Talk:Natasha Demkina

Please see the article page.

Allowing Libel to Be Published

Despite being warned, Wikipedia continues to allow Julio Siqueira to post libelous statements. I am no more under psychiatric care than I have a "phony" degree from Columbia University. I thought the Wikipedia community would be more careful about allowing people to publish libelous material following the recent news media attention it received over another incident. Some here apparently think that it's o.k. to allow defamatory material to be posted, because you can always unring the bell. They're wrong. U.S. libel laws recognize that once rung a bell cannot be unrung. Askolnick 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So you have not started psychiatrist sessions? Ok. Now I got it... Julio Siqueira 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for Mediation was just filed. [1]. Askolnick 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Skolnick on Siquiera

Mr. Siqueira is hardly "doing a truly rational, scientific, and socially beneficial work." What he is doing is practicing character assassination through deceit -- such as deleting the M.S. after my name in this Wikipedia entry and accusing me of having a "phony" degree. Columbia University awarded me a Masters of Science degree in 1981. No one has ever accused me of possessing phony academic credentials -- until now. This is typical of Siqueria's "spotting mistakes and setting out bravely and honestly to correct them." His tactic is to make up accusations -- which he attributes to the ever-anonymous "critics" -- and demands that the "controversy" he has created be debated.

For more than a year, Julio Siquiera has been conducting a campaign of disinformation and defamation against me and my fellow researchers, who carried out the test of Natasha Demkina for the Discovery Channel program, "The Girl with X-ray Eyes." Siqueira begun his campaign by contacting me through email and pretending to be honestly seeking answers to questions about the test. I didn't realize for several weeks that his real intent was to gather statements that he could misquote for a campaign of defamation. I soon found out that, while he was sending me email calling me his "dear friend," he was writing a fellow Brazilian boasting of how he "peed on" that "moron Skolnick" and that Richard Wiseman "is a big crook" and a bastard ("calhorda").

One egregious example utterly misrepresented my answer to his question how far Natasha was from the test subjects. He rewrote my answer and sent it around to some of our critics in his campaign to make me out to be a liar. My answer to him had been, "I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject. Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, she came a foot or so closer."

He deleted any mention of Natasha's chair being two meters from the subjects and selectively quoted some of my words, while changing "closer" to "close." He said I told him Natasha "was allowed to come close to the subjects" and that she "sometimes came 'a foot or so' close to them." At the time, he was alleging that we made Natasha stand too far from the subjects to be able to see them clearly. By deliberately misquoting me, he clearly was trolling for a statement from others that he could use to accuse me of lying about how close Natasha actually got to the subjects.

The Wikipedia entry for Natasha Demkina has been written by a number of contributors including myself. Siqueira has now seriously vandalized it with falsehoods and unfounded personal opinions, such as these and other unsupported accusations:

"Skolnick has made very imprecise reports about Natasha’s claims."  

"Richard Wiseman convinced Natasha to accept these two alien conditions above using technically flawed and logically incorrect reasoning, which some say was meant to deceive Natasha."

"One of the subjects seemed to have a leak in his eyes’ mask, which also violated the protocols."

"The subjects never showed any proof of their alleged clinical conditions, also violating the protocols (not even the researchers really know if they indeed had the conditions they claimed to have)."

"(even though only the researchers knew of the controversy regarding the cut-off value for statistical significance)"

There was no controversy regarding the agreed upon level of statistical significance. It was agreed upon by all parties without a question. By claiming controversy, Siqueira believes he can create controversy.

Many other statements are clearly false, such as, "Demkina tried to say something further, which was understood by Skolnick as an insistence that appendixes sometimes do grow back in Russia; but actually her phrase was cut by Skolnick before she even finished it." This is false. The video tape of the Discovery Channel program I have clearly shows Natasha arguing that in Russia appendixes sometimes grow back following an appendectomy.

Here's an example of Siqueira's attempts to hide the truth by adding the words "in the skeptics' opinion" to a statement that is more truthful without his malicious tampering: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test in the skeptics’ opinion."' Natasha failed the test according to the written test rules which everyone had agreed to. The test said that Natasha needed to match at least five of the target conditions correctly to pass. She failed the test because she correctly matched only four. That's not an opinion. It's a fact on the record.

To refute my account of how Natasha gave me a reading that failed to find any of the medical problems I do have while claiming to see many others, none of which my doctor or I know about, Siqueira simply insinuates that I'm lying: "The critics point out, however, that, strangely enough, neither Skolnick nor any other one of the skeptics present had even a tape recorder to keep trustworthy register of this episode. They warn that in other situations Skolnick has made very imprecise reports about Natasha’s claims and about other people’s too." Those "critics" are none other than Siqueira himself. What would have been strange would my having a tape recorder to record a "psychic" medical reading, when I had no idea Natasha was going to approach me and ask to give me a reading to demonstrate her abilities after she failed the test. My account is supported by notes taken by Joe Nickell, Ph.D., CSICOP's leading investigator.

In addition, Siqueira has introduced numerous lessor errors based on ignorance or incompetence into the Wikipedia entry -- such as claiming that Natasha was given seven cards. As has been well documented in the Discovery Channel program and in published reports, there were only six cards in the test. And his claim that the surgical scars which result from removal of the lower part of a person's esophagus are "minute" is nonsense.

Siqueira's statements about the position of the appendix are absolutely irrelevant and clearly meant to mislead. He cites his reference [http://www.ghchealth.com/health-conditions/appendicitis/, but leaves out the part that explains how variations in the exact position of the appendix may make it difficult to diagnose appendicitis, based on where the patient feels pain. It does not make it difficult to find the appendix either by x-ray or by direct visualization (ie. surgery). The subhead of the article shows how Siqueria is trying to pull the wool over Wiki readers' eyes: "Why Can It Be Difficult to Diagnose Appendicitis?". It doesn't say, "Why Is It Difficult to Find the Appendix?".

It doesn't matter where the distal end of the appendix lies because Natasha was instructed to look for the site where the small intestine joins the large intestine. That's where the appendix is attached. Whether the internal organs of a person are reversed (ie. heart is on the right side, appendix on the left), the appendix is always found next to junction of the small and large intestines -- except in people who no longer have their appendix.

Harder to deal with are the many unsupported opinions Siqueira added to prop up his defamatory claim that we are incompetent liars. For example, he replaced the original account with his deceitful speculation that Natasha's mother's decision to wait outside the test room was "probably due to the emotional discomfort of this embarrassing and emotionally stressing beginning." Siqueira must know that this is false because he has a copy of email from Natasha's agent Will Stewart in which he explains that the mother chose to wait outside the test room so her young daughter would not be left alone in a strange place. It was unreasonable to expect an 11-year-old girl to sit silently for more than four hours. That's why the mother chose to wait with the young child outside the test room where the girl could talk and play -- not because she fled from the room in emotional distress. Siqueira knows the truth, but when the truth does not serve his agenda, he ignores it, substitues his "opinion," and demands that the "controversy" be debated.

There's many more dubious and deceitful statements that Siqueira added to the entry. If you want me to correct them too, I will, but it will take much more space and time.

But perhaps the most audacious of his claims is his citing his own web pages as, "Meticulous and thorough critiques of the experiment [that] can also be found on the internet." He doesn't bother to inform Wiki readers that he is the author of those self-published, so-called meticulous and thorough critiques. Those "critiques" are no more meticulous than is his malicious adulteration of the Wikipedia article.

Recently, the credibility of Wikipedia suffered a serious black eye when the news media reported how someone had used a Widipedia entry to libel another party. If Wikipedia doesn't put a stop to the dishonest use of what otherwise is a worthwhile medium and information resource, it will likely become as useless as the human appendix and just as prone to purulent infections.

24.51.86.237 [Askolnick] 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

)For an excellent article about how Wikipedia was used to defame a former jounalist and a discussion of legal remedies to prevent such abuse, see the just published article in Findlaw: [2])Askolnick 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, I followed your advice and made all the editing changes I believe were necessary. I just hope this is not going to trigger an all out editing war, since there doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it -- short of locking the entry. (I've requested that, but so far, there's been no action taking.) I am thinking of adding a new section that will briefly discuss the controversy over the statistical significance level used in the study. I would briefly cite Brian Josephsen's online attack and Ray Hyman's online explanation why you should not use a P value of 0.05 to test highly unlikely hypotheses. (Does Wiki have an entry on Bayesian analysis? If so, it could link to that entry.) Thanks again for your judicious help and I'm sorry it's been such a pain. Askolnick 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, there's a really fine Wiki entry for Bayesian inference! I must return to it when I have the time to learn much more about this rather arcane subject -- which really is vital to understanding many kinds of scientific tests. For example, as the excellent article points out, one cannot properly evaluate the sensitivity and specicity of diagnostic tests without Bayesian analysis.Askolnick 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Siquera's responses

My name is Julio Siqueira. I have an BA in biology and an MA in clinical bacteriology. I am a non-practicing biologist. I think the entry on "Natasha Demkina" has been greatly abused by the skeptics. It is time to add some balanced information into it. I sincerely hope that Andrew Skolnick will understand the simple fact that good research entails integrity of report, entails the willingness to spot mistakes and to set out bravely and honestly to correct them. Natasha may have no power. But that is no excuse for our doing away with "ours"... (that is, our power of doing a truly rational, scientific, and socially beneficial work).

Julio Siqueira December 6, 2005

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hiding under the anonymous ip 64.65.247.81, photographer Andrew Skolnick is trying to fight democracy by taking out of this entry (Natasha Demkina) all the opposing views that he does not like. It is important that we, that do not hide ourselves, fight these coward actions from people that actually seem to be interested only in personal promotion and in financial profit at the expense of human beings like Natasha. I placed back the properly balanced content. And all measures necessary to keep it balance will be taken if necessary.

