Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled[edit]

Looks good to me Throw, good job :). Anynobody 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drowned himself with his hose[edit]

I have to thank whoever wrote that, the image I got had me laughing out loud. (I don't mean that in a spiteful way, I just literally imagined a fireman deciding to take a drink from a high pressure fire hose "So thirsty, aughhh!") It still sounds like a bit of an assumption, she said he drowned fighting a fire... maybe he slipped, landed his head face down in the toilet, was knocked out, and then drowned. Since the sprinklers were out of commission, and that's where the water for the fire hoses comes from, I wish she had said fire hose instead of implying it. By mentioning what actually happened, we can show she is implying that he drowned in a toilet, a sink, or a cup of water. Anynobody 07:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable successes[edit]

Browne claims success in some cases, that are easily verified. I propose this section be used for those. Anynobody 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good section but I don't think we should start out with Browne's claim that she saved Reagan. A call to the Reagan Library proved it was an outright lie. The schedule for Reagan on that day had him have lunch with a world leader - that's something that takes weeks to plan. - Throw 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, but she says it's a success. I was thinking about adding her claims about the 1993 WTC bombing too.

The whole parade thing is bogus with a good understanding of Israeli/American/Egyptian history. Egypt was celebrating their part in the 1973 Yom Kippur War war (which I find odd anyway because they got their butts kicked militarily after a successful surprise attack). No American president would show up at a parade celebrating a surprise attack on an ally, she clearly pulled that one out of her <<choose orifice>>. Anynobody 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anynobody. Your reasoning makes sense and I'll try to add to the category shortly. In the meantime I've had the misfortune of having to add another person in the Missing Persons category. Let me know what you think. - Throw 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update Throw, I started to think no more of these would come out. I wonder how many of these have to come to light before Montel dumps her, I'm sad for the family but happy another prediction Browne figured would never be proven, was indeed proven wrong. The addition was great by the way, very well written. Anynobody 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and create another article[edit]

See also: Talk:Sylvia Browne for discussion of this topic, there. Anynobody 08:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not work as is. It would be better if the main aspects of criticisms are merged to the main article and a new article related to the Browen vs. Randi dispute gets created with relevant material from both sides of the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section was originally all on Browne's main article. The section was a mess, it didn't work. - Throw 05:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did not work, and this does not work either. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To you it doesn't work but this article came about by consensus. You can see the original thread on Browne's main site. - Throw 04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's no longer just Browne vs Randi with the creation of StopSylviaBrowne.com, Anynobody 06:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StopSylviaBrowne.com, is not a WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is a source, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) but it is a second high profile anti-Browne voice. My point is whereas Randi was the only nameable opposition to Browne, now it can be said that there are two independent anti-Sylvia POVs. (Please pardon my post pushing yours down, MrMurph101.) Anynobody 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :-) MrMurph101 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically the same structure as Criticism of Bill O'Reilly and that is still considered worthy of keeping after 3 afds. There are other sources besides what James Randi says in this article. I do not see why anything needs to changed at the moment. Keep as is. MrMurph101 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this is a POV fork that violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight and needs to be merged to the main article. Tags added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The separate article is not a product of anyone's POV, it is actually abiding by WP:SIZE and Wikipedia:Summary Style. When a section of or the entire article becomes too large, sections are spun off into their own articles as part of a series.
This is just what happens when an article becomes large, and this isn't the only article spun off from the criticism section of an article.
See: Category:Criticisms, which lists 60 pages including some from WP:BLP articles, just like this one. The reason this section is so large relates to the fact that there are more WP:V, WP:RS sources available which paint her as a fraud than real.
If there were sources saying otherwise that also satisfied the policy and guideline which we were ignoring, then we would be in violation of WP:NPOV. I don't mind discussing ideas which have already been proposed and rejected, unless no new arguments or evidence are provided beyond one's feelings. Anynobody 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The is precedent for Criticism of entries (see above)
  2. This entry is too large to be merged with the main entry as it would dwarf it, thus violating regs on entry balance.

