Talk:Tina Resch

message: Respectfully, I removed this line for the reasons given below:
"Also, the photos were duplicated by Paul Kurtz in the Skeptical Inquirer by laying the cable over his chair from left to right, then hitting it at the right place, thus giving the receiver an upward momentum."
Mr. Kurtz did not duplicate or replicate any of the photos in the case. Both those words mean "an identical copy in every detail; an exact copy." A duplicate photo is a copy of the original or a copy of a copy.
Mr. Kurtz did simulate/imitate/mimic one photo of the concept of a phone handset and cord in the air in front of a seated person who has his hands displayed in front of his body.
Such a photo, taken by a photographer for the Niagara Gazette newspaper, appeared, besides in the newspaper, in the Summer 1984 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, page 295. The caption for the photo reads: "CSICOP Chairman Paul Kurtz performing a similar feat." The photo credit reads: "From the "Niagara Gazette," photo by Ron Schifferie.' There is no discussion about how the photo was taken or how many failed attempts were photographed. The phone looks as though it is being held up by a thread. Mr. Kurtz is seated in an office chair, not in a cushioned large living room chair.
Also the article makes no mention of hitting a cord to make a phone jump. Logically, with a flexible cord, the cord would just move down or the phone would move back across the chair, not out and away. James Randi in his 1985 SI article on the case did suggest that a phone across a chair could be make to move upward if it is pulled on at a certain location, not hit downward.
In simulating a photograph of a "Tina Resch" phone in flight and offering it as evidence of a hoax, one would also have to disregard the testimony of the witnesses in the room, including that of the photographer.
I am a member of a skeptics organziation myself. Respectfully to the poster and to be fair to those involved in the case, I have removed the quote. The poster is free to revise it or leave it out.
208.50.10.6 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo reference line removed - discussion

message: Deleted line as untrue regarding polygraph evidence: "though such evidence is inadmissible in US courts." Google the phrase, without quotes: polygraph admissible Georgia. Both parties have to agree. (originally posted 19:05, 28 December 2006 with my signature missing) 5Q5 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygraph inadmissible line removed

message: These statements in the article are untrue. This is a biography article. You are not allowed to post negative inaccuracies presented as facts that you cannot prove in a court of law and none of these you can:
* "The poltergeist case was revealed to be a hoax." Untrue. Only the instance of the camera catching her pulling on a lamp was positively proved to be a hoax.
* "Despite this, Randi managed to investigate the case and revealed Tina had faked all of the alleged poltergeist occurrences." Untrue. You obviously did not read Randi's Skeptical Inquirer article where he uses conditional words like "possibly, maybe, could have," etc.
* "The Resch poltergeist turned out to be so elusive that no one ever actually saw a single object even start to move of its own accord." Untrue. Roll's book includes reports of witnesses. The cameraman who took the lamp video footage saw chairs move in the kitchen. Even one of your own references says Roll saw objects move.
* Reference: "William Roll, Valierie Storey. (2004). Unleashed: Of Poltergeists and Murder: The Curious Story of Tina Resch. Gallery Books." Untrue. The book was published by Paraview/Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, as the book's credits preview page on Amazon.com clearly indicates. Gallery Books is also an imprint of Simon & Schuster. The author's name is Valerie Storey, not Valierie Storey. [fixed]
I will remove my flags from the article when this article is corrected and no longer violates WP:UNDUE, among other policies regarding biographical articles. 5Q5 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-fringe sources, individually and as a whole, strongly suggest that a hoax or a trick was the most likely explanation rather than telekinetic powers, so I'm not sure how WP:UNDUE comes into it. Unless you mean to say there's undue weight on the mainstream view? Keeping WP:FRINGE in mind, so you have specific suggestions for how you'd like to see the above statements revised? LuckyLouie (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 5Q5 Wikipedia isn't about personal opinion. We have to cover what the reliable sources say. It's doesn't matter what you personally believe is untrue, there are many sources which have debunked Resch as a hoaxer. See Terence Hines for an overview. Fodor Fan (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty certain this is a legal threat.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The extensive legal arguments were not necessary and a bit over the top. I think a few edits as seen in this version were all that was required. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

