Talk:Allison DuBois

Use of "claimed"
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.187.89 (talk) April 17, 2006

I too found the word "claimed" rather negative and hostile. I find when it is "personal", this sort of language is used.


 * How should it be said, then? Saying "Allison DuBois claims to use her psychic abilites to help law enforcement agencies" may sound like a violation of the NPOV policy, but saying "Allison DuBois uses her psychic abilites to help law enforcement agencies" obviously violates NPOV by claiming that she's telling the truth. At least saying she "claims" something acknowledges that she's saying it without stating weather what she's saying is true.Web wonder (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I think 'claim' is the polite thing to say. She says she helped the police solve certain crimes, they say she didn't. The impolite thing to say would be 'she falsely claimed to help police solve crimes'. Really, if people were trying to have a go at Allison DuBois, there's a lot harsher things they could say about her, given how little evidence she has to back up her extraordinary claims. I think this article is doing a good job of being NPOV by just listing the claims and rebuttals. Gregory j (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2009 (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 for something publically controversial, but more importantly the website referenced as a source falls under the following sources to avoid: WP:Reliable_sources, WP:Reliable_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 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 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:

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 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 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 07:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm really done : ) Reads much better, don't ya think? -- ~Nealparr~  (Talk 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 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 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 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neutral article by a longshot. The 3rd reference needs to be balanced by the fact that 41% of Icelanders claim they communicate with dead relatives and friends. The DSM-IV was revised to accommodate this type of phenomena. The WHO guidelines are less strict precisely because of several European countries differing cultural and experiential results, e.g. Finland. --unsigned user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.154.46 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2011 (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 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this reference of any use? 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 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)

1/7/08 episode
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)

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)


 * Fair point, but if we're going to include his academic qualifications to boost his image and credibility, then that would also make it fair game to note that he is a part of a fringe community of paranormalists whose paranormal ideas do not represent or have the support of the scientific mainstream community. Gregory j (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * But those claims have been shown to be false. If the people that she has claimed to work with deny that it ever happened, should the article not reflect that? How many times does she need to be caught out making unsubstantiated claims before the article reflects this? Gregory j (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that Schwartz tested her and claims she does have mediumistic powers has not been shown to be false, since in fact it is true. It's a failure of NPOV to baldly state that what Schwartz is doing is pseuodscience, since that's exactly what the argument between the pro-psychic and anti-psychic scientists is about, and it cannot be settled by applying your personal metaphysical commitments. Saying if X is true then we must toss out our science books is a fallacy, and it seems to misunderstand the nature of science. Einstein not like the idea that there is "spooky action at a distance", or that causality does not seem to be absolute. Nor is the fact that the past is not already fixed and immutable seem to help any. But we are stuck with this stuff, no matter how damaging it is to how we would have preferred to carry out the study of physics. Science is NOT metaphysics, still less religion. This is a bad article. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


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

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)

Removal of Phoenix New Times reference and material
User:Spritebox removed a statement sourced to a Phoenix New Times article, stating that the source didn't say what the statement in the article said. That is not correct. Among other things, the source says of the Baseline Killer case:


 * Detective Alex Femenia, the lead investigator in the "Baseline Killer" case, followed every tip he got. But DuBois led him nowhere.




 * Hill says that according to both the lead investigator, Femenia, and the lead supervisor on the case, DuBois had nothing to do with catching Goudeau.


 * "Sometime during the sequence of crimes, the lead investigator said that, to his best recollection, he had two conversations with Ms. DuBois," Hill says. "It seemed to him that Ms. DuBois was trying to get information from him. But the only information she suggested was one statement that was totally incorrect, stating she thought the suspect was a transient and had left the state."

