Talk:Sylvia Browne/Archive 2

message: Someone keeps including this sentence:
:Brown has thrown out many "predictions," with a success rate no better than educated guesses (see external links, below)
Which is POV. Her popularity attests that many people believe her success rate is better than guessing. But more importantly it is unsourced, offering the vague 'see external links'. Which links? The Criticism section has a long rebuttal of her 'powers' and properly attributes sources and specifics to analysis of her ability to predict the future. 
Ashmoo 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It must be cited per BLP. Arbusto 05:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Facts are not POV. Qarnos 10:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Her success rate is not a POV, it is most widely accepted as "Fact" by most people.
I do recommend taking the quotations off from 'predictions' though.
Some people may misinterpret it as being a POV.
I will do that, if anyone objects, feel free to reply. :]<BR>
(camxx) 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions

message: I would like to comment that this article hardly promotes a NPOV on Mrs. Browne's abilities or lack thereof, not to mention the unflatering photo. Some edits are sorely needed which I will endeavor to do unless someone else beats me to it.
In addition, the facts regarding Mrs. Browne's contribution to police investigations amounts hearsay, as the author quotes another reference and also quotes from a person qualified to offer a professional opinion about Mrs. Browne's contributions.
216.9.250.6 03:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does need clean up. However, paranormal and psuedoscience is not treated as political beliefs on wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires wikipedia does not give undue weight to conspiracy or non-scientific beliefs. Arbusto 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, however, this article seems more like an anti-Sylvia page than anything else.  It's one thing to show both sides of the coin: ie: maybe psychics are real, maybe they're not.  It's another thing to devote a full half the article to direct attacks against her credibility. Sayvandelay 12:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ??? 

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

message: I felt slightly concerned reading the above quote, "...article seems more like an anti-Sylvia page than anything else. ...," and checked the original article.  Have us skeptics been too harsh on her?
Trouble, is, I think us skeptics have been too nice.  When will the New Agers realize?  She is a fraud.  Her "psychic abilities" are no more than clever cold readings, often falling far off the mark.  She couldn't predict her own criminal conviction.  You want more credence to the psychic view?  Find some evidence that she has psychic powers, beyond a few lucky guesses.  If you find it, put it in the article.
Better yet, find some evidence that SOMEONE, sometime in history, has demonstrated psychic powers.  There is just no evidence.  Sylvia Browne is not the one.  Edgar Cayce is also a well-known fraud and was into silliness like Atlantis.  Uri Geller is such a titanic fraud he is an embarassment to even the New Age community.  What more evidence do the New Agers require?  Now George Bush is an effective lame duck, us skeptics, freethinkers and scientific types are finally starting to take stands against frauds like intellegent design -- and Sylvia Browne. 
Edgar Cayce is also a well-known fraud and was into silliness like Atlantis.  
You know what will be silly is when scientists start talking about how Atlantis is resurfacing. I mean do you really think the water consumed so much of the world as it does now? Of course not, all us smart guys ruined the environment.--69.229.5.21 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Too many false things have been presented in a way as if they were true under the name of NPOV. Critical thinkers and faith-based folks will never have the same NPOV. --Roland 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Catherine Curran" this page is very neutral as far as I can tell. You may believe James Randi is a "fraud" whatever that even means, But your opinion on that is totall irrelevant to this talk page. As much as I disagree with you would would love tearing your absurd logic down, This is not the place to do that. So please keep your opinions to yourself.Wikidudeman 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: There is not nearly as much factual data regarding the accuracy of James van Praagh and John Edward, due to extensive non-disclosure agreements which they require show participants to sign, as well as their shows' extensive editing. While CSICOP has video-evidence of John Edwards' fraud, the NDA prevents them from releasing it. No such recordings are available for van Praagh, to my knowledge, and so we must rely on hearsay from participants in his tour appearances, which are frequently not covered by the same NDA. 68.166.28.16 13:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's debatable, I think it is a bit biased IN SOME PARTS, but in others I believe it has a fairly neutral POV, As long as everything has a reliable source, It's not biased. Although I do think that this article needs more Pro-Sylvia parts, such as her many fans, exc. (Camxx) 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seems more like an anti-Sylvia page than anything else??

