Talk:Sylvia Browne/Archive 1

message: The June 22 edit is pretty POV. If there's an argument to made regarding reading individuals versus reading a group, it should probably be made in a contra sentence following the current sentence on the skeptics' view. Otherwise, this edit should probably be reverted in the name of NPOV. --Gary D 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit as made only makes sense if you think "cold reading" refers mostly to groups, and it doesn't. What makes a "cold reading" cold is the lack of information about the person being read. So I agree that it probably needs reversion, not for POV but for accuracy: one "cold reads" individuals either alone or in groups, and the edit, probably inadvertently, sets up a false dichotomy. - Nunh-huh 20:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Okay, it's been two days without comment, so I'm reverting the edit in question before I forget. This edit may indeed represent a valid argument to be made contra to Nunh's position above, but I would say it needs to be made in a form different from an argumentative introductory clause. --Gary D 18:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The June 22, 2004 "cold reading/despite" edit

message: To say that Sylvia's idea of what Heaven is like is total nonsense is one thing, however she has clearly stated these things as fact in her book on the subject, and to repeat them here gives valuable information to the reader about the type of claim she makes, and how specific she is in her pronouncements (unlike other mediums who specialise in vagueness). Why delete them?
User:DavidFarmbrough 23:38 BST 19/5/'05
--Well first of all that paragraph appeared in the wrong place within the article, but when I saw the part about needing permission to build a house near a river I thought it must surely be a joke. If that's what she has really written, then by all means feel free to restore it (just in a better part of the article). --Jleon 00:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Sylvia Browne claims to know what it is like in Heaven. In her book Life On The Other Side, she says the temperature is a constant 72 degrees Fahrenheit, that there are no insects (unless you want there to be), that pets go to Heaven, and that you can build your house wherever you want it to be unless it obscures the view of a river or some trees, in which case you need permission. It is notable to mention, however, that if she is a Christian as she claims she believes only the immortal soul goes to heaven. The soul is immaterial, wouldn't have sense organs and thus wouldn't experience the world as we do. Dr. Robert Todd Carroll once wrote of the soul, "As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception." Thus, by the laws of logic (which St. Aquinas said not even God can transgress) if souls exist they cannot percieve temperature, see insects or pets, build houses or anything of the like. 
I didn't know if I should add that much in contrast to her views, but I consulted the NPOV tutorial and I think this all falls under "What not to avoid." It is all objective fact, offered in a neutral tone. I can't think of anyone objecting except her, and then not on Wikipedian grounds. Maprovonsha172 02:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Heaven 

message: On the template it says the revelant discussion warranting an NPOV-Dispute template is on this talk page. There is no such discussion. So I'm going to take down the template. If anyone replaces it he/she ough to voice her concerns below:
Maprovonsha172 17:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see that more psychics are being given the hardcore skeptical treatment. Its quite clear that being psychic is a criminal offense... particularly with the phrase "is an alleged psychic and medium". Also nice to see in the second paragraph down from the top an immediate reference to James Randi's investigative procedure denouncing Sylvia before the article gets under way. Sylvia has a talk back programme available online at Hay House Radio. Around Christmas time 2005 (I know; inspecific citation), a caller asked her about James Randi's million dollar challenge to prove herself, and she claims that when she said yes.. Randi has enormous trouble coming up with the million dollar funding, just in case she was proven to be correct. Regardless; get James Randi out of her biographical detail in the introduction to who Sylvia Browne is. Put the information lower down under the skeptical POV section of the article. I claim to be a Reiki practictioner.. Does that mean that I am an alleged believer in Universal Life Force energy? Ridiculously biased use of language. Redundant.Drakonicon 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: "Vitriol?"  I quote from the last:
:...truly ridiculous ...
:... hijacked by the Randi kooks.
:... deranged lunatics ...
And my favorite:
:...I don't think it is ridiculous to say that she performs psychic readings, because that is what she does.
OK, find a successful psychic reading that she did.  Prove that she has more "hits" than "misses."  Did she predict the recent hurricanes?  Did she predict last December 26's earthquake in South Asia?  Like most "psychics," she's wonderful at telling me how creative and spiritual I am while she rips me off.  But the record of so-called "psychics" is pretty darn sad.
The page on John Gotti opens with:
:John Gotti (October 27, 1940 – June 10, 2002) (also known as The Dapper Don and The Teflon Don) was the boss of the Gambino crime family, one of the most feared of New York's mafia families.
No illusions in the opening words. Should we first point out his acts of philanthropy, and that he was a horrible criminal relegated to footnotes?  And why should we call Sylvia Browne anything but the fraud that she is?
dino 19:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitriol?

