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 had tCSMMH-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)

Skeptical Inquirer is not "self-published." 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? 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? By your twisting of that term [self-published], it would apply to the New York Times and all other media that ever publish anything about themselves. This of course 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.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)

I added a new External Link to the article. Unlike the existing link to the closed Museum of Hoaxes forum, the The Girl with "X-Ray" Vision at James Randi Educational Foundation Forum's "The Girl with 'X-Ray' Vision" thread remains active. Askolnick 04:26, 25 March 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)

---

Several days ago, Julio Siqueira issued an ultimatum below that either I cite his and Josephson's "priceless" personal web pages in the Natasha article, or he will "get very Wiki" on us. Looks like that ultimatum may be moot. His free web site account with Geocities Yahoo Brazil was cancelled, apparently for repeated violation of its terms of service. So the "priceless" reference he cites above no longer exists. (This is yet another reason for not using personal web sites as secondary sources! Many have a habit of suddenly disappearing.) Askolnick 16:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so, dear Skolnick... "Getting Wiki", in my view, can be just taking part in the discussion. If you feared other kinds of actions, perhaps it is because you yourself usually do them. I have now sent an email to you and to many other interested parties concerning the hackers' activity that has shut down my Geocities Brazil account criticandokardec. There is just no way to believe that this was an action from Geocities itself because: 1- Before the shut-down of the whole account, one single page (criticizing James Randi's forum and violating no copyrights) was deleted twice in a period of two weeks, with no email whatsoever coming from Geocities Brazil to me (to the email linked to this account, criticandokardec@yahoo.com.br, or to its alternative email, juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br). 2- Geocities, as acknowledged by them in an email from them to me, simply does not know how this happened, and, being a free service for millions of people, Geocities is just too slow to take prompt appropriate counter-measures. This is just no reason for avoiding citing online material. Internet contents are intrinsically volatile. Nevertheless, they are accepted for citation even by the most stringent citation regulations (including the Vancouver Style used by many medical publications and scientific journals world over). Anyway, the links are now in a better place, paid, official, fully commercial, and protected from Randi's hackers (hackers who actually do not act according to their idol's commands or desires - just remember that Randi, contrary to you, do not think "all parapsychologists are incompetent, deluded, frauds, or willfully stupid"... He has even parapsychologist friends, like Stanley Krippner, and has indeed contributed enormously for the advance of parapsychology, no matter how we may criticize him for his excesses.

The links are now below. First, the initial critique of the phony "scientific" test done by CSICOP on Natasha Demkina: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/CSICOP_vs_Natasha_Demkina.htm

Second, the updated analysis of the issue: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/natasha_demkina_summary_update.html

I hope you enjoy it... (just by the way, the page criticizing you is now at this link, and the page exposing the unthinkable vices of James Randi's forum is at this link - please remember to leave your PC speakers on ;-) ).

And getting really wiki... I am not going to edit the main entry on Natasha Demkina. Not anymore. I hope, instead, that you mature to more decent conduct in this whole issue...
Julio Siqueira 11:14, 26 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)

It would seem apparent to me that any publication that gave print to the feasibility of paranormal activity would be dismissed out of hand by you and/or by SI, so I doubt that theoretical idea would actually help. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, your comment is outrageous, not because it is a personal attack, but because it is utterly false. You would do better by finding a source that meets Wiki policies rather than resorting to such baseless insults. I know you must be frustrated over not being able to cite a credible source for your opposing views. However, you should ask yourself why you cannot. Could it be because those opposing views lack enough merit to be published anywhere other than in sleazy newspaper tabloids and personal attacks on the web sites of cranks? If so, then they don't warrant citing in any encylopedia. If I'm wrong, find a credible source and cite it. Askolnick 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, Keith. What, if any, publications that give credence to the paranormal would they approve of? Are there any pro-paranormal publications they would consider to be credible sources? Dreadlocke 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you would agree with this blatantly bogus point. The issue is not what publication I would approve of, the issue is what publication I would consider consistent with Wiki's rules regarding reputable sources. Unlike you and Keith, I do not consider angry attacks that people self-published on personal web sites to be credible sources -- and neither does Wiki policy. I'm also not suprised that you and Keith are debating a straw man argument rather than Wiki policy, because the policy does not support your agenda to include opinions from unreputable sources in this Wiki article. Askolnick 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any pro-paranormal publications that you would consider a reputable, credible, citable source that fits your view of what Wikipedia policies and guidelines permits? I see nothing "bogus" about that question. If there is even one publication that you can name, I would like to contact them to find out their opinion on Josephson's website and why they wouldn't publish it - or why they would. It's just not a "straw man" argument. I would honestly like to know what publications that give credence to the Paranormal would you agree to?

I've already stated that I do not agree with your interpretation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I expect the matter to be straightened out by the mediators or more likely, the Arbitration Committee. I have to add, that I just don't see any anger in Prof. Josephson's critique, much less it being, as you claim, "an angry rant". Dreadlocke 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you would provide a shining example of a pro-paranormal publication that you believe would fit into your view of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as a reputable, credible, verifiable and citable reference. I would genuinely like to know what publication (if any) meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. It would really help me to understand your persepective better, and possibly even give me a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Help! Dreadlocke 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't confuse my standards for a credible publication with Wikipedia's standards. When editing Wiki articles, I go by Wikipedia's published policies, not my own. And that means not citing personal web pages as secondary sources. Your question and Keith's is clearly a red herring.

So I remind you and Keith again, the question is not what you or I consider to be credible and reputable sources. The only relevant question before us is what kinds of publications are credible and reputable according to Wiki policies and guidelines.Askolnick 03:28, 24 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.

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: Siqueira's attack on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum is as reprehensible as it is false. It appears that the page in question was repeatedly deleted by the host of Siqueira's web site - Geocities Yahoo Brazil - because he was violating the copyright of others. Because he kept putting the offending web page back up, Geocities finally cancelled his account. His claim that people linked to the JREF forum may be hacking his web site was an egregiously irresponsible accusation that he had to know is false. Askolnick 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE CORRECTING THE MISINFORMATION ABOVE: my attacks on James Randi forum are fully based on documented evidence, and clearly explained at this link. Few people knew of this page criticizing the JREF forum at the time it first got deleted. Basically only Skolnick and Da-rat, a JREF forum administrator. And since Geocities has no information about how this happened (and also about how my account and full site was shut down, as acknowledged by them in an email to me), there is no doubt that this was due to hackers' activity from criminal irresponsible guys linked to the JREF forum. Obviously Randi does not approve of this. The same can be said, I think, of most JREF forum members. It seems that Skolnick is an exception in this regard too...

Julio Siqueira 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Siqueira, your account was cancelled because of your repeated copyright violation. Yesterday, the person whose rights you violated forwarded me email he/she received from the Yahoo Brazil Abuse Department:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Brazil Abuse Department.

This is to let you know that appropriate action has been taken immediately after your report. The GeoCities account was deactivated.

Best Regards,

The Abuse Team

Yahoo! Brazil Customer Care

It is mind boggling that you're going with the story that Yahoo simply doesn't know why your account was cancelled. If that were true, your account would have simply been restored. Instead, you had to set up your entire web site with another web host that you're paying for, leaving all the links that you've placed all over the World Wide Web broken. That's just not a credible story. You better check your new host's TOS. It's likely that it too has a rule barring copyright violations. If you don't want to have your account cancelled there, stop violating people's copyrights.

Also, please stop blaming me for Yahoo cancelling your account. I had NOTHING to do with it. While you've been abusing me plenty on your web site, you haven't violated my copyrights. If you had, it would have been shut down sooner. Askolnick 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

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 web page 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.

Citing sources External Links/Further Reading section

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.

An example of a page similar to that of Professor Josephson's that is used as an "External Link" in the Wikipedia article on Resonance in the External Links section: A short FAQ on quantum resonances

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)

Professor Josephson's research into the paranormal is definitely part of his scholarly and professional activities at the University of Cambridge. Here is more information on that connection, as well as some of the history (30 years) of Josephson's studies into the Brain and the Paranormal: Pioneer of the Paranormal.

Here is the home page of Professor Brian Josephson, director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge Professor Josephson Home Page. - Dreadlocke 18:40, 6 March 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)

Dreadlocke, anyone who would read the self-published personal attacks that you want to add as references to the Natasha article would probably see your protest as rather hypocritical. Both Josephson and Siqueira's diatribes are full of defamatory accusations. I don't appreciate this hypocricy, nor the repeated attemps to circumvent Wiki policy in order to reference these two personal attacks from secondary sources, who rarely met a skeptic they didn't personally attack or abuse. Wiki's stated criteria for including sources and references remains: Are these two secondary sources published in a reputable publication? The answer clearly is no. They're both published on the authors' own web sites and have NEVER passed the kind of editing checks that Wiki policy clearly indicates are necessary to be considered reputable.

"I find it revealing that you're now arguing that the Times Higher Education Supplement reference "paints" Josephson "as a kook" when it was only yesterday that you were arguing that it shows Josephson's web page "is a reputable, verifiable source in and of itself." It seems no matter what the facts are, you will turn them one way or the other to fit your agenda.

And the reason that the majority of the references are from a skeptical view point is because they are the ONLY view points that have yet to be published in a credible publication. That's not because of a fluke. The other view points have not been published because they're simply not credible. Despite your claim, Wiki policy does not require the citation of non-reputable publications in order to provide "balance." You provide balance by citing reputable sources. If there's a lack of credible sources expressing a different view, that tells Wiki readers something they need to know. Clearly, that's the message some people here are trying to censor by adding non-reputable, self-published web rants as references to a Wikipedia article.Askolnick 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who first argued that THES "hinted" that Josephson was a "kook". My reply to your comment was that this made the References section of the article even more one-sided than I had originally thought, so that it even further violated NPOV. I used "painted" rather than "hinted" but I don't think it lost much in translation from your POV. There's no discrepancy in my two points about THES. My "agenda" is to gain NPOV and present more than one side of the Natasha discussion. Dreadlocke 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suprised you deny the discrepency between first arguing that the THES report shows Brian Josephson's self-published web attack is a reputable publication, and then arguing that it "paints" Josephson as a "kook." You clearly are willing to argue a fact in one direction and then the opposite to press your agenda.Askolnick 02:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again to try and "Argue facts, not personalities" as Wikipedia guidelines state. Your post above is nothing more than a personal attack on me. Dreadlocke 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone reading the above exchange: I do not personally think the THES article paints or even hints that Professor Josephson is a "kook." What I was trying to say is that if Mr. Skolnick is correct and the article does "hint" that Professor Josephson is a "kook" then that makes the "References" section of this article even more one-sided than I believed it to be. If I gave the impression that I thought the THES article painted the Professor as a "kook" then I apologize and withdraw that comment entirely. It was never my intent to make that statement. Chalk it up to bad communications on my part.

I will, however, dispute the comment made in the article that Josephson was "scorned by colleagues." I believe that statement is somewhat misleading, possibly leading one to believe the Professor was scorned by "all" his colleagues, when in fact, as the Professor himself quotes: "..the number of colleagues who "scorn" me for my "enthusiasm for the paranormal" can be counted on the fingers of one hand." The Professor is in fine standing with a majority of his colleagues. Dreadlocke 06:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Professor Brian Josephson continued at: Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Brian_Josephson

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)

Mr. Skolnick, do not insert your posts inside mines. Put your posts after. I moved down here the one you inserted above Lumière:

Oh yes, I do have a sensation of déjà vue. And I get one after every change you make that misleadingly or inaccurately slants the article towards discrediting the test, the testors, CSICOP, or skeptics in general. Lumiere, you keep arguing for NPOV, yet your changes rarely if ever have a NPOV.Askolnick 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In an article discussing the sonar ability of bats, you don't change the word "bats" to "mammals" because bats are a subcategory of mammals. Bats use sonar. Nearly all other mammals do not. The words are NOT synonyms. Neither are "anomalous" and "paranormal." If you really thought they were synonymous, you obviously wouldn't have switched them. It was precisely because of their difference that you made that editing change. And that change clearly slanted the article towards the belief that Natasha's claimed powers are real, despite the absence of any credible evidence they are. You argue for a NPOV, but your changes rarely ever have a NPOV.Askolnick 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained that I changed toward "anomalous" because I thought it was the standard terminology. My logic at the time was that "paranormal phenomena" redirected to "anomalous phenomenon", and not the otherway around. Now, I don't want to argue further because I know now that "paranormal phenomena" is the accepted expression, at the least where I checked. You do like to insist on these things. What you are trying to do is obvious, but it does not work because the situation is too simple: I did an edit that needed to be corrected and you did it. Thanks. There is no need to further discuss this issue. -Lumière 16:17, 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. Dreadlocke 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did, and found: "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead. Meanwhile the WP:RPA guideline is disputed. So I recommend you don't do it.

Quite ironically, Andrew, in your responses, more than once now, you have managed to erase other people's comments without reason or explanation. (E.g. [5].) I've already asked you to review talk page and edit conflict guidelines so that you can avoid this, but I wonder why it is still happening. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Keith, 'the removal of personal attacks guideline' is disputed, and I would recommend mediation or arbitration in lieu of removal. If the offense is egregious enough, it seems that the option of removal may be appropriate. I wouldn't do it myself, but would instead opt for mediation and arbitration. The attacker's offensive comments would not bolster their position, and would probably damage it. I only mention the disputed policy because it's still an undecided issue. Dreadlocke 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)

Thank You for Not Censoring this Talk Page

Android, thank you very much for restoring all the statements Lumiere deleted in an attempt to censor my opinions. It saved me a lot of time. Lumiere, are you intent on starting another editing war? Askolnick 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel's Opinion

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

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

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

The problem with "supporter's objections" is that they don't hold water. If someone finds an objection that is not properly debunked in the reference titled CSMMH, Answer to Critics, by all means. but all of them, as I see, are rooted in misunredstanding of what and how actually was tested, stemming from underinformation. "Objections" are not "facts". Everyone may say "these eggheads" screwed the test, but do we really have to mention this in the article.

To list an objection here, it must come from either the "victim" (by "natural" right of defense) or from a reputable source. The rest is idle talk. mikka (t) 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I thought I addressed that by saying the article looks okay to me. If there's something specific that was deleted, you'll have to tell me what it was. I'm not about to go swimming in all your previous arguments and edit wars to try to figure out exactly what you're talking about.

As for your other points - I don't want to offend anyone here, but I find the "test" that was conducted just as absurd as the idea of a person having x-ray vision in the first place. The cites for the test are no more notable than any other sources that could offer a rebuttal. If a point of view is expressed on any subject, any source with a different point of view should be noted.

Again, the point of the section is not whether or not her claims are true, but what people are saying about it. Because the focus is on the debate itself, both sides should be represented. It's not up to you to decide whether their claims are "idle talk"; it's up to the reader - in this case, me - to decide whether they think the sources are reliable. Kafziel 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Kafziel, it's not up to you to decide whether the sources are reliable. It's up to the consensus of Wiki editors to decide whether the sources are consistent with Wiki's policies and guidelines regarding citation of credible primary and secondary sources. Your comment, "If a point of view is expressed on any subject, any source with a different point of view should be noted," is NOT consistent with Wiki's policies. Please read them before making further statements about what is and is not considered appropriate editing of Wiki articles. The policies in question concern not including original research or other unreferenced material and citation of material not published in reputable publications, such as personal web pages. Askolnick 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that you assume that I agree that csicop.org is a respectable source. I don't. I've never heard of it, and if these articles are representative of their content, I have to say I'm not impressed at all. You see, the validity of sources comes down to the opinion of the individual reader in the long run. A lot of people wouldn't trust the New York Post as far as they can throw it, but it's still a valid source. You put the source in, and if I feel it's credible, I will believe your statement. That's how it works. Both sides have their opinions, and need to be represented fairly or not at all. Kafziel 19:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, this argument was an argument from ignorance: Because you don't know that CSICOP is considered a reputable source by a consensus of Wiki editors, you are arguing that it should be balanced by citing unreputable sources. I did NOT assume that you agree that CSICOP is a reputable source. But I did expect you to familiarize yourself with the facts and issues on this page before starting to argue for your proposed changes. Had you done so, you would know that CSICOP is considered a reputable source by Wiki -- indeed, Wiki has an article on CSICOP that makes this clear. And CSICOP's publication, the Skeptical Inquirer is cited in many Wiki articles as a reputable source.

Again, I urge you to read Wiki policy regarding sources. You appear to be dictating what Wiki policy should be: "You put the source in, and if I feel it's credible, I will believe your statement. That's how it works. Both sides have their opinions, and need to be represented fairly or not at all." No, that's not how it works here. For information to be included in a Wiki article, it must be referenced to a source in a reputable publication. Angry opinions that people put up on their personal web sites are not sources that meet Wiki's standards. You really should familiarize yourself with the issues here and with Wiki policies before making further arguments. And clearly, what you think of CSICOP or its publication has little bearing here. They are considered reputable sources by a consensus of Wiki editors.Askolnick 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I should also clarify that I'm not saying I think the point of view of her supporters deserves equal representation, because it's clearly a small(ish) group (does anyone have an exact number?). I'm just saying that if there is printed material that documents those points of view in a neutral fashion, then it should be used instead of one that actively attempts to discredit it. I doubt very much whether there's anything out there that I would personally consider credible evidence to support her claims. But surely there is a source that at least details those claims without bias. Kafziel 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this for at least the third time: If you or anyone else can find a source in a reputable publication that presents what you think are the views of Natasha's supporters, then cite it. But please, read Wiki policies before you claim that an angry rant published on a personal web site is a reputable source according to Wiki policy. It isn't. Askolnick 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since there have been changes to the article since I said I supported the "current version", I should clarify that this is the version I support; the version by DreamGuy, reverted to by Hipocrite. It is succinct and npov. Kafziel 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What you call "succint and npov" I call "vague, and non-informative". I didn't add a single opinion that criticizes demkina. I added accurate and important points of description of the event. Have you ever heard a term {{stub}} in wikipedia? If yous, please explain what exactly in your opinion wikipedia's policies encourage to do with short articles. Please also point exatly which my additions violate NPOV and how. mikka (t) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, right off the bat: "The testers made it clear..." Who says they did? The testers? It's not clear to me at all. In fact, that sentence is so badly written and confusing, I can't even tell what it is that's supposed to be clear. Kafziel 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the testers claim so. Are you saying they are lying in describing the goal of the experiment? mikka (t) 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They might be, how would I know? There's no supporting reference for that statement. In any case, I certainly wouldn't say that the testers themselves are a very neutral authority on whether or not they made the parameters of the test clear. On the other hand, the version I support avoids the problem altogether. Kafziel 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Agreed. I simplified the sentence. mikka (t) 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks better. Another question about that sentence: what is the phrase "strong effect" referring to? Some kind of measurement of the strong effect of her supposed psychic powers, like a strong reading on the ghostbusters' PKE meter? Or that her powers could only detect defects that had a strong effect on the subjects' bodies, and detecting more subtle things would require a different test? Or is it maybe something else that I haven't even thought of? Kafziel 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yor joke about PKE meter basically hits the nail. the "5 of 7" is the red tick a PKE meter. mikka (t) 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Title clarification

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

I misunderstood the situation, then. I thought Hipocrite was here to offer a third opinion as well. I didn't realize you were having the conflict with him.

Well, I still don't want to continue another long, drawn out argument, so I will just say that my third opinion has been delivered; to summarize, I think your version is more informative in some ways, but his version is simpler and more neutral, even if he has gone about it the wrong way.

I suggest using his version as a base, and slowly - with plenty of discussion - incorporate more details about the test itself. Kafziel 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This goes for everyone involved. Kafziel 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CSMMH-CSICOP test

Mr Skolnick wrote:

"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)

What you are ignoring here is the obvious fact that the test is not just the test of you and Hyman. It is also the test of the CSMMH-CSICOP organizations. It is even called the CSMMH-CSICOP test. In your paragraph above, you write as if we have here the normal situation where some authors submit to a third-party publication. This is not at all the situation. In a normal situation, the publishers are not contributors to the study. Here, the article is mainly about the CSMMH-CSICOP test, where the CSMMH and CSICOP organizations are the publishers. Moreover, your relationship with these organizations is not just the normal author/publisher relationship. It is a much closer relationship. So, even if these publishers were not involved in the design of the test, when you sent your work to these publishers, it is very close to a self-publication. The situation is even worst here because these publishers, which turns out to be the CSMMH and CSICOP organizations, obviously have a special interest in the CSMMH-CSICOP test. In this context, what is the most logical interpretation: (1) "third-party publication" just means published by an ordinary publisher (i.e. not by the authors or any other individuals) or (2) published by a publisher that is reasonably independent of the work that is published and has a reasonable author/publisher relationship with the authors? Clearly, the former interpretation is much weaker (in terms of protecting against possible bias) than the latter interpretation, which addresses two important issues.

BTW, is it on purpose that "CSMMH-CSICOP test" do not appear any more in the article? We may have changed the title and removed the expression "CSMMH-CSICOP test", but is still remains that this article is almost entirely about the CSMMH-CSICOP test, not about Demkina, which makes this article strongly biased toward the view presented by the CSMMH and CSICOP organizations. At the least, the critics should be as much represented. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Have you changed your name so that these long-discredited arguments would appear fresh? Why do you keep changing your name? To confuse readers? I've addressed these arguments before. I cited examples of Wiki articles that cite reports written by journal editors and writers about investigations that they themselves conducted. And I offered to provide you many other examples that show your argument is bogus. There is nothing wrong nor against Wiki policy in citing first person sources that are published in reputable journals and there is nothing wrong nor against Wiki policy when the authors are editors or writers at the publication. You simply ignored this, changed your name, and are reposting the same bogus argument as if your argument wasn't answered.

AGAIN: By your argument, Wiki's article on Jacque Benveniste would have to be rewritten and references to the three Nature articles removed. That's absolute nonsense. AGAIN: your definition of "self-published" is not the definition recognized by Wiki policy -- or probably anyone else. You often redefine terms to fit your agenda -- as you did again today when you switched "anomalous" for "paranormal" in the article. You NEED to read and ABIDE by Wiki's policy regarding self-publication and not try to substitute your own meaning. AGAIN, you keep ignoring the fact that the Natasha article is biased only towards information published in reputable publications. And it should be because that's a bias REQUIRED by Wiki policy. And AGAIN you keep ignoring the fact that Wikipedia recognizes Skeptical Inquirer and its publisher CSICOP as credible, reputable sources.

But you are absolutely right about one thing: the critics of the test should be equally represented. So as I've repeatedly told Keith and Dreamlocke, go find a credible, reputable published source that represents the critics' view and cite it. And when I say reputable published source, I mean according to Wiki's writen policies, not yours, not mine, not Siqueira's, not anyone else's. You, Keith Tyler, Dreamlocke, and Siqueira really need to abide by Wiki's policies and quit trying to force your personal biases on everyone else.Askolnick 05:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Jacque Benveniste article. There are many non sourced statements in this article. It clearly did not receive the required attention or worst perhaps it did receive a lot of attention, but one side got tired. Therefore, whether or not a non-third-party publication is used as a source in this article does not mean much. Another important problem with this example is that there is no comparison between the two situations. Nature is really a publisher. Nature is not an organization with a specific agenda with regard to the paranormal, which turns out to also play the role of a publisher. Nature did not associate its name with the experiment except indirectly through the intermediary of one of its editors. The experiment was not known as the "Nature-test". Also, I did not check which specific journal of the Nature publishing group was used, but it was most likely a peer-reviewed journal, which reduces the role of the Nature editor that was involved in the experiment. It remains that a publication in Nature in this case, because of the participation of one of its editors in the experiment, was nevertheless not a perfect third-party publication. I would say that this should be taken into account, but alone does not seem to be sufficient to reject the source. It is a question of degree together with other factors to consider. On the other hand, the case of the Skeptical Inquired for the Demkina experiment is the worst case possible. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresent the truth in pursuit of your agenda. Sir John Maddox, was not "one of its editors," Sir Maddox was editor in chief who very much ran Nature. And Nature very much associated its name to the investigation. As with the case of the CSMMH-CSICOP test of Demkina, Brian Josephson and other defenders of Woo-Woo also strongly criticized the Nature investigation. (In fact, Josephson made a fool of himself before the world of science with his "courageous" defense of the pseudoscientist -- when Josephson's challenge was accepted by scientists, he beat a hasty retreat and hid.) So go to it, Etincelle, aka Lumiere, aka Amrit -- grab your axe and evasculate the Jacques Benveniste article. Do not let a skeptical point of view go uncensored... Askolnick 06:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(Anyone interested in hearing a radio news report on the Nature investigation of Benveniste's bogus science, can listen to it here: [6] It features comments from my interviews with Sir John Maddox, Dr. Walter Stewart, James Randi, and Dr. Jacques Benveniste. I reported and produced the report for American Medical Radio News back in 1988. Ouch! Benveniste went on to receive the [dis]honor of being the first person in history to win two Ig Nobel prizes! I and others have been lobbying the Ig Nobel committee on behalf of Josephson. Perhaps 2006 will finally be his year.) Askolnick 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to indent your post. You can revert it if you want. It is just to respect Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Ok, the two situations are more similar than I first thought since the editor was the editor in chief of the journal. So, Nature was much less an ideal third-party publication for the Benveniste investiguation than I first thought, but, as I mentioned above, the fact that the editor was involved in the investiguation should be seen in the light of other factors which make the two situations completely different. The points that I mentioned still remain valid. Nature is really a publisher: Nature is not an organization with a specific agenda with regard to the paranormal, which turns out to also play the role of a publisher. Also, the journal Nature is peer-reviewed, which makes a big difference because the view of the editor is less important in such case. You mention "Nature Investiguation". I know that the expression "CSMMH-CSICOP test" is used in the CSMMH website, and not in a personal page in this website. Are you saying that Nature did the same for the Benveniste investiguation? This would be another important difference. Moreover, again, this other article is not well sourced, an indication of a lack of attention or of some other problem, so it is not so significant. An editor in this other article could point out to the Demkina article like you point out to this other article here. This would be a cyclic reasoning. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 07:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are just making things up to support your attempt to circumvent Wiki policies. Peer-reviewers in science journals do not make decisions. They are usually outsiders who make only recommendations to the editor, which he or she may follow or reject. And editors regularly reject the recommendations of one or more peer reviewers when they don't agree. All major publishing decisions are made by the editor. And Nature's editor drew heavy criticism from scientists around the world -- not for having debunked Benveniste, but for having published his pseudoscientific claims in the first place. Please stop making things up.Askolnick 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that peer-reviewers do not make decisions, but in the long run the scientific community will notice if the reports of the referrees are not considered, so the editors consider seriously these reports. Also, the journal might not succeed to maintain its bank of referrees if they ignore them. I don't know about Nature, but I know by direct experience that in many peer-reviewed journals, the reports are very important. This is why I said that in peer-reviewed journals the view of the editor is less important -- I didn't say not important at all. You do understand what "less important" means. You added that Nature was critized to publish the original study. What was your point? The critics against Nature was directed toward its role as a publisher, not as an investiguator. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Did the Skeptical Inquirer receive similar critics for its decision to publish an article on the Demkina experiment? This would be very surprising. The CSMMH and CSICOP organizations were criticized for the entire investiguation-- a completely different kind of criticisms. It seems to indicate another distinction between the two situations, if anything. So, you kind of failed to reject my argument -- you may even have supported it. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Josephson

I read more about Brian Josphson interest in this other investiguation, and as far as I can see his point was only to encourage well established neutral scientific organizations to study the phenomena. He never said that he will conduct himself such a research and I understand that he was hesitant to participate in some other setup that have the purpose to discredit those who are interested in these research. Perhaps that he didn't have a definitive opinion as to whether or not this particular phenomena is real: it is not because you propose a study that you are convinced in advance that the result will be positive. It just means that you think that there is a significant chance that it will be positive. So, we don't need this kind of setup where the career of a scientist depends on the outcome of the experiment. I suspect that Brian Josephson was calling for a more neutral and relaxed set-up. It seems that it was not possible to obtain, so it did not happen. That's all. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is for the discussion of the Wikipedia article titled "Natasha Demkina." Please constrain your remarks to that topic. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to add an indent to your post. You can revert it if you want. It is only to respect the recommanded layout Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. To understand the current situation with the current article Mr. Skolnick wanted to consider related articles. I think it does make sense. We still maintain a clear connection with the Demkina article. Also, it is natural to consider the credibility of sources in the talk page. If Mr. Skolnick would agree to retract his meaningless criticisms toward Brian Josephson, I would also remove my reply. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not modifiy my comments, ever. This talk page is for the discussion of the Wikipedia article titled "Natasha Demkina." Please constrain your remarks to that topic. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because four participants in this discussion are arguing that criticisms Brian Josephson self-published on his own web site should be included in the Wiki article on Natash Demkina, Josephson's credibility -- or lack thereof -- is a relevant topic. We have four people here arguing that we should ignore Wiki policy and include the pseudoscientific views of a crank, which he could only self-publish on his own web site. That is exactly the kind of source that Wiki policy says is NOT reputable nor acceptable.Askolnick 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not evaluate the bias of sources. If there is a major controvercy about a source, we note the controvercy. If the Josephson info is included, a note should also be included to the effect that Josephson has been "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal" according to the THES. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please explain to me where you got "bias of sources" from? I did NOT say ANYTHING about evaluating the bias of any source. I was CLEARLY discussing the CREDIBILITY of sources and whether or not they are REPUTABLE. And THAT'S exactly what editors are expected to do when choosing sources and references for Wiki articles. If I sound annoyed it's because I'm sick and tired of having to reply to so many red herring and strawman arguments here. AGAIN, Josephson's biases have no bearing on this discussion. What does is whether his opinons are published in a credible, reputable publication. They are NOT. They were self-published on his personal web site and therefore do not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reputable source:

"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 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Luminare, who quotes policies to try to win arguments, I have substantial experience with this encyclopedia, and know that policies are designed to reflect the way things are supposed to be done, rather than designed to guide the way things should be done. The goal in preventing the use of personal websites is to avoid including "some guy off the street said." Josephson's personal website is a great deal like the personal website of a notable figure in the controvercy, and should be included as the discussion of the test continues to grow beyond my preferred version (which the wp:3o, and all of the other experienced, reputable editors agree with also). However, lest we give Josephson undue weight, it needs to be made clear that he is viewed by mainstream scientists as a nutter. This is done admirably by the THES quote. Please do not attempt to use the written policies to get the article to look like what you want - they are not a club to help you get what you want. Additionally, please review the third opinion kindly given by Kaz above - that we revert to my preferred version [7] Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This last comment of Hipocrite illustrates very well the situation in Wikipedia. The policy does not mean much. You are certainly not welcome to use it to defend your view. Like you, Andrew, I felt it was the most natural thing to do. I felt that it was very civilized that editors that are in disagreement refer to the policy to determine how things should be done. Moreover, I felt that the policy should not be ambiguous so that it clearly can help in this kind of situation. The less ambiguous it is, the less there is room for dispute. However, as we can see in Hipocrite's comment, the situation is not like that at all. In fact, if you propose anything that makes the policy more explict about anything, you are guarantee to receive a large amount of critics. Similarly, if you refer to a part of the policy that you believe is already clear to defend your view against established wikipedia editors, you will also be criticized. If you insist and they really do not like your view, you will be called a troll, a spammer, etc. In your case, they will not go that far because I think essentially the general view that you defend is appreciated by the Wikipedia community. So, you are OK - they won't call you a troll or a spammer, but you will still have to deal with this situation. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'm sorry you object to my citing Wiki policies. But I'm going to do so again, because they were established for a reason -- to help editors decide what are and are not credible sources for citing in Wiki articles. When editors fight over this issue, as they are doing here, those policies are what are supposed to guide us. I think your accusation misses the mark. It seems to me people who are trying to bully their way into getting the article they want are those who are arguing against following Wiki policies.

