Talk:Allison DuBois

message: I'm removing references to the Two Percent Company per Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living people which holds a higher standard as to the reliability of sources for negative claims against living people.
I don't see how they meet the WP:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources standards for something publically controversial, but more importantly the website referenced as a source falls under the following sources to avoid: WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, WP:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources, and possibly others.
Like I said, Wikipedia has higher standards for living people and according to the policies, questionable sources need to be removed immediately.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Percent Co. References

message: DuBois's official site is periodically removed from this article as self-promotional or spam. I understand why editors might think along those lines, but the following comes from WP:External_links#What_should_be_linked:
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
Please leave the link unless Wikipedia changes their policy. Thanks. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DuBois's Site in External Links

message: All done editing out unsourced statements, unreliable sources, removing things that don't really belong, and reorganizing the document. I'm pretty sure someone will want to add more stuff in the near future, but I'm hoping that people stick to the guidelines of Wikipedia and the golden rule of neutrality. We don't need to get to the bottom of things and prove psychic abilities to be fake or real, or call anyone a liar or fraud. That (at least as I understand it) isn't the goal of Wikipedia. WP articles should be the least controversial articles on the web. Just my humble opinion. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, some of the unsourced material you are dealing with was added by an unsigned editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.228.142.53) who later began signing as "JoeDubois" (Allison's husband). --- LuckyLouie 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's there now as of the last edit is pretty well sourced. There's two paragraphs that I couldn't find in my brief look around the web, but I think they're accurate and not negative, so I'm pretty sure someone can find a simple newspaper or magazine article somewhere to back them up. The negative statements need really good sources. Statements like she was 6 when she claimed to have had psychic visions isn't all that controversial and can be sourced by one of her books, I'd imagine (haven't read any of them myself). I got rid of the Two Percent statements for the reasons above, but left them in the External Links because that's a different set of guidelines. I left out the ____ statement (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to) because really, that needs to come directly from the original source as it is saying bluntly that she, NBC, and anyone involved in the show lied. Something like that can't be flimsy sourced. Most of the Randi stuff I left in and just made a few wording changes so that the statements are "According to Randi, DuBois said this" instead of "DuBois said this", because I couldn't find an archived version of the DuBois page at archive.org. But even at Randi's site it never said "senile", so that was misquoted. If that really was Joe DuBois who stopped in, there's nothing defaming in here that isn't attributed to sources and nothing really crazy or controversial. Saying that Randi and CSI criticize psychics is like saying that water quenches one's thirst : ) --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 07:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now I'm really done : ) Reads much better, don't ya think? --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 09:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really did a great job, Neal. The article is 100% better. --- LuckyLouie 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lucky! Hopefully it can remain stable for awhile. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All done

message: I spent a lot of time achieving neutrality on this article and it's been stable for some time. Can someone give a reason for the neutrality tag so that it can be addressed? If not, I'd like to remove it.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: :Image:WeAreTheirHeaven.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WeAreTheirHeaven.jpg

message: How many people Googled Allison today based on tonight's episode???
I certainly did!
1/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.34.166 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/7/08 episode

message: I have concern over the following sentence: "Dr. Gary Schwartz, a tenured professor, Harvard Ph.D., and Director of The VERITAS Research Project at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Lab..."
My problem is that (1)Does it matter that he is a tenured professor?  I think it would be more appropriate to say he is a Professor of Psychology.  While "tenure" denotes some sort of standing I think it is unnecessary. (2) He is already called "Dr." why do we mention that he has a PhD or "Harvard PhD" for that matter.  Again, there is some "reputation" behind having a degree from Harvard, but that minutia should be left to his wikipedia page.
I recommend the sentence read: "Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of Psychology and Director of The VERITAS Research Project at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Lab..." they can find the tenured and Harvard parts on his wiki page (which there is already a link to)
Petercoyl (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but if we're going to include his academic qualifications to boost his image and credibility, then that would also make it fair game to note that he is a part of a fringe community of paranormalists whose paranormal ideas do not represent or have the support of the scientific mainstream community. Gregory j (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Schwartz qualifications