The article said (and now, after my revert, says again):


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

The article text is a good summary of the text in the source article. In fact, I would argue that the source should drive the statement to read "no investigative value" instead of "little" as the source says that the only information she provided was "totally incorrect." -- Transity (talk • contribs) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

'helps law enforcement'
The lead talks about her alleged co-operation with police - then never mentions it again. This seems too important an issue to simply skip (not to mention that the lead should summarize the main page). 99.244.97.75 (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's mentioned in every section of the article except the one about her books. Her claims are mentioned, criticisms of those claims are mentioned, and her claim that she, like her character, consulted with law enforcement is mentioned. Maybe I'm missing your point here. --  Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 01:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with Police Investigations.
A real problem people like Allison face is that they often are called in to high profile cases of serial murder etc. More often than not a person totally unlike the one described by the Consultant Medium is arested and the Medium finds herself lampooned in the Media. However, the 'twist to the story' is that investigators in the future often find that the killer arested was not responsible for all the murders he was found giulty of. This is rairly mentioned in the main stream media, and the Medium never gets an opology or a fair hearing. Which means we are right back where we started, can Mediums assisst Law Enforcment Agencies? We just do not know.Johnwrd (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an intriguing, totally unsupported, highly dubious anecdote. Here's my version of the same story. A real boon to people like Allison is that they often offer unsolicited input on high profile cases of serial murder etc. More often than not, a person totally unlike the one described by the consultant "medium" is arrested. The good news for the "medium" is that such blatant, documented, obvious misses are generally never mentioned in the mainstream media, and only instances in which the "medium's" guesses were close (by way of chance, hot reading, or subjective validation) are ever reported. Interestingly, there is no "twist to the story," and the "medium" is just plain wrong. This is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media, and the Medium never gets openly ridiculed or scorned as they deserve. Which means we are right back where we started: do "mediums" actually provide any useful input to Law Enforcement Agencies? No. --  Transity  (talk &bull; contribs) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'Unsupported' 'dubious' 'anacdotal'. I suggest you check the Internet with regards to Serial Killer cases and how many of the murders attributed to those killers are claimed years later to be spurious. The Medium Psychic seems to have been correct in their descriptions.Johnwrd (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than have everyone else support your allegations, shouldn't you be the one to site a source for your claim? I can't recall this ever happening, but neither of us should rely on our memories for proof. Also, did Transity strike through their text him/herself? I'm removing it, as their point is correct, but if Transity did it themselves, feel free to put it back.Sheriffjt (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Skepticism
Not many people @ wikipedia would have watched Medium. The skeptic cult has taken over wikipedia, if you haven't noticed. 11/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.62.133 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, the Skeptic Cult. Skepticism, from the late Latin word "scepticus" meaning "thoughtful" or "inquiring".  Now that is a cult I can get behind.  If only more people would look at the world around them with a "thoughtful and inquiring" worldview. Lol DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to intro
I reverted two changes to the intro which removed perfectly valid and in no way "strident" language about the paranormal being considered pseudoscience. The statement is properly sourced, and it conforms to WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. It was a sourced statement of fact that followed a reliable source.

Further, the fact that areas of parapsychology are considered pseudoscience is backed by WP:PSCI which says:


 * "Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy."

Finally, the changes made seemed to constitute weasel wording - saying that psychic powers "have yet to be backed up with credible scientific evidence" lends far too much credence to the claim. It is also not what the source says - the National Science Foundation source very clearly labels this as "pseudoscience" and not "awaiting evidence." Thanks. --  Transity (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What the source actually says is that pseudoscience refers to "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility". Making the statement that "communication with the dead is considered pseudoscience" is a complete non sequitur.  It's an absurd claim, by the definition given in the referenced source.  You can only call specific methods or reasoning "pseudoscience".  I am therefore removing the bad statement.Erikmartin (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely, and have reverted you. The statement is factually accurate, properly sourced, and fits where it is. Allison's claim to speak with the dead should be and must be balanced with the prevailing scientific view that such a claim is pseudoscientific. --  Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.122.128.154, 18 December 2010
She has three daughters who are also psychic like she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.128.154 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources, please. Dreadstar  ☥  20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Easily found, and added to article, as her belief that her daughters share the ability. Tvoz / talk 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that someone claims to have supernatural abilities should not warrant inclusion as fact. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Sheriffjt (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Appearance on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills
This section needs to adhere to WP:BLP, understood. As I said I'm new here which is why I'm trying to make sure that I ask questions before directly editing an article. Here are my suggested changes as an additional paragraph under "criticism" with a link to a different source that would not be an inline link.

