Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:07, 5 January 2008

Looks good to me Throw, good job :). Anynobody 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Drowned himself with his hose

I have to thank whoever wrote that, the image I got had me laughing out loud. (I don't mean that in a spiteful way, I just literally imagined a fireman deciding to take a drink from a high pressure fire hose "So thirsty, aughhh!") It still sounds like a bit of an assumption, she said he drowned fighting a fire... maybe he slipped, landed his head face down in the toilet, was knocked out, and then drowned. Since the sprinklers were out of commission, and that's where the water for the fire hoses comes from, I wish she had said fire hose instead of implying it. By mentioning what actually happened, we can show she is implying that he drowned in a toilet, a sink, or a cup of water. Anynobody 07:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable successes

Browne claims success in some cases, that are easily verified. I propose this section be used for those. Anynobody 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good section but I don't think we should start out with Browne's claim that she saved Reagan. A call to the Reagan Library proved it was an outright lie. The schedule for Reagan on that day had him have lunch with a world leader - that's something that takes weeks to plan. - Throw 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but she says it's a success. I was thinking about adding her claims about the 1993 WTC bombing too.

The whole parade thing is bogus with a good understanding of Israeli/American/Egyptian history. Egypt was celebrating their part in the 1973 Yom Kippur War war (which I find odd anyway because they got their butts kicked militarily after a successful surprise attack). No American president would show up at a parade celebrating a surprise attack on an ally, she clearly pulled that one out of her <<choose orifice>>. Anynobody 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anynobody. Your reasoning makes sense and I'll try to add to the category shortly. In the mean I've had the misfortune of having to add another person in the Missing Persons category. Let me know what you think. - Throw 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Throw, I started to think no more of these would come out. I wonder how many of these have to come to light before Montel dumps her, I'm sad for the family but happy another prediction Browne figured would never be proven, was indeed proven wrong. The addition was great by the way, very well written. Anynobody 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge and create another article

See also: Talk:Sylvia Browne for discussion of this topic, there. Anynobody 08:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not work as is. It would be better if the main aspects of criticisms are merged to the main article and a new article related to the Browen vs. Randi dispute gets created with relevant material from both sides of the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section was originally all on Browne's main article. The section was a mess, it didn't work. - Throw 05:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It did not work, and this does not work either. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To you it doesn't work but this article came about by consensus. You can see the original thread on Browne's main site. - Throw 04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also it's no longer just Browne vs Randi with the creation of StopSylviaBrowne.com, Anynobody 06:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

StopSylviaBrowne.com, is not a WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is a source, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) but it is a second high profile anti-Browne voice. My point is whereas Randi was the only nameable opposition to Browne, now it can be said that there are two independent anti-Sylvia POVs. (Please pardon my post pushing yours down, MrMurph101.) Anynobody 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) MrMurph101 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically the same structure as Criticism of Bill O'Reilly and that is still considered worthy of keeping after 3 afds. There are other sources besides what James Randi says in this article. I do not see why anything needs to changed at the moment. Keep as is. MrMurph101 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that this is a POV fork that violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight and needs to be merged to the main article. Tags added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The separate article is not a product of anyone's POV, it is actually abiding by WP:SIZE and Misplaced Pages:Summary Style. When a section of or the entire article becomes too large, sections are spun off into their own articles as part of a series.

This is just what happens when an article becomes large, and this isn't the only article spun off from the criticism section of an article.

See: Category:Criticisms, which lists 60 pages including some from WP:BLP articles, just like this one. The reason this section is so large relates to the fact that there are more WP:V, WP:RS sources available which paint her as a fraud than real.

If there were sources saying otherwise that also satisfied the policy and guideline which we were ignoring, then we would be in violation of WP:NPOV. I don't mind discussing ideas which have already been proposed and rejected, unless no new arguments or evidence are provided beyond one's feelings. Anynobody 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The is precedent for Criticism of entries (see above)
2. This entry is too large to be merged with the main entry as it would dwarf it, thus violating regs on entry balance.

perfectblue 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how this is in line with the guidelines. This isn't criticism of a movement or idea, but of a person. It is clearly linked as a "main article" in the bio. Thus it is essentially part of the bio. Doesn't this put Misplaced Pages up for lawsuits etc.? I'm sure you are following the sources in terms of the number wp:v negative vs. wp:v positive. But since this article is really part of her bio, I'm not sure how it stands under the rules. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as there are sourced entries attributing those who criticize her and why then it does not violate policy. Unsourced and POV-laced criticisms by any editor would make it seem like wikipedia is criticizing Browne and therefore prone to a lawsuit. It would be undue weight, imo, to merge this back to the main article. However, it is good idea to address how to handle, in a consistent way, living person's who earn their notability more from negative perception than a positive one and the subsequent spinoff "Criticism of..." article. MrMurph101 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article violates WP:NPOV#undue weight and needs to be summarized and merged withe the main article for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff articles are needed when articles become too long. At 44Kb the article now merged does not warrant a split Merged completed. POV forks are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New Source

Has anyone else read the Guardian article about her? Is She for Real? Most of the issues discussed on SSB.com are in the new source, so I've resurrected this page. Anynobody 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it wasn't deleted for lack of sources, but per BLP? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited were not up to WP:BLP standards, (SSB.com). However there can be little dispute that the Guardian is a WP:RS. Anynobody 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

