Talk:Natasha Demkina: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:31, 16 January 2007 editDreadstar (talk \| contribs)53,180 editsm →Pregnancy Press: in this case← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:05, 16 January 2007 edit undoNick Graves (talk \| contribs)4,593 edits →Pregnancy Press: Dammit Jim, I'm a gynecologist, not a journalist!Next edit →
Line 89:		Line 89:

	::I must also point out that the particular "exceptional claim" (if it can be called that) from the article, was not even used in the Misplaced Pages article, so that further invalidates the argument for "exceptional sources" for "exceptional claims" in this case - that particular claim wasn't even made or repeated here (as far as I can see). ] <small> ] </small> 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)		::I must also point out that the particular "exceptional claim" (if it can be called that) from the article, was not even used in the Misplaced Pages article, so that further invalidates the argument for "exceptional sources" for "exceptional claims" in this case - that particular claim wasn't even made or repeated here (as far as I can see). ] <small> ] </small> 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			:::By the logic you use above, a clinic that gives nutritional advice is a reliable source for news of sasquatch sightings. Entities reliable in one respect are not necessarily reliable in others.

			:::From what I gather from the admittedly awkward translation from Russian, the article in question says that Demkina passed all of the tests the scientists put her through. In other words, her abilities have been authenticated--she has X-ray vision. Claims don't get much more extraordinary than that. True, the current version of the Misplaced Pages article doesn't make that claim, but a previous version stated that Demkina "diagnosed the early stages of pregnancy with a female patient, and diagnosed an undulating spinal curvature in another subject; producing a drawing that was almost identical to X-rays of the patient" based on the Pregnancy Press article. These are the sort of fantastic statements that find their way into articles when unreliable sources are used. That's something we ought to avoid, and that's why I removed the Pregnancy Press article as a source.

			:::The matter is probably moot, as there is nothing in the Pregnancy Press article that is not on Demkina's website, and that source is already being accepted to document claims Demkina makes about herself. ] 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:05, 16 January 2007

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

[REDACTED]

Paranormal Start‑class

[REDACTED]	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Natasha Demkina received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
/Archive1 to 5 February 2006 /Archive2 5 February 2006 to 10 May 2006 /Archive3 10 May 2006 to 22 October 2006

Archiving

I hope no one minds that I archived the rest of the older discussion. Feel free to put it back, if you're so inclined, but I think we need to start with a fresh slate here. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent rewrite

I disagree with the recent rewrite of this article, or at least with the way it was put in place, without any discussion on the talk page. In a controversial article like this one, such drastic changes are pretty much guaranteed to end in edit warring. Rl 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The content was 80% the same as the original article and used the same sources. It was just edited for POV and re-ordered. If you have an issue with an individual piece of content, then tag it. Wholesale revision smells of personal-ownership issues, which are a no-no.

perfectblue 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Perfectblue's version is excellent, perhaps needing some small modifications; and putting into place as she did was according to Misplaced Pages policy, which says Be Bold! There has been no discussion on this article in a very long time. And please don't threaten edit warring, it's just not proper... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New draft

There is a new draft in the wiki-memory space. Please discuss

perfectblue 09:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss changes, not whole texts. We don't have to spend all our lives sifting thru completely rewritten texts. Please list here a what exactly you added and deleted. `'mikka 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just pick a section and start discussing it. It's not important where you start.

perfectblue 08:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo

When dealing with the paranormal, self published material is sufficient to provide an overview of extraordinary claims as part of a chronology of events about them that is primarily supported by external sources. So long as it is provided in context, and is not passed off as an independent scientific document.

I have made some modifications to the section and restored it. If claims are spurious, then they are spurious, what matters is that it is recorded that said claims were made.

perfectblue 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

All Misplaced Pages articles ought to be built from reliable sources. Without reliable sources to back up all of the content, the content is not Verifiable. Sources such as Demkina's own website are of dubious reliability at best. Certain information may be reliably sourced from her website. However, claims that her abilities have been scientifically confirmed in any way must not be sourced to her website. She is making extraordinary claims, and extraordinary evidence is needed before those claims can be reported here as truth. Given the lack of any sort of peer review for the website, and given Demkina's financial conflict of interest, such extraordinary evidence can never be found in her own website. Nick Graves 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think Demkina's own website is perfectly acceptable as a source as long as it is cited as the reference. As in the section on Self-published sources, her site is relevant to her notablility, not contentious, not unduly self-serving, not talking about third-parties, and we definitely know who wrote it - and as perfectblue says above:

"When dealing with the paranormal, self published material is sufficient to provide an overview of extraordinary claims as part of a chronology of events about them that is primarily supported by external sources. So long as it is provided in context, and is not passed off as an independent scientific document."

Remember, this is a biography of a living person, not a scientific article in a scientific journal. We're not reporting her claims as "truth" here, we're just reporting her statements, very clearly attributed as to be "according to accounts on her personal website."