Julio Siqueira December 7, 2005

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Involvement

As I'm not familiar with this topic, can each of you identify your connection to the matter of Natasha Demkina? It seems that Mr. Skolnick had some personal involvement with the research, though I don't know what, and I have no idea what Mr. Siqueira's relationship with the research is. Could you elaborate on what your involvement with the issue is? Can you provide some brief explanation of each of your assertions? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC placed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. I, too, think that Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Siqueira should disclose their involvement with this issue and be made aware of Wiki policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Edwardian 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith, I am the principle designer of the test of Natasha Demkina, that was conducted for the Discovery Channel, and executive director of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health [3](which is another Wikipedia entry that Julio Siqueira has taken a hatchet to). A little over a year ago, Siqueria began a campaign to discredit my CSICOP [4] colleagues and me by using the Internet to disseminate false accusations and disinformation. After trashing the Natasha Demkina section of the Museum of Hoaxes, he came over to Wikipedia and rewrote the Natasha Demkina entry, adding a great deal of falsehoods, errors, libelous statements, and unfounded and unfair opinions, that he attributes to anonymous "critics." He even prominently plugs his own self-published critiques that he proclaims are "Meticulous and thorough."

If I may quote a message that Wiki administrator Arcadian sent me after I had expanded the entry he began, you will see, at least in his opinion, my contributions to the entry were fair and had a neutral point of view:

"I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent work on the Natasha Demkina article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --Arcadian 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" [5]

In my lengthy discussion above, I list many but not all of the deceptive, biased, misleading and defamatory changes Siqueira made to this Wiki entry. Rather than removing them again, I am asking the Wiki community to stop his use of Wikipedia in his vandetta to misinform and defame.

Siqueira is an elementary school English teacher in Brazil who identifies himself as a biologist, a microbiologist, and a clincial bacteriologist. However, he has admitted elsewhere that he's never held a job as a biologist or in any other scientific field. He claims to have an MA in clinical bacteriology. He self-publishes his "critiques" on his own web site, on bulletin boards, and now here at Wikipedia.

Askolnick 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, your message and mine above crossed. Thanks for pointing me to the Verifiability and No Original Research pages. They revealed another serious problem with Siqueira's additions to the Natasha Demkina entry. His additions are not based on reputably published works. His "facts," and arguments are mostly his own self-published criticisms or are from other self-published attacks from other CSICOP critics. They are not from reputable publications, as required by Wikipedia policy. Obviously, it's extremely hard to verify the veracity and accuracy of sources that are identified as "critics" and "some." I propose that's exactly why he relies so much on "their" opinions. Askolnick 20:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It would be helpful in resolving the dispute if you (as well as Mr. Siqueira) would list what specific statements in the article need to be changed and why. Edwardian 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, boy! I've already spent hours today posting examples above. I really can't spend much more time on this. As far as I'm concerned, there's hardly a change that Siqueira made that is not suspect or in clear violation of Wiki policy. It's a whole lot easier and cheaper to throw a rock through someone's window than it is to repair it. Considering the high volume of false statements, unattributed statements, biased statements, etc., I think it would be fairer and more economical to ask Siqueira which statements he wants Wikipedia to keep and to provide verification for them. And thank you for your much appreciated assistance. Askolnick 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Keep in mind that it is much more time consuming for me to pick through every line in the article to verify statements in websearches than it would be if someone were to point out the specific statements that need to be reviewed. If you're counting on Mr. Siqueira to assist in the manner you suggested, I'm sure you will be disappointed with the results. I'm happy to help the victim of "character assassination" but only so far as he is willing to help me help him. Edwardian 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but be prepared. I think every change he made was done to deceive, mislead, or obfuscate. I'm going to have to find and cite every last one of them. It will take me much of the weekend, I fear. Thanks for your effort and patience. (At least, I'm finally learning Wiki's conventions :-) Askolnick 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Keith and Skolnick,

I am Julio Siqueira and I want to explain my involvement in the case, so as to enable wikipedia to decide whether my contributions can be accepted on this matter or not. Before that, I want to clarify some issues.

1- Even though I am very fresh to wikipedia editing, I have always tried to make very clear who I am, and to be open to other people's views. This can easily be seen at the talk section in the entry of Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health- CSMMH. I immediately identified myself (an important measure, since I have a dynamic IP), and ended up agreeing with the viewpoints of the other editor (Alaren). My second entry to edit, following the same subject, was the Natasha Demkina entry. In this entry, I immediately created a wikipedia account for me, for better identification and proper editing (including my email; also with Alaren at the CSMMH entry I provided my email).

On the other hand, Skolnick has been rather anonymous in his contributions to this entry. Worse, it seems that either he or someone close to him took contents from this entry AFTER Skolnick asked for mediation. At 21:52, 8 December, Skolnick made his complaint and asked for mediation. At 21:55, same day, someone, anonymous, took out all the section presenting the critics's view. The ip was 203.214.87.196. There has been no contribution from this ip before to the wikipedia, and it is not the ip Skolnick usually uses (which is 64.65.247.81). Weird. I suggest that this ip be tracked down, if possible.

2- Skolnick complained about the fact that I called his MS phoney. But it was he that, before I did this, decided to change my credentials from MA in Clinical Bacteriology to "Elementary English Teacher". What I did was not right. But was an emotional reaction to similar denial of my credentials. I ended up deciding to put back his proper credentials, and it was BEFORE he complained about it. He, instead, keeps saying that I am an English teacher, and keeps casting doubt on my MA title. He decided to accept my "claim" that I am an English teacher (it was I who told this to him!), and decided not to accept my "claim" that I have a MA in clinical Bacteriology. In a phrase: he wants to discredit me, and will not stop doing it, it seems. Not even here, at Wikipedia.

3- Skolnick talked about some of the offenses and etc that I did to him, and so on. All this happened outside wikipedia. Most of this in private emails. Neither I nor he are saints in this matter. It is foolish for him to comment on this. And irrelevant to wikipedia. If, nevertheless, wikipedia is interested in it, I will gladly go into details in that. And I never called Wiseman a Bastard. That is sheer hallucination from Skolnick.

Now I move to the core of the issue, as far as Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is concerned.

Basically, my involvement in this matter is that I, about one year ago, exchanged voluminous emails with the main designer of this test (Skolnick), and I came to understand the very many weaknesses of the experiment performed by CSICOP. Most of these weaknesses are being hidden or downplayed by Skolnick and fellows. Some of the information that proves the feebleness of this piece of "research" comes from private emails with Skolnick, and with Natasha's agent, and also with Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson. But actually, almost all the information and criticism that I have to this experiment comes from the published reports (by Skolnick and fellows) and from the Discovery Channel documentary on Natasha. And the fact that I have a BA in biology (1993 - I am a non-practicing biologist) and a MA in Clinical Bacteriology (2001 - both titles from Brazilian university UERJ, State University of Rio de Janeiro - Skolnick could check it anytime he wishes too; all he had to do is to learn to pick up the phone... Instead, he prefers to cast doubt on my credentials - I have one article published), plus the fact that I have extensive reading about paranormal issues and about skeptical investigations into parapsychological research (also having debated these issues on internet skeptic forums and parapsychological forums), lead me to believe that I can really help constructively in this entry about Natasha Demkina, so that things are reported correctly and trustworthily.

Now I move to the specif points being questioned by Skolnick or by the wikipedia moderators:

1- Edwardian said: Regarding this sentence that appears at the end of the second paragraph: "Meticulous and thorough critiques of the experiment can also be found on the internet." This statement contains a link to Julio Siqueira's critique and I presume it was added to this article by Siqueira himself. In my opinion, this addition violates some combination

Yes, it was included by me and refers to an online internet article written by me, self published. If it is not ok to wikipedia guidelines, I agree that it has to be taken out. But I think it is important to keep the information that this test has been heavily criticized. The main well known academic who has done this, on the internet, is Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate).

2- Skolnick, surprisingly enough, complained about a number of items. I stress to you that the veracity of my criticism towards these items come from the written articles by the researchers themselves, and from the Discovey Channel documentary. I will list them:

A- Richard Wiseman convinced Natasha to accept these two alien conditions above using technically flawed and logically incorrect reasoning, which some say was meant to deceive Natasha.

Natasha complained, right before the test, about two conditions: the removed appendix and the resected esophagus. She complained, obviously, because somehow she felt (or seemed to feel) that she would not be able to spot these two. Wiseman said to Natasha that if she missed the appendix and the resected esophagus, even then she would reach five and pass. What he should have said instead was: “If you cannot see the missing appendix, and if you cannot also see the resected esophagus, then there is the possibility that you will swap wrong diagnosis between THREE subjects and fail the test: the subject missing an appendix; the subject with a resected esophagus; and the subject with no condition. And this because to your eyes these three subjects will be just the same”.

B- One of the subjects seemed to have a leak in his eyes’ mask, which also violated the protocols.

It is clear in the documentary. At the very moment that the camera faces one of the subjects (the one with the metal plate in his head), he moved his eyebrow in such a way that gives the clear impression that he knows he is being spotted. So, yes, he seemed (SEEMED) to be improperly blinded. Even the researchers comment on this, I do not remember if on the published articles or on Skolnick’s webpage. I think it was indeed on the published articles. Now Skolnick comes and say that this is a lie pure and simple...

C- The subjects never showed any proof of their alleged clinical conditions, also violating the protocols (not even the researchers really know if they indeed had the conditions they claimed to have).

Yes, this is also true. This proof of their condition does not appear in the documentary. It also does not appear in any of the published articles. The researchers do not have any idea about their true clinical condition. If my memory serves me well, the researchers even say this in their published articles (of course I can track it down later).

D- "(even though only the researchers knew of the controversy regarding the cut-off value for statistical significance)” There was no controversy regarding the agreed upon level of statistical significance. It was agreed upon by all parties without a question. By claiming controversy, Siqueira believes he can create controversy.