THE MOST DISGUSTING CONTENT FORK IVE EVER SEEN

THIS ARTICLE IS A BLATANT WP:FORK VIOLATION ( A CONTENT FORK) ESSENTIALYL DESIGNED TO SLANDER MR. BROWNE AND HER RESARCH WORKING IN THE PSYCHIC FIELD. UNLESS SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT CANT BEADDED TO THE MAIN SYLVIA BROWNE ARTICLE, I WILL SPEEDY-DELETE IT AND MERGE THE CONTENT INTOTHE MAIN SYLVIA BROWNE ATRTICLE!!!!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a content fork, it's a spinout, or at least intended to be so. If you have more specific concerns about it's NPOVness, please voice them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

you misudnerstand me i said it was a content fork not a spinout. the problem si that this article is entirely negative.s we dont have articles devotedto critczing other prominent peoples so i dont understand why mrs browne is being targeted on wikipedia with this grotesque and unwarranted attakc on her careare and lifespan. Smith Jones (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it looked like on the main page. As you can see it's practically taken over when the information from here is placed there. Anynobody 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

perhaps iow as unclear there is no need to copy and paste the infor from this article to the other one. it would be more in the interests of encclpodiesa to simply delete this article. if some criticsm MUST be allowed to seep itno the original text, then there is an easy solution which is to SUMMARIZE the content of thi s article tan dplad ice it with in the other article. links to specific offiste contributions can be placed ther e instead of this disgusting monstrosity that occupeis wikipedia which is essentially a postule of bigotry and hate, poorly sourced and biased, that is essentialyl sued to provide a solely one-sided view of Sylvia BRowns accomplishments and achievments. surely you can understna dhwo blatnatly anti-Sylvia this whole article seems; there is not a single shred of seripus rebuttal or counterargument offered agiant the blatant and unwrrarnted one-sided criticisms placed here and to any viewr it ould look as if NO-ONE bleived in sylvia browne or her alleged / accused psychic powers. therefore you must understand that there are only 2 real options for wikipedia 1) the deletion of this article and all information contained within (my choice) or 2) SUMMARIZING the text of this article into 1 - 3 paragraphs and placing it within the Sylbia Browne article. IO trust you ill make the right decision, or else I will recommend that this be put before an arbitration commitee, a drastic decision that i am certain will lead to a solution that will require many more compromsies than eitehr of us may be willing to make. Smith Jones (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you say "there is not a single shred of serious rebuttal or counterargument" in this article. Feel free to provide this evidence you are talking about, but be sure to provide reliable sources for the information. Otherwise, it looks like Sylvia Browne is in fact a fraud.24.57.191.136 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/21.html

http://www.sylvia.org/home/about.cfm

http://www.novus.org/home/index.cfm

http://www.parapsychologydegrees.com/

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/25.html

http://www.sylvia.org/extras/hypnosistraining/

http://www.parapsych.org/sylvia_telempathetics

http://www.amazon.com/Sylvia-Brownes-Book-Dreams-Browne/dp/0525946586

http://www.gosylviabrowne.com/home.html

THOSE ARE EIGHT INDEPENDENT SOURCES FOUND THROUGH THE INTERNEST that PROVE that sylvia brownes powers are real. they provide notable, well-resaerched and relatively balanced informatin garnererd through years of painstaking parapsychological research that indicate without a shadow of as doubt that propehti powers exist and that sylvia is channeling them an d focusing on th every real spiritual palen. i will give you TWO DAYS or 48 HOURS to conside r these sites, and then i will proceed to reform this article by inserting FAIR ADN BALANCED INFORMATION. if you have a problem with athis, i have NO PROBLEM with frogmarching you allbefore an arbitration committe for discipline, an act that i feel safe in assmuing will lead to certain hostile editers being blocked. have i made myself perfeclty clear??? Smith Jones (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely you are joking Smith Jones. Three of those links are to websites owned by Sylvia Browne herself, while the rest are blatant advertisements for her or her products. Lastly, the parapsychologydegrees.com website has nothing to do with her. I consider these websites unacceptable according to WP:EL. So feel free to add some "fair adn balanced information", but try to use proper spelling and grammar. Thanks! -24.57.191.136 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you have tcome to your wsences fellow editors. i have made some of the necessary corrections tothe websites as per out agrement here today. HOWEVER if i find EVEN ONE attempt adn reversing this article to its original state without just case i WILL caree out of my out threat of reporting you al to an arbirtartion committee. I honesly shouldnt have to epxlaint his after you once again. Smith Jones (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you seem to think you have some sort of ownership of this article. Let me assure you that you do not. You are welcome to report fellow editors to the Arbitration Committee for attempting to improve the encyclopedia, but I think you will find your reception less than welcoming. Please calm down (stop shouting, for starters) and don't forget to assume good faith.

From your statements you appear to be strongly convinced that Sylvia Browne is a legitimate psychic. Let me suggest, then, that you find reliable sources backing up that claim. Statements made by Browne herself are acceptable in a limited quantity, but they need to be properly sourced and should be identified as having come from Browne.

Your edits to the article so far have been obviously slanted towards proving that Browne is an actual psychic, and you appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to push your personal point of view. You may wish to review the verifiability policy, which explains sourcing, and the Citation guidelines, which explains how to cite sources within the article. Natalie (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people