Talk:Sylvia Browne/Archive 2

Self-proclaimed psychic

Can't we just say that she is a psychic and Medium? Why does it have to be "self-proclaimed?" After all Larry King, Montel Williams, and other have proclaimed it. Even WP says that she is a popular Medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.83.2 (talk • contribs)

I think to call her simply a "psychic" we need to have conclusive evidence. If only there were a test to ensure her abilities were real we could say. You have not provided any WP:RS on Montel or King's opinions about her. ---Arbusto 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. There is no evidence that she is other than a fraud, as there is no evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena — and a fraudster is certainly not evidence. Sheesh. The things I see New Agers submit. They criticise the Bush administration?

I would say that even describing her as a "self-proclaimed" psychic gives too much credence to this lying little crook. She is a fraud, and a convicted one at that.

If there isn't any conclusive evidence, what do you call the tests that they give those who claim to be psychic? The people who give the tests obviously think how they test them seems conclusive enough. Of course I'm sure they test them multiple times by different sources in order to keep it from seeming like the "psychic" just learn how to "play" the test.--69.229.5.21 06:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

dino 03:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Arbustoo and Dino, we have no conclusive evidence about her being a real psychic (if such a thing exists). Just because she is popular and supported by powerful media figures does not make it true. The Earth being flat was a popular idea, as was it being the center of the universe. Didn't make it a bit true. There have been several visible examples of her predictions being flat out wrong. Just Youtube "Sylvia Browne" and you can see two great examples of it. It is more likely she is a fraud since she will not take Randi's challenge.

Mac428

Predictions

Someone keeps including this sentence:

Brown has thrown out many "predictions," with a success rate no better than educated guesses (see external links, below)

Which is POV. Her popularity attests that many people believe her success rate is better than guessing. But more importantly it is unsourced, offering the vague 'see external links'. Which links? The Criticism section has a long rebuttal of her 'powers' and properly attributes sources and specifics to analysis of her ability to predict the future. Ashmoo 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It must be cited per BLP. Arbusto 05:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are not POV. Qarnos 10:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Her success rate is not a POV, it is most widely accepted as "Fact" by most people.

I do recommend taking the quotations off from 'predictions' though. Some people may misinterpret it as being a POV. I will do that, if anyone objects, feel free to reply. :]
(camxx) 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV ???

I would like to comment that this article hardly promotes a NPOV on Mrs. Browne's abilities or lack thereof, not to mention the unflatering photo. Some edits are sorely needed which I will endeavor to do unless someone else beats me to it. In addition, the facts regarding Mrs. Browne's contribution to police investigations amounts hearsay, as the author quotes another reference and also quotes from a person qualified to offer a professional opinion about Mrs. Browne's contributions. 216.9.250.6 03:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does need clean up. However, paranormal and psuedoscience is not treated as political beliefs on wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires wikipedia does not give undue weight to conspiracy or non-scientific beliefs. Arbusto 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, however, this article seems more like an anti-Sylvia page than anything else. It's one thing to show both sides of the coin: ie: maybe psychics are real, maybe they're not. It's another thing to devote a full half the article to direct attacks against her credibility. Sayvandelay 12:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Book Controversy

The following needs to be sourced with page numbers or removed. Arbusto 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne contradicted one of her stories regarding totem animals, which appeared in two of her books. In "Visits From the Afterlife", the story involved an ex-husband and herself. "In Life On The Other Side", the same exact story, this time, involved a client unrelated to her.

Article seems more like an anti-Sylvia page than anything else??

I felt slightly concerned reading the above quote, "...article seems more like an anti-Sylvia page than anything else. ...," and checked the original article. Have us skeptics been too harsh on her?

Trouble, is, I think us skeptics have been too nice. When will the New Agers realize? She is a fraud. Her "psychic abilities" are no more than clever cold readings, often falling far off the mark. She couldn't predict her own criminal conviction. You want more credence to the psychic view? Find some evidence that she has psychic powers, beyond a few lucky guesses. If you find it, put it in the article.

Better yet, find some evidence that SOMEONE, sometime in history, has demonstrated psychic powers. There is just no evidence. Sylvia Browne is not the one. Edgar Cayce is also a well-known fraud and was into silliness like Atlantis. Uri Geller is such a titanic fraud he is an embarassment to even the New Age community. What more evidence do the New Agers require? Now George Bush is an effective lame duck, us skeptics, freethinkers and scientific types are finally starting to take stands against frauds like intellegent design -- and Sylvia Browne.

Edgar Cayce is also a well-known fraud and was into silliness like Atlantis. You know what will be silly is when scientists start talking about how Atlantis is resurfacing. I mean do you really think the water consumed so much of the world as it does now? Of course not, all us smart guys ruined the environment.--69.229.5.21 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

dino 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. Too many false things have been presented in a way as if they were true under the name of NPOV. Critical thinkers and faith-based folks will never have the same NPOV. --Roland 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed . This is an article promoting Randi instead. Randi is a fraud . This is biased and does not present that this psychic is popular, well loved and consistently validated in her live readings . User:Catherine Curran

"Catherine Curran" this page is very neutral as far as I can tell. You may believe James Randi is a "fraud" whatever that even means, But your opinion on that is totall irrelevant to this talk page. As much as I disagree with you would would love tearing your absurd logic down, This is not the place to do that. So please keep your opinions to yourself.Wikidudeman 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is certainly biased and if that is "as far as you can tell" than that would explain to the reader about your lack of focus, lack of integrity and lack of editing. It is integral to Wikipedia to post without bias, without derision and in agreement with this community. By your inflammatory and disrespectful comments, you certainly display your lack of understanding of the basic standards of this community, Wikidudeman. Catherine Curran 01:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, please refrain from making personal attacks. Catherine do you have any specific criticisms or suggested improvements to the article? Ashmoo 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why does it seem people aren't bashing John Edward, who also claims to be psychic, but it seems people aren't putting as much negative info for him as they seem to for Sylvia Browne. Weird shit, yeah?--69.229.5.21 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not nearly as much factual data regarding the accuracy of James van Praagh and John Edward, due to extensive non-disclosure agreements which they require show participants to sign, as well as their shows' extensive editing. While CSICOP has video-evidence of John Edwards' fraud, the NDA prevents them from releasing it. No such recordings are available for van Praagh, to my knowledge, and so we must rely on hearsay from participants in his tour appearances, which are frequently not covered by the same NDA. 68.166.28.16 13:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That article is anything BUT neutral. It's preposterous! Look how long the Critism section is. Tch, it's obvious that a skeptic fixed that article. It's biased and yes, it does seem more like an anti-Sylvia page. Lady Rosala 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's debatable, I think it is a bit biased IN SOME PARTS, but in others I believe it has a fairly neutral POV, As long as everything has a reliable source, It's not biased. Although I do think that this article needs more Pro-Sylvia parts, such as her many fans, exc. (Camxx) 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Current image is copyrighted. Must be removed.

