Talk:Miss Cleo

This is a BLP

And no, I don't think the previous version of this article is "well-sourced". The very fact that it has to be slapped with a POV tag indicates we have a problem. Sources like the Smoking Gun, Court TV, Wahgwaan Entertainment (what is that anyway?), obscure local papers and tv stations are more or less sensationalistic tabloids of one form or another.

There are probably a couple of decent sources in there that could be used but given that this is a BLP let's play it safe here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiping the article out like that in one blast is disruptive. Do not do this again. Whether one likes the sources or not does not have any bearing on whether they are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition of the term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about liking or not liking them, it's about the fact that they are sensationalist junk being used in a BLP article. THAT'S disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, sensationalist or not does not affect whether or not it is considered "reliable" by our definition. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So the fact that this is a BLP means absolutely nothing to you? And you're an administrator?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that both CourtTV and SmokingGun have been discussed at RSN and deemed to qualify as reliable sources. Both are operated by large media companies.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see material is also being deleted that's sourced to Slate (magazine), on the grounds that it isn't a reliable source either. [1] Could editors please explain why they do not think these are reliable sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the existing sources. We just need more of them in a few spots. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, I assume you're referring to the Slate piece entitled "Yah, Mon, I predict you're going to jail.", and written by someone who claims to be in a personal financial dispute with the subject of the article? Is this the sort of high quality sources that we're going to be insisting upon for biographies of living persons? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to a large number of deleted sources and cited material. In this instance, the Slate article is titled "With Psychic Friends Like These …: The lawsuits pile up for Miss Cleo" written by Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor.[2] I don't see any indication that it's an opinion piece. See also the concerns about the other deleted sources, above.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed material

I removed some material from a dead link and also it didn't really seem that relevant or mentioned in any type of context. --Malerooster (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WTF?

I turned to his article to help source an assignment on Miss Cleo and found it so gutted as to be useless. Little to no mention seems to be made of the various suits and bans against her. Are the pro-Cleo forces controlling this article? 07:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.205.148 (talk)

WP:NPOV issue

      I believe that making the claim that someone is a psychic is to imply that there really are "psychics" and by extension that psychic phenomena are real.  This is a controversial and hotly debated subject. And I believe that for an article to make such a claim is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of always writing with a neutral point of view, stating a personal opinion rather than stating an unbiased fact. I have two suggestions for correcting this:

• Youree Dell Harris (born August 12, 1962), better known as Miss Cleo, is an American who describes herself as a psychic and shaman, who achieved fame as a spokeswoman for a psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003.
• Youree Dell Harris (born August 12, 1962), better known as Miss Cleo, is an American "psychic" and "shaman" who achieved fame as a spokeswoman for a psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003.

(Please note that I deleted the reference only to avoid cluttering up this talk page with references; for the actual correction to the article, the reference would be retained.)
      I would be interested in what other editors have to say about this. (Before I change an existing article, I always like to allow time for others to express their opinions.)
Richard27182 (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It has been a week since I posted the above and there has been no response, either for or against.  I have gone ahead and made one of the changes I proposed.  If anyone disagrees with it, please discuss it here.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A psychic is someone who claims to have psychic powers; the only way I can imagine someone being a fake psychic is if you pretend that you're in the field (e.g. some sort of undercover operation) without really participating in it. Same with shamans: you're a leading practitioner of shamanism, engaging in its rituals and being seen by other practitioners as a leader. As long as others consider you a leader in shamanistic practice, you're a shaman; a fake shaman is someone who sets herself up as one unilaterally. Concepts like this don't have licensing bureaus, and you can use these titles without proving that you have these powers. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Nyttend:
      I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with your definition of a psychic as "someone who claims [emphasis added] to have psychic powers."  Most reputable sources define the noun form of "psychic" as someone who actually has such powers.  Please check out the following links:

• http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/psychic
• http://www.ldoceonline.com/Psychology,+Psychiatry-topic/psychic_1
• http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/psychic
• http://www.yourdictionary.com/psychic

