Talk:Natasha Demkina

Archives
/Archive1 to 5 February 2006 /Archive2 5 February 2006 to 10 May 2006 /Archive3 10 May 2006 to 22 October 2006

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

Nearly a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I hope no one minds that I archived the rest of the older discussion. Feel free to put it back, if you're so inclined, but I think we need to start with a fresh slate here.  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent rewrite

I disagree with the recent rewrite of this article, or at least with the way it was put in place, without any discussion on the talk page. In a controversial article like this one, such drastic changes are pretty much guaranteed to end in edit warring. Rl 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The content was 80% the same as the original article and used the same sources. It was just edited for POV and re-ordered. If you have an issue with an individual piece of content, then tag it. Wholesale revision smells of personal-ownership issues, which are a no-no.

perfectblue 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Perfectblue's version is excellent, perhaps needing some small modifications; and putting into place as she did was according to Wikipedia policy, which says Be Bold! There has been no discussion on this article in a very long time. And please don't threaten edit warring, it's just not proper... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New draft

There is a new draft in the wiki-memory space. Please discuss [1]

perfectblue 09:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss changes, not whole texts. We don't have to spend all our lives sifting thru completely rewritten texts. Please list here a what exactly you added and deleted. `'mikka 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just pick a section and start discussing it. It's not important where you start.

perfectblue 08:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo

When dealing with the paranormal, self published material is sufficient to provide an overview of extraordinary claims as part of a chronology of events about them that is primarily supported by external sources. So long as it is provided in context, and is not passed off as an independent scientific document.

I have made some modifications to the section and restored it. If claims are spurious, then they are spurious, what matters is that it is recorded that said claims were made.

perfectblue 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

All Wikipedia articles ought to be built from reliable sources. Without reliable sources to back up all of the content, the content is not Verifiable. Sources such as Demkina's own website are of dubious reliability at best. Certain information may be reliably sourced from her website. However, claims that her abilities have been scientifically confirmed in any way must not be sourced to her website. She is making extraordinary claims, and extraordinary evidence is needed before those claims can be reported here as truth. Given the lack of any sort of peer review for the website, and given Demkina's financial conflict of interest, such extraordinary evidence can never be found in her own website. Nick Graves 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think Demkina's own website is perfectly acceptable as a source as long as it is cited as the reference. As in the section on Self-published sources, her site is relevant to her notablility, not contentious, not unduly self-serving, not talking about third-parties, and we definitely know who wrote it - and as perfectblue says above:

"When dealing with the paranormal, self published material is sufficient to provide an overview of extraordinary claims as part of a chronology of events about them that is primarily supported by external sources. So long as it is provided in context, and is not passed off as an independent scientific document."

Remember, this is a biography of a living person, not a scientific article in a scientific journal. We're not reporting her claims as "truth" here, we're just reporting her statements, very clearly attributed as to be "according to accounts on her personal website."

Dreadlocke ☥ 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Center of Special Diagnostics

Regarding the removed edit: "and a member of the Center of Special Diagnostics; a unit which specializes in researching folk healing, traditional medicine, and claims of unconventional healing abilities." this not an "advert", it's what she does! And there's no "judgement" here either, I clearly see the word "claims" in there. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting University and of diagnosticg Center who consists of Demkina and unknown who else is an insult to a common sense. Show me an independent evaluation of this "Center", please. `'mikka 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your comment about an "insult to common sense" as a personal attack - and at the very least uncivil. I strongly suggest you moderate your comments. It is certainly not a "shameless promo", as you state in the edit summary [2], it is what she is doing - going to the University and being part of the Center. One has nothing to do with the reputation of the other, and I don't believe I need to show you an "independent evaluation" of the Center to add it to her list of current activities, but I will check with perfectblue to see if there is another place for this information. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add this information anywhere else as long as you will find a reliable source. Please remember, personal websites may be used as sources about persons, but not about organizations. If thic "center" consists of 2-3 persons, then it fails any common sense of notability. That is why I wrote "insult to common sense". Any crook can open such a center. And to put it on par wath a university is a mockery of encyclopedia. And yess it is a shameless promo. If this "center" is notable to mention it as an important part of person's bio in the intro!, you are welcome to write an article about it. Oh, yest, and she os not "art" of the center. She is the reason of this center to exist. `'mikka 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand of Russian, the name of the place is "Special Diagnostic Center of Natalia Demkina", so yes it is notable as part of her life. You give the very reason for it's notability yourself when you say: "She is the reason of this center to exist." You make my case for me, because that's exactly why it's notable and relevant for this article, and YES, in the intro! It's her own organization! So her personal website (which is under the organizations name, to boot) is a perfectly acceptable source for information on it.