Adhering to the wikipedia policy on copyrighted images. The Motel Williams image currently on the page will be removed because the producer or the tv studio of Motel Williams holds the copyright of the image and permission was not given to reproduce the image. The image itself explains no licensing information either. The image “sylviabrowne1” however is free to proliferate and was released by it’s owner for such use. I will replace the image on copyright grounds. I have tagged [[1]] for speedy deletion by an admin for copyright violation. If you have added this image or believe the image should be kept up them go to the image page and discuss it with the admins.

Wikidudeman 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New Image for Sylvia?

I have found a new image that could possibly go on the Sylvia Browne's main page. You'll see it on there right now, It is okay to have it on the profile, because it has appeared on many of her books. Tell me what you think.

(camxx) 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Update on the new photo

The reasons for my choosing of this new photo, was because of feedback from previous comments that the old picture made sylvia look "Drunk/Tarted Up" and probably didn't depict the image most people are used to seeing of her.
(camxx) 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And updated: 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have before/after images so you can see the images for yoursef.
The new image is okay to have on Wikipedia because it has appeared on two of her books. (more...)

From the article Sylvia Browne:
BEFORE: File:SylviaBrowne1.jpg AFTER: File:Sylvia-browne book covor.jpg
(camxx) 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the copyright info for this image?Wikidudeman 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright info

All rights too the image belong to the Louise Hay Foundation/Hay House Publishers. The picture is of Sylvia Browne. (hayhouse.com) (sylvia.org) This picture of her, appears on the covor of two of Sylvia Browne's book's. "Secret's and Mysteries of the world" and "Mother God" Which can be viewed at the following Link: http://www.hayhouse.com/combined.php?format=1&keyword=Sylvia+Browne&n=1

Books:

• Browne, Sylvia; (2004). Mother God: The Feminine Principle to Our Creator Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc. ISBN 1-4019-0309-6
• Browne, Sylvia; (2006). Secrets & Mysteries of the World Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc. ISBN 1-4019-0458-0

For more info, click on the new image of Sylvia Browne
(Camxx) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a great picture be her, especially since we hve a premission for using it. Smith Jones 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a tip

Some interesting documents from the court case mentioned just went online at http://www.stopsylvia.com/articles/peoplevsbrown.shtml if someone wants to do something with them.

Roma Gypsy

She is of Roma Heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.154.33 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

She is? I'll add that to the article then. Smith Jones

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd like a more reliable source for this claim than the say-so of an anonymous editor. -- Qarnos 13:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read her "biography" (Adventures of a Psychic), and recall no such statement. Further, I did a "search inside" of the book on Amazon.com, and found no reference to the word Roma, and only one instance of the word "gypsy", not related to her heritage. RSLancastr 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would truly be funny if she is of Roma Heritage, because it is easy for me to imagine her in a gypsy wagon with a crystal ball telling fortunes in a traveling carnival. Since I couldn't find anything about her actually being Roma on the internet, the way it got on here in the first place (no offense 198.187.154.33) without any reference, and the fact that nobody else has found confirmation I removed it. Anynobody 06:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw or Justify

The person responsible for the following text in the Sylvia Browne article should either provide proof that the statement is true or delete it: '"She predicted 9/11 and she was right! "' Robert2957 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only did she NOT predict 9/11, she was on Larry King Live on September 3rd, 2001, and made no mention of it. After 9/11, she stated that in the weeks leading up to it, she kept "dreaming about fire." Again, it was only stated after the fact, and even had it been stated before 9/11, it is vague at best. RSLancastr 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time I urinated I thought of water, so obviously I predicted the Hurricane Katrina disaster. - Throw 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Help in police and FBI cases

I've heard and read in the article about her helping police cases, but it doesn't go into much depth. What cases has she helped, how helpful has she been or is it nothing more than her own claims, can anyone find any evidence for the help she's given the authorities either good or bad??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackB69 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Feel free to add it to the article, as long as you can find appropriate Citation :]

(Camxx) 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph.

I removed the following paragraph which really interrupted the flow of the article, was non-sourced, unencyclopedic, and appeared to be nothing but hero-worship. Please do not re-instate it without at least sourcing the claims.

In spite of criticism and controversy, Sylvia Browne has stayed well in business for 50+ years, giving more than 20 readings a day, appearing at numerous lectures with other self-described psychics such as John Edward, and has published 40 books, with less than half on the New York Times Bestseller List. Sylvia is usually on the Montel Williams show every Wednesday. She has stated that her psychic ability is at about a 90% success rate and her predictions are at 58% success.

-- Qarnos 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category: Pseudoscientist?

Does Browne qualify for this category. My understanding is that pseudoscience is an endevor that has the trappings of science but fails in at least one key criteria (falsifiability, repeatability etc). While Browne fails these criteria, I don't think she has ever claimed that what she does is science. Ashmoo 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Lead!?!?!?

Jossi, could you please explain why you feel the current lead section violates WP:NPOV rather than just adding the template without dicussion. -- Qarnos 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. See WP:LEAD, that reads: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of that do you think it fails to do? Ashmoo 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See my highlights. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV as much as it is plain uninformative/weak. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is POV as it does not present missing information that is required for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead to include the controversy. Should be O.K. now -- Qarnos 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Introrewrite is designed to be used for introductions that don't adhere to WP:LEAD. It might fit better than Template:POV in the future. — Elembis (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

This section needs to summarize the long excerpts and transwiki any notable quotes to Wikiquote. Once that is done that cleanup template can be removed. Jossi 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I added the transcripts for the Sago Mine controversy but, in the cold light of day, it does look pretty ugly. I will go through the transcripts tomorrow and condense them into summaries. The only problem may be sourcing - I used the recordings, which I downloaded from the Coast to Coast AM site, and they are no longer available for download. I'll see if I can find another source for them. -- Qarnos 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll third that. Transcripts aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP isn't here to either convince the reader of anything one way or another, nor provide primary sources so they can 'decide for themselves'. The best solution is to summarize the predictions see gave (preferably with a cite to a 3rd party who did a summary) and offer links to critical sites and the full transcript. Ashmoo 04:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Under 'Montel Williams controversies', the section on the reading of a woman who lost her partner during 9/11 also seems dubious. Firstly, there is no source for the assertion that it generated controversy. It also appears that the transcript was written by the wikieditor directly from the sourced video. This is a problem as the transcript makes a number of interpretations such as speakers looking 'confused'. The whole transcript needs cites to avoid removal. Ashmoo 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper

Should we add the recent CNN expose? FGT2 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If it's not already there then mention it.Wikidudeman 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What cases has Browne solved?

