I recently came across the following article: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne) . To get you up to speed, Sylvia Browne is a self-professed psychic. Invevitably, James Randi is not impressed. Neither is Danny.
On the other hand, does this merit an article. She is an LP, so this is essentially a "Criticisms of a BLP" article. On the other hand, it is quite well-sourced, at least from a perfunctory glance at it.
Still, do we want to open the door to these kinds of articles? Criticisms of Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of George Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite]. The very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are here for.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the precedent this poses should also be mentioned.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Still, do we want to open the door to these kinds of articles? Criticisms of Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of George Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite]. The very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are here for.
If the articles are already long, then these seem completely valid - after all, there's no undue weight situation if we've got significant coverage in other areas, right? I hope that BLP wasn't designed to remove valid sub-articles like this.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the precedent this poses should also be mentioned.
Best-case scenario is yes, merge. Obviously, a "criticism of GWB" article that may exist is going to have difficulty being merged when the main article is already 70kb long, but there's no reason not to take this on a case by case basis, assuming good sourcing.
-Jeff
On 4/25/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Best-case scenario is yes, merge. Obviously, a "criticism of GWB" article that may exist is going to have difficulty being merged when the main article is already 70kb long, but there's no reason not to take this on a case by case basis, assuming good sourcing.
Why is "criticisms of Uri Geller" (or whoever) a valid encyclopedic subject? Would we accept an article called "instances of undiluted praise of Uri Geller"?
We're supposed to adopt the neutral point of view, so it would be "evaluations of X". And then...and then we'd have to perform a critical synthesis. Which is okay, encyclopedias do that. But I hesitate at the thought that Wikipedia could do that kind of thing well. How would we do a decent "evaluations of X" on Osama Bin Laden, for instance, if nearly everything we write will be an uncritical thumbs-down on the fellow? He has his followers, in their millions but we don't generally have access to their publications.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/25/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Best-case scenario is yes, merge. Obviously, a "criticism of GWB" article that may exist is going to have difficulty being merged when the main article is already 70kb long, but there's no reason not to take this on a case by case basis, assuming good sourcing.
Why is "criticisms of Uri Geller" (or whoever) a valid encyclopedic subject? Would we accept an article called "instances of undiluted praise of Uri Geller"?
I don't know, would we? Criticism of cranks is a very valid topic and very accepted situation in society.
We're supposed to adopt the neutral point of view, so it would be "evaluations of X".
It's not difficult to be neutral about a subject, even if that subject is inherently negative.
-Jeff
On 4/26/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
We're supposed to adopt the neutral point of view, so it would be "evaluations of X".
It's not difficult to be neutral about a subject, even if that subject is inherently negative.
You haven't addressed the substance of my post, which is that we don't have sufficient access to the "evaluations of X" to explain why X, in this case, is so popular in certain areas that are outside our small, insular peer group.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
You haven't addressed the substance of my post, which is that we don't have sufficient access to the "evaluations of X" to explain why X, in this case, is so popular in certain areas that are outside our small, insular peer group.
Okay.
-Jeff
On 4/25/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Best-case scenario is yes, merge. Obviously, a "criticism of GWB"
article
that may exist is going to have difficulty being merged when the main article is already 70kb long, but there's no reason not to take this on
a
case by case basis, assuming good sourcing.
Why is "criticisms of Uri Geller" (or whoever) a valid encyclopedic subject? Would we accept an article called "instances of undiluted praise of Uri Geller"?
We're supposed to adopt the neutral point of view, so it would be "evaluations of X". And then...and then we'd have to perform a critical synthesis. Which is okay, encyclopedias do that. But I hesitate at the thought that Wikipedia could do that kind of thing well. How would we do a decent "evaluations of X" on Osama Bin Laden, for instance, if nearly everything we write will be an uncritical thumbs-down on the fellow? He has his followers, in their millions but we don't generally have access to their publications.
The media thrives on negative articles, there are probably sufficient criticisms of Uri Geller to merit an article about the criticism of him *in academia*, so that Wikipedia could include an article based on these other works. But praise? Is there sufficient praise of him? Are there really whole societies that meet at major scientific universities, societies that are devoted to praising psychics? Are there? Well, there are such groups devoted to criticizing and exposing charlatans, and it is a genuine area of study in academia, and there are journals devoted to it, and websites devoted to it, and articles in a variety of peer-reviewed journals about it, and classes on it at major universities.
If the other topic exists, if there are societies devoted to praising psychics, then let the articles begin.
KP
On 4/26/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why is "criticisms of Uri Geller" (or whoever) a valid encyclopedic subject? Would we accept an article called "instances of undiluted praise of Uri Geller"?
