Talk:Rosemary Altea

Imposter

I added her to the category of imposters. She was clearly exposed as a charlatan on the Penn and Teller episode. Because she is not a real psychic and pretending to be one, she is an imposter. Bstone 18:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted: that's clearly a pov. --Ballanti 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

uncited section removed

I'm removing all of this until it can be cited. Positive statements about psychics and spirituality are not allowed on Wikipedia.

Rosemary Altea is a New York Times best-selling Author and psychic medium who also runs a charitable healing organization. As well as writing books and doing private consultations with clients, Altea gives lectures and holds events talking about the subject of spirituality and healing. She is well known world wide and has a large following in England, America, Italy and Latin America in particular.

Sgerbic (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Google gives results for 19 May 1946 and 12 December 1946. How do we know that either of these is correct, and why do we prefer 19 May currently? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:22, 17 November 2012 (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) 05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: "See Also" has nothing to do with WP:BLP, its purpose "is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article" Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: Everything on Wikipedia is subject to the WP:BLP policy, and it explicitly applies to "see also" section as per WP:BLPSEEALSO: "'See also' links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of no original research." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: By their nature, other Wikipedia pages are also subject to WP:BLP so any WP page in SEE ALSO is already covered by WP:BLP so any page linked in SEE ALSO is acceptable. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: No, that is not how the BLP policy works at all. The policy explicitly says "'See also' links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of no original research." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The argument that just because a page is covered by BLP it can be used as a 'See also' makes no sense and is incorrect. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense. Lets look at something less contentious, say Handguns. A page about a handgun could have a See Also section links to other handguns, famous people associated with handguns and mass shootings in which handguns are used. In no way does that detract or reflect on the handgun page. In the same way, a page about a person can have a See also section with links to other people with similar professions, famous people associated with the person but not mentioned in their page and a mass murderer who comes from the same town as them. This in no way reflects on the person whose page these links are found.

See Also sections, are by their nature and intent, collections of links to other (vaguely) related pages and not a comment on the page on they appear.

This is a ridiculous example, but I'm trying to make a point: Let's assume that there was a person who had a certain first name (say John) and every other person named John was a serial killer. By having mention of other John's in the See Also section of the non-killer John would have NO REFLECTION on the non-killer John. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)