Talk:Prahlad Jani/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fixes

@"to give credibility to investigations that "support and endorse Jani's claims"" by Johnuniq -- this 'support and endorse' statement was inserted by one of you guys. I think it was MiRroar who did it. I'm removing it now, because none of the researchers endorsed any of Jani's claims. Their reports were limited to their observations during the short testing periods and no further conclusions or endorsements were made. Hope this fix is in line with the Wiki Policies. Also fixed the statement which made Sudhir Shah the main responsible person for 2010 tests. It was the DIPAS director, not Shah. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@User:McGeddon: Shah was one of the sub-leaders in 2010, on the level of Sterling Hospital. But DIPAS was the principal investigator, responsible for all the procedures and subsequent processing of test results, as well as making decisions on what and when to publish and release to public press. Your last edits were inaccurate. -- Nazar (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The India Times article describes Shah as "a senior neurophysician who leads the medical team", when writing about the 2010 tests. Is there a source that contradicts that? --McGeddon (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Shah was one of the leaders of the medical team involved into the study, but the study itself was led by DIPAS (see above). There are multiple refs for that in press. It would be nice if you used at least simple Google search before you mess the things up, so I don't have to fix it each time anew. I don't have much time now, but here's the first best random ref: "The study is being led by DIPAS and Defence Research & Development Organization" . -- Nazar (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the DRDO quote "We would like to keep the information confidential for the time being, but we shall share it when the results are established" which was being presented as a response to the fact that the research hadn't been peer reviewed, when it was actually in response to a journalist questioning DRDO while the study was still ongoing. It doesn't seem worth mentioning that DRDO intended to share the information when the study was completed. --McGeddon (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DRDO spokesman said that information may be published "when the results are established". The processing of the data is ongoing, and no results have been established so far, which had been confirmed beyond doubt by latest published press release. It's at least strange to expect a publication of the study results in scientific literature before any scientific conclusions are made and before the processing of collected data is completed. I doubt that any scientific journal would be willing to publish a sensational report about Jani's extraordinary claims with no conclusions or scientific analysis of the collected data. And this analysis isn't available yet. Per my own experience, it usually takes years for such serious publications to be prepared. It has also been categorically stated in the latest press release that any disclosure of the data can only be made at the discretion of the DRDO, which is a confidential military research organization. So, I'd say, if you make use of a skeptics provocative statement about absence of 'scientific publications', you have to balance this with the above neutral and officially released to press info. Otherwise your rendering is nothing but a Synthesis (or was it actually your main goal to produce this kind of SYNTH?) -- Nazar (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no reaction was there, fixed the above. Please discuss here if any objections arise. -- Nazar (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

All we have is a spokesperson saying "We would like to keep the information confidential for the time being, but we shall share it when the results are established" when questioned by a journalist six days into the 2010 test, so we should quote it in that context, if at all. It's misleading to present it as a rebuttal to Edamaruku's observation that Shah's work has never been peer-reviewed. --McGeddon (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to use it as a rebuttal. It's just an official position of the research team, which has been publicly announced. Also, it's not clear if Edamaruku's info is correct at all. How does he know that none of the researchers contacted any alternative scientific organization, or tried to present some information to scientific publications? Is he an official spokesman for all the scientific publications worldwide? Has he checked the progress since May 2010? -- Nazar (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing it as "no results were published to any scientific journals, while the research was announced confidential" implies that the announcement has something to do with publication in scientific journals. Splitting it into two sentences and giving some context is clearer.

Edamaruku's research was published in a national newspaper, and it doesn't seem to be a controversial claim. If you can show that Shah has disputed it, though, we can look around for stronger or more recent sources. --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind splitting it in two sentences. It wasn't me who was so pushy to include into the article that there were no "scientific publications". But since the skeptics insist on including this "no scientific publications" comment, I try and respect that wish and preserve that info... -- Nazar (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Synth

