Talk:Sylvia Browne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Browne says Obama will lose re-election[edit]

From http://www.goerieblogs.com/news/writersblock/2011/10/my-and-sylvia-browne-2012-predictions:

Here are some of her predictions:

1) President Obama will not get re-elected. While not a fan, she favored Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, she was wrong (yet again) on that one. Quis separabit? 20:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the third paragraph of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeenPP (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Two things:
1. The source is a blog, so it doesn't meet WP:V. Whatever it says, it's not a reliable source. 2. We already have a source saying that she predicted he'd lose - we don't need another source for that. I'm going to revert. --Six words (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it carefully: the blog link is in both versions. The link AbbeenPP keeps trying to restore is abc26.com, which is dead, and supposedly alleges that Obama will be re-elected. Antandrus (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Here's one that works, if anyone wants to add it: http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/local-news/spiritual-healer-sylvia-b) Antandrus (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I first thought, but no, AbbeenPP only added the blog (and said so in the edit summary). Nightshift removed both AbbeenPP's addition and the dead link (with the text attributed to it). Given that AbbeenPP focusses only on the wrong prediction - both here and in the edit summaries of his/her reverts, I don't think he/she's concerned about the removal of the dead link. You're right. Anyway, I'm removing the blog link for the reasons given above. --Six words (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Erie Times-News source. I'm not adding the ABC News page. It was there before. Nightscream's sloppy removal messed up the tags.
The link is to the Erie Times-News website-- a newspaper where its reporters make posts. It's not a personal "blog." Much like CNN, which has blogs for its reporters http://www.cnn.com/exchange/blogs/index.html or the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs it is where news stories are posted. AbbeenPP (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a newspaper blog. It's a weaker source than the one already there, so we don't need it. Also, Nightscream didn't even remove it - it's you who didn't look at what you were doing and messed up by reverting a valid edit. --Six words (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2004 prediction about Amanda Berry[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Heart attack[edit]

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)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Convicted criminal[edit]

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)[reply]

Death reports[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are a couple more reports of her death from other news sources. Including Washington Times[1] and New York Daily News[2]. ADigitalArtist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Her own website is stating she has died. http://www.sylviabrowne.com/ --Dmol (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Is this a bad time to mention that TMZ broke the news of Michael Jackson's death and that people who Syvia Browne claimed were dead turned up alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.35 (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] says, "Posted on: 7:34 pm, November 20, 2013" and "Browne died at 7:10 a.m. Wednesday". If that Wednesday is indeed November 20, 2013, then the article was posted 12 hours after her death on the same day and says "Wednesday" instead of "today". I find this unlikely.

So, even if Sylvia is right about her own death this time - last time she said she would die at an age of 88 [3] - that Wednesday should probably be November 13. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/psychic-sylvia-browne-dies-77/
  2. ^ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/psychic-sylvia-browne-dead-77-reports-article-1.1524107

UNDUE[edit]