message: Save for this ridiculous "omgz shes a psychicics because i BELIEVE she is!!1" many of the various morons and fans of the show (similar in way to fans that believed Wicca, an actual religion, was just like Charmed thanks to the show) try to push in here, this articles dealing of her fraudulent practices is remarkably well NPOV. It shows that at least some of us understand what a good wiki article should be like without pushing unsupported claims into it. 58.170.134.254 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its a good article 

message: This article is currently highly POV. No, not because of the use of the word "claims", which needs to be there, but because the article directly suggest she is a fraud. Example: "Skeptics doubt that she has any supernatural abilities. Indeed many of her claims...". Just look at the choice of external links, "The Dubois Claims of DuBois", as if this is the article for someone who has admitted to being a fraud. This needs to be cleaned up.--DnivyØ (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But those claims have been shown to be false. If the people that she has claimed to work with deny that it ever happened, should the article not reflect that? How many times does she need to be caught out making unsubstantiated claims before the article reflects this? Gregory j (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that Schwartz tested her and claims she does have mediumistic powers has not been shown to be false, since in fact it is true. It's a failure of NPOV to baldly state that what Schwartz is doing is pseuodscience, since that's exactly what the argument between the pro-psychic and anti-psychic scientists is about, and it cannot be settled by applying your personal metaphysical commitments. Saying if X is true then we must toss out our science books is a fallacy, and it seems to misunderstand the nature of science. Einstein not like the idea that there is "spooky action at a distance", or that causality does not seem to be absolute. Nor is the fact that the past is not already fixed and immutable seem to help any. But we are stuck with this stuff, no matter how damaging it is to how we would have preferred to carry out the study of physics. Science is NOT metaphysics, still less religion. This is a bad article. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: If she wasn't a fraud, we should go ahead and start modifying science textbooks, or throw them away altogether, because her claims are in contradiction to science.--Taskshand (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: User:Spritebox removed a statement sourced to a Phoenix New Times article, stating that the source didn't say what the statement in the article said. That is not correct. Among other things, the source says of the Baseline Killer case:
::Detective Alex Femenia, the lead investigator in the "Baseline Killer" case, followed every tip he got. But DuBois led him nowhere.
::...
::Hill says that according to both the lead investigator, Femenia, and the lead supervisor on the case, DuBois had nothing to do with catching Goudeau.
::"Sometime during the sequence of crimes, the lead investigator said that, to his best recollection, he had two conversations with Ms. DuBois," Hill says. "It seemed to him that Ms. DuBois was trying to get information from him. But the only information she suggested was one statement that was totally incorrect, stating she thought the suspect was a transient and had left the state."
The article said (and now, after my revert, says again):
:Indeed many of her claims regarding work done in high profile investigations, such as her description of the Baseline rapist, have been shown to be either incorrect or of little investigative value.
The article text is a good summary of the text in the source article. In fact, I would argue that the source should drive the statement to read "no investigative value" instead of "little" as the source says that the only information she provided was "totally incorrect."  --Transity (talk • contribs) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Phoenix New Times reference and material 

message: The lead talks about her alleged co-operation with police - then never mentions it again. This seems too important an issue to simply skip (not to mention that the lead should summarize the main page). 99.244.97.75 (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's mentioned in every section of the article except the one about her books. Her claims are mentioned, criticisms of those claims are mentioned, and her claim that she, like her character, consulted with law enforcement is mentioned. Maybe I'm missing your point here. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'helps law enforcement' 