Browne continues to say she has solved "case after case" but does anyone have any evidence of that being true? One would think if it were true Browne would have presented those successes front and center, but I've never heard of a specific case where she was a principle in solving anything, or any police authority thanking her for her help or anything. - Throw 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A gentle reminder: This page is for discussing the article, and not the subject, as per the header in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, Jossi. It is important not to allow this to become some kind of Sylvia Browne gossip page, but I think Throw's question is actually about the article. Browne makes claims that she has "helped thousands" and solved "case after case". If she was not making these claims then I would wholeheartedly agree this topic would not belong in the article, but she is the one saying she solved crimes.Anynobody 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking into my own inquiries, I found this: [2] which note some 35 cases Browne has been involved in. In all 35 cases Browne's information was too vague and played no useful role. And just to add fuel to the fire, this blog takes a critical look into Browne's 2006 predictions and - shockingly - is wrong on nearly every one. Her 'correct' predictions appear to be by mere circumstance. - Throw 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, I'm hoping to find a list of cases and agencies she worked with. I doubt such a list exists so I'm not holding my breath. For example I understand another "medium", Allison DuBois, claims to have worked with the Texas Rangers and the Glendale, AZ police department which both agencies deny. Her error was to make a claim that could be quickly verified, Ms. Browne's claims are usually not able to be verified so rapidly. Thanks for the effort though, Throw. Anynobody 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

StopSylvia.com is not an "Official" Browne site and is already listed

The link (* StopSylvia.coman anti Sylvia Browne website) already appears under the "Critical of Browne" links. The site is a great source of information about Sylvia's major mistakes, and is certainly well designed, but there is no chance that it is an official site of hers. Therefore I removed the link from the Official links section ONLY. Anynobody 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the webmaster of the site (thanks for the kind words, Anynobody), and it is most definitely NOT an official Sylvia Browne site. RSLancastr 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That site is a personal website, and as such labeled as WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is the part of the WP you are talking about ≈ jossi ≈, : "11. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." To me a personal webpage is one written by a person and their views on whatever they choose to write about, essentially what a blog was in 1995 before the term "blog" entered the internet lexicon. StopSylvia.com compiles evidence from primary and secondary sources to verify the claims Ms. Browne makes only. It is very similar in that respect to a site like xenu.net. If the site were called "Lancaster's views on life" and was just a collection of the authors opinions about her without sources or references I would agree that it would be a site to be avoided. StopSylvia.com also includes correspondence by people who have actually paid for Browne's services. For these reasons I think it should be included under links of sites critical of Browne. Of course I could be wrong, so I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else would care to opine before I restore it. Anynobody 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anynobody, "StopSylvia.com" is not a 'personal website' in any sense of the word. It's a website dedicated specifically to refuting Sylvia's claims. Moreover what it clearly states is this

"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:.."

This means that Lancastrs website would be allowed to be linked.Wikidudeman 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 firefighter

I removed this 'transcript' as it is unsourced:

Another incident which generated controversy occurred on the show (original airdate not known - rebroadcast on August 16 2006), when Browne gave a reading to a woman in the audience. A transcript follows:

Woman: I lost my boyfriend tragically, um… a few years ago. (choking back tears) They never found him, and I've had such a hard time since. Every day.

Browne: The reason why you didn't find him is 'cause he's in water. And, find him in water…

The woman looks confused.

Browne: (to Montel) it's like the girl that's missing in Aruba. [to woman] You can't find somebody…

Woman: (interrupting) Well, it was…September eleventh. There was no… He was a fireman, but…there was no…

Browne: Well no, you see, I keep seeing him in water.

The woman shakes her head angrily. There is a pause.

Browne: Is there any way he could have drowned in water, someway?

Woman: [shakes her head] They never found a piece of him. Nothing.

Montel: (to Sylvia) From 9/11.

Another pause.

Browne: 'Cause he's… he says he couldn't breathe and he was filled with water.

Another pause.

Montel: Hmm.

Browne: Well, if they were trying to put the fire out, Montel…

Montel points to another person in the audience, trying to move on.

Montel: They couldn't, you know, uh, yeah.

Another pause.

Browne: No, they won't find him, but honey that's okay, because it doesn't matter if they find him or not, he's still over there.

Ashmoo 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's your source. Out of respect for the audience member I didn't link to the video. - 75.38.19.188 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ashmoo 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has no neutrality whatsoever and does not belong here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.66.202.32 (talk • contribs).

Stop Sylvia Brown

I was reading a sample desist order on [3] and some other attorney contacts regarding similar matters with other sites. You'd probably want to remove any copyrighted images with logos (like screen shots from Montel including the logo). Other than that I can't think of any grounds her or her attorneys would have to litigate this. If the letter you received is from her attorney ONLY and threatens to seek action, they are probably trying to scare you off. As I understand it, an actual Cease and Desist order has to come from a judge, and because a lot of people don't realize that; Lawyers will send legal looking threats to pursue action they know they couldn't actually win. The idea being that the individual who receives the threat doesn't know this. A situation analogous to an old west gunfighter challenging someone else to a duel knowing he doesn't have any bullets. Since the other person doesn't know the gunfighter has no ammunition, they are likely to back down rather than risk being shot. Anynobody 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is this regarding? As far as I can tell, we've not received any C&Ds, nor are we in any legal danger. Are you talking about something other than this article / the Wikipedia? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The website StopSylvia.com got a request from Ms. Browne's lawyers to shut down the site. It's indirectly related to this Wiki article because it provides a central reference for several of the issues in this article. Anynobody 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The site is still up, and now the letter in question has been posted. If the site had been taken down we may have had to add a bunch of new sources or delete the stuff that references StopSylvia.com. As far as I can tell, this is now a non-issue. Anynobody 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Only image we have here is from CNN. If CNN sends a DMCA takedown notice I'm sure the foundation will deal with it.Geni 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

POSSIBLY NOPV VIOLATION???

i am not sure if this is a rpobelm but oi have noticed tat there are only three posibitve wsites deicated to Sylvia browne listed nont his tpage whiel ehte negative sites number in the eight. maybe there should be some fansites of sylvia [that are prominent, of course] to bte added to thee page. Smith Jones 03:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, You believe that there should be more positive sites about Sylvia in the 'links' area? Well if you can find some prominent websites dedicated to her we can even them out. But I don't believe there are that many.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidudeman, but will also point out that NPOV does not mean we give undue weight to unsubstantiated claims. Besides, I would have thought the external links section is relatively immune to NPOV, as long as there are some links for both sides. -- Qarnos 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to have some substantiated success stories too, it can make the page look very biased against her. The problem is nobody can or has come forward to say something like "Sylvia Browne said my little boy Joey was kidnapped by a one-eyed butcher with red hair in a beat up blue '79 Chevy pickup and taken to a brown one-story house in suburban Toledo. She was 100% accurate and the police caught the evil man and returned my son to me. Without Sylvia, we would have never found him!" She kinda gives the impression that the melodramatic scenario I described is a regular occurrence for her. I'd like to think that if she has really been that big of a help to so many people, at least a few of them would stand up and defend her. Anynobody 09:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Finding credible cases where she was right on spot 100% seems to be highly difficult if not impossible. The cases she provided to Anderson Cooper were easily refuted and shown to be other than what she stated.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

there doesnt need to be any proofs of this her claims just sites that sppport her. the article makes it seem that only she and he r people have onay faith in his abiliteis whicha re in t curatte. Smith Jones