I removed the references to amrita from the Early life section, the two sources cited do not use the term, so it's use here would constitute OR. I also altered some of the wording to avoid a close paraphrase of the source. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job to both of you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that this can be called a 'good job'. Again, I don't have the time now for more research, but amrita is usually an invisible energy substance, so saying that "the goddess provides him a liquid sustenance or water", as the article goes now, seems a bit ridiculous for me to say the least. Gods do not consume water or liquids. They live on energy flows. -- Nazar (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The actual physical liquid substances used in various ceremonies and called amrita are called this way to express the underlying energy meaning of these liquid substances and drinks. They are 'blessed' by Gods or otherwise, and carry the respective holy energy. They can be also 'infused' with some divine qualities, but their origin is material. I find it highly unlikely that Amba would provide Jani with some physical liquid -- that isn't how meditation, yoga and contact with deities functions -- it's an energy exchange phenomenon in first place... This supposed liquid could also be chemically analyzed and included into the study description in the case of its physical existence, which apparently did not happen. -- Nazar (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazar, all of this may be true, but the two sources cited for the section in question do not mention amrita. One says water, the other an elixer. We do not rely upon what we know, but rather what the sources say. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. WP:V and WP:RS are paramount. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually none of the sources we're currently using appear to use the term "amrita". We shouldn't second-guess what Jani might have said before it was translated and summarised by a journalist. If it's as obvious as Nazar thinks, it shouldn't be too hard to find a source that supports it - I'm not seeing anything in Google News for a search for "prahlad jani amrita", but maybe there's something elsewhere. --McGeddon (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find good refs for amrita in the first best dozen of Google results. It seems this amrita connection was first used by BBC in their documentary about Jani, but there are no good text refs for that which I could find in a few seconds. It wasn't me who inserted that amrita statement too, but I'd suggest you use the words "elixir" and "nectar" and not "water" at least, because using the word "water" in this context is utterly ridiculous. -- Nazar (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a direct citation from the ref "Mr Jani believes that the goddess has sustained him ever since by feeding him with a lifegiving, invisible ‘elixir’", so I really don't see why you changed it to "water"? -- Nazar (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that direct citation was used just about word for word, without quotes, which is a possible copyright violation, so I altered the word. "water" is sourced to the BBC article, which contains "Drops of water filter through this hole, he says, sustaining him." Nectar is not acceptable, unless you have a source for that. Also, I'm not concerned with who introduced amrita, just in improving the accuracy of the artlcle.--Nuujinn (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"improving the accuracy of the artlcle" - lol. well, I just leave it for the meanwhile. It's a big mess anyway. You refused to use about the only reliable refs, which were DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals press releases. The rest is dripping with sensationalism and the usual journalistic distortions. So, no hope for it... ;) -- Nazar (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that trying to edit an article on this topic while remaining within the limits imposed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines might be considered difficult, but that's what we have to do. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

""water" is sourced to the BBC article" -- Yes. It says "water" indeed. Finally, I'm not Jani, and my understanding is very limited. Maybe he's that special to receive physical water directly from Amba. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Further fixes

In latest edits summary Dr.K. says: "DIPAS methodology is irrelevant. We also don't comment on things that did not happen." May I ask why should the methodology be irrelevant, if we have a section about the tests? And what is meant by "things that did not happen"? The press releases did happen, and they did provide certain information about the testing, which did happen. If any issues arise, please kindly discuss on the talk page before removing info. -- Nazar (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume Dr.K. is referring to "Latest press releases by DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals did not provide any scientific conclusions on the survival mechanism, neither results of analysis of collected data." - unless the press release actually says "this contains no scientific conclusions", it's WP:OR for us to start listing things which we, the editors, may have expected to see written there. We should just quote anything relevant, as clearly as possible, and let the reader draw their own conclusions about any deficiencies. --McGeddon (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I absolutely agree with McGeddon. :Your edit was: Latest press releases by DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals did not provide any scientific conclusions on the survival mechanism, neither results of analysis of collected data. They, however, enumerated the tests and procedures used to collect data during the testing period and described planned approaches to analysis and subsequent processing of the data. From which Latest press releases by DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals did not provide any scientific conclusions on the survival mechanism, neither results of analysis of collected data. is pure SYNTH because you make an analysis of the press results. Further if something is not provided we do not mention it. If they did not reach any conclusions it is not up to us to analyse them and report that they did not reach conclusions. This is SYNTH and it bloats the article with non-facts. Next They, however, enumerated the tests and procedures used to collect data during the testing period and described planned approaches to analysis and subsequent processing of the data is also SYNTH because you perform analysis of the methodology on your own. Also to "enumerate the tests and procedures... etc. etc." is just more bloat because this is not a lab report. This is an encyclopedic article. We do not have to put so much detail which actually reveals nothing of importance and bloats the article. --Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam link?

