Talk:Sylvia Browne

911 Terrorism Attacks

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

James Randi researches recordings

James Randi has also researched these readings done by telephone. From several recordings that he has received, it appears that she is using the same generic script for each customer. As of February 2005, Randi's investigation is still ongoing as he is analyzing more recordings he has received from Browne's clients.

This was added to my rewording of an anon user's addition about Browne's fees. Can we have attribution for this? Randi's page on Browne (as linked in the article) only has information on the challenge.

Also, it's pretty POV--Browne's products and fee schedules are salient because the article otherwise doesn't identify a motivation for her practice--one might get the impression she gives readings to police departments and individuals out of altruism, which may sometimes be true but it's worth noting she sells her products and services as well. However, stating that fact isn't advocate and doesn't really require balancing with a "rebuttal." Maybe instead of being interspersed with the text there should be a section "Refutation of Browne's Claims of Psychic Abilities" or something which covers these various points and the challenge as well. -- Demi 20:37, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I reverted this edit, since there's no attribution or support for it. Please put it back if there's support for it. Demi 04:16, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

---

I removed the section on cold reading. This displays an obvious bias in the origional writer. I am sure it will be reverted back however. I also removed the link to James Randi. It would be better to have added a link to James Randi's section, but I am not sure how to do it.

The June 22, 2004 "cold reading/despite" edit

The June 22 edit is pretty POV. If there's an argument to made regarding reading individuals versus reading a group, it should probably be made in a contra sentence following the current sentence on the skeptics' view. Otherwise, this edit should probably be reverted in the name of NPOV. --Gary D 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The edit as made only makes sense if you think "cold reading" refers mostly to groups, and it doesn't. What makes a "cold reading" cold is the lack of information about the person being read. So I agree that it probably needs reversion, not for POV but for accuracy: one "cold reads" individuals either alone or in groups, and the edit, probably inadvertently, sets up a false dichotomy. - Nunh-huh 20:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

Hey 128.146.87.149, I have reverted your revert about "Despite thousands of individual readings, the skeptics still say this..." I reverted the revert/edit because it has two problems, which have not been addressed or commented on in the talk page. First, form: it uses an argumentative POV introductory clause that attacks the skeptics' position before that position can even be stated. Second, content: as Nunh-huh points out, this edit appears to be flawed logic, on the premise that cold reading cannot occur with individual readings but only with large groups. The skeptics argue that cold reading can be done with both groups and individuals, so the number of individual readings Ms. Browne has given would not be a point against their argument.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made here, but it would need to be spelled out other than in an argumentative introductory clause. I would propose that rather than leaving the edit as-is, you could provide in the article a more extensive statement of the argument on why the skeptics' position is wrong, perhaps with a few comments on the talk page as well. (I'm not trying to extinguish your viewpoint; note that I'm encouraging you to edit more material into the article, rather than less.) --Gary D 20:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My two cents on the June 29-30 edits

I am "splitting my decision" between the pro and con views regarding the recent edits.

• I support the removal of the sentence on Browne's husbands and her name, not because it's wrong, but because its context (or lack thereof) makes it look POV. (I made a similar argument on the Uri Geller page regarding Michael Jackson.) In the middle of a full detailed biography this sentence would be appropriate; however, hung out there by itself, it carries--and emphasizes by selection--only the information that she has had four husbands, making her look like a tramp or a flake, and that she uses a "stage name," something that performers and charlatans use. Hence, standing by itself this sentence smacks of a POV attack by innuendo.
• I support the cold reading paragraph; it is attributed to the skeptics, with a wikilink so it can be pretty easily identified who is making the allegations, and even 128.146.87.149, who is no friend of these allegations, has signed on to the consensus of leaving it in the article in roughly its current form. (See User talk:Gary D#Sylvia Browne.)
• I support leaving in the Randi external link; the Randi WP article is not sufficiently specific to Sylvia Browne to render superfluous the external link that specifically discusses him versus her. However, the "see also" Randi link is duplicative of the in-text wikilink, and so should be deleted per WP style.
• The other "see also" links are getting to be a little POV in their repetitious attachment to several articles in the New Age and new religious movements area whether they are directly relevant to the particular article topic or not, but they are just hanging out there and not really interfering with the text, so I can live with them for now.

So, to implement my views from the current version of the article (12:56, 30 Jun 2004 Nunh-huh), I would delete the sentence about the four husbands and the stage name, and delete the Randi wikilink in the "see also" section.

Views on Heaven

To say that Sylvia's idea of what Heaven is like is total nonsense is one thing, however she has clearly stated these things as fact in her book on the subject, and to repeat them here gives valuable information to the reader about the type of claim she makes, and how specific she is in her pronouncements (unlike other mediums who specialise in vagueness). Why delete them? User:DavidFarmbrough 23:38 BST 19/5/'05

--Well first of all that paragraph appeared in the wrong place within the article, but when I saw the part about needing permission to build a house near a river I thought it must surely be a joke. If that's what she has really written, then by all means feel free to restore it (just in a better part of the article). --Jleon 00:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The part about needing permission to build a house near a river or path was in a section she wrote (I have read the whole book) about where we live in Heaven. The context was that we won't need houses but we can have them if we want them and that they can be exactly as we desire and exactly where we want them. I think she then must have realised (as most town planners do!) that there is a conflict between one man's freedom and another's. So she said that the only place you couldn't automatically build houses was near a path or a stream, where you needed special permission. Like I said, the distinguishing feature of all of this is how specific it all is, which distinguishes her from other mediums. User:DavidFarmbrough 08:58 BST 20/5/'05

--Specific about the urban planning practices in "heaven", but not specific about the tsunami that killed 100k+?(my 2 cents) --Jleon 12:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, Jleon, and that is why I added what I did to that paragraph. Here is what I wrote (my text featured in bold):

Sylvia Browne claims to know what it is like in Heaven. In her book Life On The Other Side, she says the temperature is a constant 72 degrees Fahrenheit, that there are no insects (unless you want there to be), that pets go to Heaven, and that you can build your house wherever you want it to be unless it obscures the view of a river or some trees, in which case you need permission. It is notable to mention, however, that if she is a Christian as she claims she believes only the immortal soul goes to heaven. The soul is immaterial, wouldn't have sense organs and thus wouldn't experience the world as we do. Dr. Robert Todd Carroll once wrote of the soul, "As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception." Thus, by the laws of logic (which St. Aquinas said not even God can transgress) if souls exist they cannot percieve temperature, see insects or pets, build houses or anything of the like.

I didn't know if I should add that much in contrast to her views, but I consulted the NPOV tutorial and I think this all falls under "What not to avoid." It is all objective fact, offered in a neutral tone. I can't think of anyone objecting except her, and then not on Wikipedian grounds. Maprovonsha172 02:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV?