Your representation of the Wiki rules falls far short of what the policies actually state. You said: "The goal in preventing the use of personal websites is to avoid including 'some guy off the street said.' Josephson's personal website is a great deal like the personal website of a notable figure in the controvercy, and should be included as the discussion of the test..."

I disagree for the following reasons based on Wiki policies:

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."

When kooks self-publish their opinions on their personal web sites, they are NOT reputable publishers.

Self-published sources: 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. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

You seem to be claiming that an exception for Brian Josephson's self-published web attack because he's a Nobel prize winning quantum physicist. But this is ignoring another Wiki guideline regarding an acceptable authority:

"Beware false authority: Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. [8]

For the very same reason, we shouldn't be citing someone with a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics as an expert on how to evaluate medical diagnoses! Josephson has no expertise in health or medicine. He has never published anything in these fields -- except on his own web pages. Which brings us back to:

"Personal websites as primary sources: 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."

And Josephson has absolutely no professional or academic standing in this area of study. He's never published anything related to health and medicine and hasn't a clue how to evaluate diagnostic procedures. Indeed, his writing in question shows he either doesn't know or is pretending not to know why Bayesian analysis is important in designing scientific studies. That's why he's forced to "publish" this personal attack on his own web site. He could never get it published in any reputable publication. As such, his web rant doesn't come anywhere near being a reputable publication that meets Wiki criteria.

Reliability: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

Here again, Wiki policy tells us how unsuitable Josephson's web rant is. It's nothing but a personal attack on researchers in the area of health and medicine, an area totally outside Josephson's field of study. We should NOT be going to a quantum physicist for advice on diagnostic medical procedures! Except for the diatribe he's self-published on his own web site, Josephson has published nothing in the area of health and medicine.

"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."

However, in this case, we do know. Scientists are supposed to publish their findings and opinions in journals and other reputable publications. Josephson (and Siqueira) "publish" their opinions on their own web pages. It doesn't take a "psychic" to see why. Askolnick 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Hipocrite for bringing some clarity to this situation, your views of Wikipedia reflect what I understood to be the case. From the way this talk page looks, I’m sure the issues around this article will end up going all the way to the Arbitration Committee to establish whether or not Prof. Josephson’s website is a citable “Reference” for this article and if the Wiki Natasha Demkina article meets all the Wikipedia requirements, including NPOV. I think the current English-version article on Natasha fails the test of NPOV miserably.

Exception for Professor Josephson:

I firmly believe Professor Josephson meets all the criteria for an exception to the Wikipedia policy on “Self-published sources” Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Josephson is a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field (the paranormal) and his work in the field of the paranormal has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Josephson may be a well known physicist, but he is also a well known professional researcher in the field of the paranormal. His work at the University of Cambridge is related to the paranormal. He has had his work in the paranormal field published in many credible, third-party publications, and his website is eminently qualified for the “exception to the rule” on Self Published websites.

I contacted Professor Josephson and the University of Cambridge directly and found that his website critique is considered to be part of his professional activities. The University hosted website is clearly not the average, guy-off-the-street website that the Wikipedia “personal website” policy refers to, as the very Wiki-experienced and knowledgeable Hipocrite points out.

Professor Josephson's research into the paranormal is part of his scholarly and professional activities at the University of Cambridge. Here is more information on that connection, as well as some of the history (30 years) of Josephson's studies into the Brain and the Paranormal: Pioneer of the Paranormal.

Also, here is the home page of Professor Brian Josephson, director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge Professor Josephson Home Page.

Interestingly enough, considering some of the earlier remarks on the “Times Higher Education Supplement”, the Professor himself has had some of his work on the paranormal published in that particular credible publication: One of his paranormal articles was published in the Times Higher Education Supplement on 12 Aug. 1994.

The Natasha Demkina article is about her presumed paranormal abilities. One of the CSICOP researchers, Prof. Hyman is trained as a psychologist and worked as a magician; the other, Prof. Wiseman, was also a magician who was trained as a psychologist. What makes them more of a “professional researcher” in the paranormal than Prof. Josephson, who was trained in Physics? It sure isn’t magic. It may be interesting, but in the end, the comparison doesn’t really matter, because Prof. Josephson is a well-known, professional researcher in a field highly relevant to both Natasha Demkina and CSICOP. Dreadlocke 21:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"It sure isn’t magic" - Wrong. Precisely magic is a useful qualification to expose various crooks. And a psychologist is by definition for "psychics". mikka (t) 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mikka, that was really more of a joke than a serious comment, I'm pretty up on my history of Houdini and his enhanced debunking skills due to his own craft. Really, though, a job-history in magic isn't a prerequisite for being a researcher into the paranormal. Dreadlocke 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was not joking. The sheer amount of crooks in the area does make expertise in magic a prerequisite to save taxpayer's money. mikka (t) 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I alway appreciate something that saves taxpayer money, but although there are a lot of crooks in the world of psychic fakery, there are much bigger crooks in other areas that I'd be concerned about first - none of them paranormal, but quite magical in how they slip that money out of taxpayer hands without the victim even noticing their pockets had been picked. True magical talent, that.Dreadlocke 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just like former hackers are recruited to fight computer crime, I am sure, someone is handling these bigger crooks as well. It is a well-known trivia that it requires a crook to smell a crook. mikka (t) 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. It takes a thief to catch a thief. Politicans, now..that's a whole different ballgame. As for the paranormal and the magician, I'm sure it's possible to make almost anything look like magic. Dreadlocke 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you seem willing to pawn off on us the most outlandish and irrational arguments. The one about Josephson publishing his "work" on the "paranormal" in the Times Higher Education Supplement is a real lulu. The publication is a NEWSPAPER not a research journal, for crying out loud. And what Josephson published there was not research. Josephson hasn't ever published any parapsychology research. He just publishes his irrational opinions and misrepresentation of facts -- as you're doing here. You repeatedly claim that Josephson is a "professional researcher" in parapsychology. That's not true. Prove me wrong by citing original parapsychology research that he's published in peer-reviewed science journals. And I pray that I don't have to explain to you again the difference between a newspaper and a peer-reviewed science journal.Askolnick 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I said here.

Dreadlocke 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Appendixes cannot grow back and other facts

Hipocrite, I reverted some of the changes you made in the article. I don't understand why you replaced clear explanations with obfuscatory verbiage. One doesn't have to be medical professional to know that a person who has no surgical scar on her lower abdomen likely still has her appendix, or to know that a person who has no large surgical scar over the top of her stomach couldn't have had part of her esophagus removed. Seeing the presence of those scars would help anybody identify subjects who had those operations and those who did not. And when a person insists that a human can grow a second head or a second appendix, where I can from, we say they are wrong. We don't report that in all the annals of medical research and publication, there doesn't appear to be a reported case of a person regrowing a head after losing their first one. When a person says they can regrow a head or an appendix, they are simply wrong. More importantly, I provided a reputable reference for the original simple statement. I did not see a reputable source listed for the change you made.Askolnick 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your version, except that I must insist that you attribute "should" to someone. IE - "which, according to *person* should have." This is how we write for NPOV. Additionally, I find the statement "Demkina also claimed that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy. The medical community has no documented cases of a regrown appendix," to be far more damning than the statement that she wrongly claimed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Attribution is no problem: It could be something as simple as "which the investigators said..." I'll make the fix. However, I disagree with your position about the added verbiage for two reasons: One, I don't think it's more "damning" because Natasha and her supporters claim she knows things that the medical community still hasn't recognized. I was willing to go "out on the limb" in the Skeptical Inquirer article by saying, appendixes do not grow back either in Russia or anywhere else. Her incredible statement, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is wrong. So I provided a reputable reference for asserting that her claim is wrong. However, there is no reference for your statement that the medical community has no documented case of a regrown appendix. Proving such a negative would be exceedingly difficult. Even though I knew her statement was nuts, I did a Medline search (not surprisingly found nothing) and spoke with a couple of medical gurus. So while I found overwhelming evidence to conclude her statement is "wrong," in no way could I claim that there has never been a reported case of a regrown appendix. Making such absolute statements are very risky. The human organism is full of surprises. So I think it unwise to claim that no one ever reported a regrown appendix (hell, such a case might involve an incomptent physican who removed the wrong organ and claimed the patient's appendix miraculously regrew!). It is safer -- and much simpler -- to simply state that Natasha's claim that appendixes grow back in Russia is wrong for the same reason it is justified to say that pigs can't fly, even though it would be next to impossible to prove no one has ever reported seeing an exception to the rule.Askolnick 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Demand of explanation

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

Each one? OK!

In subsequent articles the testers stated that within the given limited setting of the experiment only the presence of a strong effect may be definitely decided

Not standard english. No idea what you are trying to say.

Exactly what is written: testers were placed in restrictred conditions of a TV show, and only if a strong effect is seen, then a definite conclusion of its presence can be made. If the effect is weak, who will pay thousands of $US to run detailed tests? If US DoD or ufologists have funds, I am sure Dr. Skolnick will happily waste some more time on this. mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is this published? It looks like your own analysis of the situation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If Natasha indeed posseses the claimed abilities, but which are weak or erratic, it would have required a much more extensive testing

According to who? Why? Pure POV

"In subsequent articles" It is a published "pure POV" of persons who conducted the experiment, i.e., persons who made decisions, i.e., of immediate relevance.mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable source that states this. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the influence of the "Clever Hans effect" cannot be ruled out in such a restricted setting

According to who? Why? Pure POV

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

"In subsequent articles" It is a published "pure POV" of persons who conducted the experiment, i.e., persons who made decisions, i.e., of immediate relevance. mikka (t) 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable source that states this. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Why citing Discovery Channel for the appendix story?

Demkina also claimed that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy, a claim the investigators dismissed as simply not true.<ref name="Discovery"/><ref name="skolnick"/>

I keep removing the reference to the Discovery channel because it has nothing to do with the sentence. The Discoverty Channel is cited at the beginning of the paragraph (of which the above is the last sentence) in a way that makes clear that it is the a source for the remainder of this paragraph. However, I think it is important to see that the last sentence about the appendix story is not sourced in the Discovery Channel. We should not confuse the readers and let them think that the Discovery Channel article backs up this kind of silly remark. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Etincell-formerly-Lumiere-formally-Amrit, what is "silly" is someone who repeatedly makes statements that are clearly untrue when editing an encyclopedia. Have you bothered to watch the Discovery Channel program? The Discovery Channel program shows Natasha trying to get out of identifying the subject who had an appendectomy by claiming appendixes grow back. And it shows me explaining to her that no, they do not, followed by her insistence that they do grow back in Russia, and my final insistance that they do not. Please stick to the facts and not your personal agenda.Askolnick 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference that I removed is an article in the Discovery Channel website, not a reference to a video of the TV show. The information that you mention is not available in the article. Moreover, a reference to a video of the TV show can only be used as a primary source. We must be very careful where to use primary source materials such as video of interviews or TV shows because they are not filtered by any publisher. Usually, they should be complementary to a secondary source, especially if the primary source is used to discredit a person. The article in the Discovery Channel website is a secondary source, but it does not contain the information, and this is because they filter the information. They don't filter the information in an arbitrary way. The purpose of citing a reputable secondary source is exactly to take advantage of the fact that they filter information: they check for accuracy, fairness, etc. In your case, you separately provide a secondary source, and in such a case, it may be acceptable to also include the primary source (a video of an interview or TV show). What must be clear is that the Discovery Channel is not the required secondary source: it is not what is being used to back-up the sentence. Therefore, it is enough that it appears at the beginning of the paragraph. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you think that the above is not based on policy, please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources, in particular:

"In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate."

The emphasise is mine. The "In most cases" instead of "Always" is because for some non controversial article such as Apple pie, it is fine that the article is only based on primary sources. An evaluative claim, such as a comment on Demkina's understanding of the human physiology, is an example of a material that requires a secondary source. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, the above argument is so moronic, I'm almost at a lost of words. First, the reference you wrongly removed IS a reference to the TV documentary. It clearly states: The Discovery Channel, 2004, The Girl with X-Ray Eyes. That is clearly a reference to the documentary. You are arguing that the documentary is not a secondary source. That of course is also not true. And then you claim it should not be cited because it violates Wiki's guideline about sources being "verifiable." What can be more verifiable than for people to watch the program AND SEE NATASHA DEMKINA AND ME MAKE THE STATEMENTS THAT ARE REPORTED IN THE WIKI ARTICLE?! I think it may be time to change your name again. Askolnick 13:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me try again, but this time one step at a time. Let us just consider the first two statements that I wrote. When I followed the reference, I did every thing I could to find some information that back up the sentence, but there was nothing. In particular, there was no way to obtain a video of the TV show. Is the TV show published? If yes, please provide a reference. Please provide an exact reference for a source that is published by the Discovery Channel and contains information about the sentence. This will take care of the first step. To keep things simple, we will consider the other issues later, even though they are very important. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all sources need be available on the Internet. Printed books, documentaries, and the like are cited as references all the time. android79 21:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Contact the Discovery Channel and obtain a transcript of the show. BillC 21:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not telling me anything that I didn't know here. However, I still don't know if the Discovery Channel publishes such transcript. Are you sure that we can actually get a transcript of the show? Maybe I am just ignorant of these things, but the burden to know where to get a complete reference is not on me. It is on whoever tries to source the material. So, please provide the address where to write and make sure that indeed it is the right place to request a transcript. Make sure that this transcript is indeed published. This is was my point. Why is it so complicated? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, indeed, the burden is on you. Peer-reviewed papers typically contain many references to other papers, without instructions specifically where to obtain copies of them. Today's featured article, Médecins Sans Frontières, for example has a reference to "International Review of the Red Cross (314): 512-531." One is not told where to get that from. In addition, very often a document retrieval fee or subscription will be required. For example, Keratoconus has a reference to "Surv Ophthalmol. 1984 Jan-Feb;28(4):293-322", yet a fee of $30 is required to obtain that paper. Are both articles to be deprecated since they neither tell you where to obtain the document nor is it provided online for free? However, I will give you this link: [9]. You can compose a meesage there. I have already done so. --BillC 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about. Wow! The examples you gave are references available in a library. If they don't have it, they will find it for you. There is no comparison with the situation here. And why are you telling me about price? Of course, I know that you might have to pay for a book, for example. You totally miss the point. The source must be available in library, in bookstore or on the web or otherwise it is not considered published. The transcript is not avaible in bookstore or in library, and it is not obvious at all that it is available on the web. I am trying your link, but I am not sure if it qualifies. There is nothing to request a transcript in the page. If it is acceptable, it is borderline. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The source must be available in library, in bookstore or on the web or otherwise it is not considered published. Says who? android79 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Says EincelleformerlyLumiereformerlyAmrit. She makes things up like this all the time. When she has no better reply, she makes up a rule. For an example of a Wiki article that demonstrates how absurd her latest made-up rule is, see the entry for Talk of the Nation. [10] Askolnick 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources. It is said that the source must be available through the web or a public library. I thought I saw in one of the guidelines that bookstores are also fine, but I cannot find it anymore. Anyway, what is the problem here? The policy is just asking for common sense. To publish something means to bring it to the public attention. If the transcript is not available from the web, not available from a library (and also not available from a bookstore), then how the public can access it? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The documentary is available on the internet. You can purchase a download from Discovery Broadband for the princely sum of £1.50 for 24 hours. I'm watching it now. Does this count? --BillC 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! This is a direct link. BillC, this is a much more useful answer! Of course, we need this kind of references. That's all what I was saying. We will need to adjust the reference and make sure that it is clear that it is a video of the TV show, a primary source. What supports the sentence is the secondary source, not the primary source. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 02:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that I do not know what I am talking about? --BillC 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Not when I consider your last answer! I am sorry if you were offensed by what I said before. I think I could have presented it in a different way.

Now, I have seen the primary source (the video of the TV show), and I disagree with the fact that we can infer from it that the statement above is true. The video does not show Natasha saying that appendixes grow back. We only hear Dr. Skolnick saying that appendixes do not grow back and then Natasha replying that the body regenerates. Dr. Skolnick has a tendency to interpret what his opponents say in the worst way possible. Therefore, maybe Natasha said something that is not included in the video, Dr. Skolnick replied that "appendixes do not grow back" because he misinterpreted what Natasha said and Natasha simply reexplained again what she meant, which is not necessarily that appendixes grow back. Without the context, including a translation of every thing the interpret said to Natasha, it is impossible to draw a conclusion. In any case, the video does not show Natasha saying that appendixes grow back. Therefore, it is misleading to use a reference to this video to support a claim that Demkina clearly affirmed that appendixes grow back. It is Dr. Skolnick that claims that she made this affirmation, and Dr. Skolnick's claim is reported in a secondary source that he wrote himself, not in the video. This is an example that illustrates why, even though we can cite primary sources, any analysis or evaluation on top of these primary sources must be supported by secondary sources. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, we should question the relevance of this sentence. I only see it as an attempt to say that Natasha knows not much about the human physisology. Natasha does not claim to have an intellectual understanding of the human physiology. Therefore, this sentence has no relevance to the topic of the section. It only discredits Natasha on a very silly ground. This is why I said that it is a silly remark, which can only come from Mr. Skolnick. It is not fair to attempt to attack Natasha's understanding of the human physiology. Mr Skolnick is so completely blind to his mission to discredit the paranormal that he is ready to attack any supporter of the paranormal in any way possible, fair or not. He would destroy the career of any scientist that openly supports more standard and careful research on the paranormal. He does it through publications in magazines or journals that are published by its own clic of skeptics. So, I think we should remove the sentence, which is only supported in such a magazine or journal. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This clic of skeptics is obviously full of respectable scientifics, and their journals or magazines have achieved some level of scientific respectability. There is no question about this. Again, the issue is that these respectable scientifics all have adopted a very precise agenda. They are not neutral and do not represent the totality of science. It is my understanding that the policy, through its requirement for a "third-party" source, says that we should not source material about the work of these organisations (or of their employees) in journals or magazines that these organizations publish. If the work of these organizations is so interesting and valid, the authors should have no difficulty to publish such a work using a third-party publisher. The explanation why this kind of work is not published using a third-party publisher and the explanation why some scientists publish in their own website is one and the same explanation: the material would not pass the test of an independent third-party review process. When these are two opposite views in the debate, and that both views are equally not yet accepted by a third-party review process, it is not fair to accept one view and not the other view. We just need to interpret the policy in a fair way here. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What is too silly for words are the twisted apologetics above that remind me of the drunken man's wife's explanation for the strange bowler hat lying next to their bed: "That's just a lovely chamber pot me mother sent to me." Only Wiki editors are not old drunken fools. What is the silliest of the silly statements is her claim that it is unfair "to attempt to attack Natasha's understanding of the human physiology." After all, why should a young woman who diagnoses illnesses in people (for a fee) know anything about human physiology? Whenever I think such spin can't get more ridiculous, I'm surprised as I am here. No wonder Etincelle formerly Lumiere, formerly Amrit keeps changing her name. One doesn't need "X-ray vision" to see that. She does so whenever her personal talk page gets filled with stinging criticisms, complaints, and a record of disciplinary actions. By changing her name, she makes herself a clean slate. Askolnick 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit even got my credentials wrong. I am not a doctor.Askolnick 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very poetic Andrew. You wrote a long paragraph with a very colorful description of my person. You are very good at what you are doing. I will not try to compete with you. Ok, but if I try to extract from your paragraph some real content about the points that I made, and not about my person, what do I get? You only said that the lack of expertise of Natasha in human physiology is relevant because she charges people to diagnoze them. Perhaps, I did not describe accurately what was your purpose with your silly sentence. The purpose was to suggest that she naively believes and claims things outside traditional science, things that she could not verify herself. This is a much more fundamental attack than just pointing out that she is not an expert in physiology. This attacks her basic common sense. I am not an expert in physiology myself, and I don't know if I should trust you about the fact that appendixes do not grow back. However, this is irrelevant. What is important here is that you claimed that she affirmed a fact that you present as well known amongst experts to be false. Your purpose is clear. Well, if we do a good job here, you will fail. You have no proof that she made such an affirmation. After I have seen the video, I was very impress by her common sense and good judgement. Moreover, your point would have been valid if she claimed to be expert in human physiology, but she said herself without your help that she is not expert, more precisely, she said that she does not even know the correct terminology. So, there was no need at all for this silly sentence. You could quote her directly and then mention the fact that she has not any degree (yet) in medecine. Of course, this would not have been enough for you. You had to discredit her person at a much more fundamental level. As I said, Mr Skolnick is so completely blind to his mission to discredit the paranormal that he is ready to attack any supporter of the paranormal in any way possible, fair or not. This was one of my main points, and this main point together with everything else that I wrote, which Mr Skolnick did not even address, remain entirely valid. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Following Wiki Policy

Editors involved in this debate should carefully consider the following Wiki recommendations regarding the use of reliable sources: [11]

There is sometimes no one prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it generally tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors should not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy.

Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia. However, although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Significant-minority views should be reported as that, and should not be given the same amount of space in an article as the majority view.

Simply make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers, rather than: "Some say that ... (vague, unattributed theory), but others believe ... (vague, unattributed theory)."

The article as currently written follows these guidelines closely. It makes readers aware of the controversy and cites a reputable published source that reports on the controversy ("Scientists fail to see eye to eye over girl's "X-ray vision", Times Higher Ed. Supp., 10 Dec 2004). Yet it does not falsely elevate that minority view by citing a crank's non-reputable, self-published web page as a reputable publication. Efforts to do so are in opposition to Wiki policy that directs editors not to "create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position," in addition to violating Wiki guidelines that say personal web pages should NEVER be used as secondary sources. Askolnick 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As further evidence of the wisdom of Wiki's policies regarding never using personal web pages as secondary sources, one of the sources some editors here have been insisting should be cited in the Natasha article no longer exists. The source's web site was hosted by Geocities Yahoo Brazil, which apparently cancelled his account for repeated violations of terms of service. That's clearly not evidence of a "reputable published source." Wiki's policies clearly make good sense. Those who argue against following them, do not. Askolnick 16:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeating someone else's stated opinion is not original research, so I don't know what your point is, except to repeat the same things you've already said in order to block opposing content from the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, you went ahead and ignored Wiki's guidelines against citing sensational accounts published in sleazy news tabloids and personal websites. And I removed those references. You've made it clear that you don't believe those Wiki policies need to be followed. Until I'm told there's a Wiki consensus that those policies are empty words, I will continue to remove links to non-reputable sources. I left the links to the non-personal web sites, because they are consistent with Wiki rules and guidelines. Askolnick 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was sure to read Wikipedia:External links before adding those links, and none of them ran afoul of the precepts there. So, I'd like you to show me how each of the links you removed violated Wikipedia:External links. You have confused the policy for external links with the policy for sources. Two different things. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Requested

This has gone on far long enough. It seems like Dreadlocke, Lumiere, Julio Siqieria, et al, want to add opposing content, but Andrew Skolnick rejects such material as coming from invalid sources. Will Andrew and others agree to Mediation? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Dreadlocke 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would.

However, I want to correct something. I do not object to adding opposing content. But I believe such material needs to be be based on reputable sources. I've repeatedly welcomed you and other editors to add any opposing opinions that you can find in a publication that meets Wikipedia's standards for credible and reputable sources. The personal attacks from two cranks that were self-published on their own web sites are not reputable sources, according to Wiki policies. Indeed, one of the two sites was shut down by his Web host because of repeated copyright violations. He now has it set up on a new web site. This is hardly evidence of a reputable publication. And yet some people here still claim his self-published web site rant is a "reputable publication." I will trust mediation to see through such claims. Askolnick 21:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes sure.

It is so interesting to see Andrew write a correction, a paragraph of 10 sentences, that basically says that he rejects opposing content as coming from invalid sources. Andrew, what did you correct exactly? Keith D. Tyler description was pretty accurate and direct to the point. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have my correction to propose. A third alternative was ignored, which is to shrink the whole section about the Skolnick test to a reasonable proportion, not only on the basis that the Skeptical Inquirer is a dubious source for the current article, but also on the basis that an over-representation of this specific experiment is in itself non NPOV. This is not an article about Skolnic test, but an article about Demkina. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I have three items for mediation.

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

- The main opponent of the Professor’s website inclusion is Mr. Skolnick. My belief is that Mr. Skolnick does not want it included because it is an excellent critique of CSICOP's Natasha investigation and of Mr. Skolnick's work in that investigation. Mr. Skolnick’s bias can be clearly seen by his mischaracterization of the Professor’s article as an “angry rant” “diatribe” written by a “crank.” Anyone reading the Professor’s site can easily see that this is patently false and misleading. The Professor’s writing is clear, professional and not in the slightest bit “angry.” And the Professor is clearly not a “crank.” Here is the website: [Josephson.]

- I do not agree with Mr. Skolnick’s interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they relate to the Josephson website, and I feel that the inclusion of the Josephson website is critical for NPOV purposes. I've gone into more detail as to why I believe the Josephson website is acceptable as a citable Reference for Wikipedia in the Josephson Exception and Professor Josephson's Website sections of this Talk page.

- I should add that Étincelle has stated that both the csicop.org/SI material and the Professor’s should be left out; but I think for different reasons than Mr. Skolnick.

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

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

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

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

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

I added it to the article as an external link. BillC 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, there are a lot of links added! Excellent! Dreadlocke 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A Mediation request has been filed with the Mediation Cabal. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I've boiled the points down to a general issue. I think the general case covers the stated cases. I don't think "reduction in CSICOP material" is an issue if some more contrary material can be added. I also strongly urge those interested to add material about Demkina's life outside the test. Note I added some external links the other day (see my edit, as A.S. removed some), which may be a starting point. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Keith, it looks good to me. I agree with your assessment of "reduction in CSICOP material" if more balance is brought to the article. I also believe that Professor Josephson's website meets the criteria for a citable reference under the exceptions to the policies and guidelines around "self-published" or "personal" websites, as I have detailed in the Brian Josephson and Professor Josephson's Website entries above - as well as being a critical reference for NPOV purposes.

I note that Mr. Skolnick has added his own views to the Cabal Mediation request you submitted, and I believe that Mr. Skolnick may be confusing the policies and guidelines around "citable references" with the guidelines for links that can be placed in the "External Links" or "Further Reading" sections of an article. There is quite a difference between the two, and a site that doesn't meet the requirements for being cited in an article can still be mentioned in the "Further Reading/External Links" section. Perhaps the Mediator can shed some light on this issue as well. Thanks! Dreadlocke 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been my first shot at mediation, and it has been a learning experience. Fasten, who appointed me to the case, has pointed out some things wrong with my approach, and I concur. It would be best for another mediator to have a crack at this, and I have told Fasten to find one. I should not have stepped in and edited the article as a mediator, nor should I have given an evalution of the article. The role of a mediator is not to "fix" the article, but to help the editors work out their own agreement. Rohirok 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask that. I think that is the problem with the eager-invitation method of the Mediation Cabal. This article has been stewing long enough that having someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Mediation assigned to it only stoked the fires. This article has already been through WP:3O and WP:RFC. It needs mediation, not more 3O/RFC. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it’s for the best. The Cabal Mediation is totally informal and presents a very light-hearted page for mediation requests – and it is one of the first (and necessary) steps in the mediation process. The informal and humorous nature of the Cabal caused me to relax somewhat, and I didn’t see the comment Rohirok made on my talk page having such a strong impact. It seemed to me that he was merely trying to reassure me that even though he was a confirmed skeptic and had worked for CSICOP, that he could be fair in his mediation by telling me he thought the article could indeed include information I was seeking. I admit that I was wrong, and now see the obvious perception of bias this would bring against the “other side” of this dispute. I definitely want this to be a fair decision based on the facts. Dreadlocke 21:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New mediator

FTR it appears we have a new mediator, though I have not seem them active. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina's Web Site

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

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

Here's the Babelfish translation:

On the center

The center of special diagnostics of man (in abbreviated form TSSD) is created in 2005. From January 2006 TSSD opened in Moscow the office of energy-information diagnostics of Natalie demkinoy.

The Director-General OF TSSD is Taranenko Albert viktorovich.

TSSD is created in order together with rendering aid to population in the diagnosis, to assign on the joint operation of specialists, who possess uncommon abilities, people healers and professionals of traditional medicine. In our opinion, this association will help not only to raise to the new level the methods of diagnostics and treatment, but also to complete breakthrough in many scientific directions, connected with human health.

We invite to the collaboration of all interested in this persons.

Services

1. In the center works the diagnostic office of Natalie demkinoy, where energy-information diagnostics of human organism is conducted.

This form of diagnostics provides for the survey of entire organism of patient to the presence in it of the most significant pathologies and, most important, are determined the reasons for disease. Support is done to the survey of interaction of all systems of organism (hormonal, cardiovascular, central nervous system, etc.). Often it is necessary to supervise of the processes, proceeding at the cellular level, revealing in this case even virus diseases.

2. In the center the office of classical and segmental- reflector massage also works. The estimation of the quality of the work of these degreed specialists passed under a strict control by Natalie demkinoy.

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

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

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

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

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

This article reads like something straight out of Skeptical Inquirer

I have been a subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, and interned once at the Center for Inquiry, CSICOP's international headquarters in Amherst, New York. I agree with CSICOP's aims, and tend to trust their methods and findings. However, when I read this article, I get the feeling that I'm reading something straight out of Skeptical Inquirer. That's a problem. The article is supposed to be a descriptive and neutral article about Natasha Demkina. It's not the proper place for an evaluation of her alleged abilities. CSICOP's test of her is significant [enough for a brief mention, and a brief description of their findings is also appropriate. However, this article goes into depth about CSICOP's methods and findings, as if it were written by one of the researchers. Witness these quotes:

• "In addition, the influence of the 'Clever Hans effect' cannot be ruled out under the lax conditions of the preliminary test." (emphasis added)
• "She said that she should have looked longer and deeper to find the subject who [has a metal plate covering a missing section of his skull, even though the outline of the large metal plate could be seen beneath the scalp from up close." (emphasis added)
• "She said surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected esophagus and removed appendix, although those surgical scars should have helped her identify the correct subjects, the researchers explained." (emphasis added)

The emphasized statements are evaluative in nature, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. While it is possible to neutralize these evaluations somewhat by specifying that they are the views of the CSICOP researchers (as was done in the third sentence I quoted), the fact remains that this is an article about Natasha Demkina, not an article about one particular study of Natasha Demkina. The study and its findings bear mentioning, and key articles (even ones that have a specific POV for or against) about the study ought to be referenced, but in-depth analysis and evaluations are beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. If readers want that, they can follow the reference links and judge for themselves. Rohirok 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you say this Wiki article is "not the proper place for an evaluation of her alleged abilities." That's true. But it is the proper place for reporting findings of an evaluation of her alleged abilities published in a reputable publication.

