Talk:Natasha Demkina/Archive 2

message: To whom it might concern
There is a choice: go by the letter of the regulations or go by their spirit, i.e. the intent behind them.  I put it that perennially quoting the letter of the regulations, and thereby ignoring the fundamental intentions of those who thought up this service, is unhelpful.
Brian Josephson 08:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian Josephson, you may think you understand the "spirit" of Wiki policies enough to not have to abide by the "letter" of its rules, but I ask you again, please do not edit the comments of others. You have NO right -- either by the "letter" or "spirit" of Wikipedia's rules -- to delete or alter the writing of others. That includes correcting the spelling or grammar of others, as well as deleting critical comments you disagree with. I've restored the misspellings in Siqueira's post above. If he wants to correct his mistakes, he can. It's not your job nor your perogative to delete the comments of critics or polish the writing of your supporters. Askolnick
What a pointless and unnecessary fuss you make, Mr. Skolnick, falling into your own trap!  You have, I believe, in the past violated a far more important rule in regard to Julio's contributions to this page.  Get a sense of proportion, before you find yourself being categorised in a distinctly uncomplimentary manner by people on the basis of such interventions.  It might be wiser (if you are able to do it) not to carry on digging yourself into this particular hole.
Brian Josephson 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is you who is digging himself into an unpleasant hole by insisting on the right to edit and censor other user's comments on talk pages. Please stop or you will find yourself in a the situation Lumiere is now in. As Lumiere is finding out, you can disrupt Wiki forums only so long before the Wiki community finally moves to stop the disruption. Askolnick 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter or Spirit of the Wiki regulations?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: No, it does no such thing. It infers nothing of the kind. Askolnick 04:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insinuation that the critics are the result of a systematic bias.  

message: :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)
thread_title: "Not to go into details"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thank You for Not Censoring this Talk Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Appendixes cannot grow back and other facts 

message: :Demkina also claimed that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy, a claim the investigators dismissed as simply not true. 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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: . You can compose a meesage there. I have already done so. --BillC 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Askolnick 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: Oh, and Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit even got my credentials wrong. I am not a doctor.Askolnick 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why citing Discovery Channel for the appendix story? 

message: Editors involved in this debate should carefully consider the following Wiki recommendations regarding the use of reliable sources: 
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Following Wiki Policy 

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

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Is that you, Lawson? Askolnick 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No known mechanisms in the range of traditional science.    

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title: Judging NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Use of the word “Cite”

message: 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)
thread_title: Back to the Main Point