On the template it says the revelant discussion warranting an NPOV-Dispute template is on this talk page. There is no such discussion. So I'm going to take down the template. If anyone replaces it he/she ough to voice her concerns below: Maprovonsha172 17:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see that more psychics are being given the hardcore skeptical treatment. Its quite clear that being psychic is a criminal offense... particularly with the phrase "is an alleged psychic and medium". Also nice to see in the second paragraph down from the top an immediate reference to James Randi's investigative procedure denouncing Sylvia before the article gets under way. Sylvia has a talk back programme available online at Hay House Radio. Around Christmas time 2005 (I know; inspecific citation), a caller asked her about James Randi's million dollar challenge to prove herself, and she claims that when she said yes.. Randi has enormous trouble coming up with the million dollar funding, just in case she was proven to be correct. Regardless; get James Randi out of her biographical detail in the introduction to who Sylvia Browne is. Put the information lower down under the skeptical POV section of the article. I claim to be a Reiki practictioner.. Does that mean that I am an alleged believer in Universal Life Force energy? Ridiculously biased use of language. Redundant.Drakonicon 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From the extreme viewpoints presented in this debate, is it possible that Sylvia Browne is either a charismatic 'stage magician', or that she is telling the truth? Someone go and sit for one of her half hour readings (over $1000 US!), and report back once you've had a year to digest the implications of what she said to you.Drakonicon 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fraudster?

Is it correct to say that she is a Fraudster? The Skeptical Enquirer article (linked from the SB article), shows that she said investment monies were going to operating costs of the mine, whereas they went to her Nirvana Foundation for Psychic Research. However it also says that "Sylvia and her estranged husband Kenzil Dalzell Brown [can that really be his name???] pleaded no contest to a felony charge of "sale of security without permit"". Is "sale of security without permit" considered fraud? DavidFarmbrough 07:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

We say in the intro that she is a "convicted fraudster".. Regardless of any excuses/queries anyone proffers now, and whatever her motivation was, she was convicted of fraud. Brown without the "e" was the name she used in that particular incident. Moriori 08:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually you're right. She doesn't even need to be convicted of fraud to be described as a "convicted fraudster", as long as she's both a fraudster and convicted. But was she convicted of fraud? Is "sale of security without permit" a fraud? DavidFarmbrough 12:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• It seems ridiculous to state she was a "convicted fraudster" in the very first sentence when it was one incident and is not even related to her career or what she is notable for (being a psychic and a writer). She did not rob a bank or commit a Michael Milken or Ivan Boesky type fraud. If she were a stockbroker, or worked in the securities industry, that would be one thing. The scale of the incident was relatively minor, and should be presented accordingly. It should still be mentioned in the article, it's just not relevant enough to who she is to be the very first thing that is said about her. She's written a ton of books (the latest comes out today), is on TV every week, her work has nothing to do with the securities industry, this convicted fraud thing deals with less than 1% of her life. Does it really merit being the very first thing said about her in the article, no matter how much the skeptics hate her? If it had been Randi, the god and idol of the skeptics, who had been convicted of the same thing, would that be the very first thing they would mention in his article? No, they would be just as rabid about keeping it out of his article as they are about putting it in Sylvia's. The entire article reeks of bad faith and character assassination and revenge and it should be put back on NPOV dispute until it is properly re-written. Syug 17:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If it is ridiculous to say in the very first sentence that she is a "convicted fraudster", is it not equally ridiculous to say in the second sentence that she "began performing psychic readings" in 1973? There is no evidence to show she is doing anything psychically, and we should not infer otherwise. Any refererences we make to her performances should clearly state that she claimed or claims to be performing psychic readings. Moriori 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to be gone through again to make sure it is totally impartial. It should just state the facts so that people can make up their own minds. The article is so long I am not sure I have time to do it! DavidFarmbrough 07:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

David, you did not address the point I made, and I am not sure what would need to be done to satisfy you that it is totally impartial. Furthermore, how can an eight paragraph article about a well known person be so long? What would you delete from it to make it not so long? Moriori 09:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Moriori, I don't think it is ridiculous to say that she performs psychic readings, because that is what she does. It is her job, her career. You may disagree with calling it that, but that is what they are called, psychic mediums. She's not making the name up, there are many other psychics. You may disagree with the validity of what they do, but that is what they are called. What is truly ridiculous is having to preface each and every mention of psychic with "she claims". It is implied that that is what she claims, and most normal adults infer that, there's no need for a disclaimer each and every time. Do you see her much over there in New Zealand? I see her every week on the Montel Williams show, in fact she'll be on in less than two hours from now. On it, like on Larry King, and everywhere she talks to the public, she is introduced as a psychic, or a psychic medium. You never hear them say, "Here comes Sylvia who claims to be a psychic." Regarding the "convicted fraudster" thing, think about it. What would be your reaction if you picked up Encyclopaedia Britannica to look up someone and the first thing you read was "so and so is a convicted fraudster"? My first reaction would be to throw the whole set out and write it off as a bad investment. It sounds cheap, and childish. Wikipedia wants the articles to comform to standard encyclopedia NPOV, and that is what should be done with this article. It is a biographical entry in an encyclopedia, and it should be written as such. It could be divided roughly into two parts. The first part would be the standard biographical data, such birth date and place, career, family, marriages, children, works written, tv appearances, etc. The second part should then present the controversies surrounding her and her career. But, I caution, the controversial part still needs to be written in NPOV. For instance, the first time I ever read this article, my first reaction was, "Uh oh, it has been hijacked by the Randi kooks." It would do your cause a lot more good if you presented the arguments in a professional manner, without all the vitriol. People would be a lot more likely to take them seriously instead of dismissing them as the work of deranged lunatics, which is frankly what it sounds like in its present form. What do you say, shall we tackle it? I have her autobiography and can contribute some biographical data, as well as info from some of her other books. Syug 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Performing psychic readings" is not "what she does", it is what she claims she does. What she does in fact, is the same old cold-reading hogwash that flim-flam artists like herself have been doing forever. She is a liar, a thief, and a criminal. The fact that you toss off a phrase like "Randi kooks" tells me all I need to know about you, sunshine.

Vitriol?

"Vitriol?" I quote from the last:

...truly ridiculous ...

... hijacked by the Randi kooks.

... deranged lunatics ...

And my favorite:

...I don't think it is ridiculous to say that she performs psychic readings, because that is what she does.

OK, find a successful psychic reading that she did. Prove that she has more "hits" than "misses." Did she predict the recent hurricanes? Did she predict last December 26's earthquake in South Asia? Like most "psychics," she's wonderful at telling me how creative and spiritual I am while she rips me off. But the record of so-called "psychics" is pretty darn sad.

The page on John Gotti opens with:

John Gotti (October 27, 1940 – June 10, 2002) (also known as The Dapper Don and The Teflon Don) was the boss of the Gambino crime family, one of the most feared of New York's mafia families.