I think you are saying the article should have another section of links to sites which support her? What sites did you have in mind? The three positive sites you mentioned are her official sites so any new sites (supportive or critical) won't be added to that category unless they are official Browne pages. Perhaps we could create a section called Supporters of Browne assuming the sites meet with everyone's approval. Anynobody 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I found some pages here, here, here, here, here, here and here give many possitive descriptions on how powerful and good sylvia brown is ast ht epsychig stuff. these should be coordaintated and incorporated into the article is asoon as possible. Smith Jones 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Smith Jones 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those seem to meet Wikipedia's standards as regards reliable sources. For example, at least one of them is a forum wherein anyone, subject to forum T&C, may write anything. This type of source is specifically excluded from WP's list of sources that are deemed reliable. Are you able to claim otherwise? Also, and I really apologise if this seems rude, but it's quite difficult to understand your posts. Perhaps you might run them through a spell-check first, thanks. — BillC ^talk 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a professionaly-done website that has meet the requirements for wikkipeida. i agree that the forum is not good but the mind power researchers are also a scientific orgnaization and i think that science should be addedd into every article regardless of which pov ist favorioes. and i thank you not to make fun of my spelling because thsat is bad manners and rude. Smith Jones 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the links you provided and agree with BillC about the forums not being reliable for this article. The first link, from New Age Directory is about psychics and doesn't mention Sylvia Browne. You might want to look into adding it to Psychic article. We're actually not talking about whether psychic phenomenon are real or what they are, this article is about Sylvia Browne. Think of it this way Smith Jones, imagine Sylvia was claiming to be a doctor. If you prove what a doctor is, it still doesn't establish whether she is one. You could prove that psychics do exist but Sylvia Browne could still be either deluded or fake. Anynobody 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anynobody on this one.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

okay fine i'll add it to the psycihc article instead. Smith Jones 01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at my criticism, I really do appreciate your efforts to provide positive evidence of Ms. Browne's successful readings. I also feel that I should extend that to when BillC mentioned difficulty understanding your posts; I get the feeling he wasn't trying to be rude or offensive at all. I had actually thought about mentioning it myself, simply because I am not 100% sure I understand what you mean to say sometimes. We all care about your input, and just want to make sure we understand your points. If anything I type/say is unclear to you I'd hope you'd tell me. Anynobody 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I sm trying to maka my posts my easily understanded but its hard without spellcheck Smith Jones 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I thought you wanted to suggest sites with "positive" accounts of Sylvia Browne. One of the links you suggest is harshly critical of her. RSLancastr 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are doing a much better job, and you're right it is a pain in the rear without spell check. Have you considered using Mozilla Firefox as your browser? It has spell check as you type, which is much easier. Anynobody 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

that lookscool but i lost my . passwor so i can only use guest account and am needing not able to downl.ooad files also thanks i intended for the addition of more sites that produce a different view of browne not just proofing powers. all of the info here is already just skeptical and there are people like jesusis-savor that dont like sylvia but for different reasons other than psychic and i think that christains are notable groups to add viewpoint to artticle. Smith Jones 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Site

Sylvia Browne's own page is cited numerous times; I'm not sure that it is a reliable source on her. For instance, read her biography page, which is the very first source used by this article. She doesn't seem to be a reliable source, and is known for being a fraudster; should we really use her site for anything other than what her claims are? Even her biography seems suspeect. Titanium Dragon 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think many of us share your concern for the overall accuracy of the info on her site. The citations are more for WP:NPOV than they are for accuracy. To keep things accurate the article does include links to more believable sources. Anynobody 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Transcript

I think the transcript being put in this article wholesale is a bad idea. We should summarize what occured in the transcript, then link to the actual transcript. How does this sound for a summary?

• On the Montel Williams show, Sylvia Browne adressed an audience member who said her boyfriend was missing. Browne claimed that the boyfriend had drowned, but in fact her boyfriend was a firefighter who had gone missing during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Titanium Dragon 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the transcript should be condensed, but the word "drowned" probably shouldn't be used. Respectfully Titanium Dragon, Browne appears to keep things vague in her predictions. When she says "in water" it could also mean he was killed elsewhere and dumped in a body of water. The problem for her was, Browne seems to have assumed the woman's boyfriend was murdered and his body hadn't been found. When 9/11 factored in, the water suddenly became water from fire hoses (which didn't get deployed during 9/11 anyway because of damage to the building and lack of time). Anynobody 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is felt that the transcript does not belong, a link can be added instead, pointing to http://www.stopsylvia.com/articles/montel_911fireman.shtml, an article on my site which contains the entire transcript. RSLancastr 03:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I summarized the transcript and referred anyone interested in the transcript on StopSylvia.com. Anynobody 03:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Healer

I was looking for info on her after the fact preditctions about 9/11, and was reading the transcript of the 9/3/2001 interview when I noticed her making these claims. Anynobody 07:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

She's made all sorts of absurd claims. I wouldn't be surprised if she said she could levitate and summon Jesus, But I don't really know if we should mention it all in the article. Should we?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern, but in this particular case I do think it merits mention. It goes toward her general pattern of claiming accomplishments in a professional field which can't be verified. 350 doctors, dozens of homicides solved, etc. all goes toward her claims of psychic gifts. I also kinda wondered why she hasn't been making claims like this recently, at least according to her. I kind of like the fact that it was a 2001 incident because (I think it was you who pointed it out) her routine seems to change and evolve over time, she used to look up during readings was the example. Plus it's readily sourced with material already on the site. Anynobody 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you were kidding but if she really did claim to levitate and summon Jesus on Larry King, that actually does sound like something worth mentioning too as an example of her living in her own reality. As opposed to being a fraud. Anynobody 08:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed Murderer

Would anyone be opposed to adding the case of Lynda McClelland. It is astounding, the murderer is sitting in the same room with Sylvia and she and her spirit guide totally miss it. Naturally this should not be stated in the article in the same way I did above. I was thinking something along the lines of:

Lynda McClelland disappeared from her home in 2000, last seen by her daughter and son-in-law. On 13 March 2002 they (the daughter and her husband) appeared with Ms/Mrs. McClelland's other daughter on the Montel Williams Show seeking Sylvia Browne's help. They were told by Ms. Browne that their mother was alive but as a result of a mental breakdown was institutionalized somewhere. Since Mrs. McClelland had previously documented mental health issues, the sisters appeared to accept Ms. Browne's explanation. One year later her body was discovered after an accomplice of Mrs. McClelland's son in law led authorities to her shallow grave. It was later revealed that Mrs. McClelland had an affair with her son in law, and he strangled her when she threatened to tell her daughter. The son in law was later convicted of her murder.

sources from StopSylvia.com: N. Braddock man held in mother-in-law's killing Man Kills Mom-In-Law Over Sex, Found Guilty Anynobody 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean you absolutely oppose it, or it should absolutely be included? Sorry to split hairs, but I can see it going either way. Anynobody 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I support it being mentioned. Sorry for not being clearer.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize I screwed myself on that one. I could have phrased the original post better in the first place. I should have said "I'd like to list" instead of "Would anybody mind?" Anynobody 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reworking the controversy section