      I did not just go ahead and revert your edit because that's how edit wars start and I do not engage in edit warring. For the time being I have made no changes to the article. But I do feel that the current wording in the article does not meet Wikipedia standards of NPOV. If "describes herself as a psychic" is unsatisfactory to you, I believe we can work out language which will be mutually satisfactory. I believe we can resolve this dispute without the need for anything more formal than that. Please let me know your feelings on this matter.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are all comparatively untrustworthy sources; even the first one, with its Britannica affiliation, is rooted in one produced by a linguistic idiot whose dictionary had a ton of problems, partly because he actively changed parts of it to fit an agenda. If you go with a scholarly dictionary, you'll get different results. The Oxford English Dictionary says otherwise with their only relevant definition: A person who is regarded as particularly susceptible to supernatural or paranormal influence; a medium; a clairvoyant. Same concept with the final words: a medium is someone regarded as having these powers [it's a really long definition], and a clairvoyant is One who possesses, or is alleged to possess, the faculty of clairvoyance. So you're right in saying that it's not someone who claims, but I'm right in saying that it doesn't imply that the person has these abilities. Believe me, I'm as sceptical as you on whether she actually has these abilities, but putting it in scare quotes or saying "she claims to be a psychic" actively implies that we reject her: that's equally non-neutral. With concepts like this, if you regard "is a psychic" as assuming that she's got these powers, you really can't come up with a neutral descriptor. Because simply calling someone a psychic is much more common than actively questioning it, the current wording will be much more readily understood as normal, while saying that she's self-described will be much more readily understood as presenting only an opposing point of view. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Nyttend:
        I don't believe that The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of a "psychic,"  "a person who is regarded as [emphasis added] particularly susceptible to supernatural or paranormal influence,"  supports your case.  Some people may regard them that way, but plenty of people do not.  In order to qualify, I would think that the regarding as susceptible to supernatural influence etc. would need to be the general consensus.  And that is certainly not the case, especially among the scientific community.
       The reason I chose "describes herself as a psychic" is it's the most neutral phrase I could think of, neither supporting belief in nor rejecting a belief in people with supernatural powers.  But I would be open to virtually any wording that did not flat out say she is a psychic.  How about "regarded by many as a psychic"?"  (That would be about as literally true (and unbiased) as possible, and it would at least indirectly imply that not all people believe in it.)  Or perhaps you would have something else to suggest.
       As I indicated in my previous message, I really believe we can work this out between ourselves without any need for any kind of formal dispute resolution.
       Just one last thing; I keep irregular hours and often don't get to check my computer for many hours at a time, so my future responses will probably not be as quick as this one was.  But I will always reply.
Richard27182 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If she weren't regarded by many people as having supernatural powers, she wouldn't have become famous in the least; she would just be another crank. Again, "regarded by many as a psychic" is obviously a way of weaseling out of the situation and making it obvious that we reject her claims. Any idiot will realise that we're not being neutral. We must be very careful to be actually neutral, which since the beginning has involved "present[ing] ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree". Supporters won't agree with wording that all-but-says that we reject her. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend
      First let's congratulate ourselves on the civil, diplomatic manner in which we're handling this.  I'm sure there are plenty of other editors who would already be edit warring by now.
      I think we're in full agreement that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral, unbiased point of view; our only difference is over the specific language to use to accomplish that in this particular case.
      I do not deny that there are some people (even some dictionaries) that would define the word "psychic" very generally to include not just someone who actually has supernatural powers (if such a thing existed), but also someone who just acted the role whether or not they had any special powers.  But there are probably just as many who would define "psychic" more literally as someone who actually has such powers.  And the problem is that when they read the article and see that "Miss Cleo is a psychic........" it looks like Wikipedia is claiming that some people actually have supernatural powers.  And that is anything but NPOV.
      If we were to write something like  Miss Cleo pretends to be a psychic  or  Miss Cleo is a so-called psychic  or  Miss Cleo is a "psychic,"  then it would be obvious that we were rejecting her claims.  But to simply say that she "describes herself as a psychic" really does nothing but make a simple, unbiased, non-judgmental statement of fact that clearly indicates what her claim to fame is, without buying into the claim.  I don't think any of her supporters or any of her opponents would disagree that she describes herself as a psychic.  I believe that you are sincere in trying to avoid having the article sound biased in one direction, but are doing so at the cost of appearing biased in the other direction.
      I've offered my best attempts at a truly NPOV description of what makes Miss Cleo famous.  But I am very flexible; and if you can come up with anything better (in terms of being truly NPOV in either direction), I'll be happy to go along with it.  I would settle for virtually anything that does not make an unmitigated declaration that she is indeed a psychic.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are more and more convincing me that you are not interested in creating a page equally acceptable to her and her opponents. As I note above, everyone will understand that "alleged psychic" or "claims to be a psychic" or the like is a way of discrediting her without officially saying it, because normal usage (just like Wikipedia; see the first sentence of the psychic article) of the term doesn't demand that the user accept the person's claim or others' beliefs about the person. It's easy to find people using such a phrase while rejecting their claims; a quick Google search found pages like [3], [4]. Conversely, virtually everything that I find that uses something like "claims to be a psychic" is actively critical, e.g. [5], and I'm having trouble finding people using such a phrase while accepting their claims. If you're using language only employed by one side of a debate instead of language employed by both perspectives, you're identifying yourself with that side, regardless of the dictionary meanings that you're still not accepting: your words carry a connotation of scepticism, regardless of their denotation. The final sentence of Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent is conclusive: "Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness". It's indeed being misused so that it becomes synonymous with scepticism. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend.
      Sadly it has become obvious that our one-on-one discussion here is never going to lead to anything even remotely resembling an agreement.  So I have added this issue to the DRN.
      I am hopeful and optimistic that the addition of a moderator to the mix may create an atmosphere where we may eventually find a convergence, maybe not of our opinions, but at least of what we are willing to accept for the Miss Cleo article.  My understanding is that I am supposed to notify all editors who are involved or have been involved in the dispute.  (So far that's just you and me.)  So just to make it official, I will post a copy of this message on your user talk page.  May I make the suggestion that, if you respond, you do so on the article talk page, just so there will be a page with a complete record of our conversation; but of course where and even whether you respond is entirely your own prerogative.
      I find it truly regrettable that it has come to this.  But I feel it is the appropriate thing to do at this point.
Richard27182 (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw this at DRN, and I agree with Richard on this. I see nothing non-neutral in saying that she describes herself as a psychic. It's a verifiable statement and implies nothing further. Saying that she is a psychic is less neutral. Dictionary definitions are fine, but when reading an article, the average reader will probably not look up the strict definition of a word if s/he is already familiar with the word. In my opinion, if we state that she is a psychic, it will often be read as indicating that she does have psychic powers. Saying that she describes herself as a psychic doesn't have the same effect in the opposite direction; rather, it avoids the issue. Omnedon (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many times at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (for example, here) and those discussions inevitably point back to the 2007 ArbCom Paranormal case in which ArbCom held (here) that

"Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

and also held (here)

The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.

I do not think that the qualifiers are needed so long as the word psychic is linked. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC) PS: Let me add to that: ArbCom is not empowered, per ArbCom policy, to make decisions about content matters and, thus, ArbCom findings of principle and findings of fact are not binding or precedential decisions about content matters. Those findings are merely the platform or basis of the decision made in and for the purposes of that particular case, but they are also highly influential and are the carefully-considered evaluation of some of the most trusted members of this community. As such, they are not to be lightly disregarded. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am the mediator assigned to this topic from the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I do not understand why this discussion has gone on for so long. It seems pretty clear cut to me, and keep in mind this is not due to personal beliefs but due to my research. The page Psychic states, "A psychic is a person who claims to use extrasensory perception (ESP) to identify information hidden from the normal senses." That is literally the first sentence. There is no need to put that she claims she is psychic because already a psychic is a person who claims to use powers. The word psychic is linked in the article and I do not think that there is much more to it. There is not a need to put that she claims she is psychic unless readers are thoroughly confused which I do not think is the case. These are just the facts and not my opinion so please do not feel like I am being wrongful. Of course you can continue to argue but I dont think that that will be productive in this case as it is so clear cut. Also thay might lead to an edit war which can be pusishable by blocks. If there is no discussion within 24 hours, I will close the case because either way, it is not the end of the world, both could be deemed correct, and there are other cases that would be more seserving of my time. Thanks, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan, User:Omnedon, User:Richard27182, User:Nyttend