No illusions in the opening words. Should we first point out his acts of philanthropy, and that he was a horrible criminal relegated to footnotes? And why should we call Sylvia Browne anything but the fraud that she is?

dino 19:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• You're having a very hard time grasping the NPOV concept, aren't you? The article is not about your opinion, or anyone else's, of psychics and mediums. The article is a biographical article about a person who works as a psychic. Period. It should not be turned into an indictment of the profession just because some people don't believe in it. She works as a psychic, that is a fact. Some people don't believe in doctors either. I, like many others, have been to doctors on numerous occasions where the doctor has failed to cure me, or even diagnose me properly. I spent thousands of dollars on the doctor's fees, getting tests done, buying the medicines he prescribed, etc. In the end I wasn't cured. Should all medical articles be edited and have the word "fraud" or "fraudster" put in the very first line of each? Syug 20:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed" is inaccurate

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

• Sylvia Browne has proclaimed a great many things. Lets be quite frank here, she could proclaim herself the second-coming of christ and her publishers would "proclaim" this fact on her behalf, and her "television presenters" would proclaim it, and her "clients" proclaim it. But none of these people would claim it without her initial proclamation. The term "self-proclaimed" is correct. No-one has proclaimed Browne to be psychic without Browne first proclaiming it, and no-one who has continued to make this claim has done so with any investigation into the veracity of her claim.

Here we go again

Here we go again. I'm used to New Agers and Christians working like this. Wear them down, until the spiritual view gets its way. Completely ignore the points I brought up; talk about how she works as a so-called "psychic." She has done "thousands of psychic readings, written numerous books on the subject, and appears on television regularly as a psychic." Not a word as to the validity of her "readings."

So what? Larry King? That New Ager? TV is not dedicated to truth; it's dedicated to ratings. Belief sells. Truth & skepticism don't. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the truth, not what we wish true.

If I proclaim myself as Elvis Presley for long enough, and thousands of others proclaim me as Elvis Presley, does that make me Elvis Presley? I see no conflict the logic I have seen written above.

dino 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You not being Elvis is easily demonstrable. Browne not being a psychic, is not. I definitely think she's a miserable hoaxter who preys on the gullible, but she works as a psychic, is addressed as such by most people, regardless of their personal opinion on her/her work, and her notability (or notoriusness) derives from it. As such, she should be referred to as a psychic in her WP entry.--RicardoC 03:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Browne not being a psychic?

It's easy to verify that Browne is a fraud. James Randi has offered her the chance for long, long time, but for some funny reason, she keeps turning him down. Why is what she calls herself relevant? Just because she gulls thousands of people into believing her lies doesn't make her a psychic. Isn't Uri Geller now a universally known fraud, and am embarrassment even to the New Age crowd?

The page on Geller opens with:

Uri Geller (born December 20, 1946 in Tel Aviv, Israel) is a famous but controversial alleged psychic and television personality.

Originally a magician in Israeli nightclubs, he then became well known for a number of years for performances featuring claimed paranormal abilities such as telekinesis, dowsing and telepathy; metal objects were bent and watches were apparently stopped or made to run faster without any apparent physical force being applied to them. Although many people believe he is a psychic, he also has numerous critics, especially in the scientific community, who claim he is both charlatan and con-man.

Note the words "controversial" and "alleged." The words "claimed paranormal abilities." Then the word "charlatan."

Sorry. I'm trained in that "scientific community" that at its kindest tends to view psychic phenomena as unproven.

And I add—calling her a "psychic" gives credence for the existence of so-called "psychic phenomena"—for which there is not a shred of solid evidence. Reminds me of the "intelligent design" hoax.

dino 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the need for any disagreement if the article states that she says she is a psychic or that she works as a psychic. Those who believe it should accept this wording just as those who don't. DavidFarmbrough 08:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And more

Maybe "She claims she is a psychic, though skeptics point out the absolute lack of evidence." Or "... works as a purported psychic."

Much else gives credence to the existence of psychic phenomena.

Look, I'm getting tired of this. Through all history, New Age spiritualists (and New Age isn't "new" in any sense; it is mostly a mish-mash of old superstitions) have condemned us skeptics as not being "creative," not being "spiritual," "Oh, you just don't understand! There really is a spirit world!", or "We can't exhibit our powers around you skeptical dinosaurs," or the worst of all,

"You're not open minded!"

If I had a dime for every time I've encountered that one. OK. I'm not spiritual and creative. Funny, I'm left of center, unlike astrology-believing Nancy Reagan. Or channeling-believing Hillary Clinton.

But there is nil evidence of psychic phenomena. None, zippo, zilch, and if by some chance, there is truth to it, Ms. Browne is someone to be ashamed of, not celebrated, as she is a total hoax. She belongs in the same dustbin Uri Geller.

We can agree she claims to be a psychic. Saying she is a psychic is a different bunch of coconuts.

dino 20:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize with your position, but you're being overly defensive and not particularly objective in your generalization of anyone who belives in the supernatural. As for the article, I can live with "claims to be a psychic", "is an alleged psychic", "self-professed psychic with a cult following", etc. I certainly don't believe she is one, but Randi-style jabs shouldn't be on her WP article.--RicardoC 17:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough

OK, I was being a bit defensive. Sorry. But us skeptics & freethinkers spend our lives being demonized, certainly in George Bush America. The Christians damn us to hell. The New Agers ... don't get me started.

I do not want to tell any lies about Sylvia Browne. Only the truth—there is not a shred of evidence for her purported "psychic powers." And the Randi shallenge she accepted—and keeps dodging—certainly deserves mention.

dino 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If it were up to me, her entry would consist solely of Randi's retelling of her continuous dodges of the challenge. But sometimes we have to bite our tongues and be impartial, even if what we really want is to grab people by the collar and yell "SNAP OUT OF IT, YOU MORON!! THIS IS THE WOMAN WHO NOT ONLY CLAIMS SHE HAS BEEN TO HEAVEN, SHE CLAIMS THERE'S ZONING CODES THERE AND EVERYTHING!!!" :p --RicardoC 03:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

When all else fails ...

When all else fails, turn to the law, err, official Wikipedia policies. Reading NPOV#Pseudoscience makes it clear --

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view;

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant.

I won't argue -- pseudoscience may be, err, words I won't here use, but it should not be represented as a majority view, or in any way construed as the truth. As someone who has been a skeptic practically all his life, I find pseudoscience weirdly fascinating -- why do otherwise extremely intelligent people fall it? Living in Boulder, Colorado, surrounded by New Agers pontificating loudly about spiritualism, ... I just don't understand.

dino 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wait...

Browne has made many predictions of varying accuracy concerning the future Aren't almost all of them false? However, she claims to have been born, like other psychics, able to percive a wider range of vibrational frequencies What does that even meen?

More Frequencies

When she says that she can perceive more frequencies, she is making an analogy to people's ability to perceive different light or sound frequencies. But then again, I think it really all means that if she was born a few centuries ago, she would have been burnt as a witch.i bet she could to becaues i angelique beilives in her like i beilive in my self for being a singer and a dancer and im tryin to get where i am seen on tv and she's already at that point

Any chance of that happening now ;-)--RicardoC 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Where did she get her master's degree?