message: Adhering to the wikipedia policy on copyrighted images. The Motel Williams image currently on the page will be removed because the producer or the tv studio of Motel Williams holds the copyright of the image and permission was not given to reproduce the image. The image itself explains no licensing information either. The image “sylviabrowne1” however is free to proliferate and was released by it’s owner for such use. I will replace the image on copyright grounds. I have tagged [] for speedy deletion by an admin for copyright violation. If you have added this image or believe the image should be kept up them go to the image page and discuss it with the admins.
Wikidudeman 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current image is copyrighted. Must be removed. 

message: I have found a new image that could possibly go on the Sylvia Browne's main page.
You'll see it on there right now, It is okay to have it on the profile, because it has appeared on many of her books.
Tell me what you think.
(camxx) 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the copyright info for this image?Wikidudeman 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: <BR>The reasons for my choosing of this new photo, was because of feedback from previous comments that the old picture made sylvia look "Drunk/Tarted Up" and probably didn't depict the image most people are used to seeing of her.<BR>
(camxx) 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the copyright info for this image?Wikidudeman 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on the new photo 

message: <BR><BR>
All rights too the image belong to the Louise Hay Foundation/Hay House Publishers. 
The picture is of Sylvia Browne. (hayhouse.com) (sylvia.org)
This picture of her, appears on the covor of two of Sylvia Browne's book's. 
"Secret's and Mysteries of the world" and "Mother God"
Which can be viewed at the following Link:
http://www.hayhouse.com/combined.php?format=1&keyword=Sylvia+Browne&n=1
Books:
*Browne, Sylvia; (2004). Mother God: The Feminine Principle to Our Creator Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc. 
*Browne, Sylvia; (2006). Secrets & Mysteries of the World Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc. 
For more info, click on the new image of Sylvia Browne <BR>
(Camxx) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great picture be her, especially since we hve a premission for using it. Smith Jones 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright info 

message: The person responsible for the following text in the Sylvia Browne article should either provide proof that the statement is true or delete it: '"She predicted 9/11 and she was right! "' Robert2957 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only did she NOT predict 9/11, she was on Larry King Live on September 3rd, 2001, and made no mention of it.  After 9/11, she stated that in the weeks leading up to it, she kept "dreaming about fire."  Again, it was only stated after the fact, and even had it been stated before 9/11, it is vague at best. RSLancastr 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time I urinated I thought of water, so obviously I predicted the Hurricane Katrina disaster. - Throw 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdraw or Justify 

message: I've heard and read in the article about her helping police cases, but it doesn't go into much depth. What cases has she helped, how helpful has she been or is it nothing more than her own claims, can anyone find any evidence for the help she's given the authorities either good or bad??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackB69 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it to the article, as long as you can find appropriate Citation :] <BR>
(Camxx) 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help in police and FBI cases 

message: I removed the following paragraph which really interrupted the flow of the article, was non-sourced, unencyclopedic, and appeared to be nothing but hero-worship. Please do not re-instate it without at least sourcing the claims.
In spite of criticism and controversy, Sylvia Browne has stayed well in business for 50+ years, giving more than 20 readings a day, appearing at numerous lectures with other self-described psychics such as John Edward, and has published 40 books, with less than half on the New York Times Bestseller List.  Sylvia is usually on the Montel Williams show every Wednesday.  She has stated that her psychic ability is at about a 90% success rate and her predictions are at 58% success.
-- Qarnos 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted paragraph. 