The reason the Skeptical Inquirer reports carry so much weight in this article has much more to do with the fact that very little has been published about Natasha Demkina outside of sensational accounts in sleazy tabloids, like the British Sun (which apparently had a commercial deal with Natasha), Pravda RU, and the personal web sites of crackpots like Victor Zammit, Julio Siqueira, and Brian Josephson. I've been arguing in support of Wiki's guidelines that say such sources are NOT reputable and should not be used. Others here think otherwise. You don't quite say whether you agree with them that this Wiki article should reference those sleazy tabloids and personal web sites. Do you? Askolnick 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How complicated can this be? Personal webpages are not valid sources for wikipedia except under certain very specific circumstances. The most common exception is if a personal webpage is a primary souce for the relevant data. Is the claim that Zammit, Siquiera or Josephson constitute relevant primary sources? If not, then they stay out. (that said, Askolnick, I think that letting a comment from the Sun with a remark about their commerical interest/ sleaziness (simply calling them a tabloid should do it) might not be unreasonable). JoshuaZ 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper, tabloids or not, are source of news, but not of POV that deserves inclusion in encyclopedia. (Even forgetting that journalists have a nice habit to misunrestand what was said to them.) Only POV of persons reputable in the field in question is valid (e.g. George Bush has no say here). If you want "the other side of the story", you must find an opinion of a reputable expert in paranormal phenomena (I mean the one who was never caught hot-handed in bullshitting). mikka (t) 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. You have convinced me. JoshuaZ 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made. For instance, one could cite Demkina's personal website to document the fact that she claims to see people's organs. One could also cite a tabloid to document other sensational claims being made about her alleged abilities. I happen to believe that certain religious scriptures are disreputable, but that doesn't stop me from citing them to show that a particular claim is made in them, nor should it. To say in the article that "Sleazy tabloid X says that Demkina can do Y" is fine, though you might just want to omit "sleazy." But to say "Demkina can do Y" and then cite sleazy tabloid X is obviously unacceptable.

Some people think Skeptical Inquirer is disreputable. Shocking, I know. But, with all due respect, it isn't exactly Nature. It does have an agenda against paranormal claims (do you know any paranormalists on its board or among its fellows?), and though I happen to agree with that agenda, Wikipedia isn't the place to push it. Citing SI to document what CSICOP researchers found is fine. But writing in Wikipedia that Demkina's alleged abilities have been definitively disproven, and then citing SI to back that up is a violation of NPOV.

After reading the article again, I think it's pretty much ok as is. I still think it reads a bit too much like a case study, rather than an article about a person, but I think that's just because no one has taken the time to add anything else about Demkina. The article doesn't say outright "Demkina is a sham" or "Demkina is a miracle worker," which is good. Rohirok 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you said, "Writing in Wikipedia that Demkina's alleged abilities have been definitively disproven, and then citing SI to back that up is a violation of NPOV." Please show where this is written -- or anything even like it. I don't see anything even close to that statement. Why make such a strawman argument? Askolnick 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Askolnick. Sorry, that was just an example of what would constitute a violation. You're right, the article does not in fact do that. You'll see that I admit as much in my last paragraph above. To expand on my example: if the article were to cite the claims made by notable critics who are skeptical of CSICOP's methodology as if those were definitive, that too would be a violation of NPOV. But to merely describe them would be fine, and would tend to balance the article, which currently goes fairly in depth into CSICOP's skeptical treatment of the issue. Do you disagree? Rohirok 05:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rihirok, you haven't addressed the main point I have been arguing throughout this thread. Describing opposing points of view is fine and proper. However, Wiki policy requires all such information to be based on a verifiable, reputable source. I support that policy. Some here, however, are asserting that attack pieces written and self-published on personal web sites meet Wiki's standards for reputable sources, when that's CLEARLY not the case. I keep citing Wiki's guidelines and they keep arguing that they really don't have to be followed. Wiki guidelines are clear about this: Personal web sites should "never" be used as secondary sources.

What Rohirok is saying that such a source is inappropriate for factual information on the main topic, but not for showing that sources with such opinions exist. Such sources become sources on their own existence and their own statements, but not otherwise as factual sources. Compare:

Natasha Demkina is a girl from Saransk, Russia, who can see inside people's bodies and make medical diagnoses. [12] An American institute, CSICOP, attempted to discredit her on U.S. TV by submitting her to a test full of pitfalls. [13]

Natasha Demkina is a girl who claims to be able to see inside people's bodies and make medical diagnoses. [14] She was subjected to a test by CSICOP, which was aired on U.S. TV. The researchers performing the test concluded that she had no such powers (ref), but critics of the test charge it was full of pitfalls. [15]

This is largely the philosophy I used to make my infamous rewrite, to NPOVify the CSICOP/CSMMH-biased version that had existed up to that time. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites can only be used as primary sources. This means that we can only report on a personal website in an article that is about the owner of the website or directly about the website. In addition, the policy says that we should check [in secondary sources] that what we report is accurate. The part in bracket is from me, but what else can be used to make sure that what we report is accurate? We cannot blindly rely on primary sources. Clearly, we are not allowed to use the work of Prof. Josephson as a primary source in the Demkina article, and we would not be interested anyway. We want to use the work of Prof. Josephson as a secondary source. What we should consider is the argument of Dreadlocke, which explains that the website used by Prof. Josephson is not his personal website, but a website provided by the University to allow him to present his scholarly work. Professors may have their personal website in addition to the pages that are provided by the University for the presentation of their scholarly work. These are two different things. It is true that there is no peer-review and that the review process provided by the university is minimal, but there is some review. The policy does not require a peer-review process (though I think it should.) Therefore, it is not against policy to use Prof. Josephson's work as a secondary source. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason that the two cranks had to publish their attack pieces on their own web sites. They do not meet the standards for any reputable publication. That's one of the main reasons behind the Wiki policy.

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer: I'm all for including other opinions based on reputable sources. However, I am strongly opposed to calling reputable the web sites of two kooks, who use deceit to attack the people they disagree with. Wiki policies and guidelines exist for good reasons. I'm insisting that the guidelines be followed. Askolnick 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok wrote above: "But to merely describe them would be fine, and would tend to balance the article, which currently goes fairly in depth into CSICOP's skeptical treatment of the issue."

"In depth"? You mjst be kidding. Not nearly scratching the surface. You probably don't read Russian and don't know how much bullshit she managed to utter, making crowds of easy-believers pay her tuition which she previously could not afford. At the same time she is smart enough to distantiate herself from snake oil peddlers claiming she can only "aid in diagnosis" and always directing to a real doctor. I fact, in her little act she is now paired with a real doctor, who of course benefits of this cooperation and thus babbles various important-sounding texts in here defense. It is also a kind of puzzle why she decided to become dentist - such a waste of her alleged talent. Wait! I know this one! Dentists help people with toothache. In Soviet Russia people with toothache help dentists (it has been the most profitable medical occupation in Russia). mikka (t) 07:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it goes fairly in depth into one particular investigation of her purported abilities for a Wikipedia article. But more importantly, it utterly lacks a description of counterclaims made by other notable observers, such as less skeptical figures prominent in paranormal studies. Over 75% of the text is dedicated to this one test, and none of the critics of the testers' methodology are heard from. Because of this disproportionate focus on one test from one perspective, this article does not treat the subject neutrally, and does not give the readers a well-rounded view of the issues raised concerning her purported abilities and the tests conducted.

I'm not asking for you or anyone to believe the paranormalists' claims. I don't believe their claims about the paranormal. I'm not asking for the article to take a stance for or against Demkina's purported powers, or even for or against CSICOP and the methodology used in the test. I'm only suggesting that the readers could benefit from learning in this article about other perspectives from notable observers, including people who happen to be less skeptical about Demkina, and more critical of CSICOP's methodology than Skolnick.

I understand that you and others might think Demkina is a crook, her defenders are kooks, CSICOP's critics are kooks, and that vulnerable members of the public have been duped into throwing away their money and endangering their health by paranormal claims. I mostly agree with those thoughts. But our evaluations of someone's level of "kookiness" is irrelevant to whether they are notable persons who have defended Demkina, or criticized the test methodology.

I hope we can come to consensus on this, and I believe we can improve the article if we do so. Let me ask this question of everyone: If we can find sources that reliably document counterclaims made by notable defenders of Demkina, or notable critics of the test, can we agree that it is acceptable to non-judgmentally describe those counterclaims in the article? Rohirok 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to stop whinning and describe something else from her life.

Bring'em. What's your problem? So far all attemps (at least from the moment I noticed it) were aimed at crippling the article rather than expanding.

I wrote all this merely to show that you are overpanicking. I didn't attempt to add anything of this into the article.

This is a pointless question, which shows that you are not listening. The problem is that you people prefer to waste time at this talk page rather than to look for some serious "second opinion" elsewhere. Don't play "plea bargain"; just you find it, and we will talk. mikka (t) 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka's last point. I must have repeated five, six, or even more times here that I welcome additional information and opinions from other sources, as long as they are from reputable sources and not hatchet jobs that crackpots like Siqueira, Zammit, and Josephson self-publish on their personal web sites. Using such sources is clearly against Wiki policies and guidelines. Yet all I read here is griping that the article is unfair, that it's unballanced, that it doesn't have a neutral point of view. Well, stop complaining and fix it, for crying out loud. I repeat yet again: Find a reputable published source of criticism and cite it. And Rohirok, kindly stop acting as if it's suddenly your idea to find information from reputable published sources. I've been repeating this request over and over and over -- and each time I have been ignored. Several disputants here would rather twist or totally ignore Wiki's policies and use material from the crackpots' personal web sites rather than find a reputable source of published criticism. Clearly, their agenda is something other than improving or even maintaining the credibility of Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopedia. Askolnick 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In rereading Rohirok's statement from higher up, I have something else to add:

"It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made. For instance, one could cite Demkina's personal website to document the fact that she claims to see people's organs. One could also cite a tabloid to document other sensational claims being made about her alleged abilities. I happen to believe that certain religious scriptures are disreputable, but that doesn't stop me from citing them to show that a particular claim is made in them, nor should it. To say in the article that "Sleazy tabloid X says that Demkina can do Y" is fine, though you might just want to omit "sleazy." But to say "Demkina can do Y" and then cite sleazy tabloid X is obviously unacceptable."

I'm not sure if Rohirok is telling us that this is Wiki policy or his personal point of view. All the policies and guidelines I've read make it clear that news tabloids are not "fine to reference" as a source for ANYTHING other than statements about the tabloids themselves.

The fact that a tabloid says, "Ms. X claims to have five belly buttons is NOT documentation that Ms. X claims anything of the kind. It's only documentation that the tabloid made such a non-reputable statement. And based on the history of tabloids, it is quite possible -- probable even -- that Ms. X said nothing of the sort. If a tabloid claims that President Bush is an extraterrestrial from a distant hell planet -- even though I find it sadly plausible -- I would not cite it as evidence that some people claim Bush is part a space alien plan to take over Earth. However, if we're writing a Wiki article on the crackpot things reported in tabloids, it would then be appropriate to cite it.

Just look at the sentence: "It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made." How can an editor for a credible reference work say it's fine to reference disreputable sources? If Pravda RU or Sun printed a story that says Tom Cruise now claims he is gay, should Wiki include a statment that Tom admits to being gay, according to the tabloid? "Disreputable" means not to be believed -- or at least not to be elevated to any level of credibility by any reputable encyclopedia.

Rohirok gets one thing right: It would be fine to cite Demkina's web site for the claims she makes. Why? Because Wiki policies clearly say so. Those are claims that she is making about the owner of the web site, as Wiki guidelines state:

"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."

Wiki policies do not support Rohirok's point of view. If I am wrong Rohirok, please cite the policy that backs up your position. All I've read basically says one thing: Only reputable sources can be used for informatioin added to Wiki articles, except for statements made by the source about itself. Only then can information from a non-reputable source be used.

If you, Siqueira, Dreadlocke, Etincelli formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, Keith Tyler, or others want to change Wiki policies, you should be arguing that on the appropriate policy pages rather than here.Askolnick 14:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This all depends on whether or not the demkina.ru site is a personal website or the site of an organization or company. Which is admittedly going to be one of those things that is difficult to prove either way. Considering it is "demkina.ru", showcases a picture of Natasha, and is introduced by her, lends it a personal feeling. However, the site also represents a "center for special diagnostics" that invites both patients as well as other sixth-sense medicinal practitioners, which lends it an organizational and commercial aspect. (This I deduced from running the site through Babelfish.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW there is another translation available here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶

Mr. Tyler, you should know better than that by now. Nothing on that person's web site can be relied on to be truthful or accurate. This kook has an admitted habit of rewriting people's quotes. Indeed, he recently confessed to the "dangerous habit" of putting quotes around his own version of what others write and defend his "habit" by claiming he never changes the meaning! Of course, he hasn't bothered to explain why someone whose English isn't that good would have the audacity of rewriting what people say rather than actually quoting them. Must I point out to you that putting quotes around words a person never said is universally considered dishonest? Askolnick 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy and Guideline Dispute

Mr. Skolnick keeps arguing that some of us advocate "ignoring Wikipedia policy" or want to “change Wiki policy”. This is completely untrue. My belief, backed up by the opinions of experienced, long-time Wikipedia editors and administrators, is that the Policies and Guidelines are far more flexible than Mr. Skolnick maintains. Wikipedia policies have many exceptions to the rule, and the guidelines are just that - guides that reflect the way things are supposed to be done – not hard and fast rules.

One clear example is when we look at the "Exception” to the “Self Published Sources policy.

Mr. Skolnick maintains that being categorized as a “well known, professional researcher in a relevant field” for the Natasha Demkina case is limited to being a health professional, while I think it’s clear that the Natasha Demkina case is largely, if not almost completely, about the Paranormal - that's why CSICOP was involved in the first place. Since Prof. Josephson is a well known, professional Researcher in the Paranormal – he fits the “exception” perfectly. Even Wikipedia notes the Professor as a “Famous Parapsychologist". (see below)*

*(Edited to add that someone moved the link to "Famous Paraychologists" shortly after I referenced it, the new location is: List of Parapsychologists). - Dreadlocke 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted more detail on this in the Brian Josephson and Professor Josephson's Website sections.

I believe Mr. Skolnick misrepresented what Hipocrite wrote in the Brian Josephson section as well as what others have stated here. From what I understood, Hipocrite was not saying that the policies and guidelines were to be ignored, as a matter of fact; I don’t think anyone has said that here - I certainly haven't.

My perception is that Mr. Skolnick is trying to bully us by using narrowly defined, out-of-context, isolated quotes that completely ignore the exceptions, flexibility, intent, and the interconnected relationship of the Wikipedia policies on citable sources. I believe he is doing this in an attempt to maintain the article's current single, one-sided viewpoint on his own investigation into Natasha Demkina. Dreadlocke 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Entirely unlike Dreadlocke, I regularly quote Wiki policies and guidelines in my arguments. Dreadlocke repeatedly claims that I misrepresent those policies, that I take them out-of-context. He never quotes or even cites Wiki policies and guidelines for a very good reason: He knows they do not support his claims. If he could find anything to support his claims, he would cite them. But he can't. It is he who is resorting to bullying and blustering. He is following the old adage about how to practice law: If the facts do not support your side, pound the law. If the law does not support your side, pound the facts. If neither fact nor law supports your side, pound the table. Unable to cite fact or Wiki policy, Dreadlocke just pounds the table.

Dreadlocke, I'm sick and tired of your false claims that I'm misrepresenting Wiki policies and taking them out of context. Either you show us exactly where and how I've misrepresented anything, or took anything out of context to distort its meaning, or else shut the hell up. Askolnick 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke also grossly misrepresents what the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health - CSICOP test examined. His statement above is false. The purpose of the test was not to see if Natasha has any paranormal power. The test was designed to see if she can do what she claims she can do -- that is, diagnose medical abnormalities in people merely by looking at them. It was a test of her claimed diagnostic abillities, not a test of whether she has any paranormal powers. We cannot conclude from our test whether she does or does not have any unusual powers. As we made clear in our reports, the number of subjects in the test were too few to measure for existance of weak or inconsistent paranormal powers. What we tested was her claimed ability to see medical abnormalities. And we concluded that she cannot do what she claims.

Dreadlocke also is speaking falsely when he claims Josephson is a recognized authority in paranormal research. He is not. Josephson pontificates and makes public statements in support of various quacks and charlatans (ie. Uri Geller and Jacques Benviste), but he has not published research in the field. I repeat again, Josephson has no credentials outside of quantum physics. If Dreadlocke wants to claim otherwise, he better put up or shut up by citing medical and/or parapsychology studies published by Josephson in peer-reviewed journals.

Dreadlocke's claim that Josephson's web site is actually a Cambridge University web site is nonsense. The university is merely the web host. Josephson is the publisher of what he puts up on his personal site. The university does not edit or in any way controls the content of its faculty's personal web sites.

Also, Dreadlocke misrepresents what Wikipedia says about Josephson. The article on him does not identify him as a parapsychologist, because he isn't. He's never published research in the field. He just likes to publicly pontificate in support of various charlatans. The Wiki article on Josephson describes him instead as "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." [16] Askolnick 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond by first saying that I did not misrepresent anything in the Wikipedia article on Professor Josephson. Mr. Skolnick is looking at the wrong thing. All one has to do is click the link I presented to see what I was referring to.

Mr. Skolnick, most of your post above is nothing more than a personal attack on me. Contrary to your assertions, I have referenced Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to back my beliefs and I have pointed directly to what I believe to be out-of-context or misinterpreted information from you – I just don’t waste space by repeating the same information over and over again. In good faith, I have presented my arguments in a logical and forthright manner, as Wikipedia policy states – I only ask that you do the same. And, as you well know, I have already asked for Mediation on the issues I raised - including whether or not the investigation was of the Paranormal. That's what the "P" in CSICOP stands for, if I'm not mistaken..."Paranormal". Professor Josepshon has published articles on the Paranormal, I've referenced one in an earlier post. Peer-review isn't a requirement for published articles in the Policies and Guidelines I've referenced in my Mediation request.

I'm sure nothing I say will sway you, so the only other response I will make to you is what I have stated before, and that is to try and "Argue facts, not personalities" as Wikipedia Wikiquette guidelines state. And direct you to the section on No Personal Attacks as well as this page’s own: Andrew please stop the personal attacks - -Dreadlocke 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I don't care a fig about your personality. I care about your conduct in this forum. if you don't want me to criticize your conduct, then kindly stop misrpresenting facts and twisting arguments in defense of your position. Stop baiting and switching words and errecting strawman arguments. For example, being published in a peer-review journal isn't a requirement for published articles in Wiki's Policies and Guidelines, but it IS a requirement for calling someone a "professional researcher in parapsychology." Where are Josephson's published research articles in parapsychology? What science journals has he published them in? You don't want to answer that question, because he has none. So you pulled a dishonest bait and switch. The fact is this: Your claim that Josephson is a well-known professional researchere in parapsychology is bogus. He's published no parapsychology research in peer-reviewed science journals. He is nothing more than a cheerleader or -- as Wikipedia describes him -- an "advocate" for pseudoscientific claims and the paranormal.

No, you have not cited Wiki guidelines to show how I supposedly misrepresented them or took them out of context. You make those assertions, but you don't back them up with any proof. If I am wrong, show us how I've misused any of the policy text.

Again, Dreadlocke you're chosing to ignore what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia has an article on Brian Josephson and it describes his "work" in the field of parapsychology this way: "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." The Wikipedia article accurately describes Josephson, not as a parapsychology researcher, but as an advocate for belief in it. Dreadlocke prefers that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He insists that Josephson is a "professional researcher in parapsychology" -- pay no attention to what Wikipedia actually says about him. And never mind that he cannot cite any original paranormal research Josephson ever published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Dreadlocke says that Josephson is a highly renowned "professional researcher" in parapsychology, so it must be so. Askolnick 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you continue to attack me. It is not just my desire that you remain civil and address the facts and not personalities, it is Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines that ask that of all posters - including you. I don't answer to you Mr. Skolnick, nor do I respond to those who cannot remain polite and civil - as you are apparently unable to. Most, if not all the questions you raise, can be answered by merely reading my previous posts. I will further answer any of the points you raised, but only to a Mediator, an Arbitrator, or any of the other posters here that ask and are making an honest effort to move the discussion forward; and unfortunately, this does not include you. Dreadlocke 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And I see you continue to evade. None of the questions I have been asking can be answered by reading your previous misrepresentation, red herrings, and evasions. You claim that Brian Josephson is a well-known professional researcher in parapsychology and is therefore a reputable source on parapsychology research. Were that true, you could answer my repeated requests for you to cite some of his published parapsychology research (No, not in newspapers or on his own web site, but in peer-reviewed science journals). But you can't. So instead you evade, mispresent, and erect and knockdown strawman arguments.

I'll ask this yet again: If Josephson is as you say a highly renowned professional researcher in parapsychology, cite some of his parapsychology research that was published in peer-reviewed science journals. You won't because he has none. So instead, you will only post more misdirection and bluster. Askolnick 13:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to point out the Wikipedia Policy that defines a "professional researcher" into the Paranormal as you have described it above? Thank you. Dreadlocke 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Dreadlocke, thank you! Finally! I'll take this as an admission that you cannot cite any research in the paranormal that Josephson ever published in a peer review science journal. Finally! I knew you were blowing hot air. Josephson never published research in parapsychology, yet you still insist that he is a "professional researcher" in the paranormal. Right. And you must be Wikipedia's editor-in-chief. Askolnick 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I just dispute your definition of what a "professional researcher into the paranormal" is for the purposes of Wikipedia, and asked you to quote the relevant policy or even guideline - and you didn't or couldn't. I don't think your definition is correct and I don't see the requirements as you have laid them out as being from any Wikipedia policy or guideline. You can try to twist my question any way you like, but I think you merely prove my points when you try to do so. Dreadlocke 18:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As I’ve already explained, and as Étincelle so eloquently added, “the website used by Prof. Josephson is not his personal website, but a website provided by the University to allow him to present his scholarly work. Professors may have their personal website in addition to the pages that are provided by the University for the presentation of their scholarly work. These are two different things. It is true that there is no peer-review and that the review process provided by the university is minimal, but there is some review. The policy does not require a peer-review process (though I think it should.) Therefore, it is not against policy to use Prof. Josephson's work as a secondary source.”

I still believe this to be true and put it forth as a first choice reason for inclusion of the Professor Josephson website as a citable reference. I have also presented arguments for other alternatives. I believe Wikipedia is a flexible environment, where many ideas and processes can work together. There is no clear-cut, single answer that can be hammered home with the finality of a tomb – as a certain poster maintains. The whole of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is indeed greater than their sum, quotes from these policies and guidelines in isolation are by their very nature out-of-context when they do not take into consideration the interlinking quality, exceptions and broad definitions provided by the other pillars that Wikipedia citable sources stand upon.

Some of the other posters and I have presented well-reasoned arguments for our various positions, only to be met with derision, insults and misdirection by one of the other posters here in an attack that I believe is only meant to try and ridicule and discredit not only our points, but our selves as well. The poster that has done this does not appear to want to move the discussion forward and negotiate to any consensus, but merely wants to bend Wikipedia to his own will through rather juvenile actions. When I realized this, and found myself being drawn into this low behavior, I decided it was best not to continue arguing with this poster, and allow the mediation process to move forward.

After I wrote the above, I saw this added information to my mediation request. Perhaps it was wrong of me, but it made me laugh out loud, it struck me as being just that funny. Maybe it was the hyperbole used, or perhaps the link to the photo of a bald head with palm trees growing from it; I don’t know. I do know that some of the pages being referenced in that post (like the one to the bald tree head) are not the ones posters have suggested to be placed in either the “References” or “External Links” section. Although I do have to say that the photo did manage to brighten my mood. No offense intended to the subject of the photo; when you make yourself a public figure, you open yourself up to not only critics, but satire as well. Perhaps we could make that photo available on the Wikipedia article for CSMMH, it would show the humorous side of the group. (just kidding!)

In any case, I have been advocating for Professor Josephson's website, which is a highly professional site hosted by the University of Cambridge and is the Professor's Departmental website as part of his professional activities, and has no such satirical pictures or “angry rants” such as described by the other poster. Each of the proposed websites must be evaluated individually and on their own merits, and cannot be "lumped in" with satirical pages from other sites as the poster has attempted to do. - Dreadlocke 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke continues to mislead, dissemble, and deceive -- as anyone would see by visiting the Cambridge University faculty site in question. [17] These web pages are personal web pages provided to the faculty by the web host, Cambridge University. Take a look and you will see that all the other faculty use their personal web pages for their intended purpose: to provide contact information and lists of their current academic interests and activities. Only Josephson is using his page to publish his crackpot theories and demeaning opinions of skeptical scientists. It is outright deception when Dreadlock says these pages are for displaying faculty members' scholarly work. Those pages are used to identify their current academic interests, activities, and publications. They don't use those pages to self-publish their "scholarly work," as Josephson is doing.

Dreadlocke is also trying to deceive when he says "there is some review" of the contents of those web pages by the university. Dreadlocke's argument is clearly aimed at misleading and getting around the Wikipedia guideline that makes it clear why personal web sites are never to be used as secondary sources -- the principal reason is the lack of fact checking. It is clear that no one at Cambridge University is checking Josephson's personal web page for facts. Cambridge University is not publishing Josephson's rants. He's self-publishing them on the web pages the university is giving him to list his contact information and current academic interests and activities.

From the safety of this web site, Josephson is self-publishing crackpot rants that he would never be able to get in print in any reputable pubilcation. Such is the web page that Dreadlocke and others are fighting to include in the Natasha article. In his defamatory rant, Josephson accuses Prof. Hyman, Prof. Wiseman, and me of "unethical" conduct, of "propaganda," and of "fixing" the test so that Natasha would fail. And he backs these accusations up with an assortment of lies, such as:

"I think not: real science does not work on a basis of getting someone to sign their agreement to a long list of conditions, then later coming back saying 'this is what you signed; the challenge goes to us!'" [18]

That is blatantly false. He made up this quote along with the bogus claim that we had Natasha sign a long list of conditions. There was no such list of conditions. And neither Natasha nor her mother signed any agreement with us. Even more despicable is this lie:

"The fact that 'everyone [had] agreed to the written protocols' (including the above italicised condition) is given as sufficient justification for asserting '[the] test, as preliminary as it was, will likely close the chapter in this case'".

For that lie, Josephson combined two pieces of sentences that were totally unrelated from different parts of a document. Such scurrilous behavior deserves to be damned, not given the appearance of credibility by being cited in Wikipedia. Please read what I actually said: [19]

"Only after everyone agreed to the written protocols did we agree to travel to New York City to meet with Ms. Demkina and conduct the test."

THREE paragraphs later, I said:

"Despite allowing Demkina to ignore rules designed to prevent her from gathering information through non-paranormal means, she still did not pass the preliminary test. That's why I think this test, as preliminary as it was, will likely close the chapter in this case." [20]

Scientists are never supposed to do this. But Josephson is no longer a scientist. He stopped being one decades ago. What he is a Nobel Prize winner and a celebrity cheerleader for psychics and paranormal scam artists all around the world. He's got fame and tenure, so he can get away with this misconduct without fear of losing his job. The science community can only sadly shake their heads and tell people that it is best to just humor the poor kook.

As for Dreadlocke's charge that I am trying to ridicule and discredit not only his points, but him as well, that's only half true. I am ridiculing his discreditable points. It's those points that are discrediting him, not I. And for that, he has himself to blame. When people deliberately make false and misleading statements, they should expect resulting criticism to sting and make them look bad. There is a solution for people who can't stand the repercussions: Don't make false and misleading statements -- and don't try to get false and misleading statements of others into an encylopedia.

For those who aren't following the Mediation Cabal pages, here's futher comments I made regarding Dreadlocke and his supporters efforts to disguise Josephson's crackpot web site as a reputable publication: Askolnick 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here that Dreadlocke keeps blurring together: the need for NPOV and the need for Wiki sources to be verifiable and reputable. He continues to argue that Wiki guidelines, which say personal web sites "may never" be use as a secondary source, should be ignored in the interest of providing balance. That's nonsense. If opposing views are worth reporting in an encylopedia, why are they only found in non-reputable personal web pages and sleazy news tabloids?

Wiki guidelines regarding scientific information clearly state that editors should NOT seek to equally balance minority views against more mainstream scientific opinions:

"However, although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Significant-minority views should be reported as that, and should not be given the same amount of space in an article as the majority view."

The article that Dreadlocke and several others are seeking to "balance" already follows this Wiki guideline. It already reports that the researchers have critics and it provides a link to a reputable news source that discusses the conflict between the researchers and their critics, most prominently Brian Josephson.

Which brings me to another Wiki policy Dreadlocke and his supporters are trying to ignore:

Beware false authority

Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority.

Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing.

Following these guidelines, who in their right mind would trust someone with a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics to determine the validity of medical diagnostic procedures? Brian Josephson is a quantum physicist who has never published anything in the field of medicine and health. He has absolutely no credentials in how to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic procedures. Yet Dreadlocke and his supporters claim he is a respected authority. He is neither respected nor an authority outside his field of quantum mechanics. Josephson's statements regarding the validity of psychic phenomena and his endorsement of discredited charlatans like Uri Geller and Jacques Benveniste have made him a joke among scientists. But that's not as important as the fact that what Dreadlocke and his supporters are demanding is inconsistent with multiple Wiki policies and guidelines. Here, for example, is one more:

"Self-published sources:

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. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

As noted, a check in Medline will show that he's never published anything in medicine, particularly on how to evaluate whether diagnostic procedures are effective. He has NEVER conducted any research in health or medicine. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that research into quantum tunneling and being the inventor of the solid-state device called the Josephson junction is NOT A FIELD RELEVANT to the evaluation of medical research.

