Talk:Linda and Terry Jamison

Tags

If you see the need for a tag, provide a section with the reasoning here. Polentarion Talk 19:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates

I have added a citation needed template to the material regarding the twins' work as performance artists. If they performed as such for some reasonable length of time, and if they received attention from independent reliable sources on their work, that material could I think reasonably be expanded. I also added a template there requesting clarification as to when, and by inference how long, they performed as performance artists. I also added a template requesting clarification as to when they moved to LA. "In their thirties" is at best vague, some specific year would presumably be preferable.

I also think it would probably be reasonable to add to the article, given its short length, information about the times they wrote their books, and, possibly, and reviews of same.

I also have to very seriously question the removal of the expand lede template I had earlier added, as well as the removal of the text indicating the accuracy of their predictions has been questioned, which I had added to the lede. In the interests of WP:NPOV, I believe that is a reasonable subject to mention in the lede, particularly given the amount of space in the article itself questioning the accuracy of their predictions. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Filmography" etc.

These are virtually all TV shows, where the Jamisons appeared as 'one of many' guests. Some are even unsold (and un-aired) TV pilots. However the list is formatted to appear as if each one featured the Jamisons alone and is somehow significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Filmography" Jamison Twins

Hi LuckyLouie, can you give me more direction on the filmography section of the twins page. I want to do the right thing. I didn't realize the table is wrong. Should I remove the table and state what shows they appeared in differently. Just not sure how to reference them, plus a lot of their appearances are on Youtube. I was wondering how I can reference their appearance in Washington DC with Bob Hope. I only saw a clipping from the New York Post from the 1980's on it. Many ThanksThisandthem (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression the article is trying hard to make a collection of extremely minor TV appearances seem more important than they actually are, and it smacks of WP:PROMOTION. The table format doesn't help either. Obscure entries such as unsold TV pilots aren't notable. Or game show appearances. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a replacement for imdb. Labeling TV work a "filmography" is wrong, too. Maybe better you should abandon the table format, and limit it to a pared-down text list of only the most significant items from their career. For example, see Sylvia Browne or James Van Praagh, whose many media appearances are appropriately summarized in text paragraphs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it also worth noting that all material in biographies of living people, like this one, qualifies under WP:BLP. That page says, and I quote here, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (the bolding in the original). I do not yet note any sourcing on many of the entries, and I am unsure whether some of the others are independent. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above comment, I have removed all material that is to date unsourced from the media appearances section. I would also like to take the opportunity to question, given the history of the editors involved with this article, whether WP:PROMOTION of some sort might be a question here. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have also revised the infobox, particularly the occupation "psychic twins" information, which personally strikes me as being a possibly particularly egregious attempt at personal branding, and hardly helps alleviate the concerns regarding promotion already raised. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to find independent coverage of them. Most all of it is WP:SENSATION. There appears to be a Youtube user account devoted to promoting them, however YouTube videos aren't considered reliable sources of fact. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Granted. Unfortunately, I don't see anything in our policy of WP:BLP which allows for exceptions on that basis. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that the remaining items of their "filmography" are cited to an amateur Youtube video and a TV program schedule. Not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Taken to WP:BLPN. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guys thanks for your input. They did appear on SNL in the 80's. I had sited an article written about it, but it was removed from here when all the editors were having fun insulting the twins in their edit summaries. I have spoken to the Jamison twins and they have requested the removal of their page. I don't know how to go forward with that request and unfortunately I don't have the time to figure it out. Please help with their request. Thanks Thisandthem (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If an individual meets our WP:NBIO criteria, they can't request removal of their bio simply because they don't like it (or can't control it). For all other requests, they would need to use WP:OTRS. By the way, @Thisandthem, if you are acting as a go-between for the Jamisons you have a conflict of interest here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the bio of unsourced content and dubious sources and added some WP:RS. Regarding their TV, print, and media appearances: it's tough to find any independent sources for these, despite a number of obvious YouTube clips. For better or worse, most experienced editors tend to be a little more stringent with sources for bios of psychics given the level of hyperbole typically associated with them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Primarily performance artists or psychics?

Which profession do the rest of you think is more appropriate to give the greater weight to here? Given that they seem to spend a great deal of time on television and in other performance media to get attention, it could be argued that their primary visible activity is as performance artists of a sort. I note David Copperfield (illusionist) gives priority to the Category:American magicians, but that is a subcategory of the broader category of American entertainers, so it could be argued in a sense that article is already categorized to reflect the subject's primary calling as entertainer/performing artist. Granted, Category:Psychics is also included as a subcat of entertainers. But the Jamisons, in particular, have actively worked as performing artists before working as psychics, and it could be argued that, given the fact that psychics are in a sense a form of performance artists, that is the more useful category. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

They may have worked as actors, comedians, painters, performance artists, etc. during their early career -- but that's not why they are notable. Our reliable sources identify them by their present occupation as psychics, so identifying them as psychics in the lead is most accurate. Note that performance art is different from performing arts, i.e. not all actors, artists and entertainers are "performance artists". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism in lead

Please don't remove mention of criticism in the lead, such as was done here. According to WP:LEAD guidelines, the lead summarizes the important points contained in the article body, and need not duplicate citations and text that already exist in the article. Detailed criticism of the accuracy of their psychic predictions is contained in the article body, so we needn't add detail such as "which ones?" and "in what?" in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I see another issue. They aren't psychics and they aren't predicting anything, because they can't predict anything. What we are trying to point out? That random guesses are random? We have article about such predictions and it makes things clear. Analyzing if they are right or not sounds like they could be right and they can't - they can guess at most. Are these examples needed here? Does it add anything to the topic of prophecy business and con art? For me, as a reader, it sounds like we trying to prove they haven't real powers. You say it's an important part - criticism of their psychic predictions. But there aren't any psychic predictions. Wouldn't it be better to write "they claim to be psychics" and just leave it at this point? They don't predict, they claim to do it and they never proved it, so the burden of proof is on them. It just doesn't sound like Wikipedia at all but as a popular newspaper who wants to explain that magic might be a fake. We don't have to do it and IMO we shouldn't. We show proofs and research about general method. Krzysiu (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

To make myself clear, let me use an analogy. John Doe says "I'm a car". Would we write that this claim is criticized and that John was once seen walking, not riding on his wheels? Claims of being a car and seeing future are surprisingly the same. Krzysiu (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WP reports reliably-sourced criticism no matter what the topic. Fringe topics are no exception. Attributing the criticism (e.g. "according to Yahoo news..." or "according to Leon Jaroff writing in Time magazine...") would be a constructive improvement. Removing it altogether wouldn't. But I agree, it is a pretty poorly-written article. Looking back through the article history, you can see it once contained exclusively WP:PROMOTIONAL content. After all the puffery was removed, what remained was a patchwork of unconnected criticism. Which is probably why it sounds like the article is arguing with the reader. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Links in "See also" section

Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations. Regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Re [1], that seems to be a large amount of links to articles about random psychics and random skeptical investigations. Is it possible to have these balanced equally and "limited to a reasonable number" per MOS:SEEALSO? Maybe - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The link you copied is just skeptics or skeptical investigations, which I removed for violating the BLP policies because they were not sourced and instead seemed intended to disparage the article subjects. I have not removed the list of other psychics yet, which currently has nine entries listed. If the consensus here is to keep the other psychics, then so be it, although I think the list is still too long and not very helpful to readers without more relevance. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, why do you think "another mentalist" is relevant to include in the article's "see also" section [2]? You are copying this wikilink to multiple pages without engaging in any of the talk page discussions about it. Is there any direct connection, or is it merely from a shared profession? Linking to all people with a shared profession would seem to be an overly broad use of the "see also" section, and seems more appropriate for the categories to handle. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop proposing silly questions, you thought it was ok to leave other mentalists in the section, as you did here [3]so do I. CatCafe (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, no, I very clearly stated in my first comment above: I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you please provide a reason for how the links are relevant beyond merely sharing a profession? Discussion is a fundamental aspect of editing Wikipedia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You have been uncivil and insulting. No more to discuss. CatCafe (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not how editing Wikipedia works. Please explain how the links you are adding are relevant, or they may be removed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You were the one who started an edit war refusing to discuss on talk pages and you now have 3RR and no concensus because of your uncivil behaviour. Sort out your own problematic editing behaviours first. CatCafe (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:@CatCafe:@LuckyLouie: @Rp2006: OK ENOUGH ALREADY. I have reverted the page back to before this edit war started. If anybody wants to make changes to the See Also section discuss it on the talk page (in a new section please) and get consensus, like adults. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this kerfluffle show up on my watchlist the other day, so I haven't reverted anything. I did make one brief comment above. But on closer examination of the issue, I notice the 'See also' links for the Jamison twins (who I would classify as 'psychic performers' like Sylvia Brown) are similar to the ones in our article on Psychic reading. Please note that 'See also' links to skeptics or skeptical investigations don't violate WP:BLP. In fact, WP:FRINGE requires us to clarify the mainstream view of claims of psychic powers, which is inherently skeptical. The article text is compliant with this, and there's every reason why the 'See also' links should be too. As to the matter of selection, I'll leave that to others. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Thanks. I'm sure we all appreciate that. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I might also add that the concept of psychics not having supernatural powers is not a personal disparagement or a "contentious labeling, association, or claim" discussed in WP:BLPSEEALSO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, what do you think the "limited to reasonable number" might be? CatCafe (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any exact number in mind, but 18 seems like a lot for two barely notable psychic performers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Wallyfromdilbert's claim about Wikilinks to other articles, including those in the See also section as being "unsourced and BLP violations" is without merit. This editor seems to want to minimize the criticism of these claimed paranormal abilities, and one way to accomplish that is to remove links to articles with any criticism of others in the mediumship field. Seems to be a POV issue. As for what is an appropriate number in See also, I blame this issue on Wikipedia management for leaving it ambiguous and open to interpretation. Many article have no such section at all and I find that a damn shame. One thing I like to do is add these to articles, and yes, what is an appropriate number is open for argument thanks to WP leaving it unspecified. I think the more the merrier. ("The more you know.") See as an example of an article with many, Bigfoot, while Apollo 11 has none at all. RobP (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the articles about other psychics, I notice the See Also sections are equal if not larger than this one. Who knew? So maybe this is a WP:AINT situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Take a vote because I would vote to remove any links to biographies in the See also section (of any article) of which the only connection is being in the same profession. At the bottom of every psychic article is the Category:Psychics link whereby anyone can look up other psychics on Wikipedia through the lists provided. The same goes for articles on actors, singers, politicians, etc. That's why there are categories, to prevent the See also sections in articles from becoming filled. 5Q5|^✉ 13:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I find Categories are mostly useless to readers. They are not even part of the Table of Contents. When I have discussed the details of Wiki with non-editors, most do not even realize they are there. If we are going to minimize the See also utility, then why not remove all Wikilinks in the main text as well - because a person can use the WP search to find an article. Actually it is worse than that, because at least using search, a reader would go directly to an article. As Categories are hierarchical, clicking any one of them usually opens a page with numerous items to chose from. In this example, clicking psychics you get 5 subcats and 16 direct links to everything from 'Mani the parakeet' to 'Sensing Murder.' Not at all relevant. Many people would quickly give up trying to find similar pages. Also, not all articles are created equal. Making readers rely on Cats to find things gives no quality control over suggestions for what else readers looking for similar material should read. And for users of mirror sites such as Wikiwand, sometimes Categories do not even work. (See this article's example here. See also is correctly displayed, but in Categories, nothing beyond the first level is displayed, so one cannot follow the links: [4]) Providing direct links to appropriate, well written, similar or tangentially related articles is a service editors provide using See also - because they have worked on or at least read those particular articles and can vouch for them. That is what See also is there for. RobP (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