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

message: This section needs to summarize the long excerpts and transwiki any notable quotes to Wikiquote. Once that is done that cleanup template can be removed. Jossi 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I added the transcripts for the Sago Mine controversy but, in the cold light of day, it does look pretty ugly. I will go through the transcripts tomorrow and condense them into summaries. The only problem may be sourcing - I used the recordings, which I downloaded from the Coast to Coast AM site, and they are no longer available for download. I'll see if I can find another source for them. -- Qarnos 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll third that. Transcripts aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP isn't here to either convince the reader of anything one way or another, nor provide primary sources so they can 'decide for themselves'. The best solution is to summarize the predictions see gave (preferably with a cite to a 3rd party who did a summary) and offer links to critical sites and the full transcript. Ashmoo 04:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Should we add the recent CNN expose? FGT2 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If it's not already there then mention it.Wikidudeman 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson Cooper 

message: Browne continues to say she has solved "case after case" but does anyone have any evidence of that being true? One would think if it were true Browne would have presented those successes front and center, but I've never heard of a specific case where she was a principle in solving anything, or any police authority thanking her for her help or anything. - Throw 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A gentle reminder: This page is for discussing the article, and not the subject, as per the header in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reminder, Jossi. It is important not to allow this to become some kind of Sylvia Browne gossip page, but I think Throw's question is actually about the article. Browne makes claims that she has "helped thousands" and solved "case after case". If she was not making these claims then I would wholeheartedly agree this topic would not belong in the article, but she is the one saying she solved crimes.Anynobody 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking into my own inquiries, I found this:  which note some 35 cases Browne has been involved in. In all 35 cases Browne's information was too vague and played no useful role. And just to add fuel to the fire, this blog takes a critical look into Browne's 2006 predictions and - shockingly - is wrong on nearly every one. Her 'correct' predictions appear to be by mere circumstance. - Throw 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unfortunate, I'm hoping to find a list of cases and agencies she worked with. I doubt such a list exists so I'm not holding my breath. For example I understand another "medium", Allison DuBois, claims to have worked with the Texas Rangers and the Glendale, AZ police department which both agencies deny. Her error was to make a claim that could be quickly verified, Ms. Browne's claims are usually not able to be verified so rapidly. Thanks for the effort though, Throw. Anynobody 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What cases has Browne solved?

message: I removed this 'transcript' as it is unsourced:
Another incident which generated controversy occurred on the show (original airdate not known - rebroadcast on August 16 2006), when Browne gave a reading to a woman in the audience.
A transcript follows:
::Woman: I lost my boyfriend tragically, um… a few years ago. (choking back tears)  They never found him, and I've had such a hard time since. Every day.
::Browne: The reason why you didn't find him is 'cause he's in water. And, find him in water… 
The woman looks confused.
::Browne: (to Montel) it's like the girl that's missing in Aruba. [to woman] You can't find somebody…
::Woman: (interrupting) Well, it was…September eleventh.  There was no…  He was a fireman, but…there was no…
::Browne: Well no, you see, I keep seeing him in water.
The woman shakes her head angrily.  There is a pause.
::Browne: Is there any way he could have drowned in water, someway?
::Woman: [shakes her head] They never found a piece of him. Nothing.
::Montel: (to Sylvia) From 9/11.
Another pause.
::Browne: 'Cause he's… he says he couldn't breathe and he was filled with water.
Another pause.
::Montel: Hmm.
::Browne: Well, if they were trying to put the fire out, Montel…
Montel points to another person in the audience, trying to move on.
::Montel: They couldn't, you know, uh, yeah.
Another pause.
::Browne: No, they won't find him, but honey that's okay, because it doesn't matter if they find him or not, he's still over there.
Ashmoo 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's your source. Out of respect for the audience member I didn't link to the video. - 75.38.19.188 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. Ashmoo 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 firefighter