Sometimes it is hard for me to believe that Skolnick has an MS, and that he has been an associate editor for JAMA for almost ten years! The question here is not one of “there was no controversy”. The question here is that “There Is a Controversy”. Scientific standards determine different cut-off values for statistical significance. It is common in medical science to use the value of 5%. According to that cut-off value, Natasha passed the test. A more stringent cut-off value is sometimes used, at 1%. Natasha almost reached this one too. Many claim that for “extraordinary claims” much higher levels must be demanded. Sometimes 0.1%, or 0.01%. It would be highly advisable that the researchers properly informe Natasha and helpers about this controversy that exists within science. Some scientists would consider a cut-off value of 5% quite acceptable for the type of “extraordinary claim” that would come out of the test: “further studies are warranted”. Yes, the test would not declare that Natasha was a paranormal. Instead, the test would declare something astronomically more modest: further studies are warrented. That is why some scientists would consider the 5% level acceptable in this case, and I mention physicist and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson especially, but also some other academics who have sent letters to the Skeptical Inquirer (CSICOP’s journal - the journal of the skeptics, and the one where Skolnick published his article about the test) about this issue.

E- Many other statements are clearly false, such as, "Demkina tried to say something further, which was understood by Skolnick as an insistence that appendixes sometimes do grow back in Russia; but actually her phrase was cut by Skolnick before she even finished it." This is false. The video tape of the Discovery Channel program I have clearly shows Natasha arguing that in Russia appendixes sometimes grow back following an appendectomy.

Now, this is a delicate issue. The fact is that we managed to discover that Skolnick actually has never watched the true official Discovery Channel documentary about Natasha Demkina (such is life...). He got a copy from Richard Wiseman which most likelly was a pre-release non-official version. It seems that Wiseman got this copy before September 2004, that is, before the documentary was ever broadcast. The documentary producer, Monica Garnsey, warned Skolnick that the copy that Wiseman had was an advance copy. Skolnick’s copy has portions that have been removed from the official broadcast version. He has been hiding his copy ever since we proved him to have this unofficial material, and no one can attest if he is saying the truth above or not. Perhaps if he shows his unofficial version, I may even withdraw this charge in the paragraph above. But so far as the official broadcast version is concerned, that is a perfect description of what happened. So I think we have to wait for Skolnick’s proof on this matter.

F- Here's an example of Siqueira's attempts to hide the truth by adding the words "in the skeptics' opinion" to a statement that is more truthful without his malicious tampering: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test in the skeptics’ opinion."' Natasha failed the test according to the written test rules which everyone had agreed to.

This is an easy issue. The test would only be valid if main rules were not violated by anyone of the parties involved in it. It so happened that the researchers themselves violated many rules (please see the sections that were removed by Skolnick’s aide, Mr. Respected Academic IP 203.214.87.196...). But since there were severe violations, the test can only be scientifically considered inconclusive. That is what Professor Brian Josephson stresses on his article (in his website) about this issue. We can talk more about it if you feel necessary.

G- In addition, Siqueira has introduced numerous lessor errors based on ignorance or incompetence into the Wikipedia entry -- such as claiming that Natasha was given seven cards. As has been well documented in the Discovery Channel program and in published reports, there were only six cards in the test.

I even put a link to a photo (snapshot) of the documentary showing Natasha facing seven cards. Doen’t Skolnick even know the basics about his own test???

I think nothing here shows Siqueria's methods as clearly as this outrageous example of fraud. I've been reluctant to even look at that JPG because I knew it would lead me to engage him in more fruitless debate. I don't want to do that because it's never ending. Shoot one falsehood down and he immediately replies with two or more ridiculous and dishonest allegations. But for those who don't know enough of the facts to see what he's attempting with this picture, please note: It shows eight cards -- not seven! It shows Natasha holding one of the six test cards [6]. The documentary focused closely a number of times on these six, large white cards with graphics and instructions in English and Russian and described them in detail. Siqueria, who claims to be an authority on this program, obviously knows this. But seeing an opportuntity to open another attack, he jumped. He used this picture showing seven totaly unrelated, small orange-colored cards on the table (while ignoring the eighth -- the actual test card!) to confuse, mislead, and to raise doubt about the integrity of the researchers. This is the kind of "research" that he self-publishes on his web site and is now publishing here.Askolnick 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

H- For example, he replaced the original account with his deceitful speculation that Natasha's mother's decision to wait outside the test room was "probably due to the emotional discomfort of this embarrassing and emotionally stressing beginning." Siqueira must know that this is false because he has a copy of email from Natasha's agent Will Stewart in which he explains that the mother chose to wait outside the test room so her young daughter would not be left alone in a strange place.

The documentary, which is the only trustworthy source for that, clearly states that there was this attempt to take Natasha’s mother out. As I said, That indeed happened, and, according to the program producer Monica Garnsey, in an email to Andrew Skolnick on November 24, 2004, “Joe Nickell felt strongly and expressed his feelings strongly that Natasha's mother should not be allowed in the test room” (Nickell is a CSICOP fellow that helped during the test). And yes, I have some copies of the email exchanges between Natasha’s parties (including her agent then, Will Stewart) with the researchers (Hyman-Wiseman-Skolnick). As a matter of fact, if I reveal all that there is in these emails, the credibility of CSICOP will get even lower... I never did that, and I do not want to. It suffices here to say that all of Natasha’s parties complained heavily against that ridiculous beginning. If Skolnick wants, I can post Stewart’s and Natasha’s complaints here. What about it, Skolnick?

I- The appendix and the resected esophagus:

What I believe is that appendixes cannot be seen in X-Rays. Skolnick is not a doctor. I am not a doctor too. And I believe that the scar that is left in the esophagus after a portion of it is removed cannot be seen by X-Ray. I believe Skolnick is lying when he garantees to the wikipedia moderators that these structures can be seen by X Ray. Since he is no doctor, and has committed serious mistakes on these medical matters before (especially in the forum Museum of Hoaxes), I stress that true medical feedback is necessary on that.

A comment that seems to be from Edwardian: If you're counting on Mr. Siqueira to assist in the manner you suggested, I'm sure you will be disappointed with the results. I'm happy to help the victim of "character assassination" but only so far as he is willing to help me help him. Edwardian 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, I think you are already making conclusions about my personality only based on what Skolnick tells you. I kindly and humbly request from you... more time.

From Skolnick: I think we should require Siqueria to provide examples where researchers have ever sat down with their research subjects to discuss probability theory with them and the importance of Bayesian analysis when testing unlikely hypotheses.

If the subjects’ reputation is at stake, then the researchers have indeed the moral duty (and even the legal duty in some countries) to do that, that is, to give all the relevant information. What you are not telling the wikipedia moderators is that in the examples that you cite (the hundreds and thousands of articles that you claim to have read) the subjects remain anonymous.

Ok, enough for now. This is going to be a long dispute. Thanks enormously to all of you for the attention.

Julio Siqueira.

Thank you for your comments. I believe you have read far too much in my reply to Mr. Skolnick, but I am glad that you have chosen to participate here. I do have a couple pointers that might help things to go more smoothly: 1) Please keep comments as brief as possible by sticking to the issue, which is about cleaning up this article and not about any personal squabbles, 2) please sign comments with ~~~~ . Edwardian 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my "reading far too much". And thank you for the tip about the signature. I am trying to learn about wiki as fast as I can. But sometimes it is not fast enough. Sorry, and thank you. Julio Siqueira 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Mr. Skolnick, it would be helpful in resolving the dispute if you would list what specific statements in the article need to be changed and why. Thanks! Edwardian 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Resolution procedures

Gentlemen, given a dispute of this nature, I would recommend you solicit outside comment from the following places first:

• Wikipedia:Request for comments (try here first)
• Wikipedia:Peer review

These pages are visited by volunteers in the hope that those with relevant understanding of the details can come to this page and contribute comments to the matter. Fundamentally this is a dispute over article content that Mr. Skolnick disagrees with, aside from the fact that he finds them personally detrimental.

Your next step would be to purse mediation through Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation.

Presumably each of you can provide materials that support your positions. These would be helpful.

Mr. Skolnick: I strongly recommend that you create a Wikipedia account for yourself via this page, so that you can be consistently identified during discussions and other proceedings.

Regards, Keith D. Tyler ¶, AMA 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith and Edwardian, may I request that this entry be temporarily locked at the version before the disputed changes were made (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&oldid=30166513) while the dispute is worked out?

This weekend, I will compile a complete list of the additions and changes I dispute, along with a brief explanation why they violate Wikipedia policies and post it here. I'll also try to provide links to published sources that verify my claims.

Thanks very much for your help. Clearly, your efforts and contributions are worth far more than what they pay you :-) - Andrew Askolnick 13:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made the request at WP:RFP. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I would support that decision. I would even support reverting the article back to that reversion and working with Mr. Siqueira to address the parts he feel are inaccurate. Have a couple neutral parties with Mr. Skolnick's feedback should help to maintain a NPOV. Edwardian 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[Sorry Edwardian, I don't know how it happened, but I must have deleted that graph when I added the Protesting the Resolution Procedures section.]

24.51.86.237 (Andrew Skolnick) 12:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Protesting the Resolution Procedures

After reviewing the amount of work I would have to do to explain why nearly all of Siqueira changes to this entry are false, misleading, or otherwise violate Wiki policies, I want to protest the resolution procedures, which I think have turned the world on its head. As in science, it should be the claimaint's responsibility to provide verification of his claims.

Siqueira admits above that he deliberately added a false statement to this entry in anger because I had corrected the entry to make it less misleading. Siqueira has never been employed in any field of science. He's an elementary school English teacher. I replaced his misleading statement with a more truthful one. He says that's why he added a defamatory lie to Wikipedia -- claiming that I've faked my academic credentials. (What's more, padding references with biographical comments is completely out of place. References are supposed to have only the author's name and not include prizes won or personal hobbies.)

