Talk:Miss Cleo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC: How to describe Miss Cleo in her article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 probably only if there were independent reliable sources indicating that an actual shamanistic religion accepted her a shaman (i.e., a religious figure), 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 claims about herself, and clearly attributing them 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)

  PS: Another way of looking at this: Treat it exactly the same as the kayfabe roles, and statements made within them, of pro wrestlers; it's "in-universe". They even come from the same traveling carnival tradition as pro psychics/mediums/fortunetellers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:03, 11 September 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)

• C in the form set out by ONUnicorn below, first choice, then A, second choice. (Changed from just "A" after seeing ONU's suggestion. The following is my tldr reasoning for supporting 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)

Oooooooo, I like ONUnicorn's suggestion, below (with or without the article name change, but better with it). Changing my !vote to support that position, first, then A. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:38, 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 psychic 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 psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• A very good proposal.  (But please note that her stage name is "Miss Cleo," not "Ms. Cleo.")  Richard27182 (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• No need to move the article, as Harris is not notable aside from Miss Cleo, and virtually all of our comparable articles are at the WP:COMMONNAME, the character/alias name (see: pro wrestlers, actors, rock stars, porn performers, etc.). It's quite rare for us to use the real name, usually only a) the real name is actually more common (e.g. David Johansson not Buster Poindexter; Richard Ramirez not "the Night Stalker"), b) the real person is very famous for multiple such roles/aliases (e.g. Sacha Baron Cohen for both Borat and Ali G, notable enough for separate articles), or c) the in-universe name was lifted from a prior context and is independently notable apart the "borrowed" usage (e.g. Rudolf Wanderone, whose nickname "Minnesota Fats" was taken from The Hustler after the novel became a movie, and who was using many other aliases before that).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• C Per ONUicorn it seems like the article confuses Ms. Cleo and Ms. Harris. Setting it up similarly to the Colbert pages seems appropriate. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• A - "Psychic" doesn't carry a connotation that someone actually has psychic powers to me - it's just the word you use for that kind of occupation. Similarly if you described Penn and Teller as "magicians," I wouldn't take you to mean that they literally have magic powers. Indeed the Magic (illusion) refers casually to "stage magic" and "platform magic." I doubt anyone reads this as talking about actual magical powers. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• B for now I support B for now. I don't think there should be two separate articles; Miss Cleo should redirect to Youree Dell Harris. "Miss Cleo" is the best-known of several broadly similar characters (that might be better viewed as separate business ventures), and does not have a public presence that differs from Harris's. Roches (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Suggestion: I'm not voting, just suggesting that version A could easily be corrected to be nuetral if you use the phrase "She is PURPORTS to be a______ and ____ Etc." We use the word "purport" becuase it states that she is making a cliam but a claim that can neither be proven nor disproven. I was long time active in WikiProject Paranormal and we found "purport" or "purported" to be the most nuetral word we could find that satisfied believers, skeptics and pseudoskeptics, the three most active parties of editors on such article topics.LiPollis (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• A: Wikipedia's article on psychics starts with the sentence "A psychic is a person who claims to use extrasensory perception (ESP) to identify information hidden from the normal senses." (emph. mine) Describing her as a psychic does not mean admitting ESP exists, no more than describing someone as a catholic priest means endorsing transubstantiation. Brustopher (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) !Vote struck see below, leaning towards C by OHunicornBrustopher (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please see my remarks in the Threaded discussion labeled "Richard27182's counter opinion to TransporterMan's statement:", especially the three points starting with "I believe that nearly everyone knows (or thinks they know) what a "psychic" is."  Richard27182 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Being a Catholic priest is different to simply being a Christian. Catholic priests make the supernatural claim that they can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Calling someone a priest in wikipedia's voice does not mean endorsing transubstantiation. Similarly calling someone a psychic in Wikipedia's voice does not mean endorsing ESP. I'd disagree that calling someone a psychic means endorsing their claims to supernatural powers. Being a psychic is a job. Hence you hear the term "TV psychic" or "telephone psychic" used a lot, without any implication of real supernatural powers. Shaman should definitely be written in wikipedia's voice, as it's a priestly role. Brustopher (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Brustopher.
        You seem to be responding more to the first part of the posting I referred to; the really relevant part is the three points I made about the wiki-link to the Psychic article and the Psychic article itself.  But to respond to your posting, I would say that there is a big difference between a Catholic priest and a "psychic."  What defines someone as a Catholic priest is having undergone certain training (the seminary) and going through the official ordination ceremony.  Anyone who meets those criteria is by definition a Catholic priest.  But with "psychics" there are no formal criteria for definition other than supposedly possessing certain mystical powers.  The main problem here is definition; different people will define "psychic" differently.  The beauty of option (B.) is the the fact that it avoids the definition problem altogether.  Whether you believe in "psychic" powers or not, and however you define a "psychic"; no one can possibly disagree with the statement that she describes herself as a psychic.
        I will be happy to continue our discussion if you wish, but please note that I keep odd hours and may not be able to reply for as much as 24 hours (or maybe a bit more).  Also if we continue this discussion, I think we should do so under the Threaded discussion section rather than the Survey section.  Best regards.
  Richard27182 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• C I think the article needs split to separate the two. Miss Cleo was a character. If we start off with that fact then we can say that she was psychic [in-universe]. If we don't end up spitting the article than definitely B as only the character ever claimed to be psychic. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• A - To say that she "describes herself as a psychic" implies that Wikipedia believes that there are real psychics but that Miss Cleo is a fake psychic. Which is to say that all the other psychics are not faking and actually do have supernatural powers. I would also consider ONUnicorn's C because Miss Cleo is not Youree Dell Harris' real name and I'm not sure if, under her real name, she ever made any claims to supernatural powers. Louieoddie (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• B - neutral wording. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• B - see SMcCandlish's reasoning below. "Miss Cleo claims to be a psychic" is factually true. Less so "Miss Cleo is a psychic". — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 07:23, 11 September 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 [1]) 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)