message: I was reading a sample desist order on  and some other attorney contacts regarding similar matters with other sites. You'd probably want to remove any copyrighted images with logos (like screen shots from Montel including the logo). Other than that I can't think of any grounds her or her attorneys would have to litigate this. If the letter you received is from her attorney ONLY and threatens to seek action, they are probably trying to scare you off. As I understand it, an actual Cease and Desist order has to come from a judge, and because a lot of people don't realize that; Lawyers will send legal looking threats to pursue action they know they couldn't actually win. The idea being that the individual who receives the threat doesn't know this. A situation analogous to an old west gunfighter challenging someone else to a duel knowing he doesn't have any bullets. Since the other person doesn't know the gunfighter has no ammunition, they are likely to back down rather than risk being shot. Anynobody 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is this regarding? As far as I can tell, we've not received any C&Ds, nor are we in any legal danger. Are you talking about something other than this article / the Wikipedia? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website StopSylvia.com got a request from Ms. Browne's lawyers to shut down the site. It's indirectly related to this Wiki article because it provides a central reference for several of the issues in this article. Anynobody 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is still up, and now the letter in question has been posted. If the site had been taken down we may have had to add a bunch of new sources or delete the stuff that references StopSylvia.com. As far as I can tell, this is now a non-issue. Anynobody 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Sylvia Browne's own page is cited numerous times; I'm not sure that it is a reliable source on her. For instance, read her biography page, which is the very first source used by this article. She doesn't seem to be a reliable source, and is known for being a fraudster; should we really use her site for anything other than what her claims are? Even her biography seems suspeect. Titanium Dragon 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think many of us share your concern for the overall accuracy of the info on her site.  The citations are more for WP:NPOV than they are for accuracy. To keep things accurate the article does include links to more believable sources. Anynobody 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Site 

message: I think the transcript being put in this article wholesale is a bad idea. We should summarize what occured in the transcript, then link to the actual transcript. How does this sound for a summary?
*On the Montel Williams show, Sylvia Browne adressed an audience member who said her boyfriend was missing. Browne claimed that the boyfriend had drowned, but in fact her boyfriend was a firefighter who had gone missing during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Titanium Dragon 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the transcript should be condensed, but the word "drowned" probably shouldn't be used. Respectfully Titanium Dragon, Browne appears to keep things vague in her predictions. When she says "in water" it could also mean he was killed elsewhere and dumped in a body of water. The problem for her was, Browne seems to have assumed the woman's boyfriend was murdered and his body hadn't been found. When 9/11 factored in, the water suddenly became water from fire hoses (which didn't get deployed during 9/11 anyway because of damage to the building and lack of time). Anynobody 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I was looking for info on her after the fact preditctions about 9/11, and was reading the transcript of the 9/3/2001 interview when I noticed her making these claims. Anynobody 07:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's made all sorts of absurd claims. I wouldn't be surprised if she said she could levitate and summon Jesus, But I don't really know if we should mention it all in the article. Should we?Wikidudeman (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you were kidding but if she really did claim to levitate and summon Jesus on Larry King, that actually does sound like something worth mentioning too as an example of her living in her own reality. As opposed to being a fraud. Anynobody 08:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healer 