Could you please kindly explain this edit done by you, and why you tagged the official press release of principal investigator of the case as "spam"? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's a press release, thus self published and promotional in nature. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, article-relevant press releases are not considered "spam" in Wikipedia. I remember we've had a dispute a few months ago about usage of the press releases as sources for particular technical details of the procedures implemented during testing, and my opponents argued that these are the primary sources and their level of detail is not relevant to the article... Now, I've reviewed a bit of Wiki Policies, and what I found is that, while primary sources are not to be used as main source of the article text, they are usually quite applicable to provide relevant supplementary details, especially when backed up by secondary or other third party sources... So, what we have here is:

• an official press release had been issued on the case by a large governmental research organization with hundreds of distinguished scientists in staff and a multi-million budget (i.e. by DRDO);
• the popular press (secondary sources) are providing a more or less distorted, fragmented, unprofessional and sensational rendering of the original information made available in the press releases; they are also providing comments on that primary official information;
• at the long belabored (sometimes in a rather aggressive manner) requests of the opposing party in previous disputes, the current version of the Wiki article had been constructed not only predominantly, but, moreover, exclusively based on secondary press sources.

Considering the above, this article needs a clear reference point to what is being commented, discusses and reiterated in a sensational manner by all the press referenced, i.e. the original genuine press release. And, considering the disputable nature of the primary/secondary source issue, it's been decided to provide only an external link to that genuine publication, without using it as a direct source for article text.

There had been a press release published -- this is an indisputable fact. It's also highly relevant to the article in question. And for compliance with the requirements of neutrality and preference for the secondary sources, no material from the genuine press release had been used to build the main article text.

I see no more reasons for you to edit war this. Providing an external link to original sources directly relevant to the article is a common practice in Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Small fix to above -- "with hundreds of distinguished scientists in staff and a multi-million budget" -- it's actually over 7.000 scientists (over 30.000 total employees) in staff and a nearly 2 billilon USD annual budget. How can one consider an official press release by organization of this scale a "spam"??? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unfounded personal attacks, I'm not edit warring--you were bold, I reverted, we're discussing the issue. That's how it's supposed to work. This particular press release is in a pretty font, has no signatures or references, nothing on it to indicate who wrote it or released it, so there's no way to gauge how official it is. The web site looks good, but normally, press releases are released to the press, although entities often retain copies for distribution on their own site. Has this been carried by any of the press? As an example, I could put something arbitrary on a major university web site with about the same number of researchers and employees, but that would not make it an official press release.

What the popular press is doing is not at issue unless you can find better secondary sources. A press release is a primary source, with no oversight or peer review. If as you say, "the current version of the Wiki article had been constructed not only predominantly, but, moreover, exclusively based on secondary press sources", my response is that's a good thing and how it should be. So we disagree, let's see what others think. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming your "not edit warring". Please note, I did not state you were "edit warring", just suggested there's no reason to do this. Please take no offense. Although, in spite of the agreeably baseless and personally offensive nature of such accusations, I seem to remember very clearly some of the opponents here to accuse me of "long-term edit warring" on multiple occasions before, including numerable and rather stressful ANI instances... hmmm... Sorry, I just seem to be somewhat influenced by the discussion style of certain "senior" participants here... But let's focus on the topic... So:

" press release is in a pretty font, has no signatures or references, nothing on it to indicate who wrote it or released it, so there's no way to gauge how official it is. The web site looks good, but normally, press releases are released to the press, although entities often retain copies for distribution on their own site."

