Talk:Sylvia Browne/Archive 3

Opal Jo

Who the hell contributes to these articles with a 1st-grade education? Sometimes I wonder. Under the Montell Williams subsection of the criticism section, where it states all the kidnapping/murder/abduction cases that Sylvia Browne has gotten wrong on the Montell Williams Show, the case regarding 6-year-old Opal Jo Jennings is treated as such:

In 1999, Browne told Audrey Sanderford that her six year old granddaughter Opal Jo Jennings had been taken from Tarrant County, Texas to Japan and forced into "white slavery", in a town she named as "Kukouro" or "Kukoura".

I remembering watching the episode, and Sylvia never said anything about "white slavery". Nor does the source cited (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failure/) mention anything about "white slavery". The source quotes Sylvia as saying:

“She’s . . . not . . . dead. But what bothers me—now I’ve never heard of this before, but for some reason, she was taken and put into some kind of a slavery thing and taken into Japan. The place is Kukouro. Or Kukoura.”

Let's please stick to what the cited source states. I am removing the word "white", and editing the statement to simply read:

"...Opal Jo Jennings had been taken from Tarrant County, Texas to Japan and forced into slavery"...

Skyduster (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly negative

Oh please, this woman is a CON ARTIST & FRAUD and should be locked up! It would be just as easy as describing Ted Bundy as have bad dating skills to describe his "DATES"....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.112.77 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Thing is though, there are many referenced and verifiable facts that show her failure as medium and clairvoyant and how many that that show her success? Oh yes, I remember, bugger all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.7 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. [removed] How could this entry be anything BUT overwhelmingly negative?Stuthehistoryguy (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insult the subjects of the articles. If you have to say negative things about a living subject, then find neutral words to describe specific behaviours, and do it only if it's necessary to improve the article. Per WP:TALK these talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss the subject itself, so this shouldn't become a forum discussion about how good/bad Browne is. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. Your idea of "weight" is a destruction of reality. If you look at the article for suicide, you don't see an argument that more "positive" effects of it should be added for "weight". You won't find people arguing the "sex abuse" article should have more positive points made either. If a person's public life overwhelmingly consists of fraudulant activities, it is disingenuous to try to alter reality in an article by intentionally "weighting" it down with positives, and acting to remove the negatives. But this is precisely what most of you are proposing. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Silvia is notable because she is notorious. Producing a 50/50 article of criticism and prise would be obvious false balance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia is notorious yes, to a certain audience. But she's also written book after book that have all made it to New York Times Bestseller status as well as thousands of fans on online social networks, indicating that a separate group of people find sufficient validation in her work. Who are any of us to say what is "obvious" when so many people support her, and so many people do not? She needs to be represented fairly for both her successes and failures. As this article stands, it is still tangibly negative to a neutral reader. Qimsha (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be false balance, again. Wikipedia isn’t about balancing info from fans and detractors, it’s about verifiable information from reliable sources. It’s obvious what’s right and what’s wrong when the “many people [who] support her” are fans and the “many people [who] do not” are people with training, education and experience that clues them in to her tricks and low rate of success. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

They can 'rule' that it adds nothing but it is obvious that that it adds something. And in this case it is adding the truth. Don't get all liberal on me, you know it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.7 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (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)

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)

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)

Predictions?

I was reading this book my mom bought a while back (Prophecy, I believe? http://www.amazon.com/Prophecy-What-Future-Holds-You/dp/0451215206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220330385&sr=1-1 This one) and, I noticed something peculiar. It said this year's president elect, who wins the position (She also mentioned a democrat winning, which means Obama on one of the shows), would die of a heart attack. Would it be possible to put a predictions section on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distorted Fairytales (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

I'd like to remind editors that this article comes under the biographies of living people policy. StopSylviaBrowne.com is a self-published attack site. Under strict interpretation of WP:BLP, WP:SELFPUB and WP:EL, it may not be linked to for any reason. BLP is very clear that if there is any doubt as to whether a site should be linked to, leave it out. In this case, there is no doubt about the nature of the site. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Bob (QaBob) 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful if you add a link to the discussion you initiated at the BLP notice board rather than failing to assume good faith. Verbal chat 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Research?