Allison DuBois was a dinner guest of cast member Camille Grammer on the episode of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills that aired December 16, 2010. DuBois made comments to castmember Kyle Richards on camera including "You are entirely washed up," and "You have achieved nothing in life." footnote link here After the dinner party, DuBois made statements to Camille Grammer and another friend about Richards, including "I can tell you when she will die and what will happen to her family. I love that about me." second footnote link here Celebritywiki (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-entering my previous comment here re: having something in the article about her appearance on RHBH. Why was the previous discussion about this totally blanked out? 165.189.169.138 (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why the last conversation was blanked out. I did link to the quotes on my blog, not as an advertisement but to give a reference as no other site had the full quotes. It's fine that someone removed that link as it's not a valid source, etc., but I don't think the entire entry had to be erased. I've since changed the reference to a site that has some but not all of the quotes. We definitely should add these quotes and I would appreciate if someone did it in the proper format. Thank you. Celebritywiki (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this violates WP:UNDUE. A drunken appearance on a reality show isn't really a major life event that deserves very much detail. Lots of people get drunk and say rude things at dinner parties, the only difference here is that there were cameras there. At most the deserves a passing mention a long the lines of "Dubois also made an appearance on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills as a guest of Camille Grammer's at a dinner party." That's really all that is necessary. AniMate  15:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. A drunken appearance that destroys credability and career is very pertinent.  While not enough time has passed to determine if this is a truman capote career ender or not, the initial response of viewers in the blogosphere indicate it is heading that way.


 * Agreed. That was the gist of my original comment in this section, although i would add that there is a lot of very negative press about her appearance.  165.189.169.138 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone added it anyway - in an inappropriate section to boot - and I'm removing it. There is no notable content there, and no reliably sourced commentary about it that gives it any notability.  Tvoz / talk 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that it doesn't deserve lots of detail, but do think it is worth a sentence, similar to, for example, mention in Joaquim Phoenix article of appearance on David Letterman. Also, reference provided for appearance is reliable. 165.189.169.138 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How significant is this to her life and career? That's what we look for in a biography - not a catalog of appearances that we have no third party, reliable source analysis of. So we have a clip of an  appearance. So what? Just because it happened, and just because there is a source saying it happened, does not mean it is notable or appropriate for adding to the bio. The reliable sourcing I'd be looking for is something that confers notability on the appearance - you mention above that there is "a lot of very negative press" about the appearance, but nothing was offered.  And again, what matters is whether this has some significance to her life or her career, and that is backed up by something beyond a clip of the appearance.  Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman is really quite different - that had so much coverage that it  became a cultural meme.  We cite three independent sources analyzing it, not just a clip of the appearance for the readers to analyze. So I am not convinced that this belongs in, in the present form at least. Tvoz / talk 02:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If Dubois has a history of television appearances, I think this could be notable. I simply don't know much about her. If she is a regular on talk shows or has other appearances on television perhaps this could be placed in such a list. However, the detail included isn't really necessary. AniMate  04:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR Yes or No?
I have seen WP:SYNTH, and I disagree. I would not have reverted without reading that section. However, I see nothing in the original version that flies in the face of that section. Please be more clear than it "clearly" violates WP:SYNTH since it is not clear to me that it does so.

Here's a similar example to what was here, but taken out of the realm of the paranormal:


 * John Smith, a human, claims to be the biological offspring of a dog and a canary,(insert reference to claim) but the scientific consensus holds that cross-species breeding between dogs and canaries is not biologically possible.(insert science text reference here).

Are you saying that, in order to be proper, the scientific reference used must refer to John Smith specifically? And that a science text that simply states that dogs and birds cannot interbreed would be WP:SYNTH? Because if so, I'm not following that.

Someone has made a claim. That claim is plainly refuted in a non-specific way by experts writing in reputable sources. If someone makes a claim that flies in the face of accepted facts, then I don't agree that the source refuting that claim has to refer to the person making the claim directly. That doesn't make any sense to me, and if followed, that approach would lead to WP:UNDUE weight being placed on outlandish claims without including scientific consensus to counter them.

Or are you saying that the statement that communicating with the dead is considered pseudoscience doesn't need a reference and that it stands on its own without the NSF reference? If so, I must say I personally agree, but in the context of Wikipedia, I think I would have to disagree.

