Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry/Archive 2

message: Hi.  I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal who is taking the mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 CSICOP.  Its looking like an edit war is getting ready to get going plus a flame war so I'd like to step in.  Now first let me establish neutrality:
* I live in the US
* I did not know there was a Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
* I have no knowledge of paranormal events outside of what is seen typically on TV
* I am an atheist and typically mediate religion cases (so I'm comfortable mediating stuff I don't necessarily believe in).  
OK now that that is out of the way I'd like to make my first mediation suggestion.  Davkal is claiming that he can't engage in reasoned debate due to threat of reversion.  KarlBunker agrees there is an edit conflict going on.  So the first thing I'd like to do is establish a policy where you both agree to discuss edits here and I'll make them.  That way no one is worried about being reverted.  You can look at Every Nation to see a mediation where I am using this technique and what this will look like after a month.  I'll sometimes ask for specific cleanups but by in large this will take the pressure off.   jbolden1517Talk 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start Mediation

message: Karl I would like you to address Davkal's point about CSICOP not conducting investigations fairly?   jbolden1517Talk 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that phrases the question correctly. I'm not sure that represents any of the edits Davkal is currently advocating, and in any case, there is no practical way to argue that CSICOP's investigations are "fair" or not. KarlBunker 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I'm hearing from him is that he has sources that indicate that CSICOP conduct biased investigations.  Hasn't CISCP every answered these charges?  How did they establish their standards?  I.E. what I'm hearing from you in this response is that you don't have any evidence that the claim isn't true. jbolden1517Talk 13:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there have been complaints that CSICOP has conducted unfair investigations. Most people who fail a test of their alleged paranormal powers complain that the test was unfair. Some of the more credible or notable criticisms of an unfair investigation or of an overall "bad attitude" are included in the article. Responses to these criticisms are also given or cited.
Davkal why do you object to the preponderance of evidence vs.  beyond a reasonable doubt analogy?  jbolden1517Talk 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the analogy presents CSICOP as "ideal" skeptics when many, including a number of founder/early members, would argue that they are unreasonable doubters - ie. pseudoskeptics. I think that if the quotes are to stay then something should be said about this. I also feel that the claim about the evidence required by (all) proponents of the paranormal is pejorative and may not even be true. One can be an ideal skeptic and still have come to the belief that some aspects of the paranormal are genuine. In short, I think the analogy presents a dichotomy where none necessarily exists and may not even accurately reflect either side in the context of of an article on CSICOP. I would have far fewer complaints about this analogy in an article devoted to scientific skpticism.Davkal 13:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK can you give me 2-3 examples where evidence would have met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and yet the claim was still rejected? jbolden1517Talk 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK can you give me a few examples of proponents of the paranormal, and claims which have met normal scientific standards but not the enhanced ones?  jbolden1517Talk 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The analogy, and the accompanying Carl Sagan quote, do not claim to be a description of CSICOP activities. They are are descriptions of the skeptical, scientific approach to claims of the paranormal which CSICOP espouses. Accordingly, the phrase CSICOP attempts to approach such claims in the manner recommended by CSICOP Fellow Carl Sagan: would best be replaced with CSICOP advocates an approach to such claims...--KarlBunker 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question investigations

message: Why the desire to list people inside of activities, particularly given there is a whole section dedicated to people?  jbolden1517Talk 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disagreement is in the removal of this short list of particularly notable members, early in the article. I would be happy with moving this list to the end of the first paragraph, where it won't conflict with any section heading. KarlBunker 13:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK tell me if that compromise (which still hits the people but moves them down) satisfied you both?  Its just a suggestion so you can revert but it was easier to do than to describe.  jbolden1517Talk 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK if you are both agreeing on a spot go ahead and make the change.  jbolden1517Talk 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activities and People

message: Can someone else interject something here, or is this supposed to be between just you three? Bubba73 (talk), 03:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article about Demkina last night, and I was going to comment on that, but I'll hold off since it is not important to the main issues.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to join in the mediation jbolden1517Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interject? 