As the Wiki guideline points out, if Josephson's self-published personal attack were "really worth publishing, someone would have done so." Josephson is a Nobel laureate, which means that he would have NO trouble whatsoever in getting something published in a reputable publicatoin, if it were even remotely credible. The fact is, his personal attack (primarily aimed at Richard Wiseman) had to be self-published on his personal web site. Dreadlocke and his supporters are seeking to elevate the disreputable screed to the level of credibility suitable for Wiki. By so doing, they are trying to drag down the credibility of Wikipedia. Askolnick 18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Professor Josephson's research into the paranormal is absolutely part of his scholarly and professional activities at the University of Cambridge. Here is more information on that connection, as well as some of the history (30 years) of Josephson's studies into the Brain and the Paranormal: Pioneer of the Paranormal.

Here is the home page of Professor Brian Josephson, director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge Professor Josephson Home Page.

Read it and judge for yourselves. I am not trying to deceive anyone; the Professor’s work in the paranormal is clearly part of his scholarly and professional work at the University of Cambridge. I've been in touch with the Professor at the University about this very issue and have received confirmation of this. He is published, well known in the field of the Paranormal, and he is considered a professional researcher in the field of the Paranormal. And please, anyone who sees an ‘angry rant” anywhere in there, let me know!

I know things are getting repeated way too much, but I don't believe I've posted the above links previously. I await mediation and/or arbitration. Thanks! - Dreadlocke 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you stubbornly refuse to back up your claim with evidence that Josephson is a "professional" researcher in the paranormal. Only those who conduct research are researchers. If Josephson is a researcher, CITE FOR US SOME OF THAT RESEARCH! Tell us where it's been published. You won't even address this question.

Josephson has not published any original research in parapsychology. He only publishes criticism, opinion pieces, and propaganda. He doesn't conduct research. He doesn't publish research. You know this, but you will not stop trying to deceive others.

If he is doing research, show us! Cite some of his published research studies. Those links you posted show no such research. That's just more of your deception. Enough of your evasions and pretending that you've answer my question! Cite some of the parapsychology research you want us to believe Josephson has conducted. You can't because he doesn't do parapsychology research. He writes parapsychology propaganda.

It is NOT evidence to tell us that you spoke with Josephson and that he "confirmed" to you that you are right. Do you think we are morons? You have a lot of nerve to offer that nonsense instead of the evidence that I have asked you for repeatedly. This is the last time I will ask: Show us evidence that Josephson has published paranormal research studies in peer-reviewed science journals. Unless you do, I and others will have no choice but to conclude that you have been lying through your teeth.Askolnick 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As I’ve already stated, I dispute your definition of “professional researcher into the paranormal”. I’m sure if you actually had a quote from a guideline or policy that backed your definition of “professional researcher” you would have posted it immediately; as you do not seem to have any inhibitions to posting quotes that you believe support your stances – over and over again. What you did in your “answer” to my question about the definition you used was merely misdirection in an attempt to turn my question back on me. This just helps prove my view that you are not arguing in good faith. Professor Josephson meets all the Wikipedia criteria for a “professional researcher” and I have provided evidence of that, and I can provide more if necessary. You, on the other hand, have not shown your definition to be of any relevance to either Wikipedia or my arguments. If you have the policy or guideline that defines professional researcher as you claim it is defined, then post that link. From what I see, no matter what is provided, your position will remain unalterable. I don’t think you are arguing in good faith, and continue to be uncivil and impolite; I await further mediation or arbitration. Dreadlocke 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven’t yet investigated or asked the Professor if he has had any specific peer-reviewed research published, because I really don’t think it’s necessary. The Wikipedia Policy I am referencing is this one: self published sources

It doesn’t say anything at all about “peer-reviewed research in a medical journal”. As a matter of fact, it specifically says “so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications”. Professor Josephson has had his paranormal work published by credible, third-party publications. A newspaper can meet those standards, and the one I have referenced is definitely a credible, verifiable newspaper publisher and not a tabloid.

I believe the credentials and other information I have posted thus far and the Professor’s reputation speak for themselves. I believe he meets the criteria for being called a “professional researcher” in the Paranormal for the purposes of Wikipedia. If anyone doubts that, then I will be happy to ask the Professor for more information. I do not believe Mr. Skolnick’s narrow definition of a “professional researcher in the paranormal” as being only someone who meets the criteria of a parapsychologist who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals is correct, and it does not reflect any of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I have seen. When I asked Mr. Skolnick to provide a link to that definition, he refused. Dreadlocke 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of your never ending stream of lies, deceptions, misquotes, and strawman arguments to discredit me. Of course I won't give you a link to that definition, because I never made it. That's another one of your fabrications. I NEVER said "a professional researcher in the paranormal" is "a parapsychologist who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals." Plenty of people do research in the paranormal who are not parapsychologists.

What I've repeatedly said is that that Josephson is not a respected "professional researcher in the paranormal" because he has "never published research in the field of parapsychology." Researchers are people who do research. If they don't do research, they're not researchers. Josephson is no parapsychologist. And he doesn't conduct or publish research in parapsychology. If he were, you could cite publications as evidence. You can't so all you do is spin, evade, misquote, and erect strawman arguments to knock down. Wikipedia correctly identifies what Josephson is -- exactly as I've described him: The article [21] identifies him as a "physicist" and adds only this about his involvement with woo-woo: "Josephson is one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." It doesn't identify him as a "parapsychologist" nor does it acknowledge any paranormal research he's done because he doesn't do any. He merely "advocates" for belief in the paranormal.

If you need more proof, the Wiki article links to a Britannica bio on Brian Josphson,[22] which also identifies him as a "physicist" not a "parapsychologist" and it also does not identify any research he's done in the field of parapsychology.

So, you wanted a link, I gave you two. They are links to the Wikipedia and Britannica articles on Brian Josephson that identify him truthfully. He is a physicist and an "advocate" for belief in the paranormal. As the Wiki article states, he advocates, he doesn't research. And you do nothing but lie and spin as you did in the comment above.Askolnick 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, contrary to your recent statement above, you have attempted to directly define and set a certain, specific criteria for Professor Josephson to be called a “professional researcher” into the paranormal. You have repeated this over and over again, and I quote you directly:

• “You repeatedly claim that Josephson is a "professional researcher" in parapsychology. That's not true. Prove me wrong by citing original parapsychology research that he's published in peer-reviewed science journals.” User:Askolnick.

• “..parapsychology research that was published in peer-reviewed science journals.” User:Askolnick

• “He's published no parapsychology research in peer-reviewed science journals.” User:Askolnick

Now you apparently seek to back away from your own statements that attempted to define the standards for being a "professional researcher into the paranormal". Your links prove nothing and they are not to any Wikipedia Policy or Guideline, which you so often take quotes from. Your statements are just your POV, and you have only provided more misdirection and personal attacks. Dreadlocke 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I want you to understand, I will no longer let ANY of your lies and misquotes go unexposed. You're continuing to try to mislead and deceive. I did not back away from my past statements. I reaffirmed them. And I cited Wikipedia and Britannica articles that show those statments are true. And I pointed out that you lied by making up and attributing a bogus quote to me. I did not define "a professional researcher in the paranormal" as "a parapsychologist who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals." That was your fabrication.Askolnick 20:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations are outrageous and completely false. You've gone well beyond any acceptable standard of civility with your completely out of line statements. I suggest you cool down and stop the continual, escalating attacks on those that disagree with you. Dreadlocke 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you will deserve civility when you stop making false accustations, when you stop rewriting people's quotes, and when you stop trying to bend every Wikipedia rule and guideline to serve your personal agenda. What's "outrageous and completely false" is your lie that I had defined a professional researcher in the paranormal as "a parapsychologist who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals." That was not my definition. Squeal like a stuck pig all you want, you're not going to get away with such deceit. I am mystified why you think you can post such lies here and not be held accountable. Askolnick 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not "rewritten" any quotes nor have I lied about anything. The only direct quotes I have used are word-for-word quotes copied from their original source. As far as my "deserving" civility - it's every Wikipedian's obligation to provide such civility - Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines say that, not just me. - Dreadlocke 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to insist that I defined a professional researcher in the paranormal as "a parapsychologist who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals." That's a lie, Dreadlocke. I never said or even suggested one has to be "a parapsychologist." That's your fabrication. It's utterly false. And here you are, inisisting that it's what I said "word-for-word." Dreadlocke, unless you can show where in the record I had defined a "professional researcher in the paranormal" as "a parapsychologist," I will continue to treat you with all the civility a persistent liar deserves. Askolnick 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. Apparently there has been a misunderstanding. My apologies if it appeared that way, but I didn't directly quote you when I put forth the definition of a parapsychologist who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. My intent and action was to set that phrase into italics for emphasis, not make it an actual quote, so if that is the impression I gave, I certainly withdraw it as a quote, since it is not and was never meant to be a direct quotation of your words. It was meant to be a summary definition from what you posted in your "requests" for answers from me.

Let me explain further. When I said I thought Prof. Josephson was a professional researcher in the field of the paranormal, you countered that I should prove this by providing evidence that Professor Josephson had published parapsychology research in peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals, which you must have been defining as a requirement for being a "professional researcher in parapsychology" (a phrase you used in conjunction with your other requests for proof) – why else would you be asking for such evidence? You repeated similar statements time and time again. Now it appears that you are agreeing that it doesn’t have to be research in a peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal, or that he has to be a parapsychologist; which is what I’ve been saying all along. .

It seems very clear to me that you were referencing some standard you had in mind for being called a “professional researcher” into the paranormal. From your collected statements this standard seemed to be someone in the medical and paranormal fields (a parapsychologist?) who has published parapsychology research in peer-review medical and/or scientific journals.

All you had to say in response was, “No, that’s not how I define a “professional researcher” into the paranormal; this is my definition: blah, blah, blah..” But no, you launch into another violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by attacking me, being rude and insulting. I genuinely wanted to know where in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines you were getting what I perceived as your definition of a professional researcher. I didn’t think you actually had anything to back it up, because I’ve become pretty familiar with the policies and guidelines recently.

How did I come up with the definition I believed you were putting forth? Here, let me quote you directly from posts in this very section:

“For example, being published in a peer-review journal isn't a requirement for published articles in Wiki's Policies and Guidelines, but it IS a requirement for calling someone a "professional researcher in parapsychology." Where are Josephson's published research articles in parapsychology? What science journals has he published them in? You don't want to answer that question, because he has none. So you pulled a dishonest bait and switch. The fact is this: Your claim that Josephson is a well-known professional researchere in parapsychology is bogus. He's published no parapsychology research in peer-reviewed science journals.” User:Askolnick 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never said “professional researcher in parapsychology” that is your phrase, Mr. Skolnick. I’ve always said “professional researcher into the paranormal.” The only time I mentioned parapsychologist or parapsychology, was when I pointed to the Wikipedia link to famous parapsychologists – where Brian Josephson is listed. I was merely attempting to use your own terminology to describe what I believed were your “requirements”. Such as your statement, and I quote: “He's published no parapsychology research in peer-reviewed science journals.”

“If Dreadlocke wants to claim otherwise, he better put up or shut up by citing medical and/or parapsychology studies published by Josephson in peer-reviewed journals.” And “…researchers in the area of health and medicine, an area totally outside Josephson's field of study.” User:Askolnick

From that paragraph: Medical and/or parapsychology studies…in peer-reviewed journals.

“I'll take this as an admission that you cannot cite any research in the paranormal that Josephson ever published in a peer review science journal. Finally! I knew you were blowing hot air. Josephson never published research in parapsychology, yet you still insist that he is a "professional researcher" in the paranormal.” User:Askolnick 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

From that paragraph: Published in peer review science journal.

From what I understood from your many statements is that you believe someone having both Medical and Paranormal qualifications is pretty much in the realm of being a Parapsychologist. Correct me if I’m wrong, and we can cross that right off the definition (which is not a quote, it’s a summary of those items you have mentioned when asking and demanding “proof” or evidence that Prof. Josephson is a “professional researcher” into the paranormal).

If I have somehow misunderstood you or misread your voluminous postings, then I will apologize, but I can’t see it. Your statements seem pretty clear to me. I think you just got mad because you were caught contradicting yourself and ran into a dead-end with your rants about policy and guidelines – many of which you have continued to violate. I thought your attack on my presumed “misquoting” you was just another part of your game, I’ve seen you accuse people of misquoting you before, so I thought it was part of your tactics to distract from the real issues and try to discredit your opponents. But it may be that you actually did think I was quoting you, which I think we’ve now cleared up. Hopefully. Dreadlocke 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Parapsychologist: Someone who studies the evidence for such psychological phenomena as psychokinesis and telepathy and clairvoyance. From what I understand, this is pretty much what the Professor is doing with his mind-matterresearch at the University of Cambridge. I think this alone makes him a professional researcher in the field of the paranormal, much less everything else he’s done. I don’t think there’s anything in Wikipedia that states one has to be published in a peer-reviewed science journal to make this level. And he may have those extra credentials as well, I haven’t yet checked. Dreadlocke 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As a mainly uninvolved observer, it looks to me like Mr. Skolnick is leading a 1 man defense against whitewashing, POV edits, and use of unreliable sources. JoshuaZ 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No known mechanisms in the range of traditional science.

though the the researchers countered that those surgical scars should have helped her identify the correct subjects,

All parties agree that the mechanisms used, if there are such mechanisms, are outside the range of traditional science. It is obvious that the term X-ray is just a metaphor. Without known mechanisms, scientifics have no basis to conclude that surgical scars should have helped her. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's such blatant nonsense. Why do you always insist black is white and up is down? Natasha claims she can see everything inside of person's body down to the cellular level. According to her claims, she can easily see surgical scars. Well, finding scars in the area where the appendix should be would be a dead giveaway of a removed appendix! (Are you following along with us, Etincilly formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit?) And seeing those very large scars at the cite where the esophagus joins the stomach would likewise be a flashing neon sign saying "here I am -- esophageal resection!" In case this is still too dificult for you to follow, let me explain it this way: Anyone with NORMAL eye sight, who could have seen the seven subjects without clothing on, would have matched all seven correctly just by looking for the surgical scars on their skin! Askolnick 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Normal eye mechanisms may have nothing to do with Natasha claimed abilities. Actually, you prove my point. To argue you had to refer to known mechanisms. Of course, you have to. The problem is that they are not known to be the proposed mechanisms. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was sure you couldn't follow a train of thought even if I had tied you to the caboose. Thanks for showing I was right. Natasha says she can see through clothing. She says she can see surgical scars. If that were true, she would have easily and quickly matched all seven subjects correctly. But her claims are not true. That's why she failed the test. Askolnick 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

She might see surgical scars, but not as easily as she can see a removed organ without them. When we don't know the mechanisms, we cannot argue against this simple possibility. There may exist other explanations that we cannot think of because we don't know the mechanisms (and also because, at the least me, I do not know much about surgical scars). -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Let's try a different problem: How much is two plus two? It's four. Do you see how easy it is? Just like it should have been for Natasha. She sees some surgical scars. Then she knows the subject had surgery at that spot. When she sees no surgical scars at the site, she knows that person didn't have surgery there. Still scratching your head? Let me try again: A person who has a scar on his lower right abdomen didn't get that from brain surgery (although, in your case, I wouldn't rule it out). And surgeons don't remove a part of a person's esophagus from through the person's skull or from the lower abdomen where the appendix is. See how simple that is? No? Well, that's probably because you just don't want to. Askolnick 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. It is obviously a possibility that, even though she might see surgical scars, she might not as easily see them as she can see a removed organ without them. In this case, the scars will just be a disadvantage for her. This a very natural and logical possibility, which you cannot rule out. Period. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that you, Lawson? Askolnick 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Completely unrelated (hopefully) to the rest of this discussion... Andrew, would you have any pictures of Natasha and/or the CSICOP test that you would consider releasing under a free-use license, that we could include in the WP article? It occured to me that there ought to at least be a picture of Demkina in the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish I could, but I give income from reproduction of these photos to the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. I would gladly allow Wikipedia to use one or more without charge, but I will not surrender copyright by releasing any under a free-use license. Would it be permissable under Wiki rules to use a link to the photo(s) on the Commission's web site? I'd have no problem with that.Askolnick 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pointless, because the commission's website is already linked. Offsite images are not permitted. WP is "the free encyclopedia", so only free-to-reuse material is acceptable in its contents. I direct you to WP:IUP for the relevant policy. I only asked, since you are the obvious WP source for material on this topic. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not be pointless, because it would have allowed readers to see a photo that you wanted them to see, without their having to go web surfing. I offered to help as much as I could. You have my answer to your request: Sorry, I won't relinguish my photo copyrights. But thanks for asking.Askolnick 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not pointless in that regards, it's just that WP doesn't allow inline display of remote images. (It's not even possible: m:Images#Embedding_external_images.) Unless I misunderstand what you mean. Anyway, images of Demkina immediately appear upon clicking the Discovery Channel, SI, or CSMMH links, which is pretty much equivalent to giving them a direct link to an image. So, that won't be necessary. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How the Skeptical Inquirer passes the test?

Here is how we should evaluate a publication according to policy:

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable".

• Openly partisan? Yes
• Does it have a large or very small readership? Need to be checked and compared with other publications.
• Is it a vanity publisher? I guess not, but must be confirmed. Do we have to pay to publish in the SI?
• Does it have peer-review? No guarantee.
• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? I guess they don't have a large permanent staff, but need to be checked.

Here is the main one:

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? Definitively, it is clear that anyone in this situation should be terrified. The answer is (a). According to policy, we should not use it. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, I would have strongly answered b. JoshuaZ 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As is Etincelle formerly Lumiere formally Amrit's habit, the only statements she every gets right are those in which she says she is not sure, it "needs to be checked." It wouldn't take much to have checked, but E-f-L-f-A would not have an argument if she did.

Clearly E-f-L-f-A is desperately grasping at straws to suggest that the Skeptical Inquirer may be a vanity publication that charges authors to be published. That's just more of her baseless nonsense. Skeptical Inquirer has a publisher, has an editor in chief, has a managing editor, has circluation people, has an art staff, has copy editors, has web designer/editor, has a considerable number of other permanent support staff, has a large number of columnists and regular contributors and an even larger number of sometime contributers. It uses an inhouse attorney and sometimes outside legal advisors. And articles are often submitted to outside experts for review. Yes, SI is openly partisan. It is very partisan towards scientific inquiry and is strongly opposed to superstitious beliefs and irrational claims. I can understand why E-f-L-f-A objects to this. The magazine frequently publishes articles that threaten her superstitious and irrational beliefs.

Last, but not least, Wikipedia considers Skeptical Inquirer a reputable publication [23] and frequently cites articles published in the magazine. I've pointed this out to Etincelle formerly Lumiere formally Amrit. Yet she continues to ignore all facts that do not support her agenda.Askolnick 05:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Retake

• Openly partisan? Yes
• Does it have a large or very small readership? Still need to be checked and compared with other publications.
• Is it a vanity publisher? No.
• Does it have peer-review? No guarantee.
• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Large permanent staff.

My impression is that these questions are there to help us answer the next question. Let us see: Partisan, No Peer-review guarantee, and we don't know about readership. So only two successes out of five.

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

My answer is still (a). Also, one ingredient in checking a publisher is how well it filters for innacuracies. How exactly the SI independent editors checked the accuracy of Andrew's claim that Natasha affirmed that appendixes grow back? Andrew, do you have any information at this level? Do they have access to tapes that we cannot access? I have more questions of this kind, but I let you take care of this one first. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit next Who Knows What: Do you have any any information that shows appendixes do grow back? Askolnick 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit next Who Knows What, repeating nonsense is not going to make it truer or more relevant. Your "Peer-review guarantee" argument is a red herring. Many but not all Skeptical Inquirer articles are peer-reviewed. But the vast majority of publications referenced in Wikipedia articles are NOT peer-reviewed. Yet you persist in making this red herring argument. Only peer-reviewed science journals need to be peer-reviewed. The New York Times and the Washington Post are not peer-reviewed. Scientific American is not peer-reviewed. The vast majority of published books are not peer-reviewed. Yet they are considered reputable publications and are freely cited in Wikipedia articles.

E-L-A-W-K-W implies that to be reputable, a publication must have a readership above some standard that he doesn't identify. That's another foul "ingredient" he's thrown into this pot of rotten red herrings that he keeps stirring up with his spoon of irrationality. The newspaper with the highest readership in the United States is the National Enquirer. Duh! Lancet, perhaps the most respected medical journal in the world, has a readership far below many other science and medical journals. And the readership of Skeptical Inquirer? It's somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000. Don't know the current number.

I hope other editors can see that E-L-A-W-K-W is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. He came here to work on only two articles -- Transcendental Meditation and this one. The common feature is that both articles cite research that I published. He has only two agendas, defend his cult and attack CSICOP, Skeptical Inquirer, and me. He'll do it with any argument he can cook up, no matter how false or absurd. He keeps complaining that my personal attacks are unfair. However, his entire effort in this thread has been to discredit me. Nothing, he writes here has anything to do with Natasha Demkina. It's all about attacking me and defending his fellow attackers. I hope other editors see through his hypocricy

If E-L-A-W-K-W wants to argue that Skeptical Inquirer is not a reputable publication because it prints inaccuracies -- he offers my statement that appendixes do not grow back as a likely example -- he must show that appendixes do grow back. He is trying to imply that Skeptical Inquirer is careless in editing and fails to catch falsehoods. To do so, he must show that it publishes falsehoods. Of course he can't, because that statement is not false; appendixes don't grow back. But he's willing to throw in plenty of innuendo into that foul pot of poison he keeps stirring up to smear my colleagues and me. Askolnick

I think that is a fairly ironic attack for you to make on another person. More than 75% of your (last 250) edits on WP have been to or related to this article, and only to contribute material favorable to or otherwise defend the work of CSICOP/CSMMH. (Over half have been to this talk page.) Your contributions to other articles haven't exactly been substantial, either -- mostly adding references to your own articles [24] or a picture or two [25], with the only possible exception being your contribution to Peer review, in which you added material ref'ed from your own personal website, skirting not only your own interpretation of WP:RS but also WP:AUTO. [26] I think it's pretty disingenous for you to criticise someone else as "not here to contribute to Wikipedia" when your main goal here to elevate or protect your own and CSICOP/CSMMH's reputation. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's so ironic about defending myself against character assassins who are using Wikipedia for their personal agenda to attack and discredit my work as a medical journalist. While you pose as an objective editor, the record shows you are not. You consistently defend their false and misleading statements. You ignored my primary point above -- that Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit came to Wikipedia to work on only two articles -- Transcendental Meditation and Natasha Demkina -- and immediately began attacking my research articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Skeptical Inquirer. Those attacks involve a steady stream of falsehoods and tortured arguments -- none of which you have ever objected to. Indeed, when you rewrote the Natasha Demkina article, you included some of his and Julio Siqueira's disinformation. It is clear by this record you are anything but an objective editor.

Which explains why you would make the false and misleading comments above: You are blinded by your own lack of objectivity. I did not "skirt" my own interpretation of WP:RS and WP:AUTO. The article that I referenced was not self-published on my web page. It was published in 1991 by ScienceWriters, the Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers and is available on the association's web site. But you have to be one of the approximately 2000 members to access that site. It was also republished in the Skeptical Inquirer in 1992, but is not available on CSICOP's site. That's why I have a copy of it on my web site so that researchers and others can have easy access to it. Were you not so blinded by your lack of objectivity, you would have seen that.

You would have also seen that it does not "skirt" WP:AUTO guidelines. The reference is solely to a quote about the peer-review process from JAMA's deputy editor, Dr. Drummond Rennie, who is a leading expert on peer review. He has been the organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. It is not an autobiographical reference as you claim. WP:AUTO directs editors not to add articles to promote themselves. I added a paragraph to an existing article on Peer Review and the material I added was a quote about the problems with peer review by one of the world's leading experts on the subject. The material had NOTHING to do with me other than my being the researcher who reported his statement in ScienceWriters and Skeptical Inquirer.

It is hardly surprising that I would include references to material I've published in the areas of science and medicine. I've published more than 230 articles in JAMA and many others in respected publications from the Encyclopedia Britannica to Ranger Rick's Nature magazine. I'm a science and medical writer and an authority in several areas. While you obviously have a problem with authorities contributing to Wikipedia, its founder clearly does not. He has welcomed authorities to contribute articles to Wiki. Perhaps you should take your problem up with Jimmy Wales.[27]

Keith, you really need to take a look at your own conduct here. It has been anything but fair and impartial.

This is at the gossip level, not for an encyclopedia.

Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate in physics also known for his enthusiasm for the paranormal, charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one. Richard Wiseman responded that Josephson's criticism is not credible, since he has no record of publishing on parapsychology, and Josephson's criticism was published on his personal website without going through peer review.

I know that it only reports what Wiseman said, and therefore it is accurate. However, this is exactly the way gossips are propagated: Mrs. Y says "Mrs. X said that ... ". Mrs. Y says the truth, but she is still propagating gossips. Please do not interpret Wikipedia policy as it if it says that it is fine to propagate gossips or, in our case, ad hominen fallacious arguments. As editors, we have the responsibility to evaluate the message that Mr. Wiseman is communicating. It is original research to include such evaluation in the article, but it is certainly not against policy to use our judgement to decide what we should include. Prof. Josephson communicates a logical argument. Trying to attack this argument using an attack on Prof. Josephson is exactly what is called an ad hominen argument. The policy says that we should evaluate sources to determine if we are going to use them or not, but if it says that we should discredit the author of an argument so that people do not accept the argument, then we have a policy that officially supports ad hominen fallacious arguments. This is not our policy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, do you ever post anything that is not utter nonsense? Only you would try to spin this whopper: a statement from an authority reported in a highly credible publication is "gossip." What an assinine thing to claim! What Wiseman said is both true and very relevant. That's why it was reported in the indisputably reputable Times Education Supplement. Josephson has no standing in the field of parapsychology. He's nothing more than a celebrity cheerleader who stands on the sidelines and cheers every charlatan that enters the field while attacking every skeptical scientist who exposes their tricks. That's not science. That's advocacy -- which is precisely how the Wikipedia article on Josephson describes him -- he's an "advocate" for paranormal beliefs.

Wiseman was correct to point out that Josephson has never published research in the field of parapsychology and that he self-published his irrational diatribe against Wiseman, Ray Hyman, and me on his personal web site, rather than in any scientific publication. Only someone utterly blinded by a pathological bias would attempt to dismiss these important points as "gossip."Askolnick 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the attack at Josephson as irrelevant in the current context. Even Wiseman says (in this new ref) that not "all Josephson's comments are wrong". This particular 50:1 is not wrong; it is just irrelevant. Demkina agreed "to jump through the hoop". Period. If someone else wants to give her a wider hoop, she will be only glad to. Why Josephson did not put money where his mouth is and arrange a new trial instead? mikka (t) 03:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have to add that scorning of Josephson was quoted quite carelessly: "criticism is not credible" is way far not the same as "attack does not carry much weight", the latter one meaning as "may be easily rebutted", the former means "the critic is an idiot or crook". mikka (t) 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Redefining Neutral Point of View

In a message posted to Keith Tyler's User Talk page, [[28]] Dreadlocke flatters Keith for his efforts to make the Natasha Demkina article "neutral," and then shows just what his idea of neutrality is. He recommends linking the article to what he calls a "fairly neutral" web page:

Hi Keith, an external control article that looks fairly neutral is from the Discovery Channel." [[29]]

"Fairly neutral"? See for yourself: The Discovery Channel article begins:

"Natasha Demkina has an extraordinary gift that means she can quite literally see right through people. Her story sounds like it has come straight from the pages of a science fiction comic book, but doctors have yet to disprove her amazing abilities. Natasha is able to look into people’s bodies and correctly diagnose their medical problems, without any help from ultra-sound or x-ray equipment."

Neutral?! The Discovery Channel program is primarily about a scientific test of Natasha's claims that found no evidence of such powers. Yet this article states that Natasha can "quite literally see right through people's bodies and correctly diagnose their medical problems." It makes absolutely NO mention that she was tested by researchers, or that they concluded she is doing nothing more than using a cold reading technique commonly used by astrologers, palm readers, and other fortune-telling charlatans.

Dreadlocke insists that he's only interested in establishing a neutral point of view in the Natasha Demkina article. Yet he calls the Discovery Channel article, "fairly neutral." Nothing that he's ever posted here shows his own lack of neutrality as much as that statement. The Discovery Channel article claims that Natasha has supernatural powers that she is using to help people find out what is making them sick, without any mention that scientific researchers tested her and found only evidence of deception. He calls this a "fairly neutral" point of view.

It's clear why he is so unhappy with the Natasha Demkina article. And it should be clear that he won't be happy until it is as "neutral" as the Discovery Channel article, which claims that Natasha Demkina is helping people with her amazing paranormal powers, while doctors are mystified. Apparently, in Dreadlocke's lexicon, "NPOV" means "agrees with him." Askolnick 14:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure if this ridiculous accusation is even worth arguing about, but let’s take a deeper look into the link Mr. Skolnick mentions in reference to my comment “fairly neutral”. That link is to a website of the Discovery Channel which produced and aired the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation of Natasha. Through the Discovery Channel website one can purchase the actual video of the show, as has been referenced in this section Why Citing Discovery Channel for the Appendix Story

As you can see by reading that section of the Demkina Talk page, the Discovery Channel link has been used there as well as in the Wikipedia Article on Natasha to justify, amongst other things, the "appendix re-growth" comment presumably made by Natasha. It is a listed as a Citable Reference to the Discovery Channel's TV Documentary for the Article.

Considering Mr. Skolnicks comments above, it is ironic to note that he has previously argued that even though that Discovery Channel Article doesn’t specifically state that Natasha made the appendix re-growth statement, the referenced site provides a direct link to the Documentary, so it can be used as a source for the “appendix” statement:

Quote from user:Askolnick:

“..I'm almost at a lost of words. First, the reference you wrongly removed IS a reference to the TV documentary. It clearly states: The Discovery Channel, 2004, The Girl with X-Ray Eyes. That is clearly a reference to the documentary..”

He then put the Discovery Channel Link back

From the discussions in that section, it appears that the Discovery Channel link is far more than just the mere text presented on that particular page; to some, it is a portal to the Discovery Channel's TV Documentary which presents the work of Skolnick-Hyman-Wiseman. The Discovery Article's text is clearly meant as an advertising hook to attract visitors into watching the documentary and even purchasing the video, which is available through the same site. Just as clearly, Mr. Skolnick believes that link is a direct connection to his own work and that of the CSICOP investigation.

I’m the one who originally put that link in the Natasha Demkina "References" section. How ironic to see Mr. Skolnick utilizing as a part of his citation defense something that I placed in the references, and then see him try to turn the very same article against me.

My point was that the Discovery Channel article itself presents information on Natasha's life story outside of CSICOP, something that needs to be presented to maintain NPOV. Considering the linkage to the Documentary and CSICOP, I think that “fairly neutral” is quite a reasonable statement. Mr. Skolnick took my comment out of context; we were looking for a “control” article from a completely uncontestable website that had details about Natasha’s life outside the narrow confines of the CSICOP test, and although it had links to the actual documentary, it had references to her history not clouded by the POV of CSICOP.