In reply to TransporterMan:
      I must admit that I'm having some difficulty understanding the first part of your latest posting.  It's not your fault; I'm not saying it's poorly written.  I'm simply saying I'll need to read it several more times to fully grasp the point(s) it's making.  So for now let me comment on the rest of it.

• If I may I'd like to borrow your example of the priest supposedly turning bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ.  Would we write an article about the Roman Catholic Priesthood and say that one of the functions of a Catholic priest is to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and then to clarify things, have a wiki-link to the Transubstantiation article which says:  "Transubstantiation ........ is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church [emphasis added], the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ."?  It seems so complicated and unnecessary.  Why not just say it all in the priesthood article?  "According to Roman Catholic teachings and beliefs, one of the functions of a Catholic priest is to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ."  Period.  I don't understand the rationale behind stating something incomplete or even potentially misleading in the main article and then relying on something in a wiki-linked article to clarify or complete the point.  The same thing with the "faith healer" example.  Why refer to him as a "faith healer" (which implies that healing by faith is occurring) and then clarify things by wiki-linking to the Faith healing article, where the reader will finally get to see the word "claimed"?
• Concerning the Psychic article, I believe it is flawed by lacking essential references.  But in this particular case it's much more complicated than just needing a reference or two.  I'll agree that there are a few sources that define the word "psychic" loosely to include not just people who actually have "psychic powers" (if such a thing existed), but also people who simply claim to have those powers.  But plenty of sources (a majority I believe) define it specifically as someone actually having the alleged powers.  (An example is the definition according to Encyclopaedia Britannica / Merriam-Webster.)  So if you want to be totally complete, I guess you'd have to include both definitions, each with at least one reference, and perhaps an explanation of which is more commonly accepted.  (I would not want that job!) In any case we could completely avoid the definition problem altogether in the Miss Cleo article simply by using option (B.).
• On your last point about reliance on linking, you 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).  If I'm getting your point, you're saying that when the reader sees the link, he should realize that the link is important and should be followed.  I'll agree that would (or should) be true of Wikipedia editors.  But what about the 99.99% of Wikipedia readers who are not editors?  I doubt that they have read the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  How are they supposed to know that, in order to get the true meaning of the article, they must follow the link?
• Concerning the new (C.) option proposed by ONUnicorn, I believe that that would be just as good as the (B.) option; but (B.) remains my first choice simply because it would be soooooo much easier to implement.

