Talk:Natasha Demkina

/Archive1 Content archived 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference

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

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

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

Fixed and added references

The Skeptical Inquirer reports on Natasha Demkina consisted of 3 parts: two articles published in the May 2005 issue followed by a supplement on the CSMMH-CSICOP test statistics, by Ray Hyman, published online. The reports were meant to go together, so citing only one is inaccurate and misleading.

How about we cite none of them? The Wiki article appears to be more about the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation than it does about Natasha herself. Apparently, some believe the CSICOP/CSMMH material to be inaccurate and misleading, which led to an edit war. I don't think any of us wants that again. Besides, all the added references are to the same website - cicop.org - and the articles all link to each other. If these are there, then they should be counterbalanced with the critiques of the investigation posted on the web. Dreadlocke 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, do you know the difference between publication in a respected science magazine and self-publishing comments on one's own web site? Wiki policy sides with the former and warns against the latter. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." [1]

Because you can't cite what does not exist, you seem to be arguing to remove information solely because some people object to it. If they don't agree with the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test, let them publish their views in a credible publication so that it can be cited here. Instead of doing that, they chose to publish their opinions here in Wikipedia, in clear violation of Wiki policy. [2]

Arguing now for censorship in order to prevent further edit wars is also against Wiki policy.Askolnick 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated version of Dreadlocke's comment:

How about we cite just one of them? All the added references are to the same website - cicop.org - and the articles all link to each other. The Wiki article appears to be more about the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation than it does about Natasha herself. Apparently, some believe the CSICOP/CSMMH material to be inaccurate and misleading, which led to an edit war. I don't think any of us wants that again. If these are there, then I'm sure there will be those that believe they should be counterbalanced with the critiques of the investigation posted on the web. Dreadlocke 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew -- I'm guessing you ran into an edit conflict when you responded above, because your response included an old version of Dreadlocke's comment. Please address edit conflicts in the content before pushing them through; editing other's comments to change the meaning is unacceptable. Please read WP:TP and WP:TPG for relevant policies and guidelines. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every thing you wrote is true, except for one thing: it is not true that CSMMH and CSICOP qualify as third-party publishers. The publications of these organizations might have the title of "journals", but they are nevertheless self-published by the organizations that have designed the experiment. These organizations are not neutral third-parties here. Their publications are not acceptable as sources in the sameway as Brian Josephson's website is not acceptable: they are self-published sources. -Lumière 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, that's nonsense, and I suspect even you know it. Skeptical Inquirer is not "self-published." That's a moronic thing to say. You better reread Wiki policy regarding what are and are not acceptable references. Just where did you come up with the rule that references have to be "neutral third-parties? Haven't you been told repeatedly here and in Transcendental Meditation that YOU can't make up Wiki policy? Stop trying to replace Wiki policy with your own personal agenda. Read Wiki's policy and abide by it. Askolnick 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between a third-party publisher and an (ordinary) publisher is not explicit in the policy. However, I see no way in which the Skeptical Inquirer can be considered as a third-party publisher for the Demkina experiment. Here is a quote from the Skeptical Inquirer website:

"This dynamic magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, tells you what the scientific community knows about claims of the paranormal, as opposed to the sensationalism often presented by the press, television, and movies. "

The Skeptical Inquirer is published by the CSICOP. You represented the CSICOP when you worked on this experiment. The CSICOP was involved in the design the experiment. Therefore, the Skeptical Inquirer was certainly not a third-party publisher. The details do not matter. Every one can see that the CSICOP and the CSMMH are not third-party publishers. -Lumière 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just where to you think you got the authority to declare what everyone can see? Lumiere, you again are making up claims that have little or no bearing on the real world -- nor with Wiki policy. Your redefinition of "self-published" is absurd. By your twisting of that term, it would apply to the New York Times and all other media that ever publish anything about themselves. This of course is nonsense and not the definition of "self-publish."

And your facts are wrong too. I did not and do not represent CSICOP. I have no position with CSICOP or with its magazine Skeptical Inquirer, other than being an occassional author.

You have a disturbing habit of trying to substitute your own agenda for Wiki policies. I'm not the first to object to this habit.Askolnick 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree that references should strive for balance, just as article content should overall. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, if you have any other references that can add balance, from any reputable publication (as opposed to self-published opinions on personal web pages -- which are clearly against Wiki policy) then by all means add them. Askolnick 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not an argument for peppering the references section with one position. I am not entirely familiar with the Wiki policy on how to qualify a reference as reputable, so fill me in. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, the Skeptical Inquirer report of the Natasha Demkina test was divided into three parts - two parts in the magazine and one online supplement. Listing the links to the complete report is not "peppering" the reference section with one position. It's providing Wiki readers with the URLs to the complete report. I'll repeat, because you may have missed this: If you have credible references that provide another point of view, then add them. I think you should familiarize yourself with Wiki's policies regarding the citation of references before debating them further.Askolnick 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious Concerns About Biased References

Hi Keith, and all other editors. I think Skolnick is violating previous agreements between Natasha's "supporters" (me...) and Natasha's "Inquisitors" (He). It is true that references might have some guiding lines and even strict policies in Wikipedia. But what is being forgotten is that these references (that is, the references in the entry Natasha Demkina) are there to avoid the entry title from becoming impeditively huge. One of Wikipedia policies (one of its three-pillars) is "no original research". But what is it? From the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Primary and secondary sources

Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

So, based on the original research (primary and secondary source) done by CSICOP and CSMMH (the test with Natasha and the interpretation of its results by the researchers), some people, like Physicist and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and I (Julio Siqueira, microbiologist), among others, have done source-based research. What we have at Brian Josephson's site and at my site is not original research. Instead, we base ourselves on what is published in reputable publications (i.e. Discovery Channel and Skeptical Inquirer, the latter a Scientific Journal indexed by the prestigious institution ISI).