Why are we still debating the claims of someone who would deliberately add a lie to a Wiki entry? Why are we still debating someone who has so great a disregard for the truth that he would tell you I was lying when I said that the appendix and esophagus can be seen by x-rays -- even after I posted two NIH web sites that show what I said is true? Why are we still debating someone who would insist, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that there were seven test cards not six? What level of lack of credibility must be reached before a person has to verify his statements before he can add them to Wikipedia?

This is why I'm protesting these procedures. The burden of proof should be on Siqueira to verify his statements before they can be added to Wikipedia. It should be clear by now that virtually none of his statements are supported by any credible published source. They're almost all based on his own opinions that he "published" on his own web site. A few are taken from a personal attack that Brian Josephson self-published on his web site. If this is the kind of scholarship Wikipedia is based on, then I think I'm contributing to the wrong place.

After considering the work that I would have to do to refute his changes, I've returned to my senses. It's much easier -- and fairer -- to ask that Siqueira cite a trustworthy source for every change he wants to make to the entry than it would be for me to explain why they don't belong in Wikipedia.

For example, flying in the face of evidence to the contrary, Siqueira claims that I'm incompetent or lying because I say there were only six test cards, not seven, and he claims he has proof. Never mind that I'm the person who actually made the test cards, because he's got the proof. The proof, he says, is the Discovery Channel program that he insists shows seven test cards. That's nonsense. If he's not lying, it's because he is too abominably stupid to know when he's lying. Yet, how am I prove to that he doesn't have a video of the program showing there were seven test cards? I could show you my own copy, but Siqueira is claiming that my video of the program is "pirated" or "bootlegged"! I've got the six test cards in my posession, every one of them bearing Natasha Demkina's and Prof. Ray Hyman's signatures. That proves nothing, I'm can hear Siqueira saying, adding that I either lost or destroyed the seventh card! There is just no way to end a dispute with a person who just makes things up.

In other words, I'm exasperated and at the point of throwing up my hands and saying Wikipedia is a noble experiment, but it's just not worth the time and frustration. I appreciate the work you guys have put into this dispute already. But I think the dispute procedures here are upsidedown and unfair. If a person like Siqueira can cause so much damage by maliciously rewriting an entry, requiring many hours of work to correct, then sorry, I just don't have the time nor the patience for it. I'm out of here. He wins and everybody involved with Wikipedia loses.

The only sensible way of dealing with this is to require a verifiable source for every change to the entry Siqueira made. Askolnick 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Skolnick,. Your protests are void. That is why:

- You keep rejecting my "MA in Clinical Bacteriology" credentials. That way, you prove that you do not belong to science.

- Your links to "prove" that appendixes and esophagus can be seen by x-ray are not valid. They only show that an appendix, if it is infected (apendicitis), can be seen, with enormous difficulty, in some x-rays, especially with the help of barium etc. Your subjects were not ill. Also, your link about the esophagus does not mention a word about spotting minute circular scars in resected esophagus with x-rays. You are trying to swindle wikipedia, you are trying to mimick Wiseman. But he is better than you at this... See what your own link says: "Plain x rays can show signs of obstruction, perforation (a hole), foreign bodies, and in rare cases, an appendicolith, which is hardened stool in the appendix.". Unbelievable...

- I have proved that it was seven cards on the table before Natasha. All you have to say is what these cards are (Further, it is clear in your protocols that they were numbered from 1 to 7 - by what miracle do you number 1 to 7 in only 6 cards...). The fact that you do not say this clearly proves that you have been caught in faulty memory, which is extremely often.

So, void protests... Julio Siqueira 14:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith and Edwardian, please, as far as I am concerned, feel free to take any action you consider apropriate. My only concern is that wikipedia listens to my point of view and to my feedbacks, and then decide whether they belong here in the entry or not. And that is already happening, that is, you are dealing very seriously and professionally with the matter. I cannot ask for more than that. Thank you. During this day I have gathered lots of material that can be regarded as more authoritative to help me support my "case". I will present this as soon as possible. If I delay it a little, it is because I am also trying to work on conciseness, which will help you (and us) enormously in evaluating things faster and better. I also want to get to know more about wikipedia policies, following the links and suggestions that you provided. Julio Siqueira 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Items

1) Regarding this sentence that appears at the end of the second paragraph: "Meticulous and thorough critiques of the experiment can also be found on the internet." This statement contains a link to Julio Siqueira's critique and I presume it was added to this article by Siqueira himself. In my opinion, this addition violates some combination Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Given that the statement previous to it notes that the experiment has been "heavily criticized", this particular statement does not warrant inclusion in such a prominent place in the article, if at all. What do other impartial editors think should be done with it? Edwardian 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Julio Siqueira wrote above: "Yes, it was included by me and refers to an online internet article written by me, self published. If it is not ok to wikipedia guidelines, I agree that it has to be taken out. But I think it is important to keep the information that this test has been heavily criticized. The main well known academic who has done this, on the internet, is Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate)." If the body of knowledge external to Wiki indicates that the test was heavily criticized (which appears to be the case), then I am OK with mention of that. The inclusion of Mr. Siqueira's link appears to violate Wiki policy given that it was inserted by himself, but I'd like to hear what other impartial editors have to say about it. I'm going to remove it from the body of the article but leave it in the "External links" section for the time being. Edwardian 05:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Edwardian. I think my article about Natasha is very thorough and meticulus indeed (even though Skolnick bitterly disagrees on that), and I have also made changes after I finished it, even including some recent feedbacks and complaints from Skolnick. Despite Skolnick's intensely insulting way of addressing me, I did made many changes to this article on my webpage, following some of his criticism directed to it in the forum Museum of Hoaxes. In this link, in my two-part message that is identified as "Posted by Julio Siqueira on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:49 AM", I indicate seven (7) changes that I was performing on my two main articles about Natasha issue on my website, following critical guidelines provided by Skolnick. So I do not know why Skolnick insists on being so unnecessarily rude. Also, and most important, my article has been carefully read by Professor Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate and referee for some respected scientific journals), which in practice amounts almost to an informal peer review, and Josephson considered the content so informative and well researched that he placed a link from his webpage to my two main articles on this issue: 1- Csicop vs Natasha, and 2- Embarrassing Answers. But of course if it is agains wikipedia guidelines, then it is perfectly ok to remove it. A good solution would be to keep the link to Professor Josephson, and keep the link to my article at the end of the entry, if that is acceptable. Julio Siqueira 09:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

2) Regarding this sentence in the second paragraph of the section entitled "The CSMMH-CSICOP test": "(according to some views, her result in the test did achieve statistical significance". According to whom? This statement needs an explicit reference to be considered for inclusion. Edwardian 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, an explanation of how and why the CSMMH-CSICOP investigators decided on which P value to use for determining statistical significance was provided by Prof. Ray Hyman: [7] We chose to use a P value between 0.01 and .001, which were the values the pioneer of parapsychology research, J. B. Rhine had used in many of his famous experiments. Askolnick 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything about this specific entry that you think is not accurate? Edwardian 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Virtually everything Siqueria added or deleted is not accurate or in violation of Wiki policies. Do you mean only about his comments about statistical signficance? If so, the entire statement is false or in violation of Wiki policy:

"Natasha Demkina, her mother, and her agent, although the researchers did not explain to them the differing views in science regarding the cut-off value for statistical significance of a test result (according to some views, her result in the test did achieve statistical significance)."

I think we should require Siqueria to provide examples where researchers have ever sat down with their research subjects to discuss probability theory with them and the importance of Bayesian analysis when testing unlikely hypotheses. Let him provide evidence to justify his nonsensical assertion. Having been an associate news editor for the Journal of the American Medical Association for 9+ years, I've read thousands of research articles. I know of no research where scientists have had to explain statistical analysis procedures to their subjects!

Siqueria is unable to cite support of his views from any credible publication. He can only cite his or other self-published on-line hatchet jobs. I can site many other published references that explain why choosing a P value between 0.01 and 0.001 is justified -- and sensible -- when testing unlikely hypotheses.

And another important point: What ever target level for statistical significance is chosen, it must be chosen before the experiment begins. It should not be changed after the experiment to fit the test results, as our critics are insisting. Askolnick 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is not evident looking at the article who exactly posted what to it. Secondly, it is not explicitly evident to those of us reviewing the article what parts are not accurate. This is why we need your help. Edwardian 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for explaining. I will help all I can, but it will have to wait until later this evening and tomorrow. I much appreciate your patience and help in dealing with this awful affair. (I just hope that, when all the smoke finally clears, Siqueira will be prevented from committing any more malicious vandalism to Wikipedia entries, considering how much time it takes to repair his attacks.) Thanks. Askolnick 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3) Regarding this sentence also in the second paragraph of the section entitled "The CSMMH-CSICOP test": "All these conditions are visible by radiology, but two of these conditions are not seen by X-Ray: the removed appendix and the removed portion of the esophagus." This is my area of expertise but aren't radiographs and X-rays the same? How can all be seen by radiographs but only four by X-rays? Edwardian 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, not all anatomical details are visible on every kind of radiological exam and some radiological images are not done well enough to capture some conditions. With that said, I cannot make any sense out of what Siqueira wrote. To clarify things: the appendix and the esophagus are both easily seen with CT scans, conventional X-rays (especially with the help of Barium swallow), [8] MRI scans, and also ultrasound. [9] Askolnick 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you write any of that sentence, or was that it entirely written by Mr. Siqueira. I'm just trying to decipher point(s) were attempting to be made. Edwardian 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain I contributed, "All these conditions are visible by radiology." Whether I did or not, it's clearly a truthful statement, as can be verified with the links above. It was Siqueira who added: "but two of these conditions are not seen by X-Ray: the removed appendix and the removed portion of the esophagus." Although I'm not certain what he means, no matter how I construe it, it's demonstrably wrong.Askolnick 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Julio Siqueira mentioned above that he does not believe that the appendix or the esophagus (or rather the scar on the esophagus) are visible via radiography. I briefly spoke with a doctor this evening who confirmed that the appendix and esophagus are visible, but maybe not as easy to see. The article currently states: "All these conditions are visible by radiology." Demkina is referred to as "The Girl with X-ray Eyes" but I don't think that anyone has asserted that X-rays literally come from her eyes. Because of this, I suggest removing the phrase entirely. If someone could provide a reference or citation for her actually claims, that might be helpful, too. Edwardian 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, who are you going to believe, Siqueira or your own eyes? (I presume you visited the NIH web sites I cited to verify that the appendix and esophagus can be seen by radiology, including x-rays?)

