Help again on Noreen Renier wiki site

[Sherlock]

It's tough to keep Noreen Renier's WIKI site from becoming anything but a marketing fluff piece managed directly by her. Those who can provide links and/or updates have my appreciation. At the time of this posting the site resembled:

Noreen Renier was ruled during litigation as a recognized public figure and in 2010 lost a federal court ruling in a 5-year effort to shut down critical web sites referencing her paranormal and psychic claims.[0]

As of early 2012 Noreen Renier is based in Wilmington, North Carolina and is a co-author of several books including 'A Mind For Murder' (re-released in 2008) and 'The Practical Psychic' released in 2011.[1]

She has for more than 40 years claimed paranormal abilities including as a psychic medium and psychic detective, principally involved on missing person cases. She has made various TV appearances including 11 episodes of the Psychic Detective entertainment series created by Story House Productions.[2]

In recent years she has been involved with extensive federal court litigation and on July 22, 2011 U.S. District Court judge Norman K. Moon issued a court memorandum rejecting a federal appeal by author and psychic actress Noreen Renier and affirming a March 2011 federal court decision against Renier ordered by a lower federal court. The lower federal court ruling by the Honorable William Anderson (Virgina) found Noreen Renier had misled the federal court and was not a credible court witness.
Those federal court judgments ordered against Noreen Renier follow additional Washington federal court decisions which she lost in 2006 and 2007 and U.S. federal Judge James Robart in his judgment order in 2006 stated ". . . the record before the court shows that it is impossible that Ms. Renier breached the agreement in this case without some level of fault. She knew or should have known of the agreement, and breached it nonetheless."[3]

Judge Robart ordered Renier on April 5, 2007 to pay the victim in the legal breach more than $41,000 with accrued interest. Shortly after however Noreen Renier declared her second bankruptcy within 9 years, though the victim ultimately received a significant share of the debt owed him.[also 3]
Although Renier makes claims on her official site about using psychic abilities to help the FBI and other law enforcement agencies solve cases,[4] no psychic detective has ever been given official recognition by the FBI, police department or US national news for solving a crime, preventing a crime, or finding a kidnap victim or corpse.[5][6][7][8] Extensive subpoena information across Renier's financial accounts provided no support to her claims that she has been hired by hundreds of law enforcement agencies, and multiple witnesses have publicly stated she was deceptive and lied in what has been called the "greatest bogus psychic charade of the century."[9]

Sources referenced

0. ^ Federal court order: Refer to http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/MOON/RENIERVMERRELL.PDF Retrieved 3-9- 2012.
1. ^ Noreen Renier personal web site page at: http://noreenrenier.com/specialevents.htm Retreived 3-8-2012.
2. ^ Noreen Renier personal web site page at: http://noreenrenier.com/media/tv/appearancesonpsychicdetectives.htm Retrieved 3-9-2012.
3. ^ Public federal court records made public in 2006, 2007, and 2011referenced at: http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Court%20rulings%20and%20judgments.html Retrieved 3-9-2012.
4. ^ "Noreen Renier - official site". http://www.noreenrenier.com/. Retrieved 3-9-2012.
5. ^ The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime by Arthur Lyons and Marcello Truzzi, Ph. D., Mysterious Press, 1991
6. ^ Psychic Sleuths: ESP and Sensational Cases by Joe Nickell, Prometheus Press, 1994
7. ^ Ayers Sweat, Jane; Mark W Durm (Winter 1993). "Psychics: Do Police Departments Really Use Them?". Skeptical Inquirer. http://www.skeptically.org/spiritualism/id10.html. Retrieved 2009-03-04.
8. ^ Ayers Radford, Benjamin (2010-05-10). "Missing Persons and Abductions Reveal Psychics' Failures". Science Daily. http://news.discovery.com/human/missing-persons-and-abductions-reveal-psychics-failures.html. Retrieved 3-09-2012.
9. ^ Web site referencing various eye-witnesses to events claimed under paranormal visions by Renier: http://www.commentarybysherlock.com/commentarybysherlock/runwaypart1.asp

Major External links
• Noreen Renier web site: http://www.noreenrenier.com/ Retrieved 3-9-2012.
• Index to extensive profiles of Renier claims http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/IndepthRenier.html Retrieved 3-9-2012.
• Critical review of three of Noreen Renier’s post 2007 books: http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Juana%20Castro%20sign-off.html Retrieved 3-9-2012.
• Examination by independent researcher of claims and counterclaims between Noreen Renier and her principal critic as authored by Florida based Dr. Gary Posner, M.D., at: http://www.gpposner.com/Renier_list.html Retrieved 3-9-2012.


