Talk:Natasha Demkina/Archive 3

message: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/reason_demkina_050128.html
: (→References - -- Rm reference just added. This would need to be discussed in the talk page. Are you ready?) 
This is the warning I wrote in the comment field when I removed this reference, so that people think about it twice before putting it back in. Oh well! Too late! -Lumière 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference 

message: Let us focus on the policy now! It requests that findings must be sourced with a third-party  publisher  publication. Therefore, the question that we should ask here is not whether CSMMH and CSICOP are respectable organizations. The question is not whether the Skeptical Inquirer is a credible  publisher  publication. The question is whether the Skeptical Inquirer can be used as a third-party  publisher  publication for the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test? -Lumière 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party 
 publishers
 publications for the findings of the CSMMH-CSICOP test

message: Here is the critique in question: Critique on the CSICOP/Demkina investigation
Kept this bit for reference purposes. Remainder moved to Archive2. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA)
---
As the author of the web page concerned I'd like to make a few comments:
1. My article on the subject of the Demkina expt. is a comparatively minor matter as far as I am concerned -- who will care about the CSICOP investigation in a few years' time?  I have far more important things to do with my time than to polish what I have written for publication and go through all the processes involved.
2. This business about 'self-publication' and 'personal web pages' misses the point.  What is important mainly is whether this is part of my professional activity as a member of the academic staff of Cambridge University or (like my comet pictures) a personal activity.  My annual report to the university includes mention of 'educating people regarding various controversial issues', of which the page concerned is an example.
3. The Department's 'research' page in the past listed every research group at the Cavendish, including my own Mind-Matter Unification project (with a link to it), which perhaps would have convinced people (with ask being an exception no doubt) that my web pages (with obvious exceptions such as that already noted) were connected with my professional activities rather than personal ones.  On checking this up I see that this is no longer the case.  For reasons of image, some renaming and reorganisation has taken place at the Cavendish (e.g. low temperature physics has become 'quantum matter'), and along with this some bureaucrat decided only the administrative divisions should be listed, which must irritate people in subgroups such as Geometric Algebra (you have to find that under Astrophysics > research interests now, hardly an obvious place to look!) as much as me.  Anyway, the take home point is that when I decided to create a separate identity with its own appellation for my projects many years ago, no objection was raised when I suggested there be a separate link for the mind-matter unification project the request was readily acceded to.  [I shall re-request this, so maybe it will be back soon].
4. Either here or elsewhere askolnick has suggested that I am not professionally qualified to assess his experiment.  Since I have a First Class Degree in Mathematics (as well as in Physics) at Cambridge University, and one of my lecture courses at the time was on Mathematical Statistics, I suspect I am better qualified to comment on the statistical aspects than askolnick is.  askolnick also seems to think that the absence of the university logo shows the page is unofficial.  If he will pay me for the time it would take, I will gladly add that logo to the page concerned to settle his worries.  I am not the only person in our group who has not included the logo on his web pages, which is an advisory matter only.
5. That I am 'scorned by colleagues' seems to be one of these urban myths propagated by outsiders who disapprove of my ideas (though maybe I am not the person best placed to judge this, but I can't say I've ever noticed colleagues avoiding me, at any rate).  It may be relevant to note that a graduate student of mine was recently approved for a Ph.D. on the subject of quantum coherence.
BrianJ 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professor Josephson’s Critique