The article says Browne "has a masters degree in English Literature". Her website doesn't mention one. Anyone know where she obtained it? Moriori 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed that claim because I can't find a verifiable source. If anyone wants to replace the info they would need to give a reputable cite. Moriori 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Soul, Funk, Whatever ;-)

"It is notable to mention, however, that if she is a Christian as she claims she believes only the immortal soul goes to heaven. The soul is immaterial, wouldn't have sense organs and thus wouldn't experience the world as we do. Dr. Robert Todd Carroll once wrote of the soul, "As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception." Thus, by the laws of logic (which St. Thomas Aquinas said not even God can transgress) if souls exist they cannot perceive temperature, see insects or pets, build houses or anything of the like."

Countering Browne's speculation with more speculation, and worse yet, presenting said speculation as final, doesn't do anyone any favors. When speaking of the concept of the soul, we're knee-deep in speculative terrain, and appeals to authority don't make the discussion any less speculative. I'm removing the section I just quoted. This is supposed to be a factual article on Sylvia Browne, not a dissertation on what the sould can or cannot do if it exists. Additionally, the segment I quoted attempts to debunk the concept of an inmaterial soul, an argument which makes assumptions about Browne's belief, which adds a strawman on top of the appeals to authority. She calls herself a Christian, but obviously engages in practices Christianity disapproves of. As such, the Christian concept of the soul, and speculation pertaining to it, are out of place in the article.

Guys, I despise Browne. She's a ghoul, preying on the innocent and gullible. But I don't believe that justifies POV'ing the article like this.--RicardoC 19:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove category fraudster

Remove criminal category fraudster. I don't see any evidence of conviction of criminal fraud in article.(I just noticed that I didn't sign this comment on 12/27/05)--FloNight 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm replacing the category fraudster. She has been convicted of felony charges, of investment fraud and grand theft. This information must have been removed from the site before, because I remember it was once on it. Here's a link, which I will place on the article as well: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_28/ai_n6361823#continue When asked why she, the great psychic, couldn't forsee her conviction, she lamented, "I'm not psychic about myself." Maprov 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know she has been convicted, but the article doesn't actually make any mention of it. Whether it should or not is debatable. Her conviction does have some loose ties to her psychic claims, but it's not really what she is notable for. -- Qarnos 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this is not a criminal fraud conviction. Unless we have WP:RS & WP:V quality citations, we need to keep out of Fraudster category. Otherwise, we are vulnerable to claims of libel and defamation. --FloNight 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Quarnos-

I don't know why it would be debatable as to whether we should mention that a woman making a great deal of money off of unsuspecting people has a history of investment fraud and grand theft. That is, who doesn't think this information is pertinent? She is a con-woman, who wants to take people's money. Do you think we should neglect to inform the public about her past crimes?

Also, as to the fact that the article makes no mention of it, I placed information at the top of the article the other day, which must have been removed.

FloNight-

You agree with who that this is not a criminal fraud conviction? Quarnos and I said she was convicted. Didn't you check out the link? It's verified, from a reliable source. She's a convicted fraudster, and we have every reason to believe she's getting away with fraud every day (albeit a different kind than the sort of which she was convicted).

I'm replacing the information I placed at the top of the article and the link. Maprov 11:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sago Mine predictions on Coast to Coast

I removed the following recently added text:

Recently she was disproven Live on Coast to Coast as she predicted 12 trapped miners in West Virginia were alive- 1st reports were that this was true- and she said, "I always knew they were alive". Moments later when it turned out all, but one were dead, she said,I always knew they were dead. The crowd seemed shocked at her on-air reversal.

Can anyone confirm the accuracy of these quotes? Michael Slone (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm Sylvia Browne was on Coast to Coast AM on Tuesday, but I don't know what she said. I am trying to download audio of the show but they are having server problems. In any case, if she did make such a statement it will no doubt appear on Randi's commentary tomorrow, but I highly doubt even Sylvia could be this stupid. -- Qarnos 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't been able to get a hold of the audio or a transcript, but Randi's latest commentary makes no mention of it, which leads me to believe it was a load of bullshit. Qarnos 11:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

When I accessed that same commentary, I found the following paragraph near the bottom:

Just last Tuesday night, Browne appeared on the infamous "Coast to Coast" radio show; she’s one of host George Noory’s favorite guests, and brings him record ratings, regardless of how badly she fumbles. When Noory announced on the show the news flash that twelve of the thirteen West Virginia miners had been found still alive deep below the surface where an explosion had trapped them, Browne confidently stated that she’d always known that they would be found alive. She said this immediately after Noory read the erroneous media announcement; as we now know, it was the other way around, and sadly, only one of the thirteen had survived. Later, when the somewhat shaken Noory announced that CNN, Fox News and other media outlets had now reported that the previous news flash had been an error, Browne tried her usual ploy of re-stating herself, saying, "Yes, I just don't see anyone alive there – well maybe one." For anyone not familiar with the methods of these charlatans, this would appear to be a calamitous failure, a blow-out, a total screw-up – but not to anyone familiar with the callous likes of Sylvia Browne.

Also, on the front page of his site, Randi links to this news article which appears to confirm the basic situation, although (disconcertingly) the quotes used by the anonymous editor, Randi, and the Fox News article are not exactly the same. Michael Slone (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned! Admittidly I was tired when I read the commentary last night. I must have skimmed over that part. That's my excuse, anyway! Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to do some reading! Qarnos 20:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have finally been able to confirm that this did indeed take place. I have downloaded the audio of the entire show from the Coast to Coast AM website (I had to subscribe! BAH! But $US7 well spent.) It really was quite a major SNAFU for Sylvia, but I'm sure the true-believers will completely ignore it.

Nontheless, I have written an entire section about it. I think it deserves a section, filed under criticism. I tried to keep it NPOV - which was the hardest thing I have ever had to do given the nature of the stuff up. There's a couple of areas it could probably be improved, though.

I will also e-mail Coast-to-Coast and see if I can put the relevent sections of audio on WP, since they only keep them on their site for 90 days.

Qarnos 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where Browne stated that she "knew" the miners would be found alive. I do see where she said they would be found, but she did not clarify if there were alive or dead. Ws she quoted saying they were going to be found alive? ThisIsMyName 09:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the nature of English semantics. To say that she knew the miners would be found is not something that should be taken out of context. Context is an important and relevant part in interpreting what people say. The miners were proclaimed to be alive, and she said "I know," and repeated this indication that she had known this information already. MaxMangel 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't need to be a semasiologist to know that the transscript does not specifically say she knew the miners were going to be found alive. Saying the miners "were found successfully" and Browne saying "I know" does not clarify if they were alive or dead. ThisIsMyName 08:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. The word "alive" should perhaps be removed from the article in this sentance; "In that exchange, Browne clearly states that she "knew" the miners would be found alive, a statement presented as an example of her psychic abilities." She only said in the transcript provided that she knew they would be found. Taking something out of context is an extremely foolish thing to do, and will only hurt the atricle in the end.--HARRYericPOTTER 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by David Farmbrough

I posted this message on David's talk page. I have reproduced it here for completeness:

Hello David,

I noticed you made a couple of changed to the Sylvia Browne article, and most of them were quite good. You managed to rephrase a couple of my edits in a way I think greatly improves the NPOV of the article, which is something I am really striving for, which, to be honest, is hard since I am a very skeptical person. However, I'd just like to clear something up. With regards to the section on her criminal conviction for fraud, you added the following (in bold):

Critics argue that this incident highlights Brownes unscrupulous nature and begs the question, why did Browne fail to forsee her own conviction? In response to this, Browne explains that her psychic abilities do not work on herself. This is also consistent with her stated view that "The only power that I answer to is God and the Christ Consciousness".