message: Gentlemen (or ladies), I thought that edits were supposed to be discussed with the mediator first, and then the mediator would make the changes.  (I made some minor edits after the mediaton began, but only to clean up some links.)  Bubba73 (talk), 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The next thing I want to do is expand the media paragraph in the activities section. I think the following gives much more details re CSICOP's activities here.
Throughout its history, CSICOP has been involved with the media in a number of ways. As CSICOP executive director Lee Nisbet wrote in a 25th anniversary issue of Skeptical Inquirer":
"CSICOP originated in the spring of 1976 to fight mass-media exploitation of supposedly "occult" and "paranormal" phenomena. The strategy was twofold: First, to strengthen the hand of skeptics in the media by providing information that "debunked" paranormal wonders. Second, to serve as a "media-watchdog" group which would direct public and media attention to egregious media exploitation of the supposed paranormal wonders. An underlying principle of action was to use the mainline media's thirst for public-attracting controversies to keep our activities in the media, hence public eye."[2]
This media-orientation continues to the present day, with CSICOP even co-producing its own documentary series Critical Eye hosted by William B. Davis (The X-Files’ Smoking Man). CISCOP members can also be seen regularly in the mainstream media offering their perspective on a variety of paranormal claims, and in 1999 Joe Nickell was appointed special consultant on a number of investigative documentaries for the BBC. In its capacity as a media-watchdog, CSICOP has “mobilized thousands of scientists, academics and responsible communicators” to criticize what it regards as “media's most blatant excesses.” While much of this criticism has focused on factual TV programming or newspaper articles offering support for paranormal claims, CSICOP has also been critical of programmes such as The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer which it feels portray skeptics and science in a bad light and help to promote the paranormal agenda. CSICOP’s website currently lists the email addresses of over 90 US media organisations and encourages visitors to “directly influence” the media by contacting “the networks, the TV shows and the editors responsible for the way it portrays the world.”  Davkal 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazingly enough, that looks okay. It gives way more attention to their media activities than I feel is warranted, but that's no big deal. I would say also that it's nicely written. KarlBunker 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSICOP & the media

message: I've decided to leave wikipedia User:Jbolden1517#I'm done.  You may need to find another mediator.  Good luck in resolving this and remember try and be nice to each other and build up general principles from easily resolvable facts.  jbolden1517Talk 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving wikipedia 

message: In the intro it says CSICOP was founded in 1976, yet in the criticism section it says CSICOP published an article in 1975. Explain that! Davkal 22:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychokinesis by telepathic alien poltergeists, obviously. :-)  KarlBunker 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for a paranormal event

message: You could try to appeal to a broader community for consensus on these issues by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment.  Ideogram 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader input 

message: I have removed the POV flag. I still think the activities section (except the media bit) is vague inasmuch as it's mainly about theoretical stuff rather than what CSICOP actually does. I could try adding some stuff to it but I can't think of much that they actually do other than issuing press-releases, appearing on TV, and publishing general interest articles slating whatever is not to their liking. Davkal 08:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: KarlBunker asked for someone to initiate discussion of this tag. so I'll start it off.  I agree with 172.128.80.60 that the criticism section is "way too slanted against the organization".  It reads as if it were written by people who actively dislike CSICOP.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh, Bubba73, where were you when I was trying to defend this article from Mr. "Synaesthesia sufferers should get the Randi prize because they have a brain disorder that causes them to see 'auras'"? When it was just the two of us, the current content was the best compromise I could arrive at. If you would care to edit the section to make it less weighted in the direction of criticism, I'll support you. KarlBunker 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was there for part of it, and I made several comments.  I've had to reduce my Wikipedia hours.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see "aura" mentioned in the article.  What section are you talking about?  Bubba73 (talk), 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an argument Davkal was making in the discussion page. I made the mistake of trying to reason with him--a mistake I'm trying to avoid making again. KarlBunker 20:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your most recent edits seem much more NPOV.  Adelord 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of criticism section 

message: I have removed once again the word "fad". Your claim that it is "appropriately dismissive" shows all that needs to be shown about why this word should go and be replaced with a more neutral description.Davkal 13:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly appropriate to be dismissive of pseudoscience. Indeed, the term "pseudoscience" is inherently dismissive--look up "pseudo". KarlBunker 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fad