It has always been policy that NPOV does not imply giving equal weight to all opinions, no matter how uninformed. What do people who have studied Geller's work in detail and published about it in reputable publications say?
If the predominant view on a given subject by those who know something about it is negative, then I see no problem with a section titled "Criticism". In Geller's case, his own rebuttals and lawsuits, as well as the surprisingly large number of intelligent people who are fooled by stage tricks posing as special powers, would make such a title one-sided. But the actual relevant top level section in the article is called "Criticism and controversy", which seems fair.
The view that positive & negative views should always be incorporated into a neat biographical narrative is unrealistic in practice. Often, it is a specific pattern of behavior in a person that is the subject of intense debate and criticism. Typically, that pattern of behavior occurs at a certain point in time of the person's life. Incorporating the criticism in a linear fashion means, then, that the narrative is suddenly broken by a back & forth of arguments. It may be preferable to have a simplified narrative, and to isolate the pattern of behavior that is being criticized into its own section.
I therefore do not think we can make an a priori assumption that anything called "Criticism" in a BLP or indeed any article is inherently POV, at least not from my understanding of the purpose of NPOV. There are, in my view, a few things we can avoid though:
* splitting away the criticisms to a separate page to hide them from view -- this should never be done selectively, only if the overall article gets too large * affording extraordinary amounts of space to criticisms that have never been the subject of serious debate among people who study the topic (one blogger, one isolated publication, a single newspaper column) * researching only the side of things we happen to agree with.
We cannot avoid that contributors write about what they know & care about, but in a BLP we should at the very least add POV tags if criticism sections are clearly based on one-sided research and out of proportion. This, by the way, is a shift in policy -- we used to say that starting a stub with a lot of one-sided provocative information is a good idea to get people to start writing about a topic. ;-)
On 4/25/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I recently came across the following article: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne) ...
... Still, do we want to open the door to these kinds of articles? Criticisms of Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of George Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite]. The very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are here for.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the precedent this poses should also be mentioned.
The original article isn't that long, so they should definitely by merged. It's bad enough having a separate criticism section in a BLP, because they end up as POV magnets. To have a separate criticism article is asking for trouble.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/25/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I recently came across the following article: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne) ...
... Still, do we want to open the door to these kinds of articles? Criticisms of Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of George Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite]. The very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are here for.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the precedent this poses should also be mentioned.
The original article isn't that long, so they should definitely by merged. It's bad enough having a separate criticism section in a BLP, because they end up as POV magnets. To have a separate criticism article is asking for trouble.
Sarah
Criticisms sections generally suck. They end up being 'list of potentially unrelated negative media coverage' - or worse 'list of every article by a columnist who doesn't like this guy'. Often with immaculate citations.
Whilst, no doubt, they are justified in some places, every time I see one a red light goes on. So often this is the stuff of hatchet jobs.
Yet, BLP enforcement is very hard here, since each statement may be referenced and factual.
It has always seemed strange that we allow such things - yet if someone wrote an article with a section entitled "media plaudits" we'd stick {{notneutral}} on it in an instant.
On 4/25/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The original article isn't that long, so they should definitely by merged. It's bad enough having a separate criticism section in a BLP, because they end up as POV magnets. To have a separate criticism article is asking for trouble.
Sarah
Criticisms sections generally suck. They end up being 'list of potentially unrelated negative media coverage' - or worse 'list of every article by a columnist who doesn't like this guy'. Often with immaculate citations.
It has always seemed strange that we allow such things - yet if someone wrote an article with a section entitled "media plaudits" we'd stick {{notneutral}} on it in an instant.
I agree strongly with both of you and with Tony. criticism sections, not to mention entire articles, are POV and not interested in balance; and we rarely allow "praise" sections in our informal style guidelines. So we should transform criticism sections into useful information inline in other sections about topics and areas relevant to the subject's notability... not focus on them as 'criticisms' per se, since that is not in and of itself a notable quality (though often salacious and titillating, or great fodder for rants or conspiracy theories).
SJ
It isn't really an article about criticism of Sylvia Browne. She's not being criticized for beating her children; she's being criticzed in matters relating to her public claims of expertise and ability. This isn't a BLP problem in the ordinary sense, any more than "criticism of George Bush's war in Iraq" would be. And it would be simply impossible to have a similar article about you or me or the typical BLP subject; we haven't done any big public things that could be criticized this way.
To be accurate, it probably should be called something like "Criticism of Sylvia Browne's alleged psychic activities", but there's nothing wrong with having the article itself.
It looks to me like half her main article is negative, and there is a large negative sub-article. At first glance, that seems slightly unbalanced. However, balance isn't just a matter of having 50% good stuff and 50% bad, it's about having a distribution of good and bad that matches the distribution of good and bad information available. For example, an article on a serial killer is likely to be primarily negative, and that's completely appropriate. Should someone like this go in the same category as a serial killer? Perhaps. It's a difficult decision to make.
