorful tags :) and it must really be a HUGE original research to see the Arabic numerals with date 2003 on the clips. LOL. -- Nazar (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You go play in the sandbox with your original research and improper synthesis instead of advising me who points out your improper synthesis. This way you wouldn't waste our time trying to prove to you the obvious. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks, McGeddon, for changing it to 'claimed' in the article. This is more appropriate indeed. I'm happy you're able to see it. -- Nazar (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the only problem I could find - I see no further issues with the paragraph. That you can pick holes in Edamaruku's commentary doesn't make any difference here; I'm sure many editors could easily pick holes in Prahlad Jani's statements, but it would be inappropriate for them to start deleting content or adding their own commentary on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comment

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

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

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

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

We cannot restore WP:OR. This request for comment has ended. Noone has commented except this anonymous editor. This is not consensus. I will report any attempt to restore this synthesis and/or I will request protection of the article if any attempt is made to restore this improper synthesis. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already edited the article, just now reading your comment, dear Dr.K. You may, however, pursue your point. Invite more people to express their opinions. I understand the drawbacks of the info you point out. However, in my opinion, NPOV is more important, and it must be ensured through overview of the flaws of the IRA criticism... Thanks... -- Nazar (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus - there are three editors on this talk page who clearly consider the content to be original research. It's entirely inappropriate to include an individual editor's personal thoughts regarding a YouTube video. Wikipedia articles would be unreadable if they encouraged every passing editor to chip in with their own opinions and interpretations - we should only ever quote a reliable source's analysis of a video, we shouldn't provide our own. --McGeddon (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am grateful for your assistance McGeddon in trying to clarify this point for the umpteenth time to this editor. Maybe we can ask for administrative assistance because this is a clear cut case of disruptive editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dr. K., but your comments are offensive and a clear cut case of a personal attack aimed at me. I'm doing my best to ensure the NPOV of the article. I'm letting all the interested editors express their view and also remove the information which they think is inappropriate. I respect McGeddon's edits and his logic. I do not claim my edits are 100% perfect; your comments are, however, intolerant and aggressive towards me. Thanks for understanding. -- Nazar (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry too that you think I personally attacked you. And I am even more sorry that you do not seem to understand what a personal attack is. I commented on your editing not on you. This, by definition, is not a personal attack. If you do not believe me ask someone else. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nazar You wrote: I understand the drawbacks of the info you point out. However, in my opinion, NPOV is more important, and it must be ensured through overview of the flaws of the IRA criticism I really don't think you do. You cannot combat perceived NPOV issues by using original research and improper synthesis. Please point out to me where in policy it is stated that "To correct perceived NPOV problems an editor is allowed to engage in original research or improper synthesis" Until such time as you find such a quote I would request you stop your disruptive and tendentious editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And I would request you to stop your personal attacks. Please also stop imperatively ordering me whether I should edit or not and also please stop calling my good faith editing 'disruptive' over and over again. I got your opinion, mine is different. Your behavior is clearly offensive and oppressive. -- Nazar (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on my behaviour is a no no. You just crossed over into a personal attack. This is not the first time you resort to personal attacks when you talk to me. I will report this to an admin so that he can help you stop victimising other editors with your aggressive comments. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the info I tried to include is important to the NPOV of the article, in my opinion. If more people speak in its support, I'd consider restoring it again (although the form and references used may change to better suit the Wiki Guidelines). If not, I'll respect the consensus so far expressed. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All you need to do is find a reliable source that has analysed the video. If nobody ever has, then we can't describe any analysis of it here. The important thing is to make sure that we aren't misrepresenting the video by claiming that it proves anything that isn't actually shown - although most of the paragraph talks about how Edamaruku "feels" and "accuses", we should maybe change "points out" to something less objective. --McGeddon (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

McGeddon, thanks, I got no problem with the article as it is, as far as its the consensus. I'm too lazy to look for the more reliable references criticizing the video at this moment, and I'm not sure if there are any at all, because Edamaruku seems to hype his criticism and sell it well to the press, and nobody really cares if his arguments are reliable at all. He just makes a good show out of it, and that’s what everybody loves. I restored the info in reaction to the closed RFC and opinion expressed there, which, together with my own opinion provides for some reason to include the info. Since you and Dr. K. clearly oppose the inclusion, I don't mind the removal for the meanwhile. No problem. -- Nazar (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If this means "I will come back in a couple of months and try adding it again", please take a step back and re-read WP:OR. "Any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources" is right there in the first paragraph. If you have a genuine concern about the ramifications of this policy, and how you think it might be deficient, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, or discuss possible exceptions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. --McGeddon (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comments. I couldn't have said it better myself. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ye. You should learn from McGeddon, because your comments were not so great :) In case you take the trouble to report me again, I'll take the trouble to cite all the offensive stuff coming from you (generally, mind your style and emotions, they aren't really that positive); if not, I'll probably be to lazy do to that. haha ;) - Nazar (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor; by all means take issue with Dr K's comment that your editing appears to be tendentious, and explain why you think it isn't, but directly criticising someone's "emotions" is crossing the line. Even if you put a little smiley face on the end. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"I will report this to an admin so that he can help you stop victimising other editors with your aggressive comments." "stop your disruptive and tendentious editing" "trying to clarify this point for the umpteenth time to this editor. Maybe we can ask for administrative assistance because this is a clear cut case of disruptive editing." "I will report any attempt to restore this synthesis" "You just crossed over into a personal attack" etc., etc. -- these are rather aggressive accusations and threats, in my opinion, as well as trying to use selective references from the Wiki Rules and policies to intimidate an editor. That is just my feeling, sorry if it's wrong. And, should we really continue this discussion here for so long? Is it really related to the article content? I think I stated clearly enough that I respect the current consensus and I'm not going to change it back until more reasons/references are there... Aren't you just using the moment for a personal attack against me? -- Nazar (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may not understand the ramifications of your aggressive accusations against me. User McGeddon has also told you to stop attacking me personally yet you keep coming back. I will not try to explain to you why my comments are not a personal attack against you because I already did so before yet you seem not to understand this. I will let Prodego try and explain to you why your comments victimise and aggressively attack me even if they are followed by smileys and other visual gimmicks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In case someone neutrally reviews this, I may add "You may not understand the ramifications of your aggressive accusations against me.", "you keep coming back", "your comments victimise and aggressively attack me" -- at least from my point of view I'm not happy to have someone say me all that. And it feels like pushing me out of the article editing process, while it's obvious that I'm practically the only major contributor representing an alternative view from that of Dr.K's. That feels bad... -- Nazar (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You said while it's obvious that I'm practically the only major contributor representing an alternative view from that of Dr.K's But you know very well that I am not the only one who objected to your edits because your edits are synthesis and original research. Yet you keep singling me out. Singling out an editor is never good and more so when the editor is not the only one who told you not to proceed with your edits. I am sorry you feel bad because I pointed out to you that I feel victimised by your comments. If you stop singling me out and commenting on me personally I will have no reason to feel personally attacked. So please just stop commenting on me personally. Thank you again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've stopped this long time back, having said that I respect the consensus after the portion in question had been removed. I did not try to edit war or restore it. So, what's the problem? All my subsequent edits to the article were intended to add new referenced information (check history). You were the one to call my edits 'disruptive', threaten and report me. You were the one to cherry pick the messages I added to show them in a negative way. And you are the one who keeps provoking me, because I need to reply something in my defense. The only thing you need to do is say like 'issue solved, no more problems', but you'll have to say that also everywhere you already reported me for some alleged 'violations'. I'm referring to you just because you are the one who does it. It's nothing personal, but your signature is there. -- Nazar (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also note again that there's no real article related issue here which hasn't been solved at the very beginning of this discussion. So, I don't really see how this can be in Wikipedia:COOL spirit... -- Nazar (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above in my edit-conflict reply to you and stop commenting personally on me. Then everything will be cool. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much McGeddon but this is not the first time this user has done this. He was warned by user Prodego in the past and yet here they are repeating the same attacks again. I have reported this behaviour to Prodego. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of the article itself, I mean I may come back with my point after some time if there are new reasons. These reasons may include a new consensus, or new opinions expressed here, or new arguments. It's hard to draw a clear line between the personal analysis/synthesis and neutral rendering, especially in the case of a video. In my opinion, WP:FILMPLOT should apply in such cases, and this policy should be extended to take into account the shorter video materials used as vital arguments in Wiki articles. -- Nazar (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FILMPLOT#Documentaries clearly says that "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact." --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's good enough for me. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do hope that someone does choose to report "Nazar" as it will expose the subjective and hypocritical tone of the other editors here, it would seem from an external perspective that you are squabbling like six year olds, and a very small proportion of what you have collectively written is useful or pertinent.