This material from Josephson and from me is priceless to achieve neutral point of view. There are two ways in which this material can be made available to honest readers: first, include them briefly in the references. Second, cite their reasoning lengthily in the main body of the entry itself. Technically, it is better to do the latter (and that is what I did when I first edited this entry ages ago, after which I got this talk page started for the very first time). But rationally, it is better to place these reasonings from Josephson and from myself (or from anyone else) in the reference section.

So, in order to achieve Wikipedia's goal, I suggest that a link to Josephson's page and to my page be added to the reference section. The links are:

Josephson's critique:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/

My critique, updated: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/natasha_demkina_summary_update.html

I wait for your comments before including these two priceless references myself. Julio Siqueira 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

________________________

What is "priceless" is this lame rationalization for violating Wikipedia's injunction against citing self-published blogs and web-pages. Siqueira, the only way you can get your personal attacks published is to get a free web site from Yahoo to upload your opinions, falsehoods, and misrepresentions. If you could have published these attacks in ANY credible source, you would be able to cite it as a reference permitted by Wiki rules. Posting an insult-filled rant on your own web site is NOT the kind of reference permitted by Wiki rules.Askolnick 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm curious what part(s) of the following Wiki policy do Siqueira, Luminere, and Tyler not understand:

"Personal websites as secondary sources

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. ...

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." Askolnick 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He cannot cite himself in ANY credible source, but only in a reputable third-party source. However, he has a point as far as allowing his direct input in the article to report whatever is supported in reputable third-party sources. Note that even CSICOP and CSMMH do not qualify as third-party publishers, and therefore, normally, there would be nothing for him to report. However, I don't know why, but it seems that we are making exception to the rules here because publishers that are not neutral toward the experiment, such as CSICOP and CSMMH, are used as sources. -Lumière 18:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, please stop trying to substitute your views for Wiki policy. Wiki's policy for citing a reference requires a source to be respected and/or credible. It does NOT require a reference to be neutral on an issue. Once again, you're pulling a bait and switch here with Wiki policies.Askolnick 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Josephson is being cited here as a primary source, not as a secondary source, so it doesn't run afoul of the problems with personal webpages and blogs. JoshuaZ 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Josh, I'm not sure I understand your point. Josephson's web page is not a primary source. His web page is an attack on the test my colleagues and I conducted on Natasha Demkina. It is not a commentary about himself. So it's not a primary source, it's a secondary source. Our articles, about the test we conducted, are primary sources. An article about the test written by anyone not involved with the test would be a secondary source. Any such article published in a reputable publication could be cited as a reference in the Wiki article, according to Wiki policies and guidelines. However, the personal attacks written by Julio Siqueira and Brian Josephson were self-published on their own web pages. They therefore were removed as inappropriate references after the last editing war. It now looks like a second editing war has begun.Askolnick 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I would hope that, as a journalist, you would acquiesce to the importance of balance. So far in this article your only contributions have been to push the materials of CSICOP/CSMMH/SI. (For that matter Julio has done about the same, but has been willing to accept *some* CSICOP material, which is certainly a positive step towards the interest of balance.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As a journalist, I am quite familiar with the flawed principle that every article should be balanced. It's flawed because in journalism, every article should first be fair and accurate. "Balancing" claims means giving them equal weight. But when different claims are not supported by an equal weight of evidence, presenting them as equal violates the journalistic imperatives of being fair and being accurate. Competent and ethical journalists do NOT give 400 words to a story about the oldest Tyranosaurus fossile yet found (just reported last week) and balance it with 400 words from "authorities" who claim these fossiles cannot be more than 120 million years old, because the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

Whatever the definition of "balancing" is, the information contained in the critiques of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation and testing should be made just as available to readers of Wikipedia in the references section of this article so they can make their own judgments - that's fair and balanced. The fossil example quoted above is in parallel to the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation report on their website, and has validity there. However, this Wikipedia article is not that report, it is an article on Natasha Demkina. I believe a more apt comparison would be in an article on a person who is religious and believes the earth was created 10,000 years ago. References could then include both religious and archeological perspectives on the ages of fossils. There are two sides to that story and both should be represented here. Dreadlocke 20:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is flawed, it is Wiki policy: WP:NPOV. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you CONTINUE to ignore Wiki policy. What part of the following Wiki policy do you not understand? Or do you think Wiki policies should be set aside to satisfy your personal opinions?

"Personal websites as secondary sources

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. ...

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

Askolnick 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that MOH qualifies as a blog in the spirit of that policy, judging from the nearby context of "personal websites". The section you reprint above is headed with "personal websites as...", implying that the section is talking about personal websites. I wonder if the term "blog" used there is intended as "personal blog" as opposed to a focused, topic-oriented community site. Maybe it does; I think this is a question for the Village Pump. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Further reading related to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources finds that, on the discussion page, there is some question as to whether "no blogs" is a blanket rule: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Blogs. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I am not ingoring Wikipedia policy, I just simply disagree with your interpretation of those policies as they relate to entries in the "References" or an "External Links" section of an article. I also question your overall interpretation of those policies. Dreadlocke 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you are ignoring Wiki policy by interpreting it to mean something else. If I'm wrong, then you should explain why the following Wiki policy does not mean what it says:

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."

Askolnick 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read the next section WP:V#Self-published sources in articles about themselves, you will realize that website of organizations such as the Stormfront website can also be dubious. If you think about it just a little, and consider the real word out there, you will easily appreciate that large organizations also should not be trusted: they also have their own agenda, in fact even more, not to mention that, in some cases, they can be deliberately sloppy, relying on rumors, etc. The Stormfront website is an example provided in the policy. Some of these organizations might have their own publications. This is why there is the requirement for a credible third-party publisher. -Lumière 21:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, I would hope that, as a Wiki editor, you would acquiese to the importance of learning and abiding by Wiki policies regarding citation of references and not substitute your own biases. Wiki policy does not require giving every claim equal weight. And it doesn't permit the citation of Internet blogs and personal web pages Askolnick 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew and others, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. The requirement for a credible third-party source is clearly stated. I agree that, as for many other terms in the WP policy, and this is normal in any policy, the term "third-party" needs to be interpreted. I remind you that WP:verifiability is firm policy, and has priority over consensus. Therefore, I suggest that we discuss whether or not CSICOP and CSMMH qualify as credible third-party publishers. If you believe that these publishers are credible third-party publishers for the Demkina experiment, then give me an example of what is meant by a credible publisher that is not a credible third-party publisher for the Demkina experiment and explain to me the difference. You can even describe a fictive credible publisher to illustrate your concept of a non-third-party credible publisher for the Demkina experiment.

-Lumière 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry for CSICOP ("CSICOP's examinations of claims of paranormal phenomena apply accepted scientific and academic methodologies to topics that most scientific organizations ignore as fringe science or pseudoscience.") and for Skeptical Inquirer. I believe these Wiki articles already demonstrate a Wiki consensus that Skeptical Inquirer is a credible publication. And here's what the Internet Public Library has to say about the magazine" [3]

"Skeptical Inquirer

"For a fast-growing number of discriminating persons, the Skeptical Inquirer is a welcome breath of fresh air, separating fact from myth in the flood of occultism and pseudoscience on the scene today. This dynamic magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, tells you what the scientific community knows about claims of the paranormal, as opposed to the sensationalism often presented by the press, television, and movies."

Many university and research libraries subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer and rate the magazine highly, as does Princeton University's Library,[4] which has this to say:

"Skeptical Inquirer

"[Skeptical Inquirer] encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public."

I have no doubt that you will be able to post quotes from the Transcendental Meditation cult and other pro-paranormal groups and pseudoscientists, which disparage Skeptical Inquirer. But keep in mind, considering the sources of such criticism, they will more likely boost the credibility of the magazine further in the view of most rational people. Askolnick 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I understand better than you think the role that is taken by the Skeptical Inquirer. I am not interested in posting criticisms of the Skeptical Inquirer, no more than I am interested in posting criticisms of the governement of the United States or of the Vatican or of any organization reflecting a large group. I am just saying that, in the case of this experiment, CSICOP and CSMMH do not qualify as credible third-party publishers, and it is especially the third-party part that is the problem. In a different context, a similar argument could apply to the government of the United State or to the Vatican. This is not a criticism. -Lumière 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You weren't discussing the "role" of Skeptical Inquirer. You were questioning Skeptical Inquirer's credibility. I think before examining any other bias, we should examine yours. As an apologist for the TM cult, you have an obvious bias against Skeptical Inquirer and against the investigators who conducted the CSMMH-CSICOP test. Your claim that Skeptical Inquirer does not qualify as a credible publication is your opinion, which you're entitled to. But it is not the opinion of many others, who do not have an axe to grind against the publication and against anti-TM cult skeptics in general. And it is against Wiki policy to impose your bias as a filter on what does or does not count as a credible publication.Askolnick 13:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to confuse people. My intention, my opinion, etc. is irrelevant here. I am just pointing out to the policy. You seem to do every thing you can to move the discussion at another level. It won't work with me. -Lumière 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is a valid source, used as a reference in other wiki articles. JoshuaZ 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, the main issue that we should first consider is whether or not it can be used as a third party source for the Demkina experiment. Let us forget about the required credibility for the time being. If we evaluate that it is a third-party source, then the next step is to evaluate its general credibility. Only for this next step, it will be useful to see what other experiments were sourced in this journal. -Lumière 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"5 out of 7"

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

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

Yes, 6 patients out of the seven patients had a diagnosed medical problem. The seventh patient had none of these problems. Demkina was given seven cards describing these problems, including the "none of them", and had to match these cards with the patients. -Lumière 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Natasha was given six cards, not seven. And the target conditions were not "medical problems." They were anatomical abnormalities which resulted from a previous medical problem -- removed appendix, surgical staples in chest following open-heart surgery, a large metal plate covering hole in the skull following removal of a brain tumor, an artificial hip, a resected upper lobe of the left lung, and a resected esophagus. Natasha was required to match the six anatomical abnormalities to the correct subjects. A seventh subject had none of the abnormalities. Also, the test subjects were not patients. They were considered healthy and there was no patient relationship involved. Askolnick 12:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting us about the language used. I knew that they were not "patient" and not sick, but the subject of the experiment here is Natasha, not these 7 people, so I did not know how to call them. Thanks for the precision about the 6 cards, but I guess that no harm would have resulted to give her a seventh card with "none of them" on it. In fact, it would have been more clear. The way you describe the criteria suggests that matching correctly the "none of them" does not count as a match. Did it count as a match? Was it 4 out of 6, 5 out of 6 or 5 out of 7?. -Lumière 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While Natasha was the subject of our test, to Natasha, the six people with the abnormalities and the one "normal" were her subjects she was using to demonstrate her claimed abilities. She was subjecting them to her claimed paranormal abilities. I can't think of a better single word to discribe that relationship. Patient is definitely wrong. Test "objects" is too dehumanizing.