I have read this over and over but I still fail to see the correlation between the existing text and the quote you added. Where is this consistency of statements coming from? Have I missed something obvious?

This isn't a personal attack on your contribution (which is much appreciated - like I said, we need NPOV), but a serious question.

-- Qarnos 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I do aim for NPOV. I think I put the quote in the wrong place, and it ought to have been next to the section about her conviction. To me it suggests she considers herself (rightly or wrongly) to be above the law. I think this maintains the NPOV because if you think she's right, then she is correct and it is only by simple-minded earth-bound thinking that she defrauded people, and if you are inclined to scepticism, then you will either think it's an excuse, or that it explains her apparent disregard (in this instance) for the law. Now someone else has just removed it, I am not concerned about whether it goes back in in the correct place - it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. DavidFarmbrough 11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

also consistent?

I had to make two revisions to the following paragraph:

Critics argue that this incident highlights Brownes unscrupulous nature and begs the question, why did Browne fail to forsee her own conviction? In response to this, Browne explains that her psychic abilities do not work on herself. This is also consistent with her stated view that "The only power that I answer to is God and the Christ Consciousness".

The phrases "begs the question" here is an incorrect usage of the phrase (see circular reasoning) and I've replaced it with "raises the question," which is almost surely what was meant. I removed the last sentence, as it was nonsensical, in two ways. Firstly, the word "also" appears incorrectly used. If it is "also consistent..." what is the first thing it is consistent to, that it should need to be said it is ALSO (or, in addition to) consistent to. Secondly, I don't see what her stated view quoted there has to do with her being unable to forsee her own conviction, though she seems rather sure that she knows all about other people. Even if she has an extra-sensory ability (and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you, but anyway-), and it was bestowed upon her by God and whatever "Christ Consiousness" (some Joseph Campbell, Deepak Chopra nonsense) is, it doesn't follow that God would be unable to help her forsee her future while at the same time able and willing to help her forsee other people's future. It is a pointless sentence. Maprov 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Raises the question" is a good improvement. I wrote the original as wasn't very happy with it but couldn't think of a better phrasing. It's much better, now. Thanks.

I have also requested clarification from David on the sentence you mention. I also fail to understand the point of that edit. But let's give him a chance to have his say. It will certainly requie at least some re-phrasing, since I don't really understand what is meant by "Christ Consiousness", and how it relates to the argument, either.

Qarnos 11:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"God and Christ Consciousness" is a phrase Browne is using in this context to mean God, but she doesn't just say 'God', because she wants to emphasise her belief system. DavidFarmbrough 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Joseph Campbell used the term Christ Consciousness as well, but he explained his beliefs in detail. He believed that what we call God is a transcendent force beyond human imagination. I don't like Campbell's view, and I can argue against it, but at least he his views are logically consistent. Sylvia Brown's aren't. That's partly why I called this section "also consistent?". My problem with the sentence seems fairly POV in her favor. As I said above, the word "also" doesn't apply. For something to be "also X," there must be a first "X." What from the previous sentence is consistent with her view that that the only power she has to "answer to is God and the Christ Consciousness?" Also, where it is placed, it seems to go against what the critics say, like a retort. But it clearly isn't. Even if Syliva Brown does have psychic powers (which I find nonsensical), and there is a god which gives her these powers, it doesn't necessarily follow that she could tell other people's fortune and not her own. Why would it? As I said above, it is a pointless sentence. Maprov 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Sago Mine controversy

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

The trouble, Quarnos, despite your efforts for NPOV, is no matter how objective your reporting, the facts are often POV. Sometimes the facts tell us that someone is a liar, and in that case it doesn't violate the NPOV to say so. On the NPOV guideline page it says not to avoid objective facts. Sylvia Browne is a convicted con-woman. She has lied to take large amounts of money in the past. The best we can do is say that, and hope that people won't fall into her trap again. Maprov 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it out. That's a perfectly good section, Quarnos, and I don't see anything that violates the NPOV. All the 'POV' is checked because it's all quoting, and saying what other people said (whether you agree with them or not) doesn't violate the NPOV.

Perhaps a scaled-down version of this section deserves to be placed on the Sago mine disaste page itself. I'll link it here for now. Maprov 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

the begining

Here is the begining as it now reads:

"Sylvia Browne (born Sylvia Celeste Shoemaker on October 19, 1936 in Kansas City, Missouri) is a self-proclaimed psychic medium, and author of numerous books on spirituality. However, since she declines to be tested under controlled conditions and her readings are indistinguishable from those achieved by mentalists (entertainers who create the illusion of being psychic by using techniques such as cold reading, warm reading and hot reading), skeptics believe her to be a fraud and con-artist, callously making money off of the pain and suffering of those grieving over the loss of their loved ones."

This version removes what I had placed, that she is convicted con-artist. I don't know why. She is conning people out of money every day. No matter when you read this, she is probably conning someone out of money while you do it. Also, as Michael Shermer said, lying to people about their dead relatives dishonors them. Regardless, nothing is more relevant to someone accused of fraud than that she has been convicted of fraud in the past. I'm replacing that statement, in addition to this edit. Maprov 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-template

I'm removing the NPOV-template over the Sago Mine Controversy section. There is now POV in it. It's all objective facts. It's mostly all quoting, and it's not POV to quote someone, especially not the subject of the article. Maprov

In fact, I think it's too safe:

In this segment of conversation, skeptics argue, Browne clearly states that she "knew" the miners would be found alive. Whilest it is noted that Browne made no specific statement that this was a psychic premonition, the skeptical view is that this statement was presented as an example of her psychic abilities.

She clearly did state that she knew the miners would be found alive. That's not what skeptics are arguing, that's simply what the transcript shows. And it's not the skeptical view that she presented that statement as an example of her "psychic abilities." She clearly did. How else would she know something beforehand? Considering the fact that she is on TV all the time claiming to see the future and talk to the dead, I think it's obvious that when she says she knows something before it happened, she intends for this to be interpreted as psychic ability. I'm changing it to the following:

In this segment of conversation, Browne clearly states that she "knew" the miners would be found alive. Whilest it is noted that Browne made no specific statement that this was a psychic premonition, this statement was presented as an example of her psychic abilities.