I'll devote some more time reviewing the first section of your posting and try harder to understand the points that are being made.  I can comment on that in my next posting.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I think I like ONUnicorn's idea so much that I'd just as soon not spend much more time defending my position about A, though I continue to stand by it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182's indent preferences confound me, so I don't know how many would be proper to use in a reply, but regardless I want to point out that I entirely agree with him on this. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi KarasuGamma.  I'll be the first to admit that my indent preferences are often a bit unconventional and sometimes even inconsistent.  It's something I need to work on.
      But in any case I very much appreciate your support not only of my opinions in this case but also of my reasoning.  Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

About the available options

To all editors involved in this discussion:  I would like to suggest that options (B.) and (C.) need not be considered mutually exclusive.  Even if the Miss Cleo article eventually gets split into two articles (one about the real person and another about the "psychic" character she portrayed), that could require some time and collaboration among editors.  We might consider applying option (B.) right away (ie, at the time of the formal closing of the RFC), with the understanding that option (C.) would be implemented as soon as practical.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182:Sorry for my incredibly delayed response. You make a convincing point about the differences between priests and psychics. However, being a shaman is a priestly role even if it doesn't have the same strict definition as being a Catholic priest. Yet I'd be against saying she "is a shaman and claims to be a psychic" because she seems to be far more notable as a psychic than as a shaman. What would you suggest? Thanks. Brustopher (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher.
      Please don't worry about the delayed response; I am often late getting back to people myself.  The important thing is there's still about a couple weeks till the RfC closes, so you replied with plenty of time left for discussion.
      Concerning the shaman thing, I would say that if there is some kind of tangible training, or credentials, or ceremony that by definition make one a shaman, and if there is evidence that Miss Cleo meets that definition, then I'd be willing to directly call her a shaman.  But to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing tangible that makes someone a shaman; it seems to simply be something one declares oneself to be, just like with "psychic."
      But more importantly, the more research I do and the more I learn about "Miss Cleo," the more I'm convinced that what we're dealing with here is an actress (Youree Dell Harris), portraying a fictional character named "Miss Cleo" in a series of infomercials for a psychic phone service.  "Miss Cleo" is supposed to be Jamaican; Dell Harris is not (she's from Los Angeles).  Dell Harris does not have a Jamaican accent.  And she has portrayed other roles as well.
      I'm starting to think that this RfC is not so much about how a Wikipedia article should refer to an actual person who claims to be a "psychic" or "shaman," but rather if "Miss Cleo" even is an actual person claiming to be a psychic and shaman, or if she is actually just a fictional character portrayed by an actress.  I started out feeling that option (B.) was the only way to go; and, while (B.) remains my official choice for this RfC, I'm thinking more and more that, in the long run, perhaps option (C.) may be the way to go.  I would be very interested in hearing your views on all this.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182Your points are very convincing. I'll strike my !vote for A. But if any evidence emerges in the sources of her having gone through a training process to become a shaman I'd be willing to reconsider the wording. As for her openly being an actress the sources are conflicting. One refers to Cleo being a character "portrayed by Youree Dell Harris."[2] Another mentions that "Florida authorities have challenged Perris to prove that she really is a Jamaican shaman," which implies that she was not claiming to be an actress. All in all very confusing and conflicting Brustopher (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher.  I think it extremely unlikely that any evidence will emerge that would indicate her being anything other than an actress, and definitely not a true "psychic" (if such a thing existed in the first place) or shaman.  The key, of course, is reliable sources.  If we were to have two articles about this person (one on the character "Miss Cleo," and another on the real life person Youree Dell Harris), we would obviously need to find reliable sources to back up the information (particularly on the article about the real life person).  And I'm not sure if Wikipedia-grade references on her exist.  Even though having two articles may well be the best solution, I'm not sure if sufficiently good sources exist to make such an article feasible.  Another potential problem would be that the RfC may end up calling for the article to be split (option (C.)), but then the actual implementation may not get done.  (An uninvolved editor formally closing the RfC can implement minor changes in wording, but we could not expect him to do something amounting to a complete reworking of the article.)  That's the main reason I'd like to see option (B.) at least be a part of the final result; perhaps a combination of (B.) and (C.).  That way if option (C.) is called for but not implemented, at least option (B.) would eliminate the (IMO) non-neutral POV of directly calling her a "psychic."  It could be a fourth option, option (B.C.); the uninvolved editor closing the RfC would change the wording in the current article as specified in option (B.), but with the directive that the article be split according to option (C.).  It would be up to one or more editors to take on the task and complete it.  What is your opinion on all this?
Richard27182 (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Until something reasonable can be drafted for such a split if it happens, what about possibly moving the whole thing to an article on Harris? This would entail leaving most of the Miss Cleo information as a large section amounting to evidence for Harris' personal notability, while also allowing for more accurate biographical information and sections for some of her other characters. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be for moving the article to a better name. I think we need to shelve the lead wording discussion until we decide what to do with the article. Harris is obviously not a psychic, she's an actor. The character would (in universe) be a psychic though. We don't say that Gandalf claims to be a wizard, he is a wizard. Same with Harry Potter. We either need to split out the character (who very well may be notable on her own) or we need to move the page to Harris. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