message: Would anyone be opposed to adding the case of Lynda McClelland. It is astounding, the murderer is sitting in the same room with Sylvia and she and her spirit guide totally miss it. Naturally this should not be stated in the article in the same way I did above. I was thinking something along the lines of:
Lynda McClelland disappeared from her home in 2000, last seen by her daughter and son-in-law. On 13 March 2002 they (the daughter and her husband) appeared with Ms/Mrs. McClelland's other daughter on the Montel Williams Show seeking Sylvia Browne's help. They were told by Ms. Browne that their mother was alive but as a result of a mental breakdown was institutionalized somewhere. Since Mrs. McClelland had previously documented mental health issues, the sisters appeared to accept Ms. Browne's explanation. One year later her body was discovered after an accomplice of Mrs. McClelland's son in law led authorities to her shallow grave. It was later revealed that Mrs. McClelland had an affair with her son in law, and he strangled her when she threatened to tell her daughter. The son in law was later convicted of her murder. 
sources from StopSylvia.com:
N. Braddock man held in mother-in-law's killing
Man Kills Mom-In-Law Over Sex, Found Guilty
Anynobody 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean you absolutely oppose it, or it should absolutely be included? Sorry to split hairs, but I can see it going either way. Anynobody 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support it being mentioned. Sorry for not being clearer.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I spent a few minutes on the site, and it looks like more of the same validations she's been talking about. The letters from the fans really can't be verifed and are just testamonials about how they believe in her. Even though it doesn't do anything to satisfy skeptics, and isn't verfiable, if we have StopSylvia we ought to have GoSylviaBrowne. (Frankly I think it just makes StopSylvia.com better.) Anynobody 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand on my comments, here is an example of the site's validation section:Dearest Sylvia,
I just had to write to you to let you know a FEW things about what changes have occurred in my life since the
first time I saw you on the Montel Williams Show. I have to admit that it was not a very good time in my
life. I had a drug problem with crack cocaine. I hated my life, humankind, and anything that had to do with life
itself. I had no faith or love for anything -- my world was dark. The only thing I believed in and was dedicated to was
my drug addiction. I did always have a love for Jesus Christ, but wasn‘t in a place to really accept a spiritual path. As I have grown to know you better, your knowledge and spiritual nature have blown me away. I have researched you and your philosophy for over five years. Your correct predictions and your devotion to God impress me beyond belief. To add to that, you have
never taken credit for your gift, you always say it’s from God. It’s mind boggling to me that I have never heard anyone say that in my entire life. You are a true gift from God, Sylvia. I also wanted to tell you that I would have never found my purpose in life, along with a recovered drug habit if it wasn’t for you and your wisdom. I was able to quit “cold turkey” thanks to your spiritual knowledge and God. You influenced me that much and made me want to become a better person. Sylvia, thank you for your endless research,
predictions, and most importantly, the beautiful gifts of purpose and love from our Mother and Father GOD. Love you always and forever. Your friend,
 It's possible that somebody out there overcame their crack habit with Jesus Christ and Sylvia Browne alone. The problem is we aren't given a name, and even if we were chances are there would be no way to verify it unless that person was in the news somehow. The reason I said before that this site makes stopsylvia.com look even better is that it cites very specific, verifiable examples like Shawn Hornbeck. Whereas gosylviabrowne.com is more of her "350 children healed" and "dozens of cases cracked" statements, very dubious. Anynobody 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Also, now that I think of it, her official site shares much in common with Go Sylvia as far as verifiable facts are concerned. Anynobody 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people I've talked to think that site "gosylviabrowne" is actually a site setup by people working for Sylvia Browne with the intention of making it seem like there's some 'movement' to support her. It's called Astroturfing and it's where someone fakes a grassroots support for a person or an event. Most likely the majority of the people who post on that site are a few individuals working for Sylvia. Her sons girlfriend's name is the same as the owner of the site, for instance.Wikidudeman (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading that makes me happy I included it under the "official" links section. It makes sense, given that her legal threat didn't pan out the way she hoped. Anynobody 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the site might not be a great idea due to the fact it might rocket it's google rank up. However looking further into the future, I can imagine this whole ordeal of "stopsylvia"/"GosylviaBrowne" being so weird that it might actually get media attention and start people talking about Syvlia Browne and about her so called "psychic powers". It might also reveal how "gosylviabrowne.com" is actually about as real as Sylvia's 'powers'.Wikidudeman (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I concur with you Throw, I think this is her response to the failed attempt to shut down SSB.com. Do you agree that it should be listed as an official site? Anynobody 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Labeling GSB.com an official site would be more honest considering what we know. Despite what Sylvia Browne or the webmaster of GSB say the personal relationship the two share has to go into account. Heather Brown (the webmaster) isn't just some wide-eyed fan from the midwest somewhere, she herself has admitted working within the Sylvia Browne corporation at book signings and such. And - though I'm aware rumors don't belong here - an alleged Browne insider is spilling the beans over at James Randi's forum. The insider says Heather Brown is working with the Sylvia Browne corporation to find out who the mole is. That's not the behavior of a mere fan site. - Throw 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I've been considering wheather it'd be a good idea to do a Wiki article on either StopSylvia.com or its creator, Robert Lancaster. Both have received mainstream attention so I think it'd warrant it.  Lancaster is approchable and could easily provide us with necessary information should we need it. What does everyone else think? - Throw 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose the idea, but I can foresee some who may have issues with notability so an article should contain a decent amount of media references (like if we could cite the shows he's been on). Anynobody 05:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Robert Lancaster does meet Wikipedia standards. Just make sure you put in references, sources, and it follows WP:WEB as much as it can. He's had some media attention, articles, he's well known, etc. IceSage 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's almost completely unknown outside of the skeptical community and the JREF. Algabal 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki page for Robert Lancaster and/or SS.com?