Your personal opinion that these are 'crooks' has absolutely no place in Wikipedia, not even on this talk page. I didn't identify you by name, but I checked with Jimbo on earlier attacks you made last year against the mother and Natasha, here is his response:

I think such negative commentary on a talk page is unnecessary and undignified. I would recommend that the author of it be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject. I am not sure if I would delete it from the talk page or not... I would tend to say yes, delete it, but this will depend on the full circumstances and probably should not be done lightly depending on the personality and so forth of the counter-party.--Jimbo Wales 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow-up at the time because I was preparing for major surgery, but I'm not letting it pass this time. I'm considering deleting your comments, but I would hope that you take Jimbo's suggestions to heart and soften or delete them yourself.

Dreadlocke ☥ 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained my objections. I have nothing against its inclusion, only you have to say this in a manner and in a place proportional to its importance. `'mikka 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the negative comment and removing this page from my watclist. Demkina is all but forgotten by Russain media. If you want to stir this pot of nosnsense, well, I've seen people with stranger hobbies. `'mikka 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Many universities set up special units for specific tasks, particularly in emerging or unusual fields. This is normal and accepted practice.

perfectblue 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy Press

From what I understand and see in the translation [3], this article is not a reprint from a tabloid, it is an article written by Svetlana Kuzina that was sold or printed by several different vendors (including tabloids and whatnot), but Pregnancy Press is not a tabloid and can be used as a WP:RS. This is an article by a Russian reporter, it's contents are verifiable and can be used if properly referenced and attributed. It may not be considered as the complete "truth", but it is "verifiability not truth" that is the bar for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article at Pregnancy Press is identical to an article attributed to Komsomolskaya Pravda and hosted on Demkina's website. The latter is already being used as a source for Demkina's claims about herself, so citing Pregnancy Press is unnecessary in any case. Furthermore, it appears that the Pregnancy Press site focuses on health issues for pregnant mothers, and is not a news agency with a reputation for fact-checking of articles it reprints. The article ends with the claim that Demkina's abilities have been verified scientifically, which is quite an extrordinary claim to make. An article hosted by a pregnancy center's website does not qualify as an exceptional source for this exceptional claim, so it should not be used. Nick Graves 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of "exceptional claims" and "exceptional sources" when dealing with all things paranormal have already been addressed in the above sections: Talk:Natasha Demkina#Tokyo and Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Reliable_sources. Since identical information is acceptable from the Demkina website, I'll leave it be. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the very last statement "has successfully was tested all by foreign scientists." being an "exceptional claim". If so, this strikes me as a rather vague statement that is no way exceptional, and doesn't mean that her abilities were "scientifically verified". Or is there another statement you're referring to? I'm also fairly certain that a site dedicated to giving health advice to pregnant mothers must have some type of fact-checking going on - what's more important than a baby's health?  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I must also point out that the particular "exceptional claim" (if it can be called that) from the article, was not even used in the Wikipedia article, so that further invalidates the argument for "exceptional sources" for "exceptional claims" in this case - that particular claim wasn't even made or repeated here (as far as I can see). Dreadlocke ☥ 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By the logic you use above, a clinic that gives nutritional advice is a reliable source for news of sasquatch sightings. Entities reliable in one respect are not necessarily reliable in others.

From what I gather from the admittedly awkward translation from Russian, the article in question says that Demkina passed all of the tests the scientists put her through. In other words, her abilities have been authenticated--she has X-ray vision. Claims don't get much more extraordinary than that. True, the current version of the Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim, but a previous version stated that Demkina "diagnosed the early stages of pregnancy with a female patient, and diagnosed an undulating spinal curvature in another subject; producing a drawing that was almost identical to X-rays of the patient" based on the Pregnancy Press article. These are the sort of fantastic statements that find their way into articles when unreliable sources are used. That's something we ought to avoid, and that's why I removed the Pregnancy Press article as a source.

