Talk:Linda and Terry Jamison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Linda and Terry Jamison, has edited Wikipedia as
Jamisontwins (talk ยท contribs)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

I predict this article will be sourced or get WP:AFD :) j/k. Needs serious clean up is an understatement...--Tom 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which statements would you like sourced? Everything came from the references that are already listed on the page, and notability is pretty easily established by a Google search. Multiple appearances on television, multiple references in other credible sources, etc. If there's other stuff you think needs to be cleaned up, feel free. :) --Elonka 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, I have retagged the statements that I feel should be sourced. Per WP:CITE please use one of the three styles to reference your sources rather than just a list of sources at the end of the article. I did happen to catch the Insider show on Sunday night highlighting the pair. Thanks, --Tom 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added comments showing the sources for those particular statements that you tagged. If you'd like them formatted in a different way, feel free to adjust. --Elonka 17:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to have remove alot of material unless it can be properly sourced per WP:CITE. Just referencing a TV show is unencyclopediatic to say the least. Any material you want to add back in, just provide a source that can be verified. Thanks --Tom 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when are documentaries not allowed as sources? Thousands of articles all over Wikipedia routinely use things like History Channel, National Geographic Channel, and others for information. --Elonka 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I just trying to go by WP:CITE. I would say that 90% or MORE of Wikipedia is NOT sourced properly per its own GUIDELINES...It just seems that we/you/I can do alot better IF we want to.--Tom 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the tags back. This entire bio should probably be started over from scratch. --Tom 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITE

per Jimbo [1] --Tom 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Also see WP:RS. --Tom 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with you that controversial information should not be added to an article unless it has a source. And you are welcome to rewrite the article yourself, but please try to remember WP:AGF. I'm not some random fan coming in to push an article about something/someone I idolize, I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor with more than a hundred articles under my belt. My own goal here is not to promote the twins, but to write an article about a subject that is currently getting a lot of publicity, so that Wikipedia could present both the claims and the debunking, in a neutral fashion that covers both POVs. In every source that I've seen about the twins, the first thing that's usually said about them is about the 9/11 attacks, so it makes sense to include that in the top paragraph. Also, some of the other stuff that you've "fact" tagged seems odd, even by a skeptic's standards. For example, that the twins had a performing arts company? That's a standard "career" reference, which even WP:AUTO says is fine to use on a subject's say-so. As for the A&E documentary, just because you haven't personally seen it yourself, doesn't make it a bad source. I'm happy to quote the program to you word for word, including producer and writer names and anything else in the credits. But if you're going to go after any Wikipedia article that uses a television program as a source, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. :) Start here: Category:Television series by country. --Elonka 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I just added the FIRST reference/footnote. All material should have the same. Saying I have alot of work ahead of me is the understatement of the century since 90 plus percent of Wiki isn't sourced properly. 100 wrongs don't make a right. Its nice to offer to "quote the program to you word for word, including producer and writer names and anything else in the credits" but that wouldn't qualify as WP:RS it seems. Anyways, I REALLY am not trying to bust your ass or assume bad faith, I was rather hoping the level/quality of this article can be improved. Some bio's, Daniel Brandt are sourced up the ying yang due to legalities. Wouldn't it be nice if ALL bios could strive for this level of scrutny. Sorry my spelling sucks...--Tom 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, where in WP:AUTO does it say "is fine to use on a subject's say-so"?? It actually seems to say the OPPOSITE?? ....."They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) However true something may be, if readers cannot verify it, it does not belong here. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable."--Tom 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, I think we're on the same side here. :) I have to run to a meeting right now, but I'll get you an exact quote from WP:AUTO later. In a nutshell though: Self-published/supplied information is okay to use for non-controversial additions like employer, schools, parentage, place of birth, etc., as long as it's not "unduly aggrandizing", and as long as it's not contradicted by other sources. Another thing to be aware of, is the difference between guidelines and policy. I agree that Verifiability is a policy, but the "Reliable Sources" page is still only at "guideline" status, last I checked. As for the Jimbo quotes, I agree with them, but I believe if you look at context, you'll see that he's referring to things like controversial negative edits to an article, not any edit of any type. If you read his followup quote, you'll see that mainly he's trying to avoid libel lawsuits. ;) In fact, if you dig in to the verifiability/source pages, I'm pretty sure that you'll see that there's even a section that allows for Tabloid newspapers to be used as a source, when other sources are not available. BTW, I think your first footnote looks great. Keep up the good work. :) --Elonka 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the exact quote from WP:AUTO, in regards what information can be changed on a subject's say-so: "feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on." Also, at WP:V, it states, "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability [such as tabloids], may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: * It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; * There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it." --Elonka 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems to apply to editors who edit their own articles. Anyways, we are splitting hairs at this point. My MAIN/ONLY/ORIGINAL point was to include specific footnotes to the article per WP:CITE and Citation styles. Just having a section of references at the bottom of the article doesn't seem to follow this guideline. Each statement should LINK to the source or the footnote or reference. I will try to add footnotes to all the material I tagged over the next few days. Even if it isn't the best source its a start and we can improve the sources as we go along. Anyways....--Tom 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, have at it. :) By my understanding, the main citation methods are to either (1) list the sources at the bottom of the page in a "sources" or "references" section, and where necessary, add parentheticals to specific paragraphs; (2) link sources via footnotes (as you're doing); and (3) use in-line citations. Any are fine with me. --Elonka 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the citation methods are: Embedded HTML links, Harvard referencing, and Footnotes. Again, just "listing" sources at the end of the article under "references" doesn't cut it. Also, taking a cursory look below, this again really isn't encyclopediatic. What the twins "say" they said or predicted is a stretch. If this project is going to be taken seriously, we need to step it up....Anyways, I will work on this going forward. Maybe we should get more help, I'll try to rally some other editors who have helped me improve/source other articles in the past. Later, --Tom 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Listing sources at the bottom of the article is a perfectly valid method of referencing, which thousands of articles on Wikipedia use. It's not necessary to post a source next to every single statement in an article -- only the ones which are being reasonably challenged. I think you may be getting tangled up in the difference between Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia policy says that sources must be provided. WP:CITE suggests methods of citing things. Yes, it lists three methods of formatting citations, but nowhere does it say that those are the only methods allowable. In other words, it doesn't mean that if a source is formatted differently than CITE suggests, that the article should be shredded. Ultimately, the most important goal on Wikipedia is to ensure that articles have sources. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which have no sources whatsoever, and those definitely need to be questioned. But I wouldn't spend too much time questioning an article simply because the citation formats aren't what you expect. There's too much other work to do here. As for the specific sentences that you have concerns about, Harvard referencing means that a parenthetical can be added next to each sentence, like "(Psychic Children, 2006)". If you really feel it necessary, go ahead and add the parentheticals, or turn them into footnotes, or whatever floats your boat. :) --Elonka 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, I moved back over to the right :)...Anyways, anybody claiming that they predicted that the WTC would be attacked before hand needs strong sourcing since it it a pretty sensationalist claim. I actually worked in 4 WTC until March 00' so it also strikes a nerve. Again, wouldn't it be better if EVERY article could be as well sourced and held under the microscope as John Karr. I agree that there are 1,000s, actually 100s of 1,000s or articles that imho are very poorly/NOT sourced since they never really see the light of day. Anyways I don't want to shredd articles, just try improve them to a higher/highest standard. Please don't take offense if I say quality over quanity :). Anyways, happy editing, cheers! --Tom 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, that the "prediction" claim is a major one that requires careful sourcing and editing, and yes, I have emotional reasons to feel a connection as well[2] [3] (see "Bloodwrath hoax"). One of the reasons that I wanted to create this article, was to point out that though the twins did go on record as talking about the attacks, that there were plenty of holes in the story, which means it's plausible (IMHO) that they were just throwing out a lot of shotgun guesses to see what "stuck." They said 2002 instead of 2001, and the "Bin Laden" connection wasn't a stretch since there had already been a Bin Laden attack on that same building. I also take the twins' claim that they predicted the United and American connection with a grain of salt, since they claim it shows up in their "Automatic writing," but having seen images of that writing on the A&E episode, it looks vague enough that pretty much any word could be implied out of it, so I don't give that claim much credence. However, regardless of whether or not their predictions are "real", it's still a fact that they are currently notable for having made the predictions, on national radio, years before the attacks. So I believe that having the Wikipedia article is important, to present both sides of the story in a neutral fashion. Especially pointing out the words of the critics, and the fact that the twins made plenty of predictions that weren't accurate. --Elonka 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reference banner