That said, I have long since given up on arguing against Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience, so if there is a precedent or a ruling that impacts this issue, please point it out, and I will certainly comply. Otherwise, please help me understand how this is WP:SYNTH, and why you believe that questionable claims cannot be countered by reputable scientific sources in the way it was done here previously. Thank you. --  Transity (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone? --  Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 02:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article without the statement addressing the scientific consensus on psychic abilities gave WP:UNDUE weight to Allison's claims that she is a psychic because it didn't counter her claim with the fact that the scientific community agrees that psychics are not real. I would like to discuss this, but never got a response to my comments above. So for now, I have added back the necessary language that was removed. The statement added back is "In addition, communicating with the dead and extrasensory perception are considered to be pseudoscience as there is no credible evidence to back up such claims." The sourcing is still available in the history, and in my opinion, should also be added back. In part, I believe it should be added back as the statement was removed due to "lack of sourcing" which is inaccurate, but hardly the editor's fault as the sourcing was removed. If you disagree, please elaborate here. Otherwise I would like to re-add it. --  Transity (talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Dreadstar ☥   18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have read the policy and I do not agree with your interpretation as it applies here. I have outlined my position above. Please do the same. Sourcing is not at issue here as there are credible sources backing up the statement you re-removed. Let's discuss the issue, and make a true determination on whether the statement and the sources should be included or removed. In brief, the statement directly addresses Allison's claim to speak to the dead, and the sources directly refer to the validity of such a claim as it is viewed by the wider scientific community. This is not a synthesis or original research, and further this statement is required (IMO) to balance out Allison's claim by showing that the scientific consensus classifies her claim as impossible. Not including this statement gives undue weight to a psuedoscientific claim.
 * Most importantly, please refer to WP:PSCI, part of the larger WP:NPOV policy, which states:
 * ''While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.
 * Emphasis above is mine, and points out exactly what I am talking about here. Please let me know your thoughts. --  Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 13:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NOR is pretty clear on this, the source must mention the subject of the article, in this case Allison Dubois. Since the source makes no mention of her, it cannot be used in this WP:BLP.  That source may be applicable to Mediumship, but not here.  Believe me, I've been through dozens if not hundreds of discussions on this very issue.  NPOV requirements are met by adding content about Allison DuBois that represents "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  About Allison DuBois.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I get it. I still don't see that NOR is clearly against this, but I believe you that you've been down this road enough times to know the outcome before taking another trip. But then how the heck can you ever satisfy the NPOV mandate that "An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" without bumping into this issue? Clearly not every person who claims something unscientific will be mentioned in a source solid enough to be deemed to represent the scientific consensus on that type of claim. In fact, I imagine that very few people would be mentioned in this way. Doesn't that create a huge issue in which NPOV is sacrificed across the breadth of pseudoscientific articles?
 * As I've said above, I have long since given up on arguing Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience. But this one seems particularly problematic and frustrating in that it seems to me to create more problems than it avoids. --  Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 21:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the pseudoscience explanation is taken care of in the main articles for those subjects such as Mediumship, Psychic, Paranormal, etc. Those articles are about the actual subjects considered to be pseudoscience and are supposed to contain the all notable views, definitely including the skepical ones on the subject; whereas an article like this is about the person, not the pseudoscience. Dreadstar  ☥   22:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mother's last name
I find it inconsistent that her mother is listed with the same last name (dubois) preceding by a sentence that says that Allison is married to Tim Dubois. It is highly unlikely (near impossible) that her mother's last name is the same. this seems to be in error.


 * Sounds like a goof to me. Also, the acknowledgments that Google Books lets you see for "Secrets of the Monarch" says "...to my parents, Mike and Tiena" (one n in "Tiena"); . TJRC (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably Gomez at the time: "For years DuBois downplayed her abilities. The only child of Mike Gomez, a professional ballroom dancer, and Tiena, a homemaker (they divorced when she was 6 months old), she sensed she was different after seeing her deceased great-grandfather but to fit in decided to ignore her visions and premonitions." People 2005 --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, Allison's husband is listed as Joe Klupar but the "Personal Life" section states "DuBois is married to Joe DuBois..." Someone needs to verify all of these names!Tcosmas (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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