"I believe Skolnick is lying when he garantees to the wikipedia moderators that these structures can be seen by X Ray."

If I'm lying than the National Institutes of Health and numerous other medical authorities are in cahoots.

Yes, these organs can be hard to see with conventional x-rays. That's why radiologists use barium swallows and other radiological procedures including CT-scans, MRI scans, and ultrasound. The original Wiki text says "visible via radiology." It did not say routine x-rays. And that's the way it was stated in the test protocols. These protocols state that the target medical abnormalities would only be conditions visible by radiology.

Sorry, my error. I did not include that statement in the written test protocols. My memory failed me. I did make this statement in other writings since it was an important rule we used for choosing the target medical conditions. All the conditions had to be diagnosable by radiology -- which would rule out many diseases and disorders, such as hypertension, diabetes, anemia, hypercholesterolemis, allergies, many infectious diseases, hypothyroidism, to name a few. We limited our choices of target conditions to ones that involved easily confirmed, clear-cut anatomical abnormalities, so that there could be no dispute (little did we realize there's no such thing). ~~

Keith, Edwardian, and Skolnick, Skolnick is just acknowledging above the fact that "these organs can be hard to see with conventional x-rays". Note that he numbers the alternatives to solve this problem: CT-scans, MRI scans, ultrasound. This is what we have to point out. These structures are not easily seen by X-Ray (I do not believe that Skolnick gave barium to his subjects...). And, Skolnick, I think you misread your own protocols. It is not said in them that the conditions would only be conditions visible by radiology. Where on Earth did you get this from? And also, your protocols do mention specifically "x-ray" Julio Siqueira 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to bother replying to Siqueria's posts here because it will be (as it has been for over a year)never ending and I'm very close to just walking away from this whole aggravating situation, because it's like James Randi says, "nailing Jello to the wall.". He just goes from one made-up thing to another -- like his latest claim that there were not six test cards but seven. And I just noticed a message on top of this page indicating that it's already longer than is preferable at Wiki (it's certainly longer than I am comfortable dealing with). I'll only reply to the comments and questions of moderators. Thanks. -Andrew Askolnick 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to hear the feedbacks from your source. In that I trust! Also, it is important to stress that it is not exactly the "esophagus" that we are talking about. We are actually talking about the scar that is left on it, the circular scar that is left after you sew the two remaining sections together. For all these kinds of "scars", including this minute circular and the larger ones (the ones on the chest, in this clinical condition, or the one on the pelvis, in the removed appendix), the documentary clearly says that Natasha claims that "postoperative scars can be confusing". Also, it would be interesting if you could ask your source (i.e. doctor) about the position of the appendix, and if that may interfere with its being identified or not in X-Rays. Skolnick passed to me, almost a year ago, the only trustworthy piece of evidence concerning the actual claims of Natasha. Believe it or not, he did not get it directly from Natasha. He relied on the program producer, Monica Garnsey, a very busy person, heavily burdened with the task of doing the documentary. Skolnick says Monica speaks russian. It is better to double check it with Monica anyway. As to the feedback from Monica, I quote what I wrote in my article: Only on December 3, 2004 (almost one month after my first contact with Skolnick...), did Skolnick present further evidence of Natasha's "extended claims" (cellular vision, etc). He showed a part of an email he received from the program producer (Monica Garnsey) nearly a month before the test, "containing a summary of Natasha's 'abilities' to help us design the test". Monica is quoted as saying that: "I double-checked a few things with her last night. ... She usually scans people all over first, by making them stand up fully clothed and looking them up and down; delivers a general diagnosis; and then goes into more detail when the patients have discussed their concerns with her. She says she can certainly see ribs, heart, lungs, initially in general 'like in an anatomy book', but can see right down to the cell level if she concentrates." . Note that there is only the briefest mentioning of "cellular vision", and that nowhere is it said if she can diagnose diseases at the cellular level, or even at the microscopic multicellular tissue level, and definitely there is nothing at all about molecular vision. Julio Siqueira 10:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

4) Regarding this sentence in the section entitled "Natasha's hits and misses": "The critics point out, however, that, strangely enough, neither Skolnick nor any other one of the skeptics present had even a tape recorder to keep trustworthy register of this episode." The "episode" refers to Demkina diagnosing Skolnick. If there is no evidence that this exchange took place, it needs to be changed to reflect that this is what Mr. Skolnick claims happened. Mr. Skolnick, is there a reference outside of Wikipedia that points to this exchange? Edwardian 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, my report of Natasha Demkina's reading of my "health problems" was published in the May/June 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer and can be read on CSICOP's web site [10] CSICOP's Senior Research Fellow, Joe Nickell, who wrote an accompanying article (which doesn't mention the reading), had taken notes of Natasha's reading and is willing to be quoted verifying the accuracy of my report. Askolnick 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, for Mr. Nickell to post something here without it appearing elsewhere would constitute original research. Your link should do. Edwardian 21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

5) Julio Siqueira indicated above that he had a problem with the above sentence: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test in the skeptics’ opinion." Is there a reason that this should not be changed to: "She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test according to the rules."? Edwardian 05:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's an entirely accurate statement. Good solution.Askolnick 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion is perfectly ok for me. I will continue to provide as much feedback and help I can during this day.Julio Siqueira 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

6) Are we in agreement that Demkina was shown 7 cards? Edwardian 05:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if you want falsehoods in Wikipedia entries. There were six test cards.[11] There was no need for a seventh card. The seventh subject had none of the conditions listed in the six cards. By filling in the six test cards, she automatically chose the "none-of-above" subject. I'm afraid the way things are going, this is going to take years to resolve. I really think this is unfair. I think you should make Siqueira provide verification for every change he made and not make me disprove all his false and misleading statements. Shouldn't the proof be on the claimaint? Askolnick 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Skolnick, there is no need for us to act in an uncivilized way. I have provided a photo of the documentary where you can see seven cards on the table. Now, it is completely irrelevant whether it is six or seven cards (as far as the content of the entry Natasha Demkina is concerned; of course it would be a little bit embarrassing for you if it was indeed seven cards and not six. But nothing really bad to the entry itself). All you have to do is to tell us what are these seven cards that we see before Natasha. Anyway, Edwardian, if Skolnick is to get too emotional because of this little detail, I agree that we put it six cards, since it amounts to no difference in the test itself. Julio Siqueira 23:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Skolnick, just an afterthought. In your protocols it is really mentioned six cards, and many times. So you are right in this. But in your own protocols there is also a paragraph (rule number 4) that leads us to expect seven cards... And, in the documentary, we see seven cards. Take a look at your own protocols: "4-A test card for each condition will be created. On each card, a target condition will be clearly described using non-medical terms in Russian and in English. The card may also contain a simple illustration of what Natasha should look for, such as a drawing of an artificial hip joint, or a drawing of a human body showing a missing left kidney. Below that will be numbers 1 to 7 corresponding to the 7 subjects who will be identified only by number and not their name. Natasha will be required to circle the correct patient number that matches the target medical condition.". Julio Siqueira 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Skolnick (even though you do not like me). I may not agree with your points of view, and in fact I think you lie a lot in this issue about Natasha. But I am utterly against any kind of suppression of your works on it. You must be allowed to show your viewpoint on this matter in the entry Natasha Demkina. Of course we have to abide to wikipedia rules, I think. Anyway, I cannot help presenting my view on this matter here now. Julio Siqueira 14:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Skolnick, the one who took out Edwardian comment leaving the moderation was ip 24.51.86.237. It is the same hacker that changed my name (Julio Siqueira) in the external links to my name + "elementary English teacher", on December 5, 2005. This was before I started editing this entry. Most likely, this hacker is either you or one of your aides. There is no way to stop you, it seems... Julio Siqueira 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawing from resolution process

This article, and the resultant name-calling on the Talk page, is a prime example of why Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have been followed in the first place. Given that Andrew Skolnick and Julio Siqueira are closely connected to the subject matter, neither should have been, or be, permitted to directly edit this article. No one wants to suppress the views of primary sources of information, so they should be encouraged to post recommended changes on the Talk pages; however, the best way to ensure that articles contain valid and accurate information is for impartial editors to do the editing. I'm done here. Edwardian 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) edited 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

After I came to Wikipedia back around April to correct some mistakes and add material to this entry, I received this message from Wiki administrator Arcadian:

"I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent work on the Natasha Demkina article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --Arcadian 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" [4]"

So I'm confused: a Wiki administrator said that "seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best." Now I'm being told that this is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Who's right about this?

And by the way, shouldn't the validity and accuracy of the information added to Wikipedia be more important than the authorship of that information? Askolnick

This section above was restored by Julio Siqueira 14:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Julio Siqueira Withdraws from Editing

Having read what Edwardian wrote above (and knowing that he has read my first reply to his original paragraph - he has now rewritten it, with some minor modifications), I now quit all editing involvement in the entry "Natasha Demkina" at Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that the editors remove my original contributions, and that they think about the appropriateness of my feedbacks on this matter, so that they can decide for themselves whether to include them at the entry or not (in part or whole). I thank very much Edwardian (and Keith) for their patience and dedication on this matter, and congratulate Wikipedia in its effort to create a fast and free yet trustworthy source of information on the web. Julio Siqueira 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(P.S.: as to what Skolnick himself should do from now on in this entry, I leave this to his psychiatrist...)