Heh. True; though their involvement in the test was to essentially be passive objects (i.e. human bodies) having certain qualities (i.e. the conditions). I guess it's semantic; it's just confusing to people trying to understand the test to get around the fact that the "test subjects" were not the subjects of the test. That's the confusion that led me once to erroneously refer to them as "sufferers". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no need for a card for the condition "none of the abnormalities." By filling out the six test cards, identifying the subjects with the specified anatomic abnormalities, Natasha automatically matched the "normal" condition to a subject. As has been repeatedly explained, Natasha had to match at least five of the seven conditions to the correct subjects to pass the preliminary test.Askolnick 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I always understood that there was no absolute need for a seventh card. Still, it would have been more clear to an external observer like me if the implicit matching of the "normal" condition would have been made explicit with a seventh card. -Lumière 16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does Mr. Skolnick Prefer?

I quote again my own words from above:

This material from Josephson and from me is priceless to achieve neutral point of view. There are two ways in which this material can be made available to honest readers: first, include them briefly in the references. Second, cite their reasoning lengthily in the main body of the entry itself. Technically, it is better to do the latter (and that is what I did when I first edited this entry ages ago, after which I got this talk page started for the very first time). But rationally, it is better to place these reasonings from Josephson and from myself (or from anyone else) in the reference section.

Now, the point is, what does Mr. Skolnick prefer? I have all the Wiki-rights in the World to add some important feedback on the main entry itself. I would add that the test (CSICOP's) was not controlled. I would add that it does not qualify as a scientific test because of one fatal flaw: no one knows, even the "researchers" themselves(!), whether the volunteers had their alleged clinical conditions or not. Never in the history of mankind has any study been qualified as "scientific" if the researchers themselves acknowledge that they simply have no idea whatsoever about their volunteers' true clinical conditions. What kind of "control" is this? Not even Benvenist or Hwang Woo did it. Only Woo Woos (and Csicopers...) would.

The right thing to do is to remove all mentioning whatsoever to this "test" by CSICOP, and all references to it. Instead, we have four references to this phony test, plus one further reference to a site that mocks professor Brian Josephson. This is ridiculous. So I hope that Skolnick himself realizes the big mistake that he is insisting on (the big social mistake, the huge public-health mistake), and that he himself adds the reference to professor Brian Josephson's critique of the test. That is what Richard Wiseman himself would have done in the first place. More than a year ago, Skolnick sent me an email where he complained that Wiseman was pressuring him to add a link in the CSMMH site to the page from Josephson criticizing the test. How come Wiseman himself does not fear it and Skolnick dreads those who disagree with him?

So, as a sign of peace and civility, I will give Skolnick ten days to ponder over these issues. After it, I will get really Wiki... Julio Siqueira 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that Siqueira abide by Wikipedia policies and not try to bully the Wiki community with such threats. I've pointed out to him several times now, what Wikipedia policy says:

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

Yet he now insists that Brian Josephson's personal web page be added as a reference to this article. Siquiera says he has "all the Wiki-rights in the world" to add what he wants. It is this attitude that got him permanently banned from ever posting on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. He insisted, despite repeated warnings, that he can post what he wants. When he was suspended for three days for repeated violations of the forum rules, he launched a campaign of defamation and harassment against the forum moderators, which got him permanently banned. It looks like he thinks he has similar "rights" on Wiki to do what he wants, or he "will get Wiki" on us.

Wiki policy is clear: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." Like Brian Josephson, Julio Siqueira likes to snipe at skeptical researchers from the safety and advantage of his own web site. If either of them want their views on this or any other matter to be referenced in Wikipedia, they should first get them published in a credible publication. Wiki policy makes it clear: Their personal web sites are not credible sources. Wikipedia is NOT the place for such authors to publish their original research, if I may call it that. Askolnick 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us notice that Andrew omited "third-party" when he wrote "get them published in a credible publication". The rule is to get them published in a credible third-party publication. In the policy In the verifiability policy, the term "credible" is always followed by "third-party". -Lumière 23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, please stop making things up. The "term 'credible' is NOT always followed by 'third party.'" Indeed, I've only seen ONE reference to "credible third-party publication" in Wiki's policies -- without even a explanation of the term. Please stop trolling here with such clearly false assertions. Askolnick 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere is sounding like a cracked record, stuck on a spot of hiss, with no meaningful sound. If she really wants to argue about "third-party" publications, she should start a Talk page for Wiki's article on Jacque Benveniste and argue why it should not reference the three articles in Nature that report on the journal editor's investigation of Benveniste's claims, which he conducted with the help of Dr. Walter Stewart and James Randi. And when she's done arguing that nonsense there, I've got many other Wiki articles for her to take her dispute, from references to the Washington Post in "Watergate" to references to the Holy Bible in "God"... Askolnick 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term "credible" appears three times in the current version of the verifiability policy and each time it is followed with "third-party". I didn't check in the other policies. -Lumière 00:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, give it a break. That page also states NINE times that references must be to "reputable publications" or "reputable sources" without adding that unexplained term "third-party." And numerous other references in Wiki policies also discuss the need for references to be "credible publications," "credible sources," "reputable publications," or "reputable sources" without adding "third-party." All this is troll hissing, with nothing of value.

But even more important is Wiki's policy, which is clearly demonstrated by the enormously large number of Wiki articles that reference reports written by the writers and editors who conducted the relevant research.