-- it's published by an Indian research organization, so the code and style of publication may differ from the usual Western procedure (is there such a strict procedure actually?). Obviously, as their official language is Hindi, they not necessarily need to use the font or publishing style of the Western Universities. It's not a referenced peer-reviewed scientific publication, but just a press release. Therefore, it not necessarily needs additional references. It's been linked and officially announced on the official site of the relevant DRDO institute (for the press and other interested parties to further peruse), namely DIPAS. Its primary purpose is not to claim any scientific findings (as none were officially announced so far in this case), but just to present the official statements about the performed activities and position/intentions of DRDO with relationship to the case in question. The level of requirements you're trying to set on that material could hardly be relevant even to the publication about scientific discovery of another Sun in our solar system. Because even to discuss the eventual spiritual or pseudo-scientific scam allegedly performed with help of governmental officials, one needs to first review the relevant facts, and the press release in question is one of those genuine facts, regardless of the true of false nature of the statements presented in it... Summarizing the above, I believe that the information is highly relevant to the article and provides a clear and informative reference to the statements made by large, respectable and publicly responsible organization involved into the issue (regardless of the strict scientific validity or invalidity of these statements). Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It just came to my mind that the "funny looking font" you find suspicious actually reminds the shape of popular Indic scripts, and maybe this is the reason it is preferred by the Indian scientists over the traditional Western fonts. Nazar (talk) 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Below I'm trying to address the remaining doubts expressed above:

• "has no signatures or references, nothing on it to indicate who wrote it or released it" -- informative updates released by large organizations and announced on their official web-sites do not need to be signed by a particular person, or referenced in a particular way; moreover so, when they are being released on behalf of organization or team of researchers at large, rather than on behalf of a particular person;
• "I could put something arbitrary on a major university web site with about the same number of researchers and employees" -- yes, theoretically you could; but, if the document you put there was officially announced on the main web-portal of the respective organization and stayed there for over half a year, that would make it a very worthwhile fact, regardless of who and how had put it there, as well as what is inside the document; there have also been other official announcements of various DRDO representatives, including organization spokesman, regarding the issue in question (and they are available in a fragmented way from a multitude of secondary sources). So, there's no reason to doubt the validity of the Update in question. It is a valuable information source, very well backed up by other sources we have and containing important, relevant information.
• "{using only secondary sources}...that's a good thing and how it should be" -- not necessarily in this case, because, as indicated above, "this article needs a clear reference point to what is being commented, discusses and reiterated in a sensational manner by all the press referenced". There's also hardly any serious prohibition in Wikipedia against using primary sources as external links in order to reliably supplement the information referenced in a fragmented and distorted way from lower quality secondary sources. Even the best amongst Wiki articles do use primary sources in this way.

Thanks. Hope this is enough. Nazar (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The press release contains grammatical errors: This study is being lead by Dr G Ilavazhagan, Director, Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Science (DIPAS) - DRDO,, and uses peacock terms: This study is being lead by Dr G Ilavazhagan, Director, Defence Institute of

Physiology & Allied Science (DIPAS) - DRDO, Dr. Sudhir Shah, eminent Neurologist, and a panel of distinguished specialists from different medical disciplines which include ....The overall tone of the document is to aggrandise the effort of these organisations and given the WP:REDFLAG of the claims we should leave such self-published, badly copy-edited, advertising out of the article. So I agree with Nuujinn that it should be left out. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if one cannot get a press release published by wire services, there's a serious problem, and the fact that it's origin is unclear makes any use of it problematic. Nazar, saying that the secondary sources are not reliable is not a reason for going to primary sources. It is, rather, an argument that the material sourced to those questionable sources should be removed. If you want to pursue that, I'm happy to oblige. A primary source presumably written by the researcher of a study promoting a fringe view is not an appropriate source about which to center this article. Please reread WP:RS in regard to use of primary sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I agree with your points, especially the one about the secondary sources. If the secondary sources are questionable they should be removed and going to primary, self-published sources to compensate for the lack of reliable secondary sources is definitely not the way to go, especially for WP:REDFLAG cases. The gist of the matter is as follows: It really doesn't matter why these investigators do not publish in reliable third party peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. They may not publish because the results are classified or the military vetoes their publication or they may have some other perfectly good reasons for not publishing in reliable third party peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. The fact remains however that until they publish their results in reliable third party peer-reviewed scientific medical journals, they are not going to get any credibility in scientific circles and WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedias and their results are going to be viewed as WP:FRINGE and self-published, never mind how many press-releases they issue praising their organisation and each other. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering... I'm only pointing out that removing the external links and any other references to original press releases (and we've got a few of such releases at this moment) impairs the quality of the article. It is better to have an informative article summarizing the available information rather than have no article and no information, because the sources are allegedly somehow not up to the highest scientific standard. It's not a big problem if the press release has one, or even few grammatical/spelling mistakes (these are Indians writing it, and maybe it's just a typo). And the "aggrandising" style is very typical for Indian culture and relations (read their traditional Epics). I see no problem with that style being used in their Update. We do not build an article based on that text anyway. We just give a link.