Read my comment to Keith in it’s entirety to see what I was looking for in that article, which includes this statement: “My main view is that the article on Wikipedia is about Natasha Demkina, and not just the CSMMH-CSICOP investigation and test”.

For instance, the current Wikipeda article says nothing about Natasha’s early history, her ability to recite Pushkin at a young age, her surgery that led to her paranormal vision, or even her mother’s name – an important figure in the teenage Natasha’s life and the CSICOP investigation. The Discovery Channel article had that basic data on Natasha. I figured, heck, even Mr. Skolnick can’t argue against that, it’s the Discovery Channel site that links to coverage of his own work. Apparently, I was wrong – Mr. Skolnick will argue anything in any direction, twisting and tailoring the information to fit his own narrow agenda.

My basic point about "neutrality" is that CSICOP's investigation is not the only perspective on Natasha Demkina. Mr. Skolnick's entire argument above can be turned back on him, since anything that does not represent his POV is immediately attacked and dismissed by him. Clearly there is no article on Natasha in any publication that Mr. Skolnick would accept if it did not strongly or entirely present his POV. Mr. Skolnick’s own comment above that their test “..found only evidence of deception” shows his extraordinary bias in this matter.

It is interesting that Mr. Skolnick chose to create an entire section in the Demkina talk page devoted to what is essentially a personal attack on me; an attack that is almost a direct contradiction of Mr. Skolnick’s earlier arguments about that very same subject – the Discovery Channel Site. Unless I’m misunderstanding something, which is always a possibility, but I really don’t think so. Life seems so full of irony, it makes one wonder. Dreadlocke 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke cited an article that falsely hypes the Discovery Channel documentary. I cited the documentary, "The Girl with X-ray Eyes." I provided that link for anyone who wants to get a copy of the documentary. Dreadlocke provided that link for people wanting to read an example of what he called a "fairly neutral" article -- an incriminatingly ridiculous statement that he is now trying to obfuscate with hundreds of words of smoke.

Behind all that smoke, we can still see the facts he is trying to obscure. The article he called "fairly neutral" misrepresents what the documentary is about. It hypes Natasha's claimed supernatural powers as genuine and says that doctors are baffled by them. Although the documentary was primarily about Natasha being flown to New York to be tested by researchers, the promo piece says NOTHING about the test, that she failed the test, or that researchers concluded she has no such powers. And this is what Dreadlocke calls a "fairly neutral" article!

Even after this absurdity is pointed out to him, he stands by his statement and insists that it was "quite reasonable" to have called the promo article "fairly neutral." It's worth repeating, Dreadlocke is not going to be satisfied until the Wikipedia article on Natasha Demkina is as "neutral" as the hyped-up promo piece he touted. Askolnick 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit distorting what I said. I didn’t "cite" the article, I put the link to the Discovery Channel article in the References for the same reason you did, because it's the link to the Discovery Channel's own site for the Natasha Demkina Documentary. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Skolnick - it's either a link to the Documentary (as you have claimed) or it is not. It's the same link! What I said to Keith was something quite different than you misquote me as saying; again, the information I wanted to pull out of the article itself was the history of Natasha, which has to include some of the "hype" surrounding her because that is the other side of the Natasha story, which you want to suppress so the article only presents your side - thus ignoring and negating NPOV and making the article entirely about CSICOP's belief of what Natasha is. There are obviously thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, including scientists and researchers, who believe Natasha has psi power - that side must be represented in Wikipedia – and not just with some piece of bogus, empty fluff statement such as “she has supporters”.

If I were as biased as you claim, I would be arguing that none of the CSICOP material should be included - which as biased as that group is against anything paranormal, I'm not so sure they should be included as much more than a brief description and a reference link. All I've argued is that in the Wikipedia article on Natasha, there is way too much emphasis and detail on the CSICOP test, which far, far exceeds the amount of information on the history and life of Natasha herself, and there is no proper representation of the critics of the CSICOP test. That this sounds unreasonable to you just goes to show your own bias. - Dreadlocke 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit lying, Dreadlocke. You cited the Discovery Channel article in your message to Keith Tyler, calling it a "fairly neutral" article that should be included in the Natasha Demkina article. That article, with all its falsehoods and misrepresentations, show you wouldn't recognize a neutral article if it bit you on your nose.

I did not misquote you. That's another baldfaced lie. I provided your quote along with the link that proves that you said it:

Hi Keith, an external control article that looks fairly neutral is from the Discovery Channel." [[30]]

Askolnick 14:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Misquoting

When I say you misquote me, I am not referencing just that direct quotation you took from Keith’s talk page, as indeed it is a word-for-word statement pulled from my post; however, you are misquoting me by intentionally (or accidentally) misrepresenting the intent and content of my writing. Context is everything, and not only do you take my statement out of context, but you also provide an interpretation that is clearly a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my intent, and you continue to do so even though I have corrected you several times.

You misquote by the omission of important context and meaning, not that you merely put into quotation marks a partial or complete statement that was made.

According to Encarta 2006, “misquote” is a perfect word for what you are doing here: “misreport, misrepresent, quote out of context, put words in somebody's mouth, overstate”. Sounds exactly like what you are doing to me and some of the other editors here, but hey, I’m perfectly willing to use another word for your misbehavior.

Apparently, there’s a lot more to “misquoting” than just something faulty placed between a pair of quotation marks – and even that doesn’t necessarily mean a misquote has occurred – the general public regularly uses quotation marks to set something apart for emphasis or in a mistaken attempt to highlight a paraphrase. This is a Wikipedia talk page, not the New York Times. It happens all the time, so I never freak out and start calling others “liars” before I ascertain their intent. Even then, I never freak out and have rarely ever called someone a liar - although the temptation is great in some recent circumstances I've found myself in...

If that is not misquoting, then let’s find a better word for your continued misrepresentation of my posts.

So much for your false and inflammatory accusation that I told a “baldfaced lie” or any lies at all. I think we can safely dismiss that charge. - Dreadlocke 17:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And here we have another outrageous misrepresentation from Dreadlocke! To defend his dishonest use of the word "misquote" he cites Encarta: [31]

According to Encarta 2006, “misquote” is a perfect word for what you are doing here: “misreport, misrepresent, quote out of context, put words in somebody's mouth, overstate”. Sounds exactly like what you are doing to me and some of the other editors here, but hey, I’m perfectly willing to use another word for your misbehavior.

The only misbehavior has been Dreadlocke's stream of falsehoods, distortions, and misrepresentations -- and here is yet another example of how far he is willing to go. The above is not Encarta's definition of "misquote." It's a list of synonyms from the Encarta Thesaurus! (The Encarta Dictionary doesn't define "misquote."[32]) So the scoundrel misquotes Encarta's list of synonymous words as if it was a definition of "misquote." Such audacious dishonesty!

Here's a definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:[33]

"To quote incorrectly."

And if you look up "quote" in this context, it's defined:

"To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source."

I did not repeat Dreadlocke's words incorrectly. I quoted them precisely. Dreadlock cited that hyped up, false, and misleading article as "fairly neutral." Nothing that preceded or followed those words negates his ridiculous characterization of the article as "fairly neutral." Unable to defend his ridiculous statement, he falsely says I "misquoted" him. His words speak for themselves and they do not speak well of his integrity. Askolnick 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, how outrageous. More outrageous accusations from you, Mr. Skolnick. I did not misquote Encarta, those are obviously the synonyms for that word, not the definition - I never said it was; that's another distortion of yours. So, pick a word or two from those, Mr. Skolnick, they’re all accurate descriptions of your various posts where you attack and distort the words and intent of your opponents. I'll be glad to change the word "misquote", as I've already offered to do- an offer you so conveniently ignore...

I also used the Wikipedia article on misquoting, you ignored that too. That article seems to back up my use of the word “misquote”, but I’m not an English teacher, so it may be that it is the wrong word. I selected a whole list of suitable replacements for it, though. Pick one! - Dreadlocke 17:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging NPOV

Contrary to your assertions, I am well aware of how “neutral” the Discovery Channel article and your own CSICOP articles are – neither of which by themselves, or even in combination, meet NPOV for an article in Wikipedia on Natasha Demkina. I have mentioned exactly what I think needs to be taken from the disputed Discovery Channel article to help make the Wikipedia article on Natasha meet NPOV.

I have never stated or intended that the Discovery Channel article should be the only content acceptable in the Wikipedia article, or that I will only be “satisfied” when the “Wikipedia article on Natasha Demkina is as "neutral" as the hyped-up promo piece”, which Mr. Skolnick so falsely declares is my intent.

Clearly, I accept that some CSICOP content should be included, in addition to information from other events in Natasha’s life (such as the appearance in Japan), as well as my having asked for mediation on sources that critique the CSICOP content. All in the name of fair play, completeness and NPOV. - Dreadlocke 17:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word “Cite”

As you know, there are some requirements in Wikipedia about “citing” sources, so you should try to be more precise when making the word part of an accusation. I used the term “cite” in alignment with the Wikipedia meaning “to quote from” or to reference a source for a statement made in a Wikipedia article; not with the intent to point to something as a recommendation, or even to say “hey look at this” which is what I was essentially doing on Keith’s talk page.

There are two different elements involved here. One is where I included the Discovery Channel site in the “References” section of the article; the second is the comment I posted on Keith's talk page.

Element One

You and I both placed the same link in the Reference section for the same basic reason, because it's the link to the Discovery Channel's own site for the Natasha Demkina Documentary. However, I did not cite it in the article. That is what I was referring to when I said I didn't cite it. The decision to place the link into the reference section was made well before I even fully read the article; much less recommended it to Keith. There is no connection between the two events.

Element Two

The second element is the reason why I mentioned the article on Keith’s talk page. That could be considered as "citing" the article to Keith as an example of something from which to pull Natasha’s non-CSICOP history. But you blurred both elements together, making your statement only partially true; in essence, making the overall statement a falsehood.

But, just to make things less ambiguous and easier for you to understand, I'll withdraw the "denial of citing" statement I made, since it has no real bearing on my argument, which still stands: that you have been, and still are, distorting my words and intent. - Dreadlocke 17:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Main Point

You ignored the main thrust of what I was saying, choosing instead to focus on minor little details that are really meaningless in an already meaningless section you’ve chosen to name “Redefining NPOV”; so now let's go back and see how removal of the disputed utilization of "cite" affects the points I put forth...I'll give you a little clue...it doesn't : Strike Cite Denial - Dreadlocke 17:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Considering the dispute that is going on here with regard to lack of NPOV in the article, it seems reasonable to add the NPOV tag to the article. Please do not remove it until the dispute is resolved in one way or another. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Thanks Étincelle. - Dreadlocke 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong idea. The tag is frivolous. Please state exaclty which statements present a non-neutral POV. "Lack of something" is not a valid reason. All wikipedia articles "lack" one thing or another until someone adds missing pieces. mikka (t) 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. There don't have to be biased statements in the article for the article itself to be biased. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point Mikkalai. But it's even worst than frivolous, it's deceptive. There is no argument whether the article should have a neutral point of view. The argument is solely over whether disreputable sources should be cited in the Natasha article. The article already provides opposing views and links to strongly dissenting views. However, Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke, and Dreadlockstep insist that the article must also cite the self-published personal web sites of three kooks -- Victor Zammit, Brian Josephson, and Julio Siqueira -- despite Wiki's guidelines that clearly state personal web sites should never be used as secondary sources. The dispute is not whether the article should have a NPOV. The dispute is over the use of disreputable sources for the purpose of providing more opposing views. Askolnick 14:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The neutral way of wording the situation is that there is a need to determine which sites are suitable as references to the article. The problem is that all opposing material to date has been rejected by Andrew as either a personal site, and therefore wholly invalid (which I don't think is a quite accurate interpretation of WP:RS/WP:V, or biased, or unreliable. Both the characterizations of the sites as well as under what purposes they can be used as sources is the nagging underlying question. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about lying. Yet Keith Tyler has joined Dreadlocke and Lumiere-Etincelle-Lumiere-Amrit in knowingly using false statements to defend the use of disreputable sources in this article:

"The problem is that all opposing material to date has been rejected by Andrew as either a personal site, and therefore wholly invalid (which I don't think is a quite accurate interpretation of WP:RS/WP:V, or biased, or unreliable."

Above I pointed out that, "The article already provides opposing views and links to strongly dissenting views." It cites Brian Josephson's opposing view and provides a reference to a reputable publication for readers who want to read more of his arguments. And it provides four external links to web sites featuring strongly opposing views. While I don't find those web sites credible, I never objected to them. Keith Tyler's statement is clearly a lie. While those sources don't meet my standards for reputable sources, they meet Wiki standards. And those are the standards Wiki editors are supposed to go by, not their own. Unfortunately, Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke and Lumiere-formerly-Etincelle-formerly-Lumiere-formerly-Amrit believe otherwise. Even worse, they are not the least bit shy about resorting to blatant falsehoods to achieve their agendas.Askolnick 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Colleague, if there is no reputable "opposing material" means that that the article is uncontested, hence NPOV. It is not' like, someone is deliberately skewing the content. No reputable opposite view - no NPOV dispute. The opponents had more than plenty of time to support their point. mikka (t) 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But the question arises as to whether or not they are reputable. Andrew says no. Others disagree. That's the point of contention.

It seems to me if the thes.co.uk site, which very early on points out that Josephson is "scorned by colleagues" and that Wiseman is "a key member of the respected Committee" (ital mine), is reputable and a valid reference, then the discoverychannel.in page would be valid as well. But a lot of effort is being put into rejecting it.

Similarly, Andrew rejected [34] the following sources, not even as references (as which I'd argue some would be suitable), but as external links: Pravda, The Guardian, skepticalinvestigations.org, museumofhoaxes.com, and a cached Ananova story about a doctor that appeared on ITV. An additional EL was to victorzammit.com, which is more than likely a personal site under WP:RS. On the other hand, he certainly appears to be a major anti-skeptic (for lack of a better term). In either case, this question wouldn't apply to external links as I read the relevant specific policy. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith Tyler appears to be lying through his teeth again. I do not recall removing any links except those to Josephson's and Zammit's self published personal web pages and to that sleazy Russian tabloid, Pravda RU. Askolnick 06:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A slight correction: I overlooked my deletion of the cached Ananova story. That was deleted because it was solely a short summary of the report in the British tabloid Sun. Sun had a financial deal with Natasha to bring her to the U.K. and promote her with glowing news accounts of her superpower. Clearly, it's a lot easier to find pro-paranormal stories in such sleazy news tabloids and Keith Tyler sees no reason not to cite them as reputable sources. There's an even worse sin here: Keith is quoting an outdated and sensationalistic account that gives the false impression Natasha had diagnosed serious medical problems in the TV doctor Chris Steele. It was later reported by far more credible news sources that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with him! I think it should be obvious why Keith Tyler added a link to a hyped up and outdated rehash of a sleazy tabloid news story instead of a more current, and far more truthful report from a reputable publication like the Manchester Evening News. [35]

Tyler pretends to be only interested in maintaining a NPOV. However, everything he has attempted with this article has been to promote a pro-paranormal POV at the expense of Wikipedia credibility. Askolnick 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As for "personal sites", we are speaking about a personal site of a very famous person here, who would not have any trouble in publishing his materials. So the fact that he has to dump it onto his website means that not only ASkolnick thinks that this person is way off line. His position is not silenced and mentioned in the article, and readily available on net. If this guy wants to prove his point, why don't he invite Demkina and retest her himself? She will be more than willing to take a free lunch.

Please notice also that the article quite cautiously does not deny the possibility of the abilities of Demkina. It simply states that those who performed the experiment decided she is not worth further trying. It was their money, their experiment design, and they are entitled to their conclusions. Anyone else is welcome to put their money and make their own conclusions. The rest is idle babbling about how these eggheads suppress untold wonders, going for centuries now. mikka (t) 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Keith hit the nail on the head. That is the question and dispute several of us have asked to be mediated, what exactly can be added to fill in the missing pieces. The Professor Josephson site is my starting point. I believe it does meet the standards for being a citable source for the article. Until I know what can be added, the article is completely POV to me - the POV of CSICOP. If mediation/arbitration finds that no other source is legitimately citable besides the CSICOP site, then that's it, end of dispute - remove tags and go home.

From reading NPOV Dispute the associated tag is relevant to this situation.

“That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) feels that it is.”

Dreadlocke 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And here, Dreadlocke backs up Keith Tyler's deceitful argument that the article only presents CSICOP's point of view. He claims that he's not going to stop fighting until arbitation decides that "no other source is legitimately citable besides the CSICOP site." He knows that's NOT the issue being disputed. The Natasha Demkina article already cites opposing views, including the Discovery Channel documentary, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, and provides external links to four web sites that provide strongly opposing views. Why do Keith, Dreadlocke, and the one with all those names resort to falsehoods? That's what some people do when facts don't support their agendas.Askolnick 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are confusing the policies and guidelines between links placed in an External Links section and links placed in the References section. External Links section is for links that aren't used as references in the article, and don't need to meet the same requirements as a citable source.Dreadlocke 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

read further: "The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." You cannot simply run around and slap NPOV tags simply because you don't like an article. As you should know, opinions of wikipedians do not matter. Only opinions expressed in published reputable sources do. Otherwise each and every wikipedia article will have the NPOV tag. 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I read that part too, and I think that does mean the opinions of Wikipedians. The opinions of Wikipedians on one side of the dispute of the Wikipedia article itself; Wikipedians who care enough to be making the point and think the article says something that other people would want to disagree with. I don't think it means the opinions of external sources on the Article in question. It's not that I just don't like it, I don't think it meets NPOV. Dreadlocke 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the issue of “personal sites” I’ve addressed that issue in regards to Professor Josephson in some detail here: Self-Published Sources Exception and here: Professor Josephson’s Website. - Dreadlocke 00:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A looked into Professor's website and find his conclusion laughable: "The CSICOP organisation is not infrequently taken to have an authority that it does not deserve. Such organisations are in reality pressure groups, taking every chance they can get to press their beliefs in the media, often in ways that have been characterised as misleading." He put it exactly upside down: the media is so full of various demented extrasensory bullshit, just look into the TV guide or any newspaper, and you notice that the voice of a sceptic is virtually absent. mikka (t) 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." in my understanding, time is up long time ago. No POV — no NPOV. mikka (t) 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, your argument above, which says that the view of the skeptics is absent from the regular media, plays against the skeptics and it does not contradict Brian Josephson. It just means, thanks god, that these pressure groups are not so succesful. This leads naturally to the next issue: Skolnick and mikka don't understand that the NPOV policy is an additional policy in addition to the verifiability and no original research policies. Therefore, in accordance with the NPOV policy, even if some material is perfectly sourced, we can exclude it simply to avoid undue weight. The NPOV policy says that we should give more weight to the most popular view and less weight to the less popular view. There is no objective criteria proposed to measure the popularity of a view, except the principle that a view should have prominent adherents. We must also take into account how relevant is the material. So, the NPOV policy is a policy that must be applied with common sense.

This is a perfect time to recall what was explained by mikka just above: the view of the skeptics is not the most popular view in the media. Studies have shown that the view of the skeptics is not even the most popular amongst educated people. Yes, educated people are more ready to accept the limitation of standard science than less educated people are. This is consistent with the fact that science is a system that must be critical of itself to break its own limitations. It is perfectly scientific to be aware of a possible bias amongst a group of scientifics and magicians that are called the skeptics. The view of these skeptics is not the view of the majority, and it is obviously a biased POV to assume that the majority is just mistaken and that the skeptics are the only one that hold the truth. In any case, truth is irrelevant here. Truth is not a criteria for inclusion. The Discovery Channel, whether or not it holds the truth, is naturally much closer to the view of the majority. We should report this view and properly attribute it. Next, we should report the view of the skeptics and properly attribute it, but not give to much weight to this view because it is not a so popular view. We should also verify with others if University web pages that are offered to faculty members such as Brian Josephson for their invidual research count as personal websites. I personally see a big difference between these two types of sources. Soon will follow Skolnick's standard misinterpretation and distortion of everything I wrote, but this will be after he misinterprets and distorts the views of everyone else against him in this talk page. Otherwise, it means that I find a succesful way to protect myself against Skolnick's systematic distortion of the views of his opponents. -Lumière 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere-formerly-Etincelle-formerly-Lumiere-formerly-Amrit, please stop ignoring what the Wiki policy says about building a neutral point of view in Wiki articles [36]:

"A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources[37] you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources."

Keith Tylers', Dreadlocke's, and your argument that Wiki's NPOV guidelines override its guidelines regarding the use of reputable sources is clearly bogus. Right there, the NPOV article refers editors to the guidelines that say:

"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."

If you can't find a reputable reference source for opinions, that's pretty good evidence those opinions are not so reputable. There is a reason that a Nobel laureate publishes his crackpot opinions on his own web site: No reputable publication is willing to give them credence by publishing them. Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke, you, and Julio Siqueira want to give this disreputable source credibility by citing it in a Wikipedia article. That fact that it would lower Wikipedia's own credibility by citing personal web pages obviously does not bother you.

If this point were not true, you four could point to other references that you've wanted to cite. You would be able to show how you've done the research that Wikipedia policy requires to come up with additional sources of opinion. But you can't. For the past three months, all you four have been doing is fighting to include the personal web sites of three outrageous kooks in the article. If there were a reputable source of additional views, why haven't any of you been able to find one? The answer is clear: That's not your agenda. Askolnick 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Lumière, I agree with your points above (including the very last one...;). The current article on Natasha is overloaded with information on CSICOP and their viewpoint; it's almost an advertisement for their group. In reality, the "believers" far outnumber the "skeptics" and "pseudo-skeptics" - that's why (as Mikka pointed out) the media is so chock full of shows, reports and documentaries on the paranormal. People want to believe, and they do believe!

I pointed out earlier that there are obviously thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, including scientists and researchers, who believe Natasha has psi power - that side must be solidly represented in Wikipedia. Even amongst those who don't believe Natasha has powers, there are many critics that believe the CSICOP test was very flawed - they too must be represented. I eagerly await the mediation and possible arbitration on inclusion of Professor Josephson's website. Dreadlocke 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If Dreadlocke is telling the truth, then he should be able to cite some reputable sources for the opinion that Natasha's powers are real. Afterall, he says "there are obviously thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, including scientists and researchers" who believe her supernatural powers are real and therefore their views should be represented. If that were true, then Dreadlocke should be able to cite reputable sources for all those "scientists and researchers." He doesn't because he can't. So he just makes up all those "scientists and researchers" who believe Natasha has comic-book super powers.

The only "scientist" he can cite is a quantum physicist who has never conducted research in medicine or in the paranormal. As such, he is a "false authority" which Wiki guidlines advise against using. [[38]] These guidelines say "you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics." Nor should you trust somebody with a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics to tell you about medicine or parapsychology, as Dreadlocke is insisting we do.Askolnick 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke: It is not even a question of belief. I would not support anykind of belief. In fact, I doubt that the majority believe in anything precise. We are just talking about having an natural open mind, which the skeptics do not have, even though they pretend to have it. People do not want to believe. They want to know and they do not trust the objectivity of all scientists. -Lumière 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, I was referring to belief in it's most general sense - I may have gotten a little carried away.. :) If I understand you correctly, then I think we both agree that the main point is for this article to represent all views adequately; one reason for that is so those with open minds can see both (or all) sides of the issue, so they can better judge for themselves the true state of affairs. The other reason is because those views exist, and should be represented accordingly - as long as they are not given undue weight. Dreadlocke 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By Dreadlocke's logic (I use the word loosely), the Wiki article on Age of Earth [39] is in bad need of a major rewrite. It clearly has a pro-science and pro-skeptic point of view and utterly ignores the opinions of millions of Americans including prominent "scientists and researchers" who believe the Earth is thousands of years old, not billions, as the closed-minded scientific commmunity claims. Polls clearly show that the majority of Americans believe the Earth was created as the Holy Bible says it was, only about 10,000 years ago. And hundreds of "scientists and researchers" share that view. Dreadlocke, since you want to be a mediator, how about mediating the rewriting of the Age of Earth and Age of Universe articles to give them a neutral point of view? It's a shame to confine your anti-science sophistry to just one article. Askolnick 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's another distortion from Mr. Skolnick of what I am saying, as well as being an obvious personal attack that does not address the issues around this particular article at all. BTW, I have no doubt that the Earth is billions of years old. I'm very pro-science. Try not to overstate or distort things when you put words in my mouth or beliefs in my head, Mr. Skolnick. Dreadlocke 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What you believe about the age of the Earth is not relevant. What's relevant is that you claim to believe Wiki articles should present a balance of opinions, reputable or otherwise, and that the weight of the article should reflect the weight of public opinion. Apparently, you believe only some Wiki articles need to put the opinions of anti-science kooks and the superstitious on equal footing with the consensus of the scientific community. Sorry if I made the mistake of thinking you'd want to appear consistent.Askolnick 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, if you read my comments, what I said is that all views must be given their due weight to meet NPOV. Don't take one of my statements out of context and distort it - in the post you mention, I said "solid" representation, which does not mean an unbalanced one that doesn't meet NPOV. I've made that very clear in all my posts on the subject. Dreadlocke 18:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So, do we need to have the mere presence of an NPOV Tag mediated and arbitrated too? The reasoning behind it's removal seems somewhat specious to me, whereas the dispute over the article's NPOV, especially as it relates to material that can be included, is solid. Dreadlocke 17:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I know you strongly resent having to back up your point of view with evidence, but Mikkalai and I insist. If you want to put a NPOV tag on the article, you need to identify what constitutes a lack of a neutral point of view. The fact that you can't find reputable sources for the views you want to add is NOT evidence that there's a lack of NPOV. It's only evidence that you can't find reputable different points of view. That's why you, Tyler and the One with Many Names keep insisting that we forget about Wiki's reputability guidelines and use he personal web pages of kooks. Askolnick 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We've already been through this; you should reread the above section. Dreadlocke 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, just put back the NPOV tag. I start to think that we should point out the wrong behavior of Mr. Skolnick to an appropriate commitee. He scares away experienced editors such as Keith D. Tyler, which I am sure have not taken any side and just try to help us to have an NPOV article. I am also very opiniated. It is alright to have an opinion but one must respect the opinions of others, not necessarily agree with them, but respect them. -Lumière 19:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I’m assigned mediator. From the mediation cabal:

Askolnick is the journalist who works for CSICOP-CSMMH and is one of those responsible for the testing of Natasha Demkina, a Russian paranormal called "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes" which was shown in a documentary by Disccovery Channel. Askolnick is disputing the inclusion of the web pages of one of the better known critics of the test, Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson, who posted a critique of the test on the University of Cambridge website. Prof Josephson is a physicist, but the critique is about scientific methodology and the paranormal, both of which are areas of expertise for the Professor.

The inclusion of the link seems reasonable on the surface. Some have criticized the credentials of Josephson. I don't know if he has any college degrees in paranormal studies (does such a thing exist?) but he seems to be well acquainted with mathematics and scientific methodology (physics is heavy with mathematics, and if he's a Nobel Laureate…). Still, I would like to see the web page myself before proceeding. Can anyone give me the web address? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, it troubles me to see another mediator enter the fray believing that it is reasonable to use a personal web page as a secondary source -- despite Wiki guidelines that clearly say editors should never use personal web pages as secondary sources. If you would read Wikipedia's article on Brian Josephson, you would know that he has a Ph.D. in physics. He holds no academic or professional credentials in either parapsychology or medicine. The Wikipedia article describes him as an "advocate" for belief in the paranormal, and not a researcher.

Josephson has never conducted research on any paranormal phenomena. He simply uses his Nobel laureate status to defend charlatans like Uri Geller and Jacques Benveniste and to denounce scientists who exposed their bogus claims. Many scientists consider Josephson a kook; his crackpot opinions on spoon benders, mind readers, girls with X-ray eyes and other comic-book powers rarely if ever get published in reputable publications. However, he clearly has no trouble getting self-published on his own web site. But Wiki guidelines are clear about this:

"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."

Yes, Wade, masters and doctorate degrees in parapsychology are granted by a number of accredited academic institutions. But you are mistaken to say that Josephson "seems to be well acquainted with mathematics and scientific methodology." Josephson may be acquainted with scientific methodology used in the study of quantum physics, but there is no evidence that he is knowledgeable about scientific methodology used in either medicine or in parapsychology. Please familiarize yourself with Wiki's guidelines warning editors to:

"Beware false authority: Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority. Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing.

Similarly, we should not trust someone with a Ph.D. in quantum physics to tell us about testing either medical or psychic claims. Askolnick 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The major point is " Some have criticized the credentials". He is a Nobel laureate, and he would have absolutely no trouble to publish himself anywhere, just for the sake of his name. The fact that no one can find his publication in reputable sources means that his credentials in the domain in question is below the threshold not only in the opinion of wikipedians. mikka (t) 20:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Josephson's objection described in a reputable source (about the 50:1 issue) is duly noted in the article. mikka (t) 20:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Also, the mediation request you quoted is misleading: Josephson's critique is indeed on the "University of Cambridge website", but strictly speaking it is in his personal subpage, and U of C is not subscribing to opinions posted on personal pages. mikka (t) 20:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It was said, "credentials in the domain in question is below the threshold" why? The web page seems to focus more on mathematics and scientific methodology -- both of which would seem to be within his expertise as a Nobel Laureate physicist.

There is something else that troubles me. In the links, there are 4 against the paranormal, 1 for; and that 1 is not in English (it is in Russian; a language that most people visiting that page would not understand). If this link is not to be accepted, it does not seem unreasonable for there to exist at least one other link in English that represents the minority view.

We all should keep in mind that in external links, there's a bit more latitude as to what to include. For instance, consider the creationism web page. There are many creationist links that are probably not the paragon of unbiased scientific perfection, e.g. the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). ICR is on the list of external links not so much because it is a "reputable" source to meet the standards of WP:RS (I doubt it does), but because it is a prominent source of the minority view. Similarly, this Nobel Laureate seems prominent enough to be mentioned by name in the Wikipedia entry. So it does not seem unreasonable that an external link be provided going into more detail of his objections.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached. How about this link remain, but another anti-paranormal link be added? Perhaps one that critiques Josephson's objections? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, I am troubled that you are trying to mediate without a clear understanding of the science involved. You also don't seem familiar with Wiki guidelines concerning the use of reputable sources. Are you familiar with the Wiki guideline warning against citing false authorities? The guideline clearly warns against using authorities with credentials in other fields. You don't seem aware that there are large differences between the scientific methodologies used in quantum physics, in medicine, and in parapsychology. As the Wikipedia guideline advises, editors should not be quoting plant biologists on quantum physics. And vice versa. Yet here you are claiming that because Josephson has a Nobel prize in quantum physics, he therefore is a credible authority on how to test medical diagnostic methods or how to test alleged parapsychological phenomena. That's simply nonsense.

