Talk:Sniffex

Untitled
I'd love to fix this page to comply to Wikipedia standards. I can probably supply additional information if it's needed but I don't know how to make the page comply and sorry, but I am not that much "into" Wikipedia to learn all the details at this time. For those who don't write in wiki's regularly, it's quite daunting.

If someone would like to help, please let me know what information you need either here or by email using maryyugo [at symbol] yahoo [dot] com.

This article could be important in saving both lives and money. Sniffex has been tested by several parties and found sorely deficient. It's an explosive detector which means if it's used and doesn't work, people could be maimed or killed. I hope someone will be able to help me refine this entry.

I am not sure why the material is being questioned. True, as far as I know, no published reports in refereed journals exist as yet. On the other hand, one of the references is to a set of actual experiments, documented on video, which anyone can see and understand and which were never refuted by the manufacturer. These videos, involving the president and vice president of the company which sells Sniffex, clearly demonstrate that the device does not detect explosives even when operated by the people who promote it. Why would something like that not be considered adequate in the light of the complete absence of evidence to the contrary?

Thanks. Maryyugo 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit 6 Oct 2007. Thanks to those who helped reformat the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.129 (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've look over the article and the sources in it. I'm afraid I don't see the sources necessary for this to meet the notability rules.  Blog posts just don't cut it.  If reliable sources can be found, then it may merit an article. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas News isn't a blog. The videos in one of the blogs depict an actual double blind experiment, done with the company's cooperation with the president of the company operating the device, demonstrating that Sniffex doesn't detect explosives. A university and a government report also exist-- I will look for them. A five day warning before deleting a post like this is totally inadequate. You seem to be discouraging contributions to Wikipedia. Not everyone checks their posts regularly.Maryyugo (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryyugo (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of discouraging contributions - I simply don't think this article, as it is now, is suitable for inclusion. Since you disagree, and an AfD seems excessive (sad to say, there has been considerable media discussion of this nonsense - consult Google's news archive to start), I've flagged the article for cleanup.  Regarding the five-day limit - that is the standard.  You can dispute that if you want, but it was arrived at after long debate and will most likely not be changed. And please sign your posts. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article but it's very difficult for those who don't contribute to wikipedia with regularity to learn all the unique encoding and conventions of the system. In fact, it's extremely annoying to have to use anything much but HTML. Please check those "notability rules" again-- they list mainline newspapers as suitable sources. And the blogs cited are not those of unqualified individuals-- they are those belonging to industry experts. As for signing posts, I clicked on the 4 tildes in the Wiki Markup area below, it seemed to record OK but nothing happened... so I'd be happy to sign if I could. I'll try again: Maryyugo (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your signing did work properly. To see what an edit will look like before making it, click 'show preview' at the bottom of the editing window.  Regarding cleanup - that isn't simply a cosmetic matter, so please don't remove the tag.  'Industry experts' is a loaded term here - we need third-party reliable sources to avoid conflicts-of-interest.  You are correct that the newspaper article is an acceptable source.  If it were the only one of its kind, however, it probably wouldn't be enough.  However, Google's News archives contain ~200 articles on this particular nonsense, so that should be sufficient (and I now seem to recall a debunking by James Randi as well). Michaelbusch (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped correct this page to Wikipedia standards. For questions about this information, you can contact me at maryyugo [at symbol] yahoo [dot] com. Maryyugo (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

somewhere along the way the date listed in references has been entered incorrectly, it states Retrieved on 2008-08-09 ( august 9th 2008), which is in the future. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix this reflist.--87.80.113.129 (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sniffex is a now debunked, portable explosive detection system produced by Homeland Safety International.
SNIFFEX, AT NO TIME, has been produced by Homeland Safety International (former SNIFFEX Inc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unival (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, that's correct. Sniffex was promoted, marketed, and sold by Homeland Safety International (HSI) world wide but someone else actually made the dowsing rod gadget. Far as I know, HSI was the only company to market Sniffex in the United States and to employ it as the basis for a major stock scam otherwise known as a pump and dump scheme. --Maryyugo (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Related group of people involve in "Shell Creation Group"
I see what a great job this community has done on this Sniffex entry and I know it has helped people, and helped me not get hurt. Will you please help with the "Shell Creation Group" page? Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Creation_Group and I would appreciate any and all help available. I feel it is very important, and I believe you all on this page will agree.