First of all, if you don't understand why this has gone on this long, to me that's indicative of a problem right there. There are clearly at least two different ways of viewing this, and whenever I see the claim "these are just the facts and not my opinion" it tends to make me wonder -- especially when in the previous sentence you use the phrase "which I do not think is the case". I'm sorry, but this seems more like judging a case than mediating a disagreement. The two are entirely different. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

--Please continue this discussion on this page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard under the correct heading-- Omnedon, when I said "I do not think this is the case", I was saying that I dont think that anyone reading the article is confused one way or the other, I was not talking about one side or the other being better or being better supported by facts, I was simply supporting the idea that either way, it is not the end of the world so please dl not twist my words in the future. And I said "these are just the facts and not my opinion" so that people who are suspicious like you can just take that and not feel ganged up against. Honestly, I wouldnt care either way because both in my eyes can be correct. But from a factual point of view, the facts seem to support the side of leaving out the extra words. In the end, this has to go one way or the other and this is all about helping one side bend out of their comfort zone to let the other side prevail. And I am just throwing out there that one side seems to be more supported. I beleive that you are straying off topic by critisizing me and should be focused on the topic at hand while trusting that I will not take sides and will be impartial. Thank You, continue it on the correct page, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 01:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "suspicious" -- but in your first message here you come down solidly on one side. That's not the role of a mediator. So naturally I question your statement that "these are just the facts". This is a situation where there are points on both sides. It's not your role to simply decide which is correct -- not if you continue to use the term "mediator". I would also point out that a good mediator will not be so readily offended as you clearly are. You point out some items that you feel favor one side; but there are items on the other side as well. Omnedon (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note a couple of procedural points: First, TEoATW is now indefinitely blocked and has stated on his talk page that he won't be back. Second, I'm a regular volunteer over at DRN though I've come into this case as a regular editor and not wearing my DRN volunteer's hat. I'm going to say this in the abstract and I do not want it to be taken as either an approval or a criticism of what TEoATW has said here or at DRN, but there is no one required form of dispute resolution at DRN and volunteers are free to either attempt to mediate a case, like what happens at MEDCOM, which is what most commonly happens there, or to simply issue an opinion about what what they see as best, like what happens at WP:3O, or some combination of the two. Depending on the circumstances, one is ordinarily more appropriate than the other and I've done all three during my time there (which has been pretty much since the beginning of that noticeboard). So I'll not support the criticism of TEoATW for merely issuing an opinion rather than mediating, but whether it was appropriate for this particular case or whether he did it well is another issue altogether and one which is, at this point, largely moot. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
      I know you wrote the above message for Omnedon, but I read it and learned something from it.  So far I have been in only one DRN case, and the moderator (Robert McClenon) handled it the way Omnedon and I were expecting the Miss Cleo case to be handled.  I was not aware until you pointed it out that there are other approaches a moderator may take in moderating a DRN case.  Between this and our message exchanges on my talk page, I'm learning a lot from you.  (By the way, please see my new message to you on my talk page.)  I am most grateful to you for your time and patience.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the editor is blocked is irrelevant to the criticism of the approach taken, and I stand by it. If one is going to apply the term "mediation", then coming in and deciding that one side is correct in the very first communication is entirely inappropriate. That might be a form of "dispute resolution", but then one could also simply make a decision and close the discussion and call it that. The word mediation implies reconciliation and compromise. Looking for points of agreement and disagreement. Getting to the core of the dispute and trying to work it out with all involved parties. Naturally every case will be different, but the approach taken here was in no way helpful. Omnedon (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging:  @TransporterMan:   @Omnedon:
      Omnedon, I agree with you in principle with everything you're saying about what mediated dispute resolution should be.  I think the point that TransporterMan is making here is that that's not the way DRN works in the world of Wikipedia.  Apparently the rules governing DRN allow the moderator to act as an impartial moderator OR just state his own personal opinion OR just about any combination of the two or anything in between.  That doesn't seem to make sense because if someone wants a single opinion they would file under WP:THIRDOPINION.  In my opinion there should be some dispute resolution forum which specifically guarantees an impartial neutral moderator moderating the discussion.  But there doesn't seem to be one (except perhaps that MEDCOM thing TransporterMan mentioned, but I'm not familiar with that.)   Which brings me to a few questions for TransporterMan:

• In the future, if I need to file something for DRN, would it be OK to specify that I would prefer that the moderator take the impartial approach?  Or would that be inappropriate?
• Once the Miss Cleo DRN is closed, is it permissible for me personally to file the RFC; or would I be ineligible since I'm one of the original editors involved in the dispute?
• If I am allowed to personally file the RFC, is it sufficient that I just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment?