The matter is probably moot, as there is nothing in the Pregnancy Press article that is not on Demkina's website, and that source is already being accepted to document claims Demkina makes about herself. Nick Graves 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! You can't find a quicker way to a Star Trek fan's heart than an edit summary like that! [4]. You're so right, it's a moot point at this point, but there may come a time when a quote from Pregnancy Press might come in handy. My real logical point was that we don't know what kind of fact-checking PR may have, and it may be more than we think considering the site's subject matter - health. A subject matter which is not quite so disparate as a nutritional clinic giving evidence of sasquatch, since both Pregnancy Press and the "girl with the x-ray eyes" have a definite health component - although one is clearly paranormal. I believe the health concern is actually why PR published the article on Demkina, rather than it being a tabloid or sensational gossip/news site. Natasha's 'fantasic' claims were published at the time in many places, even in Japan - but finding those sources online at this late date is difficult. Luckily we have Natasha's own site to draw from. I also presume it's possible to find the published notes from the folks in Tokyo who set the whole thing up, but who has time for that? Maybe the next time I'm in Japan, I'll check into it further. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

TAG

Users who refuse to tag should refer to Wikipedia policy, and familiarize themselves with the reasons for their existence.

perfectblue 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to tag every single problem I found with your rewrite, but on you to justify the significant deletions and changes you are trying to make to an article that has already been the subject of many edit wars, mediation and page protection. You didn't tag content before you deleted it. Why do you think any other editor should? It's been said before, but I'll say it again: Please take it slow. Pick one paragraph that you think needs rewording or a new source and then change it as you see fit. Then, when I disagree, I can try tweaking it, or we can work out here. Nick Graves 17:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the onus IS on you to tag what you disagree with. The reason that I didn't tag content was that I wasn't disputing it. If you check, you will find that I didn't delete much at all. Except for a bit of biographic information about when she was 10, I left it all in more or less as it was written. It just appears to have changed because I did things like changing the tense of a sentence, or expand it a little, so the history reports the sentence as being an entirely new one.

perfectblue 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another recent rewrite

I reverted the recent rewrite because it introduced a lot of problems to the article, as explained in my edit summary (mass deletion of long-standing content, bias, original research, dubiously sourced claims of successful diagnoses). Perfectblue97, let's please take it slow and discuss. I don't oppose changes to the article, and I think you'll find me a lot more accomodating than previous editors have been, but I think we ought to take it slow, given the past controversies over this article.

Let me list in more detail what I found problematic with the rewrite:

• No fewer than 7 paragraphs of the prior version were simply deleted. Those paragraphs that covered the same areas as the deleted 7 introduced new problems, identified below.
• The Japanese researcher is said to "specialize" in studying people with unusual abilities. This claim that someone is a specialist implies that someone is an authority on the matter, and a better source than Demkina's own website is needed for that claim.
• Natasha is said to have "scored well in the tasks given to her." This is an extraordinary claim, and not supported by the source cited.
• In the next paragraph, it is said that "the experiments were not carried out under properly controlled conditions, and there were no doctors present for much of the process, so the results could not be declared as scientifically valid." That very well may be, but then this contradicts the previous claim that Demkina "scored well." The article should not contradict itself. Besides this, exactly who said that the experiments weren't carried out well? The documentary editors? Are they qualified to make such an evaluation? (That is, are they a reliable source for scientific evaluations, or are they just film-makers? I think the latter.)
• The tests of Demkina or her reading demonstrations are called "experiments." I've objected to this word usage before, because experiment has a very specific meaning in a scientific context, and these tests and demonstrations do not qualify (this is why the CSICOP researchers refer to what they perfomed as a test, not an experiment.
• Original research is introduced by the comments about Bayesian analysis sourced from mathworld.wolfram.com. The mathworld source is not about Demkina, and its use in the article as applied to the Demkina case is a synthesis that constitutes original research. It's not for Wikipedia editors to evaluate whether the skeptical researchers appropriately applied Bayesian inference, but rather to report the evaluations of others that have been published in reliable sources. The use of the Medical University of South Carolina source also constitutes original research.

Rather than making a lot of significant and swift new changes, it would be more productive to change or introduce a little at a time, so we can work through our differences. As RI pointed out, substantial rewrites often lead to edit warring. We want to avoid that. Nick Graves 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Demkina scored well in an experiment/demonstration but it had no scientific oversight so it can't be scientifically validated regardless of whether it was successful or not. You can break a world record, but unless there is a man from Guiness there it won't go in the book, and the same is true her. She didn't preform under lab conditions so no scientist will touch her results regardless of what they are.
2. Nobody said that the experiments "weren't carried out well", they said that they weren't carried out under scientific observation. When dealing with science the absence of these conditions automatically invalidates the experiments results in scientific terms.
3. A documentary editor will have researchers and consultants on staff if only to ensure that the program isn't being made a fool of by a slick hoaxer looking for some headlines. These people will be qualified and will have input into the documentaries conclusions.
4. Experiment, demonstrations, I don't really care.
5. mathworld and the Medical University of South Carolina are being used as object examples covering the areas of Josephson's claims in mathematical/medical terms. Object examples can legitimately be included in a pure form and are not required to be in context with the page. They are also exempt form WP:OR.
6. If you think its POV TAG
7. If you think its WP:OR TAG
8. If you don't like the Cite TAG

perfectblue 17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Obstructive editing