message: As BillC mentioned, there should be a link to Natasha Demkina's web site. That is appropriate under Wiki guidelines. Also, the article should be updated to include the fact that, although only a first year medical student, her web site says she has formerly hung up her shingle to practice medical diagnoses. She has opened a diagnostic and treatment center for patients in Moscow, where she is "supervising" other "degreed specialists."
I ran her web site through Altavista's Babelfish for a crude translation, which says she has established a "Center for Special Diagnostics" in Moscow and is heading its "Office of Energy-Information Diagnostics," where she is providing patients with diagnosis and supervising their treatment -- all without a medical degree or license. 
Here's the Babelfish translation:
:On the center
:The center of special diagnostics of man (in abbreviated form TSSD) is created in 2005. From January 2006 TSSD opened in Moscow the office of energy-information diagnostics of Natalie demkinoy.
:The Director-General OF TSSD is Taranenko Albert viktorovich.
:TSSD is created in order together with rendering aid to population in the diagnosis, to assign on the joint operation of specialists, who possess uncommon abilities, people healers and professionals of traditional medicine. In our opinion, this association will help not only to raise to the new level the methods of diagnostics and treatment, but also to complete breakthrough in many scientific directions, connected with human health.
:We invite to the collaboration of all interested in this persons.
:Services
:1. In the center works the diagnostic office of Natalie demkinoy, where energy-information diagnostics of human organism is conducted.
:This form of diagnostics provides for the survey of entire organism of patient to the presence in it of the most significant pathologies and, most important, are determined the reasons for disease. Support is done to the survey of interaction of all systems of organism (hormonal, cardiovascular, central nervous system, etc.). Often it is necessary to supervise of the processes, proceeding at the cellular level, revealing in this case even virus diseases.
:2. In the center the office of classical and segmental- reflector massage also works. The estimation of the quality of the work of these degreed specialists passed under a strict control by Natalie demkinoy.
Someone competent who can translate Russian should add this information to the article because it is 1) essential and 2) based on an acceptable source according to Wiki guidelines. Askolnick 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above, when properly translated, should be presented in a neutral way. Proponents will see it as positive. Opponents will see it the other way. We should just present the facts.  Also, Andrew, I feel that you try, without saying explicitly, to justify your silly sentence about Natasha affirming that appendixes grow back. None of the above is a justification for this sentence. Again, we have no idea what is the real situation. Maybe she did not say anything about appendixes growing back, and it is only your misinterpretation. Maybe she mentioned something about appendixes growing back, but we don't know exactly what. Unless you can provide the facts that support your claim, this part of the article is not acceptable. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Please work out your differences here on the talk page instead of edit warring. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Katefan0! Askolnick 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, we have our dispute tag! -Lumière 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I've just seen  the Girl with the X-Ray eyes. Unfortunately I didn't have a tape to record. It will be repeated in 6 hours, and I'll tape it. 
It will be on TLC, my Ch. 50 Comcast cable, San Jose, CA, 2am April 13. `'mikka (t) 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA airing 

message: Let's put NPOV and RS and V aside for a minute and, without even thinking about those perspectives for a moment, review this article and ask, does it really serve to describe the topic in a meaningful and thorough way? I don't think anyone can honestly say it does. We can say "it's NPOV and RS/V and that's enough", but it's not. Article quality does not come simply from meeting NPOV, RS, and V. If it did, there would be thousands of FA stubs.
If you're here just to fight for the principles of RS/V, that's fine, but please don't pretend you're doing it to help the article. If you must be destructive (removing content) or obstructive (preventing content), at least try to be constructive (adding content) to make up for it.
That being said, can everyone try not to fight endless battles over sources?
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I restore this section from the archives? :)  Looks like we're continuing the dispute over sources and content. Dreadlocke 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final thoughts 

message: Dreadlocke's recent comments have reminded me of something I read in Wikipedia's policy:
:"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." (emphasis mine)
That these three policies "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" is particularly pertinent to the content of this article. In the debate over sources, I think a lot of lawyering has gone on with regard to the guidelines on sources, to the detriment of maintaining a neutral point of view. The result is that a lot of admittedly dubious (but relevant) sources have been rejected wholesale (even as primary sources for their own content), resulting in a skewed and incomplete coverage of the article's subject. Even with recent additions to the History section, over half of the text of this article is still dedicated to discussing a single test from a single point of view, as advocated by a single organization (CSMMH is a closely affiliated offshoot of CSICOP).
In the source dispute, I think people have also overlooked the note at the top of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, which reads: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (emphasis mine) Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives guidelines for which exceptions may be found, but these guidelines do not supercede policies such as NPOV, which are non-negotiable.
Given the above, I think a NPOV overhaul is overdue. Natasha's website and the tabloid coverage she has received should be treated in accordance with guidelines concerning sources of dubious reliability with respect to extraordinary claims and scientific information, but not rejected altogether. This is a paranormal subject whose widest publicity has come from the tabloids, and a balanced treatment requires a description of the coverage she has received from them--especially with regard to certain details, such as her trip to Japan, which have not been covered by the mainstream press. The section documenting CSICOP/CSMMH's evaluation and criticism of Demkina ought to be trimmed and balanced with notable paranormalist points of view concerning the test. The article ought to avoid presenting a "last word" on Demkina's claims, but present the various notable points of view reliably and neutrally. Rohirok 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and the source dispute: Balance is needed