Thank you both for your time and for any helpful suggestions you can provide.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Taking your bullet points first: Asking for mediation rather than opinion-giving would be fine and, indeed, it's what you're usually going to get at DRN — opinion-giving there, while permitted, is actually pretty rare and ordinarily limited to those cases where unmistakably there is only one correct outcome under Wikipedia policy. Yes, you can file the RFC yourself and just following those instructions is the normal way to do it. Note that most RFC's run for 30 days and, though it doesn't say it on the RFC page, due to the rules at 3O, DRN, and MEDCOM, no case will be accepted in those venues while the RFC is pending and any cases which are pending when the RFC is filed will be closed. Back to your point about 3O vs DRN vs MEDCOM: 3O is only available when there are exactly two editors involved in the dispute, so it's not going to be available all of the time. Moreover, 3O's don't "count" towards consensus, they're opinions and opinions only which the disputants are free to accept or reject. A DRN volunteer's opinion can count towards consensus. The Mediation Committee (MEDCOM) — and let me note for the sake of full disclosure that I'm a committee member, though I'm not speaking here on behalf of the Committee or while wearing my member hat — provides more or less "pure" formal mediation. So in some ways, DRN splits the difference between 3O and MEDCOM. Note that all three venues have requirements that volunteers be neutral as to the dispute and disputants, so saying "just state his personal opinion" misses the point that — whether it happens at 3O or at DRN — the opinion should be coming from someone who has a dispassionate and impartial view towards what's going on in the dispute. Finally, let me note that if this discussion is going to be much more extended that except perhaps for the RFC stuff that it's way off topic here and probably ought to move somewhere else. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
      I absolutely agree with you 100% that the Miss Cleo talk page has gotten way off topic.  For any future questions/answers/discussions, we can use your user talk page or my user talk page (with a ping); let me know which you would prefer.
      I do have another question regarding the Miss Cleo dispute:

• Once the DRN is closed (assuming it's unsuccessful), I do plan to file an RFC.  Concerning categories to use in the rfc template, I was planning on using: Biographies; Language and linguistics; Maths, science, and technology; and Religion and philosophy.  I believe these would cover all the bases concerning the nature of the issue.  Would it be permissible for me to include all four categories?  I'd like to include all four if I'm allowed.

I'm not sure whether or not this is of interest, but for what it's worth yesterday was Miss Cleo's birthday. That's about all I can think of for now.  As always, thanks for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You can include whatever categories you consider to be appropriate and I think that the ones you note above are fine, though I might add the "Society, sports, and culture" category as well. You need to decide whether you're only going for consensus in regard to this one Miss Cleo article or whether you're trying to take on the larger issue raised by the ARBCOM findings. (A consensus decision here is not likely to carry over to any other article, since every article stands on its own, and individual articles are not, ordinarily, the place to establish encyclopedia-wide precedent.) If you want to do the latter — and I have to say that of those two I think that would be the one more likely to succeed, though I also have to say that I doubt that either will do so (but FSM knows I've been wrong before) — this is not the place to do it. See my original posting on your talk page for where that effort ought to go (and what you ought to do before). And, yes, if we're going to talk about anything other than a proposed RFC in regard to this Miss Cleo article, it ought to be on one or the other of our talk pages, probably yours (which I have watchlisted for the nonce, but {{talkback}} or {{ping}} me if you leave a note there for me and I don't respond promptly). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: How to describe Miss Cleo in her article

How should we describe Miss Cleo in her article.  Specifically, what should the first sentence of the article say about her and her claims?  Richard27182 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(A.) Youree Dell Harris (born August 12, 1962), better known as Miss Cleo, is an American psychic and  shaman who achieved fame as a spokeswoman for a psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003.