perfectblue 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how this is in line with the guidelines. This isn't criticism of a movement or idea, but of a person. It is clearly linked as a "main article" in the bio. Thus it is essentially part of the bio. Doesn't this put Wikipedia up for lawsuits etc.? I'm sure you are following the sources in terms of the number wp:v negative vs. wp:v positive. But since this article is really part of her bio, I'm not sure how it stands under the rules. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are sourced entries attributing those who criticize her and why then it does not violate policy. Unsourced and POV-laced criticisms by any editor would make it seem like wikipedia is criticizing Browne and therefore prone to a lawsuit. It would be undue weight, imo, to merge this back to the main article. However, it is good idea to address how to handle, in a consistent way, living person's who earn their notability more from negative perception than a positive one and the subsequent spinoff "Criticism of..." article. MrMurph101 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article violates WP:NPOV#undue weight and needs to be summarized and merged withe the main article for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff articles are needed when articles become too long. At 44Kb the article now merged does not warrant a split Merged completed. POV forks are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Source[edit]

Has anyone else read the Guardian article about her? Is She for Real? Most of the issues discussed on SSB.com are in the new source, so I've resurrected this page. Anynobody 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it wasn't deleted for lack of sources, but per BLP? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited were not up to WP:BLP standards, (SSB.com). However there can be little dispute that the Guardian is a WP:RS. Anynobody 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE MOST DISGUSTING CONTENT FORK IVE EVER SEEN[edit]

THIS ARTICLE IS A BLATANT WP:FORK VIOLATION ( A CONTENT FORK) ESSENTIALYL DESIGNED TO SLANDER MR. BROWNE AND HER RESARCH WORKING IN THE PSYCHIC FIELD. UNLESS SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT CANT BEADDED TO THE MAIN SYLVIA BROWNE ARTICLE, I WILL SPEEDY-DELETE IT AND MERGE THE CONTENT INTOTHE MAIN SYLVIA BROWNE ATRTICLE!!!!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a content fork, it's a spinout, or at least intended to be so. If you have more specific concerns about it's NPOVness, please voice them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you misudnerstand me i said it was a content fork not a spinout. the problem si that this article is entirely negative.s we dont have articles devotedto critczing other prominent peoples so i dont understand why mrs browne is being targeted on wikipedia with this grotesque and unwarranted attakc on her careare and lifespan. Smith Jones (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what it looked like on the main page. As you can see it's practically taken over when the information from here is placed there. Anynobody 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps iow as unclear there is no need to copy and paste the infor from this article to the other one. it would be more in the interests of encclpodiesa to simply delete this article. if some criticsm MUST be allowed to seep itno the original text, then there is an easy solution which is to SUMMARIZE the content of thi s article tan dplad ice it with in the other article. links to specific offiste contributions can be placed ther e instead of this disgusting monstrosity that occupeis wikipedia which is essentially a postule of bigotry and hate, poorly sourced and biased, that is essentialyl sued to provide a solely one-sided view of Sylvia BRowns accomplishments and achievments. surely you can understna dhwo blatnatly anti-Sylvia this whole article seems; there is not a single shred of seripus rebuttal or counterargument offered agiant the blatant and unwrrarnted one-sided criticisms placed here and to any viewr it ould look as if NO-ONE bleived in sylvia browne or her alleged / accused psychic powers. therefore you must understand that there are only 2 real options for wikipedia 1) the deletion of this article and all information contained within (my choice) or 2) SUMMARIZING the text of this article into 1 - 3 paragraphs and placing it within the Sylbia Browne article. IO trust you ill make the right decision, or else I will recommend that this be put before an arbitration commitee, a drastic decision that i am certain will lead to a solution that will require many more compromsies than eitehr of us may be willing to make. Smith Jones (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith Jones, you say "there is not a single shred of serious rebuttal or counterargument" in this article. Feel free to provide this evidence you are talking about, but be sure to provide reliable sources for the information. Otherwise, it looks like Sylvia Browne is in fact a fraud.24.57.191.136 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/21.html
http://www.sylvia.org/home/about.cfm
http://www.novus.org/home/index.cfm
http://www.parapsychologydegrees.com/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/25.html
http://www.sylvia.org/extras/hypnosistraining/
http://www.parapsych.org/sylvia_telempathetics
http://www.amazon.com/Sylvia-Brownes-Book-Dreams-Browne/dp/0525946586
http://www.gosylviabrowne.com/home.html