message: user:Davkal is re-adding his POV to the article, so I've added a POV tag to the article head. At the moment, I'm not feeling inclined to go through another round of 1-on-1 debate with Davkal, so unless some other editors start contributing and helping out in the removal his anti-CSICOP bias, I'm content to let the article become the slanted and worthless piece of nonsense that Davkal wants it to be. KarlBunker 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV tag belongs there because I and other editors have stated the opinion that the article is slanted, and the issues we have mentioned have not been corrected. You're correct that there is no ongoing debate about particular edits or particular issues, but that's simply because, at the moment, I don't wish to repeat the experience of getting into a 1-on-1 debate with you. KarlBunker 12:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am prepared to defend and debate my edits. I am simply not prepared to do so with you, as I know from experience that you are persistently abusive and childish in your discussions. Also, you have reinserted edits that we specifically agreed you would not insert  in our recent round of mediated debate. If you're not going to stand by your agreements, there isn't much point in my spending hours arriving at an agreement with you, is there? So in the future, when I don't respond to some comment of yours, you can take that as an indication I have chosen not to read it, not an indication that I agree with it. KarlBunker 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The bottomline here is that spending an inordinate amount of time discussing the controversy of a group compared to the rest of the size of an article is inherently POV-pushing. Just about every organization that exists have people critical of it. This one is no different, other than those criticisms are being shoved onto this article in both excessive detail and with statements that presupposes the anti-CSICOP side are right, especially be the selective use of quotes and choosing to publish the comments of otherwise nonencyclopedic and unnoteworthy people solely because they disagree with this group and not because what they would have to say would meet criteria for inclusion here. 
Creating objective articles that follow WP:NPOV policy really isn;t all that difficult, it's just that so many people don't want to. This article needs quite a bit of editing to get it up to acceptable standards. 172.136.105.55 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There are members of the USCF who disagree with it.  There are members of the ACBL who have even sued it.  I agree that there is an inordinate amount of space discussing controversy.  I'm not actively following this page, but you can leave a message on my talk page if you want me to vote on something, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 01:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "there is very little doubt that in [..] the Demkina case that CSICOP were caught fiddling" - surely you are joking. Anybody who claims to have X-ray eyes must be able to detect a metal plate in a head! The choice of five out of seven was generous, and demanding even more generosity afterwards is preposterous, especially given the fact that Demkina picked up a clue she shouldn't have by (contrary to prior agreement) watching the test persons entering the building, including a person with an artifical hip. --Hob Gadling 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Goodness, Davkal! Stick to the facts and stop sticking in your opinions. The researchers used no out. From the beginning of the test negotiations, all parties had agreed that for Natasha Demkina to pass the test, she would have had to match at least five of the conditions to the correct subjects.  She failed to do that and the only "out" that has been heard in this affair is coming Woo-woo community: "Cheaters! The passing score should have been set lower!"  As is usual, psychics and their supporters are the ones who offer "outs" to explain their failure to demonstrate anything paranormal under controlled conditions. Askolnick 14:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And it's somehow invalid for the researchers to mention ways in which the subject violated the agreed-upon protocol, or to mention weaknesses in the nature of the test which allowed opportunities for cheating? KarlBunker 15:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slanted amount of criticism to an article is highly POV

message: I have requested mediation since I am trying to change the article in light of the claims of POV and Karl Bunker keeps simply changing it back to the claimed POV version even though he is one of those claiming it is POV. I have probably now reverted Karl's stuff more than 3 times but my new edit was reverted by him more than that. Davkal 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I thought mediation was a 3-or-more person process: Two (or more) people debating, and a neutral party to act as mediator. As I've stated, I'm not interested in debating with you again, with or without a mediator. We already did that, and after we arrived at several agreements over a weeks-long process, you went ahead and broke your agreements, inserting edits that we had mutually decided would not be inserted. If not keeping your agreements is part of the process for you, I don't see why anyone would be willing to get into protracted debates with you. As for your purported attempts to make the article less slanted against CSICOP, your method seems to be to make the criticisms and responses "shorter and more to the point" by removing the responses. I fail to see how this makes the article less slanted against CSICOP. KarlBunker 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would probably disagree with something in this comment, if only I had some idea what you were talking about. No need to clarify, however. I'm probably happier not understanding whatever it is you're trying to say. KarlBunker 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In that opinion, Davkal, you appear to be a majority of one. Askolnick 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: requested mediation

message: Could interested parties take a look at the two versions compared here and post their opinions? The right side is somewhat less weighted in the direction of criticism, though not hugely so. Do you think there's still too much criticism on the right side version? Not enough on the left side? One or the other "just right"? Speak out. KarlBunker 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the changes, for the most part.  One thing, I think the nickname "PSI cops" could be mentioned on the right.  IIRC, when CSICOP started, they stated that the second "C" was to be pronounced "S", but I don't know where I read that.  However, the criticism still reads sort of like an attack ad, where you dig up all of the dirt you can and blow it out of proportion.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Read my entire comment.  I agreed with the changes.  What I said later clearly indicates that I think it is too slanted in its criticizm.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on content 