Please don't use reference banners when there are already cite tags inline. It clutters up the article and doesn't help. There are some referenced parts so the banner is inappropriate. In other articles if you must use a banner, add it to the reference section and not the top of articles. -- Stbalbach 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

huh?? If there are some references don't use the tag? Don't use it at the top of an article?? It clutters and doesn't help?? Whatever....--Tom 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
From Template:Unreferenced:
  • There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page.
  • If the external links section includes a references section, this template should not be used.
-- Stbalbach 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I will try to use that and other templates as suggested in the future. I am on a real bender to try to get (more) references into articles or to ask for them. Anyways...--Tom 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A&E documentary

Here's more information on the A&E documentary, if you want to expand the citation:

  • Psychic Children: Their Sixth Sense, first aired August 10, 2006 on A&E. One hour documentary, Jamison segment starts at the 00:41 minute mark, and runs through 00:49.
Linda and Terry Jamison are professional psychics, who call themselves The Psychic Twins. The Psychic Twins are famous for their predictions, especially one they made on November 2, 1999.
Linda:" We were both in separate rooms and we both wrote in our automatic writing on the same day, we wrote, 'World Trade Center attacks Bin Laden, thousands perish.'"
Terry: "United, American, it was all there."
Linda: "And that very night we were able to give that information on national radio."
(Recording from radio program) "We are seeing various terrorist attacks on federal government and also the New York Trade Center, the World Trade Center in 2002."
In 1997, they say they also foresaw another tragedy. The death of John F. Kennedy Jr.
"We said it right after Lady Di was killed. We said, 'JFK is going to die in a small plane. He's going to be next.' And sure enough, just a couple years later, he was."
Their parents were two artists. Jane and Philip Jamison. Philip Jamison is famous. His watercolors hang in museums and collections all over the world. They also have a brother Flip, who is two years older, and has no psychic ability.
They graduated art school, and became artists of another sort, performance artists. (lots of pictures of performance artist days displayed)
Today they not only work as a pair, but live together as well. An early marriage for Terry ended in divorce. And they have finally made peace with what they call their mission in life.
"We laugh when people say that we're just actresses trying to be psychics to earn extra money, because there's no way I would do this, just as a choosing. It is something we have to do."

That's most of the relevant/notable stuff. Let me know if you have any questions! --Elonka 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have the twins arrived?? User:Jamisontwins

If so, welcome to the project...If not, please see WP:HELP to get started. Thanks! --Tom 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I predicted they would show up :) ...--Tom 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Night Live

I've not been having any luck verifying the Saturday Night Live claim. According to the twins' website and Woman's Own (a dubious source at best), the twins created a recurring character called Louise, a two-headed housewife. However, I've been unable to find any mention of this character in any other SNL reference. It's not a main character, a recurring character, or an infrequent character. There's no mention of the character (that I could find) in any of the lists at Saturday Night Live#Recurring characters and sketches, or longer lists such as Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live. I've posted a question at Talk:Saturday Night Live#Louise, Two-headed housewife and at User_talk:Jamisontwins, but have gotten no reply. I've been unable to find anything else on Google, either. My guess is that the character, if real, appeared briefly in one of the SNL independent films, but I'm still not sure if that means one of the shorts that's on the program, or if it means one of the longer films that was made by one of the SNL alumni. At a minimum, I'd like to find out what date(s) that the character appeared. Otherwise, unless someone can find some mention that I've missed, we should probably pull the mention from the article. --Elonka 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have looked high and low for any verification of the SNL claim, and still have not been able to find anything other than the Woman's Own article, which does not appear to be a particularly reliable source. As such, I have removed that information from the article. If a better source becomes available later, we can always re-add the information. --El on ka 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)