THOSE ARE EIGHT INDEPENDENT SOURCES FOUND THROUGH THE INTERNEST that PROVE that sylvia brownes powers are real. they provide notable, well-resaerched and relatively balanced informatin garnererd through years of painstaking parapsychological research that indicate without a shadow of as doubt that propehti powers exist and that sylvia is channeling them an d focusing on th every real spiritual palen. i will give you TWO DAYS or 48 HOURS to conside r these sites, and then i will proceed to reform this article by inserting FAIR ADN BALANCED INFORMATION. if you have a problem with athis, i have NO PROBLEM with frogmarching you allbefore an arbitration committe for discipline, an act that i feel safe in assmuing will lead to certain hostile editers being blocked. have i made myself perfeclty clear??? Smith Jones (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are joking Smith Jones. Three of those links are to websites owned by Sylvia Browne herself, while the rest are blatant advertisements for her or her products. Lastly, the parapsychologydegrees.com website has nothing to do with her. I consider these websites unacceptable according to WP:EL. So feel free to add some "fair adn[sic] balanced information", but try to use proper spelling and grammar. Thanks! -24.57.191.136 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have tcome to your wsences fellow editors. i have made some of the necessary corrections tothe websites as per out agrement here today. HOWEVER if i find EVEN ONE attempt adn reversing this article to its original state without just case i WILL caree out of my out threat of reporting you al to an arbirtartion committee. I honesly shouldnt have to epxlaint his after you once again. Smith Jones (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, you seem to think you have some sort of ownership of this article. Let me assure you that you do not. You are welcome to report fellow editors to the Arbitration Committee for attempting to improve the encyclopedia, but I think you will find your reception less than welcoming. Please calm down (stop shouting, for starters) and don't forget to assume good faith.
From your statements you appear to be strongly convinced that Sylvia Browne is a legitimate psychic. Let me suggest, then, that you find reliable sources backing up that claim. Statements made by Browne herself are acceptable in a limited quantity, but they need to be properly sourced and should be identified as having come from Browne.
Your edits to the article so far have been obviously slanted towards proving that Browne is an actual psychic, and you appear to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push your personal point of view. You may wish to review the verifiability policy, which explains sourcing, and the Citation guidelines, which explains how to cite sources within the article. Natalie (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is you who is minsitenrpreting what i am saiyng. while id o acknowlege the existence of psychic powers as any right thinkgin person should, i cannot be CERTAIN that sylvia brown ehas the m. my main problem whti this is article is that its designed EXCLUSIVELY to bash a controversial figure in parapsycology. NO ATTEMPT is there to provide any rebuttal to these claims, and any and all statements made by skeptics are written as if they are facts rather than opiniosn. everytime i stry to modify these articles i come back to find that someone has come ove rand turn them back to into statements of fact. no other article on wikipedia does this,but for somerason all of you people seem to assume that your hatred for sylvia browne and parapsycholgoy gives you greater rights over the articles content that it's does for mine own rights to help put together a good article. now, i do not claim to udnerstna dwhats going on with this information. perhaps it is okay to slander some people who the establishment doesnt care for; i have faced this exact same problem with Kevin Trudeau, Uri Geller, [[AIDS Reapparasail[[ and several otehr articles featuring people who dissiedent from the big pharma / big government coprorate oligarchy. restoring any shred of credibility and decency to articles rrelating to parapsychology and the spiritiual has been a difficult and uphill battle, oe that has exhausted the very last recesserves of my energy and has watsed my strenght and my time. so far NO ONE has been wlling to negotiateo with me and my exhaustion continues to mount. people have behaved with the utmost hypocracy towards me ever since i came here, insitng that i maintain good faith while automatically assuming that that i am acting in bad faith and trying to "own" the article. i am sick and tired of every attempt i make at rebuffing and removing the article son this ewbsite being repulsed and destroyed. i am sick and tired of my talk page being trampled over with huge page strengtching banners and petty little insults from my fellow editors who i know are trying to help me but are not providing em with any of the services or opoprtunityes that they should afford to everyone who comes in here, even those of us who do not support the establishment and the current unofficial prevailing current of opinion on wikipedia. SYLVIA BROWNE'As article has been just one of another of several battlefields that has been subjected to hit pieces like the dreck promoted by RAndi and Lancaster on their respective blogs as well as the hit pieces that is being decisgned for this very wbsite. What I intend to prevent is