Talk:Sylvia Browne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sylvia Browne article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: This article is biased against Sylvia Browne and the focus is upon praising Randi the skeptic instead . One wonders if it is written for the intention of advertising Randi. (edit)

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.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archives
Up to October 1 2006
Up to July 21, 2007

Contents 1 Overwhelmingly negative 2 Cut down criticism section 3 Summary compromise 4 Category change 5 She is self-proclaimed 6 Is she for real? 7 Spun off bibliography section

[edit] Overwhelmingly negative

Rarely has so much negativity been contained in a biographical article. It should be split in two, one called "Sylvia Browne" and the other, "Silvia Browne Criticisms."

It's really not the right way to write an encyclopedia article, it should contain a description of all the relevant facts in an article of appropriate length for a person with this degree of popularity. The criticisms should be shortened to one section of appropriate length and linked to references. Landroo 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section has to be slimmed down. It is a clear violationo of WP:BLP where it says:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

Basically, the enormous criticism section overwhelms the article. I'm not at all sure that merely splitting it off would help, because a child article is basically part of the main article.

I'd like everyone to know that I believe that Sylvia Browne uses cold reading and other means to fool people. So I'm not here pushing to have her look good. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This article was merged with material from the POV fork Criticism of Sylvia Browne. If the material is overwhelmingly negative, in a manner that violates balance as per WP:BLP, the material needs to be summarized and integrated with the rest of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Do you feel that it does? (Sorry if I'm not caught up on the discussion on the other talk page). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing critical material, why not just add more supportive material? As long as it can be cited, it should be fine. Qarnos 07:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we can't violate Undue Weight.

Encyclopedias are about facts more than opinions. The fact that opinions exist is a fact, but they should be listed along with all the other facts, not elaborated to inappropriate length. Landroo 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut down criticism section

The criticism section probably needs further cutting to comply with WP:WEIGHT, but I took a first whack at it. See the edit summaries for reasons. Further cutting will probably be up to others. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was done in the name of WP:WEIGHT??? Are you of the opinion that the skeptical view is a minority one? Qarnos 08:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Partly. The criticism overwhelmed the article. It is probably a minority view, else Browne wouldn't make much money or be so popular. It violated WP:BLP thus:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article

It can't take up any more room than when I left it, or it will overwhelm. Take it up with Jossi. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 10:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary compromise

I cut back some of the specifics in the summary. "Point out" is a WP:WTA; what journalists think isn't relevant, only the content of their research. Also, we don't need to go into details in a summary, which made it necessary to take out the reference to the specific episode with Randi. However, I kept the essence of the point, which was that, first, Randi criticizes Browne, and second that Browne has made many false predictions. I also kept the sources. I hope this explains things, and will be an acceptable compromise.

Also, the sentence " In 2007, Randi exposed her as a fraud on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360" just can't stand in the summary of a WP:BLP. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She is self-proclaimed

Her website is used as a source, which clearly means to anybody with basic logic that it's "self-proclaimed". I've read the debate, but this is related to the use of sources and not some uniform decision. See this video from CNN that calls her "self-proclaimed" and "alleged".
First, though, can we use logic and reason here?--Svetovid 12:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Transferring discussion:

I know, I know - but ArbCom recently ruled:

• 6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Dreadstar † 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but this is a source-related issue.--Svetovid 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest discussing on the talk page instead of edit warring over it. The other editor apparently believes you are using it to push a certain POV, which is one of the core issue ArbCom was addressing, so it's not a clear case of it being a source-related issue. Dreadstar † 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"The other editor apparently believes you are using it to push a certain POV" - yes and its laughable.--Svetovid 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I'm sure she does describe herself as a medium. But we don't use a thing just because it is sourced. Even if we did, it controverts the Arbitration decision. Please stop edit warring over it. We are not going to go against the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is she for real?

The Guardian ran this article called Is she for real? This article more or less validates everything discussed on the former and now recreated Criticism of Sylvia Browne article. As a result I've reworded the section here and trimmed it down. I also separated the fraud conviction since it's not controversial (she did plead guilty) nor criticism. Anynobody 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Was there a problem with sources before? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly had no problem with using SSB.com as a source, however I recall jossi not feeling it was up to policies and guidelines. Anynobody 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Plus the sources were for the most part her critics, the Guardian article isn't by a critic. Anynobody 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the whole point was that per BLP we don't do criticism articles. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, it says not to rely on critics as a source. WP:BLP#Criticism says:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources...Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

To be clear, Randi and SSB.com are critics whereas the Guardian is a reliable source. Anynobody 05:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. Well, I'm neutral on the subject. jossi was involved before, let's see what he says about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I'm interested about that too. On the subject of no criticism articles as a BLP issue, Criticism of George W. Bush I try to use this as somewhat of a guidepost. (Saddam would've been a good litmus BLP article too, except he isn't in that category anymore). Anynobody 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you interested in? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider User_talk. Antelan ^talk 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To Martin^phi, I'm curious to see if jossi will have an issue with the Guardian source. Anynobody 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian is good. But I thought there was a different issue last time. Will see. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spun off bibliography section

Like the criticism section before it, this section began to make the article look like a list of Browne's books so I created a page for them: Sylvia Browne bibliography. I'm not sure which books are notable to mention in this article so I'll leave that choice to someone else. Anynobody 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)