Talk:Allison DuBois

How many people Googled Allison today based on tonight's episode???

I certainly did! 1/7/08

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.34.166 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way of toning down the skepticism a bit? The word "claims," for example, is used 11 times in a rather short article. I, too, find the notion of psychic abilities a little hard to swallow, but it's not really NPOV to be so openly hostile to the possibility, is it?

I too found the word "claimed" rather negative and hostile. I find when it is "personal", this sort of language is used. Truth is I found almost all the WIKIPEDIA articles dealing with Mediums to use this sort of language, which makes the objectivity of WIKIPEDIA suspect (in my mind anyway - and that I will 'own'). Cheers!

Given that some of the the things listed as "claims" are in fact factually unsupported and even contradicted by the available fact, and because wikipedia is suppose to be about factual information, I'd say that merely calling them "claims" is pretty generous. It's a heck of lot nicer than calling them "lies," if not as accurate. Plunge 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

... "research" medium who claims to have psychic abilities....

It is tough to objectively comment on another's life. This above statement is someone's opinion and perhaps they have 'evidence' to 'support' their statement, but in the end, it is simply someone's opinion and subjective - not NPOV.

Perhaps stating the she engaged in research in the psychic/metaphysical feild would say the same thing but without the 'slant'. I have not always been open to the metaphysical field of study but then again, I have not always been open to the field of politics and modern medicine (to name a few), but I do see that they can exist in this world of ours, AND I do not have to get myself all bent out of shape about it and call it all non-sense. WIKIPEDIAVI 20:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "claim" is a negative word. It's simply accurate - the woman does claim these things. If you object to the number of times the word is used then why not reword it to something like "Ms. DuBois' claims include the following : that she can talk to the spirits of dead people, that she has helped the police, yadda yadda yadda..." Then put the counterviews together as well. BobThePirate 17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't this page focus on the details about Allison DuBois - e.g. She has a book and Tv show based on her - and just leave it at that, does it need to be weighed down so much with hearsay. I can't see how it's considered Encyclopedia worthy.

The argument that the use of the word "claims" is hostile, not objective, and in violation of NPOV is completely backward. Is is the lack of that word that would be these things, because the passages would then be stating these things as a matter of fact, which it is not. Are you seriously suggesting that the article say, for example,

"DuBois is a research medium who has psychic abilities."?

If so, such a wording would be completely unacceptable. Clarifying that her powers are a claim on her part is therefore correct. As for hearsay, I do not see any in the article, but if you can point out instances of it, please do so. And yes, the article is about DuBois. Thus, a discussion of her alleged abilities, which includes the positions of both supporters and skeptics, is warranted. Nightscream 07:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets be fair with the use of the word "claims": Should we not apply NPOV and write "the Two Percent Company claims it contacted the Texas Rangers, with whom DuBois says she has worked, and claims it was told by representatives of that agency that they have never utilized psychics, including DuBois.". Do we have any verifiable external reference to these claims by the way? Can we have a name of the person from the Two per cent company and the name and position of the person from the Texas Rangers? JamesJBergin30th January 2007

Two Percent Co. References

I'm removing references to the Two Percent Company per Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living people which holds a higher standard as to the reliability of sources for negative claims against living people.

I don't see how they meet the WP:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources standards for something publically controversial, but more importantly the website referenced as a source falls under the following sources to avoid: WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, WP:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources, and possibly others.

Like I said, Wikipedia has higher standards for living people and according to the policies, questionable sources need to be removed immediately.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify why I removed the references (and I can't mention the actual statements per policy), a statement like those must come from a published official statement released by the agencies that supposedly said them in order to be reliable and verifiable. Someone saying they said that isn't reliable and definitely isn't verifiable. Normally I wouldn't be so picky, but this is a living person involved and defamation of character is pretty serious, hence the policy. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DuBois's Site in External Links

DuBois's official site is periodically removed from this article as self-promotional or spam. I understand why editors might think along those lines, but the following comes from WP:External_links#What_should_be_linked:

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

Please leave the link unless Wikipedia changes their policy. Thanks. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All done