On 4/25/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It looks to me like half her main article is negative, and there is a large negative sub-article. At first glance, that seems slightly unbalanced. However, balance isn't just a matter of having 50% good stuff and 50% bad, it's about having a distribution of good and bad that matches the distribution of good and bad information available. For example, an article on a serial killer is likely to be primarily negative, and that's completely appropriate. Should someone like this go in the same category as a serial killer? Perhaps. It's a difficult decision to make.
No, someone like this should not. Few people should; it's not such a difficult decision.
SJ
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I recently came across the following article: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne) . To get you up to speed, Sylvia Browne is a self-professed psychic. Invevitably, James Randi is not impressed. Neither is Danny.
On the other hand, does this merit an article. She is an LP, so this is essentially a "Criticisms of a BLP" article. On the other hand, it is quite well-sourced, at least from a perfunctory glance at it.
Still, do we want to open the door to these kinds of articles? Criticisms of Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of George Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite]. The very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are here for.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the precedent this poses should also be mentioned.
Merge.
"Criticisms of ..." articles are bound to POV, especially when the subject is a person. The entire article seems to focus on her personal dispute with James Randi, and his obsessive campaign to find fault with her. The tone of the article takes sides with Randi, and fails to recognize that he is as big a part of the problem as she is.
Psychic phenomena of all sorts are controversial, but if the objective is to discuss such phenomena dispassionately and objectively it cannot be done by focussing on a personal feud between two publicity seeking personalities Strangely the claim that Browne's psychic visions are bunk presupposes that there are claims by others that are not, and that she is instead not representative of mainstream psychics.
The sources for this article are indeed plentiful, but seemed chosen with the sole intent of highlighting sensationalism. While I would be highly critical of Browne as a representative of psychic phenomena, I also think that the article puts too much stress on the failures of her public performances, and is there purely to make her look bad.
Ec
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I recently came across the following article: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne) . To get you
up to speed, Sylvia Browne is a self-professed psychic.
Invevitably, James Randi is not impressed. Neither is Danny.
On the other hand, does this merit an article. She is an LP, so this is essentially a "Criticisms of a BLP" article. On the other hand, it is
quite
well-sourced, at least from a perfunctory glance at it.
Still, do we want to open the door to these kinds of articles?
Criticisms of
Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of
George
Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite].
The
very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are
here
for.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the
precedent
this poses should also be mentioned.
Merge.
"Criticisms of ..." articles are bound to POV, especially when the subject is a person. The entire article seems to focus on her personal dispute with James Randi, and his obsessive campaign to find fault with her. The tone of the article takes sides with Randi, and fails to recognize that he is as big a part of the problem as she is.
Psychic phenomena of all sorts are controversial, but if the objective is to discuss such phenomena dispassionately and objectively it cannot be done by focussing on a personal feud between two publicity seeking personalities Strangely the claim that Browne's psychic visions are bunk presupposes that there are claims by others that are not, and that she is instead not representative of mainstream psychics.
The sources for this article are indeed plentiful, but seemed chosen with the sole intent of highlighting sensationalism. While I would be highly critical of Browne as a representative of psychic phenomena, I also think that the article puts too much stress on the failures of her public performances, and is there purely to make her look bad.
Ec
This fued between the two of them gets a huge amount of play (although I don't ever remember her name, just his) in the press, in academia, in the various skeptic groups. Even if the article were more approrpriately titled feud between the two or something, it would still be mostly negative and mostly from Randi's POV, because he's the one instigating the battle, *because that's what he does for a living*, and because the feud is not quite only about Randi's criticism of her, it's a back and forth thing. Oh, and what he does for a living is attack people who make their livings like Sylvia Browne makes hers, and Sylvia Browne is often the leading lady in sales in her area.
That is what Randi does, publicize his criticisms of supposed psychic's public performance failures. That's where psychics fight back when they do, where Randi has established the battle ground.
The article is about his obsession to find fault with her and her personal dispute with him, so that it's entirely about what it's about, hardly seems like a complaint.
The article is not about objectively discussing psychic phenomenon, it's about a dispute between two of the main players on either side of the attempt to do so.
So, let's see, a feud by two notable people, based on their occupations, carried out in full public mode, and the question is, should it be covered by Wikipedia?
I will look at the article though. I think the title could be more appropriate, but I don't know enough about the feud to know that for certain.
KP
In my experience the vast majority of 'Criticisms of <X>' articles are in fact POV forks, and should be discouraged. I haven't dug into this one in great depth, however.
-Matt