(B.) Youree Dell Harris (born August 12, 1962), better known as Miss Cleo, is an American who describes herself as a psychic and  shaman, and who achieved fame as a spokeswoman for a psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003.

(C.) Other (Please specify.)

Please edit the Survey section and state your "vote" there along with a brief explanation of your reason(s).  Please be sure to sign your "vote" with the usual ~~~~ .  (Otherwise it might not count.)
Longer comments and/or discussion should take place in the Threaded discussion section. Richard27182 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

(place votes here)

• Definitely (B.).  I believe the problem with (A.) is that it makes Wikipedia look like it's taking her claims of supernatural powers at face value and accepting them.  (B.) seems much more neutral; it states her claim(s) to fame just as clearly, but without appearing to buy into them (or reject them).
  Richard27182 (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• (A.) It is standard wording in such articles. B would be a failure of NPOV as attacking her self-description, and implying in Wikipedia's voice, that it is untrue. If this practice is to be chan ged, we need as site-wide RFC, not a discussion about a single article,, I doubt that site-wide consensus for something like (B) can be obtained (and I would be inclined to oppose such a proposal), but I strongly oppose an article-specific rule on such a matter. DES ^(talk) 12:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (Added "a failure of" to my comment left out by an error of mine. DES ^(talk) 12:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC))
  • The rationale above has been responded to at #Threaded discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• (B.) This is neutral wording. There is no implication that the self-description is untrue. Stating that she is a psychic will be read differently by different people, whereas stating that she describes herself as a psychic simply states a fact. Some may view the word "psychic" as including the concept of a claim; but I don't believe that's the general use of the term. Omnedon (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• B per Omnedon. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 00:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• B, obviously. All sources indicate that her "shaman and psychic" schtick was an acting job, a role that was being portrayed. "Miss Cleo" is essentially a fictional character, as several sources demonstrate. But even if this were not the case, we would still use option B, per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PSTS, WP:INDY. An argument could be made, in the case of real-life claims by the subject, for "is a shaman and describes herself as a psychic" [a religious claim followed by a fringe claim] but only if there were independent reliable sources indicating that an actual shamanistic religion accepted her a shaman, but these claims are all obviously a marketing put-on for TV phone-"psychic" purposes. Taking even the "shaman" claim at face value would be undue weight given to exploitative promotional material. Using "describes herself as a psychic and shaman" makes it clear that we are reporting her own (controversial) primary-sourced claim about herself, and clearly attributing it to her, not to reliable sources who have evaluated and confirmed her claims. The real woman is not associated with Jamaica, and the two voodoo-related religions of Jamaica are not shamanic anyway. See comments in #Threaded discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Clarified: 18:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• B Should an article say "Anderson caught bullets with his teeth" or "Anderson is famous for a lifetime of successful performances of the bullet catch illusion"? Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• A In many places around Wikipedia we refer to article subjects by terms reflecting belief or affiliation without making judgment on that belief. For example, we call people Christian as indicative of both their affiliation with that system of belief and acknowledgement of their claim that God is real without saying that they "describe themselves" as Christians. And we do that despite the fact that there is a sizable part of the world's population who do not believe that gods exist and do so on the very same kind of arguments and evidence employed to show that there is no proof that psychic abilities exist. Adopting version B here will be taking the position, in effect, that well, maybe gods exist but that psychic stuff? Nah, not so much. However, we've got !rules about this in the FRINGE guideline:

  Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research – denialist histories, for example – should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.