Thank you Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.33.18 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New RFC

Can [this] really be removed without impairing the neutrality of the rendering? We are speaking about 2010 tests. -- Nazar (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• In short, yes it can because the removed sentence is a personal observation not supported by reliable sources and not attributable to a third party. Thus it cannot be allowed. Any perceived neutrality issues cannot be corrected by engaging in original research and synthesis. Find a reliable source which makes the same observation about the time the video was taken and attribute it to that source and that should be satisfactory. If not, it cannot be included under the WP:OR policy. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • hmmm. the source of it is the same as that of the other related statements. the video is published by Edamaruku and is a key point of his criticism. if you think this source isn't reliable, you should remove all of the related info, and not cherry pick the points which you like in it. -- Nazar (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It has nothing to with the source. It is that the removed observation is not reported by third party reliable sources but by a Wikipedia editor, making it a personal observation, i.e. WP:OR. Please see also my comments below. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is reported by Edamaruku, because he is the one who provided the video. The sentence uses only directly available material, no personal observations whatsoever :) -- Nazar (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you quote a reliable source that wrote that sentence? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You mean literally? Weren't you the one who was warring my edits because of allegedly 'too much quotations', saying it's not encyclopedic? the source is Edamaruku. the date is there in his video, as well as Polish language subtitles :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide a diff where I told you that you use too many quotations, especially the ungrammatical and in scare quotes 'too much quotations'? Regardless, the video is a WP:PRIMARY source. It cannot be analysed by us. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. Check the discussion of the Inedia article for that diff. I'm too lazy to read it fully through again and find things for you there, which you should remember better than me. And sorry, English isn't my native language, I do not claim it to be grammatically perfect. -- Nazar (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oh. Whatever :) I love you so much, here are the direct quotes from your edits: "I don't think we need direct quotes. This direct quote approach is more suited to a magazine or newspaper than to an encyclopaedic article. Also now that we have the main article for the person we have to follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE all the better.", "...there is too much detail in the direct quotations...". Look it up in Talk:Inedia/Archive_2. It seems you choose whatever reasoning imaginable to push my edits out of the article :) haha -- Nazar (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Quote: "...there is too much detail in the direct quotations..." is gramatically way better than what you quoted above: 'too much quotations', so I was right about the grammar. And yes I stand by the statement. You should not fill an article with direct quotes from a source. Also please keep this conversation professional. Throwing words like "love" around drops the level of this conversation to new lows and makes it very difficult to carry on, at least for me. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Also there is no neutrality to be rendered. We are just reporting on the criticism of the Indian Rationalist Association. That's all. We are not supposed to criticise or analyse their criticism. That would be a violation of our neutrality WP:NPOV policies. Criticism of the IRA claims should be left to third parties and not to us as Wikipedia editors. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the removed sentence does not include any criticism of IRA or any kind of analysis. It just tells the date and identifies the language which appear in the referenced material. -- Nazar (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is still a personal observation. No place for it in the article as explained above. But let's wait for a few other opinions. That's what an RFC is for, after all. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• What you are asking me to do is to find a third party source which comments on the comments of Edamaruku. Now, why should we make it so complicated (consider the odds of finding a reliable comment on the comment) if we have direct material from Edamaruku. It should be rendered in its completeness. -- Nazar (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You cannot comment on the video directly. This would be a WP:PRIMARY source. We need secondary sources which commented on the video. Anyway let's wait for other editors' opinions because we are not going to agree obviously and frankly I feel that I have explained all the points that need explaining. Let someone else do a little of the typing needed to carry these points across. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting on the video. The policy of WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements... .... For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot...". That's what the sentence in question does. It gives straightforward description of the material, without any interpretation. I can also provide a direct text citation from that video, since the subtitles are in text form. -- Nazar (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It also states:Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. . You are trying to make an explanatory statement about when the video was made. It is not allowed. But I am not going to reply any further. Let other editors now comment. I am done here for the moment. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here are the direct quotes you asked for: "Prahlad Jani “Bathing” 2003 -- nie podawano mu żadnego jedzenia, ani wody; nawet kiedy pozwalano mu na kąpiel, ilość wody była mierzona przed i po kąpieli", which says in Polish 'he wasn't given any food neither water; even when he was allowed to bath, the quantity of water was measured before and after the bathing', then the video goes on showing the alleged 'obstruction by devotees' in 2010, but the overlaid comments in Hindi say just the same as for the 2003 tests -- "65 साल से प्यासा", which means '...65 years fasted...' ('65 years parched' literally, i.e. without water...), and in 2010 he had been fasting already over 71 years, accordingly to all references... I happen to know a bit of Hindi too :) haha. There's also a Hindi comment below the 'obstruction' video also saying directly that it is from 2003. I can provide the screen-shots if necessary :) -- Nazar (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And one more thing. The video itself is a primary source (because it shows the coverage of an event), but the comments in Polish and Hindi aren't that. They were added by a secondary source and the official Wiki policy says: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources.". Hope that makes the point clear enough :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is an example screen-shot indicating the date of 2003 for your convenient viewing: Bathing. It's taken directly from that video material. :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have opened another report on WP:ORN, the original research noticeboard. Since this RFC is open and there is no consensus for adding your material I would advise that we wait until a consensus is formed and stop the edit war to add the material. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who started the edit war. And you are the one who repeatedly removed my fully referenced edits. I don't see any reason why the material should not be restored. It has been amended to be in full accordance with the reference requirements in Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say that, but now it's obviously you who's being 'disruptive'. -- Nazar (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding the same synthesis in different forms. Until someone else agrees with you there is no consensus. So the stable version shall remain. If you continue the edit war you will be reported and mind your language please. Calling me disruptive without reason is aggressive. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And you keep removing the same referenced information, which you don't like, while keeping the one you like. You are welcome to remove the synthesis, if you really see any in my edits, but removing direct citations is a violation, as far as I understand. It would be more proper to call your version of the rendering 'a synthesis', because it tendentiously shows the point of view preferred by you. And please stop threatening me. You were the one to use the word 'disruptive' multiple times without proper reasons. So please don't tell me to 'mind my language' while using the same and much worse language towards me. -- Nazar (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep telling me to stop threatening you. Please stop this aggressive hectoring. I am just telling you what I will do if you continue your edit-warring. This is not a threat. It is a fact. This is what everyone does here when they see an edit-war going on. They report it. So will I. I called your editing disruptive previously because you were edit-warring slowly over a period of months to add synthesis against consensus. User McGeddon told you the same. This is disruptive editing. My editing removing this original research from the article in the middle of an RFC is helpful, not disruptive. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think your editing is really helpful in this case. Your accusations about alleged edit-warring done by me are just attempting to move the attention away from the pertinent article issue, which has been protected by me against your disruptive and tendentious editing (sorry to use that word, advise me a better one, if you can). McGeddon told me that 'he is concerned that my recent comment is a declaration of an intent to edit-war', and I explained to him that it's not my intention. He did not say that I was edit-warring over months, so please don't add your own meaning to someone's words. Besides that, the rendering of the issue has been amended to include no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and is currently based on direct references only. I did listen to yours and McGeddon's advice and did try to improve the quality of the information in accordance with the Wiki Policies.