5Q5 responds to RobP: If I understand your position, you would like readers of the article about these alleged twin psychics to be aware of other select alleged psychics on Wikipedia via See also links so that they might click on those biographies and be informed about the skeptical criticisms of their claims also, the relevance being the similar criticism. I get that. I don't work on these types of articles regularly so let me give you a different perspective from a fresh set of eyes. To me, it also looks like cross promotion. Having a few linked names of very famous alleged psychics also has the effect to the believers and fence walkers of elevating the article subject's status to the top of the professional psychic industry where it might not otherwise be warranted. That is an unintended side effect you should know about. These alleged psychics probably love the name-dropping and see it as beneficial, lol. I don't feel very strongly about this issue, so keep the names if you want. I won't be removing or adding any. It's also possible, at least technically, to do a section hatnote using Template:Category see also and put a

See also: Category:American psychics

right in the See also section. Would also work for

See also: Category:American skeptics

in the See also section of an American skeptic's article if the Categories links are so far down the page as to go unnoticed as you rightly say does happen. 5Q5|^✉ 15:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@5Q5: @Rp2006: @LuckyLouie: @Wyatt Tyrone Smith: @CatCafe: I apologize for not responding sooner, but I had unexpected time needed elsewhere. It seems obvious that the consensus here is that these are not BLP concerns. However, it should be noted that "See also" sections are fully subject to the WP:BLP policy, and I do still think that a copy and pasted list of barely related negative links is a violation, although clearly not as serious as I first believed. I believe that Fortune telling fraud does need to be something that needs to have some sort of support, as the wikilink to that page suggests something fairly specific and negative. If there is no sourced connection to that term or concept, I think it needs to be removed. I can also bring the discussion of that term to BLPN if it would be easier for a centralized discussion.

Regarding the other links on this page, some of these seem pretty unnecessary, such as "Ann O'Delia Diss Debar ("One of the most extraordinary fake mediums... the world has ever known" -Houdini)" and Televangelist Peter Popoff exposed by James Randi. Are these topics that would {[tq|would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic}}? Similarly with the names of unrelated mediums/psychics/skeptics, it seems unreasonable that these are relevant enough to the specific article subject that they would be present in a fully-written encyclopedia article. What is the rationale for ignoring that part of the guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)