message: The POV tag has now been on the srticle for over a week - Karl Bunker put it there and has done nothing to the article other than reverting any change back to the one he claimed was POV in the first place. Is there any real point in it being there?Davkal 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your characterizations of my activities and the history of the article content are both incorrect, but no matter. Since, as of a few hours ago, you were trying to make large changes to the article which (IMO) considerably changed its POV balance, and since the current revision is a lot closer to "my" version than "yours," I would think that you would be the one arguing for the POV tag at this point. If you want to remove the tag from this revision, that's fine with me. Just be sure to put it back the next time your 24 3RR time is up and you revert the article to something like "your" version. KarlBunker 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and I've put it back, since you added your POV with the same edit that you removed the tag. To describe pseudoscience in such a scrupulously "non-dismissive" way is POV and technically inaccurate, by virtue of the definition of "pseudoscience." Time for me to go back to not wasting my time by reading your comments, I think. KarlBunker 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Citations are required to verify that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is equivalent to the standard required by U.S. criminal courts and "preponderance of evidence" is equivalent to the standard required by U.S. civil courts. Addhoc 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an analogy; "a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification." (Oxford Dictionary). The key phrase here is "for the purpose of explanation or clarification." An analogy makes no statement of fact, and asking for "verification" is contrary to the definition of the word. KarlBunker 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, well, that's different. What you're asking for is this to be made a quotation, as in: "Physicist Joe Blow compared the requirements of scientific method to..." rather than the analogy being something that some WP editor invented. That's not a matter of "verification," that's finding POV in the editor's choice of words, and making that POV acceptable by having it be a quotation. As for the specifics of your objection, I have to disagree with you again. "Preponderance is not "less than balance of evidence"; it is "the quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance" (Oxford Dictionary). You should get yourself a Mac; there's a dictionary built into the OS; very handy. KarlBunker 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Addhoc, you're using the word "preponderance" in a way that has nothing to do with how it's used in the article, and in general I can't locate any connection between your arguments around this analogy and the actual text of the article. However, I'll accede to the removal of the analogy, since it's hardly crucial to the article, and because I'm tired of discussing it. In the future, if you want to argue convincingly about any important change to an article, you're going to have to be a lot more careful and more clear about the meaning and context of the words you use. Sorry to be so uppity, but them's the facts as I see 'em. KarlBunker 01:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that what's being referred to are the capriciously changing public tastes in a popular cultural phenomenon, I think that "fads" is obviously the most correct word. But I won't argue the point any further at the moment. KarlBunker 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: One of the other sections being disputed is the criticism section. I think the Mars Effect paragraph should have it's own heading and should contain a bit more detail than is currently the case. The main points I would like to see added are that the controversy lasted for many years and that it resulted in a number of resignations. The section below was previously removed - I think it should be included again.
"Perhaps the most serious internal criticism of CSICOP concerned its analysis of French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky - the so-called Mars effect. Founder member Dennis Rawlins claimed that other CSICOP researchers used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. The controversy dragged on for nearly five years before Rawlins went public with his version of events in an article for Fate magazine. In the article Rawlins made the accusation of a cover-up at the highest levels within CSICOP and concluded, "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." [5] CSICOP's Philip Klass investigated Rawlins' claims and wrote a lengthy article in rebuttal. [6] Klass' article caused further division, however, and was labelled "a disgrace" by CSICOP fellow Richard Kammann who, with a number of other members, left the organisation shortly after."
Davkal 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Such an edit is an overlong example of criticism which unbalances the article, and you given any good reason for putting the Mars effect criticism in its own section. KarlBunker 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mars Effect

message: CSICOP have been known as the "Psi-cops" almost since their inception. The organisation were certainly aware of their nickname prior to 1980 when I used to read it in the SI (to which I used to subscribe). Getting a reference to state "this is officially their nickname" will be difficult but you can find it everywhere on the web as it is a fairly well-known fact (put "CSICOP Psi cops" into a search engine). A couple of places that might be acceptable to use here are Uri geller's site, and it is also cited in Valerie Vaughn's article 'Re-Bunking the Debunkers' which can be found at http://www.onereed.com/articles/rebunk.html. Davkal 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the Psi-Cops

message: 1. What is the point of including, afetr every criticism, some line to the effect "but CSICOP disagrees". I think the readers can judge that CSICOP would not agree so to write it every time simply takes up space and makes the article look very petty.
Ok, I think concerns relating to overall balance are worth discussing. However, in my limited experience, most Wikipedia articles have a section labelled "criticism" instead of  "criticism and response". Addhoc 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism section

message: The CSICOP redirect was not put in place for the page Talk:CSICOP, and I just found the following comment there, so I'm moving here to join the appropriate archive.  I'll put in the redirect.Mike Christie (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section moved from "CSICOP" talk page