Wikipedia's deteroriation into a little advertising service were top corporate and mass media spin forces get to determine the slant of each idnividual article. But the only way I can do this is with your cocoperation and your permission to allow me to discuss respectfully the changes that i recommend making to the article so taht we can reach an agreeable compromise. i have repeatedly threatening to get the arbitration commtiee over here but i hope to be able to reserve that drastic decision barring any menainguful debate on this talk page. i do not want an edit war or a flame war or anything liek that. all i want is Sylvia Browne and her colleagues portrayed fairly and in a balnaced way irregardless of the amount of blogs that hate her. that is all. Smith Jones (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "my main problem whti this is article is that its designed EXCLUSIVELY to bash a controversial figure in parapsycology." The article is called "Criticisms of Sylvia Browne", and as such, exists to elaborate the fact that she has been subject to much criticism. There is also a basic biographical article of her - Sylvia Browne - which has only one paragraph of criticism and many paragraphs of biography and her own claims about her abilities. You are wrong in your assertion that this article exists to "bash" Browne, however. She is a controversial figure and has attracted quite a bit of criticism.
  • "NO ATTEMPT is there to provide any rebuttal to these claims, and any and all statements made by skeptics are written as if they are facts rather than opiniosn." Actually, Sylvia's own opinions and statements are well represented here, although they are identified as her statements rather than being identified as stone-cold facts or simply dropped into the article with no attribution. There are no statements from other sources and I am not entirely sure why that is. However, I would suggest that it may be because there are no other reliable sources supporting the accuracy of Browne, and so there are no other statements that are appropriate to include. As to her critics, many of their statements are identified as their statements. For example, "Randi, in turn, claims that this quote is taken out of context and his actual words were "I always have an out—I'm right," referring to his belief that no one can win the challenge because no one possesses any kind of paranormal ability," quoted from the "Criticism by James Randi" section. I would say that this sentence makes it obviously clear that this is Randi's opinion and not any sort of undisputed fact. Some statements are represented as facts, many of which can be found in the "Missing Persons" section, but these are quite uncontroversial statements of fact such as the disappearance dates of particular individuals and the results of police investigations. Can you cite specific sentences in the article that present the opinions of skeptics as fact?
  • "so far NO ONE has been wlling to negotiateo with me and my exhaustion continues to mount." I have not followed the Uri Gellar or Kevin Trudeau articles, but I would not be surprised if the reason no one has been willing to negotiate with you is because you are attempting to circumvent or change core Wikipedia policies, such as Wikipedia: Verifiability and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. If you try to work within our policies you may find editing this encyclopedia easier.
  • "But the only way I can do this is with your cocoperation and your permission to allow me to discuss respectfully the changes that i recommend making to the article so taht we can reach an agreeable compromise. i have repeatedly threatening to get the arbitration commtiee over here but i hope to be able to reserve that drastic decision barring any menainguful debate on this talk page." You absolutely have my, and every other editors, cooperation to respectfully discuss changes to articles. You have not, however, been doing this, which can be seen by your next statement threatening to tattle to the Arbitration Committee. Beginning talk page messages with all-caps banners (shouting, if you weren't aware) accusing everyone involved of bias and claiming that you're going to report them is not the way to begin a respectful dialogue. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee does not mediate grievances between users until other methods have been exhausted, so if you do decide to attempt to open a hearing you will probably be rebuffed.
  • As I said above, I think you will find your time here much more productive and less frustrating if you read our Wikipedia: Key policies and guidelines and use them while editing here. So far, your behavior and attitude has not been especially enjoyable and if you cannot work collaboratively and politely with other people, you may find that your tenure here is quite short. Natalie (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with the points Natalie has made, but even if you don't there are some things we should all agree on.
  • This article is simply a result of the sources which discuss her claims in a critical manner.
  • Whether here or on Sylvia Browne sourced information should stay in, and as there are plenty of critical reliable sources the overall NPOV is more or less the same. (Actually it could be argued that this page makes her main page look better because the criticisms aren't elaborated right next to her fraud conviction here.) Anynobody 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FINE I GIVE UP[edit]