Users should note that the correct response to a perceived imbalance is to expand the smaller section, not to delete the larger one. perfectblue 09:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a interesting notion, and by "interesting" I mean "completely nonsensical." If every editor followed that rule, articles would expand indefinitely. You seem to have a few of these rules, "Tag, rather than remove, inappropriate content" being another. In the future, rather than simply informing us of these rules, please provide a link to the relevant section of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. KarlBunker 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What is non-nonsensical is deleting an entire section on the grounds that you disagree with half of it. If you feel that something is unbalanced, expand the weak area. Doing do so will strengthen the article. As it says on the summary for the Wikipedia Editing policy - "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.", and as it says in the page itself - "Whatever you do, try to preserve information". Also under the NPOV FAQ it states that deletion is the last resort particularly when something is factually accurate.

According to Wikipolicy valid reason for deleting content include

• duplication or redundancy
• irrelevancy
• patent nonsense
• copyright violations
• inaccuracy

All of my edits, including my not tagging (on the ground that I rewording rather than deleting or questioning) are covered under Wikimaintenance:Refactoring.

Besides, I left the section unbalanced on request. I was specifically asked not to introduce too much content in one go, and I didn't. This means that I had to leave out material.

As for policy on tagging, they exist, what more reason do you need to know. If you delete an entire paragraph because you think that with one sentence is POV, that's just plan obtuse and doesn't allow people enough information to change that paragraph so that it is up to spec.

If you do not know how to tag, here are a selection of tags that you can use. Simply edit the page and retrieve the code. Some are designed to go before a paragraph, others after a sentence.

{{Unbalanced}} {{POV-section}} {{SectOR}} {{fact}} {{Lopsided}} {{OriginalResearch}}

perfectblue 13:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, PB, I know how to add tags. Thanks also for your references to WP guidelines. The fact remains that there is no prohibition against an editor deleting content in order to bring balance to an article, and sometimes that's the best way to do it. The alternative can lead to more and more "pro" and "con" material being added to an article, until the discussion of the issue is bloated and confusing and absurd. In this article, one could no doubt add tens of thousands of words in the nature of "Demkina claimed she did this, Demkina claims she can do that." Such additions do not necessarily add useful information to the article, and countering each claim with an endless repetition of "this claim has not been verified" wouldn't help matters. The bottom line is simply that it's my opinion that the additions you want to make do not improve the article. KarlBunker 14:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make two requests of you, PB: First, please stop telling other editors how to edit. You've cited some relevant guidelines, and that's what they are: guidelines, not inviolable rules. Second, please do a little proofreading of your own comments before you save them. Your last post was so badly written I had to read it several times over before I could figure out what you're trying to say. KarlBunker 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Editing policy is official policy, not a guideline. It specifically tells users that "adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced" is the way to go, and that "whatever you do, try to preserve information", it also tells you to tag anything that you think is not factually correct instead of outright deleting it.

My argument for inclusion is that one party in a controversial experiment has laid down several accusations that if true cast doubt on the scientific validity of the experiment and the integrity of those conducting it. These accusations alone are sufficient to prevent a scientific paper from going to peer review, they are therefore important. Equally, the rebuttal was short because it was concise. Her complaints can be met in a single sentence. "Appendixes grow back " - "no they don't". There is still a lot that could be said on cold reading (she apparently observed the subjects arriving when she shouldn't have done), if you feel that the section is unbalanced, maybe you could add that. I have other things to do.

As for proofreading, I suggest that you try to write your comment in Chinese, and then see if it has more mistakes in it than mine does in English.

perfectblue 15:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The specifics of how to edit are guidelines, not rigid rules. If you're concerned that another editor has asked you not to add large edits without discussing them first, then obviously adding an edit that you know is unbalanced isn't a solution and is not what was "requested." A better solution would be to add the proposed edit to the discussion page and wait for agreement on that edit before adding it to the article. Adding an edit that you know to be unbalanced, and then asking others to fix it for you is not a good plan. KarlBunker 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Critisism

A number of different criticisms have been made of the whole Demkina affair. I think that they need a section to themselves as they contain comments made after the fact and by people who were not involved in the original experiments/demonstrations. Including them along side the events makes it harder to differentiate them from the events themselves, it also makes it much harder to summarize the events.