  The fact is that in day-to-day use, most psychics make no specifically scientific claims any more than Christians make specific scientific claims that, for example, their prayers or offerings to their saints or to their God are answered. It is clear from a Wikipedia point of view that the mere claim that either set of practices "works" is not, per se, a scientific claim but is a matter of faith and belief; it is in the words of the guideline quoted above, "a claim which is primarily non-scientific in nature but which contains claims concerning scientific phenomena" (emphasis added). (Which is not to say that some individual psychics do not make specific scientific claims to which there is then a valid scientific response.) And let me say at this point that I'm not being an apologist for the psychics. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of genuine psychic abilities and there is overwhelming evidence that all that is claimed by psychics can either be shown to be wholly unsubstantiated claims or be shown to be easily achieved and reproduced through trickery and thus devalued under Occam's razor. What I am saying is that the link to psychic satisfies the need for the skeptical point of view to be represented just like a link to Christianity satisfies the need for the skeptical point of view about the existence of Jesus or God and that, as much as some of us — myself included — would like to see claims of psychic ability purged from the face of the planet for consumer protection reasons — and just because bullsh*t — that as a day to day practice psychical practice is for Wikipedia purposes far more like a religion than it is a scientific claim and thus under current Wikipedia guidelines it should not be attacked or singled out for skepticism based on skeptical or scientific evaluation — which is what version B does at its root — any more than being a Christian is. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC) PS: I am sure that some of my Wikicolleagues who, like me, are skeptics, agnostics, atheists, or asupernaturalists, will say that the solution should be not to avoid whacking psychics with the Tar Brush of Truth but to whack the religious articles with it as well. To them I would say that while I agree with them in desire, this isn't Skeptopedia or Atheiopedia but a general purpose encyclopedia and our job is to reflect dispassionately and with thorough but NPOV coverage the accepted positions, pro and con, of society as a whole or, to say it differently, our job is not to lead but to follow. That indicates that at this point in time we ought to give religion a break. — TM 16:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please see Richard27182's counter opinion in the Threaded discussion section.  Richard27182 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  

• B Much more neutral. We are not "attacking her self-description" or rejecting her claims, we are saying what she describes herself to be. By saying she "describes herself as a psychic" rather than she "is a psychic", we are avoiding stating opinions as facts. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• A - (summoned by bot) standard wording in articles such as this. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• C - First, I would propose moving the article to Youree Dell Harris, as it is fairly clear that Ms. Cleo is a role or character played by Ms. Harris. The way the article is currently written confuses Ms. Cleo and Ms. Harris. Just as we have separate articles for Stephen Colbert the man and the character played by Stephen Colbert, we should separate Ms. Cleo and Youree Dell Harris. Once that is done, we can describe them thusly: "Ms. Cleo is a character played by Youree Dell Harris in advertisements for a psycic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003." "Youree Dell Harris is an actress who is most famous for portraying Ms. Cleo in advertisements for a psycic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(long comments and discussion go here)

• Not only do I agree completely with Omnedon's statement, but I will admit that Omnedon's statement makes the point even better than my own statement!

  Concerning DESiegel's point about a site-wide RFC, that may be a good idea; however since the Miss Cleo RFC has already been filed and is already drawing responses, I feel it should be seen through to completion.  (Maybe the final result could give some indication of whether or not a site-wide RFC on the general subject should be undertaken.)
  Richard27182 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed. This does need to a be a site-wide matter, but we can get a sense of how to approach this from a one-article RfC; that's how such things usually get started anyway. Cf. Penn & Teller, etc.: There is no pretense at such articles that they have real supernatural powers. We have a problem in that both psychic and magic/magician go to pages that clearly indicate that the terms as being used at those articles refer not to real supernatural powers that have been verified, but the former seems to imply that the claims might be real while the latter makes no such pretense, and is very clear that the "magic" is a clever illusion. Ergo, a case cannot be made that "Penn & Teller are magicians" [which the article doesn't say; it uses "illusionists"] is equivalent to "Miss Cleo is a psychic". A large number of readers believe that psychic powers actually are real, and will thus interpret this is as a statement in WP's own voice that Miss Cleo's power are real, while no one except a 5-year-old really believes Penn & Teller have magical powers. Statements in WP articles have to stand on their own and be interpreted on their own, not by what readers may infer if they go to another article and read the claims and sources in that other article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Version "A" is not "standard wording" (even if some other pages make similar claims, wrongly in WP's own voice), and violates several policies.