message: A few editors here have been acting as if they do not see the elephant in this room. Even if they really cannot see its big, imposing form, they surely should smell the peanuts on its breath. The elephantine point they continue to ignore is their failure to find ANY reputable source for the dubious information they insist on adding to the Demkina article. So instead, they continue to defend the non-reputable sources they've come up with. However, the pachyderm in this room is too big to be ignored.
The fact that they are unable to find any reputable sources for the claims of the young Russian quack is that her claims are only grist for the mills of the sleazy newspaper tabloids, like the one they insist on citing.
A century ago, German physicist Wilhem Roentgen announced his discovery of an invisible form of light that can be used to see inside of human bodies. At first, his announcement was met with skepticism and even accusations of fraud. But in literally a matter of a few months, Roentgen's discovery was published in a major science journal, was widely replicated by scientists throughout the world, and was publicly hailed as the monumental discovery that it was.
Fast forward one century:  a Russian school girl claims she can use a mysterious vision to see inside of people's bodies and diagnose their illnesses. A Russian and then a British tabloid touted her claims alongside articles on haunted houses, alien abductions, and the finding of Noah's ark. The tabloids announced a discovery that, if it were true, would be far greater than the one Roentgen announced a century before. 
So where are the scientific publications that reported the "experiments" "scientists" performed on this girl that were described in the tabloids? Where are the reputable newspaper accounts on one of the most remarkable phenomena ever discovered that could benefit humankind even more than the discovery of X-rays?  They don't exist, for good reasons. As Wikipedia rules and guidelines acknowledge, reputable publications fact check. They do not willingly participate in the promotion of frauds and hoaxes - especially fraud that can harm sick people. Sleazy news tabloids and countless self-published personal web sites have no such scruples.
The founders of Wikipedia and the vast majority of Wiki editors have those scruples. And that's why efforts to ignore this elephant are not going to succeed. Wiki guidelines instruct editors to avoid using dubious sources of information - like newspaper tabloids and self-published material on personal web sites. They tell us that if something is important enough to report, editors should be able to find it in a reputable source, and that it is preferable to wait until reputable sources have had time to review or comment on claims made in non-reputable sources. In other words, they tell us to watch for the elephant and not to pretend it doesn't exist. The few here who inisist on citing personal web sites and sleazy news tabloids would prefer us to ignore the elephant. Askolnick 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind to the elephant in this room 

message: *I have the book 'Accidental Genius' where on page 24, where M. Kearney says to his pediatrician 'I have a left ear infection.'. --Jondel 07:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what Bishonen said more carefully. She asked for a report in a credible scientific publication BY a pediatrician - not a report about a pediatrician in a non-peer reviewed book.Askolnick 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence taking at 6 months