Dreadlocke ☥ 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Center of Special Diagnostics

Regarding the removed edit: "and a member of the Center of Special Diagnostics; a unit which specializes in researching folk healing, traditional medicine, and claims of unconventional healing abilities." this not an "advert", it's what she does! And there's no "judgement" here either, I clearly see the word "claims" in there. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting University and of diagnosticg Center who consists of Demkina and unknown who else is an insult to a common sense. Show me an independent evaluation of this "Center", please. `'mikka 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your comment about an "insult to common sense" as a personal attack - and at the very least uncivil. I strongly suggest you moderate your comments. It is certainly not a "shameless promo", as you state in the edit summary , it is what she is doing - going to the University and being part of the Center. One has nothing to do with the reputation of the other, and I don't believe I need to show you an "independent evaluation" of the Center to add it to her list of current activities, but I will check with perfectblue to see if there is another place for this information. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add this information anywhere else as long as you will find a reliable source. Please remember, personal websites may be used as sources about persons, but not about organizations. If thic "center" consists of 2-3 persons, then it fails any common sense of notability. That is why I wrote "insult to common sense". Any crook can open such a center. And to put it on par wath a university is a mockery of encyclopedia. And yess it is a shameless promo. If this "center" is notable to mention it as an important part of person's bio in the intro!, you are welcome to write an article about it. Oh, yest, and she os not "art" of the center. She is the reason of this center to exist. `'mikka 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand of Russian, the name of the place is "Special Diagnostic Center of Natalia Demkina", so yes it is notable as part of her life. You give the very reason for it's notability yourself when you say: "She is the reason of this center to exist." You make my case for me, because that's exactly why it's notable and relevant for this article, and YES, in the intro! It's her own organization! So her personal website (which is under the organizations name, to boot) is a perfectly acceptable source for information on it.

Your personal opinion that these are 'crooks' has absolutely no place in Misplaced Pages, not even on this talk page. I didn't identify you by name, but I checked with Jimbo on earlier attacks you made last year against the mother and Natasha, here is his response:

I think such negative commentary on a talk page is unnecessary and undignified. I would recommend that the author of it be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject. I am not sure if I would delete it from the talk page or not... I would tend to say yes, delete it, but this will depend on the full circumstances and probably should not be done lightly depending on the personality and so forth of the counter-party.--Jimbo Wales 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow-up at the time because I was preparing for major surgery, but I'm not letting it pass this time. I'm considering deleting your comments, but I would hope that you take Jimbo's suggestions to heart and soften or delete them yourself.

Dreadlocke ☥ 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained my objections. I have nothing against its inclusion, only you have to say this in a manner and in a place proportional to its importance. `'mikka 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the negative comment and removing this page from my watclist. Demkina is all but forgotten by Russain media. If you want to stir this pot of nosnsense, well, I've seen people with stranger hobbies. `'mikka 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy Press

From what I understand and see in the translation , this article is not a reprint from a tabloid, it is an article written by Svetlana Kuzina that was sold or printed by several different vendors (including tabloids and whatnot), but Pregnancy Press is not a tabloid and can be used as a WP:RS. This is an article by a Russian reporter, it's contents are verifiable and can be used if properly referenced and attributed. It may not be considered as the complete "truth", but it is "verifiability not truth" that is the bar for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article at Pregnancy Press is identical to an article attributed to Komsomolskaya Pravda and hosted on Demkina's website. The latter is already being used as a source for Demkina's claims about herself, so citing Pregnancy Press is unnecessary in any case. Furthermore, it appears that the Pregnancy Press site focuses on health issues for pregnant mothers, and is not a news agency with a reputation for fact-checking of articles it reprints. The article ends with the claim that Demkina's abilities have been verified scientifically, which is quite an extrordinary claim to make. An article hosted by a pregnancy center's website does not qualify as an exceptional source for this exceptional claim, so it should not be used. Nick Graves 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of "exceptional claims" and "exceptional sources" when dealing with all things paranormal have already been addressed in the above sections: Talk:Natasha Demkina#Tokyo and Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Reliable_sources. Since identical information is acceptable from the Demkina website, I'll leave it be. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the very last statement "has successfully was tested all by foreign scientists." being an "exceptional claim". If so, this strikes me as a rather vague statement that is no way exceptional, and doesn't mean that her abilities were "scientifically verified". Or is there another statement you're referring to? I'm also fairly certain that a site dedicated to giving health advice to pregnant mothers must have some type of fact-checking going on - what's more important than a baby's health? :) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I must also point out that the particular "exceptional claim" (if it can be called that) from the article, was not even used in the Misplaced Pages article, so that further invalidates the argument for "exceptional sources" for "exceptional claims" in this case - that particular claim wasn't even made or repeated here (as far as I can see). Dreadlocke ☥ 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By the logic you use above, a clinic that gives nutritional advice is a reliable source for news of sasquatch sightings. Entities reliable in one respect are not necessarily reliable in others.

From what I gather from the admittedly awkward translation from Russian, the article in question says that Demkina passed all of the tests the scientists put her through. In other words, her abilities have been authenticated--she has X-ray vision. Claims don't get much more extraordinary than that. True, the current version of the Misplaced Pages article doesn't make that claim, but a previous version stated that Demkina "diagnosed the early stages of pregnancy with a female patient, and diagnosed an undulating spinal curvature in another subject; producing a drawing that was almost identical to X-rays of the patient" based on the Pregnancy Press article. These are the sort of fantastic statements that find their way into articles when unreliable sources are used. That's something we ought to avoid, and that's why I removed the Pregnancy Press article as a source.

The matter is probably moot, as there is nothing in the Pregnancy Press article that is not on Demkina's website, and that source is already being accepted to document claims Demkina makes about herself. Nick Graves 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories: