Talk:Sylvia Browne

message: In 2004, Louwana Miller went on The Montel Williams Show to talk to psychic Sylvia Browne to see if she could get any insight into how her missing daughter was doing. And Browne told her that Amanda Berry was dead. In 2013, Amanda Berry has been found alive. Louwana Miller died in 2006, never getting to see her daughter again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.132.85 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now there's no reliable source that makes this connection, meaning it would be considered original research to discuss this prediction in the Wikipedia article, so I've removed your addition (for now). Since this is a very big story I'm sure it won't take long until some newspapers cover this false prediction though - as soon as that happens, the Wikipedia article can be changed to include it. --Six words (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: So I've looked around, found a reliable source and wanted to add it, but MrBill3 had already added this source a few hours ago! It's in another section ("Predictions"), so I don't think we need to add this information to "The Montel Williams Show". --Six words (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 prediction about [[Amanda Berry]]

message: :Browne's performance scheduled for Halifax, Nova Scotia, on April 1, 2011, was cancelled due to "unforeseen circumstances."[43] It was later confirmed that Browne suffered a massive heart attack while in Hawaii on March 21, 2011.
I take it then that she did not predict she was going to have a massive heart attack? I don't suppose this inference needs to be included in the article, since it is—or should be—self-evident. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart attack 

message: Due to being criticized harshly in the news recently, and a spate of IP vandalism but also repair by an IP, I am pro-actively semi-protecting this article for the next three hours. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection is fine as a response to vandalism...though I don't think accurate reportage of failed predictions constitutes "harsh criticism". - Nunh-huh 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I removed the part about being a convicted criminal in the first line. It's laying things on a bit thick in the first line. It's covered in the next paragraph anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convicted criminal 

message: I see that there are a lot of anon editors who have been editing the page today with reports of her death.  The death is also listed on her official Facebook page but we need to wait for a WP:RS before we do much on this page. I would like to add a Recent death template to help readers understand what is happening. Is there a better way to do it? Allecher (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Recent Death template will attract appropriate monitoring from Admins to help revert uncited, often anonymous edits. Until we know otherwise I think we should adhere to WP:BLP Dynamicimanyd (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see we have a citation for the death in TMZ. I don't think this source qualifies as WP:RS. We certainly need something that can be considered a reliable secondary source to replace that citation as soon as one is available. Thoughts, anyone? Admins? Dynamicimanyd (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple more reports of her death from other news sources. Including Washington Timeshttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/psychic-sylvia-browne-dies-77/ and New York Daily Newshttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/psychic-sylvia-browne-dead-77-reports-article-1.1524107. ADigitalArtist (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Daily News is just another tabloid and the Wash Times is merely reporting that TMZ is reporting the death. Insufficient. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Her own website is stating she has died. http://www.sylviabrowne.com/ --Dmol (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it's a good idea to take her word for it.  The record shows several people she said were dead were in fact alive.  The Daily News, however, is a reasonable source reporting that her son Chris confirmed her death.  - Nunh-huh 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily News is NOT reporting that the confirmed the death. They are confirming that TMZ says that the son confirmed the death. The CNN  seems to be the most generally reliable source reporting this, but they are only using her website for confirmation. That seems pretty shaky. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no WP:RS reporting sources better than her website & Facebook pages. Even the San Jose Mercury cites only the website. We may have to wait for a press release or statement from the hospital before we get stronger confirmation in a true WP:RS. For now relying on CNN's opinion of veracity (and NBC) seems adequate but not ideal.Dynamicimanyd (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally able to include WP:RS that included fact-checking. The New York Times is WP:RS and the journalist checked with a hospital official. For now, I've retained the CNN story as reference No.2 although on the date of access it had only referred to official web as its sources. Dynamicimanyd (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I see where you're coming from, but using the specific day of the week is quite common for websites and newsprint likely to be viewed the next day or in a few days time or in a different time zone. Although Sylvia's Facebook page and website are not WP:RS and neither is word of mouth from people who've spoken to her family members, so it's not appropriate to detail the various sources I've heard this so that we avoid WP:PRIMARY, there is ample circumstantial evidence to point to 20th November. We are just waiting for stronger WP:RS that make it clear it has been fact-checked beyond believing the website and Facebook so that we can offer a stronger citation within WP guidelines Dynamicimanyd (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death reports 