I think that's plainly obvious, and NPOV (as it merely recounts what happened, without adding "See, she just a liar" or something like that.) Maprov

Sylvia Browne has been doing readings for several decades and records, on paper and audio, every reading she does. She has also done this with all of her Ghost research as well. To flattly call her a fraud is ignoring the amount of work she puts into her beliefs. I will agree that there is no scientific proof of Psychic ability. At least none the Skeptical community would agree on. But that is not the point here. This is an encyclopedia. It should reflect the topic from many sides. Feel free to have a section that shows the skeptical side. But PLEASE do not begin an article with negative bias. You have exactly the same amount of proof that she is a fraud as she does as a psychic. She does not sit in a room chanting out things - she researches everything she writes about. Therefore she should be considered a philosopher...not a fraud. This does not mean you have to believe her, it just means that you present her life and her work FAIRLY.

She has been convicted of fraud. 'nuff said. JoshuaZ 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You do science and skeptics a disservice to bring up an irrelevant case of fraud. If one wants to deomonstrate the truth of their viewpoint, good sounding but misleading semantics don't impress anyone but the speaker. Impulse 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Transcripts

The Larry King transcripts are interesting, and could be incorporated into the article. In this one (August 2000), she is saying she wouldn't prevent deaths in airline crashes because she'd have to sit all the time and be calling on 'phones. Isn't that what she does when she does a telephone reading?

"KING: But this kind of thing, you could have stopped people -- you could have stopped passengers from getting on a plane that's going to be in trouble, right?

BROWNE: That's true, but you see, then you'd have to sit all the time and be calling on phones and everything, you know. "

In the following, she gives a textbook example of cold reading, however the call is terminated when she mentions the specific of 3:30 in the morning:

"CALLER: I would like to know, my husband died a few years ago, is he around and trying to contact me?

BROWNE: Yes. Something about -- he keeps talking something about a picture that you have up that -- where he is three quarter face, smile on his -- a smirky smile on his face. What was wrong with his chest and head area?

CALLER: Well, he had lung cancer.

BROWNE: Yes, well, that's in the chest, honey.

CALLER: Yes.

BROWNE: But it looked like it spread everywhere.

CALLER: Right.

BROWNE: Yes, because he said toward the end he couldn't breathe.

CALLER: That is true.

BROWNE: Yes. But he comes around you especially -- I don't know why they do this -- but about 3:30 in the morning.

CALLER: I see. "

DavidFarmbrough 09:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This stuff really makes me vomit. "What was wrong with his chest and head area"? Well, gee. I wonder what percentage of deaths are cause by chest or head problems. And to follow it up with the condescending "Yes, well, that's in the chest, honey". Argh!

I'm sorry - I know that had nothing to do with your question, but I really had to vent. Perhaps this would be a good example to use in the Cold Reading article? It is a classic example. With the next caller she describes the target as having a round face with a smile - which is classified as a hit by the caller. I find it really hard to keep this article NPOV when I see this stuff. Seriously.

I would love to incorporate this stuff into the article, but the problem is the above mentioned NPOV. Perhaps we could have a section titled "A skeptical analysis of Browne's readings"? As long as we highlight that this is from the skeptical POV, we might be right. You could argue that we should somehow balance it out with an opposing view, but I can't see anything in the transcripts that go even close to lending support to her claims.

David, you might be interested in checking out WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I realise you might not consider yourself a "skeptic" but, in this article at least, you have attempted to provide a NPOV, to the extent that I can't even work out what your view on Browne is, and that is commendable. We are currently discussing guidelines for our work, and trying to work out how to work NPOV into all this, so perhaps you might have something to add to that discussion. You also play/played cricket, which counts as a plus in my book.

Qarnos 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to some of this on my talk page, but I don't think we can even use a 'rational skeptik' article as a separate entity without breaking the wikipedia rules. My preference would be to use extracts from the transcripts to the extent pemritted by copyright and let people make up their own minds. DavidFarmbrough 12:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject template

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

Society of Novus Spiritus

I intend at some point to move the mention of Novus Spiritus from the business section to a small subsection in perhaps the "history" section, as I believe this is worthy of its own section. Novus Spiritus is Sylvia's way of organizing her claims and beliefs that were revealed through trance sessions where her primary spirit guide, Francine, embodied her and spoke through her. She has written a series of books that organize these claims or revelations (depending on whether you believe them or not) called "Journey of the Soul Series." Following that, I think its worth starting a separate article on this series and the church, Novus Spiritus. Colby Peterson 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could the Novus Spiritus church exist without her, or is it just a vehicle for her? If it stands on its own feet, then it should have a separate article. Does this organisation have a very small number of employees, including Browne and her favoured son, and slightly alter the tax status of 'donations' or fees given to the Church rather than to Browne herself? DavidFarmbrough 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... I will say as someone who subscribes to the teachings (but not necessarily the hype behind it), I believe that the church is highly decentralized, which is kind of its nature. I think the "church", philosophy, or religion, whatever you want to call it- is based on the books and less on the structure. So I would consider it part of a movement of theologians, philosophers, and some scientists (mostly hypnotherapists who perform or "discovered" past-lives from past-life regressions). I need to do more research on the current status of the organization. However, I think that the organization will still exist after Sylvia and Christopher Dufresne are gone, as there is indeed an internal ordination process for ministers in the church, ensuring continuity. In short, I believe (and this is my POV) the church seems as genuine as any other church with a central figure. I would also add that the philosophy behind the church is compelling enough, although I personally am turned off by the economic classism the church exudes as a result of its high fees for its "services." So I'm torn in a way. Colby 05:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like it does warrant its own article, but as it's US based I am not sure where to begin. Here in the UK I would start with the Charities Commission Website and Companies House - I suspect there are US Equivalents of these but they are likely to be State based rather than Federal, so if any well-informed person knows where to start on this, this would be appreciated. The obvious source of information is from Browne's own web site, but using that as a basis for an article is not really adequate. DavidFarmbrough 14:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cost of a reading

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

Cites

Thanks for digging those cites up Max. I'm just trying to keep things watertight and Verifiable. Cheers, Ashmoo 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And more generally I think this article suffers from a lack of verifiability. I think we need to resist the urge to 'educate' the reader to the fact that Browne is just using standard parlour tricks. Let's just present the facts and criticisms from notable sources and let the reader form their own conclusions.