message: See also: Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne for discussion of this topic, there. Anynobody 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message on the submitter's talk page to comment about her/his merge notice. It's been two days and the person has failed to reply even though s/he's been active on Wikipedia, so I've removed the merge notice. - Throw 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The material was split from the article because it was so long. There is no need to re-merge it. Arbustoo 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the criticism section is significantly longer than the biography section. Merging the two would lead to undue weight being placed on the criticism. Keep them separate. - perfectblue 08:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to save the time of editors wishing to address the issue of a merger, the person proposing this is active on Talk:Criticism of Sylvia Browne. I was slightly concerned the last time the topic was discussed that they hadn't discussed it here too or at least referred others there. Just in case anyone had intended to address the proponent, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk), they may consider posting there instead. Anynobody 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging "Criticism of Sylvia Browne" 

message: # No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion. Answer to test question: No. As stated above no free equivalent is available. 
# Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. We are not selling or defaming the book so commercial opportunities should not be an issue.
# (a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article.  Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.Only one non-free image used. (b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace. Image is low resolution.
#  Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia. Got it from Google, could also get it at any number of book sellers.
#  Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. Illustrates the person who the article is about as well as one of her books.
#  Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. It does.
#  One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. Sylvia Browne
#  Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative. It identifies the subject of an article, AND illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text.
#  Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) Image also complies with this condition.
#  Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following.
#* (a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source.
#*(b) An appropriate fair-use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags is at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
#* (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. The image complies with these requirements as well.
Jossi, which one of these am I wrong about? Anynobody 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criteria 5 and Criteria 8 of WP:FUC that is worded much better that what you posted above and that is policy. Just read WP:FUC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Please stop. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You also haven't explained how the image can be replaced by words. Anynobody 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rationale 

message: The quote given, "I knew they'd be found alive" is not in accordance with my own memory of that radio show, in one crucial respect. I believe she actually said "I knew they'd be found" and, later, when the news that they were all dead came through, she used this as a get-out, saying (not verbatim) "Yes, I said I knew they'd be found -- I didn't say whether dead or alive". El Ingles 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately memories can't be referenced, you could be right but unless you have a transcript or something similar to add as a source we can't change the article. (PS, it was actually called the Sago Mine disaster) Anynobody 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, I realise that, and it's why I didn't presume to edit the article. I just wanted to draw attention to it in case one of the editors has a transcript. El Ingles 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (PS El Ingles I appreciate your wiki-manners in not editing the article by the way, sorry I forgot to mention that in my last post.) Anynobody 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thankyou. I think that entirely supports my memory of the incident and I ask the editors of the page to change it. El Ingles 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to the transcript, but we're actually not adding transcripts themselves anymore, like this version of the article from 01:11, 11 February 2007. Anynobody 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If secondary, published sources mention that website, we can report what these secondary sources say about the subject. See WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. Re-adding that material would be a BLP violation.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somebody re-added material that is sourced to a self-published website. As my deletions have not bee accepted in good faith by that editor, on the basis of a spurious comment, I would suggest this issue is raised at WP:BLP/N where it will be addressed by other admins monitoring BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I've removed various unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons -- "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject" [emphasis in original].  Thus, anything coming from Mr. Lancaster's website is not acceptable for this article.  I have also removed a couple of things which should be able to be sourced from reliable secondary sources; I recommend finding those sources before reinserting them. -- Jonel | Speak 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remover the SSB.com section? It involves Syvia Browne trying to shut one of her most outspoken critics down by having her lawyer send a cease and desist letter to him. Such behavior speaks volumes about a person. - Throw 10:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the only source there was for was SSB.com, itself, which is self-published and therefore, as I said above, not a reliable source in an article about Ms. Browne.  If you can find a secondary source discussing her activities relating to the website, by all means, summarize and cite that secondary source.  -- Jonel | Speak 12:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand the article still uses Sylvia Browne's own website as a source.Geni 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is permissible, with some caveats, see WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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