All done editing out unsourced statements, unreliable sources, removing things that don't really belong, and reorganizing the document. I'm pretty sure someone will want to add more stuff in the near future, but I'm hoping that people stick to the guidelines of Wikipedia and the golden rule of neutrality. We don't need to get to the bottom of things and prove psychic abilities to be fake or real, or call anyone a liar or fraud. That (at least as I understand it) isn't the goal of Wikipedia. WP articles should be the least controversial articles on the web. Just my humble opinion. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, some of the unsourced material you are dealing with was added by an unsigned editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.228.142.53) who later began signing as "JoeDubois" (Allison's husband). --- LuckyLouie 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what's there now as of the last edit is pretty well sourced. There's two paragraphs that I couldn't find in my brief look around the web, but I think they're accurate and not negative, so I'm pretty sure someone can find a simple newspaper or magazine article somewhere to back them up. The negative statements need really good sources. Statements like she was 6 when she claimed to have had psychic visions isn't all that controversial and can be sourced by one of her books, I'd imagine (haven't read any of them myself). I got rid of the Two Percent statements for the reasons above, but left them in the External Links because that's a different set of guidelines. I left out the ____ statement (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to) because really, that needs to come directly from the original source as it is saying bluntly that she, NBC, and anyone involved in the show lied. Something like that can't be flimsy sourced. Most of the Randi stuff I left in and just made a few wording changes so that the statements are "According to Randi, DuBois said this" instead of "DuBois said this", because I couldn't find an archived version of the DuBois page at archive.org. But even at Randi's site it never said "senile", so that was misquoted. If that really was Joe DuBois who stopped in, there's nothing defaming in here that isn't attributed to sources and nothing really crazy or controversial. Saying that Randi and CSI criticize psychics is like saying that water quenches one's thirst : ) --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I'm really done : ) Reads much better, don't ya think? --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You really did a great job, Neal. The article is 100% better. --- LuckyLouie 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lucky! Hopefully it can remain stable for awhile. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

In reading this wiki entry it appears to me that the sentence at the end of the second paragraph in the "The Medium (TV series)" section is a HUGE run on sentence. I wanted to note it here and allow the original author to make the changes. RaggTopp 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed it up a bit. Feel free to edit pages if you find similar problems in the future. That's what Wikipedia is all about : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

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

born in 1972 and graduated in 1990?

If she was born in 1972 shouldn't she have graduated in 1980 or so not 1990? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.209.165.170 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Had she graduated in 1980, she would have been 8 years old when graduating from High School.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this reference of any use? [1] MrFlit 14:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WeAreTheirHeaven.jpg

Image:WeAreTheirHeaven.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Schwartz qualifications

I have concern over the following sentence: "Dr. Gary Schwartz, a tenured professor, Harvard Ph.D., and Director of The VERITAS Research Project at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Lab..."

My problem is that (1)Does it matter that he is a tenured professor? I think it would be more appropriate to say he is a Professor of Psychology. While "tenure" denotes some sort of standing I think it is unnecessary. (2) He is already called "Dr." why do we mention that he has a PhD or "Harvard PhD" for that matter. Again, there is some "reputation" behind having a degree from Harvard, but that minutia should be left to his wikipedia page.

I recommend the sentence read: "Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of Psychology and Director of The VERITAS Research Project at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Lab..." they can find the tenured and Harvard parts on his wiki page (which there is already a link to)

Petercoyl (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would support the change if there was a link to the Dr.'s name where we could read about his qualifications. The problem here is that, given that the whole article repeatedly states that her abilities amount to unsubstantiated claims, and have been denied...and then Schwartz's researc is taken to task, it is important to note that he is not some unqualified hack. This is NOT because I am a fan of DuBois or what she does, this is simply because given the lack of substantiation, that she has attracted a person of Schwartz's qualifications is a remarkable fact. 70.171.231.243 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a good article

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

POV

This article is currently highly POV. No, not because of the use of the word "claims", which needs to be there, but because the article directly suggest she is a fraud. Example: "Skeptics doubt that she has any supernatural abilities. Indeed many of her claims...". Just look at the choice of external links, "The Dubois Claims of DuBois", as if this is the article for someone who has admitted to being a fraud. This needs to be cleaned up.--DnivyØ (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't think your point, or your example, is valid. I don't see anywhere (including your example) where the article states that Allison is a fraud. Further, in your example, you are taking two separate items and tying them together incorrectly. There are, as you note, two statements in the intro regarding a skeptical view of Allison. One says:

Skeptics doubt that she has any supernatural abilities.

This one has a citation to a JREF article that substantiates the statement by showing an example of a noted skeptic who does indeed doubt Allison's abilities (along with his rationale for why he doubts). The other says:

Indeed many of her claims regarding work done in high profile investigations, such as her description of the Baseline rapist, have been shown to be either incorrect or of little investigative value.

The citation for this statement is an article from the Phoenix New Times that explores how her predictions have been incorrect and/or useless.

Then you mention a link in the External Links section to a skeptical article about Allison's claims (The Dubious Claims of Allison DuBois). However, that article isn't used as a citation for any statement made in the entry, and it is merely offered as an External Link for more reading on Allison. This use of the external article is entirely proper, in my opinion.

I simply don't see your point as valid here. This article currently does a good job of conveying a neutral (and balanced) point of view, and it offers external sources on both sides of the debate. —Transity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)