The controversies involving The Montel Williams Show is getting pretty hefty (up to four missing persons cases have surfaced that prove Browne has gotten them wrong thanks to the efforts of Robert Lancaster over at StopSylvia.com.). The problem is that whole section is a mess. I'm not sure how best to go about it. Anyone have any suggestions? - Throw 12:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I might work on it later.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps a sub-page like Criticism of Bill O'Reilly could be added with a title of "Failed Montel Williams Show predictions". Anynobody 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't take credit for breaking some of these stories. For example, both Randi and Robert Todd Carrol (of The Skeptic's Dictionary) wrote about the Lynda McClelland reading back in 2003. RSLancastr 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually wondering if it would be ok to link to the news sources directly in the article as opposed to your site? (Not because the site isn't good, but because I want to avoid future COI allegations by supporters of Sylvia.) On the talk page though, I had to mention where I saw it first :) Anynobody 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We should however cite someone else who has noted these problems since otherwise there is an original research element. No offense to Lancaster, but I tink that Randi and Carrol are more reliable sources in this regard, and so we should in general cite them. Although I personally agree with everything on Lancaster's website, it doesn't meet WP:RS. JoshuaZ 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with part of your statement, JoshuaZ. I agree that we need to bring in new sources and can not merely point everything to StopSylvia.com as it may look like advertising. The site does meet WP:RS in everything but name for two main reasons. 1) because Mr. Lancaster has indicated his willingness to publish favorable reports if they meet the same reporting standards as the negative ones. 2) He includes links to RS on most if not all of the pages, like the links I listed under the talk section about Lynda McClelland. Something else to consider is that if SSB.com didn't meet RS standards, it should be removed from the article proper. Anynobody 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we should remove them all then. Citing reliable sources and being willing to publish favorable reports is not what makes something reliable, but this policy. We should go through and replace all SSB links with appropriate Randi and Carrol links. JoshuaZ 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I should apologize to you upfront JoshuaZ I was actually testing your understanding of WP:RS. I apologize for the deception but I have found if I ask someone straight out if they understand a concept people can get defensive without actually answering the question. In this case it's important to note that WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. This means not meeting WP:RS is not a standard by itself to merit removal of information.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policy on sources is Wikipedia:Attribution.

I'm curious to know why you drew the line here, if you thought this whole time that SS.com is not WP:RS? Since it's been here so long. Anynobody 05:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First I'd comment that WP:RS is so close to being a policy that the guideline v. policy difference isn't that relevant. As to my other reasons - 1) I only started payign that much attention to the article fairly recently 2) The article I only just spent time looking at the website in detail 3) Possibly my own anti-Sylvia POV. JoshuaZ 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your commitment to NPOV editing, it helps ensure that the info on here is at least well considered. I too strive for NPOV, and here is my opinion on why Lynda McClelland is extremely notable among her errors. The man who murdered her was in the very same room with her (Sylvia) when Lynda's daughters asked about her disappearance. Sylvia claims to help solve murder cases, one slipped right by her and her spirit guide on the Montell Williams Show. She's claimed to have solved many crimes on the show, as you probably know. I haven't followed Randi or Carrol, can you point me to where they discussed this? (Show was 3/13/2002, body found 3/2003). I don't think any of us, even RSLancastr, are saying that his commentary on SSB.com is why the site has value for Wikipedia purposes. The value is in the Primary and Secondary sources RSLancastr has collected there. Anynobody 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Anynobody. I like your suggestion of a subpage for the controversies involving the Montel show. If there's no objections I'd like to make a go at it. - Throw 12:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection here, go for it Throw. Anynobody 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, could you explain to me what the problem is with using SS? I just read the policy, and am still not clear on your objection. Am I not considered a "reliable author?" SS.com is indeed a secondary source, but in most cases, includes primary sources (such as the video of the Lynda McClelland reading) not found elsewhere. Understand, I take no offense at any of this. I am just trying to understand your objection. RSLancastr 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the problem is that it is essentially a self-publushed source, and self-published sources are generally non-reliable. JoshuaZ 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in general they can be unreliable but that does mean there are exceptions. I believe SS.com is such an exception, after all he backs up everything he says there with outside info. Anynobody 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs often do, that doesn't make them reliable. Generally the main condition for counting a self-published source as reliable is when it or the author has been specifically mentioned as reliable in a mainstream source. It really seems to be effectively a well written, well-documented, well-organized personal webpage. That doesn't make it reliable. JoshuaZ 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But, JoshuaZ, what I (we) have been saying it's reliable for it's good use of sources as a reason it has more credibility than a typical self published source. You aren't really addressing how it isn't reliable given the points that we've been making. I thought that the reason self published sources are inappropriate is because theyjust speculate and opine without any sources. SS.com does use sources. Anynobody 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let us define two reliableA as some sort of conventional notion of reliability and reliableB as the WP:RS standard which takes dim views of self-published sources. Now, while reliableA might arguably include this, reliableB does not. According to WP:RS there are in general two exceptions to self-published sources being unusable. First, if it is a source by the subject of the article or the matter at hand. Second, if it is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise" Neither of these conditions are met. JoshuaZ 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example gives me the impression that you think I am saying we should us Mr. Lancaster's commentary as a source itself. That is not what I'm saying. I found these two links at SS.com: N. Braddock man held in mother-in-law's killing and Man Kills Mom-In-Law Over Sex, Found Guilty. This is what I planned to cite in mentioning the reading I proposed adding. I'm not saying SS.com should be cited as the source for this type of information in the article either. I am saying SS.com deserves mentioning as an indication of her negative image (not all psychics have their own dedicated skeptic sites). I think we all understand that Mr. Lancaster can't publish his opinions on another page to use as a source here, but I think media reports he finds are very valid. Since his opinions reflect an accurate, in my view, synthesis of the facts in his sources it might be easy to think I am advocating it as a workaround of WP policy. I'm not, if you give people all the information they will understand without commentary. Here are the facts in this case:

• Lynda McClelland was murdered by her son in law over an affair the two were having. Lynda McClelland's daughters, and her murderer went on the Montell Williams show to ask Sylvia's help. Ms. Browne tells the sisters that their mother is alive but institutionalized somewhere. A year later the truth is revealed.

That is all that needs to be said, a person who reads the whole Wiki article will see that she claims to be able to solve crimes, yet the murderer in this case walked "into the lion's den" and didn't get caught by her. Anynobody 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a source connecting the two, the connection is original research. Now if Randi or Carrol talks about this, we can cite that. JoshuaZ 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was my understanding that merely providing facts is not OR. (You have looked at the links, right?) If we provide them as references along with some kind of transcript from the Montell show, how is that OR? We aren't saying she should have caught him.

• On Montell she said Lynda McClelland was alive.
• One year later a tv station and newspaper reported finding her body and the subsequent arrest of her son in law for the crime.