A critic of the related article Criticism of Sylvia Browne refers to "MR. BROWNE AND HER RESARCH WORKING IN THE PSYCHIC FIELD.". I note also that she runs (or ran) the "Nirvana Foundation for Psychic Research". Yet there is no mention of any research in the article. Can anyone identify what research Sylvia has done or claims to have done, so it can be incorporated in the article? This would seem to be an important omission. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelming criticism is justified?

To be completely frank, there's much more criticisms of her than anything else because there is an overwhelming consensus that she is a fraud. Undue weight should not be given to any self-professed claim that she has psychic powers when there's no reliable source for such claims, and a large number of reliable sources to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.178.153 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is suposed to be unbiased, if we make the Critisism section too long, people will think that we have taken a side in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.73.244 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

pricesily. Especially since some of the primary sources, stopsylviabrowne.com had at one time a while ago been (possibly justifaibly, in my opinion) taken down by the isp for promoting hatred against this woman for her chosen careers/gifts. I think that we can summarize the criticism a lot better and link to the existing Criticism of Sylvia Browne article rather than creating two huge articles decidcated to a negative portrayal of whis woman who is well-respected in her field. Smith Jones (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My StopSylviaBrowne.com site was NOT "taken down by the isp for promoting hatred." My registration of the domain name expired while I was in hospital following a stroke I suffered on 4 August 2008. the domain name was susequently purchased at auction by a man who used it to host a pro-psychic web site. The old site, with all of its articles, can now be viewed at www.StopSylvia.com. hose fault is that?If the facts about Browne result un a "negative portrayalk, whose fault is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.230.117.213 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The current criticism section is already very short, and making it smaller would create the illusion that her criticisms are few, small, or inconsequential, which is far from the case (crime is a serious matter). That would make the criticism article an improper POV fork, used by her supporters to hide the criticism from readers of this article. That would justify merging the criticism article back into this one, which wouldn't be a bad idea, considering how short this one is.

Maybe we should merge them. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the preponderance if criticism of her in reliable sources, the proportion of criticism in this article is probably too low. The re-merge could be a good idea. (SJ is also wrong about stopsylviabrown) Verbal chat 07:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been wrong about everything he's ever said in the last 3 years, but Wikipedia refuses to do anything about it. Personally, I would have swatted him with the banhammer about the time he started threatening bots with ArbCom referrals. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

StopSylviaBrowne was never taken down for promoting hatred - it didn't even do any such thing. Rather, it presented her crimes, high-profile failures and accounts from clients and show attendees in a neutral manner allowing the reader to form his own opinion

What happened was that in August 2008 the author suffered a stroke. While he was comatose in the hospital, his subscription lapsed and his web host^{(ISP is a completely different concept)} illegally sold the domain to a pro-psychic cybersquatter. Now don’t you feel like an ass… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i am wellware of the presence o fvalid, cited critism; however, there is ALREADY an article devoted to this and the section here can easily bad quite validl y be linked to this one other one. And up until recently STopSYlviaBrowne had been taken down and replaced with a different message until the original owner got it back. How am i "wrong" about this it is even documented on randi.org. Smith Jones (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The other article is already linked. What you seem to be proposing confirms the apparent need to merge the two articles into one. I'm going to propose it below. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You’re wrong about why the site was taken down and about the original author getting it back. stopsylviabrowne.com^{(intentionally unlinked to avoid giving the current owner traffic)} is still camped. The original author moved his content to the new http://www.stopsylvia.com/ — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

[See previous section for background.]

The degree of criticism of Sylvia Browne and documentation of her crimes is so significant enough a part of the whole story that it should be told in this article. One short paragraph, with a "main" link to the Criticism of Sylvia Browne article is being used by her supporters as a means of reducing its significance and thus preventing many readers from noticing the other article. The unbalance created in this article and the situation it creates means that the criticisms article is an improper POV FORK, so it needs to be merged back into this one.