  To elaborate on my #Survey comment: Let's make this really clear. I'm a card-carrying Discordian Pope and a Universal Life Church Minister [actually], and I hereby also declare myself an ultra-intelligent deity from another planet who will confer xeno-blessings upon you for a fee via my website [not really]. If you write an article about me, I don't expect it will begin with "... is a reverend pope, and a supergenius spacegod", even if some publication repeated my claims. To spell this out, if a notable Discordian group or the ULC chose to honor me in their materials as an especially noteworthy figure, that would be different. But a claim to be a religious figure in any religion in which there are no barriers to entry and no criteria for establishing any such claim, such that the religion and its institutions are not in fact conferring any honor or notability, is not encyclopedic material, it's just noise. And claims of supernatural powers (as opposed to performance of stage magic) are just noise. (And we have no sources indicating any such real-life claims anyway, only statements made as part of an acting job for a 900-number racket).

  Side point on the "religious" claims (not actually made by the real person): The two voodoo-related spiritual traditions, Kumina and Obeah, of Jamaica (where the "Miss Cleo" character was supposedly from, but with which the actual woman is not associated [6]) don't appear to be shamanic; no sources at either article say so, though one has been questionably categorized in Category:Shamanism of the Americas, on the basis of some self-published Angelfire page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182's counter opinion to TransporterMan's statement:  I have great respect for TransporterMan and the contributions he's made to Wikipedia.  But I must disagree with him on this particular issue.  Specifically I would like to comment on two elements of his statement.

• I believe that comparing calling someone a "Christian" and calling someone a "psychic" is not valid.  When someone calls himself a "Christian," he is simply professing that he holds a certain set of beliefs; nothing more.  That's something I'm willing to take at face value.  But when someone calls himself a "psychic," he's claiming a lot more than simply professing a set of beliefs; he's claiming to actually possess a set of magical, mystical, supernatural, (and scientifically unproven) powers.  That I'm not willing to take at face value.  Suppose we were doing an article about a particular "faith healer."  Would we write "Brother So-and-so is a Christian evangelist who has actually cured hundreds of terminally ill patients with divine healing"?  Of course not!  We'd probably write something like "Brother So-and-so is a Christian evangelist who claims to be able to heal through divine intervention."  Why should we treat articles about "psychics" any differently?
• I also disagree that option (A.) is justified (in whole or in part) by the fact that the word "psychic" in the Miss Cleo article is wiki-linked to the Psychic Wikipedia article, and for several reasons.

• I believe that nearly everyone knows (or thinks they know) what a "psychic" is.  Hardly anybody is going to bother following that link to the Psychic article to see how Wikipedia defines a "psychic."  They're just going to read "........Miss Cleo is an American psychic........" and draw the conclusion that Wikipedia believes in psychics.
• As we all know, one Wikipedia article may never be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article because that would be circular proof or circular reasoning, which is invalid.  I believe that by the same token, using the contents of one Wikipedia article to justify the contents of another Wikipedia article is just as circular and just as invalid.
• I believe the Wikipedia Psychic article itself is flawed.  The entire paragraph that defines what a "psychic" is contains not one single solitary reference.  I suppose it's possible the author(s) may have consulted some reputable source when forming their definition; but if they did, they didn't bother to cite it.  For all we know, they might have just made up the definition themselves.

For reasons including those stated above, I cannot agree with TransporterMan's argument in favor of option (A.).
Richard27182 (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Re your first bullet point, you say "he's claiming to actually possess a set of magical, mystical, supernatural, (and scientifically unproven) powers" but that's just the point: By definition none of those things are scientific claims and our guidelines, which I cited above, say "Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis." What psychics claim is primarily non-scientific in nature. I rather suspect that you're mentally skipping over the "magical, mystical, supernatural, (and scientifically unproven)" part of your statement and focusing on "claiming to actually possess ... powers" but the claim of "powers" is only the claim to be able to do something, without making scientific claims for how they do it, and is no different than Roman Catholic priests claiming the power by virtue of their ordination as a priest, for example, to turn bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus (while still possessing the physical appearance and characteristics of bread and wine). As for your hypothetical Christian evangelist, I would hope that we would identify him as a (linked) faith healer — not "self-described faith healer" — without going on to the description which you give above. Finally, if the psychic article is flawed, then it needs to be corrected, but I would note that the Criticism and research section is well-written and documented. As for the reliance on linking, I would only point out that the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the only links in an article should be "High-value links that are worth pursuing" (emphasis added). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

References