message: A real problem people like Allison face is that they often are called in to high profile cases of serial murder etc. More often than not a person totally unlike the one described by the Consultant Medium is arested and the Medium finds herself lampooned in the Media. However, the 'twist to the story' is that investigators in the future often find that the killer arested was not responsible for all the murders he was found giulty of. This is rairly mentioned in the main stream media, and the Medium never gets an opology or a fair hearing. Which means we are right back where we started, can Mediums assisst Law Enforcment Agencies? We just do not know.Johnwrd (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an intriguing, totally unsupported, highly dubious anecdote. Here's my version of the same story. A real boon to people like Allison is that they often offer unsolicited input on high profile cases of serial murder etc. More often than not, a person totally unlike the one described by the consultant "medium" is arrested. The good news for the "medium" is that such blatant, documented, obvious misses are generally never mentioned in the mainstream media, and only instances in which the "medium's" guesses were close (by way of chance, hot reading, or subjective validation) are ever reported. Interestingly, there is no "twist to the story," and the "medium" is just plain wrong.  This is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media, and the Medium never gets openly ridiculed or scorned as they deserve. Which means we are right back where we started: do "mediums" actually provide any useful input to Law Enforcement Agencies? No. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Police Investigations. 

message: she has a show about her life it is called meadim the new hit t.v. show  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.24.148 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  medium 

message: Not many people @ wikipedia would have watched Medium. The skeptic cult has taken over wikipedia, if you haven't noticed.
11/17/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.62.133 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, the Skeptic Cult.  Skepticism, from the late Latin word "scepticus" meaning "thoughtful" or "inquiring".  Now that is a cult I can get behind.  If only more people would look at the world around them with a "thoughtful and inquiring" worldview. Lol DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Skepticism

message: I reverted two changes to the intro which removed perfectly valid and in no way "strident" language about the paranormal being considered pseudoscience. The statement is properly sourced, and it conforms to WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. It was a sourced statement of fact that followed a reliable source.
Further, the fact that areas of parapsychology are considered pseudoscience is backed by WP:PSCI which says:
:Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.
Finally, the changes made seemed to constitute weasel wording - saying that psychic powers "have yet to be backed up with credible scientific evidence" lends far too much credence to the claim. It is also not what the source says - the National Science Foundation source very clearly labels this as "pseudoscience" and not "awaiting evidence." Thanks. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What the source actually says is that pseudoscience refers to "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility".  Making the statement that "communication with the dead is considered pseudoscience" is a complete non sequitur.  It's an absurd claim, by the definition given in the referenced source.  You can only call specific methods or reasoning "pseudoscience".  I am therefore removing the bad statement.Erikmartin (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree completely, and have reverted you. The statement is factually accurate, properly sourced, and fits where it is. Allison's claim to speak with the dead should be and must be balanced with the prevailing scientific view that such a claim is pseudoscientific. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to intro 

message: She has three daughters who are also psychic like she is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.128.154 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources, please.  Dreadstar ☥ 20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily found, and added to article, as her belief that her daughters share the ability. Tvoz/talk 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that someone claims to have supernatural abilities should not warrant inclusion as fact. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Sheriffjt (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 69.122.128.154, 18 December 2010 

message: I find it inconsistent that her mother is listed with the same last name (dubois) preceding by a sentence that says that Allison is married to Tim Dubois. It is highly unlikely (near impossible) that her mother's last name is the same. this seems to be in error.
:Sounds like a goof to me.  Also, the acknowledgments that Google Books lets you see for "Secrets of the Monarch" says "...to my parents, Mike and Tiena" (one n in "Tiena"); . TJRC (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Gomez at the time: "For years DuBois downplayed her abilities. The only child of Mike Gomez, a professional ballroom dancer, and Tiena, a homemaker (they divorced when she was 6 months old), she sensed she was different after seeing her deceased great-grandfather but to fit in decided to ignore her visions and premonitions." People 2005 --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Allison's husband is listed as Joe Klupar but the "Personal Life" section states "DuBois is married to Joe DuBois..." Someone needs to verify all of these names!Tcosmas (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother's last name 

message: Just want to know if my son Nicholas is happy and still with me.  And just how my future outlook looks like. 32.220.75.146 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My loss of my son and future outlook 

message: Want to know if Nicholas is with me and ok. And  my future outlook 32.220.75.146 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss and  future outlook