Also, in spite of your difficult attitude, I do believe that your actions are in accordance with the 'good faith' principle. Therefore, I'm not threatening to 'report you' each time you destroy my edits. I believe you are trying to protect your own point of view, which seems good and positive to you. And you misuse your superior knowledge and mastery of Wiki Policies (which mastery I do not possess to the same extent) to achieve your end... Your approach is unfortunately biased both towards me personally and towards the issue in question. That is my opinion... Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it some time, as per your request. Let's really wait for more comments. -- Nazar (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

’hectoring’ is a rather offensive word, by the way, though I don’t really care enough to report you for that, as I mentioned above. thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have nothing against you personally, I assure you. My reference to slow edit warring was meant to convey my opinion that over the past few months I thought that there was consensus not to add the paragraph but after the first RFC ended you added it yet again. But I don't want to dwell on these topics because they belong in the past and rehashing them is not helpful. You keep accusing me of disruptive and tendentious editing without any basis in fact. In fact I have no reason to exhibit this kind of behaviour especially on this article. Because I don't care about the subject at all. There is no reason for me to be editing tendentiously here other than to keep the article free of synthesis. We obviously disagree. But I think it is positive that at least you agreed for a pause in adding the contested paragraph until more editors voice their opinions. So let's wait to see what kind of consensus forms. Also thank you for your nice words regarding my knowledge of the local policies. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But for the record, obviously, I want to state that your statement ...And you misuse your superior knowledge and mastery of Wiki Policies (which mastery I do not possess to the same extent) to achieve your end is obviously untrue, as far as it refers to me, because the only thing I am trying to do here is uphold Wikipedia's policies and make sure article edits conform to our WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP policies. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that you removed my 'good faith' message at your talk page calling it 'hectoring'. While your talk page is your own domain and you have the full right to do so, this again isn't really polite (to use the mild word) from my point of view. thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is polite to enter someone's talkpage with a loud title like "Do not cross the line?" or something along these lines? But like I said let's not dwell on the past. Let's try to build on the more positive trends as enunciated in my edit-conflict reply above. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:OR: it's "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources". I imagine your implication is that Edamaruku is using the wrong footage (rather than intentionally showing the 2003 footage to illustrate some point), and that this undermines his whole argument. But if we don't have a source that has already interpreted the context of the 2003 caption, we shouldn't write about it here. (In the same way, individual editors would not be allowed to drop into the article and point out obvious fallacies in Prahlad Jani's claim to exist without food or water; they would have to cite reliable sources which had already pointed out those fallacies.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, your comments should take some pressure off from this new round of edit-warring, (although you never know), so they are particularly well-timed and welcome. Of course, as usual, I agree with your well taken analysis McGeddon. As you see things have been busy here in this latest (and seemingly unending) round of synthesis-related incidents. Although I have to admit it started much earlier than I had expected. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are also welcome to comment on my second report in almost six weeks on WP:ORN at Wikipedia:ORN#Prahlad_Jani_redux, as is Nazar, of course. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The portion or article in question is just a necessary dating of the referenced material and identification of the language used in subtitles (we don't interpret any context). If we leave out this information, we impair the completeness of rendering. It's up to the readers to decide the implications of the information, but we should not mislead them by providing only selective statements, while omitting other facts. Such an approach (which is advocated by McGeddon and Dr.K.) is obviously tendentious and advances a synthesis. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You may want to repeat your latest comment here. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit tired and bored guys by your endless stubbornness in this obvious situation. You are welcome to repeat and report it wherever you like, but it doesn't really seem any serious person would be interested in this lengthy and rather pointless argument. In my opinion it's clear to a child that the dating of the material is vital to encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC The dating of the material is important for this topic, but if it has not been featured in a reliable source it is not encyclopedic. Aside, this dispute is between two editors and is a better fit for third opinion. MiRroar (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Defamation of various entities through biased rendering

I'd like to point out that the current tendentious and biased rendering of the 2010 criticism section of the article discredits the Government of Gujarat, India's governmental agencies (like DRDO and DIPAS), officially accredited medical institutions (like Sterling Hospital) and individual researchers involved into the tests (like Dr. Sudhir Shar, Dr. G. Ilavazahagan, Prof. Anil Gupta (SRISTI), Mr. Rajiv Sharma (CEO Sterling Hospital)), some of them of international renown, as well as many others, not to mention Prahlad Jani himself. The edit-warring and disruptive editing to advance selective fragments of the material, while leaving out the others, which had been carried out by users Dr.K. and McGeddon, is based on misinterpretation of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis policies and severely damages the WP:NPOV principle, which is the second of the pillars of Wikipedia.

I'd also point out that the “India TV” channel, the clips from which had been misused by Sanal Edamaruku to produce the deceptive video in question, has removed any news references and footage fragments related to the talk shows and interviews featuring Sanal Edamaruku from his official site. I'll not engage into the edit-war with the mentioned disruptive users and wait for more official updates, which are pending. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also note, that accordingly to WP:BLPSTYLE, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.", and "Criticism and praise should be included... , so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.", and "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content". Without the proper information about the dating and other failures of the video, Edamaruku's criticism is a 'malicious content' taking advantage of a confidence trick to mislead the readers. By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether it is WP:OR to point out mistakes in a video that's mentioned in a source has been discussed over at Wikipedia:ORN#Prahlad_Jani_redux. Consensus seemed fairly clear that it was WP:OR, and you said "Regarding the removal of allegedly OR-influenced information, let's leave it be." - if you've changed your mind about that, it would be more useful to restart the thread over at WP:ORN, than to re-raise it here in slightly different terms.