Comments and Suggestions by Julio Siqueira

Hi Keith and everybody. I am starting this section in the talk page to input my feedbacks to the entry. Feel free to use them the way you consider appropriate. You, and everybody, is of course welcome to directly append any of your comments to mine.Julio Siqueira 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Number 1: Keith, I have now read the entry the way you rewrote it. I think it is quite acceptable, some parts of it being nearly perfect indeed. Surely I will have very few suggestions. I will have some comments (feedbacks) to it, and to this talk page too, later on. Best Regards. Julio Siqueira 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've partially rewritten the article, taking into consideration the content added by both Skolnick and Siquiera, based on long-scale diffs. I did not integrate any external information. I did make some rewords that were inferred from combinations of details among the edits. I took pains to remove POV, biased, or even content that showed bias in tone, focus, or reinforcement.

Remember I said at the beginning that I was not taking any side in the matter. What insights I have gained on this topic from this process remain my own. To be honest, it was somewhere in between the positions of the two disputants here.

I would ask that both of you contribute your concerns about the current version to the Talk page, and refrain from editing the main page from now on. This request has less to do with the fact that you are primary sources (or at least closely involved with the topic) but the fact that you are disputants over its content, and it is best to bring your disputes to the side, rather than take the conflict out on the main article.

I am going to update my request for protection to the version I just wrote.

Regards, Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Keith. As I had already said before (even before, strangely, Skolnick posted his protest against the mediation...), I fully support measures like this one that you are taking, aiming to guarantee neutral point of view and trustworthy information (I said that half an hour before Skolnick added the "Protesting the Resolution Procedures" section). And I stopped making any changes to the entry "Natasha Demkina" from the moment the dispute started. Only now did I see the so many changes that Skolnick made to the entry AFTER the dispute began. Unbelieveble. And Shameful (but, unfortunately, typical of his conduct). I will contribute with suggestions to the entry (the way you reworked it) as soon as possible, and congratulate you, Edwardian, and Wikipedia for the attempt (highly successful, I believe) of making a trustworthy and informative source of information on the web. Julio Siqueira 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Protected the page. Work it out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Letter

Sorry - just temporary measure, see my reply at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Posting emailed content disputes --Francis Schonken 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My responses to second letter

I've asked if I can post the contents of Mr. Skolnick's second email to this page. Until I receive his approval, I am posting only my responses to that email here. Missing content from Mr. Skolnick will be represented by ellipses in parentheses, followed by a summary, in italics

(...) (I should be embarassed over my rewrite)

I'm not embarassed. I've defended my work and clearly defined what work I did and how I did it.

(...) (I am placing NPOV over accuracy)

No, you're misrepresenting what I've done. I'm not planning to research Demkina. I took an immediate action to attempt to resolve libel and neutrality disputes. I've taken on your accuracy concerns one by one, and I don't believe you've responded to them all.

(...) (re Julio Siqueira's post to Museum of Hoaxes after my revision)

I don't see what Siqueira posts anywhere has to do with editing work at Wikipedia. It seems to be that while he is satisfied to have his perspective included in the article, you are increasingly dissatisfied with that. This is, of course, aside from accuracy questions, which like I said, I've responded to individually and am still awaiting your responses on those discussion points.

(...) (bringing up Siegenthaler)

Well, that issue has been exhaustively discussed and dealt with among Wikipedia participants, so I do not agree with your use of the word 'allow' as if to imply that Wikipedia knowingly permits slander. Such an allegation is itself slanderous, as I'd expect you'd recognize.

In any case, it seems to me there is a point where the ramblings of (someone you see as) an anonymous online troll on (what you seem to think is a website of poor refute) should cease to worry you. I hope for your sake you never reach a higher level of fame, because you will be very, very busy fretting over the negative words of others. It would rather seem to me in the realm of parapsychology or counter-parapsychology that those sorts of attacks from (what you presumably see as) the nutjob fringe would be part and parcel of the territory.

(I feel compelled to justify the above paragraph as an attempt to relate to Mr. Skolnick's perspective in order to make my point. It is clear that he does not hold Mr. Siqueira, the Museum of Hoaxes, or Natasha Demkina's supporters in high regard.)

(...) (The relevance of appendicitis misdiagnosis to the difficulty of locating the appendix)

I'm still not understanding why you don't follow the relevance. I think I've explained the reasoning. Appendicitis is difficult to diagnose because the appendix can be difficult to locate. Therefore, the appendix can be difficult to locate.

Ultimately -- The opposition view of your experiment is that being asked to find an appendix is unfair because the appendix can be hard to locate. The appendix can be so hard to locate, in fact, that medical doctors can have difficulty diagnosing appendicitis. Those are both accurate statements.

Whether or not I think that is a sensible objection is not relevant. (I have no basis on which to judge that.) It is in fact the objection of the critics of your experiment. Including the objections of your critics is essential to NPOV. WP does not make value judgements of the scientific veracity of your opponents' beliefs. (If WP did that, imagine what a mess articles on religion and other certain topic areas could become -- in fact has become, in some cases, because of such attempts at value judgement.) It does include their views, though.

But I've been over this already.

(...) (Possible misuse of the term "sufferer")

Responded to already and to date ignored.

(...) (Possible misuse of the term "ailment")

Responded to already and to date ignored.

(...) (Question of "better than average", lack of baseline, and also possible misuse of the word "ailment")

Been over this. You are repeating your last email. Clearly you have seen my responses to them.

(...) (Accusing me of incompetence)

I do not know on what basis you judge my incomptence. Regardless, calling me incompetent is simply argumentative.

(...) (Skolnick's intention to keep content issues private vs. my intent to keep them public)

The article is a public matter. I have no interest in it being a private issue between yourself and myself.

(...) (My lack of professional medicine knowledge and the limits of the amount of research I did in my rewrite)

I already pointed out that I only based my rewrite on what was contributed to the article over time.

(...) (My failure to read the published reports of the test)

Yes, I pointed this out.

(...) (My therefore inability to understand the sum of false positives and false negatives)

You could save your vitriol and explain them to me.

(...) (My lack of qualifications and my motivation for attempting to improve the article)

Because it needed attention. And letting only one primary source define the article would serve no one except that person. And no one else was available, and you were alleging libel.

(...) (Whether a story about a negative experience is a negative story)

Writing a story that illustrates only a negative experience is a negative article.

(...) (A story specifically only about a negative experience can be fair and accurate)

I find it ironic that you insist that your one-sided article amplifying your (in your view) negative experiences with Wikipedia would be fair and accurate, but my article including both sides of a dispute is biased and incompetent.

(...) (Whether or not I truly know that the SI will publish a negative article based on that fact that Mr. Skolnick said he intended to do so)

Well, the possiblity exists. You told me so yourself that you would intend to do this.

(...) (My violation of common netiquette in publicly posting to WP a private email about a public WP matter without first gaining explicit permission)

Then we're even, because you continue to violate the open collaborative principles of Wikipedia by trying to contain your disputes behind a closed discussion. I advised you -- both you and Siqueira -- that further disputes should be on the talk page, as is Wikipedia standard practice in a dispute. You've refused to abide by that request.

(...) (I am grossly ignorant, unsuitable to be an editor, and disregard for courtesy or fairness)

From now on, irregardless of your response to my question regarding this email, consider any email you send to me on this topic to be a public matter. I have become far more embroiled in this matter than I ever intended to be.

But if you are going to insist on targeting me as the new source of your dissatisfaction, I expect you will actually provide constructive responses to my own responses on your issues. That form of discussion is the only form which will bring about a resolution of the concerns. And I urge you to carry that out on the article talk page, so more eyes than just my incompetent ones can see it.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith, you are doing an excellent work. Skolnick simply offends anyone he gets in touch with if they do not follow the rules dictated by our Little KingSkolnick. He had a big fight with the other researchers at the test (Hyman and Wiseman). His stand is so arrogant and disgusting that the Discovery Channel ended up not interviewing him for the documentary (remember that he was the main designer of the test...). They interviewed the two other researchers involved (again, Hyman and Wiseman), and a lot. But Skolnick is not interviewed not even once! (Joe Nickell was only a helper with them, of little importance). If he just would stop quitting his psychiatrist sessions, this would not be hopeless. But the way it is, we are all at a loss while he is around. Best Regards, Julio Siqueira 11:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This last comment, and in particular its penultimate sentence, has just come to my attention. It has absolutely no place on Wikipedia and should be removed as an extreme example of personal attack. --BillC 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bill. And what about the offenses from Skolnick to me? Are they to be allowed? Please take a look above where he says: "Siqueira admits above that he deliberately added a false statement to this entry in anger because I had corrected the entry to make it less misleading. Siqueira has never been employed in any field of science. He's an elementary school English teacher. I replaced his misleading statement with a more truthful one.". Isn't it an offense for him to claim that it is misleading (and "more truthful", or better, "less of a lie"...) for me to say that I have an MA in clinical bacteriology? Why don't you speak about it? Skolnick removed my MA credentials TWICE from the external links, the last time against Edwardians strong recommendations (he made 29 changes to the entry after edwardian's recommendations to the contrary...). This last time he said he was removing my MA credentials because they are improper bio information for a reference list table. So why before he replaced it with "Elementary English Teacher". What do you think about it? Julio Siqueira 01:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bill, while you're at it, please ask them to remove the same libelous comment Siqueira made three days ago, along with the rest of the defamation he's been allowed to post here -- without any Wiki editor, moderator, or administrator telling him to stop. And please, stop using weasel words like "extreme example of personal attack. Wikis are so terrified of that "L-word"! But calling libel "extreme example of personal attack" will not protect the Wikipedia community from being held responsible for allowing the publication of defamation. Falsely stating that someone is under psychiatric care is libel. Period. Look it up in a reliable encyclopedia.Askolnick 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And thank you for being one of the only Wikis to recognize that such libelous attacks don't belong here. Askolnick 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keith,

I want to make some comments on Skolnick’s "Forbidden Letters". I will respect his feeling that the exact phrasing of his lines be not reproduced. My intention in commenting on them is to clarify some issues, and to highlight some mistakes from him. I will number the items below:

1- First, a comment from him before his dark letters (or black emails, or blackmail, if you prefer): To clarify things: the appendix and the esophagus are both easily seen with CT scans, conventional X-rays (especially with the help of Barium swallow), [8] MRI scans, and also ultrasound. [9] Askolnick 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC). He further said, in his Dark Letters, that it is difficult for clinicians to diagnose appendicitis, but that it is not difficult for them using radiology to find an appendix. So I directed the following question to two doctors here in Brazil. My question below and their answers.