fine whatever oyou guys win its obivous that honestly fair and rational debate will never win on thise particular talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the core policies governing Wikipedia are mostly non-negotiable. If at some point you change your mind and wish to work within these rules, we'll welcome you back. Natalie (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not supposed to be about winning or losing though, honestly if there were reliable sources to back the assertions made in your edits I'd include them. Anynobody 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that I only want to help, and I'm hoping that by showing you why the sources you found aren't enough to count as references compared to one that is.
      • Is She for Real? is an article from a large paper called The Guardian. The reporter who wrote it has no stake one way or another toward Browne, and because the story comes from a well known paper it is assumed to be reliable based on journalistic standards.
Here are the links you provided. I honestly mean no insult in my explanations,
A very accurate parsing, Anynobody. I'd also add that the bio listed on Coast to Coast's website was most likely provided by Sylvia Browne and her organization. As I understand it, that's the standard practice for guest or contributor bios on the websites of news organizations. A Coast to Coast episode would be a perfectly reliable source for information about her appearances there, and the host has in fact discussed the controversy surrounding Browne's appearance on his show during the Sago Mine Disaster. But I would not use the show as a reference for anything else, unless another reliable source was appearing as a guest. Natalie (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, the show can be used for info about her appearances there, however citing them as proof of her abilities is not proper (just like citing her sites this way is improper.) I'll exlain why with a hypothetical, someone could go on the show and claim to be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard while also creating their own website saying the same thing. Then come here and write an article saying something like