message: To call Sylvia Browne a "self-proclaimed" psychic medium in this article is inaccurate and misleading.  Regardless of one's personal opinion or belief in psychic mediums, Sylvia is not "self-proclaimed".  Sylvia has a track record of more than 30 years as a psychic (again, regardless of whether you believe her psychic abilities are real or not).  She has done thousands of psychic readings, written numerous books on the subject, and appears on television regularly as a psychic.  There is nothing "self-proclaimed" about it.  Her publishers proclaim it, her television presenters proclaim it, her clients proclaim it, everyone who calls her a psychic proclaims it.  Therefore, the term "self-proclaimed" in this article is factually incorrect. Syug 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Self-proclaimed" is inaccurate

message: Here we go again.  I'm used to New Agers and Christians working like this.  Wear them down, until the spiritual view gets its way.  Completely ignore the points I brought up; talk about how she works as a so-called "psychic."  She has done "thousands of psychic readings, written numerous books on the subject, and appears on television regularly as a psychic."  Not a word as to the validity of her "readings."
So what?  Larry King?  That New Ager?  TV is not dedicated to truth; it's dedicated to ratings.  Belief sells.  Truth & skepticism don't.  Wikipedia is supposed to be about the truth, not what we wish true.
If I proclaim myself as Elvis Presley for long enough, and thousands of others proclaim me as Elvis Presley, does that make me Elvis Presley?  I see no conflict the logic I have seen written above.
dino 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You not being Elvis is easily demonstrable. Browne not being a psychic, is not. I definitely think she's a miserable hoaxter who preys on the gullible, but she works as a psychic, is addressed as such by most people, regardless of their personal opinion on her/her work, and her notability (or notoriusness) derives from it. As such, she should be referred to as a psychic in her WP entry.--RicardoC 03:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again

message: It's easy to verify that Browne is a fraud.  James Randi has offered her the chance for long, long time, but for some funny reason, she keeps turning him down.  Why is what she calls herself relevant?  Just because she gulls thousands of people into believing her lies doesn't make her a psychic.  Isn't Uri Geller now a universally known fraud, and am embarrassment even to the New Age crowd?
The page on Geller opens with:
:Uri Geller (born December 20, 1946 in Tel Aviv, Israel) is a famous but controversial alleged psychic and television personality.
 
:Originally a magician in Israeli nightclubs, he then became well known for a number of years for performances featuring claimed paranormal abilities such as telekinesis, dowsing and telepathy; metal objects were bent and watches were apparently stopped or made to run faster without any apparent physical force being applied to them.  Although many people believe he is a psychic, he also has numerous critics, especially in the scientific community, who claim he is both charlatan and con-man.
Note the words "controversial" and "alleged."  The words "claimed paranormal abilities." Then the word "charlatan."
Sorry. I'm trained in that "scientific community" that at its kindest tends to view psychic phenomena as unproven.
And I add—calling her a "psychic" gives credence for the existence of so-called "psychic phenomena"—for which there is not a shred of solid evidence.  Reminds me of the "intelligent design" hoax.
dino 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see the need for any disagreement if the article states that she says she is a psychic or that she works as a psychic. Those who believe it should accept this wording just as those who don't. DavidFarmbrough 08:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Browne not being a psychic?