Have you read Wiki's guidelines that say personal web pages should never be used as secondary sources? If you read the guidelines, please explain why you're choosing to ignore them. The Times Higher Education Supplement article about Josephson's opinions is referenced in the Natasha article because it's a reputable source. Josephson's person web page is not -- because it is NOT a reputable source according to Wikipedia guidelines.

The compromise you proposed suggests you have not read my reasons for opposing any citation of this crackpot's personal web site. If so, then you are not the right person to mediate this dispute. You cannot be a mediator if you don't bother to learn what the dispute is about. However, if you have read my reasons, please explain why you have dismissed them without explanation. Askolnick 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Yet here you are claiming that because Josephson has a Nobel prize in quantum physics, he therefore is a credible authority on how to test medical diagnostic methods or how to test alleged parapsychological phenomena." You've taken what I said to a misguided extreme. Examine the web page for yourself if you wish. He goes only into the most basic concepts of scientific methodology here, both this and mathematics seem clearly within his purview as a Nobel prize winning physicist.

Next time Askolnick, please specifically refer to which policy you're quoting. In this case, you are referring to WP:RS. You do bring up some good points about Wikipedia policy regarding "personal web pages" and WP:RS (sorry I didn't mention it before, I was more focused at the time on the content of the web page itself at the time and the person's qualifications). Calling it a "personal web page" does have some foundation (see here). It's just that the dismissal might be a bit too hasty given (1) WP:RS is about citing sources more than about external links (2) this person was mentioned by name on the Wikipedia article as a critic of the test (3) the person is apparently a prominent critic (4) there is a complete lack of any other English external link that would come anywhere near to being "pro-paranormal" on this issue (and the physicist in question actually claims, "the only correct conclusion to have come to in regard to the test is that it was inconclusive", far from a ringing endorsement) (5) the person is a Nobel prize winning physicist with the web page on the Cambridge University website (and arguably qualified on matters of mathematics and scientific methodology). Lumière has a few other good points also. I do not really wish to take sides, but I am saying there are some complications here that should be thought over. Particularly if you are unwilling to allow the link to be there regardless of any compromises I put forth, and if the other side is unwilling to relent on this position regarding the inclusion of the link, it might be best to take this matter to a Wikipedia admin or even arbitration (if this continues despite further attempts to reach consensus) to see what Wikipedia policy has to say regarding the validity of this external link.

Still, let me try at another compromise. Is there any English external link that is "pro-paranormal" regarding this issue that you would find acceptable? It seems there should be at least one in the spirit of WP:NPOV. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

YES! THERE ARE TWO ENGLISH EXTERNAL LINKS THAT ARE 'PRO-PARANORMAL' REGARDING THIS ISSUE THAT I FOUND ACCEPTABLE (to Wiki guidelines, not my own)!

THEY'RE THE TWO LINKS THAT HAVE LONG BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE, which you really should read carefully before attempting to improve it.

Excuse me for rudely shouting, but you're just not listening. You're too busy offering your opinions to pay attention to what I've said repeatedly. Without bothering to learn what's being disputed here, you keep offering your opinions and suggestions. That may be your idea of mediation. It's not mine. And it is not consistent with Wiki mediation guidelines that you continue to ignore. You've simply joined in Dreadlocke's game of misrepresenting the facts. In arguing to include Josephson's web site, you offer up a string of falsehoods and misrepresentations:

"there is a complete lack of any other English external link that would come anywhere near to being "pro-paranormal" on this issue."

As noted above, that's utterly false.

[Josephson] is arguably qualified on matters of mathematics and scientific methodology

No, he is not qualified as an authority on scientific methods involved in either medical or parapsychology research. His field of research is quantum physics. He has no qualifications to review medical research or research in parapsychology and he's contributed nothing to medical or parapsychology research. All he is is an advocate for superstitious beliefs, like Dreadlocke, Siqueira, and The One With Many Names, who believes what the Maharishi told him, that someday he'll be able to levitate by bouncing on his buttocks 40 minutes a day.

You argue that Josephson should be cited as an authority on medical and psychic tests because "the person is a Nobel prize winning physicist."

Thereby ignoring Wiki guidelines about not using "false authorities":

"Beware false authority: Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority. Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing.

You then characterize Josephson's web page as being "far from a ringing endorsement" of Natasha Demkina's claimed supernatural powers.

Either you haven't read the page in dispute or you're pretending not to have noticed: His crackpot rant is NOT about whether Natasha has supernatural powers. It's a personal and defamatory attack against Richard Wiseman, Ray Hyman, and me. That's why Dreadlocke, Siqueira, Keith Tyler, and The One With Many Names are insisting that it be included. Siquiera is also trying to get his own personal web rant included. And Keith Tyler even tried to include the web site of supercrackpot Victor Zammit, which accuses us of "rape," "theft," acting like Klu Klux Klan racists, and other crimes and sins.

Which shows the good wisdom of the Wikipedia guideline that says -- please pay attention so that I don't have to come back and rudely shout again -- self-published personal web pages should "never" be used as secondary sources. Askolnick 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP's personal feelings regarding Victor Zammit or what he says really has no bearing on his page's suitability for linking. Neither this article nor WP exist with the mission to protect the image or comfort of CSICOP, or ND either for that matter. That is except inasmuch that NPOV is maintained. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh. This is getting so tiresome, like banging one's head against a brick fireplace.) Keith, first, CSICOP is an organization, not a person. Organizations can't have personal feelings. Second, I don't speak for CSICOP. Third, I made statements of facts not about feelings. When you speak of maintaining NPOV, can't you hear lurking community members chortling with laughter? Askolnick 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Wade is referring to the links in the "References" section of the article, which are citable sources for the article. You are talking about links in the "External Links" section of the article which is for links that are not cited in the article. Two different things. There are no pro-paranormal links in the References section. You shouldn't be "rudely shouting" at all Mr. Skolnick. Dreadlocke 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you really are a shameless liar. This is what Wade wrote:

"Is there any English external link that is "pro-paranormal" regarding this issue that you would find acceptable? It seems there should be at least one in the spirit of WP:NPOV."

So, Dreadlocke, exactly what part of "external" do you not understand?

As for shouting, I have to do it to rise above the din of falsehoods that you, Lumiere, Keith Tyler and others keep posting. I mean, just look at what you are just did: I criticized Wade for falsely claiming there are no external pro-paranormal links in the article and you falsely claim he didn't say that. As long as you keep lying through your teeth like this, I'm going to loudly point out your utter disregard for the truth. You can count on it.Askolnick 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I take it by your denial of Dreadlocke's comment that you believe there are two "pro-paranormal" links in the References section. Which are these? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith are you suffering from some sort of affliction that makes it impossible for you to speak truthfully? I did not say there are two pro-paranormal links in the Reference section. Everything above and below your comment shows your statement is false. Most notably is Wade's acknowledgement that he said "external," not "reference" links. It doesn't help to inform or correct you. You will simply keep repeating the falsehood. Askolnick 14:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, by my count there are four (demkina.ru, MoH, & the two Skep. Inv. links). Of course, it'd be better to have pro-paranormal references that could be used as sources for article content, rather than only in non-sourceable external links. Alas. (And please don't tell me that the THES article is pro-paranormal.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is you that distorts and misunderstands what I wrote as well as my intent. Go back and read my statement again, because my "belief" was that Wade was correctly separating out "external links" placed in the "References" section (cited) from "external links" placed in the "External Links" section of the article (not cited). There are no paranormal links in the "References" (cited) section of the article - unless I'm missing something, and that's why I asked you to tell me precisely which two links you were referring to. You might have already provided those links in your angry diatribe where you were rudely shouting - a post that was, quite frankly, unreadable. Clearly, I was wrong about what Wade was doing, but that doesn't make me a "shameless liar" like you proclaim. Try to get some perspective, Mr. Skolnick. - Dreadlocke 19:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is something else you don't seem to understand, or are just distorting. There are "external links" in both the "References" and "External Links" sections of the article. External links in the References section are cited in the Article, External links in the "External Links" section are not. My statement was meant to clarify that distinction. Links in the "External Links” section do not need to meet the same stipulations that "citable sources" in the "References" section do. Surely you're smart enough to realize that. - Dreadlocke 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, precisely which two links are you referring to that are pro-paranormal? Your characterization of Josephson's website is false. One clear example is where you say it is a "angry rant". I have read the page over and over, and have been unable to ascertain any anger...much less an angry rant. The only angry rants I see are the ones posted by you. Dreadlocke 22:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As for my above post, I'm no longer interested in which two links you were referring to. Obviously, you mix up both sections where "external links" are placed, and either do not understand the difference, or just choose to ignore the difference. As for your shouting - what a bogus excuse you give. It's unnecessary to do what you did. - Dreadlocke 19:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in all fairness I feel I must admit to my chagrin that Askolnick is correct. I was referring to the two external links and apparently I did not check the "Skeptical Investigations" thoroughly enough (I only skimmed it). I should have been more careful, and for that I apologize. Now, according to WP:RS,

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name.

As a Nobel Prize winning physicist, it is understandable how one might consider this to be a rare exception. He is speaking in regards to scientific methodology and mathematics, both of which would seem to be within his field. You claim his expertise is invalid because his field is physics rather than parapsychology. But he is only speaking regarding the basics of scientific methodology and mathematics (see here) rather than the technical details of parapsychology. So can you understand why the other side thinks he is speaking within his area of expertise? And out of curiosity, why do you consider the Nobel Laureate to be a crackpot? That seems like a rather harsh attack on the Cambridge professor considering his credentials.

Regarding using personal web pages as secondary sources, you bring up some excellent points. I would advise Dreadlocke to see here and understand Askolnick's point of view in respect to Wikipedia policy. It is very understandable how one would view it as a personal web page. However, there is the compromise matter of using the web page as a primary source--the reference would be provided but it could not be an external link. This fits within WP:RS (see below). What do you think of this compromise? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wade, thanks, I understand where Askolnick is coming from, I’ve read through the relevant policies and guidelines; but I disagree with his interpretation of those policies and guidelines, and how they are applied.

I looked into the issues around “personal websites” and I don’t believe they rule out inclusion of the Josephson critique as a citable source. I’m not sure why we’re even looking at the “personal websites” guideline, the Josephson page is not on a personal website, and even if it were, there is still the “Self Published Sources” policy to contend with.

Just to clarify something: there is a distinct difference between a “web site” and a “web page”.

“Website: a group of World Wide Web pages usually containing hyperlinks to each other and made available online by an individual, company, educational institution, government, or organization”

“Web Page: An HTML document that is accessible on the Web.”

So let’s take a detailed look at this:

First, Reliable Sources is a Guideline, and although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy, or a hard and fast rule, so it is very flexible in it’s application, and can be superseded by a Policy.

Wikipedia has three content-guiding policy pages:

• Verifiability
• No Original Research
• Neutral Point of View

“The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.” Direct quote from Wikipedia.

• Self-published sources is a Verifiability Policy

• Personal websites as primary sources is a Guideline.

Let me show you how I interpret this. Let’s start with personal websites as secondary sources first (it’s a bit shorter and doesn't connect to other areas quite as much).

Websites as secondary sources

Reading the section Personal websites as secondary sources, I see the following:

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

If I'm reading this correctly, it cannot apply, because Professor Josephson is not the owner of the website; instead he is "self-publishing" on pages provided to him by the University of Cambridge for his use in his professional capacity there. (The content on those pages is considered part of his professional activities at the University – more on self-publishing a little later…)

It is clearly not his personal website, but in the off-chance that I’m not correct, and the Professor's web page is considered a "Personal Website"; then:

Josephson’s critique may not fit under “secondary sources” unless it is considered that the subject of the "website" is CSICOP and Natasha Demkina, which would then definitely fit under this guideline as a citable source. Unless this guideline (under certain circumstances) is overruled by a Policy.

Personal websites as primary sources

Reading the section Personal websites as primary sources:

"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.

This is worded differently than “secondary sources”, stating “subject or owner” of the website. Since the subject of the "website" is CSICOP and Natasha Demkina, it seems to perfectly fit that guideline for a citable primary source. Again, unless this guideline is overruled by a Policy.

And, once again, from the way this is worded, Professor Josephson is not the owner of the website and is instead "self-publishing" on pages provided to him by the University of Cambridge- part of his professional activities there. (More on self-publishing coming up.)

Primary Sources”

“A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about….We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication.”

In writing his critique, Professor Josephson viewed the documentary, read the articles, and communicated directly with one of the Principle Architects of the CSICOP investigation, Mr. Andrew Skolnick; so I believe his critique can be used as a citable primary source for the CSICOP investigation into Natasha Demkina:

Credible Publication

For credible publication in this instance, we need to look at the Wikipedia Self-published sources Policy

“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. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.”

Significantly, "Self-published sources" is a Wikipedia Policy, and as such is more compelling than the guideline on "personal websites". If someone is found to be "self-published" on a "personal website", then the Policy is the guiding principle that needs to be followed, because Policy cannot be superseded by a Guideline. However, just to be clear, the University of Cambridge's website is not a "personal website."

Josephson is "Self-Published" on the "non-personal" website of the University of Cambridge which provided these pages to the Professor to be used in his official capacity at the University. Both the professor and Cambridge view it that way; and, I believe, so does internet law. This situation is quite different from web pages purchased from your local ISP. It's not his website.

Professor Josephson qualifies for the Exception under the Self-published sources policy, because he is a professional researcher in a relevant field – the paranormal.

As you’ve already noted, for the scientific methodology and mathematical statistics portion of the Demkina article, Josephson is eminently qualified – even as they relate to the paranormal. I don’t believe Medical and Health really apply to this article, since this is clearly an investigation into presumed paranormal abilities.

And I think “paranormal” is the prime driver here, with the applied scientific methodology and statistics inherent in such an investigation.

So, for these paranormal aspects, if you check into the other two links I originally provided, I believe those clearly show that Josephson is indeed a professional researcher in the paranormal, who "carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology." (quotedfrom his University of Cambridge site).

He does this professional paranormal work in his official capacity at the University of Cambridge as director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project, as well as doing research and being published on the paranormal outside of the University.

For instance, The goal of this paper (published in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207, 1991, (c) Plenum Press- a refereed scientific publication), is that of gaining some understanding, “within the framework of conventional science, of phenomena such as telepathy and psychokinesis which…. seem to involve some form of direct contact at a distance.” This is about the paranormal, and there are other published articles, research and papers as well.

I believe this is all that’s necessary to show that Josephson meets the bar for being a “professional researcher” into the paranormal, and thus eligible for the exception to the Wikipedia policy on Self-published sources. Under this exception, Josephson's personal or self-published pages are citable sources for the purposes of this article. This is the core of the argument, and does not rely on the Professor's Nobel Prize at all. If you add that puppy, well..we're better than solid-gold on this thing.. :)

I can provide more information, published articles, details on the University of Cambridge research, things like that if this isn’t sufficient. Just let me know what you would need to see.

I’m not certain how much weight it carries, but the Wikipedia listing of "Famous Paraychologists" included Josephson: List of Parapsychologists).

Someone pointed you to the Wikipedia article on Brian Josephson to try and refute this, but that article is still a stub and incomplete.

I have posted more detail on this in the Brian Josephson and Professor Josephson's Website sections.

From the level of opposition to the inclusion of Josephson’s pages, I think it will need to go all the way to arbitration in order to clarify the policies and guidelines as they relate to this issue. By then, this talk page will probably become the bulk of Wikipedia… ;-) - Dreadlocke 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is something else to consider for a compromise. WP:RS allows for the use of personal websites as primary sources, e.g. when talking about the owner of the website. In this case, we could say something like "The Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the statistical conclusions and scientific methodology in the Discovery Channel program, claiming...[insert his claims here]." We would be within the bounds of WP:RS because we are talking about the owner of the website rather than using him as a secondary source. You, Askolnick, would still be allowed to write rebuttals from critics who respond to Josephson's objections. So, this website could be used on a cited source rather than an external link, and rebuttals to the material contained in this link would be permitted. Would this be acceptable to you? If not, is there any English external link that is "pro-paranormal" regarding this issue that you would find acceptable? As I said before, it seems there should be at least one in the spirit of WP:NPOV. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see Josephson's site page from the University of Cambridge website included in the "References" section of the article so it is a citable source for the article itself; and I have no objections to adding another link that critiques Josephson's critique. - Dreadlocke 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The space reserved to Josephson in the University site should not be called Josephson's site -- this is obviously a mistake. Perhaps Josephson's pages (in the University website being understood) would be appropriate. Of course, these pages are not Josephson's personal pages. We can check with professors if they see the space that is reserved for them in their university as if it was their personal website. I am confident that there is a big difference between a personal website (or personal home page and its sub-pages) and the space that is reserved to a professor in his university website. In my view, the fact that these pages belong to the Oxford University website, a highly reputable university, does matter. -Lumière 07:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A survey of the webpages of Josephson's colleagues shows they do not use the space for expounding on theories. Most use it simply to provide their contact details and a list of publications. One is using the space to provide links to a Cambridge arts theatre, the local weather, and the cricket web portal CricInfo. Whether or not this is a personal webpage should be considered in light of the question if there is anyone -- anyone at all -- who provides an editorial review on Josephson's work on the page. If no-one is reviewing content, then that work is a self-published webpage. BillC 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BillC, it's nice to finally see somebody besides Mikkalai who actually reads something before posting an opinion about it. Dreadlocke has been falsely claiming that these web pages are for reporting research conducted by the faculty member and that they are reviewed and published by Cambridge University. It's very frustrating arguing with people who either don't bother to check such claims for themselves or else are willing to go along with the deceit. Thanks for the reality check.Askolnick 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked and it seems that BillC's account of the situation is biased. The one case that he provides with local weather, etc. seems to be an exception. I searched a few minutes and could not find anything like that. There maybe a few home pages of this kind at Oxford, but they are the exceptions. OTOH, I had no difficulty to find other home pages that present theories. As far as peer-review is concerned, BillC is forgetting that the account of Demkina's experiment that was sent to skeptic journals was also not peer-reviewed by independent experts of different opinions. Even though a good peer-reviewed journal will accept suggestions of referees from the authors, they typically, especially in controversial topics, send the manuscript to experts of different opinions. The policy says that

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications. For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable".

For the Demkina article, we only have magazines, non peer-reviewed journals (of partisan publishers such as CSICOP) and University home pages as sources. None of these sources enter into the acceptable categories of publications for "academic subjects". Besides, I do not think that I need to argue that the current topic does not fit as an "academic subject". Therefore, we have to go along with the last sentence: "For non-academic subjects,...". What constitutes a valid source depends on the topics. Here, we have a special situation. We need to use our common sense in order to guarantee NPOV. It is in this context that we must evaluate whether or not home pages in University websites as well as publications of partisan skeptic organisations are valid sources.

The obvious situation is the following. Skeptics, which are not at all the majority, have created a few organisations to oppose any knowledge that challenge the current paradigm in science. On the other side, those who support new paradigms have created their own organisations and also publish inside these organisations, but they are not regrouped. Demkina has his own organisation. Josephson has his research project on mind-matter connection at Oxford University. These research projects and organisations, including the skeptic organisations, cannot easily publish with independent third-party general publishers. It depends on the specific topics. For some topics, both sides, the pro new paradign and the skeptics, succeed to publish in standard third-party scientific journals of non partisan publishers. However, in the case of the Demkina experiment, this does not seem to be possible. This is not a problem on one side. Both sides have published inside their respective organisation. I am not saying that Josephson's home page in the Oxford university website is the ideal source. However, a journal of a partisan non general publisher such as CSICOP is not much better. If Josephson's home page is not a personal website, then we do not violate the no original research and verifiablity policies to include it. It would be a complete violation of NPOV not to include it. -Lumière 16:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There he goes again like the Everlying bunny: dissembling, and deceiving, and disrupting. To set off his latest smoke bomb of distraction, Lumiere pulls another of his notorious bait-and-switches. He dismisses BillC's point that Brian Josephson's web page does not appear to have had any "editorial review" by falsely accusing him of "forgetting" that the Skeptical Inquirer articles were also not "peer-reviewed."

As he's done before, the One With Many Names will likely argue that he sees no difference between the two terms. Of course, were that true, he wouldn't have felt a need to switch what BillC said with something else. "Peer review" means something entirely different from "editorial review." And that's precisely why the Everlying Bunny switched them. And yes, One of So Many Names, I realize that I'm insulting you again. But you keep insulting us with stupidly dishonest tricks like this. If you don't want to be insulted, stop insulting us.

By the way, what name will you be posting under next week? Going back to "Amrit" or will you be using yet another alias? Askolnick 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that we have not established that the view of the skeptics is the view of the majority. I believe that the view of the skeptics is an extreme, which is not the view of the majority, not even amongst educated people. Otherwise, never the discovery channel would have taken a different view. Of course, the view of those who blindly believe in Demkina's ability is also another extreme. There is a range of possibilities, and the majority is most likely found in between these two extremes. We would violate undue weight to give more weight to the the view of the skeptics than to other views. Also, verifiability can help to determine what is fair, but it is not the final answer: it says that a view is accetable for inclusion, but it does not say at all how much weight we must give to the view. -Lumière 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What bilge! The vast majority of health care providers and researchers in medicine and biology consider Natasha and her claims on par with alien abductions and 500 miles-per-gallon carburators. The overwhelming reaction I've received from health care professionals are comments that we're wasting our time testing claims only sleazy newspaper tabloids write about.

The fact that Lumiere and all his other names cannot find reputable published sources to back up his view should tell us just how much weight this view deserves. If credible people believed in Natasha's magical powers, he and his comrades would be able to find reputable sources to cite. Since they cannot, they are insisting we disregard Wiki guidelines and cite the self-published web pages of Brian Josephson and two other kooks. Askolnick 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wade, welcome! Here is the disputed link: -Professor Josephson CSICOP/Demkina Critique

More information on Professor Josephson and his work at the University of Cambridge in the paranormal can be found here: -Pioneer of the Paranormal.

He is the director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge - Professor Josephson Home Page.

- Dreadlocke 20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tisthammerw Is Not Acceptable as a Mediator

Wade, because your first posted comments made me concerned about your ability to mediate impartially, I read through your personal page and was stunned to see how warranted my concerns are. You are the last person who should be mediating a dispute between Wiki editors -- especially a dispute like this.

You personal talk page is overflowing with complaints from Wiki administrators and editors about your disruptive behavior in editing the Creationism and Intelligent Design and related articles, in order to push a Creationist POV. [40] Appointing someone with your history, of choosing disruption over compromise in the defense of pseudoscience, to mediate a similar dispute is as unwise as appointing a vampire to run a blood bank. It simply makes NO sense.

And if this history of disruption isn't cause enough to reject you as a mediator, there's also the matter of your clear and documented bias against the Wiki guidelines that are at the foundation of the dispute here. The dispute is almost entirely based on a disagreement over the need to follow Wiki guidelines against citing personal web pages as secondary sources. I wondered why you would enter the mediation appearing to have already agreed that the guideline should just be ignored. So I was hardly surprised to see that another editor complained about you violating these very same guideline [41] You had added a link, in the Second Law of Thermodynamics article, to your apologetic essay against critics of Creationism, which you had self-published on your own web site! [42]

Wade, that is not the only guideline you chose to ignore. You were provided guidelines for mediation and yet you immediately started mediation by ignoring them:

6. Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable, e.g. when asked for a third opinion. You can also use such an opportunity to make people request a third opinion, put up a request for comment or conduct a survey, which may encourage them to get along without a mediator next time.

7. If you are not or no longer impartial please pass the case on to another mediator.

Indeed, you are currently embroiled in a heated dispute before the Mediation_Cabal! A review of this case shows you are anything but impartial and are probably the last person to be mediating such a similar case:

[43] Here's how one of the complaining editors there describes your conduct:

Wade "has shown himself to be a chronic pro-intelligent design POV malcontent with a long history of disruption and ignoring both consensus and evidence while pushing his own particular brand of intelligent design POV at Second Law of Thermodynamics, Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity. Wade has a history of ignoring WP:CON and violating WP:POINT by repeatedly raising the same tendentious objections to well-supported article content and ignoring over and over and mischaracterizing or dismissing evidence when it is presented. Because of this he's earned a permanent place on the "crank list" of the regular long-term editors at these articles, including my own. I can't begin to count the innumerable manhours of good faith contributors he's wasted with bad faith objections, constantly shifting goalposts, and mendacious justifications for it all arising out of his own personal research found here: [1] [2]. The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions and cleaning up his messes; my experience has proved that anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, you are clearly unacceptable as mediator of this dispute. I would also like to know WHY IN THE WORLD you were picked?! Askolnick 16:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See Kantian guilt?. --Fasten 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world have you gone on this smear campaign against me? You have made these accusations not only here but elsewhere (my talk page, and the mediation cabal). In trying to get articles like intelligent design and irreducible complexity to conform to Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NOR and WP:CITE), it is true I have met stiff resistance and heated emotions. Notice what my attempted reforms actually were however. For instance, even the simple request of a citation for a challenged claim constitutes as trying to transform the article into a "a one-sided propaganda piece" according to one editor[44]. FeloniousMonk has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me, even to the extent of going behind my back to make these insults among visiting editors.[45] A couple articles seemed to be written and policed by its bitter opponents, making even minor changes difficult. For instance, I removed challenged material that had no source under WP:CITE since I waited over a month for a citation (WP:CITE says "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor"), but the material was quickly included still without a citation and an imagined consensus was appealed to.[46] After I put up an RfC on this very issue, one of the editors subsequently deleted the RfC. [47] and added some name calling to boot. When I tried to get original research removed from the intelligent design article, it was replaced by more original research.[48] When I ask for specifics as to how I am disruptive, what POV I am pushing etc. my requests are often denied. Environments like these are what I've had to operate in.

Askolnick, I would like you to provide evidence for your accusations. I've grown a bit tired of personal attacks as of late. What Creationist POV have I been pushing? How have I been disruptive? Does trying to get an article to conform to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE constitute "disruption" if the policies and guidelines are violated against a theory/belief a certain group of editors doesn't like?

Why was I chosen? I put up a request for the mediation cabal and there was the option of volunteering for someone else. I chose "yes" and I was chosen. Currently the heated dispute in the mediation cabal is about a citation (some text written by Ludwig von Bertalanffy) that does not seem to support the claim in question. People from the RfC's seem to agree with me, but certain people "policing" the Wikipedia entry do not. Is my objection reasonable? You can visit this page and judge for yourself. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to get mired in yet another debate, this one about the accusations Wiki administrators and editors have made against you. While I've read enough to lean me towards the side of your critics, I have enough on my plate dealing with editors who are beyond a doubt guilty of the kind of conduct you've been accused of. Whether or not the charges against you have merit, you should NEVER have been appointed, nor should you have agreed, to mediate a dispute that is almost a carbon copy of the the ones you are embroiled in.

My God, when I read some of those accusations, I could swear I was rereading complaints made by administrators and editors against the Lumiere II (a.k.a. Etincelle, Lumiere I, Amrit). I'm wasting enough time responding to his disruptive and deceitful nonsense. So I'll let you and your opponents duke this one out among yourselves.

As for the mediation process, clearly it's become a bad joke. You should never have begun mediation by presenting your opinions! Just like the mediator before you, you didn't bother to read what mediators are expected to do. No doubt, you'll be replaced by yet another person who insists on editing instead of mediating. A mediator is someone who is skilled at reducing strife and nurturing agreements between conflicting parties. Your track record is one of nothing but fostering strife and discord. I haven't a clue why you think you could be a mediator -- unless if it was just unbridled ego. And I haven't a clue why you would be recruited as a mediator. It appears this mediation process is utterly dysfunctional. Askolnick 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the mediation cabal is an informal mediation process, with amateur volunteers like me. You could request formal mediation (see here for more info). Bear in mind the kind of environments I am in before you accuse me of stirring up strife, such as the simple request of a citation for a challenged claim eliciting accusations of turning an entry to a one-sided propaganda piece.[49] I would advise in the future to not rehash other people's personal attacks against a person without at least adequately examining the issue. You do not appear to have done that, and I suggest you control your fervent feelings of indignation before adding accusations like "Your track record is one of nothing but fostering strife and discord" as you have ignored all the other contributions I've made that have not aroused such heated emotions (e.g. the free will entry). Smear campaigns against the mediator do not seem all that productive, particularly if you are unwilling to substantiate your accusations (e.g. as to what Creationist POV I have allegedly been putting forth). You bring up some good points for your side, and it is not necessary to resort to attacks on my character. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did examine the issue. Yesterday, I spent a couple of hours reading through the many Wiki pages involving the fights you have been in. I also went off site and read some of your writings. I came away at least tentatively agreeing with your critics. I'm sorry to have dragged that debate here, but it is extremely relevant to the point that you should not have been chosen, nor should you have agreed, to mediate the dispute here. Askolnick 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not check out all your contributions, so it is possible that my statement was exaggerated. If so, I apologize. I should have said, "Your track record as Wiki editor is one of fostering a great deal of strife and discord."Askolnick 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have fostered strife and discord with your little smear campaign against me. Let's be careful of tu quoque criticisms (as well as attacks on people’s character). --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference that you fail to see is that I'm not so egotistical to believe that I could serve as a mediator. Like you, I'm opinionated and don't care about ruffling people's feathers. But unlike you, I know that feather rufflers make lousy mediators. Askolnick 14:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

While Askolnick has been somewhat rude about how he expressed this, I think there is some legitimate reason to worry about about Wade's ability to mediate this matter. That said, given that psychic abilities are not one of Wade's pet issues, he may be ok as a mediator for this. JoshuaZ 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Joshua, Wade is not an acceptable mediator for me. Aside from having an ability to piss people off as much as I do, he is -- to borrow from George Bush -- a divider, not a uniter. Ignoring the guidelines for mediators, he immediately began posting his opinions here. Even more unacceptable, in violation of the Wiki guideline at the center of our dispute, in another Wiki article he had added a link to his own work self-published on his personal web site. It is clear from that and from his unabashed support for including Josephson's self-published personal web page in the Natasha article, that he is NOT an impartial mediator. Askolnick 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem a bit presumptuous as to what my opinions are. Let me put this way: I do not believe the girl as x-ray eyes. I believe it's a bunch of hooey. I do not know if the link could be considered a personal website under Wikipedia guidelines, but I think you bring up some good points. A flat-out removal would be completely biased in your direction, that's why I suggested a compromise of inclusion on certain conditions. I was also suggesting a replacement website (at least, that's where I was going) when I asked you if there was any "pro-paranormal" English external web link on this issue that you would find acceptable.

I asked questions (e.g. on why you think he doesn't have good enough credentials) to gain information and I tried to help you see the other person's point of view. This is perhaps a mistake, since in spite of my offered help and proposed compromises you responded with a smear campaign against me (and a misrepresented, misinformed one at that). Still, I would appreciate if you would respond to the more recent compromises I put forth.