When an average person just reads the facts, they synthesize themselves in a NPOV way. Facts presented without commentary or editing are NPOV by their very nature. If we add in Randi to point out as a psychic she should have seen the murderer, it makes an almost perfect NPOV set of facts into a POV argument. I support Randi as much as I do SS.com, but if the facts speak for themselves we should leave them out to maintain NPOV. Anynobody 06:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatmight deal with the OR issues(the juxtaposition does seem to still be OR by proxy), but I would then have notability concerns still. If no reliable source has noticed this then it is very difficult for us to argue that it matters enough for us to include it. JoshuaZ 06:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and WTAE 4 Pittsburgh not reliable? (PS Aren't we encouraging OR by proxy by providing facts and data?) Anynobody 07:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

They are reliable. The connection and implication about Sylvia's lack of ability is OR. Again, if Randi or Caroll decide to note the connection, then we can discuss it, but we can't in this form. JoshuaZ 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that to actually write about the implication, we need to quote somebody else. Again, I'm not advocating we make the connection, we don't have to in this case. If we can find a source for a Montell transcript all we have to do is write about the transcript, then we add info from the news stories a year later. This particular mistake is so obvious to anyone who knows the facts, we don't actually have to tie it together. Without our making an assertion that she screwed up, people will notice anyway just from the facts. I'm not saying including Randi to synthesize is wrong from a policy standpoint, but it does impact the overall NPOV of the article. To sum up, how can we be committing OR if we just give the facts and no commentary? Anynobody 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The juxtaposition is an obvious attempt to imply the connection. (I also have to say that I don't see why you are so focused on this issue, the examples already in the article that can be sourced to Caroll and Randi already make it overwhelmingly clear what a fraud she is). JoshuaZ 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the inclusion if the information at this point, now I'm trying to understand your concept of OR. I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, I'm seriously having trouble understanding how a connection not made is OR. (I've been assuming you are an admin because you blocked Barbara Schwarz after a spurt of edit warring there.) I'm really hoping for an explanation, which is why I keep asking. I get the impression you are frustrated, by asking why this seems so important to me. I don't mean to, the way I see things we share the same POV on Sylvia and are both trying to do what's best for the project. If you can explain why you see my idea as OR in a logical way, I'll leave you alone about it. (For example your concept of OR by proxy seems odd, considering we are encouraging readers of Wikipedia to engage in their own OR in real life (like a regular encyclopedia does). Maybe we ought to let some other editors comment on this? If you want I'll hold of future questions and comments until/unless other editors take an interest. Anynobody 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think other editors commenting may be useful. To attempt to explain the OR concern- there's no reason that either of these facts are notable enough to be mentioned here without the OR element. To use an analogy- if one had a sufficiently dense individual who couldn't make the connection, would you be able to justify inclusion without mentioning the relevant OR? JoshuaZ 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I took Anynobody's advice and started a subpage for Criticism and controversy of Sylvia Browne, which can be found here: Criticism of Sylvia Browne. The article is a very, very rough draft and I realize there will be much conflict but it's just a start. - Throw 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits to Critiscim section

For the most part I only corrected slight grammar issues and some instances where her name was spelled Brown. The only correction to content was to explain which radio show she was on when she made her Sago mistake. Anynobody 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

www.gosylviabrowne.com

I spent a few minutes on the site, and it looks like more of the same validations she's been talking about. The letters from the fans really can't be verifed and are just testamonials about how they believe in her. Even though it doesn't do anything to satisfy skeptics, and isn't verfiable, if we have StopSylvia we ought to have GoSylviaBrowne. (Frankly I think it just makes StopSylvia.com better.) Anynobody 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To expand on my comments, here is an example of the site's validation section:

Dearest Sylvia,

I just had to write to you to let you know a FEW things about what changes have occurred in my life since the first time I saw you on the Montel Williams Show. I have to admit that it was not a very good time in my life. I had a drug problem with crack cocaine. I hated my life, humankind, and anything that had to do with life itself. I had no faith or love for anything -- my world was dark. The only thing I believed in and was dedicated to was my drug addiction. I did always have a love for Jesus Christ, but wasn‘t in a place to really accept a spiritual path. As I have grown to know you better, your knowledge and spiritual nature have blown me away. I have researched you and your philosophy for over five years. Your correct predictions and your devotion to God impress me beyond belief. To add to that, you have never taken credit for your gift, you always say it’s from God. It’s mind boggling to me that I have never heard anyone say that in my entire life. You are a true gift from God, Sylvia. I also wanted to tell you that I would have never found my purpose in life, along with a recovered drug habit if it wasn’t for you and your wisdom. I was able to quit “cold turkey” thanks to your spiritual knowledge and God. You influenced me that much and made me want to become a better person. Sylvia, thank you for your endless research, predictions, and most importantly, the beautiful gifts of purpose and love from our Mother and Father GOD. Love you always and forever. Your friend,

It's possible that somebody out there overcame their crack habit with Jesus Christ and Sylvia Browne alone. The problem is we aren't given a name, and even if we were chances are there would be no way to verify it unless that person was in the news somehow. The reason I said before that this site makes stopsylvia.com look even better is that it cites very specific, verifiable examples like Shawn Hornbeck. Whereas gosylviabrowne.com is more of her "350 children healed" and "dozens of cases cracked" statements, very dubious. Anynobody 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that GoSylviaBrowne.com should be added. It's unfair to compare GoSylviaBrowne with StopSylvia since StopSylvia takes a fairly impartial and fair view with sources. GoSylviaBrowne only panders to already true believers. It cites nothing worth noting other than offer a window into the sick and deluded minds of Browne's fans. Trying to compare 'GO' with 'STOP' would be like comparing Creationism to Evolution: Creationism relies on faith alone, Evolution came about by evidence, thought, and scrutity. - 75.35.237.117 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bunch of garbage, but the WP:NPOV implications of excluding it and keeping stopsylvia.com are very clear. Anynobody 07:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, now that I think of it, her official site shares much in common with Go Sylvia as far as verifiable facts are concerned. Anynobody 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people I've talked to think that site "gosylviabrowne" is actually a site setup by people working for Sylvia Browne with the intention of making it seem like there's some 'movement' to support her. It's called Astroturfing and it's where someone fakes a grassroots support for a person or an event. Most likely the majority of the people who post on that site are a few individuals working for Sylvia. Her sons girlfriend's name is the same as the owner of the site, for instance.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading that makes me happy I included it under the "official" links section. It makes sense, given that her legal threat didn't pan out the way she hoped. Anynobody 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding the site might not be a great idea due to the fact it might rocket it's google rank up. However looking further into the future, I can imagine this whole ordeal of "stopsylvia"/"GosylviaBrowne" being so weird that it might actually get media attention and start people talking about Syvlia Browne and about her so called "psychic powers". It might also reveal how "gosylviabrowne.com" is actually about as real as Sylvia's 'powers'.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything you said was correct, I find the site to be feeble at best as a response. The problem is that as a neutral editor I can't argue to get rid of Go and keep Stop, it's advertising a negative POV. Conversely, as I see it we are now locked into having Stop on here, as deleting it at this point would make a positive POV article. There is a silver lining. Anynobody 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I could make a pretty good argument that having "Gosylviabrowne.com" violates WP policy. But I don't see the point in bothering. I'll just sit back and see what happens with it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman ^(talk) I'm not saying the site stays no matter what, really I can imagine scenarios where it should be removed. I want this to be the best article it can be WITHOUT drawing attention and possibly new clients for her. Unless you are saying Stop should go too? I could see where WP:NPOV could be satisfied by a solution like that, but I do think Stop has a place here. I honestly don't want to be defending the crap on Go if I don't have to. Anynobody 11:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the person running GoSylviaBrowne.com is someone close to the Sylvia Browne corporation and - if she marries Browne's son - would see a fortune when Browne dies. This is a clear conflict of interest and I don't think the site can really be labeled a simple fan site when someone is so involved with the subject. - Throw 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with you Throw, I think this is her response to the failed attempt to shut down SSB.com. Do you agree that it should be listed as an official site? Anynobody 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Labeling GSB.com an official site would be more honest considering what we know. Despite what Sylvia Browne or the webmaster of GSB say the personal relationship the two share has to go into account. Heather Brown (the webmaster) isn't just some wide-eyed fan from the midwest somewhere, she herself has admitted working within the Sylvia Browne corporation at book signings and such. And - though I'm aware rumors don't belong here - an alleged Browne insider is spilling the beans over at James Randi's forum. The insider says Heather Brown is working with the Sylvia Browne corporation to find out who the mole is. That's not the behavior of a mere fan site. - Throw 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I had originally put it in the Official list because the site claims to have Sylvia's support (an official fan page is still official). Having found out about Heather Brown I agree with you 100%, I now think of it as just an official site. Anynobody 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki page for Robert Lancaster and/or SS.com?