message: Why did someone remove: "In May 2003, she told Larry King in an interview that she would die at the age of 88" ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/16/lkl.00.html )?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtKing50 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already mentioned under the "False predictions" section.  That's the better place for it in my opinion. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browne predicted she would die at 88 

message: Another user has repeatedly added a link to Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) in the Sylvia Browne article, and in that article adding the reciprocal link back to Sylvia Browne. No significant reason is given, other than someone the editor knows confused them and they were both mediums.  This is hardly a reason to link to a person of a totally different name, especially when Rosemary Brown/e has 5 different people listed on its dab page. I'm inviting comment here. --Dmol (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I see no connection between the two women that would reasonably cause any confusion. It is likely that the number of people who have never even heard of Rosemary Brown is much, much greater than the number of people who might confuse the two. Thus, putting a link at the top of the page obviously does more harm than good. It should stay out. - Hatster301 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to person of a different name. 

message: From . Any reference to this prediction, beyond Browne's own claim in a book written by herself?
--Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browne's prediction of Randi's surgery? 

message: From . Tested by who? Any reference to this test, beyond Browne's own claim in a book written by herself? Analysis of the reliability of the test?
--Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 - 90 % accuracy 

message: Admitted when? To whom? Didn't she use to predict things about her own life, maybe this happened after a few mispredictions? (Why is this written in present tense? Maybe copy/pasted from somewhere??) 
--Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ability on her own life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sylvia Browne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927062524/http://www.randi.org/jr/012805opinions.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/012805opinions.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050629004058/http://www.randi.org:80/jr/053003.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/053003.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sylvia Browne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228153659/http://www.hayhouseradio.com:80/show_details.php?show_id=2&episode_type=0 to http://www.hayhouseradio.com/show_details.php?show_id=2&episode_type=0
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://brillscontent.com/2000dec/notebook/psychic.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031225408/http://www.hayhouseradio.com/hosts.php?author_id=192 to http://www.hayhouseradio.com/hosts.php?author_id=192
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sylvia Browne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615153836/http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/2041082/detail.html to http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/2041082/detail.html
*Added  tag to http://www.commercial-news.com/homepage/local_story_206143447.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520234453/http://www.kmov.com/community/blogs/reporters-blog/Sylvias-Secrets-93713019.html to http://www.kmov.com/community/blogs/reporters-blog/Sylvias-Secrets-93713019.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821153807/http://readings.sylviabrowne.com/ to http://readings.sylviabrowne.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia promotes the scientific literacy. Implying that she might have had psychic powers is not scientific. Mediumship and psychic powers are extraordinary claims which would require extraordinary evidence. Without that evidence, this is a WP:FRINGE perspective, and Wikipedia doesn't promote fringe views. While it's true that Browne's psychic powers have been widely discredited, that's only part of the story.  Not only have her claims been discredited, they have also been proven false. None of her criminal predictions have been proven accurate, and many have been proven completely false. Reliable sources throughout the article demonstrate this. It is not just that these claims have been discredited, it's that that have been discredited by the only sources Wikipedia trusts for this kind of thing. A formal tone is important, but vague isn't always more encyclopedic, nor does neutrality mean that we have to humor fraudulent nonsense like Browne's claims. Simple facts should be stated in simple language. This is the primary purpose of an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to see a reliable reference noting that all her claims were false. For now, The NYT ref notes that she had staunch detractors, and so I feel that the current version of the article is better than making uncited, unequivocal assertions. Given that we immediately mention the aspersions cast on her work, I feel the implication is that she didn't have psychic abilities. Leoni98 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but those are implications. We are implying something that we should just state simply. We should not validate debunked, outlandish claims, even subtly. These are not uncited assertions, exactly. The substance of many sources used in the article is that no reliable sources accepts that she has powers. By presenting this as 'two sides' we are supporting false balance. She is not a reliable source regarding her own supernatural abilities, so secondary sources must be used. Those sources do not accept that she has any powers at all, which makes her claims false. They may not specifically use that term, which would make this easier, but they support the statement anyway. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel that to place "falsely claimed..." in the lede is too definitive. Sure, there are plenty of refs citing this wrong prediction and that inaccurate proclamation, but there's a WP:SYNTH issue with using those to assert that all her work was garbage, and let's now everyone go home. I have tried to further dampen any implication of credibility by lifting a quote from the Jon Ronson article which speaks to the inaccuracy of Browne's work and her profiteering from others' misery. Leoni98 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  False/Discredited 