As such I'm going to chop out little bits that seem like wikieditor commentary and insist on cites for other stuff. Apologies in advance if I chop own anyone's favourite bit or seem overly pedantic. But in the end I think it will make for a better article. Ashmoo 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is needed. It's important not just for this article, but for wp as a whole that the NPOV stance is maintained. DavidFarmbrough 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Critics Vs Skeptics

I know all critics aren't skeptics. The point is that people who are skeptics are consequently familiar with terms like cold reading and hot reading, whereas just general critics can be anyone, so to say that 'Critics say' is a far more sweeping statement that becomes harder to back up. I think you've weakened the sentenced. MaxMangel 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your words "just general critics" accurately describe some of the people who think Browne's performances are trickery. You can't lump them all under the tag of skeptics, unless.......... What about paranortmalists who question Govt investigations into claimed paranormal events. Are they any less skeptics than people who question the validity of the report actually being investigated. Of course not, but it seems to me that in Wikipedia the word skeptic is being used to imply someone's opinion is invalid or uninformed, and it is being applied almost exclusively to anyone who questions paranomal claims. That has to be rectified.Moriori 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course some of the people who think Browne's performances are trickery are just general critics. Why would you think I believed otherwise? As for paranormalists, well, you appear to be argueing the semantics of the word 'skeptic.' If you don't understand what the word means, then look it up. I don't know where you've found that the term skeptic is suggestive of an invalid opinion - it certainly doesn't suggest that to me. However, the group of people who tend to investigate paranormal claims with a 'skeptical' eye, class themselves as 'skeptics,' even though that is not the sole and complete use of the word. In this way, the word skeptic can be used, instead of critic, as a more specific describer of a group of people. I believe that this makes the word more appropriate than critic if you are going to use terms that get thrown around in skeptic circles a lot, such as cold reading and hot reading. What, specifically, is your problem to this? You kind of brushed on a number of issues above. MaxMangel 05:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have is why anyone might insist on using a word when a better one is available. I don't debate the meaning of the word skeptic, but say it is inadequate in this context. All people who criticise Browne are not skeptics, but all people who criticise her are critics. That's why I replaced skeptics with critics, in this section headed "Criticism". You say skeptic is "a more specific describer of a group of people" (investigative group). Correct. This article is not uniquely about opinions of a group of skeptics, but opinions of her critics. A group of skeptics is only part of the critics, and that's why the word critics is the better word to use. Moriori 07:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You define critic as being a better word because it describes all people who critisise Browne - and I am claiming it is a bad word for the same reason(that it describes all people that are critical of Browne). Indeed it is true that the article should not be uniquely about skeptics(and I never claimed it should be). However, is it fair to make a grand statement about ALL Browne's critics, and what they believe? Specifically, in this case, that ALL people critical of Browne are familiar with the terms cold reading and hot reading, and are similarly critical of other modern psychics like John Edwards. Are we not describing a subsection of these critics by assigning these characteristics(in this case, the people who care enough about this stuff to learn more - ie skeptics)? It feels like I wrote a sentence saying "Some Christians believe that people who don't go to church will burn in hell" and you've come along and thought it unfair that it doesn't describe all Christians, and so replaced "some" with "all" in an effort to improve the sentence, hence making it an untrue statement. At least that seemed to be the totatilty of your argument - that 'critic' is magically a better word because it describes more people. MaxMangel 09:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not because it describes more people, but because it encompassess ALL critics. Skeptics doesn't. Nutshell. Moriori 09:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read my paragraph? I get that critic encompassess all critics. That is my whole freaking point! It is a bad word because it encompasses all critics. I don't know how to explain things in more basic English. MaxMangel 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the fundamental point here, so I guess I need to go over it yet again, in basic English. Browne gets criticised. All people who criticise Browne are critics. Not all people who criticise Browne are skeptics. In a section headed Criticism we should not use skeptics to mean all critics. Because it doesn't. You are basically arguing that the section headed Criticism should infer that criticism comes only from skeptics. That is simply not true.Moriori 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I will go over your sentences one by one, in dot points, so you can (hopefully) easily understand me.

1. Browne gets criticised. True and never claimed otherwise
2. All people who criticise Browne are critics. Also True and never claimed otherwise
3. Not all people who criticise Browne are skeptics. Also True and never claimed otherwise
4. In a section headed Criticism we should not use skeptics to mean all critics. Also True and never claimed otherwise. But here I think you get sidetracked. Explain to me, hell, quote me, where I try to make skeptics mean all critics. I am trying to do the opposite. I am trying to NOT refer to all critics. I've explained this repeatedly. I DON'T WANT TO REFER TO ALL CRITICS. Do you understand my English? Do I need to repeat the sentence again. By listing this 4th point you show how, despite my carefully repeated explanations, you continue to somehow think I'm trying to make skeptics refer to all critics. How many times do I need to go over this? I'M TRYING TO REFER TO A SUB-SET OF CRITICS. Geez...how else can I say the same thing again?
5. "You are basically arguing that the section headed Criticism should infer that criticism comes only from skeptics." False. Completely and utterly false. I challenge you to back up your statement. Quote exactly where I say, SPECIFICALLY, that criticism only comes from skeptics. If you can't, acknowledge that you couldn't back up your claim and you made a false statement. Just because I'm trying to put in a sentence about what skeptics claim does not mean that somehow the other critics don't have an opinion too. If that's what you think then that's entirely your own doing.
6. "You continue to ignore the fundamental point here, so I guess I need to go over it yet again, in basic English." Here is your first sentence. What is your fundamental point that you so boldly claim? Was it point 5 that I'm attacking? Maybe point 4? You can see me opinion of those.MaxMangel 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for yelling "I'M TRYING TO REFER TO A SUB-SET OF CRITICS". Precisely. That's why I replaced "skeptics" (your exclusive sub-set) with "critics" (the full monty) The former limits criticism to skeptics, the second includes every critic of Browne.. Moriori 04:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As I assumed you would, like the other times, you just ignored most of what I said. That's a good argueing technique because it keeps the argument disjointed and one then doesn't have to justify previously said statements. Seeing as you fail to consider/understand even the possibility of why referring to all critics might be bad, like some mental blind spot, I guess there is no way I can convince you on how to improve the sentence. I give up. MaxMangel 04:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a 3rd voice to this debate. After a quick read through the argument and the edits I think Critics say that people like Browne, John Edwards and James Van Praagh who... should be Skeptics say... as it refers to Browne, Edwards & Van Praagh. There are probably 'critics' who think Browne is a fraud but Van Praagh is 100% legit, while skeptics would think all of them use the techniques the sentence describes. Basically, not all 'critics' would support the assertion of the sentence so the more general term shouldn't be used.

The beginning of the Sago Mine section is a bit more problematic, but I think Critics say is acceptable here as it refers to a single event.

But overall, I think this incident demonstrates the need for verifiable sources. If we just said which critics/skeptics offered the criticism we wouldn't be arguing over semantics or definitions.

PS. Thanks Max for digging up those new cites too.

Ashmoo 23:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. But let me say just one thing -- my mother in law is highly critical of Browne, Edwards et al. If you dared label her a skeptic, she'd clip you round the ears. She wears a copper bracelet too, so it might hurt quite a bit. Moriori 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, which is why think cites showing the different people who criticise her is the best way to demonstate it. But I'm not sure if you are making this logical fallacy:

1. Christians believe we should love one another. 2. The Dalia Lama believes we should love one another. Therefore the Dalai Lama is Christian. What's that fallacy called?