Readers should be introduced to the subject before being introduced to the controversy.

perfectblue 09:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section as it currently is doesn't make much sense. Since this is an article on Natasha Demkina, a top-level section on "Criticism" should contain criticism of Natasha Demkina. In fact the section consists solely of criticism of the New York experiment, so the appropriate title for the content would be "Criticism of the New York experiment", and it should be appended to the "New York" section. I'll do that, but the section still gives undue weight to Demkina and Josephson's complaints and defenses. KarlBunker 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Bayes factors are used to compensate for variables that cannot be calculated through conventional statistics; In this case, the variable created by the visual clues that Demkina might gather from observing a patient. The Bayes factors used by Hyman were calculated by professors Persi Diaconis and Susan of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University.

This edit is not Original Research, and is not a "synthesis". Hyman stated the very same thing, and a link to a WP:RS that defines Bayesian analysis is certainly not OR. The article talks about Bayes, and therefore can contain a link and a short description of that particular subject matter. WP:V allows for verification of what Bayes is. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience and information, here is the CSI article by Hyman that proves the statements about the relevance of Bayesian analysis to the Natasha Demkina case are not OR, and are clearly sourceable from Hyman and CSICOP (CSI) directly: [5]. The statement in the article does not violate WP:NOR. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the above link to the article in the appropriate section. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the link was already there, but I added another instance. I like the way we have to provide a citation for each sentence in the last paragraph of the section Natasha_Demkina#Criticism: Josephson - including a dupe for definitive evidence. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing, I once edited an article that was also being edited by a fanatic who refused to tag anything or to actually read any citation source. I would write a section and the would literally keep deleting it again and again until I cited each individual sentence. Some times, the only way that I could get a section to stick was to cite the same source 5-6 times in a single paragraph because If I only cited it once at the end, they'd delete the whole lot.

Augh, that's completely frustrating. I've seen similar deletionism in the past on this article too - but back then the editors would at least read the citations...mostly... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue 09:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Josephson and Hyman discussed the use of Bayes in relation to Demkina. Josephson in his criticism and Hyman in his rebuttal. Both said pretty much the same thing as the above, that Bayes is used to compensate for the effect of non-statistical variables. This is clearly sourced and so cannot be WP:OR. Hyman said that it must be set high to allow and Josephson said that it was too high.

perfectblue 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is [6] really the same as [7]? They looked distinct to me, though the titles are similar. (I did remove a dupe ref, though.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first link goes to the edit page for this section, at least when I click on it, so I'm not sure exactly what it's referring to. I haven't seen the material in your second link before, though, so perhaps you were right and I missed the difference. I thought I put in the same article twice, and you fixed it for me, then I changed it to a single instance instead. I guess you actually changed the destination link..and I deleted it? If so, I apologize! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AUGH! You're right, I removed your new link thinking it was my old duplicate entry that you fixed. I missed a step in there, and didn't look closely enough! I just put it back tho, so your edit is golden.[8]. Check it to make sure I got it right.. Many apologies. Glad you noticed my error. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed appendices can sometimes grow back?

I think it's highly suspicious. If indeed there's no such regeneration, I think that should be more clear that it's what the girls thinks, not what actually happens. --Extremophile (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vision hat?

The 26 May 2008 revision changed the phrase "claims to possess a special vision that allows her" to "possesses a 'vision hat' which allegedly enables her". I'm assuming that this was a typo, a misunderstanding, or a joke; there's no mention anywhere else in the article, or in another article I read about her, of any kind of hat. Furthermore, in a more recent revision someone added the mysterious phrase "(4 of 7)" right after "vision hat", with no indication of what that might mean or why it was there. So I removed both the phrases "vision hat" and "(4 of 7)", and reworked the sentence to make it flow more smoothly. I probably should have just reverted the 26 May revision; whoever made those changes seems to have been confused. --Elysdir (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merits of the Second "Test"

The experimenters expressed dissatification with the rigors of the the experiment they designed and executed? Are they unwilling to endorse the soundness of their own work? Secondly, they trim the findings to be in line with their own presuppositions, as is obvious from their quotations. These people sound barely credible. The fact that they were quoted in a piece of journalism doesn't make them authorities on anything.