Edamaruku's Guardian article meets WP:RS, even if you think you can nitpick some tangential aspects of it, and the tone of its presentation seems fine, all of it being cited as Edamaruku's opinion. There is no BLP issue here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there is any such tendentious rendering in the current version of the article. The institutions are not mentioned alongside the criticism's made by Sanal Edamaruku. He is a person who has criticised the events that took place. Stating that this person attempted to discredit the findings does not voilate WP:BLPSTYLE in any way. Quoth 31 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User Johnuniq said it best at WP:ORN:

A kind of inverse WP:REDFLAG applies: commonsense tells us that a gigantic con is being staged, and that the tests conducted by 35 doctors and researchers which confirmed the subject's powers are bogus (the subject claims to have lived without food or water since 1940). Anyone wanting to demonstrate flaws in a criticism of the test is going to need good reliable sources. The issue is quite simple: for unexplained reasons, various people in India claim that a person has not eaten or drank since 1940; an article in the Guardian contains an opposing view. A very reliable source is required for any text in the article which supports the concept that is is possible to live for many years without food or water, or which counters claims made in the Guardian.

I agree with user Johnuniq that WP:REDFLAG applies here. The claims being made are immense and pseudoscientific. The DIPAS findings have not been published in any scientific journals therefore they are not reliable, in fact, due to WP:REDFLAG they are not fit for use in the article. McGeddon's recent edits are great and professional. Edamaruku also points out that the DIPAS results have not been published, since 2003, in any scientific journal. I think we can include this criticism into the article as well. Edamaruku also mentions that religious beliefs may play a role in the affair. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the section title is improper per WP:NLT, No Legal Threats anywhere in Wikipedia. I suggest it be changed voluntarily. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact with the undue prominence WP:UNDUE given to these DIPAS experiments this whole article looks like a DIPAS new agency clearing house. Hardly what an encyclopedic article should be. Wikipedia cannot and should not be used as the News agency of any state organisation, especially under WP:REDFLAG conditions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And I quote from Nazar's posting above: By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. Nazar, this is a nasty personal attack. Please retract it. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't have the head now to go in depth into this. No legal threats and no personal attacks implied. Sorry if you perceived any. I'll maybe try and come back later to this issue, once new referenced material is available. Let's say it's Edamaruku who discredits, not you, because you really should have the right to include information from Guardian, while removing one from youtube, accordingly to the Wiki policies (though this does not seem very fair). Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the ORN dispute. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood parameters show signs of dehydratation during 2003 examinations

Some blood parameters during his 2003 tests are published here: [1] [2] (source: [3]) , they show signs of dehydratation. 87.122.68.255 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting; that comes from an EsoWatch article which might be suitable for use here because, per WP:PARITY, we do not need highly reliable sources to refute fringe views. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true. MiRroar (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Check the discussion here. ESOwatch is not a reliable source, as it appears. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion there appears to be you alone dismissing the article because you say they used the wrong word for Jani's religion. I don't see a problem with using Esowatch's commentary on Shah's published data, per WP:PARITY, so long as we mention the source of this analysis. --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some would call that consensus. MiRroar (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. No problem with that. -- Nazar (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But I've asked on RSN about it, just to be sure. -- Nazar (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

The discussion reminds me why I do not like responding to Requests for Comment. There is one editor who disputes the POV of the article. There has been no discussion of the dispute for two weeks. The tag on the article is not useful any more. MiRroar (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Great editing, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, great edits, indeed. Thanks for the cleanup. I've amended the rendering a bit to add to the neutrality and informative value. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Minor additional amendments were made to improve NPOV and avoid synthesis. MiRroar (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Great job. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the recent edits of MiRroar have been just removing referenced information, pertinent to the article subject (actually much more pertinent than all the criticism included). Restoring it now. If MiRroar or others want it removed, please discuss before. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss and give your reasons for restoring your edits before you restore them. MiRroar has done an excellent job and explained clearly his edits in the edit summaries. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Give me a few minutes. I'll provide reasons against each of his arguments. -- Nazar (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you go:

1. "Not a credible source for the official position of Indian government agencies" -- the ref is from the source directly involved into testing and mentioned in each official report as well as press. but, if that makes you more happy, I've added another ref directly from DIPAS. -- Nazar (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
2. "ESOWatch is as reliable source as is needed to debunk implausibilities" -- I don't think so, because it's an "an open wiki with seven users and 21 articles" (this is a quote from McGeddon), but I'm an inclusionist by my philosophy, so I don't mind, you can include that one too. -- Nazar (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
3. "Sudhir Shah is cited most often. The rest is not encyclopedic" -- this is nonsense. There are prominent people involved, especially for the 2010 tests. Why should we not allow their names to be mentioned here, if they are mentioned in all official sources as well as press? -- Nazar (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
4. "Source does not enhance article. Consult WP:PEACOCK" -- nothing of a peacock here. just official information about CV of a leader of the research team. no attributes or words like " legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding etc." are used. -- Nazar (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
5. "Previous edit summary applies. Are any hospitals not accredited? What purpose does the statement have other than to imply the results are valid?" -- there are hospitals of different level of accreditation. The accreditation label applies to the laboratories used for testing as well. This indicates a certain standard of the tests conducted. Why should we remove this information referenced from an official source, if not for censorship aimed at advancing a skeptical view of the case? -- Nazar (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
6. "Dubious source removed. The source does not confirm government agency approval of videotapes. It is an unsigned anon. authored document hosted on a government website" -- governmental web-sites do not host documents without a reason. the link to that document from the home page of the web-site attributes it to the DIPAS. Should I use direct citation to remove your doubts about approval of the tests (it has been suggested previously that we use WP:SUMMARY)? -- Nazar (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My replies:

1. "Not a credible source for the official position of Indian government agencies" -- the ref is from the source directly involved into testing and mentioned in each official report as well as press. but, if that makes you more happy, I've added another ref directly from DIPAS. OK. I agree
2. "ESOWatch is as reliable source as is needed to debunk implausibilities" -- I don't think so, because it's an "an open wiki with seven users and 21 articles" (this is a quote from McGeddon), but I'm an inclusionist by my philosophy, so I don't mind, you can include that one too. OK. I agree
3. "Sudhir Shah is cited most often. The rest is not encyclopedic" -- this is nonsense. There are prominent people involved, especially for the 2010 tests. Why should we not allow their names to be mentioned here, if they are mentioned in all official sources as well as press? Not necessary. Too much info.
4. "Source does not enhance article. Consult WP:PEACOCK" -- nothing of a peacock here. just official information about CV of a leader of the research team. no attributes or words like " legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding etc." are used. I disagree. It is synthesis
5. "Previous edit summary applies. Are any hospitals not accredited? What purpose does the statement have other than to imply the results are valid?" -- there are hospitals of different level of accreditation. The accreditation label applies to the laboratories used for testing as well. This indicates a certain standard of the tests conducted. Why should we remove this information referenced from an official source, if not for censorship aimed at advancing a skeptical view of the case? I disagree. It is synthesis
6. "Dubious source removed. The source does not confirm government agency approval of videotapes. It is an unsigned anon. authored document hosted on a government website" -- governmental web-sited do not host documents without a reason. the link to that document from the home page of the web-site attributes it to the DIPAS. Should I use direct citation to remove your doubts about approval of the tests (it has been suggested previously that we use WP:SUMMARY)? I have to study this further. I don't have the time now Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