"Crack... hiss... crack ... crack... hiss... " We really need to jar this broken record...Askolnick 02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that this third-party requirement appears in the section about sources, where it should appear. The fact that elsewhere they used the more general term "reputable" instead of "credible third-party" is irrelevant. Also, why exactly do you refer to other policies when we discuss the verifiability policy? -Lumière 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumière, That seems to be an odd interpretation of the rules which I don't think I've seen before. In any case, non-third party sources are generally fine as long as any possible bias or issues are clear in the article. JoshuaZ 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Never too late to see something for the first time! Maybe we discover the policy together. You seem to agree that "third-party" is not an empty word here. To help us understand the policy, you just need to tell us the difference between "third-party publication" and "publication". An example will be useful. We don't need more than that. Once we know that, the policy is clear. -Lumière 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick said of Julio, above: "It is this attitude that got him permanently banned from ever posting on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. He insisted, despite repeated warnings, that he can post what he wants." Wow!!! I would prefer not to comment on that. But since Skolnick has raised the subject, there is just no other way than to taking to it...

Technically, I did not get banned from Randi's forum. I only had my access blocked to it (muroids-jam on the way). We abide to membership agreement rules in Randi's forum. We can only be banned (technically) if we violate these rules. I did not. Skolnick and some other members there did far worse things than I did. They never got any warning whatsoever from the alleged forum's administrator (most likely only a sock puppet personality, appropriately nicknamed Da-Rat). This administrator decided to use a very nice message that I sent to suspend me there for three days. There was absolutely nothing bad in this message. No violation of the rules, and no violation of the recent recommendations that Darat had issued. Darat twisted the membership agreement rules incredibly and enormously to make something utterly unfair, non-technical, and only ideologically and politically directed against me. But he allowed Skolnick to carry on with far worse things at the very same time. I started to complain directly to Darat of this double-standard. He said he did not want to receive my complaints (and added technically wrong directions to how I should proceed...). And threatened to take out my personal messages resource. After I complained of his offenses to the membership agreement rules to other forum mods, he took my personal messages resource out. Then I sent a complaint to many people, in email. All the while I took careful note of the membership agreement rules to check if I was doing something that violated it. Just no violation whatsoever from my part. As to Skolnick and some other forum members...

So, my "banning" was actually a combination of cowardice and ideological intolerance from the part of the Randi's forum mods. Basically, something childish. I fully report it in the link below: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/pigsty-run-by-da-rats.htm

This page above has already been deleted twice by internet hackers, most likely linked to Randi's forum... Never before had I met such jihad attitude, not even from Brazilian wildest fanatic christians.

Is Randi himself responsible for all of this? Personally, I think not. Randi has his vices, like all of us. But he does not seem to be that childish and that silly. He would never say, like Skolnick has said in JREF's forum, that all parapsychologists are incompetent, deluded, frauds, or willfully stupid. Randi has friends who are parapsychologists. Like Stanley Krippner. Randi has indeed contributed to parapsychology in many ways, and no informed critic of him would deny that. The same cannot be said of Skolnick, who I depict now in the link below: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/skolnick-s-bitch-fit.htm

So, what has all this to do with Natasha Demkina? Basically, the good feedbacks from the test CSICOP and CSMMH did with her have been completely destroyed by the researchers' childish behaviour. And the one most responsible for this is Skolnick himself. This issue has turned into a childish jihad war between ultra-pseudoskeptics (Skolnick) and those he labels as "Natasha supporters". But actually my suspicions have long been that in fact there is some hidden vested interests from the part of Skolnick, and perhaps from Wiseman and Hyman too. Money! Prestige! The image of respectability (no matter real or fake...)! These are the things that are at stake. Also, pride. That is, complete lack of humbleness to admit the smallest mistake. There is no science in that. There is no skepticism in that.

I myself have pointed out to Skolnick many instances of high quality skepticism from respected members of the skeptic movement (Keith Augustine - The Case Against Immortality; Robert Todd Carrol - Skepdic Ganzfeld entry, James Alcock - Psi Wars from Journal of Consciousness Studies; Ray Hyman - Proper Criticism; etc). Why doesn't he join in? Why does he, instead, stick to this mockery of a scientific test where simply not even the researchers (!!!) have the faintest clue about their volunteers' true clinical conditions? (and numerous other flaws too!). Incompetence, imaturity, vested interests, pride, all these are playing a part. And what is being left behind?

Natasha is working! She is (still) diagnosing. This wikipedia entry could be a source of good information into that. It could be a balanced, informative, and honest feedback on paranormal in general and in paranormal healing specifically. Silly and hasty debunking will not do. It may enable Skolnick to sell a few books, or to give some further (paid... as he himself told us!) lectures on this subject in Toronto. But not much more than that. You are not going to milk much more from it, Skolnick. The cow is already pretty dry... But the social issue remains. The public health issue too. This Wikipedia entry could be one more piece of illuminating guidance. Or... it can become just another brick in the wall that separates credulous believers in the existance of the paranormal from credulous believers in the non-existance of the paranormal.

I think the former should be our aim. And that it can indeed be our final achievement!

- Julio Siqueira 13:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility

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

I think the following from DreamGuuy is an example of what you mean should be avoided.

again back to more neutrall language... Lumiere has a long history of trying to slant this article, as discussed on talk, so his claims that there were no discussion is just stupid...