WP:RS allows for the use of personal websites as primary sources, e.g. when talking about the owner of the website. In this case, we could say something like "The Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the statistical conclusions and scientific methodology in the Discovery Channel program, claiming...[insert his claims here]." We would be within the bounds of WP:RS because we are talking about the owner of the website rather than using him as a secondary source. You, Askolnick, would still be allowed to write rebuttals from critics who respond to Josephson's objections. So, this website could be used on a cited source rather than an external link, and rebuttals to the material contained in this link would be permitted. Would this be acceptable to you? If not, is there any English external link that is "pro-paranormal" regarding this issue that you would find acceptable? As I said before, it seems there should be at least one in the spirit of WP:NPOV. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague. Wikipedia is not a discussion club. Once you open this door, all minimally controversial articles will be flooded with infinite chains "he said this"/"he was rebutted"/"he contested rebuttal"/... Once again: the primary quiestion here: why his criticism is not published elsewhere? Wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish his words ("his own webpage" equals "hos word of mouth" in this respect). mikka (t) 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are stretching this rule: the article is not talking "about Josephson". It is talking about Demkina. Josephson speaks not about himself, so that he can be a reasonable and relevant authority, but he speaks about Demkina. Usung your twist, the whole policy will become null and void simply by prepending "Walker on his website said that..." and proceed with any rant, eg."...Bush has hairy legs" mikka (t) 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you happen to notice that the article already links to a place where all major objections are discussed? Take a look into it and think: do you really want all this bickering duplicated in wikipedia article? mikka (t) 00:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the main focus of the article is not about Josephson, but it does mention him nonetheless. Under WP:RS, it would be perfectly legitimate to use his web page as a primary source regarding what the Nobel Laureate actually believes when it comes to the scientific methodology used in the TV program. That’s why I proposed it as a compromise (the disadvantage for the other side is that the web page could not be used as an external link). --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. It mentions his opinion. With this logic I can mention all my girlfiends and proceed to quoting them. May I also draw your attentiuon to the common fact that with age some Nobel laureates become senile? If his comments were minimally sound, he would have ben swarmed with journal and newspaper editors begging to publish his opinion, for exactly the same matter of prestige that you are using the word "Nobel" here, to increase the ratings of the journal/magazine/whatever. mikka (t) 00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. The Wikipedia entry already mentions Brian Josephson and what his objections are. Why can we not use his web page as a primary source regarding what his criticisms are? Wouldn't this even make matters more verifiable and improve the article's standing with WP:V? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Demkina, not about beliefs of Josephson. Please feel free to add his beliefs to the article about him. The article mentions his objections published in third source. Welcome to find more. mikka (t) 01:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "The article is about Demkina, not about beliefs of Josephson." Primarily, yes. However, Josephson's beliefs are nonetheless in the article. Right now, the entry uses a secondary source for a citation regarding Josephson's criticisms. Why not use a primary source as this is clearly within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, his beliefs are not in the article. His opinion about Demkina is in the article, and only because it was published in a reputable source. mikka (t) 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Josephson's beliefs are in the article. From the entry, "For example, Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one." A citation so that one may verify this is in the entry, but the citation uses a secondary source. If one checks up on the citation, you'll see that Josephson did not "publish" there, rather it is a news article that mentions Josephson and his web page. The citation is a secondary source that apparently basis its knowledge on the Josephson web page. If we are going to use a citation for Josephson's viewpoint, why not use the primary source (as this appears acceptable under WP:RS)? Why not get it straight from the horse's mouth instead of relying on a secondary source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The opinions Tisthammer is insisting on adding are NOT about Josephson OR about Natasha Demkina. They're about Profs. Hyman, Wiseman, and me. Josephson has nothing really to say about Natasha. Instead, he argues that we're a bunch of unethical crooks. That appears to be why Tisthammer wants the link added. And he doesn't care that it violates Wiki guidelines. He says he's willing to compromise by allowing me to add a statement or two denying that we're a bunch of unethical crooks. He calls that a compromise.

This is Tisthammer's idea of mediation: Immediately take a side and argue for it by misrepresenting Wikipedia guidelines and the meaning of words like "primary source." Josephson is no primary source on Natasha Demkina. He's never met Natasha, never tested her, never spoke with her and his only personal knowledge of the Discovery Channel program comes from watching it like millions of other TV viewers. He's no more a "primary source" than is Tisthammer himself.

If Tishammer wants to create a new Wiki article on Josephson's fights with skeptics, he should do so and stop pretending he's a mediator. There's much too much bilge in this discussion page already. Askolnick 13:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "Instead, he argues that we're a bunch of unethical crooks. That appears to be why Tisthammer wants the link added. And he doesn't care that it violates Wiki guidelines." First, I would ask you to stop being so paranoid. Second, how does adding the link as a primary source regarding what Josephson's objections are violate Wikipedia guidelines? I would like an explanation, not more personal attacks. The entry has the following claim: "For example, Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one." We can use Josephson's web page as a primary source for citation to verify that this is indeed the Nobel Laureate’s belief (instead of relying on a secondary source); since one can go straight to the horse's mouth and see that Josephson has in fact made this objection. Using the web page as a primary source is legitimate under WP:RS, thus allowing one side to have the page in the article in some form even though it is not an external link (satisfying one side to a limited extent) while also abiding by Wikipedia policy (satisfying your objections). And yet you have accused me of "misrepresenting" Wikipedia guidelines. In what way have I done so? Why can we not use a primary source for Josephson's viewpoint? Why do you believe we must rely on the secondary source for Jospehson's viewpoint in the Wikipedia entry? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai and I have explained why Josepson's self-published attack piece may not be used as a source for Wiki articles MANY times already. Explaining it yet again will not likely accomplish anything. Higher up, I quoted one of the complaints other editors and Wiki administrators have made against you. Part of that complaint describes exactly what you appear to be doing here: "Wade has a history of ignoring WP:CON and violating WP:POINT by repeatedly raising the same tendentious objections to well-supported article content and ignoring over and over and mischaracterizing or dismissing evidence when it is presented." Your preposterous attempt to redefine a "secondary sources" as a "primary source" is precisely the kind of disruptive stunt other editors and administrators say you keep pulling. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the Wiki rules and guidelines regarding verifiability and reputable sources. But not even a rocket scientist can explain them to someone who isn't interested in understanding. That's what appears to be happening here. Askolnick 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "Mikkalai and I have explained why Josepson's self-published attack piece may not be used as a source for Wiki articles MANY times already." May I ask what this explanation is? Your original objection was that it was a "secondary source." However, since we are using the citation for the claim "Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one" we are using the citation as a primary source for what Josephson's charges are. Apparently, you still consider the citation as a secondary source even when it is done to cite what the person's objections are. May I ask why?

And may I ask you to justify your accusations against me? How am I ignoring WP:CON and WP:POINT by asking questions and proposing compromises? None of those actions appear to violate those policies/guidelines since I have not done any editing in the Wikipedia entry but have enganged in trying to resolve a dispute in the discussion section. Yes, you quoted a Wiki admin...the same admin who himself willfully violated WP:CITE while appealing to an imagined consensus and also the same person who deleted the RfC I put up in response to his disruptive actions. Why did this happen? Bitterness can sometimes distort vision and lead to presumptuous attacks on people's character. According to some other editors here, you have already attacked other people (including the mediator before me) and recently you launched the somewhat paranoid accusation, "Instead, he [Josephson] argues that we're a bunch of unethical crooks. That appears to be why Tisthammer wants the link added. And he doesn't care that it violates Wiki guidelines. [emphasis added]" None of these attacks on my character have factual basis. I advise you to keep your emotions in check and follow the Wikipedia guideline about assuming good faith. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tisthammer, you are acting as if you think you are still a mediator. You are mistaken. By immediately joining this discussion arguing one side of the dispute, you disqualified yourself as a mediator. You may continue posting here as a disputant, but your position as the assigned mediator was completely compromised when you took sides, as your predecessor had done. He at least had the good sense to admit his error, apologize, and withdraw himself as mediator. Askolnick 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and notice that I have tried to appeal to both sides. My compromise would mean no external link for the web page (satisfying your end) and by using the Josephson web page as a primary source (satisfying the other end to a limited extent) for "Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one" thus apparently satisfying your WP:RS objection and leaving me not to pass judgment on the "personal website" matter. Since the web page is being used as a primary source for what Josephson's criticism is, I am curious as to what you're objection to this compromise is. Apparently, you still consider the Josephson source as a secondary source even when it is done to merely cite what this very person says. May I ask why? Do you suspect that the writer of the web page is not Josephson? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If I got any calmer, I'd fall asleep. I think you're the one who needs calming. So, here's a little reading material to relax you. It's from Wikipedia's official policy regarding No Original Research [[50]] -- which means "it has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any novel synthesis thereof that is designed to advance a position. ...

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

Sit down, take a pill for that stress, and read those words until you understand them. They're very important. Really, they are. As the boss man said, it's the "standard that all users should follow."

I know that Lumiere-Etincelle-Lumiere has been working real hard to try to rewrite these policies to favor unreputable Woo-Woo sources. But he's been making some important enemies in the process (who may soon lower the boom on him)[51]. So if you're hoping that the Wiki community will let the One With Many Names rewrite the rules to suit you pro-paranormal folk, don't hold your chi. You're only digging yourselves deeper into a hole of your own making. Askolnick 06:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of context, the policy you quote (Wikipedia:No original research) is specifically referring to material created by the editor who wishes to contribute it. It is saying that I cannot submit my own research (not even so much as a phone call I make to an authority) unless it has been published via a third party. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 08:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I asked you to calm down is because you have consistently resorted to attacks on my character. This is not the first time you have been accused of lauching personal attacks (see here) and I suggest you be more careful about not violating WP:NPA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that Josephson's objection can be found in a published source, by your own admission (see here)? Are you now using WP:NOR as your justification for why Josephson’s viewpoint should not be included in the Wikipedia entry? I would also like you to explain yourself a bit more and please answer my questions. The Josephson page constitutes a primary source as to what his objections are; Josephson surely knows first-hand what his own objection is. Are you now saying Josephson's criticism should no longer be included in the Wikipedia entry? If you do think it should remain in the Wikipedia entry, why not rely on a primary, first-hand source since this is allowable under WP:RS--the basis of your original objection? That is a question I would like answered if we are to understand each other and have real communication. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this makes perfect sense. It is totally in accord with how primary sources should be cited in accordance with policy. If a secondary source evaluate and interpret a primary source, we are allowed to cite the primary source together with the secondary source. In fact, this is the basic way to use primary sources. WP articles are not allowed to directly analyse, interpret or evaluate primary sources, but if a secondary source does it, then it is normal and just better to provide the primary sources together with the secondary source. This being said, I still maintain that Josephson's home page at Oxford is not in his personal website. So, I do not understand why we refer to the rule that is about personal websites. Definitively, a different rule needs to be used if we are to exclude Josephson home page as a secondary source. -Lumière 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere formerly Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, you and your compatriots should be careful about what you ask for, because you just may get it. Unless you are more bird than bird-brained, you're not going to like what you get if you do open this can of worms.

You, Dreadlocke, Siqueira, Keith Tyler, and Tisthammer are insisting that self-published material on personal web pages be referenced in the Natasha Demkina article. Through a variety of twisted arguments, you deny that this would violate Wiki guidelines. Your latest tortured argument involves redefining "primary sources" to get around the guideline against citing self-published material on personal web pages. This can of worms you are intent on opening is actually a can of little asps that will bite you all over.

You see, my own web site is full of information I would love to include in Wikipedia articles, such as articles on Transcendental Mediation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi University of Management, Doug Henning, John Hagelin, and others. I am a primary source who is already prominently quoted in the TM article. And following your twisted arguments, my web site is a "primary source" of what I know about TM and it's many corrupt practices.

And of course, there also are the personal web sites of former TMers, who claim to have been seriously harmed by the TM cult. So the personal web sites of those ex-TMers mentioned in the TM article would also be redefined as "primary sources" and therefore could be cited.

My personal web site already has a great deal of personal observations on how Maharishi's researchers, like Dr. Hari Sharma, frequently lie to reporters and the public in order to deceive them about TM research. One such account shows how Hari Sharma, at a major medical conference, lied to Newsday science reporter Ridgely Ochs about the source of his funding and how I publicly exposed him there. Hoo boy! I'd love to reference that in the Transcendental Meditation article. I'd also like to tell how TM big wig and former Natural Law Party Presidential candidate John Hagelin tried to convince a prominent Texas medical malpractice attorney that I wrote the JAMA attack piece out of grief over the loss of a "close friend" to AIDS (hint, hint) -- a lie without an iota of truth. The problem has been all this is self-published, and Wiki guidelines don't allow the use of self-published material on personal web sites. But now you, Keith Tyler, Dreamlocke, and Tisthammer are working to open the door for me. When you do, I've got lots, lots more.

For example, I've got an account of how two years ago, Maharishi Ayurveda centers in Germany published fraudulent material on the Internet to discredit my JAMA report. Indeed, they even published a forged letter that they claimed came from Ohio State University. They took that down after I got a statement from a high ranking official at OSU saying in no uncertain terms, the letter is bogus. I'm just dying to add a reference to that fraud to show nothing has changed since I my JAMA expose was published 15 years ago, and you guys are determined to help me!

Also, I'd love to add a link to some excerpts from Ned Wynn's disturbing but hilarious autobiography, We Will Always Live in Beverly Hills. In particular, I'd like to reference his description of how devout followers pine for the honor of carrying Maharishi's deer skin rump cloth -- the sacred skin that kept evil influences from entering the guru's holy hinney. Ned Wynn tells of the day he was blessed to be the one who got to scurry after the guru, picking up the butt cloth when Maharishi got up and putting it down wherever the holy man decided to place his rump. And I'm dying to provide a link to his side-splitting account of how the celebate monk tried to seduce young Mia Farrow years before she gave her charms to that other guru, Frank Sinatra.

If you are successful in your efforts to redefine Wiki quidelines, I'd be able to cite my self-published work in a variety of other Wiki articles, including Natasha Demkina. For example, I could upload an account of how Natasha Demkina recently opened up a quack clinic in Moscow where she is practicing medicine without a license and is trying to con sick and gullible people out of small fortunes by offering her psychic readings. I've been desperately waiting for a reputable source to publish that information. But if you're successful, I won't have to wait. I'll just write up a brief account of what she's doing, upload it to my web site, and cite it in the Wiki article. It couldn't be more simple -- nor more consistent with what you're arguing.

Unlike Brian Josephson, who never tested Natasha Demkina, never met her, never saw or even spoke with her, I AM a primary source of information about Natasha Demkina. I've studied her. I've spoken with her. I've photographed her. I've tested her in an experiment. She even gave me one of her readings. And I've published several articles about her in reputable publications and web sites. So, by your twisted arguments, what I also self-publish about her on my own web site is "primary source" material that can be added to the Wiki article. So go for it guys. You may think you're opening a can of worms, but you're really opening yourselves a serious can of whoopass. Askolnick 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You said,

Your latest tortured argument involves redefining "primary sources" to get around the guideline against citing self-published material on personal web pages.

Have I been the one redefining the term? A primary source typically means "first-hand" account; what is your definition? And surely Josephson knows first-hand what his own criticism is? If we are to include Josephson's criticism in the Wikipedia entry (and we already do), why can't we rely on a primary source (his own words) instead of a secondary source? According to WP:RS, a personal web page is acceptable as a primary source—thus apparently satisfying your objection and the reason I brought up this compromise in the first place. Are you now saying Josephson's criticism should no longer be included in the Wikipedia entry? If you do think it should remain in the Wikipedia entry, why not rely on a primary, first-hand source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is his personal website. Once a person is gone from a university, the website is gone. Internet is full of dead links because of this reason. mikka (t) 01:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not imply at all that it is his website. It is not at all his website. It cannot be his website because it is only his home page in a University website. However, you have a good point. The transitory nature of these home pages, even if we are talking of a life time in the range of 10-20 years, makes them non reliable sources in that sense. I have to agree. Only, the policy doesn't. Website of organisations and of individuals are accepted as sources, and they are even less reliable since they can be changed at anytime. Websites of organisations are even accepted as secondary sources. Our case here, a university website, is just one example of this. If you want to change the policy, I will support you. Meanwhile, we have to follow the policy. -Lumière 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Lumiere a.k.a. Etincelle Lumiere Amrit, you continue to speak gibberish:

"It cannot be his website because it is only his home page in a University website."

We're not talking about Brian Josephson's "home page." We're talking about ONE of MANY web pages that he's added to his personal web site provided to him by his university. No one is talking about Josephson's "home page." We are talking about one of a many other web pages that he has on his personal web site.

One With Many Names, your job here clearly is to confuse, obfuscate, and mislead. My job is to not let you. When an organization provides a person web space, that space becomes the person's web site -- not the organization's. I pay RPM Web Services for space for my main web site. That's my web site, not RPM Web Services' web site. As a member of the National Association of Science Writers, I can have space on its web site to put up my own web pages. That web site is called a member's personal web site, not an NASW web site. And that's how it works.

Now kindly move on and explain to us why a frog is really a butterfly. This one is getting really tiresome. Askolnick 14:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, there is a big difference between a website purchased from an ISP and web pages allocated to a professional who is using those pages as an employee of the provider. In Josephson's case, he is "Self-Published" on the website of the University of Cambridge which provided these pages to the Professor to be used in his official capacity at the University. Both the professor and Cambridge view it that way; and, I believe, so does internet law. This situation is quite different from web pages purchased from your local ISP. It's not his website. - Dreadlocke 18:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew (and Bill), Please Send Help

This has gone on too long, and MC is clearly useless here.

The only way to end this is for you to come up with acceptable sources that provide a non-CSICOP (etc.) perspective on the article topic.

Andrew, you insist that you do not object to opposing material in the article. I challenge you therefore to take the mantra of WP:NPOV to heart and "write for the enemy".

The article is unduly weighted towards the CSICOP test. Obviously, ND did not become notable as a result of being on the Discovery Channel; she became notable through her history prior to that event. But none of that history (other than a few general one-liners) is in the article, nor is there more than a sentence or two on her life since that test. That's simply a poor article. The prominence of a CSICOP figure in the development of this article is reflected in the prominence of the CSICOP test in the article. There are 3 sentences on her life before the test, 1 sentence on her life after the test, and four whole paragraphs devoted to four hours of her life. The (albeit disputed) cop out of "there's no biased statements in it" doesn't help the article's development one bit. It needs more, and by more I mean material not coming from CSICOP, CSMMH, SI, or anyone affiliated.

Instead of looking for ways to improve the article, you're spending lots of effort to prevent material from alternate sources from entering it. Andrew, I've already pointed out your edit history as evidence of your tendency to pump yourself and CSICOP et al. in WP. If you really want to improve WP, you'll realize that you need to put WP before yourself in order to do that.

We can't wait another 20 days for an alternate mediation process and just keep stewing in the meantime. I implore you to improve the article, and improve it evenly. That's all I ask.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith, no matter how many times I object to your false accusations you continue to make them. Again you claim that I'm trying to "prevent adding material from alternate sources" to the Natasha Demkina article: "None of the ones [critical sources] that anyone else here have been able to dig up have apparently been good enough." Have you no regard for what I or others think of your integrity?

The Natasha article presents Brian Josephson's major criticism along with a reference link to the Times Higher Education Supplement online article for people to read more about his critical views, as well as a link to his crackpot web site. The article also provides external links to other virulently critical web sites. So your repeated claim that I won't allow references to critical sources is a demonstrable lie. And no matter how many times I point this out to you, you continue to make the same false accusation.

What I don't want to allow is the use of self-published personal web sites as sources, which Wiki guidelines CLEARLY say should NEVER be used. You and your comrades insist on ignoring those guidelines. Indeed, you even added a link to the personal web site of Victor Zammit, who is probably the kookiest of all anti-science crackpots.

There is a good reason most of the information in the Natasha Demkina article is based on the Discovery Channel program and the three Skeptical Inquirer articles: So far, they are the only known reputable primary and secondary sources of information about Natasha Demkina.

And now you're throwing in another false claim into the foul pot: "Obviously, ND did not become notable as a result of being on the Discovery Channel; she became notable through her history prior to that event." If that were true, then you would have no trouble citing reputable sources that show how "notable" she was before we tested her for the Discovery Channel program. But it's clearly untrue. (I'm starting to notice a pattern here: You often begin a false or baseless statement with the word "Obviously.") Prior to the Discovery Channel program, few people in the world ever heard of Natasha and her comic-book powers other than people who get their news from sleazy tabloids like the British Sun and Pravda RU -- which I hope even you know are NOT reputable secondary sources according to Wiki guidelines.

For quite some time, I've invited you to add all the critical comments to the Natasha article you want -- as long as they are supported by reputable sources, and not taken from sleazy news tabloids or self-published personal web pages. It's clear you have been unable to find any.

So now you are attempting to put the burden on me to find what apparently does not exist. Man, what is that stuff you're smoking?! I'm not the one who claims to have comic-book super vision. I suggest you ask Natasha to see what she can find. After all, she was able to "find" all kinds of "abnormal" organs in my body, none of which are detectable by me or my doctors. Askolnick 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Skolnick, the proposal of Keith D. Tyler was just there to help you succeed to arrive at a solution. Keith D. Tyler was not insulting you at all. The focus was entirely on giving you some guidance. On the other hand, you misinterpret his intentions and insult him when you do so. You may not realize it, but more and more editors will realize that your behavior is a problem. I did not even read entirely what you wrote. I stopped as soon as I saw that you were insulting Keith D. Tyler. I am not interested in hearing your misinterpretations and related insults anymore. -Lumière 21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If that were true, then you would have no trouble citing reputable sources that show how "notable" she was before we tested her for the Discovery Channel program. This argument is based on your precept that none of the sources I've found to date are reputable, which I dispute. As I've been unable to meet your terms, I am appealing to you to help find solutions to the problem that will meet them.

So now you are attempting to put the burden on me to find what apparently does not exist. I'm asking you to realize that successful NPOV often requires one to research that which they may not believe in. There are sentiments to that effect on the WP:NPOV policy page. I'm not going to challenge your interpretations of WP:RS/WP:V anymore; instead, I'm asking you to help fulfill the spirit of WP:NPOV.

Anyway, the rest of your retort is argumentative, and selectively so, and I'm not going to be sucked in to bickering over the endless disagreements as to what sources are reputable, biased, or not, etc. Whether or not you agree to my perceptions, my appeal to you still stands. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And my appeal to YOU still stands: Please stop making false statements that you must know are false. For example, in your statement above, you dispute my statement that you should "have no trouble citing reputable sources that show how 'notable' she was before we tested her for the Discovery Channel program." You replied: "This argument is based on your precept that none of the sources I've found to date are reputable, which I dispute."

If you're claiming that you've found reputable sources earlier than the Discovery Channel program, you're lying through your teeth. As I stated, before our test of Natasha Demkina for Discovery Channel, she was the subject of newspaper tabloids reports. If you're telling the truth, then cite the reputable publications that showed she was notable before our test. I challenged you to do that. But as you usually do, you refuse the challenge but declare yourself the victor.

You made the blatantly dishonest statement that Natasha was "obviously" a noted person before the Discovery Channel test. I called you a liar. Prove me wrong. Where are reputable reports of her "fame" before the test? There was nothing that I know of that was published about her except for sensationalistically inaccurate reports in news tabloids.

Or are you now insisting that those sleazy newspaper tabloids are reputable publications?

Furthermore, I've done the research you say I should do. But you refuse to accept the results. Just like you, I found no additional reputable sources of information on Natahsa todate. Just like you, the only other sources I found are inaccurate newspaper tabloid accounts and self-published personal web pages. But unlike you, I agree with Wiki guidelines. Those sources should NEVER be used as secondary sources.

Keith, instead of looking for ways to improve the article, you're spending enormous effort trying to include sources that clearly do not meet Wiki guidelines. You could be spending this time by researching reputable sources for additional information to include in the article. But that's clearly not what you want. You want to include these disreputable personal web pages and apparently you will accept nothing less.

You know it takes a lot of gall to try this ruse -- pretending that it is somehow my fault that you cannot find any sources of information other than sleazy tabloids and self-published personal web sites. Those are not reputable secondary sources according to the Wiki guidelines you and your comrades reject. Either come up with sources that are acceptable by Wiki guidelines, or else stop whining like a brat who can't get his way. Askolnick 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I had made the seemingly logical presumption that CSCIOP did not spend its time and resources to run tests on obscure nobodies for the benefit of international cable television. Nor did I think that the Discovery Channel would spend its resources to televise such a test on such a nobody. Logical leaps, perhaps.

To this end, then, it is relevant to the article's treatment of the CSICOP test to indicate how CSICOP discovered Demkina and determined her worthiness as a figure for study. As you said, the only coverage of Demkina prior to CSICOP's televised test was in disreputable tabloids. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating that, but I'm certain that everyone on this talk page already fully understands your POV on the issue. However, you seem to either ignore or misunderstand the perspective of those that disagree with you on it. Several of us believe you are incorrect about citable sources for this article and we have asked for Dispute Resolution on this issue. But you continue attacking everyone who is looking to clarify this issue; attacks which make no sense.

You attack any mediator or editor who does not immediately take your side. The attack on Wade was outrageous, unwarranted, unfair, and against Wikipedia guidelines. There was no need to start a smear campaign, all you had to do was say that you did not find the mediator acceptable and that another one should be selected or assigned. Simple. No long, angry, accusatory rants necessary. The continued attacks on Keith, -Lumière, other editors, and me are just ugly behavior on your part.

Calling Keith Tyler a liar because he said Natasha was "notable" before CSICOP and Discovery Channel is absolutely and outrageously unspeakable. Keith was not lying, he was making a valid point. How do you think Discovery Channel found her in the first place? She was "notable" enough to get them to engage your services, pay all the production costs and air a program on this presumably “unknown” girl that can see right through a person's skin.

An excellent example of what I believe Keith was talking about is the Discovery Channel article itself, which makes no mention of the CSICOP testing. You have attacked that article as being a "hyped-up promo piece". In reality, it accurately describes a short history of her "fame" before CSICOP. And on top of it, you completely distorted what Keith was saying about Natasha's noteworthiness pre-CSICOP.

From my perspective, you're not removing information according to Wikipedia guidelines; you're removing data according to your incorrect interpretation of those guidelines. Just as you misinterpreted the talk: page guideline about not deleting other's comments, you attacked Rohirok for editing his own talk page, wrongly accusing him of censorship! You ended up apologizing to him after several editors finally convinced you of your error. The Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines around citable sources are far more complex, flexible and full of exceptions than the Talk: page guidelines, and I don't think you fully understand what they mean.

You may actually be right about what they say regarding citable sources, but many of us do not think you are correct. Thus, we've entered the dispute resolution process, part of which is continued negotiation amongst the disputing editors to try and find a solution that's reasonable to both sides. That's what Keith was trying to do and what -Lumière was trying to explain to you. Their suggestions are not at all absurd, as you stated in the section below, it is you that acts that way.

Please try to be civil - another Wikipedia policy that you either choose to ignore or just simply don't understand. - Dreadlocke 18:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you're doing nothing but continuing your campaign of obfuscation and deceit. I did not call Keith a liar "because he said Natasha was 'notable' before CSICOP and Discovery Channel." That is an "absolutely and outrageously unspeakable" misrepresentation. Are you not capable of typing anything but falsehoods and misrepresentations? I said Keith would be lying if he were "claiming that [he] found reputable sources earlier than the Discovery Channel program, that show Natasha was 'noted.'" He appears to have no such sources, despite his claims, because he refuses to cite any.

Your accusation that I "attack any mediator or editor who does not immediately take [my] side," is another example of your "absolutely and outrageously unspeakable" conduct. The two mediators I "attacked" were criticized for clearly violating the mediation guidelines. You conveniently ignore the fact that the first withdrew and apologized for acting like "an editor instead of a mediator." You know this. But you prefer to ignore the fact that mediators are not supposed to take sides or to push their own opinions -- as these two did. Instead, you falsely accuse me of attacking them for not taking my side. Mediators aren't supposed to take any side, you twit.

Dreadlocke, until you stop all your obfuscations and deceit, I will continue to criticize your conduct. There's a simple way to get me to stop critisizing you: Stop making demonstrably false statements in pursuit of your personal agenda. Once you do, I'll only speak kindly of you. Until then, you better get used to hearing me speak my mind. Askolnick 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely did call Keith Tyler a liar because he said Natasha was "notable" before CSICOP. I quote you directly here:

"You made the blatantly dishonest statement that Natasha was "obviously" a noted person before the Discovery Channel test. I called you a liar." User:Askolnick 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In this last "attack" post against me, you tried to obfuscate your above statement by mixing it up with your separate demand for "reputable sources earlier than the Discovery Channel". Two different things. Go back and read your own writing.

Yes, the mediators did a slight wrong in stating their own opinions, but your outrageous attack on both of them was complely uncalled for. Besides, the Cabal Mediation is informal, and presents the option for the mediator to present an opinion under certain circumstances:

"Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable. e.g. when asked for a third opinion."

Perhaps it's inevitable that one takes a side, perhaps not - it's a judgment call left to the mediator or requestor.

My main point is that your vicious attacks on both mediators was well beyond a reasonable reaction, and was completely unnecessary.

Go back and read about the Mediation Cabal. Here's a couple of entries from that page:

"...we are just here to help people cool down, provide a third-person view on the matter, be nice to people and advise on how best to bring the problem to an end. And since we don't order anyone to do anything, there is nothing to lose by bringing an argument to us, and everything to gain. We're nice and laid back"

"The Mediation Cabal has a somewhat odd form of organisation, and a quirky way of dealing with things. But problems are much easier to solve when you can laugh about them. :-)"

Your deadly serious attacks against both Cabal Mediators are outrageous, unwarranted, and way out line for what the Mediation Cabal is all about. You should read and understand what things are before you go on the attack. This seems to be a major problem for you. You should apologize to Wade, and probably apologize more fully to Rohirok.

Clearly, you have attacked every mediator and every editor who has not immediately taken your side. I may be wrong, but I doubt you would have gone ballistic or even objected, if either Wade or Rohirok had started off with, "Well I think Askolnick is right". Am I wrong? - Dreadlocke 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Mr. Skolnick, if you want to “criticize” the conduct of other editors, you should learn how to do that according to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Right now, you’re doing it wrong.

Reading and understanding these is a good start:

• Resolving Disputes
• No Personal Attacks
• Etiquette

- Dreadlocke 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you simply refuse to stop lying and misleading. To compound your dishonesty, you've dliberately taken my quote out of context. The sentence, "I called you a liar" immediately follows the paragraph that you omitted, which shows that I called Keith Tyler a liar for falsely claiming to have sources he does not have:

"If you're claiming that you've found reputable sources earlier than the Discovery Channel program, you're lying through your teeth. As I stated, before our test of Natasha Demkina for Discovery Channel, she was the subject of newspaper tabloids reports. If you're telling the truth, then cite the reputable publications that showed she was notable before our test. I challenged you to do that. But as you usually do, you refuse the challenge but declare yourself the victor.