About alleged synthesis issues. If you perceive synthesis, don't remove the referenced info -- remove the synthesis itself (though I doubt that you can really find lots of it here). Any reader wants to know what kind of hospital and laboratory has been used for the tests. This is an official info, can't remove it. Also, if we speak about Shah, we are obliged to mention others, because Shah is not the chief investigator of 2010 tests. What more? Peacock? This is just A BIG NONSENSE. Check the peacock policy first. There's nothing of the like here. -- Nazar (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are, again, on the attack. Your insulting edit summary accuses me of vandalism even though, ironically these were not my edits. I simply restored the edits of MiRroar. You have again disregarded WP:CIVIL by calling your fellow editors vandals and not adhering to WP:AGF. I have no time for such nonsense. I simply hope some admin at ANI sees your insults and takes action. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope for the same very much, only in relation to your continuous aggressive persecution directed at me. This has really become a nuisance. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you think that your edit summary: (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) is ok? And you call my reporting of your aggressive accusation of vandalism an "aggressive persecution" on my part? I think you don't make any sense at all. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop duplicating your personal accusations on multiple discussions. This is forum shopping. -- Nazar (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying to multiple threads to your personal accusations has nothing to do with forum shopping. Read more carefully the forum shopping policy instead of accusing me baselessly. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Forum shopping means repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums until you get a result you like. This is generally considered disruptive" -- this is just what you're doing. And now I want to go sleep. CYA -- Nazar (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the talkpage of an article. You don't get results here. There is nothing to shop for here. ANI is where the action is if you want to report someone. Now if I raised the same subject on WP:AN and WP:ANI that would be forum shopping. I simply wanted to keep the thread here complete and that is why I replied to your comments again. I have the right to do so as long as you have outstanding comments here. Giving you a reply is my basic right, not forum shopping. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation

Here you go: "The investigators intend to carry on dialogue by periodic meeting among themselves with data processing as and when the data come through, to come out with some scientific conclusions which will take some time. The publication of the study in a scientific journal can only be considered thereafter at the discretion of principal investigator." -- Nazar (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing mentioned here. And the citation is not only for me. McGeddon and MiRroar have told you the same thing. Stop personalising this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You read the wrong document. Someone has messed up the links in the process of congregating them. Consult the second link please. -- Nazar (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clause (5) for your convenience. -- Nazar (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminders

Wikipedia articles require independent sources. Exceptional claims cannot be attributed entirely or mostly to primary sources like Sudhir Shah's website or an unsigned document with no header on an Indian defense website. This goes for claims about being able to live for years without food and water and claims that the Indian government reviews and endorses a scientist's findings. If statements from personal websites are going to stay in this article, there is no reason to exclude ESOWatch. If ESOWatch is excluded, so should the primary sources from Shah and others.

Sources must pertain directly to the article. A CV of someone who commented on the topic and a website describing an accrediting board are irrelevant. Relevant would be a newspaper article saying "these results are especially noteworthy because this hospital is accredited by ABC. "

Words to avoid like "claims" can still be used sometimes, but not to describe the statements of a group that criticizes a finding that a biological organism does not need food or water.

I hope Nazar will make the edits I am suggesting so clashes can be avoided. MiRroar (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I notice that http://sudhirneuro.org is the source of many references, and that is not a reliable source in WP terms. Neither is the Rationalists website, nor the skeptic's dictionary (which is the personal website of a man named Carrol). MiRoar is correct in noting that sources need to pertain to the subject of the article. As it stands, about half of the article is a violation of either OR or RS. We need to clean this one up, my feeling is we are best off trimming it way down as a first step to only those sources which are clearly reliable in the WP sense, eg. newspaper and magazine articles. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with all the comments above. Great ideas. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good step forward. There's a lot of WP:SELFPUBLISH here (more than I realised), and "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, obviously, and thank you for this commonsense. My todo list includes visiting this article and removing all claims and sources that are not adequate per WP:REDFLAG. The padding in the article regarding the tests needs to be severely trimmed because it is clearly an attempt to bamboozle with scientific mumbo jumbo (as if the descriptions somehow substantiate the claimed ability to live without ever eating or drinking). Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The padding is real. The minutest of details out of these medical reports and the medical jargon are used to lend credence and respectability to the primary sources as some kind of testament to their competence and medical expertise. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ummm. guys, I agree that many sources in the article do not meet the criteria for the best quality academic sources. however, I'm reluctant to engage into further trimming of the material, as the current state of the article provides a good overview of the subject based on the available secondary sources. You can ask about http://sudhirneuro.org on RSN, but I think it's an acceptable source as long as you use all the press references. this article is a biography. Sterling Hospital, Sudhir Shah and DRDO are the investigators and commentators about the claims of PJ, so they probably are OK. Moreover, they are independent entities commenting on each other's findings... as to the minor details about medical tests, accreditation of the hospital and the CVs of the chief investigators -- yes, they do subjectively add to the credibility of the tests, but they are useful information directly related to the subject of the article. if you want to cut it off, then it's your own attempt to discredit and decrease the value of the tests by censoring and hiding pertinent information. I'm also a bit tired of the edit war going on here, as the intention of the above editors is clearly to debunk the claims of PJ and invalidate the test results, which is not supposed to be the purpose of an encyclopedia article. we are to provide a possibly full and neutral overview of the available information... ESOWatch's quality is much lower than all the other sources. therefore it fails. though personally I do not mind its inclusion (I just asked about it on RSN to be sure and have some backup from community against your aggressive edit warring style). If you build a consensus to include a neutral description of Edamaruku's deceptive and manipulated video (or at least a citation of the subtitles used in it), I'll not try to remove the ESOWatch reference as well. That is what the WP:PARITY is about in my understanding. The current references do meet the parity principle as they are, and Sudhir Shah's site and DRDO are the most reliable of them, though they obviously aren't the best quality refs. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

on the second thought, it may actually be the case that Shah's site fails the criteria of inclusion into the Wikipedia. See http://sudhirneuro.org/about_us.php for more detail about the site publishers. My own knowledge of the subtle details of Wiki Policies is, however, not sufficient to conclusively comment on that, and the other editors in this discussion seem to have serious POV issues about the case. Therefore, I'd kindly request to consult the appropriate noticeboard for neutral judgment, in case a decision is made to try and remove the material from the Shah's site. Please note, the material in question does not directly comment on Jani's life or any of his claims. It is about the independent tests, of which Shah was one of participants and principal investigators. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to bring up a source at WP:RSN, by all means do so. My position is that sudhirneuro.org, ESOWatch, Skepdic.com and rationalistsinternational.com all fail to meet the critera for reliable sources, as there is no editorial oversight as far as I have been able to determine, and they appear to be more personal web sites than anything else. As noted, this is a BLP, and thus requires additional stringency. The claims made by PJ are exceptional, and thus also require stringent sources. We have sufficient material available from the press to make a good article.