This was DreamGuy's comment when he reverted the work of the last one or two weeks, most of it not from me. -Lumière 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While the civility of DreamGuy's comment may be questioned, its truthfullness is indisputable. You've been working harder than anybody to slant the article to discredit CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer. And that was the very purpose you came to Wikipedia and have put in so much of your time. It is NOT a coincidence that the only two Wiki articles you've been trying to rewrite are Transcendental Meditation and Natasha Demkina -- both of which are based at least partially on Skeptical Inquirer articles that I wrote. Askolnick 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has only been peripherally involved with this discussion, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Askolnick. JoshuaZ 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Professor Josephson’s Website

First, the Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sources, citable material, references and external links are flexible and open to interpretation; there are few “hard and fast” rules.

After some investigation, I found the following:

1. The website by Professor Brian Josephson that critiques the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina is not classified as a “personal website.” Professor Josephson’s web pages are hosted by a department of the University of Cambridge on the University of Cambridge Website, and his critique is regarded as a part of his professional activities. The web pages are not dependent on an ISP personal account, and are going to be a part of the University of Cambridge website for the foreseeable future. Prof. Josephson is employed by the University; his page is subject to the rules and policies of the University. The University of Cambridge website is a reputable and verifiable source that can be cited as a reference. Therefore, not only can Professor Josephson’s web pages be used as a Reference, they can also be cited in the main body of the Article itself.

2. The Josephson website has been quoted and referenced by already admitted reputable and verifiable sources such as “The Times Higher Education Supplement” and is therefore a reputable, verifiable source in and of itself. That article also points out that Professor Josephson’s pages are on a “Cambridge University-hosted website”. This adds even more weight to the verifiability and reliability of the source.

Prof Josephson’s website has been cited by many other reputable scientists, and in many other reputable, verifiable sources.

The Josephson website has even been cited in regards to the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina by Professor Wiseman. As a principle player in that investigation, Professor Wiseman has commented that "I'm not saying that this experiment was perfect or that all Professor Josephson's comments are wrong.” This clearly shows that Professor Josephson’s web pages are considered to be far more than a personal website or blog and definitely rises to the level of a reputable and verifiable source.

3. Even if for some bizarre reason the Josephson website fails the Wikipedia “test” of being a reputable, verifiable and citable source, it would still fall under the Wikipedia policy regarding “External Links” and “Further Reading”. Here is the definition of that, which clearly states that links in this section to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article.

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Although this section has traditionally been called "external links," editors are increasingly calling it "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online.

Clearly Professor Josephson’s website could fall under this category, even if nowhere else.

The “further reading” section can definitely include such diverse sites as the ones created by Mr. Siquiera and many others. I must add, however, that considering “Reliable Sources” is a guideline and not a policy, and there is much flexibility in the Wikipedia definition of “verifiable and reliable,” it may be that “personal websites” can still be added to the “References” section, as well as being cited in the main body of the Article itself.

The definition and usage of “Self Published Sources” seems to be very limited in scope and subject to interpretation, so I doubt it would bar the inclusion of web sites such as Mr. Siquiera or other critics of CSICOP-CSMMH in a references section as a citable source. If it does, then it would probably also bar the usage of the CSICOP-CSMMH sites.

Based on the information above, I have added a “Reference” link to the web page critique by Professor Josephson.

Personally, I would like to see the entire article re-written with the emphasis placed on Natasha Demkina and not the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation. Both CSICOP and CSMMH have their own Articles in the Wikipedia, and perhaps these articles are the place for more details of their investigation. Dreadlocke 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is happening here is not only a violation of verifiability (because the Skeptical Inquirer and Brian Josephson's website are self-published non-third party sources), but also a serious violation of NPOV because of the disproportioned amount of space attributed to the CSICOP-CSMMH investiguation. This happens because all participating editors have their interest in this investiguation, either to support it or to critic it. Well, in principle a consensus is not supposed to violate the policies, especially not NPOV, but as they say in WP:Consensus#Consensus vs. other policies, it will happen anyway. They just say that "this is generally agreed to be a bad thing." -Lumière 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the above argument to support Brian Josephson web pages as reputable sources is that, even if Cambridge University is a publisher, which I believe is the case, the pages in their website are not considered a part of their publications. However, what follows is a much more serious problem. The author, Brian Josephson, works for the University. Therefore, I do not think that the University website, especially not the web pages in Brian Josephson's account, count as third-party sources for Brian Josephson's view. It seems to be at the least as bad as the case of the Skeptical Inquirer, which is obviously also a non-third party source. -Lumière 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Cambridge University is NOT the publisher. It is the web host of Josephson's personal web site. Josephson is the publisher of his self-published comments and opinions.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it will not make it true: The articles that Ray Hyman and I wrote on our investigation of Natasha Demkina were NOT SELF-PUBLISHED. They were published in a respected magazine called Skeptical Inquirer, which Wikipedia has an article on and is cited in many other Wikipedia articles. Hyman and I do NOT publish the magazine. It is published by CSICOP. Hyman and I occassionally contribute to the magazine. Askolnick 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, Please do not edit my posts. Do not intersperse your comments within my posting, it disrupts the flow of the post and interrupts the points being made. I would like readers to see my post uninterrupted by comments, as is the right of any poster on Wikipedia. Please post your comments after the end of my post. I have moved your comments to where they belong, after the end of my post. Dreadlocke 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick's remarks that were interspersed within my posting

Dreadlocke, this is not only your clearly biased opinion, it is entirely irrelevant. I think Wiki policy is quite clear where it says personal web pages "may never be used" as secondary source references. All your claims, even if true, are irrelevant. Josephson's personal attack on my colleagues and me are self-published on his own web site and therefore it may not be used as a Wiki reference. It is irrelevant what ISP hosts Josephson's web site. The University of Cambridge, which is his host, does not edit its faculty's personal web sites. You should know that universities are not responsible for the opinions posted by academics on their personal web sites! Nor do they EVER check them for factual accuracy.