"if one cannot get a press release published by wire services..." -- it's actually an informative Update by an organization. I feel they are just not so familiar with the typical Western procedures of issuing international press releases. I think the earlier press release got more press attention...

In any case, if you want to classify it as WP:FRINGE, it's no problem. But, based on what we've got at the moment, the article only benefits from links to the documents released by the team involved into testing. There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia where sources used are only of similar quality. And this is not a problem at all, unless someone tries to make it a problem. I suggest you just be a bit more open and flexible. Articles are made for the convenience of readers...

"the material sourced to those questionable sources should be removed" -- well, if you seriously think this way, then you should probably nominate this article for deletion, because no sources used in it are of that "highest" and impeccable scientific quality you allegedly try and fight for.

Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazar, this is a self-published source by an involved party, with no editorial oversight, being used in a BLP to make an extraordinary claim from a fringe POV. It is not a reliable source, and we should not use it at all. Since we agree that many of the sources are questionable, we can take those to the RSN. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RSN, I don't believe in the neutrality of the community driven mechanisms here when it comes to topics out of the current official mainstream scientific beliefs and ideas, because, in my view, most of the active community here are severely biased towards scientific skepticism. I've had very bad (also emotionally) experience with the last WQA, and don't really trust that community anymore (I used to have more faith and good expectations about Wikipedia before). It now seems more like an intellectual jungle, where brute force is the ruling factor, and predators are the ones who decide... Here's a quote from a famous author: "WIKIPEDIA WARNING -- It's obvious that they don't want to print the truth on Wikipedia. Just stay away from this biased site. Educators won't use it. You shouldn't either.." But I just still feel it's my duty to express the view of the readers who support the efforts of researchers in this case and think that some part of the claims are true. For such a reader (and I'm sure many such readers do refer to this article) it is convenient and practical to have all information in one place. And for them the info you remove is very useful. -- Nazar (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is biased towards what can be verified by reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Anyone wanting to promote fringe views has to do it on another website. Johnuniq (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of information. We can only accommodate scientifically verifiable, peer-reviewed, WP:MAINSTREAM science and not unverified weird WP:FRINGE claims or weird science. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably have to remove one last zero from the 3.5 mil articles here (and shut down every second Wikipedia server as redundant) after that WP:MAINSTREAM policy would be thoroughly applied throughout all articles the way you're doing it for this article... This way you are biased... -- Nazar (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No news for that long?

I checked for fresh PJ news a few times during the last months, but found none. I don't think the fact of absence of such news can be a valid point to mention in the article, but I personally find this kind of silence a bit strange, especially after all the world-wide ballyhoo about the subject. There were no updates on the DIPAS web-site, though the old PDF version of report from 2010 is still there. The absence of any follow-up for that long pushes the scales of my personal evaluation towards a bit more skeptic position. -- Nazar (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

At least I am glad to say that we agree on something. I also hope all is well with you. Best regards. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my old friend is still here. lol. Don't worry, all is well, and you've always done your best -- which was the right thing to do:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” -- Buddha

"Follow your own dharma even unto death; to live another’s dharma culminates in fear.” -- Krishna

"Fight the good fight of the faith" -- Saint Paul, and finally

"Mille viae ducunt homines per saecula Romam"

^ A practical Wiki approach in quotations. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow Nazar. This is an overdose of philosophical and metaphilosophical quotations. And I am not even counting the Latin aphorisms. :) Food for thought. Thank you for your nice comment and I am glad to hear you are well. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)