text: CENSORED EDITOR: A concluding response I posted here yesterday saying that I agreed with editor LuckyLouie's changes with the article, but that the article was still slightly unbalanced toward representing only the skeptics' side, that the quotes above were cherry picked from the skeptical community, that I might return someday to add some quotes by witnesses to balance it out, that the Enfield Poltergeist was an article to check out as a possible example, and a final comment saying that the Wikimedia Foundation was shielded from defamation lawsuits as per a link I provided to the Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation article, was not only deleted by an administrator of Wikipedia, possibly Dougweller who left a message on my user talk page asking me to clarify my legal discussion, but all record of my post was deleted from the history log as well. I was censored. Being a long-time member of the ACLU, this has been an astonishing, eye-opening moment for me and I can now personally attest and confirm 100% that Wikipedia censors free speech, makes its records disappear, and that no discussion intended to educate editors on why they should not defame the subjects of biography articles is allowed. Since no such free speech is allowed on WP:LIBEL and WP:BLPCRIME on this talk page, I have removed some my legal discussion from earlier posts above, which you may or may not be able to find in the history log, which I can attest and confirm now can no longer be trusted as an accurate record of events. 5Q5 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "add some quotes by witnesses to balance it out", per WP:GEVAL we don't need to "balance" fringe vs. non fringe opinions or make supernatural explanations sound equally plausible with non supernatural ones. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no censorship, no deletion. It seems that 5Q5 didn't manage to post what he thinks he posted. I don't know why, possibly an edit conflict that wasn't noticed (which has happened to me), but there is no evidence of any deletion from the history of this article or any recent deletions from 5Q5's contributions (he's had other edits deleted because of AfDs or deleted files, but nothing from here). No rev/del, no oversight. I'd be able to see if either had happened. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I have several times lost posts because I have not noticed an edit-conflict, or failed to realise I'd hit the preview button by mistake, or the connection to the website has been broken for some reason. It happens. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I always check to see if my edit is live before logging out. Always. I would find it hard to believe that there are no employee-level master administrators who are capable of overriding lower level community administrators and can make any edit and record trail disappear and nontraceable; otherwise, Wikipedia would be defenseless from a takeover. I know what I saw. I will leave it at that. . . From WP:Fringe: The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. . . . Professional skeptics do not represent all of mainstream science. They represent a niche community with a biased nonbelieving viewpoint, just as the pro-paranormal community has a biased believing viewpoint. As proof of this, anything that does not conform to the debunking standard is rejected for publishing by the skeptical media. I know – I've been published in skeptical journals. According to published circulation figures, Scientific American magazine in 2012 had a circulation of over 2,164,000; Skeptical Inquirer: 28,514. The latter has lost about 2,000 readers in the past year. By contrast, the pro-paranormal magazine Atlantis Rising had a 2012 circulation of over 15,000. Sales figures of the books by skeptics cited for this article? I'd be willing to make a guess that they are a lot less than the circulation of Atlantis Rising or Fortean Times and therefore, in my opinion (am I still allowed that here?), should not be used as a reason to deny statements by witnesses in the article to give support that an event actually occurred. If the event is a hoax and you cannot/won't cite mainstream discussion on the pro-side, then why is Resch even notable for an article? 5Q5 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a science article. Telekinesis isn't recognised as a legitimate scientific phenomenon. Resch is notable because her claims and the subsequent evidence that she was involved in a hoax drew public attention, and attention from reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Um, no. Publishing a paper doesn't make it significant. People citing it might possibly. Still, I'm glad to see that you accept that in as much as this article covers a scientific topic at all (which I don't accept), it comes within the scope of WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Ah, the cherry-picked out-of-context half-quote. Followed by the irrelevant ad hominem. An irrefutable argument? Not really. Not at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy disputed 

message: No, "there are no employee-level master administrators who are capable of overriding lower level community administrators and can make any edit and record trail disappear and nontraceable;". There are no administrators at the Foundation. There are en.wiki administrators (there are almost 300 wikipedias in different languages) who have oversight and can make it impossible for even ordinary Administrators to actually see the edit, but that's all. And believe me, nothing you wrote is even worth rev/deleting which is what I can do and allows all Admins to still see it. I don't know why you think your edit was that important, but it didn't happen and you haven't been censored. Not that I think that will stop you from off-Wiki claims, but that's up to you if you want to make claims that you can't actually back up. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying that there is no Wikimedia Foundation IT team with oversight? And you know this for a fact . . . because? Respectfully, I have not disclosed the exact remainder of what I included in my claimed deleted post on this page because it involved [redacted], and I provided my knowledge as such from my experience as a free speech rights monitor for the ACLU. I wouldn't work for 20 or so minutes researching and writing a post and then forget to click "Save." Sorry, no. Been doing this nearly 7.5 years. Thanks, anyway. I can see you really believe in your position on the subject. 5Q5 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I am taking a screenshot of this post and the history log entry, as I will do from now on anything that might be interpreted as controversial. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Wikipedia:No legal threats? If not, I suggest that you do. Regardless of what you may or not have previously posted, a "thought helpful, discussion of how plantiffs' attorneys work to secure the identities of Wikipedia editors accused of defamation" might well be interpreted as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats two distinct legal threats by my count.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no free speech on Wikipedia's talk pages. I got confused with the policy Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Offensive material – which as I write this do not include the phrases "talk page," "talk pages," "discussion page, or "discussion pages" on them – and the outside world's definition of what constitutes a threat. Apparently Wikipedia has its own definition. Instead of attacking me, perhaps you should propose a change to that policy and guideline to say that talk pages are in fact subjected to censorship. As an ACLU member who fights for free speech, including Wikipedia's right to display hard-core pornography, I did not know that. Taking a screeshot of this post. 5Q5 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is no free speech on Wikipedia's talk pages". Correct. Wikipedia neither has any legal obligation to provide a platform for 'free speech', nor claims to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Silence from me. Nice try, though. 5Q5 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the content of the article per WP:TALK. There are any number of reasons why material added to talk pages can or should be removed. It is not a question of "free speech", since the relevant freedom is only to discuss content. If you think the content was important, re-add it. I have many times been convinced that I'd posted something which has not in fact been saved to the page. There are a host of possible explanations for this. Technical or personal error is much more likely than a (pointless) conspiracy of denial over something there's no reasonable motivation to deny. Paul B (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a conspiracy