I've been considering wheather it'd be a good idea to do a Wiki article on either StopSylvia.com or its creator, Robert Lancaster. Both have received mainstream attention so I think it'd warrant it. Lancaster is approchable and could easily provide us with necessary information should we need it. What does everyone else think? - Throw 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea, but I can foresee some who may have issues with notability so an article should contain a decent amount of media references (like if we could cite the shows he's been on). Anynobody 05:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Make sure it meets WP:WEB before you make it. I think it does mean the requirements. Arbustoo 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lancaster does meet Wikipedia standards. Just make sure you put in references, sources, and it follows WP:WEB as much as it can. He's had some media attention, articles, he's well known, etc. IceSage 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He's almost completely unknown outside of the skeptical community and the JREF. Algabal 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging "Criticism of Sylvia Browne"

See also: Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne for discussion of this topic, there. Anynobody 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article now has a banner saying that it has been suggested that the "Criticism of Sylvia Browne" article be merged with the "Sylvia Browne" article.

Has whoever suggested that read the "Reworking the controversy section" are of this, the Talk page?

It was as a result of that discussion that the criticisms of Browne were broken out into their own article. 71.109.16.12 07:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot I wasn't logged in. RSLancastr 07:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the submitter's talk page to comment about her/his merge notice. It's been two days and the person has failed to reply even though s/he's been active on Wikipedia, so I've removed the merge notice. - Throw 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The material was split from the article because it was so long. There is no need to re-merge it. Arbustoo 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section is significantly longer than the biography section. Merging the two would lead to undue weight being placed on the criticism. Keep them separate. - perfectblue 08:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to save the time of editors wishing to address the issue of a merger, the person proposing this is active on Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne. I was slightly concerned the last time the topic was discussed that they hadn't discussed it here too or at least referred others there. Just in case anyone had intended to address the proponent, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk), they may consider posting there instead. Anynobody 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Book cover image

The image itself was recently nominated for deletion, but was kept because of it's compliance with fair use rules. See the image talk page for more info, until a free image of Browne becomes available the book cover is safe to use since it's discussed in the article. Anynobody 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. A cover of a book can only be used in an article that discusses the book. See WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Book covers on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See [[4]] for more information concerning non-replaceable cover art images used for identification and critical commentary. In cases where the cover art is not being used to depict the book in question applies only to magazines not books. [[5]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Wikidudeman ^(talk). The book is discussed in the article under the section called Books, business, and church. If there was no mention of the book in the article you'd be right ≈ jossi ≈ (talk), we can't just find any book with her picture on it and call it WP:FAIR. Since the book is:

• Discussed in the article.
• Illustrates Browne.
• No free equivalent can be found.

Of course if a better free image becomes available we should use it, but until then fair use is...fair. Anynobody 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAIR supports our contention. In the area of acceptable use under "images" it says:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).[[6]]

And under Examples of unacceptable use it says about what seems to be the justification for removing the image it says...

An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply.[[7]]

Notice that firstly this exemption only applies to magazines and not books by said subject. Secondly it says that if it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article even magazines may apply for fair use criteria.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary) in the article. This text does not warrant application of Fair Use doctrine: "he tenets of the church have expanded, as discussed in her 2006 book "Exploring the Levels of Creation", including the idea a "Mother God" and "Father God". She further elaborated about this during a segment on the Montel Williams show while promoting the book. [21]" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

<<< For Fair use to apply we need a critical commentary of the book, which we do not have. And if we add that later on, the image should be placed alongside the commentary and not to illustrate the article at the top. That use is infringing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and rather than going back and forth with you here I've posted on WP:AN#Image:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg. Anynobody 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to define "Critical". I believe this mention would warrant such an inclusion. This seems to be a matter of semantics and the fact that Book covers on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law pretty much adds the evidence in my favor. Moreover, Nowhere does it say that an image must be placed alongside the mention of the book. Please point directly to where WP policy states such a thing.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No... You are indeed mistaken. I happen to be very familiar with fair use doctrine and for that to apply we need to have a substatial piece of text that discusses the book, such as reviews, reception, where it is cited, etc. As it stands now that image is infringing and should not be used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is Wikidudeman ^(talk), semantics, and I mean no offense ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) but I really don't feel like having another variation of the what is a "government report" with you. Anynobody 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That was an unnecessary comment. You can add a {{fairusereview}} to the image page so that Wikipedians in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use can comment on your rationale for inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Firstly, How does one define a "substantial piece of text"? Secondly, Please cite where in Wikipedia policy it says that in order to fit the fair use criteria a "substantial piece of text" must be dedicated to a book in order to use it's cover. All the policy says is "critical" which does not mean "substantial" and does not say that the book must be pictured where it's discussed either. Please cite your sources for these assertions in WP policy.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a {{fairusereview}} in that image's page so that other Wikipedians conversant with Fair use doctrine can comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want official policy, here it is: From WP:FUC:

Non-free content may be used on the English Wikipedia under fair use only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. These criteria are based on the four fair-use factors, the goal of creating a free encyclopedia, and the need to minimize legal exposure.

Criteria Number 8, reads: Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article. It increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; without it, the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired.

The image in question fails that point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right on that point. However I don't believe that this should be much of an impediment to it's being used in this article. I believe that having pictures in articles is always beneficial to the articles and that articles without pictures simply don't have the same appeal otherwise.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of "appeal". This is an issue with the use of non-free content in our project. The image will be deleted within 48 hrs as per WP:FUC ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, You've ignored what I said. I believe that since pictures inherently add appeal to articles that this would fit with the idea that they are significant in the article in question. Which would mean that it fits all 10 criteria for fair use. Secondly, The image will be deleted within 48 hours? I thought you added it up for review for fair use so other wikipedians can comment. Why erase it in only 48 hours if we're going to see what other wikipedians think?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Appeal" is not part of WP:FUC criteria. Image will be deleted within 48 hours as per policy. We could extend longer if needed, but so far no case was made for fair use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The criteria reads that it is fair use if It increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; without it, the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired. That is most certainly not the case with this image. I would suggest you drop this and move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

<<< If you want to keep the image of the book, write an article on the book and add the image there. That would be a fair use application for the book cover. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it should be used in this article because there are no images to replace it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But that .... is not a valid criteria. First you asked for policy, which I obliged. You cannot ignore policy because there is no free image to illustrate it. There are 100's of thousands of articles without images and that is just fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

rationale

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion. Answer to test question: No. As stated above no free equivalent is available.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. We are not selling or defaming the book so commercial opportunities should not be an issue.
3. (a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.Only one non-free image used.
   (b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace. Image is low resolution.
4. Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia. Got it from Google, could also get it at any number of book sellers.
5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. Illustrates the person who the article is about as well as one of her books.
6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. It does.
7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. Sylvia Browne
8. Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative. It identifies the subject of an article, AND illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text.
9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) Image also complies with this condition.
10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following.
    • (a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source.
    • (b) An appropriate fair-use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags is at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    • (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
      The image complies with these requirements as well.