Ashmoo 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Entirely different. Browne has critics. Not all critics are skeptics. We should not write "skeptics say" when we are talking about critics of Browne, because that excludes critics who are not skeptics. Nothing illogical about that. Moriori 01:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I was uncomfortable doing the revert on my opinion alone, but with Ashmoo providing the tie breaker vote, I will make the change. MaxMangel 14:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- it's democracy at work -- as in two wolves and a sheep voting on what should be on the lunch menu ):-. However, it needed a link, so I have added it. Moriori 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice link MaxMangel 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Xtian Criticisms

I've chopped out the following sentence:

Critics, particularly those of the Christian right, may also point out the similarity of her beliefs to those of the New Agers/"Christian" Witches, although her beliefs diverge significantly from those prescribed in Wicca and other pagan varieties.

For these reasons:

1. may seems like a weasel word
2. No 'Critics' or members of the 'Christian right' are named
3. Modern pagan and wiccan beliefs are very diverse anyway (although this is just my opinion)

At the very least, could we at least have specific critics or better yet sources before re-inserting? Ashmoo 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Major changes

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

Book controversy

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

Gypsy Ancestry

Does anybody have a reference on this?

Last sentence of Sago Mine section

The last paragraph regard the Sago Mine incident reads:

Many skeptics have also criticized Noory for failing to be more direct with Browne about this change of view. Browne has been quoted many times as saying that she is not 100% accurate.

I take issue with the last sentence. It seems like someone is trying to give Sylvia an "out", and it has no place in a section regarding critcism. If no-one objects within the next week, I will remove the sentence.

I do agree, though. Sylvia Browne is most definitely not 100% accurate.

--Qarnos 10:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentences that explain or add information about criticism can also be in the criticism section - having a section that only includes criticism and does not allow any responses to that criticism would not be a good way to structure the article. The sentence is factual and whether or not it gives her an 'out' isn't really important. MaxMangel 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

However, it is quite apparent that the sentence does not belong in that paragraph. It's just poor writing. I have no problem with the sentence existing elsewhere in the article, but where it stands now, it's obvious it was simply tacked on.

--Tzepish 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Life citations

I have added a reference (Adventures of a Psychic) which is where I got the information for Browne's "Early Life" but I am not sure how to embed the reference into the article. Help?

Television and Media

Edited a false claim that when Browne recommended that Randi should check his heart in 2001, he never did. Randi did, in fact, have this checked, and posted the results on his webpage. That he had to undergo bypass-surgery five years later should not lead one to conclude that the prediction in 2001 was correct. Much can happen to the heart of a relatively old person like Randi in five years.

--meDoc 16:05, 22 August 2006

I removed the statement "However, Sylvia's vision could indeed be valid... Because on that day the entire area underneath both towers in the world trade center was completely immersed in water due to the burst pipes and sewer system being disrupted. If anyone remembers that day, the path trains and subways were stalled and the tunnels needed divers to go down there and retreive bodies and various other things..."

I don't think that statements like "If anyone remembers that day" belong in an encyclopedia. A citation to a legit news article about people drowning on 9/11 would be more appropriate, if this claim is to be added.

RSLancastr 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to name of section as 'History as a psychic'

Naming the section 'History as a psychic' implies that she actually is indeed a psychic and has psychic abilities. This is a POV conflict. I propose renaming the section to simply "History". Not mentioning or implying she has any psychic ability.Wikidudeman 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's arguable, but renaming wouldn't do any harm. DavidFarmbrough 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its is arguable as well... How about simply labelling it 'Personal History'. Then the reader knows its about her, and not about her place in any historical field of psychics. I'm interested in what she has to say about her beleifs.. as I do any philosopher, or influential thinker... All these terms are debateable... 'Personal History', in my mind, is clear and unbiased.Drakonicon

"personal history" is fine with me.Wikidudeman 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Browne

We have 2 photos of Browne for the intro. To my mind, one of them, while being a publicity shot, is much clearer, has better lighting and has a more standard expression, while the other is a still from a television show and features her mid-expression and is blurry with murky coloring. Wikidudeman & I prefer different versions, but I don't want to go reverting without discussion. Ashmoo 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

File:SylviaBrowne1.jpg

Sylvia Browne

File:Sylvia Browne.jpg

Sylvia Browne

That last photo is several years old. It doesn't show her true appearance as it is now. We should have recient photographs not 10 year old photographs. Maybe you could find a more recient photo that is clearer then you can put it up.Wikidudeman 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the second photo. The features are clear cut. Furthermore the concern that it doesn't look as much as what she looks like now seems to be a minor issue. For dead people then should we always have a photo at the end of their lives? JoshuaZ 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne isn't dead so it's a null point.Wikidudeman 03:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a null point. JoshuaZ was merely taking your argument to its logical conclusion. WP has no policy that a bio photo should be recent. Looking thru various bios on WP shows that the better quality/more iconic the photo, the more likely it is to be at the top. eg Mick Jagger's photo is from 1968. Ashmoo 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too wikipedia savvy...

But I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if Sylvia Browne touches whoever while they sleep. I'm not sure as to how-to restore the original so if someone would, that would be great.

Photo

Is there any reason that we have chosen to use a picture of Ms. Browne that makes her look drunken and tarted-up? The picture is hardly flattering to her and I suspect that it was chosen by a "consensus" of the overly-skeptical crusaders on this website. Smith Jones 16:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello mr.'unsigned'. I believe this picture fits perfectly because it embodies the way she acts as a whole. Signed...(Unsigned)

Um, see WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 01:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot teh tildes on my last post. Anyway, I maintain that we should not apply our own POVs to this article, especially when they are far from widely held. The picture we have used is far from flattering and creates a prejudgement that clearly violates NPOV clause. Smith Jones 16:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the 'Photos of Browne' discussion above. Basically, one editor prefers the current version. After your comments I was inclined to change it to my preferred version, but unfortunately, that image file no longer exists. Feel free to include a better picture of Browne. Ashmoo 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You all put up a "POV" tag because you consider the picture to be "unflattering? Give me a break! The picture looks just fine in my opinion. You can't assume that the only reason it was put up was because of 'bias'. You must assume WP:Good faith it's wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman 10:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is going to be a "POV" tag up then there should also be a citation tag up due to the massive amount of uncited claims in this article.Wikidudeman 10:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

it looks just fine 'in your opinion'"? Well, in my opinion, it looks like it's trying to make her look deceitful and untrustworthy. While this may be true, we MUST take steps to prevent the notions and beliefs of the Wikipedia editors from clouding their judgement and making the article look bad. The facts should stand up for themselves and each reader deserves the opportunity to make a decision made on said facts instead of having the notions of one editor show through in the very first thing that they see.

In my opinion, this article could be greatly removed if an image like this one or this one were used. They don't have to be glamor shots, but they don't have to look like the Before portions of the Before and After-type commercials either. Smith Jones 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think User:Wikidudeman's preffered version is POV, I just think it is a very poor quality photo. I think the 2nd of Smith Jones's pics is the better one. User:Wikidudeman, could you place { fact } tags on the individual statements that you think are uncited, so we can go about fixing it up? Cheers, Ashmoo 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've helped Wikidudeman by inserting some tags. Moriori 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Ashmoo said. If it means so much to you, please do change the photo to that second one. MaxMangel 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)