message: The editor Mann jess, as part of his 12,302-byte gutting of the Psychokinesis article yesterday, removed any mention of Tina Resch in the article. I highlighted and pasted the entire text of the page into an editor moments ago and searched for Tina Resch. Nothing. No "See also" link, no Roll's book. I also did the same for the Poltergeist article. The phrases Tina Resch and Columbus poltergeist are not on the page. Therefore, if the consensus now is that this alleged PK claimant/experiencer from the 1980s is not notable enough for inclusion in either of these two highly relevant articles, notability for a stand-alone biographical article is subject to reconsideration. I would support deletion if either of you two want to flag this article for discussion and a vote. Not going to do it myself. 5Q5 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow your logic. Whether this case should be mentioned in a general article, is like asking whether a particular play should be mentioned in the article "Tragedy". Numerous notable tragedies are not mentioned in that article, including some of the most famous ever written. Specific examples should only be given if to do so serves a useful purpose in the article. Listing examples for the sake of it is pointless. That's what categories and list articles are for. It's irrelevant to the independent notability of this page whether or not she's mentioned in the page on Psychokinesis. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability questioned 

message: The article as I write this includes the line: Randi examined a roll of photos taken by press photographers and said that they showed the girl's foot hooked beneath a sofa that had purportedly moved by itself, and that the glass in a picture frame that allegedly shattered on its own while in her hands was already broken before she ever picked it up.
* Actually, in his 1985 SI article, Randi said that only one of the photos, in one corner of it, showed this, and it is not apparent that it happened chronologically with the couch moving. Ever wonder why, if they had this damning photographic evidence for nearly 30 years, they have never published it or included a line drawing of it in the 1985 article? If "Tina clearly has her right foot hooked under the edge of the couch!" (Randi's words), then what's the problem? Has a poltergeist stolen it?
* Regarding the shattered glass in the picture frame, Randi in his article was criticizing a newspaper caption writer's wrong portrayal of events, not any claim by Resch or witnesses. The picture fell off the wall and the glass shattered with no one touching it the day before. The next day when Fred Shannon, the Columbus Dispatch photographer was there, he asked her to pose with it. Resch walked over and picked it up. The photographer took a photo. Immediately after taking the photo, the frame, according to Resch, was knocked from her hands by a force. The photographer took another photo of the picture on the floor. His newspaper then later published both photos. The caption writer, who was not present, wrongly wrote: "Below, the picture shatters in her hand and falls to the floor." Randi criticized this, writing in his article: "This is not a responsible representation at all." The book Unleased by Roll, confirms that no one claimed that Resch was holding the frame as the glass broke: Page 76: "Tina took him to the living room and pointed to a large lithograph that had been knocked off the wall the day before. Its glass had cracked and some of it was missing. Fred asked her to hold it up so he could get a picture." More proof as to why no one trusts the long-running debunking of this case. 5Q5 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says why he has not published the photos. He doesn't own the rights over them. In any case it is not for us to speculate about motives. I don't know how you know that "no one" trusts the debunking of the case. Obvious you don't, and I'm sure other poltergeist fans don't either. Big deal. Equally, it is obviously false to say that "no one claimed that Resch was holding the frame as the glass broke", since, as you say, the newspaper clearly did say exactly that. On your own evidence we have the very non-mysterious fact that a picture came off the wall when no-one was looking and the fact that a girl dropped a frame on the ground. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elusive photo and an event that never happened 

message: An external link to a page presenting an eccentric viewpoint of Tina Resch legal case was recently added . It's sourced to the website of a relatively unknown telekinesis advocate, and I don't think it's a valid interpretation of EL:POV to include it as "balance" since it gives undue weight to an extreme minority view. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links