"In addition, the researchers said that the influence of non-paranormal observations could not be ruled out under the lax conditions of the test." Also, doctors are not held to a standard of 100% accuarcy and inadvertently kill people, flub diagnoses, and at times fail to help patients. As a final note, what is this stuff about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? Which law of epistemology is that? In which courtrooms is this the rule? Carl Sagan's flippant tautology is nearly meangingless and belongs to the peculiarities of his mind, not logic or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.74.50 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect odds evaluation

"Josephson argued the odds of Demkina achieving four matches out of seven by chance alone were 1 in 50" - this statement is incorrect. Correct figure is 1/840 with the following calculation: (1/7)*(1/6)*(1/5)*(1/4)

Your odds calculation is wrong, my high school math lessons are faded, but you presuppose that she had the first 4 right, and disregard the other 3 in your calculation. If someone who can recall the statistics lessons of high school could do the calculation I would appreciate it.Helemaalnicks (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Forget your high school math books and go and read what Josephson said in the provided reference.

And that rounded off figure of 1 in 50 is correct -- otherwise Josephson would have attacked Ray Hyman about his probability calculation instead of attacking him for using it as the statistical bar Demkina had to clear. Askolnick (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Article changes

I don't have time now to review all of Dreadstar's changes. While he has a point that, as someone involved in the events described in this article, I must take great care to not let any conflict of interests bias this article. But he was entirely wrong to replace falsehoods into the article, as he has done. For example, there were NO patients in the CSICOP/CSMMH study. That's been made clear in previous versions of this article and is clear from the primary sourced documents. And yet, Dreadstar has yet again replaced the false wording. The seven people who volunteered for this test were study subjects. They were NOT in any way patients in a study. When I have more time, I'll return to see what other false or inaccurate changes many have been made. Askolnick (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COI you should not be directly editing the article at all. Please bring your concerns here to be evaluated by others who do not have such a powerful COI with this subject. And I have certainly not intentionally replaced falsehoods into the article, I reverted your last edits which added a lot more than replacing "patient" with "subject". As it happens, I agree with you, the subjects were not 'patients', and I'm happy to make that change. If you had followed COI and posted your suggested changes here on the talk page, this would not have happened to begin with, and any so-called 'falsehoods' would not have been part of the revert. Dreadstar ☥ 20:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Per WP:COI you should not be directly editing the article at all." Where do you get that, Dreadstar? It can't be from WP:COI, which states clearly that "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor". I'll assume you simply haven't read it in a while. See also the section WP:SELFCITE for the material you removed here. It actually conformed well to the guideline.

@Askolnick: you obviously make no secret of your identity, but you may like to make doubly sure by declaring it on your userpage. WP:COI encourages this. There is no obligation, but you may find it convenient. You are welcome to edit this page, in the scrupulous way you have been doing (as far as I've noticed), but you may be aware (or not) that you're strongly discouraged from directly editing your own bio article, Andrew A. Skolnick, per WP:BIO. Contributing material on the talkpage for others to insert if they agree with it is best practice for that. Hey, perhaps Dreadstar was thinking of that guideline when he stated, mistakenly, that you have bring your concerns to the talkpage to be "evaluated" in the case of Natasha Demkina?

I will also return when I have more time. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

It's Askolnick's own editing history here that I'm basing that on; Askolnick has a long history of adding negative, biased POV material to this article, including his own recently published attack-site which uses this article as WP:COATRACK to further his dispute and attacks on Josephson, replete with name-calling and insults. Nothing in WP:SELFCITE says we need to publish sites that were clearly and obviously put up to attack and denigrate their subjects, calling them names and insulting them. That site adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article's subject that isn't already present in the current article. Historically Askolnick has viciously attacked Josephson and Demkina in the article and talk pages, a history of POV-pushing, edit-warring, and making Personal attacks against not only the subject of the article but of other editors here. If this editing history by Askolnick isn't one of the clearest examples of a COI editor who should not be directly editing the article, then I'm quite surprised. I don't see any reason for Askolnick to be editing this article directly. And we're certainly not here to provide Askolnick with a WP:BATTLEGROUND platform to continue his assault on Josephson - or Demkina. And that's exactly what we would be doing by allowing Askolnick to use his self-published attack on Josephson, using this article a coatrack for its presentation. Dreadstar ☥ 00:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)