Wiki rules require one to abide by its official policies, not cook up half-baked arguments to get around them.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The Times Higher Education Supplement did no such thing (If anything, it hinted that Josephson is a kook.) The Times cited a source of Josephson's questionable opinions. It did not cite that web site as a reputable and verifiable source, as you claim. The New York Times quoting statements from a Klu Klux Klan web site does not mean that the NY Times thinks the Klan site is a reputable, verifiable source of information. Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's nonsense. That just means the University is a web host -- not publisher or editor. Josephson has the same academic freedom that other faculty members at Cambridge have. The university does not review, censor, or even edit what he puts on his personal web site. If he wants to claim that the earth is flat and that people communicate telepathically, they will not stop him. In fact, he does exactly that and they let him (except for the flat earth part, I think). Josephson is THE publisher of the anti-skeptic rant he put up on his web site. Cambridge is NOT. Your argument is entirely without merit.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the antiskeptic rants on his web site are NOT respected by reputable scientists, nor cited positively by any reputable, verifiable source.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is more nonsense: Wiseman was commenting on Josephson's claims, not on his web site. When a person answers the attacks of a critic, it does not represent the endorsement of the critic's self-published rants. Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Wiki policies and guidelines is hard to reconcile with what is actually written:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources....

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."

I don't understand what part of this you either missed or misunderstand.Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on my reasons above, I've removed that reference. You appear to be trying to start another editing war. You had no consensus to add that reference, which had been removed after the last editing war. Askolnick 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, while the quotes you have pulled from Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an attempt to back your claims are interesting and somewhat relevant to this issue, I believe you are the one actually going against Wikipedia policy.

This is a very important entry on what is allowable in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other,

“Citing sources” is a guideline and not a policy. Most of the quotes above are being used against a primary Wikipedia policy regarding Verifiability, NOR and NPOV: they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Almost every single quote above by Askolnick is an isolated quote that attempts to interpret the policies and guidelines to fit his own narrow perspective, thus violating Wikipedia policy. Continued out-of-context quoting is not helping.

It is obvious to me that this article once again needs mediation or arbitration. Mr. Skolnick, I submit that your own strong bias against your critics is obscuring your view of how Wikipedia functions. This article is not about CSICOP or CSMMH, it is about Natasha Demkina, and the one sided view your organization presents violates the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Dreadlocke 03:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also let me add, that if for any reason Prof Josephson’s website is considered a “personal website” then I still believe it is citable material.

In this case, Professor Josephson is an eminent scientist critiquing a scientific experiment or process. At this level of scientific inquiry, it cannot be said that a person would need to be a “paranormal” investigator vis-à-vis Wiseman or Hyman. This is not physics, but it doesn’t have to be, it’s a standard scientific process that most scientists would have the expertise and training to comment on.

Since Prof. Josephson is a well known professional researcher and has been performing research at a professional level into the field of the Paranormal, (so much so that he has been “scorned” by colleagues and has drawn the ire of CSICOP and CSMMH) then he is a true exception to the rule of not allowing “self published” sources as a citable resource.

Prof. Josephson is probably almost as well known for his research into the field of the paranormal than he is for the research that won him a Nobel Prize. Dreadlocke 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What would be much more accurate would be to say that Josephson is more notoriously known for his defense of psychics and pseudoscientists than he is known for the Nobel prize in physics that was awarded to him more than three decades ago. Josephson is widely criticized for his endorsement of Uri Geller's claimed superpowers, for his bogus challenge to the American Physicial Society to scientifically test the pseudoscientific claims of Jacques Benveniste (Josephson shamelessly beat a hasty retreat when the APS quickly accepted his challenge!), and other injudicious and self-discrediting acts.

Josephson shared the Nobel prize for his discovery involving quantum tunneling and inventing the solid-state device known as the Josephson junction. His field of expertise has NOTHING to do with medicine or health. A search of Medline will show nothing on health or medicine was ever published by Josephson. And yet, Dreadlocke keeps insisting that the rant-like personal attack Josephson posted on his own web site be added as a reference to the Natasha Demkina article, despite Wiki policies regarding no personal web sites as second source references. It should be obvious that our test of Natasha Demkina did not involve any quantum physical devices or any quantum tunneling effects! Nor does the "reference" in question by Josephson deal in any way with quantum mechanics, physics, or any other area in which Josephson has demonstrated competence. Indeed, his comments about the alpha we used in our test shows an abysmal ignorance of Bayesian analysis and statistics in general. The reason his commentary was published on his personal web page is that it could never have been published in any credible publication.

Once again, Dreadlocke's statements misrepresent Wiki policies. He writes that because Josephson is involved in paranormal research, he -- or more correctly his personal web site -- "is a true exception to the rule of not allowing “self published” sources as a citable resource. That's a misrepresentation of what the Wiki policy says:

"A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case." Askolnick 05:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Skolnick. As it stands, the English-version Wiki article on Natasha Demkina is extremely one-sided and seems to present only the opinion of CSICOP-CSMMH. A majority of the References are links to the CSICOP website that attacks Natasha, with one of the other References being an article that, as you point out, paints one of the chief critics of the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation as "kook". This all very clearly violates the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. This issue needs mediation.