John Q. Incognito
The living reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard.[1][2]
1=His website
2=Coast to Coast appearance

Anynobody 05:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


i Think i get it now, but if the perspn is ALREADY notable, can they be used as a sour ce to desirbe they're OWN opinions? for exmapels can i quote sylvia's webcite to use a to get information ab at about what she claims? Smith Jones (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I'll explain how. It's first necessary to understand that this page is part of the Sylvia Browne article. When a section in an article becomes too large, it is spun off into its own page but is considered to be still part of the main article. For example, if another prediction were shown to be incorrect through a reliable source, info about it would not be added to Sylvia Browne (unless it was something really, REALLY major) because the section where it would normally go became Criticism of Sylvia Browne. If reliable sources started discussing cases she got right, and there were too many of them to fit in Sylvia Browne then Confirmation of Sylvia Browne's abilities would be created.
Using her site to source her own opinions of her abilities would be something best done on Sylvia Browne, but be careful how you use her site to back her own claims (don't write them as if her saying it is proof that all claims are true. Instead it'd be best to use phrases like, "According to her website, Sylvia Browne has done...") Anynobody 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is this a POV FORK?[edit]

I believe this article is an unjustified POV FORK. This article can easily be merged into the Sylvia Browne article without it becoming too large. In addition to this RfC, I will add merge tags to the articles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont waste your time, fysleem its impossible to debate with tehse people. they just link to a thousands pages of policy and leave yout o deterine why they disagree with you. Smith Jones (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but is criticism of a psychic even notable enough to have it's own page? You have to be a pretty big celebrity to have your own criticism page and this woman is no OJ Simpson of Michael Jackson. The criticism page should be trimmed down to only the most notable and verifiable instances and then merged. James Randi criticized her and he's notable in his own right, that kind of critisizm.
Just to remind people here, Wikipedia's official stance * on psychic are that they exist as a cultural phenomona, and that using the word psychic implies no acceptance of the existence of psychic abilities. - perfectblue (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can make this work either way. If this page is merged back into Sylvia Browne, there is some information that can be cut (such as the "Missing Persons" section) and some repetition can probably be cut as well. But if the page isn't merged, I think we can also manage to make a verifiable, neutral article about the criticism this person has received. Natalie (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that notability is best determined by the amount of information available from quality sources. She's received a good amount of coverage for her "abilities", it's just that most of it doesn't back her claims.
The Guardian Is She for Real? * Larry King Are Psychics real? * FOX News Famous TV Psychic makes Miner Mistake * Anderson Cooper:Psychic once pronounced boy dead & Psychic Powers Debunked in Hornbeck Case?
Actually the more I think about it, the more I think this page should not be called "Criticism of Sylvia Browne" rather something like "Notable Sylvia Browne predictions" since The Guardian, Anderson Cooper, etc. aren't critics. Anynobody 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that all of the attention she has received has been critical in a sense - it's people challenging her claims or debunking them. "Notable predictions" really doesn't convey that information. Natalie (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if an only if no one minds cutting 90% of the article- otherwise, it will overwhelm the main article. I would suggest keeping it because of this. Giving that much room to criticism in the main bio would be to represent the minority view as if it were the majority- and Sylvia has a lot of fans. I doubt very much she'd be as popular as she is if the majority view among those who know of her were negative. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this article was created because large amounts of criticism of her was difficult to add to the main article. In that regard, this is a POV fork, but most of the info (I'd disagree with Martin and say 90% should be kept) should be included in with the original article. A "controversies" section would probably be more appropriate. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases you'd be correct, however here most of the article was already in Sylvia Browne when this page was created. I had suggested creating it both for the reason cited by Martinphi, the information seemed to overwhelm the article and mostly out of concern regarding serial article styling. Since then new coverage/sources have allowed some expansion, thus making the original problem more pressing. (On a side note, I'm assuming that there is also going to be coverage of other failed predictions or controversies in the future too. So we'll be back here again someday anyway.) Anynobody 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should be merged back in. I also think it should be subject to heavy editing, much of this has too much information. The Opal Jo Jennings section is about as long as the section in the cited article. Likewise the James Randi section goes into too much detail. The sources here a come from the Randi foundation, so fall under Self published sources and Primary sources. It seems like we are documenting every event in a slanging match between the two. Ideally a third party, secondary source should be used to gauge the level of details need this this section. --Salix alba (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self published sources and primary sources aren't strictly forbidden, and their particular feud has also been documented in other arenas. However, I agree with you that this article does have an excessive level of detail in some areas, and if those were trimmed merging might be a real possibility. Natalie (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, self published sources are ok in documenting their feud regarding the challenge. Does anyone know if Browne says anything about it on her sites?
On merging, honestly whenever I try organizing it the article ends up like this:
I think it's better to have two smaller articles rather than one large one. Anynobody 05:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. More informative to have two. If you just have one, then it is just overwhelmed with negative information. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I'm fine with keeping both articles or merging, but I kind of take issue with your analysis, Anynobody. What's being proposed is a trim and merge, and you haven't actually done any trimming, so the finished article you're presenting is excessively long. If I was going to trim this and merge it, for example, I would cut all the missing persons information down to one paragraph, and then one more paragraph on Shawn Hornbeck, since that actually got news coverage. Browne's and Randi's feud does not need to be more than two paragraphs, which makes an article that is actually not that long or that negative. If you look at the article we have know, the bulk of it consists of details about missing persons cases. Natalie (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm open to trimming, however I'm not sure where. Indeed I noticed your suggestion, but also noted it didn't include any specifics (FWIW I assumed you were having the same trouble). I had considered merging the individual missing cases but was precluded for a few reasons:
Opal Jennings: Is she for real? (Jennings was specifically mentioned to Browne herself:"Then there was Opal Jo Jennings," I say. Sylvia looks blankly at me. "Back in 1999," I say. Sylvia still looks blank.)
Lynda McClelland:Lynda McClelland and Lynda McClelland 2 indicate notability.
Holly Krewson was discussed both in the Guardian article and a couple of local San Diego articles.
The Randi feud is somewhat complicated, and while I agree with your basic assessment it fails to take into account the x factor (other editors). Sooner or later a Browne/Randi fan will add some of what could probably be trimmed, followed by the opposite's fans posting some of their trimmed material, eventually the article will bulge with Randi/Browne points again. Anynobody 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not really arguing that the specific cases aren't notable, just that we don't necessarily need one paragraph on each person. We could have one paragraph that states, as topic sentence, that Browne has made several well-known predictions about missing persons, and her predictions have later been proven false. Then each person can get one or two sentences, along the lines of "The family of X, who went missing in month day year, consulted Browne on Montel Williams television show. Although Browne predicted that X had been abducted by aliens, his remains were later found less than a mile from his home. Later that year, Brown predicted that Y, missing for a number of years, had been killed by rabid pigs in a carnival in St. Louis. Although police searched carnival grounds in the St. Louis area, Y is still missing and her ex-husband has been arrested and charged with her murder." Then the second paragraph could just discuss Hornbeck, since that's definitely the most well-known and documented of her failed predictions.
I suppose it's true that any section about Randi and Browne's feud would have to be well maintained, I guess it seems to me that this is the case with basically every encyclopedia article. We can always trim it again if it gets too large, and if there is a new development at some point expanding that section would obviously be fine. Natalie (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have made this clear before, but by "paragraph" I was being generous. For example the current Criticism of Sylvia Browne#Holly Krewson section I would call a rough paragraph. You may be under the impression I mean expanding what's there if you took the meaning of paragraph to be the academic version. Anynobody 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really thinking of any set definition of paragraph. I just think that, if we were to merge, that information could be trimmed down to 1-2 sentences without losing much content. The length of the resulting paragraph seems unimportant, since we only have 4 missing person's cases to document and that would be 8 sentences tops. Natalie (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps demonstrating what you have in mind would help: Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne/Sandbox Anynobody 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No recent discussion. No evidence that it is a POV fork. I removed the merge tag. Paper45tee (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag follow up[edit]