message: Maybe "She claims she is a psychic, though skeptics point out the absolute lack of evidence."  Or "... works as a purported psychic."  
Much else gives credence to the existence of psychic phenomena.
Look, I'm getting tired of this.  Through all history, New Age spiritualists (and New Age isn't "new" in any sense; it is mostly a mish-mash of old superstitions) have condemned us skeptics as not being "creative," not being "spiritual," "Oh, you just don't understand! There really is a spirit world!", or "We can't exhibit our powers around you skeptical dinosaurs," or the worst of all,
:"You're not open minded!"
If I had a dime for every time I've encountered that one.  OK.  I'm not spiritual and creative.  Funny, I'm left of center, unlike astrology-believing Nancy Reagan. Or channeling-believing Hillary Clinton.  
But there is nil evidence of psychic phenomena.  None, zippo, zilch, and if by some chance, there is truth to it, Ms. Browne is someone to be ashamed of, not celebrated, as she is a total hoax.  She belongs in the same dustbin Uri Geller.
We can agree she claims to be a psychic.  Saying she is a psychic is a different bunch of coconuts.
dino 20:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with your position, but you're being overly defensive and not particularly objective in your generalization of anyone who belives in the supernatural. As for the article, I can live with "claims to be a psychic", "is an alleged psychic", "self-professed psychic with a cult following", etc. I certainly don't believe she is one, but Randi-style jabs shouldn't be on her WP article.--RicardoC 17:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And more

message: OK, I was being a bit defensive.  Sorry.  But us skeptics & freethinkers spend our lives being demonized, certainly in George Bush America.  The Christians damn us to hell.  The New Agers ... don't get me started.  
I do not want to tell any lies about Sylvia Browne.  Only the truth—there is not a shred of evidence for her purported "psychic powers."  And the Randi shallenge she accepted—and keeps dodging—certainly deserves mention.
dino 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were up to me, her entry would consist solely of Randi's retelling of her continuous dodges of the challenge. But sometimes we have to bite our tongues and be impartial, even if what we really want is to grab people by the collar and yell "SNAP OUT OF IT, YOU MORON!! THIS IS THE WOMAN WHO NOT ONLY CLAIMS SHE HAS BEEN TO HEAVEN, SHE CLAIMS THERE'S ZONING CODES THERE AND EVERYTHING!!!" :p --RicardoC 03:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, fair enough

message: When all else fails, turn to the law, err, official Wikipedia policies. Reading NPOV#Pseudoscience makes it clear -- 
:The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view;
:Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant.
I won't argue -- pseudoscience may be, err, words I won't here use, but it should not be represented as a majority view, or in any way construed as the truth. As someone who has been a skeptic practically all his life, I find pseudoscience weirdly fascinating -- why do otherwise extremely intelligent people fall it?  Living in Boulder, Colorado, surrounded by New Agers pontificating loudly about spiritualism, ... I just don't understand.
dino 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When all else fails ...

message: When she says that she can perceive more frequencies, she is making an analogy to people's ability to perceive different light or sound frequencies. But then again, I think it really all means that if she was born a few centuries ago, she would have been burnt as a witch.i bet she could to becaues i angelique beilives in her like i beilive in my self for being a singer and a dancer and im tryin to get where i am seen on tv and she's already at that point
:Any chance of that happening now ;-)--RicardoC 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Frequencies 

message: The article says Browne "has a masters degree in English Literature". Her website doesn't mention one. Anyone know where she obtained it? Moriori 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that claim because I can't find a verifiable source. If anyone wants to replace the info they would need to give a reputable cite. Moriori 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did she get her master's degree?

message: "It is notable to mention, however, that if she is a Christian as she claims she believes only the immortal soul goes to heaven. The soul is immaterial, wouldn't have sense organs and thus wouldn't experience the world as we do. Dr. Robert Todd Carroll once wrote of the soul, "As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception." Thus, by the laws of logic (which St. Thomas Aquinas said not even God can transgress) if souls exist they cannot perceive temperature, see insects or pets, build houses or anything of the like."
Countering Browne's speculation with more speculation, and worse yet, presenting said speculation as final, doesn't do anyone any favors. When speaking of the concept of the soul, we're knee-deep in speculative terrain, and appeals to authority don't make the discussion any less speculative. I'm removing the section I just quoted. This is supposed to be a factual article on Sylvia Browne, not a dissertation on what the sould can or cannot do if it exists. Additionally, the segment I quoted attempts to debunk the concept of an inmaterial soul, an argument which makes assumptions about Browne's belief, which adds a strawman on top of the appeals to authority. She calls herself a Christian, but obviously engages in practices Christianity disapproves of. As such, the Christian concept of the soul, and speculation pertaining to it, are out of place in the article. 
Guys, I despise Browne. She's a ghoul, preying on the innocent and gullible. But I don't believe that justifies POV'ing the article like this.--RicardoC 19:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soul, Funk, Whatever ;-)