message: Some people may wonder why the fight over whether Pravda RU should be used as a source of information for the Demkina article has gone on so long. The reason may be that some editors see Pravda RU as a useful source for the Wikiproject Paranormal. A couple of editors who are in favor of using Pravda RU identify 
themselves on their talk pages with the Wikiproject Paranormal template that says they are "dedicted to expanding all paranormal articles."  
 It certainly would be a lot easier to expand paranormal articles if editors were allowed to cite Pravda RU articles. It is often difficult to find reputable sources for many dubious claims of pseudoscientists, psychics, quacks, and other New Age charlatans. Pravda RU, however, is an online goldmine for uncritical
reports on the claims of crackpots and charlatans. If Pravda RU were an 
acceptable source for Wiki articles, expanding Wiki articles on the paranormal would be a snap: An editor could simply search an appropriate key word on the Pravda RU site and he or she would likely find several reports to cite for expanding almost any paranormal article. The more sensational and dishonest the claim, the more likely one can find it featured in an article in Pravda RU. Try it. Just plug in any pseudoscientific claim into the search box and see how easy it is to find published "evidence" for just about any crackpot or dishonest claim:  Here are some I gathered this evening: 
:Russian scientist invents a camera that takes pictures of ghosts, ancient wariors, dinosaurs, and other things from the past
:Invisible forces attack humans shear their hair and inflict terrible wounds
:With the help of wooden pyramids an inventor makes people healthier and food better
:Aliens take samples of semen and ovule from human abductees for their genetic experiments
:Aliens live on Earth, under the ground: A lot of respectable scientists and writers believed that Earth is hollow inside
:Do not offend water: it remembers every word you say: One day theoretical science will no longer have doubts about water's memory while high tech specialists will be making “water” computers controlled by telepathy
:Russia accused of artificially generating freak hurricanes over America: The hurricanes which have been raging recently off the American coast were created by Russian military specialists. Using a special electromagnetic generator they have perfected a secret meteorological weapon, capable of striking innocent people from any distance and destroying their homes. This accusation was recently made by American meteorologists.
:Earth to stretch sideways and then turn into a cold star
:According to even modest estimates, this dust adds at least 1 billion tons every year. Some experts say that dinosaurs became extinct because of the planet's growth and the proportional increase of gravitation; under those conditions dinosaurs could no longer bear their own weight.
:Mysterious amphibious human-like creature spotted in the Caspian Sea
:Psychic security department protects Russian presidents from external psychological influenceL Americans have created radiators of modulated signals, which control people's behavior thousands of kilometers from afar. 
:Human eyes possess destructive power of laser: It was known long ago that people could kill with their eyes
:Ukrainian man eats only sunshine and lives by the law of flowers 
:Russian scientists create perpetual space motion machine 
:Coffee to Cure Baldness 
:Autotrophs: new kind of humans appears who neither drink nor eat 
:Ancient Egyptians used helicopters and airplanes for battles? There is a scientific theory that says that Egyptians descended from Martians who had once visited this planet 
:Scientists from the Russian city of Voronezh managed to produce milk and coffee from…blood. Scientists from a[n unidentified] technological academy located in the Russian city of Voronezh developed a revolutionary technique of producing an entire array of food products such as milk, yogurt, chocolate and coffee from blood.
:Terrible mutations may turn humans into plants or animals:(Features report of a teenage girl who is turning into a cactus.) 
:Were Cro-Magnons Biologically Engineered by Extraterrestrials?
:(The article says yes.)
:Meteor showers to devastate planet Earth: Someone in deep black space deliberately bombards the Earth with meteorites 
:No food, No water...for 68 years: A 76-year-old Indian Prahad Djani has mesmerized doctors and scientists. He has not been eating or drinking in the course of 68 years. He has not been defacating either 
:Russian woman can see her past lives 
:Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ
:
:Specialists find scientific explanation to phenomenon of living dead: Humans believe in the possibility to bring the dead back from their graves, although the eerie perspective evokes nothing but fear 
Here's one of my favorite Pravda RU headlines:
:Astronomers find the gate into parallel worlds... Only housewives believe in three-dimensional space. None of the serious scientists would dare support such a stupid idea. 
Anyone who wants to expand paranormal articles should do so with reputable sources and not ones that claim Natasha Demkina has x-ray vision, that humans are cloning another Christ from the DNA of God, and that "only housewives" are "stupid" about the shape of space. Pravda RU lies in the gutter of journalism. The sleazy tabloid is a disreputable source of information on any subject. Any writing that is based on Pravda RU will be just as disreputable. I don't believe any Wiki editors should defend Pravda RU as a source of information for any Wiki article. Askolnick 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This illustrates my point earlier perfectly. Andrew, in this statement, indicates that he defines "reputable source" based on whether or not they make statements that conform with his (and his associates') worldview. What he continually fails to acknowledge is that Wikipedia is not here to conform to his worldview. The proper attitude is one that does not presuppose a particular POV as fact. As one long-time Wikipedian once said, we are not here to determine what is true and not true. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "perfectly illustrated" here is another of Keith Tyler's personal attacks, in which he deliberately misrepresents my position and my comments. This latest is a pure crock: Nowhere have I defined "reputable scource" as being "based on whether or not they make statements that conform with my worldview." I have repeatedly cited and defended Wiki's definition and guidelines on reputable sources. Having failed to convince the Wiki community that the trash tabloid Pravda RU is a reputable publication, he's returned to attacking me for blocking his attempt to use these pages of pestulence as a Wiki source on pro-paranormal claims. Askolnick 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A source that claimed something as ridiculous as that would be deemed completely inappropriate on just about any article on a scientific topic on Wikipedia.  It would be dismissed as a crank source, and rightly so.  Why should it be any different here?  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the aligned (i.e. "pro") POV in the topic area of the article's subject matter is best represented by such a source, and much less so by mainstream sources. To achieve NPOV, significant POVs, no matter how wacky, oddball, spurious, or of any other subjective adjective; or even no matter how misstated, confused, misled, or mistaken, be included. If there wasn't a significant amount of people who believed in e.g. the powers alleged by Demkina (et al. ad inf.) were possible, CSICOP and CSMMH would not exist, Andrew would have to find a new photog gig, and this WP article would have been CSD'd. But such people do exist, and in notable number. This needs to be recognized, and covered fairly. Such a principle would be the rule in any WP article in any other topic area. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has guidelines for reliable sources which rule out sources like Pravda RU. There's a big difference between noting the fact that some people believe in XYZ, and using as a source a tabloid that prints fictional accouts of XYZ happening as if they were truth. KarlBunker 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, because Keith Tyler and a few other editors are determined to put pro-paranormal material into this article to support Natasha Demkina's claim of having supernatural powers. Unable to find material to support that view in any reputable publications, he and Dreadlocke have been arguing that Pravda RU is reputable. When I respond by posting examples of the dishonest drivel the sleazy newspaper pumps out, they switch to personally attacking me. Works for them, I guess. The rest of us, I'm not so sure. Askolnick 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Askolnick, this is your last warning. Mention another editor like you have above and you will be blocked. Keith, that goes for you too. --InShaneee 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: InShaneee, instead of responding to my complaint on WP:AN/I -- or to any of the editors and administrators who have agreed your actions were unjustified -- you continue to harrass and threaten me for any criticism of pro-paranormal editors. And here you turn a blind eye to Keith Tyler's personal attack, but threaten to block me for responding to HIS attack! Not only are Wiki administrators not allowed to use their blocking powers to censor content they don't like - as you blatantly did - they are not allowed to discriminate and use their power to protect editors on the side of an editing dispute  they support. Repeatedly, you have stood by and watched Tyler and Dreadlocke post one personal attack after another, while using your administrative authority to threaten me. Such conduct is an abuse of the authority giving to you by the Wiki community. This latest threat doesn't leave me wuth any real options. Unless you can show where you ever threatened to block Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke, and Andrew Homer for their personal attacks, I will begin the mutually unpleasant process of filing a Wikipedia:RfC over this and your previous abuse of administrative authority. Your choice. Askolnick 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Karl you're not completely right here, because I was quite wrong. Somehow, I did not see the last sentence in which InShaneee warned Keith too. I'm withdrawing this complaint and apologizing to InShaneee for saying he's never warned Keith not to make personal attacks. I hope now I can expect more even handed treatment. Askolnick 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we all agreed now? Okay. No more personal attacks and let's please try to get this article as best as it could ever posbiyly. be.Smith Jones 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I object. I've been misrepresented for months, derided as a "woo-woo" pseudoscientific ninny, all because I strongly believe in the objective and unbiased principle of NPOV. Only now does an admin say anything about it -- and lumps me in, too, despite my being painfully civil and objective nearly this whole time. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are some defending Pravda RU as a Wiki source? 

message: It starts out like this:
:Natasha Demkina
:Natalia Nikolayevna Demkina (Russian: Наталья Николаевна Демкина; born 1987), usually known under the hypocoristic naming Natasha Demkina, is a young woman from Saransk, Russia, who claims to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical diagnoses. Since the age of ten, she has performed readings in Russia. In 2004 she appeared on television shows in the United Kingdom and on the Discovery Channel. Since 2004 Demkina has been a full-time student of the Semashko State Stomatological University, Moscow.
The article is absolutely biographical in nature and for the purposes of rules governing biographies put in place to prevent libel and subsequent legal action, it qualifies as a biography. Anyone doubting this should post a request for commentary.  Anyone violating the rules regarding biography or removing the biography tag on the talk page is clearly putting the Wikipedia project at risk.  -THB 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the bio question comes up. It seems pretty clear that if the article title is a person's name, then it's a bio. Despite the unfortunate prominence of a particular event in the article, it's still a bio, not an article on that event. This is, of course, the crux of the ongoing saga of this article -- how to expand it beyond that event. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the page history for this talk page.  KarlBunker is in another edit war , claiming that this article is not a biography! -THB 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article a biography or not?