I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Wikiquette in its entirety. I don’t believe the personal attacks you’ve made here on Prof. Josephson are welcome on Wikipedia, much less the personal attacks you’ve made on various Wikipedia posters. For instance, labeling posts as “nonsense” is not polite and goes against Wikiquette – if I understand the guideline correctly. Dreadlocke 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected inaccurate description of test

Someone removed "partially" from the description of the test as having been "partially controlled." It was made clear by the investigators' published reports and public statements that the test was only a preliminary, partially controlled test. Describing it as a "controlled test" is misleading. Askolnick 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the latest change by Lumiere, which falsely implies that Natasha Demkina has anomalous powers that are yet unexplained. Lumiere changed the existing "paranormal phenomena" to "anomalous phenomena," which is inappropriate. Wikipedia's own definition of "anomalous phenemon" includes actual phenomena whose interpretations are controversal. This article does not concern any actual phenomena for which explanations are controversal. This article concerns a claim of paranormal powers for which there is no credible evidence.Askolnick 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are doing. In accordance with Wikipedia, paranormal phenomena is a subcategory of anomalous phenomena. Because of the Wikipedia redirect from "paranormal phenomena" to "anomalous phenomena", I tought they were synonymous and that anomalous was the standard term. So, I changed one expression to a less precise expression. This explains the whole thing. Every thing else is not worth a discussion. Don't you have an impression of "déjà vue": I am telling you that it does not matter. (See the end of section #"5 out of 7") -Lumière 06:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Though actually a subcategory of anomalous phenomena, paranormal phenomena are studied in the field of parapsychology, and can be divided into three main classes:"

This has been copied from the anomalous phenomenon article. -Lumière 10:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Insinuation that the critics are the result of a systematic bias.

I removed this phrase

"not unusual in various evaluations of paranormal phenomena by traditional scientific community."

Its purpose is not clear, and it insinuates that the critics are the outcome of a systematic bias. Insinuations are against NPOV. -Lumière 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, and now I, have replaced the material you repeatedly and unjustifiably keep deleting. It looks like you want to start an editing war again. It is you who are insinuating, when you claim that the deleted statement insinuates that the critics are the outcome of a systematic bias. Mikkalai simply states a fairly well-known fact that puts the dispute in perspective. That certainly is not a violation of NPOV.Askolnick 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is clear. It insinuates nothing. It clarifies that the disagreement between paranorms and sci experimenters happen all the time, and not just these Demkina fans. Aslo, please explain which exactly word means systeminc beas. BTW. please read the systemic bias article carefully before answering. mikka (t) 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from Systematic bias article:

"However, systematic can additionally sometimes be used imply planned human agency. Systematic bias therefore can also mean that the system produces bias as a consequence of consistent, deliberate and planned human interference."

This is exactly the meaning I was using. Now, I do not think that what you pointed out contains useful information. Most phenomena that are disputed by skeptics are called paranormal phenomena and obviously a dispute has two sides. Therefore, just because of the above, it is necessarily the case that almost each time the skeptics are involved in a dispute around a phenomena, it is a paranormal phenomena with "paranorms" on the other side. Therefore, this phrase is completely non informative. It contains no useful specific information. This in itself justifies that we remove it. Moreover, it does insinuate that the "paranorms" critics are the result of a systematic interference against the "scientific" work of the skeptics, not the result of a normal interest in true science. The insinuation is the result of the POV wording: "paranormal" on one side and "traditional science" on the other side, as if the so called "paranorms" were necessarily against science. -Lumière 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To make the story short, this phrase clearly insinuates, just by the way it refers to each side, that those who critic the critics of the skeptics on unusual phenomena are against the scientific approach. -Lumière 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it does no such thing. It infers nothing of the kind. Askolnick 04:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can better explain the problem with this sentence. The problem is that it confuses two things: (1) the controversy around anomalous phenomena and (2) the critics of the scientific methods used to analyse these phenomena. You are absolutely right that the controversy around anomalous phenomena is an obvious fact. What is not so obvious is that the design, scientific rigours, etc. of most scientific analysis of anomalous phenomena by so called respecful scientific organizations are criticised. So, you better find a source for the phrase you want to add and then you will have to attribute it. Your argument that it is an "obvious fact" doesn't work against verifiability and the notability requirement of Neutral point of view. -Lumière 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I've got what you are talking about. Tell you what, colleague. The moment they start teaching parapychology in colleges and a man will be moved to Moon by telekinesis, you will get equal stand. Until then, enjoy Steven King movies and live with "systemic bias" imposed by Nature or God, whatever you believe in. mikka (t) 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew please stop the personal attacks

Andrew, I would appreciate that you remove all references to my person in your above comments. Please focus on the article, not on the person. You make false unproven claims about me. Just as an example, you accuse me to insinuate things. I did say that a sentence in the article is an insinuation. In response, you wrote that I insinuated something. The former is not an attack against a person because it is directly about the article. The latter is directly an attack on my person. Can you see the difference? The principle is very very simple: focus on the article and forget about the persons. If you don't remedy to the situation as I suggest, I will do it myself in my own way. If you object, I will officially send you another No Personal Attack warning. -Lumière 04:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lumiere. Mr. Skolnick needs to stop the personal attacks and remove all such attacks that he has already posted here. I believe Wikipedia policy and guidelines permit editors to remove personal attacks directed against themselves or others. Those who continue to personally attack others are subject to sanctions, including being banned. Dreadlocke 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would strongly suggest reading this article: Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Dreadlocke 04:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - Please read this Policy for greater clarity on personal attacks. ~~

"Not to go into details"

longstanding agreement to not go into details, which just encourages people on both sides to try to push their views into the article

This is the most outrageous imperative I've ever heard here. To forbid adding pure, clean, simple and published facts? Replace them with weaseling phrases that say nothing about what actually happened? Just tell me who made this "agreement" and I am immediately starting a RFC against these supercensors. 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)