The current criticism section is very short, and this article is also short enough to bear the inclusion of the other article's contents, so size is not a valid argument for keeping the two articles separate. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge templates have been installed on both articles. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read a great deal more about Sylvia Browne than I ever expected to in this lifetime, merge appears to be the correct course of action here. The preponderance of independent sources only bother to mention her when something goes wrong, which should inform due coverage of Browne on Wikipedia. This will produce a somewhat long article, but not unduly so. The James Randi section can readily be pared some, as can some of MW Show subheadings. The latter section should, of course, be merged with Media. The cited information in the Books, business, and church section could be adequately treated in the Biography section; an appropriate link to Sylvia Browne bibliography should of course be included. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Before starting on anything, I've made a few cleanup edits, mentioned her conviction in the lead (which wasn't mentioned there at all!), combined some related content in once place, and added refs from the body of the article. A few other stylistic edits which aid editing were also made, but they make no visible difference.

Eldereft, will you deal with the MW Show matter, and also make the other changes? It will be easier to do something along the lines of what we've discussed if the article is cleaned up first. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully support merge of information from the criticism article to here - it is what she's best known for! Verbal chat 08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the merger also. I didn't understand the reasoning to separate to begin with but the critisms should be in this article. I also support the edit cleanups mentioned above to aide in the merger process. Cleaning up the article here and possibly there too would make the merger easier I would think. I've never done a merger so I can't help with that. I haven't gotten that bold yet to try these kinds of edits. But I do support what the editors here are suggesting. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I am about to go off line for the weekend. If there are still two articles here in a few days, I can probably polish it off then. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I pulled a bunch of tangentially relevant detail from the Media section over there, it should fit just fine here now. More later, but someone else can play with these articles for now. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. New page is 35 kB. The lead probably needs some tweaking, and the $1,000,000 challenge section may be overweighted, but other than that I am fairly happy with the new article. Comments and corrections of course appreciated. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job! -- Fyslee (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But. OK we have merged something but what about the overall integrity of the article. Take a look at the very first sentence. It says Browne " is a best-selling American author on the subject of spirituality and performs as a psychic and medium." The reference given is Browne's website!!!! Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

← Yeah, I barely touched the lead. I doubt either of those statements are particularly controversial, but I agree that independent sourcing is always preferable. She has authored multiple books listed as "best sellers" - NYT, Publishers Weekly. Presumably secondary sources exist, but improving article flow is probably a higher priority right now. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

igotta agree as well. while sylvia brown is controversial, especially among those who are not intune with psychic phenomeonon or who are not focused on that in they're own personal lives, it is hard to deny that she is famous or has written lots of books. if you want I can help be rephraseing the article in order to make sure that it has the approrpatie citations in the lead. Smith Jones (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, merge them. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Spiritnow

it has come ot my attention that some of you dont believe that Sylvia Brown is connected to Spiritnow.com. this is in good faith and i udnerstand your ocncerns which is why I codnucted and inquiry via the Google -- an Internet search engine of no small repute. what i have found is that:

• Sylvia Brownes partnerhsip with the founders of Spiritnow.com
• Philadelphia Newspaper covering Sylvia Brownes Spiritnow-derived services
• Another article covering Sylvia Brownes connecitons with the Spiritnow.comwebsite

i trust this satisfied WP:RS and unless anyone disagrees or objects i will rule consensus and incorporate this back into our article. Thank you for your time and patience. Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a productive idea, because it would be removed again. That website is not Browne's new website as claimed. Many people are mentioned on its home page, but the only mention of Browne is in an advertisement exhorting people to "Receive your SpiritNow Daily Inspiration on your cell phone". For readers who may not be au fait with the situation, this is the website removed from our article, which had been referred to as Browne's new website. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read any of my sources yet? i agree that it is not Brownes new ebsite -- if you can look back, it was originally an Adminsitrator who added it, and I only upheld her inclusion because it was reverted by an unreggie rather than a community member. I agree that it it snot Browne's new website; however, underneath my argument, I pointed out that Browne is connected with Spiritnow, to the point where she is giving web seminars via Spiritnow.com, which I will quote here:

America's #1 Psychic Sylvia Browne hosted a webcast today, offering her fans the chance to connect with their lost loved Mothers who have crossed over. A record ::::85,000 logged on, more than the SpiritNow website could handle.

and later on in that same article it said:

"I am excited by the enthusiastic response we have gotten from our first web class with spiritualist and psychic Sylvia Browne. We apologize to the thousands who ::::couldn't get into the live online web class, but we are making it available for download for free on SpiritNow.com. We will have more servers up for the Fathers ::::Day web class and students should register now at SpiritNow.com. Talking to your Mother who has passed over is obviously the greatest gift for Mother's Day."

I think that this is an important to mention in the article Smith Jones (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Browne. The link was to Spiritnow, not Browne. It was an advertisement. Spam. Unencyclopedic. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

From what Smith Jones says, it appears to not be her website - hence shouldn't be included. Verbal chat 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

million dollar confirmation

The third paragraph of the james randi section details that one can request proof of the million dollars existence. This is no longer correct. Randi.org now posts updated copies of the goldman sachs bank statement in a PDF file for all to see. While it's true that in the time discussed you needed to ask for the proof individually, i think it deserves to be noted that regardless of wether or not sylvia recieved the letter, she could easily go there now and open the PDF. SeanBrockest (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV of 'Introduction to predictions' section

This section consists of 6 paragraphs, 5 of which are of predictions that did not turn out. The last paragraph also starts on a negative note to minimize the value of any successes.

I have concerns about this being properly neutral.

Iæfai (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. If you believe it to be unbalanced then perhaps you can give sources from WP:RS that show she has made documented, independent predictions that were true. If you cannot do this then you need to remove the NPOV tag, as the article reflects sourcing. 77SSST (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, if we gave an equal number of correct predictions this would be false-neutrality and it would give the impression that she is right half of the time. Actually her predictions are mostly wrong, so the current weighting is valid. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See also?

Can't we do better with the See Also section? This is an article about Sylvia Browne- linking to "Confirmation bias" and "Forer effect" (and nothing else) just constitues one more dig at her credibility, which isn't really the point of the section, is it? Don't bother telling me that her "powers" are nothing but confirmation bias and the Forer effect- I agree. That doesn't mean that there's nothing else that readers might be interested in reading. Maybe the section should just get deleted? Staecker (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then- deleting it. Staecker (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe it should be kept, but we should add links to some other prominent "psychics", like (off the top of my head) Uri Geller. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is so slanted