Both the Randi challenge and the Sago Mine incidents appear to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to events that third parties do not seem to care that much about. There should be significantly broader coverage of them to merit stand alone sections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the Sago Mine incident could be cut down and incorporated in to the overarching section. The Randi challenge section could be cut down and maybe moved into her psychic career section. - Maximusveritas (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Perhaps they had their rightful part in the Criticism of Sylvia Browne article, but it is undue here.LM2000 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criticism of Sylvia Browne article, because breaking off negative content into a separate article is discouraged. So if it goes anywhere, it goes here. - Nunh-huh 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to put the JREF challenge under the "paranormal claims" section as a sub-section? It might make more sense as a continuation of the paranormal claims section (i.e. claims paranormal powers and then was challenged on those claims). Lukekfreeman (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sago Mine prediction could probably use shortening, but $1,000,000 challenge section is fine the way it is. Browne's embracing of the challenge (and subsequent failure to follow through) has been covered by Time and CNN, even many years after the fact. Browne is undoubtedly the highest profile case in the history of the $1,000,000 challenge, and her backing out of it is one of the most glaring stains on her reputation and credibility. So it's both relevant and notable; I see no case for undue weight. - Hatster301 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you have sources of that coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times obituary also included the Randi challenge. I think enough secondary sources have considered it important, that we can be reassured in our assessment that it is indeed noteworthy, and not unduly stressed here. -Nunh-huh 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are already provided in the article. Try searching the list of references for instances of "Time" and "CNN" - Hatster301 (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the sources "already provided in the article" about the Randi challenge are Randi and Quackwatch with a passing mention of something that didnt happen on Anderson Cooper. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search the list of references for "Time" and CNN, like I suggested? If so, I think you need to look harder. The Time article is titled "Guess what I'll write next", by Leon Jaroff, from 2004. On CNN, it was mentioned in 2003 on Larry King, titled "Interview with Sylvia Browne". It was also brought up again on Anderson Cooper in 2007, where Browne's business manager, Linda Rossi, was directly asked about the challenge. Here's part of the exchange:
COOPER: ...So Linda, you're saying Sylvia will not take the test, bottom line?
ROSSI: No, because she has nothing to prove to James Randi.
Do you seriously consider that to be merely a "passing mention"? Or were you referring to something else? - Hatster301 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Randi's challenge to Browne is mentioned in a ridiculous number of sources. A glance at google news archive has more than 100 citations, including [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and numerous references in newsbank.com such as Psychic Sylvia Browne speaks her clairvoyant mind and pqarchiver.com newspaper archive like Experts give tips on how to predict psychic scams. A search for "browne randi million" in newsbank.com brings 235 articles throughout the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtKing50 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those just mention her and Randi briefly, as part of a list of many people. Only a couple really go into detail. The discussion here is not about whether these topics should be mentioned in the article, but whether they are being given WP:UNDUE weight by having these large sections devoted to them. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although the Sago Mine prediction was just another guess based on the information available to her, it is a clear example of her operating technique of cold and hot reading, and very succinctly demonstrates that, like everything else she spoke about, she had no more insight into the fates of the miners than anyone else watching the news. It is also a clearly documented example of the standard back-peddling and retro-diction of "psychics". I think the tag should be removed. Reporting the facts and explaining the deception is not "unbalanced". BeadleB (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to select evidence so that we can demonstrate that " she had no more insight into the fates of the miners than anyone else watching the news. It is also a clearly documented example of the standard back-peddling and retro-diction of "psychics"." It has to be an incident that third parties have widely identified as something that is highly relevant in the subject of the article, Sylvia Browne. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, and you are correct. That is a nuance of this discussion that should be expanded upon. BeadleB (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since sufficient sources have been provided for the James Randi section's significance, if no one else has any other arguments to present, I'll going to remove the "Undue Weight" message from that section. I'll leave the one regarding hhe Sago Mine section alone for now... - Hatster301 (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag from the James Randi section has now been removed. As for the Sago Mine bit, I propose changing it to one of the "bullet points" directly under "False Predictions" (instead of having its own subsection), and rewording it similarly to the following:

"On January 2, 2006, there was an explosion at Sago mine in West Virginia, which trapped several miners underground. The next day, Brown was a guest on US radio program Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. At the start of the broadcast, it had been (erroneously) reported that 12 of 13 trapped had been found alive. When asked the lack of noise had made her think the men had died, Browne replied, "No, I knew they were going to be found." Later in the program, when it was discovered that the earlier news reports were incorrect, and that only one of the miners had survived, Browne claimed that in her previous statement that the men would be "found", she was only referring to their bodies being found, not that they would be found alive."

Feel free to comment. - Hatster301 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a good idea to me.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Browne predicted she would die at 88[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed link to person of a different name.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Browne's prediction of Randi's surgery?[edit]

From [16]. Any reference to this prediction, beyond Browne's own claim in a book written by herself?

Browne correctly warned James Randi of a problem in his left heart ventricle, which he had to undergo emergency surgery on February 2, 2006 ("Insight," Sylvia Browne, Dutton Books, pg. 33, 2006). Although Randi, it seems, is only interested in reporting the 10-15 percent of her inaccuracies.

--Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

80 - 90 % accuracy[edit]

From [17]. 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?

Her accuracy was tested and shown to be at 85-90 percent ("Insight," Sylvia Browne, Dutton Books, pg. 33, 2006)

--Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ability on her own life[edit]

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??)

Although she admits frequently to not having any psychic ability on her own life.

--Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sylvia Browne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False/Discredited[edit]

@Leoni98: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Pro-Browne IP-hopper[edit]

A Washington IP-hopper[18][19] 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)[reply]

Thanks for that, he/she came back yet again.[20] 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)[reply]

Education and other easily verifiable facts Sylvia Browne refers to in her books are left out.[edit]

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)[reply]

Links in "See also" section[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nunh-huh, 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)[reply]

true prediction?[edit]

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)[reply]

Per Google books, it's on page 210: gb search. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Browne didn't "predict" anything. Keldoo (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about trying to prove her correct?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Well said. 105.112.17.130 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sylvia_Browne&oldid=1220221692"