message: A Washington IP-hopper seems determined to push this page back to the hagiography it once was, citing the need for an "impartial" article. Fact is, Browne received enormous negative publicity, and Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring it. Nor is it in the business of celebrating fringe/pseudo science. Leoni98 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, he/she came back yet again. Keep your eyes peeled for Browne's delusional disciples, people!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:41F2:6E50:46E6:760 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Browne IP-hopper

message: I'm not interested in canonizing her, but it does seem biased to leave out any educational efforts on her part (e.g., a degree in education, going for her master's in San Francisco), psychiatrists she worked with--from Stanford and other places, her work as a hypnotherapist and the classes she held--all of which she claimed to have the files for. Any of these would be relatively easy to check, if  you're not intent on debunking her.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.143.160.48 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education and other easily verifiable facts Sylvia Browne refers to in her books are left out. 

message: Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy if she was still living, and are still inappropriate without any connection being made. I believe that that additional links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations. Regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: She's dead, Jim. She's not only merely dead, she's really, most sincerely, dead. It is impossible for anything in her article to be a BLP violation, because she is no longer a "living person". You should restate the specifics of your objection. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the  MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. Plus for this one, yes - she is dead. RobP (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you. I do not have strong objections over the content here, although I still do believe it is inappropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in "See also" section 

message: According to this Twitter post, Sylvia Browne had written on page 312 of her book "End of days":
* In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and ...
Could somebody, who has this book, check whether the citation is correct. --Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Google books, it's on page 210: gb search. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: true prediction?

message: What really makes me mad about this article is the lack of facts. Sylvia Browne said she helped police with 250 or more cases, yet Wikipedia only sites a fraction of these. How many actual cases, statistically did Sylvia Browne work on with law enforcement officials, how many of each of the individual professional law enforcement personnel have been interviewed first on their general opinion of psychics ability to solve cases or help solve cases. Then, how many of those people have prejudice toward psychics or Sylvia Browne, and how many of these law enforcement departments don’t want to admit that a psychic could take credit for solving a case that they themselves thought they should have solved. How many of them would feel embarrassed or especially embarrassed or conflicted because the psychic who helped them was a woman? There are a lot of questions to be answered before Wikipedia does a through examination of Sylvia Browne’s work on these cases and their real facts and outcomes.
Also, there are other ways that Sylvia Browne helped many people and that her assessments and psychic abilities testified to the fact that she was often correct about a lot of things. For example, I watched her frequently on The Montel Williams Show and remember one of her predictions for the upcoming year. She told people not to travel to India or anywhere in that area because some kind of a catastrophe was going to occur. Sure enough, sometime later in the year a terrible Tsunami hit the area killing many people and causing lots of damage. 
Also, her books and publications are phenomenal as were her public appearances, two of which I attended.
Much more research and fact-finding needs to be done on the phenomenal person and Psychic and Clairvoyant that Sylvia Browne was. It needs to be a balanced report with more reporting on the positive and true accounts of this extraordinary woman’s life. 2600:1014:B06E:4437:7178:B219:1846:D656 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide reliable sources that support any of her claims, please feel free to mention them here so editors can consider them. Wikipedia editors are not journalists who investigate and report. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. 105.112.17.130 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about trying to prove her correct?