Jossi, which one of these am I wrong about? Anynobody 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 5 and Criteria 8 of WP:FUC that is worded much better that what you posted above and that is policy. Just read WP:FUC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article. It increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; without it, the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries and navigational and user-interface elements is usually not significant in these terms. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize the lists come from the same location and it has changed very slightly since I answered the above questions. The point is still the same, the picture is not a decoration. If the book wasn't discussed in the article you'd be right, the image would just be a decoration that happens to show what she looks like.

The fact that the book is discussed in the article means including the image is fair use. Since the image can be used on the article, it's not merely decoration. Since it is useable in the article, including it to ALSO illustrate Browne herself is a beneficial aspect of these circumstances. Anynobody 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Lack of significance: 8. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. That is the word of the policy. See WP:FUC. Image will be deleted. The wording you are using above is deprecated and is not policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, can you describe the cover of the book in the section discussing it then please? Then describe Browne herself in the Infobox where the image would go. If you seriously think the image WON'T increase the readers knowledge of the topics (Book and Author) better than words alone then please do.

Also to respond to your edit summary: I won't use your signature anymore after this post, but at least do me the courtesy of being honest and just say it bothers you. Saying it "confuses you" would make me doubt your intelligence if I thought you really couldn't tell the difference between merely mentioning your username:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) which one of these am I wrong about? Anynobody 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

and your signature:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It also wouldn't hurt to make such requests on the page itself instead of just the edit summary; this way editors who use a signature to refer to others would be more likely to see your preference. Anynobody 05:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above Jossi I don't plan to use your signature anymore after the last post and in that post is a simple point that confusion could only be a true factor if you are somehow mentally challenged. In case you are really confused I've replaced the standard blockquote with a quotation template to designate clearly it's not something signed by you but an example.

By agreeing to de-wikify future references to you I am complying with your request, even though I think your stated reason is absurd. I'm just pointing out that the "confusion" reason sounds like an excuse, and that you probably simply find it annoying, especially since you changed my first example. (Which I'll ask you not to do again. I don't mind accommodating minor requests but when they are made under false pretenses it seems fair to point to the fact that simply saying "Would you please stop using my signature to refer to me? It's annoying." would accomplish the same result without any deception.)

You also haven't explained how the image can be replaced by words. Anynobody 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sago mine disaster

The quote given, "I knew they'd be found alive" is not in accordance with my own memory of that radio show, in one crucial respect. I believe she actually said "I knew they'd be found" and, later, when the news that they were all dead came through, she used this as a get-out, saying (not verbatim) "Yes, I said I knew they'd be found -- I didn't say whether dead or alive". El Ingles 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately memories can't be referenced, you could be right but unless you have a transcript or something similar to add as a source we can't change the article. (PS, it was actually called the Sago Mine disaster) Anynobody 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I realise that, and it's why I didn't presume to edit the article. I just wanted to draw attention to it in case one of the editors has a transcript. El Ingles 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, and I didn't say this in the last post because I was hoping to avoid pointing out that the text isn't a quote, it is a description of what she said:

...as she stated that she knew that they would be found alive...

If it was a quote, for anyone who happens upon this and doesn't know, it would have looked similar to this:

as she stated that she "...knew that they would be found alive."

Anynobody 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(PS El Ingles I appreciate your wiki-manners in not editing the article by the way, sorry I forgot to mention that in my last post.) Anynobody 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a transcript of Browne's remarks on the Sago Mining Disaster, as well as the actual audio, is available on the Stop Sylvia Browne site, at http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/c2c_sago.shtml RSLancastr 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I think that entirely supports my memory of the incident and I ask the editors of the page to change it. El Ingles 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the transcript, but we're actually not adding transcripts themselves anymore, like this version of the article from 01:11, 11 February 2007. Anynobody 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

StopSylviaBrowne.com is not a reliable source for this article. See WP:SPS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If secondary, published sources mention that website, we can report what these secondary sources say about the subject. See WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. Re-adding that material would be a BLP violation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody re-added material that is sourced to a self-published website. As my deletions have not bee accepted in good faith by that editor, on the basis of a spurious comment, I would suggest this issue is raised at WP:BLP/N where it will be addressed by other admins monitoring BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a blpdispute tag. Please do not delete until this issue is raised and resolved at BLP/N. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I've removed various unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons -- "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject" [emphasis in original]. Thus, anything coming from Mr. Lancaster's website is not acceptable for this article. I have also removed a couple of things which should be able to be sourced from reliable secondary sources; I recommend finding those sources before reinserting them. -- Jonel | Speak 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remover the SSB.com section? It involves Syvia Browne trying to shut one of her most outspoken critics down by having her lawyer send a cease and desist letter to him. Such behavior speaks volumes about a person. - Throw 10:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the only source there was for was SSB.com, itself, which is self-published and therefore, as I said above, not a reliable source in an article about Ms. Browne. If you can find a secondary source discussing her activities relating to the website, by all means, summarize and cite that secondary source. -- Jonel | Speak 12:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand the article still uses Sylvia Browne's own website as a source.Geni 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is permissible, with some caveats, see WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is compliant with WP:BLP, as her own website would be "written or published by the subject" in this case. That being said, if you think anything that is currently sourced to her website needs another source, do speak up. Looking through it again, I've taken out her assertion about her education. That needs a better source. The rest of the statements sourced to her website seem to be non-factual; that is, they merely say what she has said or what her position on something is, and her website is perfectly usable for such statements. -- Jonel | Speak 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

her ex-husband

a quotation from her ex-husband is used to cast doubts on her biographic details. This is absurdly in violation of BLP, and has been modified, though the ref. is still there. DGG 06:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A quote by one her ex-husbands about Sylvia and his son violates what part of WP:BLP? Surely a quote that he doubts his own son has paranormal abilities is okay to leave in when a quote from the mother claims he is a psychic (without any scientific support). C56C 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just another example where magic minded [****] like DDG try to protect their ridicolus theories... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Science Solider (talk • contribs)

Why was the Criticism of Sylvia Browne article merged?

Jossi's second proposed merge hadn't reach a consensus (even though the first one did which supported a second seperate article). Jossi does as Jossi pleases after following Wikipedia protocol fails, is that what happened? The merger looks ridiculous. Now the criticism section completely overtakes the entire article. As a stanch opponent of Browne's I actually find it very amusing. - Throw 16:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)