Source Says <notes>
Example
The Guardian Saturday October 27, 2007
Is she for real? by Jon Ronson 		Browne is not what she claims to be Article
Ignored sources
Source What it says
Source What it says

A tag was added claiming undue weight is being given to some sources over other equal sources. So what's missing? Anynobody 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag only works if there are known sources being excluded, given none were identified and that the edit summary reads (and I'm only saying this because it's the impression I got) a bit like someone with a hostage making demands: either merge or the tags remain, which indicates to me a misunderstanding of what the tag is actually for. As a result of mostly the former, I've removed it. Anynobody 06:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag removed[edit]

Removed the 5 day deletion tag. This article is well cited, just too big to fit in with the main Sylvia Browne page. -Zyrxil (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Paper45tee (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sago mine incident[edit]

This section is slightly peculiarly worded. In the context of the radio interview, it was unambiguous that she meant they would be found alive. If somebody wants to leave this section the old way (without the word alive) then please preface it with the actual question she responded to, so its clear (as it was in the radio interview) that she unambiguously implicates them being both found and that they would be alive when the finding happens. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people[edit]

I'd like to remind editors that this article comes under the biographies of living people policy. StopSylviaBrowne.com is a self-published attack site. Under strict interpretation of WP:BLP, WP:SELFPUB and WP:EL, it may not be linked to for any reason. BLP is very clear that if there is any doubt as to whether a site should be linked to, leave it out. In this case, there is no doubt about the nature of the site. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Bob (QaBob) 12:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. StopSylviaBrowne.com was not an attack site. It was an INVESTIGATIVE site. (The domain name has since been bought by a pro-psychic squatter; the site is now at StopSylvia.com.)
Note to readers: User QaBobAllah has been banned for use of sockpuppets. — NRen2k5(TALK), 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

A merge proposal has been posted and merge templates have been installed several days ago. If there are no objections posted there (not here), the merge will proceed soon. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne&oldid=1085453125"