Should this be in the Divining rod WP apge?
It seems a short mention of each device in that page would be best. And then delete the individual product pages. If the list grows they can all be put on their own 'modern dowsing rod' page.Geo8rge (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone in a position to purchase these might do a google search. A blogger or government critic looking at that purchase almost certainly would. We want the proper wikipedia information to come in high in that search, and also have a page name that means the searcher is likely to click on it. If the page that comes up in search is named "Divining Rod - Wikipedia" then the searcher might just think "Oh, hell, google is all messed up, that's not what I'm looking for." Which is why we're kinda fighting an uphill battle against all the re-named and re-re-named devices. A few different device "brand name" pages and ALL the different nomenclatures included on one or more of the pages should eventually do the trick, while we're waiting for the world to get over this little thing called a gullibility and corruption problem. Pär Larsson (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also point out that each of these devices has its own story. The Sniffex has the financial fraud story plus the debunkings, the ADE651 and GT200 devices have their histories with different foreign governments and the British export ban, and so on. Also I point out that there is a long range locator page with is similar, but somewhat different, in those devices seem to be marketed to a different community. I have done a little of the work in inserting the cross-references, e.g. maintaining the see-also lists at the bottom of these articles and adding the HEDD1 into the Sniffex article.  But I agree with the orignal post in the sense that it might be helpful to have a list-of article for all the 'modern dowsing rods'. M.boli (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Don't think so!
I think each device deserves a page so that it is easily found and a good individual description is provided. People have already been killed by these fraudulent devices. They need to be as easily found and read about as is possible. For example, a google search for "sniffex" returns this wiki entry as the **first** listing. Today anyway. That's as it should be. Diluting this information does nobody any good. Maryyugo (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction dispute resolution?
Sniffex' is a now debunked, fraudulent portable explosives detection system produced by Homeland Safety International, a company implicated in a "$32 million pump-and-dump fraud scheme." ...Despite this, the military bought eight for $50,000. A military spokesperson said "We got ripped off." Well-intentioned edit needless reverted imo. No clue how to conflict-resolve that. At issue is that the intro does not include the word "fraudulent" which is more well known and immediately descriptive than the word "debunked". The phrase "despite this, the US military bought" is a misleading one-sided statement in that it's out of context. Sure they bought some. For testing? Their spokesperson herself says "We were ripped off." The person who reverted the edit is disregarding NPOV and deliberately trying slant this to portray the US military in a negative light. There's little need for that. Us military folks can do that all by ourselves, thank you very much.Pär Larsson (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! I see much simpler questions here: one where I think you have identified a genuine issue, one where I think your edit is a style mistake.
 * A) It struck me that your edit changed the tone of the lede paragraph in a direction away from an encylopedia voice and more toward shrillness.
 * The lede prior to your edit was quite unambiguous as whether the Sniffex was a working product. Adding the word "fradulent" to the existing "debunked" reads to me as just piling on with strong language.
 * Also there is the picky issue that the company was accused of and punished for financial fraud, not of marketing a fradulent product. The article goes into the financial fraud issue in some depth. Although I agree with you that sniffex is a fradulent product, I think it is more accurate to keep the description of Sniffex as a "debunked" product and save the "fraud" word for the legal fraud issues.
 * The article on Sniffex is largely a summary of sources showing that Sniffex does not work. There isn't any ambiguity. I don't think adding another word to the lede sentence adds any information.


 * B) You have identified a narrative coherence issue: explaining how it happened that (one part of) the military bought sniffex after (another part) debunked it. Without explanation, it does make the military look bad.
 * I agree with you that adding the "we were ripped off" quote would repair the problem you have identified. However the military spokespeople later retracted the quote, according to the news article. And the replacement statement is not nearly as informative. It seemed unsporting to use the retracted quote, no matter how accurate it seems.
 * If you find some other source explaining why they bought sniffexes, or that they now regret buying them, or they had good reasons, or whatever, I agree it would be a good thing to add.

I do appreciate that you decided to start at the talk page rather than simply edit-warring. We try to work on an assumption of good faith here. We are both somewhat experienced editors. It is premature to sling accusations of POV and deliberate slant. M.boli (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)