Also, please, everyone maintain civility as we move through discussion, and comment on content, not the contributor. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've asked on RSN. Please join and comment with your opinions. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how do you feel about making a separate article about the tests themselves, as this seems to be quite a different and sizable layer of information than the general info about PJ, his claims, his life and spiritual practice. The researchers have tried to disassociate from the religious and personal issues in their work and focus strictly on the testing. -- Nazar (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see no reason, given the terrible quality of sources used here, to do any such fork. If this article was cleaned and eventually reached a state where a separate article was required, maybe - at the moment, no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's one more detail. The press release we speak about is actually signed by the Director of DIPAS. I think that removes any issues about Dr. Shah and whether or not we can use his comments in the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. First of all, that document is a pdf and bears no signature. We cannot verify it's origin, and I think it is clear from the RSN that [4] is not a reliable source. I also find it curious that the DIPAS director would thank himself in such a document: "We sincerely thank DIPAS director Dr. G. Ilavazhagan...", and that the doc is not better proofed. Also, from what I've read DIPAS seems somewhat analogous to the US's DARPA, and if that is correct, the fact that DIPAS endorsed something does not mean it has scientific weight. Certainly, DARPA funds research, but it is the scientific community, not DARPA, that assess the work and results as science. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

scientists who worked day and night with strict monitoring of protocol

"I also find it curious that the DIPAS director would thank himself in such a document" -- umm. that is a document on behalf of the whole research team, therefore they thank him too. I don't try to say that the tests discussed have worldwide accepted 'scientific weight' at this moment. They may or may not gain such weight in future. So far, however, all the refs we are dealing with (including the press and skeptics) are of no such firmly established 'scientific weight'. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But whatever :) haha. if Shah's site is so dubious for you, what do you say about the official press release from Sterling Hospital -- http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/newsevents_details.php?NEID=20 It has got all the info needed and more ;) -- Nazar (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you want this press release directly from press, you'll easily find many published sources where it has appeared. http://deshgujarat.com/2010/05/06/15-day-test-on-gujarats-miracle-yogi-concludes-researchers-amazed/ is just one of them ;) -- Nazar (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of self-published sources

Almost every editor commenting on this questioned the overuse of self-published sources and many recommended removal, the best solution to resolve the argument about Sudhir Shah's personal website and ESOwatch and others that are also relatively unreliable but have a more mainstream position. The self-published sources have now been removed. MiRroar (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Jani was born with the name "Mataji" but the article also says he is called Mataji because he is seen as a manifestation of the Great Mother. Is there an explanation, or is this a discrepancy we will need to resolve? MiRroar (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Austrian documentary

I have removed an edit by Jumbo108 which added (diff):

In 2010 Prahlad Jani is featured in an austrian documentary film In the beginning there was light.

The external link should not be within the article (see WP:MOS#External links), and it does not seem suitable as a reference. The video at the link is just a brief promo of a documentary and does not contain any solid information. Material added to the article should contain some encyclopedic information as we are not a directory listing all mentions of the subject of an article. Possibly if more information from the documentary becomes available, a brief summary could appear in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted a bunch of edits by Nazar, I note that some of the sources they added are not reliable (such as an embedded youtube video of a discovery piece that is a likely copyright violation) and removed some reliable sources. We need to talk about these. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about http://wn.com/The_Buddha_Boy? I removed that one. Sorry, did not notice it was embedded youtube. The rest are citations from official refs which were removed in the process of removing sudhirneuro.org refs. I updated them to exclude these refs. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you appear to have reverted all of User:MiRroar's work on cleaning up inadequately-sourced material in this article, under the misleading edit summaries of "restore official press release info" and "update refs". Comparing the sum of your edits to the pre-MiRroar version of the article, you seem to have basically reverted it to your preferred version, with the same references now hosted on sterlinghospitals.com instead of sudhirneuro.org. Are you arguing that by hosting these same PDFs on sterlinghospitals.com, they now meet WP:RS requirements? --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These are the press release PDFs published by the team of researchers involved into the latest 2010 tests. They had been officially published by Sterling Hospitals, and then used as a source for the single PDF version, published by Dr. Sudhir Shah on his official site. Since we came to the conclusion that sudhirneuro.org is not a Reliable Source, as well as Skeptics Dictionary, I had to change the refs to the Sterling Hospitals official site. Are you implying that this site isn't a Reliable Source too? User:MiRroar's work was basically removing of all the material sourced from sudhirneuro.org , while keeping the one from Skepdic. Naturally, I did my best to restore the valuable information after providing new references to the original press release... And I thought we agreed that Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that under the misleading summaries User:MiRroar not only removed all the info from sudhirneuro.org, but also removed referenced information from DIPAS official publications on Prahlad Jani, as well as significantly deteriorated the NPOV of the article. thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'm also concerned that in my absence no one of the vigilant watchers of this article cared to restore the info User:MiRroar destroyed, although it has been clearly stated in multiple places throughout this discussion, that there are other sources to use, if sudhirneuro.org should fail the reliability criteria. No one cared that official info from DIPAS was removed too. This, once again, shows how biased and prejudiced the editors here are, and how much effort they put into pushing their own POV into the article. thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Dr. Sudhir Shah simply made his own PDFs, which were basically constructed through copy and paste from a few official PDF press releases and other sources. Now that we agreed Shah's site is not reliable in context of this article (except for personal info about Dr. Sudhir Shah himself), we just remove the links to these PDFs he constructed and replace the refs with original PDFs. That's all. -- Nazar (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn and McGeddon that the new edits are basically a return to the old version which has been rejected by all the editors here except one. This amounts to a long-term edit-war at a very slow pace. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazar, claiming that other editors are biased and prejudiced could be considered a personal attack, would you consider striking that comment. As for the sources, it appears that you have removed some reliable sources, such as the sydney morning herald, daily mail, and ABC, or pushed them to the bottom of the article. Also, I do not believe use of primary sources from the researchers, whether the hospital or DIPAS, is appropriate, see WP:PSTS. Nor do I believe that http://www.amanfangwardaslicht.at/jani.html, http://www.jasmuheen.com/htm/Pranic-Living.asp, are reliable sources--those particular links seems a bit too much like spam to me, since it appears to promote the documentary. Some of the other edits seem fine to me, my suggestion is that we take things slowly and work through individual sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. We should also pursue an incremental small edit-by-small edit policy from now on due to the dispute. The changes per-edit should be small, not huge and all-encompassing and certainly not consensus-defying. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind going step-by-step. However, User:MiRroar's edits have been devastating and did not follow the consensus reached. He simply removed all the information from the press releases (which were published in multiple other places than Shah's own site). If you want to go step-by-step we should probably start with the reliable version including all the info, and not with the one severely damaged by disruptive editing. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should start from where we are now, since it is a fairly conservative version, and since it appears to be supported by recent consensus. But first, we should determine if all of the references in the current version meet criteria for inclusion as sources. Does anyone have any objections to any of the current sources? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Inedia

We also have similar problems at Inedia. I just reverted to the last stable version. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A small sample of a now reverted edit originally contributed by user Nazar:

And also in 2010 under the lead of Dr. G Ilavazhagan, Director, Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Science (DIPAS) - DRDO, Dr. Sudhir Shah, and a panel of specialists from different medical disciplines which include Dr. Urman Dhruv (Consulting Physician & Diabetologist), Dr. Himanshu Patel (Nephrologist), in collaboration with Prof. Dr. Anil K Gupta from SRISTI and Govt. of Gujarat.