Question: is it possible to identify, using X-Ray tests, if someone has an appendix or not? And is it possible to identify, by X-Ray, if someone has a scar in the esophagus due to the removal of a section of it and the subsequent sewing together of the two remaining portions? And what about CAT scans and MRI?

Answer from doctor1: Not possible by X Ray. Using CAT scan or MRI something might be said about the esophagus. But for the appendix, both methods do not work.

Answer from doctor2: something fundamental to undertand radiological exams is the use of a substance that provides contrast, without which it gets impossible to identify several structures. The air serves as contrast in conventional X-Ray tests most of the times, but it is almost impossible to identify the appendix, except with contrast using barium ingested orally, but even with it it is extremely rare. There is no doubt that this kind of exam has no value for this kind of identification routinely. As to the esophagus, the most that could be seen in conventional radiographies (X-Ray test) is the decrease in its extension, that causes a big change in the position of the estomach upward. But most of the times, it would be necessary to use barium or even to inject air for one to be sure of the position/lengh. About CAT scan: to identify the appendix, it is very difficult in many cases, without contrast. With contrast, however, it may be more or less easy. As to the scar on the esophagus, I believe it is very difficult to see by any radiological exam, unless there is too much fibrosis in this scar (hypertrophic scar).

We must remember that Skolnick himself is not a doctor. In many situations I have been able to identify severe weaknesses in his interpretations of medical issues. I am not a doctor myself. I have a MA in clinical bacteriology (2001 - UERJ Brazil), and a BA in biology (1993 UERJ Brazil - I am a non-practicing biologist, though). My experience and academical knowledge has helped me enormously in identifying his several mistakes. He does not like when one does this, and takes to offending the person. But we all have to stick to our credentials and true experiences on the subjects of issue.

The bottom line in this issue of the appendix and scar in the esophagus is that they seem clearly to be a little bit beyond Natasha's actual claims, as far as the researchers have been able to identify what her claims are. Also, these conditions are a little bit beyond the example conditions provided in their own protocols. I will make clear these two points in my nest message.

I will make some comments afterwards. Julio Siqueira 12:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Geni's comments

opening paragraph

Should read

Natasha Demkina (Наталья Демкина) (198?-), called "The Girl with X-ray Eyes," is a teenage alleged medical psychic from Saransk, Russia. Demkina claims to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical diagnoses. Believers of her power claim these diagnoses are often more accurate than those of doctors. She has appeared on television shows in the United Kingdom and, more recently, in a documentary for the Discovery Channel titled "The Girl with X-Ray Eyes" where she was asked to demonstrate her claims. After the latter demonstration, researchers rejected the likelihood of her having such an ability, though her believers criticize the methods and conclusions of the researchers.

Geni 15:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The CSMMH-CSICOP test

The parameters and conclusions of the test have been criticized by believers of paranormal abilities, and the prior bias of the research team has been questioned.

Needs a source

The work in this particular field by these researchers has drawn much criticism from other paranormal investigators, particularly believers.

Source? Names of critics?

Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Geni, good sources for this are the webpage of Professor Brian Josephson (Nobel Laureate physicist) and my own webpage (Julio Siqueira, MA in Clinical Bacteriology). Skolnick usually cites Australian Lawyer Victor Zammit too. Actually Zammit is the only critic that Skolnick allowed to be cited in his comission (the CSMMH) webpage (Skolnick even turned down repeated requests from his fellow researcher Richard Wiseman to include a link from the CSMMH page to Josephson's page). So I think Skolnick would not like to keep Zammit away from citation.Julio Siqueira 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references point by point.Geni 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment of abilities

The researchers' basis for including these (as well as the other) conditions was reportedly from third-party descriptions of her ability as being able to see organs inside the body.

reportedly? Source? Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The appendectomy candidate

Every part of this sention needs sourceing.Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Inconclusive conclusion

This needs sourceing.Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Other irregularities and questions

This needs sourceing.Geni 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Refraining

Since I have suddenly found myself to be a disputant over the article content, I am refraning from further editing of it for the time being (FWIW it is still under protection ATM). I never intended to make a perfect article, merely one that approached proper NPOV and avoided the earlier charges of Libel. This not being satisfactory to all parties, I am soliciting more eyes. I have posted a request for help in a number of other articles related to paranormal research. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

False Balance

I think this article has issues with false balance. She was tested according to parameters she and her handlers agreed to. She failed. We should be done already. According to Wikipedia policy, we aren't obliged to include every extremist position on every subject. I do think a better way to organize it would be a Point/Counterpoint list concerning individual criticisms of the test itself. I do urge participants to not take things personally. And I do think that the word libel has been bandied about far too much lately. I hope everyone realizes that libel only applies if you can prove a detrimental effect of the alleged libelous content. --DocJohnny 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, DocJohnny. The article is giving undue prominence to a certain viewpoint. The goalposts have been constantly moving since the tests. I have been wondering if what this article is more of need of is a complete rewrite, stripping the whole thing down to a bare-bones biography, and merely commenting on the controversy. As the article currently stands, it's overlong and the sort of page that no-one would want to read. --BillC 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• DocJohnny, I fully disagree with you, and I fully agree with BillC: You wrongly say that Natasha "was tested according to parameters she and her handlers agreed to.". She was not. You wrongly say that Natasha "failed the test". She did not. Did you read the material here at Wikipedia explaining all this. If not, why not? I could go over it for the thousandth time, but what I stress is that my conclusions do not come from the believers' point of view (I am not a believer in Natasha). My conclusions come from the published articles by the "researchers", skeptics actually, in their own private journal: Skeptical Inquirer. Also, from the information in their private webpage: CSMMH. And from the broadcast final official version of the documentary made by Discovery Channel. So you are badly wrong when you say "we aren't obliged to include every extremist position on every subject.". First, because this is precisely what Wikipedia has been doing... That is, some wikipedians, especially MS Skolnick, have been using this entry as a way to express their extremist and unbased point of view. Second, you are badly wrong because what I am proposing is that the fair and proper view be shown. How can you, or anyone, claim that she "failed the test" if the rules of the test were actually not followed? (rules to which she agreed). They attempted to exclude her mother from the test room (violating their own protocols), and they did it in a rather brute way, according to program producer Monica Garnsey; they presented two clinical conditions that clearly seemed beyond her actual claims as identified by the researchers; they convinced her to accept these two off-the-cuff conditions using technically and logically flawed reasoning, and in such a way that most judges would consider that from that point on she was agreeing to be tested not on seven conditions but on five conditions only; the "subjects" (those who had clinical conditions that Natasha was trying to identify) never showed any proof of their alleged clinical conditions. All this, against the test rules. What do you think of this? Well, I will tell you what I think of this, and what I told Skolnick. I said, Skolnick, if you really think this sloppy test that you did was in any way "scientific", then send it for publication in some prestigious scientific jounal. State in the "material and methods" section that "We presented to her seven subjects, each one of with a clinical conditon for her to identify; we do not have the least idea if they in fact had these conditions, for they did not show us any proof of it whatsoever, and they were not even properly screened for, since we ended up having two guys claiming to have had their appendix removed". Let's see if it gets published... Not even in Uri Geller's site... But I fully agree with BillC. I think this entry has to be brought back to its bare bones conditions. Only a very brief description of who Natasha is, what is said about her claims, and some brief comment on the controversy over her alleged powers.Julio Siqueira 10:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Please write such an article. --BillC 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• DocJohnny, you are wrong to state that libel applies only if a plaintiff can prove detrimental effect. That's not true. According to libel laws in most if not all U.S. states, certain kinds of false speech is defamatory per se -- which means no harm has to be proven for a plaintiff to win a libel or slander suit. Examples of such defamations are false charges of adultery or false attacks on a woman's chasity, false charges of drunkeness or other drug addiction, false charges of having a venereal disease, false charges of having mental illness, false allegations of criminal conduct, and many other kinds of damaging false allegations. A well-known case was Carol Burnett's successful multi-million-dollar libel suit against the National Enquirer. Ms. Burnett only had to prove that the newspaper had falsely printed a story that she had been behaving drunk at a restaurant, and (because she was a public figure) that it acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. Defamation laws have long recognized that certain labels are indisputably harmful to a person and a victim of such false labeling need not demonstrate any actual injury to bring a successful defamation suit. (Of course, by demonstrating actual injuries, the court is likely to grant a larger award to the plaintiff.