PersondataNameRenier, NoreenAlternative namesShort descriptionSelf-proclaimed psychic medium, author, TV actressDate of birthJanuary 16, 1937Place of birthWestern MassachusettsDate of deathPlace of death
[[Category:Living people, Court recognized Public Figure] [[Categorysychic medium, TV Psychic Detective]

 

[krelnik]

Hey, I'm with you. I think it is appropriate for criticism of psychics to be mentioned on Wikipedia.

However, saying the article is a "a marketing fluff piece managed directly by her" - do you have any evidence of this? I've looked into the history of the article, and I don't see a single person constantly whitewashing it. What I do see are a number of Wikipedia administrators objecting to the material being added because it violates their policies on living people.

You gotta remember, Wikipedia is run by a non-profit and they can be sued. So they must be very careful to not run afoul of libel lawsuits.

The other problem I see with the text you posted above is it simply does not follow what is expected of an encyclopedic biography. Among the problems I see:

* Your lead paragraph jumps right into trivia about whether she is a public figure, instead of introducing the topic.
* Citing court filings for anything other than simple facts runs afoul of "no original research".
* Your only good third-party sources are all to support one fact: that no psychic detective has ever been documented to help police.

You need to find some good sources that you can quote that are neutral. Have there been articles in newspapers, magazines, Skeptical Inquirer and so on that have covered her?

 

[Sherlock]

Noreen Renier, psychic, author, medium. judgment

Good response and I'll try and adapt. It seems that no matter what is posted Wiki remains concerned. As a court recognized public figure however she is open to public criticism and commentary. Too, having received a federal judgment stating she is not credible and misled a federal court it will be near difficult for her to bring winning litigation against anyone --- she is no longer a credible source now in any court room.

 

[Allecher]

When you are on her wiki page, flip over to the tab labeled "talk". There you can discuss the edits in advance with other editors and come to consensus on the best way to say something with a neutral point of view and appropriate sources.

For example on the talk page someone recently drew a correlation between the Renier page and the one for Miss Cleo. Perhaps looking at the Cleo page would give you good ideas for what would work on Renier.

 

[Sherlock]

Noreen Renier Wikipedia, Wiki, psychic Noreen Renier

Wiki is apparently beyond hope. A federal court judgment written by a federal judge in his ruling against Renier was immediately taken down. A balanced article from the Atlanta Journal which mentioned James Randi was taken down. Simply posting the web site of Dr. Gary Posner, M.D., the founder of the Tampa Bay Skeptics, but with no commentary was taken down. An article detailing both her viewpoint and those of critics was taken down. It seems Wiki (or Renier defenders) have erected a Noreen Renier Wiki page as one solely to eliminate public and court judgment ruling information that might protect others. The only listings which stick are her own statements and links to her web site. Fair and balanced? Hardly. But so be it. This simply means it has become necessary to erect more search engine sites to get information which protects the public out. That apparently is not what Wiki is designed for.

 

[Pixel42]

I just looked at the wiki article in question and it is as I type this a one line stub, with a large box indicating major issues.

The talk page appears to give plausible reasons why contents, both pro and anti, have been removed.

 

[Shrinker]

No offense Sherlock but can you not see how the current article, quoted in entirety...

Noreen Renier is a 75-year old (as of 1-16-2012) medium. She has appeared on television and authored or co-authored a number of books including A Mind for Murder and The Practical Psychic.

...is actually more readable and informative than the version you posted above?

Your article reads more like a blog post on stop Noreen.com. It assumes the readers already know who she is, what she does, and what she claims. It even assumes readers are familiar with all her legal cases. That's not really good form for an encyclopedia entry.

You might be better off leaving it alone for a while. Let the fans build it up, if they are truly doing that, then go in and strip out anything that is overly credulous or unverified.

 

[Sherlock]

Agreed.

 

[geni]

Wiki is apparently beyond hope.

Because you know more about writing articles than people who've spent the best part of a decade (or longer in some cases) working on the issue?

A balanced article from the Atlanta Journal which mentioned James Randi was taken down.

What article?

 

[rjh01]

Because you know more about writing articles than people who've spent the best part of a decade (or longer in some cases) working on the issue?



What article?

In defence of Sherlock he has written a large blog on the subject. So he does know how to write and he does know about the subject.