By the time the reader reads all this credential storm advertising the extreme competence of these doctors they would have forgotten about Prahlad Jani himself. We must reach some solution to this credential advertising inside articles. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that Rationalist International and Skeptic's Dictionary are not reliable sources. Why do you keep pushing them back into the articles? -- Nazar (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals

I suggest we consult the RS Noticeboard. If the board says these sources are not reliable too, then you win, and I lose ;) My arguments are: Both DIPAS and Sterling Hospital team were researching and verifying the claims of PJ. So, if the article is about PJ and his claims, then PJ would be a primary source. And the investigators of his claims would be a secondary source. Also, Sterling Hospitals is a large organization, possessing official medical and scientific standard certifications, and who's work is supervised by various entities, including governmental ones. If it publishes something, it must be approved by various supervising bodies. The same goes for DIPAS, which is a governmental organization and a research facility. Its publications are approved by multiple supervisors before they appear on their official site. I think the above logic is clear enough. But if the skeptically minded people here still have doubts, please go for the RS Board conclusion. I'll respect its decision, whatever it would be. Here are the links: http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/ and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DIPAS/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp&labhits=710 . Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe you are interpreting the meaning of primary source correctly in this context. Yes, PJ would be a primary source about himself. But DIPAS and Sterling Hospital and the researchers producing papers about their investigations of PJ are primary sources about their research. Also, normally, Wikipedia hold scientific research to a very high standard, accepting as primary and secondary sources alike only those articles that are published in peer reviewed journals. These pdfs clearly do not meet that standard. So, while I endorse bringing up the question on RSN, reliability is not the only issue here. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This research has not been published in any peer reviewed scientific journals and the papers are also primary sources for the research results that they claim, therefore we should not publish them here. We have to wait for reliable third-party sources to either evaluate this research or report on it for us to include it. Otherwise we are just becoming a publishing house for the Sterling Hospital publications on Jani by simply uncritically parroting whatever results they come up with. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sterling Hospitals are not the primary investigator. DIPAS uses some of their facilities and some of the experts for the research in this case. So, Sterling Hospitals publishing their press release on the case is probably not totally speaking about themselves. Similarly, DIPAS publications are not only about DIPAS themselves. They comment on each other, and Sterling Hospitals at large comments on work done by some of its subdivisions. There are other independent organizations amongst those responsible for the press release information, like SRISTI and Government of Gudjarat. In the same time, I do agree that the available PDFs do not meet the highest criteria of scientifically recognized publications. This should not be the reason for withholding their inclusion into the article, nevertheless. They contain valuable information about the testing environment and other details. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazar, I think you are over complicating the issue. The research was done cooperatively between the hospital and DIPAS, the research team did the work in the hospital, and as far as I can tell, all of the information about the study we're talking about comes from them, and it does not matter whether Sterling Hospital is the primary investigator. I think it is pretty clear that these are primary sources--a secondary source would have to be independent of the research effort. Also, please note that generally speaking press releases are considered primary sources, even if they are reprinted by reliable source, and thus we are to avoid them in the face of any controversy, and we definitely have that here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, well, I'm about to leave the case for the meanwhile. The opposition is too strong, though I do not believe the points you defend increase the informative value and/or neutrality of the article here. But let's wait for the RSN conclusion. The policy says: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". -- Nazar (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You did not quote the entire line, it goes on to say "... but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And, therefore, I did not make any interpretations, and used the sources exclusively for descriptive information about the testing procedures and environment, as well as about involved experts and organizations. No claims about validity of their research results have been made. -- Nazar (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have a valid point if you used a few WP:PRIMARY sources here and there and quoting them sparingly for a few key points. But what you are doing here is quote wholesale from WP:PRIMARY and base whole sections with information coming exclusively from WP:PRIMARY. Not only that, but the information is presented in such a minute detail as to blind the reader with science and personnel credentials based on these primary sources. This is not careful use of WP:PRIMARY. This is exclusive use of WP:PRIMARY to write whole sections of an article based on PRIMARY sources alone to the exclusion of all others. This is a clear case of WP:UNDUE reliance on PRIMARY sources and WP:UNDUE emphasis on scientific results and personnel credentials which makes the article completely unbalanced. In effect Wikipedia has become a means of publication for this original research. But Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and as such, such extensive coverage of this not peer-reviewed research is abuse of Wikipedia. In addition due to the fringe nature and the extraordinary claims of the research and the researchers we should also apply WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. What's worse even the so-called reliable secondary sources mainly consist of newspapers which simply restate these fringe claims based on the same PRIMARY sources. Since newspapers are not peer reviewed scientific publications the net effect here is to lend credence to these extraordinary and fringe views by using newspaper coverage as the backdoor for their publication on Wikipedia. In effect we convert Wikipedia into a tabloid of Fringe science. The net effect of all this is that the reader of Wikipedia is blinded not by Science but by Fringe science. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My dear Dr.K., I'm sorry to say that all of the above argumentation is based on your and few other skeptics great fear to present the facts as they are. If you feel blinded by simple mentioning of the scientific ranks and names of only a few main involved experts and researchers, or by enumeration of the testing procedures and approaches used to examine the issue, then I'm sorry for you. But this is not reason enough to censor a publication of these procedures and names. It is not the task of Wikipedia to present a skeptic point of view about Fringe Theories. A neutral POV is the task. Also, Jani's own claims are fringe, but the research done on him by DIPAS and Sterling Hospital team along with other experts is not fringe. It's just an ongoing research into fringe claims. None of the researches endorsed Jani's religious or other extraordinary claims, moreover, the very press release you are so much afraid of states that the team was not able to come up with any scientific explanation of his survival mechanism. So, the press release basically only tells us who was involved into the study, and which testing procedures had been undertaken, how the monitoring was ensured, and also which processing of the results is planned. It's up to the readers to decide whether to believe the research team or to think that they are cheating the whole world for some reason. But your or anyone else's speculative assumption of cheating on the side of researchers is not reason enough to block the public (including readers of Wikipedia) from knowing their scientific titles and details of the tests they made. Moreover, such blocking is very tendentious and is an attempt to conceal information, such blocking is also unambiguously aimed at creating a biased rendering of the case. Surely, the titles of the doctors and researchers are an additional argument to give more credence to what they say. But, do you believe it is your right to deprive them of that advantage of credential through title? Do you think it is correct to block naming at least a few main honorable and widely recognized people involved? Isn't it a bit too much for a single goal of pushing a skeptic POV about Jani's claims into the article? And do you really think the Wikipedia readers are so dumb that they can not distinguish between a con, a truth and a doubtful fact? I can assure you that those religiously minded and true followers of Jani will not consider your skeptical rendering reliable. And those skeptically minded will not consider all the titles and scientific tests enumerated sufficient to discard their doubts... So, what you basically achieve is: 1) a poor informative value of the article and 2) a tendentious and overly skeptic rendering of the case, which makes Wikipedia ridiculous in the eyes of those who do not share your skepticism, or at least have reasonable doubts about the case, which may be partially, if not wholly true. -- Nazar (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider your comment:If you feel blinded by simple mentioning of the scientific ranks and names of only a few main involved experts and researchers, or by enumeration of the testing procedures and approaches used to examine the issue, then I'm sorry for you. to be a personal attack. I will not converse with you as long as you continue your long pattern of personal attacks against me. I will simply remind you that my ideas are shared by the other editors as well. So you cannot implement your changes as long as you don't have consensus to do so. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dr.K., no personal offense is implied above. Please accept my apologies for not being delicate enough. I'd suggest you take it a bit easier too. I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Wikipedia, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