"You made the blatantly dishonest statement that Natasha was "obviously" a noted person before the Discovery Channel test. I called you a liar. Prove me wrong. Where are reputable reports of her "fame" before the test? There was nothing that I know of that was published about her except for sensationalistically inaccurate reports in news tabloids."

Dreadlocke, your dishonest conduct really is dispicable. Until you stop your campaign to vilify me through deceit, you will be treated accordingly. Askolnick 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Each paragraph you quote above contains a different concept. In the first one, you set up a hypothesis about Keith claiming to have found what you call "reputable sources" that existed before CSICOP/Discovery Channel. The second paragraph has nothing to do with that hypothesis, because it does describe what Keith was saying. You yourself then stated that you called him a liar for making that very statement. In that particular thread, you first stated (quoting Keith in your statement):

"And now you're throwing in another false claim into the foul pot: "Obviously, ND did not become notable as a result of being on the Discovery Channel; she became notable through her history prior to that event."" Askolnick 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"False claim" to mean a falsehood or a lie; which you then later clarified in the sentence I correctly quoted you as saying:

"You made the blatantly dishonest statement that Natasha was "obviously" a noted person before the Discovery Channel test. I called you a liar." User:Askolnick 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

“I called you a liar” which obviously refers to the “false claim” statement and not the hypothesis you put forth which says: “If you claim” “then you are a liar” Two completely different things.

I addressed these two different things in my statement:

"you tried to obfuscate your above statement by mixing it up with your separate demand for "reputable sources earlier than the Discovery Channel". Two different things. Go back and read your own writing."

You called him a liar for merely making the statement "Obviously, ND did not become notable as a result of being on the Discovery Channel; she became notable through her history prior to that event.". That much is clear.

I guess we could write this off to your poor writing skills, but since you are presumably a "professional journalist", I wouldn't expect that kind of mistake from you. The real problem here is that you are too quick to attack and accuse other editors of being liars and being deceitful, but if you actually followed the Wikipedia policies and guidelines for behavior, you wouldn't fall into these idiotic mistakes. - Dreadlocke 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, you continue to do nothing but spin, obfuscate, mislead, and lie through your teeth. Askolnick 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Change of title

I propose to delete the current article and create a new one with the title "Natasha Demkina in the Discovery Channel". After all, I think this is what most editors here want to write about. Those who object should provide the sources that will be needed to include material about notable events in the life of Demkina beyond the Discovery Channel program. -Lumière 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems pretty strongly like either a POV fork or an attempt at WP:POINT, either way not a good thing to do. JoshuaZ 01:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what is a POV fork. It is perfectly fine to take a sub-topic and expand on it in a different article. Even if we kept the original article, it would not be a POV fork. There are numerous examples of this. It is even recommanded as a good organisational principle. Moreover, it is certainly not a POV fork since I proposed to delete the current article. As far as POINT is concerned, I have no idea why you say that. It is obvious that, if most of the sources are about the Discovery Channel event, we have to write an article on this topic. Now, if you mean that I am making a point that we need to find other sources if we want an article that deserves the current title, you are right. However, this is not against POINT. Give me a break! -Lumière 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that Natasha Demkina is the relevant individual, the tile would still make more sense as to just be her name, which is why seemsto me to be POINTish. JoshuaZ 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What Lumiere-Etincelle-Lumiere-Amrit fails to admit - over and over again - is that there is no other known reputable source for information on the notable events in the life of Demkina beyond the sources identified in the article. His purpose here is to sabotage the article because it doesn't agree with his supernatural view of the world. I'll repeat (and he'll pretend again not to hear): L-E-L-A, if you want to add more information about Natasha Demkina to the article, then add it.

But to do so you need to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines or else your additions will be removed again. These policies say you cannot include original research. It must be supported by reputable sources. Self-published personal web pages and sleazy newspaper tabloids are NOT reputable sources.

L-E-L-A, Keith Tyler, and Dreadlocke are insisting that the article must have additional information from other sources. But they're not able to find that information. Keith and now L-E-L-A are now saying it's our job to find it for them. Their arguments are growing increasingly absurd.

I'll repeat yet again: If you want to add more information do so. But if the information is not based on reputable sources, it will be removed according to Wiki guidelines. Askolnick 14:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just trying to have a clear context for the writing of this article. It is very confusing to write an article about Demkina if in fact the genuine interest of all editors is the Discovery Channel event. Moreover, it is not fair at all for Demkina to have an article about her, which is 90% about 4 hours or so of her life. The term "sabotage" is only your interpretation. I view my proposal as as a counter attack against a misrepresentation of Demkina as a person and as a way to have a clear context for the application of the NPOV policy. It is true that, if we can find the sources and find editors interested in expanding on Demkina, I am not against it. The fact is that I know nobody that is interested. This is not a trick on my side. It is just common sense that is used here. -Lumière 17:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, can someone explains to me in which way a more accurate title sabotage the article? Really, I am really curious to know why someone can feel that way? In which way I suppress the view of Mr. Skolnick or of anyone else just by proposing a title that describes what their view is about. This is curious. -Lumière 17:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere formerly Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit began this section by proposing "to delete the current article and create a new one with the title 'Natasha Demkina in the Discovery Channel'." But he doesn't have a clue how this can possibly be called sabotage.

It is clear that the proposal is just a change of title. Deletion followed by creation is just the way I think it must be done. This is another example of Skolnick misinterpreting what others say. I have no idea why we still tolerate his behavior. -Lumière 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no authority nor means to actually delete an article unless you wish you push it through AfD, which will have no chance of success. If you try moving this article to the new title you want, a redir will automatically be created from this name to your new one, which will be pointless. --BillC 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the technical details. I understand from your comment that a simple change of title is not technically possible. Can you confirm that? Moreover, you say that a delete followed by a creation of a new article with the same content is difficult. I am not sure if this is true. If it is true, we could keep the original article with a short biography, including a very brief discussion of the Discovery Channel event with a link to a more detailed article about this event. This will provide the required balance in the Demkina article, which is required by NPOV, and at the sametime will allow a more elaborated description of the Discovery Channel event into an article that is devoted to this topic. I believe this is perfectly in accord with the spirit of NPOV. -Lumière 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If L-E-L-A really wants to add other information about Natasha, nothing is stopping him (except for the scarcity of reputable information sources). But that's not what he wants. He and his compatriots want to remove the information that discredits Natasha's claims and they want to add disreputable information from personal web sites of kooks to make skeptics look bad.

He refuses to accept this simple fact: If he or his comrades can't find information from reputable sources, then there's nothing they can -- or should -- add. Askolnick 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick, having an article specifically about the discovery channel event should allow for a more detailed coverage of this event without violating NPOV. Therefore, what you say above makes no sense. I am still very very curious why you are against this proposal. This really deserves some explanation. -Lumière 23:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate place for all this CSICOP/CSMMH material would be in a section of one of their own Wikipedia articles? A short description could then be placed in the ND article, with reference links directing interested readers to those locations. - Dreadlocke 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere formerly Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit has exposed his true motives here. From the start, he's wanted to eliminate or at least greatly reduce information that shows Natasha's supernatural claims are not supported by credible evidence. Unable to find reputable sources to add his point of view, he now is insisting that the article be renamed and gutted to remove the information he doesn't like. Askolnick 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You attribute bad intentions to me that I do not have. What you wrote is all about me, and only to discredit me. In doing so, you did not answer the question. Is this the only way to discuss that you know? Forget about me here. What is your problem with the proposal per se? Please say your motives instead of attributing bad intentions to me. You are obviously biased when you evaluate my motives. You have no way to know my motives except through your strong POV, so your view of my motives are irrelevant. On the other hand, you should know your motives, so you should talk about them. I am sure that people are interested to know why you reject my proposal. -Lumière 14:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Personally I think you all are a bunch of nitwits with too much time on your hands, but I have no third party sources to back up these claims. Williamb 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A Helpful Guide for Newbies

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

- Wm. Shakespeare, Macbeth

Readers new to this discussion will likely be overwhelmed and confused and may be discouraged to read further. So here in a nutshell is what all this sound and fury is about. As in the battle between scientists and Creationists, there is a war going on between pro-science skeptics and proponents of supernatural beliefs. The Natasha Demkina article has drawn a number of anti-skeptics intent on altering the article for the purpose of discrediting several pro-science skeptics, of which I'm one; which should explain my strong personal conviction not to let them get their way.

Under the guise of wanting to give the Natasha Demkina article a more neutral point of view, they are demanding the inclusion of self-published material from personal web sites, which defame the skeptical researchers. Putting aside for the moment the veracity of those personal attacks, including it would clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines, which state that self-published personal web sites should NEVER be used as secondary sources. [52][53]

To get around these guidelines, the anti-skeptic cabal has been offering one twisted argument after another, seasoned with a stomach turning amount of falsehoods and misrepresentations. They consistently misrepresent this fight as a struggle to add more information to the article from a pro-paranaormal view. That's not the battle. There's nothing and no one stopping them from adding more information. But they must do so according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And the guidelines don't allow the use of self-published, personal web sites as secondary sources. Members of the cabal insist that the guidelines don't say this and even if the guidelines do, they should be ignored in this case.

Failing to get much traction with that argument, they switched to claiming that these self-published web pages are actually primary, not secondary sources, because they describe first-hand what the authors think of the people who tested Natasha. Again, they insist that Wiki guidelines do not say what they say, and even if they do, the need to make the article more pro-paranormal should trump those guidelines.

The cabal consists of Julio Siqueira, Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke, and someone who posts under a variety of different names, most recently Lumiere and Etincelle. Recently they were joined by Wade Tisthammer, who supposedly came here as a mediator, but checked his mediation robes at the door. Right after posting a greeting, he joined in their argument that the disreputable material be added to the Natasha article.

Just what is the material they want cited and why are they so adament that it be included? The material they want to include is from the personal web sites of three anti-skeptics who've posted defamatory attacks against my fellow researchers Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, and me. The web site they're fighting hardest to include belongs to physicist Brian Josephson, who won a Nobel prize in 1973 for discovering an electronic quantum device named after him. They wrongly insist that this makes him an authority on testing medical and psychic claims. Over the past three decades, Josephson has done little but defend psychic charlatans and quacks like Uri Geller and Jacques Benveniste, while attacking skeptical scientists for rejecting their bogus claims. The specific web page they want to cite falsely accuses my colleagues and me of "unethical conduct" and of "fixing" the experiment so that Natasha would fail. It is libelous. That appears to be exactly why they insist it be added.

Because he's a Nobel laureate, if Josephson's comments were worthy of publication, he would have easily been able to find a science journal or other reputable publication to publish them. But they're clearly not worthy. They're a libelous personal attack, which is why he self-published them on his own web site. This commentary says next to nothing about Natasha Demkina -- whom he has never tested, never spoken with, and never even seen. It's almost entirely a personal attack against Profs. Hyman, Wiseman, and me. While I obviously don't consider it a reputable source, more importantly, neither do Wiki guidelines. Josephson self-published this rant on his own web site and as such it is NOT a reputable source, according to Wiki guidelines.

The cabal also wants to cite even more outrageous attack pieces on other personal web sites. Back in December, one of them, Julio Siqueira, brazenly added a reference high up in the Natasha article to his own self-published attack piece. He even had the audacity to reference his libelous screed as a "Meticulous and thorough" analysis. [54]

Even more reprehensible was Keith Tyler's addition of a link to one of the most virulent anti-science crackpots on the World Wide Web. Tyler provided a link to Australian Victor Zammit's kook web site where he compares Prof. Hyman, Prof. Wiseman, and me to Ku Klux Klansmen and other evil doers. For reasons Tyler hasn't bothered to explain, he thinks Wiki readers should be provided with a link to this crackpot's personal attack:

"The Natasha Demkina Affair. Debunking skeptics ambushed an innocent legally under-aged gifted psychic Natasha Demkina and 'raped' the objectivity of scientific method to attain their negative results. The experimenters blatantly violated the rules of scientific method and abused their position. They willfully bastardized scientific method to bring about negative results consistent with their entrenched negativity. A permanent MONUMENT OF SHAME will be built for these heinous debunkers as a permanent LEGACY of their entrenched negativism." [55]

In essence, what Keith Tyler and the rest of the cabal is demanding is that they be allowed to turn this Wikipedia article into the "permanent MONUMENT OF SHAME" Victor Zammit insists my colleagues and I deserve. Despite Wiki guidelines against citing self-published material and personal web sites, they say Zammit's, Siqueira's, and Josephson's self-published attack pieces should be cited and they will not take no for an answer.

While they keep howling how I am attacking them, they continue to mislead and deceive in their effort to include material in the Natasha article that attacks and defames my colleagues and me. They are willing to bend, twist, and simply ignore Wiki's policies and guidelines to include that material. In so doing, they greatly disserve the Wikipedia community. Askolnick 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What I find troubling is that you characterise a search for content and perspective balance in the article as an attempt to create a "monument of shame" for CSICOP. I have no stake in either CSICOP (et al) or ND, which is something you cannot say. This does and has always raised questions for me as to the neutrality of your perspective. The desire for neutrality and balance in the article is not the machination of a dark conspiracy of tinfoil hats. It is all written at WP:NPOV, a page I find myself mentioning repeatedly and with futility. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What I find troubling is a desire to gain a NPOV by linking to a website with venomous content not a single reputable publisher wants to touch with a long pole. The negative position of Prof. Josephson has already long been duly noted in our article (while referring to a reputable source). mikka (t) 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even more troubling is Keith Tyler's constant misrepresentation of my point of view. I did not "characterize" the "search for content and perspective balance" in the Natasha Demkina article as an attempt to create a "monument of shame" for CSICOP. I said this about his attempts to ignore Wiki policies and guidelines in order to cite disreputable attack-pieces that are self-published on personal web sites. Tyler's argument that he must cite disreputable sources in order to provide a neutral point of view is bogus. And once again, he dishonestly says "CSCIOP," even though he's been corrected that the libelous attacks he wants to cite are against my two colleagues and me. Askolnick 20:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikka said: "...desire to gain a NPOV by linking to a website with venomous content not a single reputable publisher wants to touch with a long pole" Can you prove that by citing your sources? Who says that the Josephson critique is an article with "content not a single reputable publisher wants to touch with a long pole." I believe this is a straw man argument.

Additionally, The Professor's position has not been "duly noted" in the article, as it is not properly cited nor does it express all the relevant issues the Professor expresses in his critique.

It is also false that the contents of Professor Josephson's critique are at all "venomous". The only venom around here clearly belongs to Askolnick.

Mr. Skolnick’s above essay has quite a number of distortions, falsehoods and straw man arguments, there’s no point to addressing each one, but let’s take a few that keep cropping up.

Mr. Skolnick has repeated this one several different times on this talk page, as if it really meant something, when it’s actually a meaningless straw man argument:

“Because he's a Nobel laureate, if Josephson's comments were worthy of publication, he would have easily been able to find a science journal or other reputable publication to publish them. But they're clearly not worthy.” Askolnick 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear straw man argument. Mr. Skolnick is having everyone assume that the Professor has tried or even desired to get the piece published and failed. This is a total fabrication, because the Professor has not done any such thing. Actually, Mr. Skolnick stretches the truth even further, because the Professor’s critique has been referenced far and wide – even by the CSICOP-CSMMH researchers themselves – that’s just a small measure of how “worthy” it is.

If the Professor’s critique isn’t “worthy” then why all the exposure? I'll tell you why, because the Professor’s critique is relevant and rings true. It reflects the opinions of the majority of people that I have communicated with. This includes people who watched the documentary and don't believe Natasha has any powers, or aren’t sure one way or another, but still think the CSICOP test was flawed and put together in such a manner to cause her to fail; followed by the scientists falsely proclaiming victory, calling Natasha a fraud, and then piling on the ridicule.

Then there's this comment:

“The web site they're fighting hardest to include belongs to physicist Brian Josephson, who won a Nobel prize in 1973 for discovering an electronic quantum device named after him. They wrongly insist that this makes him an authority on testing medical and psychic claims. “ Askolnick 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is another distortion by Mr. Skolnick. First, the Website belongs to the University of Cambridge, where they have given the Professor pages to use in his official capacity there. Second, there is very little in the "medical" field about the investigation into Natasha Demkina, it is clearly an investigation into the paranormal. And third, Professor Josepshson's Nobel Prize is not the issue; it is Professor Josephson's research and investigation into the paranormal that is the key aspect one must look at. In addition to that key view, most clearly, a physics Nobel Laureate must be educated in Scientific Methodology and mathematical statistics, which can only add to the Professor's expertise and relevance in this matter.

There are more distortions by Mr. Skolnick which I may address in another post, but for now, I think this is sufficient to show the nature of his posts. - Dreadlocke 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The only distortions and deceit is Dreadlocke's. The web page in question belongs to Brian Josephson, not the University of Cambridge. It's housed on server space provided to Josephson by the university. Only an idiot or liar would look at this page and other pages on Josephson's web site site and deduce that it's a Cambridge University web site.

The page in question [56] is a lengthy multi-part document with absolutely NOTHING on it identifying it as belonging to the university. It has only one identification on it at the very bottom saying, "The above report was produced by Brian Josephson." Not a word on the page identifies it as a University of Cambridge web page for good reason: It would get the university in legal trouble since it contains defamatory accusations.

Surf through Cambridge University's web site [57] and you will find on top of every page Cambridge University's logo and on the bottom of every page a copyright notice such as this:

"© 2006 Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

Information provided by webmaster @ phy.cam.ac.uk "

None of Josephson's web pages -- not even his home page [58]-- has any university identification. In fact, the only logo on his home page is at the bottom with a link to "A "Links2Go" Key Resource," which is clearly not part of Cambridge University.

In other words, Dreadlocke is continuing to misrepresent the facts to shamelessly promote his pro-paranormal POV. Askolnick 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke wrote: Who says that the Josephson critique is an article with "content not a single reputable publisher wants to touch with a long pole." Answering: I say so. If it is printed in a reputable source, just quote, and done with this silly bickering. Dreadlocke goes further: Can you prove that by citing your sources?, a phrase lacking common sense. How can I prove that something does not exist? It is your job to prove that someone published it, not mine to prove that nobody published it. mikka (t) 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. You've got it backwards. Your claim is "..not a single reputable publisher wants to touch." You need to prove that claim with evidence. Please provide us with copies of rejection slips, testimony, or other evidence that any "reputable publisher" ever rejected or was even asked to publish the article. It's your strawman argument, you defend it. Trying to turn it back on me is where the lack of common sense is. From what I understand the professor had no desire to try and get it published - that's my provable point. Where's yours? Additionally, I believe the "self-published" web pages where the critique is currently located is perfectly reputable and citable according to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. - Dreadlocke 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for being infected by the polemic style of this page. "no desire to try and get it published" Works for me. Unpublished? Not about himself? - Out of consideration in wikipedia. As for "reputable" and "citable", disagreed. Not to say that prof J. is already quoted about his 50:1 critique. His offense about "unethical use" is just this: personal slander. mikka (t) 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. The inference of the statement you quote is "no desire to get it published [elsewhere]". It is currently self-published on the University of Cambridge's website, and is referred to in many places on the Web, including ones owned our dear "investigators" and the groups they work with and for. Also, you should learn a bit more about slander before you start throwing the term around - your utilization in this case is incorrect. - Dreadlocke 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For once Dreadlocke is quite right. It is incorrect. Josephson's web screed is not slander because it was not spoken. It is written defamation and therefore libel. Slander involves defamation that is spoken or communicated through gestures. In the United Kingdom, where it's much easier than in the U.S. to win a defamation suit, Josephson's personal attack would meet all three "legs" required for proving libel: 1) it is a published written statement; 2) it "tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally" (isn't British law quaint?); and 3) it cannot be proven true. (In the U.S., it must be proven false, which a much higher hurdle. In addition, as "public figures," we'd have to prove a fourth "leg," that Josephson acted with "malice" [which means with "reckless disregard of the truth.")

But proving libel in the U.K., where Josephson is located, would be quite easy. Josephson falsely accused my colleagues and me of being "unethical" and that we "fixed" the test so that Natasha would fail. Those accusations meet all three requirements for a successful libel suit in the U.K. The only difficulty would be to prove sufficient damages to at least pay for the cost of litigation. And that is the sticky part. I'm not sure we can prove any substantial damage. Josephson is considered a kook by most authorities. The only people who listen to him are fellow Woo-Woos and they really aren't among the "right-thinking members of society generally."

I'm fairly sure Dreadlocke is going to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, so let me cite some credentials: Not only did I study First Amendment law at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, I'm a veteran of three libel suits, one filed against me by Deepak Chopra and two Transcendental Meditation organizations, and two that I had filed against others. Chopra and TM's frivilous SLAPP suit was quickly dismissed without settlement and I obtained financial settlements from two of the parties that I sued. Askolnick 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that to publish in one's home page at work is not the same as to publish in one's personal website. Clearly, Brian Josephon uses his home pages as part of his work for the University of Cambridge. This is a publication through the University. The details of the relationship between the organisation (the university) and his employees (the professors), in particular the amount of freedom that is given to the professors, will not change this fact. Many organisations give a lot of freedom to their members or employees. My understanding is that every organisation, every case, must be considered separately. There is no general rule here. -Lumière 17:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Mr. Skolnick's background with Defamation, and just because he has those "credentials" doesn't mean he is right in his assertions. There is no actionable defamatory content in the Josephson critique. - Dreadlocke 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

""There is no actionable defamatory content in the Josephson critique. This argument is known as the "school-yard school" of debate, which involves never responding to an opponent's argument except by saying, "No, it's not!". Because it's not very effective, it is often accompanied by shoving or other forms of non-verbal communication. After more education, this style of debate is usally replaced by more effective means of communication and persuasion. Obviously, sometimes it is not. Askolnick 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment is very clear. I do not intend to get into some long, drawn out "discussion" with you over your views and history of defamation. You don't "debate" anything. Your habit of using personal attacks and misrepresenting the comments of others is very clear. I can't tell if you don't know what you're talking about or if you're purposely misrepresenting the facts - or both. Why bother at this point? If a Mediator or Arbitrator wishes to know more about my views of defamation, they are more than welcome to ask. As for you, forget it. - Dreadlocke 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, such verbal "shoving" will not make your school-yard argument any more effective. What's clear about your comment is that it was free of either fact or reason. Adding bluster to it won't make it any more sound. I provided what I believe to be a factually correct, detailed argument to support my claim that Josephson's self-published attack piece is libelous. You provided a school-yard argument followed now by silly bluster. "I don't have to prove anything!" is a shallow, school-yard taunt, not an effective means of arguing. If you don't want to dispute a point, then don't. But to dispute a point by constantly repeating "No, it's not!" is simply childish. Askolnick 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Lumiere, don't you dare move my above comment again. It is a comment on Dreadlocke's statement. Moving it away by inserting your comment that has nothing to do with our argument over libel confuses my point and constitutes vandalism. You've already launched a fruitless editing war that required administrative intervention. Please do not start a vandalism war.

My mistake Lumiere. I had mistakenly added my message below yours and not below Dreadlocke's as I had intended. So I thought you had inappropriately inserted your message. I then moved my comment above yours to the spot I thought I had added it. Therefore, neither one of us really is guilty of moving the other's comments. I should have said in my edit summary, "Moved my comment up to place I had intended." That would probably have prevented this misunderstanding. Sorry. Askolnick 16:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"Move" your comment? You do it to others all the time. What Policy or Guideline are you following? You're not supposed to edit the comments of others, but inserting between is a slightly different matter. Practice what you preach. Why are you always threatening some type of "war"? Calm down. - Dreadlocke 16:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that to publish in one's home page at work is not the same as to publish in one's personal website. Clearly, Brian Josephon uses his home pages as part of his work for the University of Cambridge. This is a publication through the University. The details of the relationship between the organisation (the university) and his employees (the professors), in particular the amount of freedom that is given to the professors, will not change this fact. Many organisations give a lot of freedom to their members or employees. My understanding is that every organisation, every case, must be considered separately. There is no general rule here. -Lumière 17:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to send the case of Mr. Skolnick to arbitration? It is a complete lost of time to argue with him. He is always distorting the reality. I did check a few home pages, and many tenure faculty members do not have the logo. I also noticed that many first year Ph.D candidates have the logo. Therefore, it means nothing, except that Brian Josephson didn't care to add the logo. -Lumière 01:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As a courtesy, or as a benefit, university computers host personal webpages of people affiliated with them. This in no way means that the university endorses or reviews their content. If you think differently, please send a request to the university administration and ask whether they endorse the content of personal web pages of their faculty and staff. mikka (t) 04:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For another example, here's the National Association of Science Writer's web page about its members personal web sites. [59] It illustrates how many educational and similar organizations provide their members space for their personal web sites. These sites are NOT the organization's web sites. Otherwise, I'd probably get the NASW into a lot of trouble with mine :-) [60] Like Josephson's, my web site is not edited or controlled in any way by the host other than by the organization's TOS. I think we're simply arguing with three guys who know the truth but are opposed to admitting it. It's like arguing with flat earthers. It's impossible to figure out if they really believe their own arguments.Askolnick 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a false comparison that Askolnick makes with his purchased space on NASW. Josephson is "Self-Published" on the website of the University of Cambridge which provided these pages to the Professor to be used in his official capacity at the University. Both the professor and Cambridge view it that way; and, I believe, so does internet law. This situation is quite different from web pages purchased from your local ISP. It's not his website.

The page Askolnick is objecting to has a link to the Professor’s home page. The official nature of that home page is shown by the following series of links:

Dept. of physics (at www.phy.cam.ac.uk) > research > theory of condensed matter > staff members.

The staff members page includes Professor Josephson and there is a link to the aforementioned home page. It's not clear what could be more official than that.

Regardless, Professor Josephson’s web pages fall under the Self-published sources exception:

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. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

as well as the Reliable Sources Exception:

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

- Dreadlocke 17:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet more red herrings, strawman arguments, misrepresentations and falsehoods: For example, like the University of Cambridge providing free web space to its faculty for them to set up a personal web pages, the National Association of Science Writers provides free space to its members for their personal web sites. It's very simple to counter any argument by simply denying the truth and making up a falsehood -- like claiming the NASW charges its members to host their personall web sites. Such arguments are intellectually dishonest and repugnant and should never be part of the debating strategy of editors of encyclopedias.

Using Dreadlocke's argument, I should be able to add any material I want from my own web site to Wiki articles because, the NASW web site has a directory of its members web sites housed on it's site. Indeed, you can see by the URL to my site that it's a subdirectory of the NASW web site, just like Josephson's site being a subdirectory of his university's: www.nasw.org/users/ASkolnick. It's clear that all this smoke and noise, spin and mendacity is meant to disguise the point of Wiki's policies -- to avoid referencing self-published sources because they have not gone through any reputable editing process to assure even a modicum of truthfullness.Askolnick 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick, as I said, every organisation is different. We never argued for a general rule that applies to all organisations. Therefore, the situation with the NASW website is irrelevant. Are you saying that NASW and Oxford Cambridge are similar organizations? I don't see that. So, let us focus on our case. -Lumière 14:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oxford? What's Oxford? Isn't that a kind of shoe? I wasn't talking about shoes or anything else named Oxford. Lumiere, do you ever read my comments before responding to them? I'm just curious. Askolnick 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a joke about my mistake. Fair enough. Of course, you know that Oxford is another University. I meant Cambridge. -Lumière 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more to my argument than that, Askolnick. Once again you isolate comments out of context and misrepresent what my statements and intents are. So I was incorrect about you paying NASW for space, big deal. That mistake is actually due to your earlier post:

"I pay RPM Web Services for space for my main web site. That's my web site, not RPM Web Services' web site. As a member of the National Association of Science Writers, I can have space on its web site to put up my own web pages. That web site is called a member's personal web site, not an NASW web site." Askolnick 14:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't waste my time looking into whether NASW was part of RPM, which you start off by saying "I pay...". The primary issue you don't address is that you are not provided any of those pages in your official capacity with either entity, while Professor Josephson is provided pages in his official capacity at University of Cambridge. The strawmen and red herrings are all yours, sir. - Dreadlocke 16:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Josephson's own confession about his webpages: Admittedly, these web pages here are also propaganda, but I hope that the science and the logic are sounder.. In other words, Josephson says he is smarter. Shall we start a subscription for poor little humiliated Natasha to visit professor J so that he could test her herself? It is only about 1K for a roundtrip ticket + max 1K for accomodation. Paranorms of the world, where are you when you are needed most? I am ready to put my $24 towards this. Who else? mikka (t) 05:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Josephson's webpages are not, barring certain usage conditions, under the editorial control of anyone other than Brian Josephson. His webspace may be provided and hosted by the University of Cambridge, but there is no-one deciding content other than he himself. In the same way, user pages here are provided and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Barring certain usage conditions, each of us can write what we like on our own user pages, and no-one can decide content other than we ourselves. Here's mine, I wrote whatever I wanted to there. Here's Josephson's webpage, he wrote whatever he wanted to there. This is pretty much exemplary of self-published material. What the three researchers wrote for Skeptical Inquirer had to pass the scrutiny of editors and sub-editors; it may have been redacted for length; suggestions on content sent back; revised, re-submitted before finally getting published – and after all that, Skeptical Inquirer could have still turned round and said it didn't want it. Josephson is subject to none of these criteria or processes; he simply can write what he likes, whether or not the pages are provided as part of his official capacity. --BillC 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

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

Thanks Katefan0! Askolnick 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, we have our dispute tag! -Lumière 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to list some facts

Fact: Natasha Demkina failed the CSMMH-CSICOP Test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I trust you can provide verifiable and reliable sources for all of the assertions above. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a talk page, not an artile, your comments are a mockery, rather than a desire to resolve the issue. You are welcome to present your position in the same simple way, in order to identify disagreements cleanly, without long rants no one would want to read, which would be a waste of time. Not to say that you ignore the very basic rule of logic: yon cannot prove non-existence of sometning (unless it is a mathematical problem). Therefore if I say "I did not steal your car", and you disagree, then it is your job to prove that I stole your car, not vice versa. Likewise, if someone says "Brian Jospehson's comments have not been published in a science journal" it is your job to easily refute this claim by presenting the publication. Do you want me to present verifiable and reliable sources that this is the way how proofs of facts work? mikka (t) 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be true in the world scientists study Mikkalai, but it's not true in the land of Woo-Woo. In the land of Woo-Woo, all things paranormal exist unless and until they are proven not to, to the complete satisfaction of the residents of Woo-Woo land. I understand it's a real fun place, where Santa Clause plays pin the tail on the unicorn with the Tooth Fairy, and the dish runs away with the spoon before Uri Geller can bend it. 67.20.18.127 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)