 

[Allecher]

I agree that Sherlock seems to have a lot of experience writing a blog, but an encyclopedia is much different.

Sherlock, you mention that you added a link to the web site of Dr. Gary Posner, M.D., the founder of the Tampa Bay Skeptics but it is not clear how a medical doctor would be an authority on this subject. The acceptable sources for wikipedia do not include the founders of local skeptic organizations and they very rarely include blogs at all. Can you find sources from the mainstream media? The other sources you included are considered "original research" and are not allowed regardless of your experience with the subject at hand.

 

[Sherlock]

It would be difficult --- if not impossible --- to find two people who have written and researched more about Noreen Renier and her exaggerated and distorted paranormal and crime / missing person claims than myself and Dr. Gary Posner. I've also been at the winning end of now four federal judgments against Ms. Renier --- across thousands of pages of public documents, 25 years of litigation in 13 courts, and have with Dr. Posner written a book covering Renier. Gary's also written a chapter about her in Psychic Sleuths, and many articles in the Skeptical Inquirer.

We have both been accepted by a host of organizations as credible experts on the subject matter and established local CSICOP affiliate chapters in the early 1980's. The Tampa Bay Skeptics founded by Dr. Posner remains one of the most respected chapters in the United States.

Wiki has by comparison lacks the structure to modify its standards and policies even though Noreen Renier has been classified as a public figure in multiple courts, and was found by a federal judge in March 2011 as not credible and having misled that federal court. Those 3 conditions to a large degree eliminate (from a legal standpoint) much of the "protective measures" Wiki by default imposes. In the case of Noreen Renier Wiki's default mode of protection seems to improperly extend to a public figure already determined by a federal court (under a judgment also supported by an appeal which Renier lost in July 2011) to be available for open public and critical review. But I agree their default mode is reasonable --- just in this case overly protective and legally --- and perhaps ethically --- a default mode which may protect those who the public should be better informed of. The conditions of protecting the release of documented charades already listed in court documents (particularly at the federal level and confirmed on appeal) seems unwarranted.

 

[geni]

Wiki has by comparison lacks the structure to modify its standards and policies

Not true. Its just the ones that we have have been extreamly battle tested.

even though Noreen Renier has been classified as a public figure in multiple courts, and was found by a federal judge in March 2011 as not credible and having misled that federal court. Those 3 conditions to a large degree eliminate (from a legal standpoint) much of the "protective measures" Wiki by default imposes.

Not actualy true but thats due to global issues rather than any fault on your part. In any case such legal standards are not particularly relivant to wikipedia.

In the case of Noreen Renier Wiki's default mode of protection seems to improperly extend to a public figure already determined by a federal court (under a judgment also supported by an appeal which Renier lost in July 2011) to be available for open public and critical review.

But I agree their default mode is reasonable --- just in this case overly protective and legally --- and perhaps ethically --- a default mode which may protect those who the public should be better informed of. The conditions of protecting the release of documented charades already listed in court documents (particularly at the federal level and confirmed on appeal) seems unwarranted.

Its more that while you may argue that she is a public figure that is a US legal term of art and has no real relivance to anything. By wikipedia standard's she isn't really notable and the article should probably just be listed for deletion.

 

[rjh01]

Looks like there is a battle in wikipedia. One person inserts stuff and another takes it out. Currently there is only a stub. Still do not like Sherlock's website. Looks like someone in wikipedia agrees with me by calling the website "nonnotable/reliable sources." The basic problem with Sherlock's website is that there is nothing there to give it credibility.

Sherlock, I know we have had this discussion before. If you want to say something about this issue, just quote your website. Anything else will be ignored. I know the website tells the truth.

 

[krelnik]

Sherlock, what you need are citable, reliable sources that you can use to support the facts you want to put in the article. Not blog posts. Not court proceedings. Articles in well known magazines.

Skeptics are fortunate in this respect because we have two such magazines: Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. You need to be looking for (or WRITING!) articles in those publications.

But it occurs to me that you aren't even using the sources you already have very well.

For example, your footnote 6 is to Psychic Sleuths edited by Joe Nickell. You only cite it in one place to support one statement, which isn't even a statement specifically about Renier.

I don't have that book, but according to my back issues of SI here there's an entire chapter on Noreen Renier written by Gerald Posner in that book. Why are you not pulling facts from there and citing that? Just poking around in the SI index, I see other stuff by Posner that mentions Renier. All of that is fantastic source material for footnotes. And footnotes to good reliable sources is what you need to keep other editors from reverting your edits.