message: Remove criminal category fraudster. I don't see any evidence of conviction of criminal fraud in article.(I just noticed that I didn't sign this comment on 12/27/05)--FloNight 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know she has been convicted, but the article doesn't actually make any mention of it. Whether it should or not is debatable. Her conviction does have some loose ties to her psychic claims, but it's not really what she is notable for. -- Qarnos 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this is not a criminal fraud conviction. Unless we have WP:RS & WP:V quality citations, we need to keep out of Fraudster category. Otherwise, we are vulnerable to claims of libel and defamation. --FloNight 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove category fraudster

message: I posted this message on David's talk page. I have reproduced it here for completeness:
Hello David,
I noticed you made a couple of changed to the Sylvia Browne article, and most of them were quite good. You managed to rephrase a couple of my edits in a way I think greatly improves the NPOV of the article, which is something I am really striving for, which, to be honest, is hard since I am a very skeptical person. However, I'd just like to clear something up. With regards to the section on her criminal conviction for fraud, you added the following (in bold):
Critics argue that this incident highlights Brownes unscrupulous nature and begs the question, why did Browne fail to forsee her own conviction? In response to this, Browne explains that her psychic abilities do not work on herself. This is also consistent with her stated view that "The only power that I answer to is God and the Christ Consciousness".
I have read this over and over but I still fail to see the correlation between the existing text and the quote you added. Where is this consistency of statements coming from? Have I missed something obvious?
This isn't a personal attack on your contribution (which is much appreciated - like I said, we need NPOV), but a serious question.
-- Qarnos 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I do aim for NPOV. I think I put the quote in the wrong place, and it ought to have been next to the section about her conviction. To me it suggests she considers herself (rightly or wrongly) to be above the law. I think this maintains the NPOV because if you think she's right, then she is correct and it is only by simple-minded earth-bound thinking that she defrauded people, and if you are inclined to scepticism, then you will either think it's an excuse, or that it explains her apparent disregard (in this instance) for the law. Now someone else has just removed it, I am not concerned about whether it goes back in in the correct place - it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. DavidFarmbrough 11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by David Farmbrough 

message: I have expanded the Sago Mine part a bit more to include some transcripts I haven't got to yet. I also added template npov-section because, let's face it - it's POV. I just can't work out how to word this because to me it is so obvious she is a callous fraud. I'm going to throw this over to whoever thinks they can NPOV it without taking away the facts of this situation. -- Qarnos 04:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute: Sago Mine controversy 

message: Here is the begining as it now reads:
:"Sylvia Browne (born Sylvia Celeste Shoemaker on October 19, 1936 in Kansas City, Missouri) is a self-proclaimed psychic medium, and author of numerous books on spirituality. However, since she declines to be tested under controlled conditions and her readings are indistinguishable from those achieved by mentalists (entertainers who create the illusion of being psychic by using techniques such as cold reading, warm reading and hot reading), skeptics believe her to be a fraud and con-artist, callously making money off of the pain and suffering of those grieving over the loss of their loved ones."
This version removes what I had placed, that she is convicted con-artist. I don't know why. She is conning people out of money every day. No matter when you read this, she is probably conning someone out of money while you do it. Also, as Michael Shermer said, lying to people about their dead relatives dishonors them. Regardless, nothing is more relevant to someone accused of fraud than that she has been convicted of fraud in the past. I'm replacing that statement, in addition to this edit. Maprov 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the begining 