An example of such actionable conduct has been going on right in this thread. Although I've put the defamer and the Wiki community on notice, his libelous speech continues to be posted. I believe Wiki's refusal to do anything to stop the ongoing publication of defamations, despite being asked repeatedly to stop it, constitutes reckless disregard for the truth. And yet again this morning, the person, Julio Siqueira, falsely stated here that I am under psychiatric care. As stated above, falsely accusing someone of mental illness is defamation per se and requires no evidence of injury to collect damages from the offender or defenders in court. Siqueira has long made it public that he is seeking to discredit me ("piss on that moron Skolnick" was one way he put it). I also brought this fact to the attention of the Wiki community. Yet it continues to allow Siqueira to use Wikipedia in his campaign of defamation. Something is seriously wrong here and it clearly cannot continue.Askolnick 00:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I protest against this libel above from Skolnick. I never placed in public that I "piss on that moron Skolnick". Skolnick has said many lies against me, just because I am from a poor country with poor resources, and that I will most likely not be able to win a lawsuit against him if I try to start one (an international and complicated and expensive one). He has also repeatedly, even here at the wikipedia, humiliated my MA title in clinical bacteriology (a third world MA title...). Because he has contact with people with some power (CSICOPers and JAMA), he thinks he has the right to say as many libel as he wants. He has repeatedly taken out of the wikipedia my MA title. Also, he claims that I am no biologist, which is a lie from him too. Nevertheless, judging himself a king, he does not care to any protests from me... I took once his MS title from wikipedia, and soon after I myself placed it back. I called it a phoney MS title, meaning that the holder is a phoney MS (a phoney Magister Scientiae), not that the institution that gave it was phoney (that is, even though he is not a phoney MS, he behaves as such in my opinion...). He said that I had called Wiseman a bastard, which I never did, and against which I had already protested in the forum Museum of the Hoaxes, so he has no excuse to use this faulty translation of the term I used against Wiseman. Libels from Skolnick will never end, it seems. I suggest that he sues Wikipedia for allowing his own libels to be posted... Julio Siqueira 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some sanity needed

I agree with those above that this article fails the NPOV test, and quite severely. The majority of this article are EXTREMELY biased. The fact that parties involved in this event are trying to influence the article and making false legal threats here is just ridiculous.

So here's the deal:

1) If you are personally involved in this case, GET THE HECK OFF THIS ARTICLE. You are too close to it to be objective. We take Wikipedia:Neutral point of view very seriously here, not to mention your presense here violated rules against self-promotion, soap-boxing and etcetera. Editors should also not directly contact those involved, as that's clearly original research, which is prohibitted.

2) If you want to make legal threats, GET OFF WIKIPEDIA before you get kicked off. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. Note that that's whether these threats are fake (as most of these are... what a bunch of nonsense I see here) or real. Even if you have a case, which you don't, but even if you do, you are not allowed to make threats here. Talk to a lawyer and have them contact Wikimedia Inc.

3) The shorter the article is, the more objective it can be. Each time you go into some detail, all the different sides are just going to want to screech about it.

4) We really have to clean up those external links. We cannot put a description claiming that someone can sue somebody, as that looks like Wikipedia is of that opinion. Wikipedia has no opinions. Call it "So and so's website" or whatever.

5) Let me stress again: Wikipedia has no opinions. The article should just be, there is this girl, she claims so and so, she was tested, the people who ran the tests said so and so, other people complained about the tests... as everyone who was ever tested for psychic abilities and failed always does. We don;t need to go into all the detail from the people complaining about the tests, as they agreed to the tests (and shut up about this crap that yo didn't, of course you did, that's how these tests work, you agree beforehand) and badmouthing them later may be expected but shouldn't take up the bulk of the article. That's just sour grapes.

Now, do we need a bullwhip here or what? Because the actions above and the article itself are simply inexcusible.

[I've confirmed from page history that the text above is from DreamGuy 12:14, 16 December 2005, as Julio Siqueira correctly surmises just below -- Steve Summit (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

Hi DreamGuy I think what you said above is almost perfect. I just think that you overlooked the fact that the rules to which Natasha accepted were actually violated in many ways by the researchers themselves. Most important of these are the facts that the subjects never showed proof of their alleged clinical conditions, and that the researchers issued terminal verdicts on Natasha's alleged powers; both of these items are strongly against the rules that were provided by the researchers themselves (it seems we do need a bullwhip to get people to understand it, despite its being so very simple...). But I think that despite this, let's put it this way, flaw in your exposition, what you said above is highly sane and constructive, and it paves the way to a happy ending in this entry Natasha Demkina. Julio Siqueira 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new version

Natasha Demkina (Russian: Наталья Демкина) (1987–), is a teenage alleged medical psychic from Saransk, Russia.

Demkina is claimed by her followers 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 and in 2004, on television shows in the United Kingdom.

Appearance in New York

In May 2004 she was brought to New York City by the Discovery Channel to appear on a documentary entitled The Girl with X-Ray Eyes, and carry out a reading under controlled conditions. The test was arranged by Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and Andrew Skolnick of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH).

In the experiment, Demkina failed to reach the parameters agreed beforehand, and the testers concluded that she did not possess the abilities described. The methods, scientific rigour and conclusions of the experiment have subsequently been the subjects of considerable claim and counter-claim.

Demkina has since graduated from school and passed entrance examinations to Semashko State Stomatological University, Moscow. She no longer carries out readings.

References

• The Girl with X-ray Eyes, The Discovery Channel, 2004.

---

--BillC 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bill. I liked your version very much. I just do not know if it is true that she no longer carries out readings. So, if you could check it out, it might be helpful. Also, for the references, I suggest (just suggest) that you include one reference to the article of Ray Hyman, and one reference to the article of Brian Josephson. Julio Siqueira 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice, BillC, very nice. One comment: your statement "the testers concluded that she did not possess the abilities described" may be a notch too strong. In the existing version of the article (written, as I understand it, primarily by the skeptics) the conclusion was that the "researchers rejected the likelihood of her having such an ability". So you might want to use that statement instead, or insert the word "likelihood" in yours and remove the bald "did not". Steve Summit (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I recommend that if and when we get an article, that this whole talk page be struck from the history. --BillC 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with this rewrite... old talk comments should be archived but not live, to put the old controversy behind. Of course there will undoubtedly be people trying to start it back up, but all the old stuff shouldn;t be here for more back and forth. We need an objective article, like the rewrite above, and that should prevent most of the problems the page had. DreamGuy 07:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Less opinionated speculation, more factual description

This article has WAY too much back and forth speculation about what may or may not have affected, invalidated, vindicated, etc, the performed test. The factual description of the test and the major points of critical discussion around the test can be described without all that fluttering and speculation. The problem here is that we seem to have a collection of editors determined to prove their point to the world, and use this article to do it. That's not how it's supposed to work here...

No element of this article should be trying to assert whether or not Natasha Demkina actually possesses any ability, nor should the article be trying to "convince" the reader that she does or does not possess any ability. The article should describe Natasha Demkina, describe the ability she claims, describe the history of these claims, describe the nature of the test that was performed, present the statistical analysis of that test, and present the major points of critical discussion surrounding the test without trying to convince anyone in any part of the article which of those major points is correct. FRJohn 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of an article with more factual analysis and description, and less speculation, allow me to present the following, which should be placed in the article as soon as it is unprotected:

Statistical analysis of CSMMH-CSICOP test of Natasha Demkina

Number correct (c)	Probability of exactly 'c' correct	Odds of 'c' or more correct
0	0.367857	1 : 1
1	0.368056	1 : 1.5819
2	0.183333	1 : 3.7866
3	0.0625	1 : 12.383
4	0.013888	1 : 54.783
5	0.004167	1 : 229.09
6	0	1 : 5040
7	0.000198	1 : 5040

$w(0)=1;w(1)=0;w(2)=1;w(n)=(n-1)\left[(n-1)w(n-2)+(n-2)w(n-3)\right]$

$p(c)={\frac {w(7-c)}{(c!(7-c)!)}}$

Along with this chart, the statement:

"At the end of the test, she had correctly identified four of the ailments with their sufferers from among the candidates, falling one short of the agreed-upon passing mark. The researchers concluded that, having failed the test, the existence of her special ability was dubious."

should be replaced with:

At the end of the test, she had correctly associated four of the seven ailments with their sufferers, falling one short of the agreed-upon passing mark. The written test parameters stated that a passing mark would be correctly associating five or more ailments, a result which would occur by chance only once out of 229.09 times. The actual result of four out of seven is a result which would only occur by chance once out of 54.783 times. According to the standards of statistical significance, results which would happen by chance less often than once out of 20 times are considered "statistically significant", so the test results were statistically significant, but did not pass the agreed upon testing parameters.

The following two sections, "Criticism of the test" and "Defense of the test" need to be largely deleted as most of it is speculative and nonencyclopedic. The remaining material can be merged into one unified section titled "Critical issues regarding the test" which PRESENTS the critical issues that were raised, and argues for none of them. FRJohn 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another good example of the reasons I gave up trying to help Wiki editors write an accurate article on Natasha Demkina. Editors like Keith and FRJohn appear to believe they can write an accurate article without reading the only major published sources. If FRJohn read Ray Hyman's article, he might not make such a misstatement about Natasha's test score being statistically significant. He also appears not to have paid attention to my attempts here to correct mistakes. For example, he uses the word "ailment" -- despite my correcting the previous editor's inaccurate substitution of "ailment" for "medical condition." I repeat, the test target conditions were not "ailments." We deliberately set up a test that would not require Natasha to identify "ailments." They were long healed anatomical abnormalities. None of the conditions were ailing the people and none of them required any medical care. The use of the word "ailment" is inaccurate and hides an important factor in the design of the test.Askolnick 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FRJohn, I think you are unnecessarily introducing more problems into this article (please, see this as contructive criticism from me). I strongly recommend that Wikipedia stick to a very raw bone entry, as suggested and sketched by BillC. Details about the test, and details about the criticism to it, are very rich and interesting, but they are very very thorny, tricky, subtle, hard to explain briefly, etc. It is a pandora's box: hope at the very bottom; but problems all the way down to it. I agree with Skolnick that you seem not to have read all the relevant information properly. So, you are bound to write lines that will seem inacurate for the testers and/or for the critics. This is something we should try to leave behind. For example, Skolnick thinks you misused the word "ailment", and I think you did not. He thinks Natasha's result at the test cannot be considered statistically significant, but I think it can. I can refute these two views from Skolnick above, fast and easily, but imagine if the article keeps getting bigger and bigger... My strong recommendation is so: Very brief entry plus references to Discovery Channel, Ray Hyman, and Brian Josephson. I will say (just a little below) why I think Skolnick is not right in his two opinions above. Julio Siqueira 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)