It's beyond pathetic. This whole thing needs a re-write. It's so negative and Browne-bashing, how could this have gone so long without action being taken? Nimrauko (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How so? Her claims are extraordinary and the reason for her notability are those claims. It seems most if not all serious sources that look at those claims critically have seen no indication of them actually being true. As such the biography should definitely be written to reflect that her claims have serious scrutiny. What would you change more specifically? --Vin Kaleu (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that Browne is a disgusting fraud who preys on the naive and bereaved, but I still think this article is too biased to providing a negative portrayal of her. It reads too much like a skeptic's account trying to 'prove' she is a con artist and less of a dispassionate account of her life. Encyclopediae should take a more historical approach. Ashmoo (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally worked with Browne and Company, and I can say that they are all frauds. This article is really too nice and gives Browne way too much credit. Browne is a self-promoter, and those who think that people are too hard on her do not know who or what Browne and her money making empire are really all about. Rob Samuels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag. There has been four months to add in "positive" references. The reason the article is "slanted" is because there are no WP:RS to prove her claims. There is no proof she has been right once. If anyone has any positive sources, add them in. Until then, we won't be removing WP:RS. The article reflects WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaamms56 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to get people to be more reasonable here. Sylvia Browne being a fraud is an article of faith here; when even the takedown of the StopSylviaBrowne site isnt enough to convince people to reconsider, nothing said here can do that. Rob Samuels - your operation w. Browne and her FAMILY is wp:or and unverifiable according to wp:v, and FOUR MONTHS is HARDLY enough time to do any serious research on any academic subject. I ask you politely and with reaspect to SERIOUSLY CONSIDER extending our time limit to find more reliable sources that fit within Wikipedia policies and write more additions to this article. the psirit of Wikipedia depends on it; if only u can edit, how can this be an OpenSource WIkpieda User:Smith Jones 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to use RS at any time. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Smith Jones - why do you need 4 months, it should take you 4 minutes to find credible sources that show Browne has actually solved a unsolved crime. If you can't find it in 4 months then you won't find it in 4 years. Browne has been asked repeatedly for evidence of her best case, so far nothing has come out of her camp except testimonials from people who claim to have been helped, which proves nothing. BTW Lancaster's site was NOT taken down, he had a stroke and the domain got purchased out from under him, so now www.stopsylvia.com is alive and well. SGerbic (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SGerbic -- no disrespect but its obvious you have no serious background in serious scientific reserch endeavors. I do, and I know it takes MUCH longer than 4 minutes to do much even the basic underpinnings of a major resarch expedition. Its much more than just a Google event; it is most required that you can go to libraries, resarch museums, and find sources that are NOT ONLY deeply incredibly detailed to provide information but are also have meeting the WP:RS statutes. I admit that 4 months is in error; it should require nearly .5x times with that, to do such a good job that would meet the standards of Wikipedia. User:Smith Jones 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Smith Jones - Gee we are only asking for ONE example. Well the scientific community will be waiting for that evidence. Why don't you just ask Sylvia? Seems she should be able to supply some evidence. Good luck on that. SGerbic (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Smith Jones, see WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. Wikipedia will wait for you to find a reliable, verifiable source to substantiate the claims Browne makes. Until then, the article must rely on the already substantiated evidence against her. Ravensfire (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

very good, and i was not aware of that policy. is it new? either way, i thank you for your patience and forbearance and i agree with your assertionthat we must rely on the allegedly "substantiated" evidence against her for now. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE this will not stand as the status quo inedefinitely. just because the truth has been scoure d from theInternet doesnt mean thtat it exists nowhere on earth. I just hope that these policies will be respected continuously when that day comes very soon on wings of rosyfingered dawn... User:Smith Jones 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

SGerbic 2 -- as for www.stopsylvia.com; it's only a matter of time... User:Smith Jones 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Smith Jones - Really? Can't wait to see what could possibly take down a website like that. Guess I'll set the stopwatch. LOL SGerbic (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

POV in the "Predictions" section

I realize that much of this page is dedicated to discussing the bias of the article and whether or not that bias is justified. But all that notwithstanding, the "Predictions" section needs special attention for bias for a few key reasons.

First, the bulleted section injects a rather unprofessional bias into the section, particularly the second and the final bullets, regarding the 2000 Presidential Election and the curing of breast cancer, respectively. Though the information needs to be presented, it should be done so in a less cavalier manner.

Second, the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, the two mentioning the Larry King Live show and the one mentioning the Anderson Cooper 360 show, do not discuss actual predictions and instead discuss occasions on which she has declined to make predictions. This subconsciously biases the reader towards a negative view of the subject and needs to be rewritten.

Basically, whether or not one believes the bias of subject matter in this section is justified, bias in the writing is not and needs to be removed. I plan to do so in the near future, though I encourage anyone reading this to do so before I do. -Mosemamenti (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that your plan to address the claimed bias (which has been discussed before ad nauseam) in the "near future" has proven to be as accurate as Browne's predictions, I'm going to go right ahead and assume you couldn't find well sourced balancing information or a better way to put the section in the intervening 2 months. I'll take that tag off for you.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)