message: I'm removing the NPOV-template over the Sago Mine Controversy section. There is now POV in it. It's all objective facts. It's mostly all quoting, and it's not POV to quote someone, especially not the subject of the article. Maprov
: In fact, I think it's too safe:
::In this segment of conversation, skeptics argue, Browne clearly states that she "knew" the miners would be found alive. Whilest it is noted that Browne made no specific statement that this was a psychic premonition, the skeptical view is that this statement was presented as an example of her psychic abilities.
:She clearly did state that she knew the miners would be found alive. That's not what skeptics are arguing, that's simply what the transcript shows. And it's not the skeptical view that she presented that statement as an example of her "psychic abilities." She clearly did. How else would she know something beforehand? Considering the fact that she is on TV all the time claiming to see the future and talk to the dead, I think it's obvious that when she says she knows something before it happened, she intends for this to be interpreted as psychic ability. I'm changing it to the following:
::In this segment of conversation, Browne clearly states that she "knew" the miners would be found alive. Whilest it is noted that Browne made no specific statement that this was a psychic premonition, this statement was presented as an example of her psychic abilities.
:I think that's plainly obvious, and NPOV (as it merely recounts what happened, without adding "See, she just a liar" or something like that.) Maprov
Sylvia Browne has been doing readings for several decades and records, on paper and audio, every reading she does. She has also done this with all of her Ghost research as well. To flattly call her a fraud is ignoring the amount of work she puts into her beliefs. I will agree that there is no scientific proof of Psychic ability. At least none the Skeptical community would agree on. But that is not the point here. This is an encyclopedia. It should reflect the topic from many sides. Feel free to have a section that shows the skeptical side. But PLEASE do not begin an article with negative bias. You have exactly the same amount of proof that she is a fraud as she does as a psychic. She does not sit in a room chanting out things - she researches everything she writes about. Therefore she should be considered a philosopher...not a fraud. This does not mean you have to believe her, it just means that you present her life and her work FAIRLY.
: She has been convicted of fraud. 'nuff said. JoshuaZ 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do science and skeptics a disservice to bring up an irrelevant case of fraud.  If one wants to deomonstrate the truth of their viewpoint, good sounding but misleading semantics don't impress anyone but the speaker.   Impulse 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV-template 

message: Do we need to have the WikiProject Rational Skepticism template on both the article and the talk page?  Most other WikiProjects place their templates on the talk page only. Michael Slone (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject template

message: I intend at some point to move the mention of Novus Spiritus from the business section to a small subsection in perhaps the "history" section, as I believe this is worthy of its own section. Novus Spiritus is Sylvia's way of organizing her claims and beliefs that were revealed through trance sessions where her primary spirit guide, Francine, embodied her and spoke through her. She has written a series of books that organize these claims or revelations (depending on whether you believe them or not) called "Journey of the Soul Series." Following that, I think its worth starting a separate article on this series and the church, Novus Spiritus. Colby Peterson 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the Novus Spiritus church exist without her, or is it just a vehicle for her? If it stands on its own feet, then it should have a separate article. Does this organisation have a very small number of employees, including Browne and her favoured son, and slightly alter the tax status of 'donations' or fees given to the Church rather than to Browne herself? DavidFarmbrough 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I will say as someone who subscribes to the teachings (but not necessarily the hype behind it), I believe that the church is highly decentralized, which is kind of its nature. I think the "church", philosophy, or religion, whatever you want to call it- is based on the books and less on the structure. So I would consider it part of a movement of theologians, philosophers, and some scientists (mostly hypnotherapists who perform or "discovered" past-lives from past-life regressions). I need to do more research on the current status of the organization. However, I think that the organization will still exist after Sylvia and Christopher Dufresne are gone, as there is indeed an internal ordination process for ministers in the church, ensuring continuity. In short, I believe (and this is my POV) the church seems as genuine as any other church with a central figure. I would also add that the philosophy behind the church is compelling enough, although I personally am turned off by the economic classism the church exudes as a result of its high fees for its "services." So I'm torn in a way. Colby 05:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like it does warrant its own article, but as it's US based I am not sure where to begin. Here in the UK I would start with the Charities Commission Website and Companies House - I suspect there are US Equivalents of these but they are likely to be State based rather than Federal, so if any well-informed person knows where to start on this, this would be appreciated. The obvious source of information is from Browne's own web site, but using that as a basis for an article is not really adequate. DavidFarmbrough 14:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Society of Novus Spiritus 

message: Browne has some criticisms of a telephone prediction line which offered to employ her at $40,000 per week. Her main criticism was that those operating the line said that most of their users were poor women from the South of North America, on benefits. Then she says that she will do a telephone reading for £700 per reading. Does anyone know how long these readings last, or has Sylvia herself commented on this? ISTM that if they last about half an hour, then this works out at about $56,000 per week! DavidFarmbrough 09:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of a reading 

message: Thanks for digging those cites up Max. I'm just trying to keep things watertight and Verifiable. Cheers, Ashmoo 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is needed. It's important not just for this article, but for wp as a whole that the NPOV stance is maintained. DavidFarmbrough 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites

message: I've chopped out the following sentence:
:Critics, particularly those of the Christian right, may also point out the similarity of her beliefs to those of the New Agers/"Christian" Witches, although her beliefs diverge significantly from those prescribed in Wicca and other pagan varieties.
For these reasons:
#may seems like a weasel word
#No 'Critics' or members of the 'Christian right' are named
#Modern pagan and wiccan beliefs are very diverse anyway (although this is just my opinion)
At the very least, could we at least have specific critics or better yet sources before re-inserting? Ashmoo 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Xtian Criticisms

message: I reverted the major, uncommented changes. User:957, the article is the product of much debate and work over the years. Please include your changes to the article as-is, rather. If you want to remove whole sections, you would be better off talking about it here first. Ashmoo 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes

message: The Book controversy section does not describe a controversy at all, but rather an wikieditor's analysis. This analysis really needs to be attributed to a notable source otherwise it is original research. Additionally, none of the books in question are specificied, making it difficult to verify the claims. Could the original editor, please address these problems? Ashmoo 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book controversy

message: I've been chatting with some fellow Sylvia lovers and I've heard mentioned that the sentace about her not forseeing 911 is inaccurate.
"Browne failed to predict the September 11, 2001 attacks but after the fact claimed she had disturbing dreams involving a lot of fire in the week preceding the attack."
Some people say that they heard Sylvia declare on Montel that Sylvia said that in 2001 we would have an incodent that would be remembered as 911.  I didn't hear this, so I can't back it up, but I'm asking others to help.  I'm doing some research and I'm looking for possible transcripts from the show.  Just thought some others may want to as well.  If this has already been discussed, my appologies.  I couldn't find it.  - HARRYericPOTTER 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 911 Terrorism Attacks

message: Edited a false claim that when Browne recommended that Randi should check his heart in 2001, he never did. Randi did, in fact, have this checked, and posted the results on his webpage. That he had to undergo bypass-surgery five years later should not lead one to conclude that the prediction in 2001 was correct. Much can happen to the heart of a relatively old person like Randi in five years.
--meDoc 16:05, 22 August 2006
I removed the statement "However, Sylvia's vision could indeed be valid... Because on that day the entire area underneath both towers in the world trade center was completely immersed in water due to the burst pipes and sewer system being disrupted. If anyone remembers that day, the path trains and subways were stalled and the tunnels needed divers to go down there and retreive bodies and various other things..."
I don't think that statements like "If anyone remembers that day" belong in an encyclopedia.  A citation to a legit news article about people drowning on 9/11 would be more appropriate, if this claim is to be added.
RSLancastr 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television and Media 

message: We have 2 photos of Browne for the intro. To my mind, one of them, while being a publicity shot, is much clearer, has better lighting and has a more standard expression, while the other is a still from a television show and features her mid-expression and is blurry with murky coloring. Wikidudeman  & I prefer different versions, but I don't want to go reverting without discussion. Ashmoo 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That last photo is several years old. It doesn't show her true appearance as it is now. We should have recient photographs not 10 year old photographs. Maybe you could find a more recient photo that is clearer then you can put it up.Wikidudeman 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer the second photo. The features are clear cut. Furthermore the concern that it doesn't look as much as what she looks like now seems to be a minor issue. For dead people then should we always have a photo at the end of their lives? JoshuaZ 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sylvia Browne isn't dead so it's a null point.Wikidudeman 03:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly a null point. JoshuaZ was merely taking your argument to its logical conclusion. WP has no policy that a bio photo should be recent. Looking thru various bios on WP shows that the better quality/more iconic the photo, the more likely it is to be at the top. eg Mick Jagger's photo is from 1968. Ashmoo 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos of Browne

message: This articles needs some serious cleaning up. Sourcing for claims about her bio need to be added. We also need to wikify some segments, and some of the transcripts need to be transferred to wikiquote or wikisource. They can be linked from the controversy sections, but several postings of transcripts isn't really for an article. Arbusto 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I added a lot of sources and transcripts as of right now the article is at least presentable and somewhat WP:V. Arbusto 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I have added the citations for the Early Life Biography, which I collected from one book. Please double check and make sure I have done this right! I am just getting the hang of this. sorry :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmcwi885 (talk • contribs) 
: Thanks for the sources. Make sure to sign your user name when making posts on the talk page (hit ~ four times). --Arbusto 02:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography Citations