For your personal information, I'm a serious Yoga practitioner (but not a follower of Jani or of any other religious movement or sect) for nearly 20 years and have tried fasting without any water and food multiple times. I've undergone such fasting many times for the period of 4 days without any significant problems. 3 of which days were normal active days (maybe without strenuous physical exercise) and the 4th day is a quiet meditative day. After that I need about 1 to 1.5 days to return to normal food consuming schedule. This kind of fasting does not even require me to suspend my usual active work. I did not try longer fasting without water, just because my feeling is that 4 days is the period which is safe for me and does not make me diverge too far away from my usual schedule. Balance is the essence of yoga, not the extremities... But, my personal evaluation is, if I made it a real goal to achieve, I could relatively easily go for 6-7 days without any water and food in a quiet meditative environment. So, based on that I conclude that 15 days confirmed in testing environment isn't really that much far from what my personal experience tells me, especially for an accomplished yogi who's been practicing this for 70 years... Again, I can not say for or against his claims of going without water and food for 70 years -- this is extreme indeed... And I know there's a lot of fraud and exaggeration in India, related to extraordinary spiritual claims. I myself discovered really A LOT of fraud (actually it's usually more like skillfully rendered half-truth) while exploring different spiritual paths and teachings. But who knows, nature is mysterious... There are always those 'special cases'... Hope this personal info is OK for a discussion page, so you can better understand my personal position and motivation. I just don't want the article to block neutral information, which is valuable for evaluation of the case... The rendering you're so vigorously fighting for represents only a very skeptic view of the case. A view of those who got none or very little understanding of yoga and similarly little or no personal experience of fasting... I mean professional spiritual fasting, practiced as a gradually mastered through years of exercise technique, and not a spontaneous fasting undergone by occasional victims of calamities or similar cases... There's a lot of difference between these two... -- Nazar (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's the whole point: the article is about a claim that a person has not eaten or drank for 70 years. Of course it is possible to fast for 15 days, and the "investigation" of Jani which avoids engaging with the claims is nonsense. The investigation would be plausible if its proponents started their report with the obvious fact (see WP:REDFLAG) that the claims about Jani not eating for many weeks are false, but then go to say that however Jani has eaten very little for long periods, and there may be some interest in investigating a person under those conditions. Pointing out that the long-term fasting claims are nonsense is not "a very skeptic view" – Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the science regarding how a body sustains itself is well known; even the act of sitting upright in meditation consumes significant energy – energy that no reliable source claims comes from a goddess. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"the article is about a claim that a person has not eaten or drank for 70 years" - that's not true. The article is about a person who claims so, as well as about other facts from his life and investigations about his claims. "started their report with the obvious fact (see WP:REDFLAG) that the claims about Jani not eating for many weeks are false" - why should they start it this way, if they got no proofs for that? there's also a religious and social aspect of the case. It's usually very difficult to get such 'special' people cooperative for the testing. They don't really care what scientists and skeptics think about them. They don't really need to prove anything to you or anyone else. They have their God worship, their own meditation, lots of inner happiness, and often many dedicated followers as well. If the researchers start off with accusing them of false claims or making other derogatory and offensive statements similar to Edamaruku's, they'll get no one cooperative. Moreover, they'll inflict a lot of negativity from the side of the followers. So, if they want to test Jani, they have to at least assume the possibility of his claims being partially or wholly true, and they have to show enough respect both to his claims and his religious views. Please also note that if we speak about Sudhir Shah, who was actively involved into both testings (2003 and 2010), then he officially declares himself as an ardent follower of a completely different religious tradition (Jainism) from that of Jani (Divine Mother cult of Hinduism). -- Nazar (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead states clearly what the article is about: the subject claims to have not eaten for 70 years. Then (paraphrasing Dr.K.), some versions of the article have used minute details to blind the reader with science, with personnel credentials from primary sources to give credibility to investigations that "support and endorse Jani's claims". Phrasing the article in that manner is to use Wikipedia for the promotion of fringe nonsense, relying on the fact that no reliable source would bother to refute the claim that a person has lived without eating or drinking for years. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Based on the results of RSN at that point I've decided to give up on DIPAS and Sterling Hospital links. One could still improve the article with a few useful informative passages from these sources (as from primary sources), maybe with a bit less detail. Much of the information from these press releases is also included into various secondary articles that appeared in the news internationally. But I'll not engage into expanding the article with these refs in the nearest future, as the environment here at this moment is just too aggressive to do it constructively. You have green light from me to change the article as you prefer. Thanks for the fun so far :) -- Nazar (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that by saying But I'll not engage into expanding the article with these refs in the nearest future,... above, does not mean that you will start reverting some time in the not-so-near future against established consensus. If in the future (nearest, near, or far as the case may be) you wish to make changes based on these self-published primary sources it would be best IMO to seek consensus first, before starting another round of reverting. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The info I tried to include from these sources is almost fully available from various alternative press sources, as direct interviews with involved persons or as review from reporters on the case. The number of such interviews and other sources will doubtlessly grow with time. So, there's really no need to use the particular sources you fight against so much. But, at this moment my feeling is that the majority of active skeptics here just don't want a neutral article about the subject, and I feel I've really done my best for Wikipedia. Maybe I should give you some more time to evaluate the case and understand that your position is biased, so I don't have to fight an epic battle for each small info I include. Or maybe life will bring about more info on the case. In either case, my feeling is that you don't deserve more of my time and attention here for now. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to make a very fine point out of it, but the press echoing these self-published results by the hospitals, especially since the press is not qualified scientifically to evaluate said research, only act as echo chambers at best and cheerleaders at worst for these extraordinary claims. Let's not forget that the press likes sensationalism because it sells newspapers. Until such time as this research gets peer reviewed, the inclusion of these non peer-reviewed claims into the article will be problematic and must be handled with the utmost care. We should avoid extensive coverage of REDFLAG science by newspaper reporting. To do otherwise would be to legitimise these non-peer reviewed claims by using the press as backdoor science reviewers. Let's leave miracle-reporting to the tabloids. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's really funny. lol. because the same unreliable and scientifically unqualified press was good enough for you to cherry-pick the statements for synthesizing a skeptic view of the case in the current version of the article... -- Nazar (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)