      I would not mind shelving the lead wording discussion temporarily until we decide what to do with the article (in terms of whether to split it and what name(s) should appear in the article title(s)).   But I do believe that it's important whether or not the article(s) directly say that someone actually is a psychic or has psychic powers.  I'd be much more comfortable (or at least less uncomfortable) if the article referred to a fictional character as being a "psychic" rather than referring to a real person as such.
      I would definitely support splitting the article (as previously discussed) or changing the article to an article about Youree Dell Harris (with an appropriate redirect from "Miss Cleo"). But there are some very important logistical things to consider.  The RfC is scheduled to auto-close in well under two weeks.  I had assumed that we would discuss it until then and then ask that an uninvolved editor do a formal closure and make the necessary adjustments (if any) to the article.  If the uninvolved editor closes the RfC in favor of splitting, is he supposed to do all that work himself?  I think that would be asking a lot of someone who was uninvolved to begin with.  And what if he makes mistakes or even misinterprets what we had in mind.  We'd be more or less stuck with it.  An alternative would be for us to prepare a complete article (or articles) in a sandbox.  Then if the uninvolved editor closes the RfC in favor of that option, all he'd have to do would be to replace the current version with the new version.  But it would take time (probably more than two weeks) for us to come up with the new version(s).  I'm not at all opposed to taking this path, but if we're going to rewrite or even just restructure the article (the sandbox version(s)), I would want to extend the RfC's auto-close date.  (And being a relative newcomer, I don't even know how to do that; someone else would have to do it.)
      I know I've written a lot here, but this RfC has evolved into something much more complicated than what it started out to be.  I'd like to hear how others feel about all this.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have pinged those involved. @Brustopher: @KarasuGamma: @Jerod Lycett:
Richard27182 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You managed to edit that ping in right while I was reading your response. The instructions given at Template:Rfc provide an indirect option to trick the auto-close bot into thinking the RfC started later than it actually did, by including a false timestamp between the template and the first comment under it. As for the plan for the article, I do agree that a sandbox rewrite would be a good place to start, though I don't have any experience either in substantial rewrites of articles or with anything about Harris. I'd be more in favor of moving than of splitting, since I think there might not be enough notability to have an article for Miss Cleo independent of one for Harris, but again, I haven't personally done any research into her - I only arrived here from the feedback request service, and didn't think I'd get any more involved than my initial vote. (And for what it's worth, I might as well say now that I think the eventual description of Miss Cleo should still be careful about its language, possibly using a construct like "she is portrayed as a psychic" to emphasize that she's fictional, but that can be saved for when that discussion becomes relevant again.) —烏Γ ^(kaw), 07:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi KarasuGamma.
      With the way this RfC is becoming more and mote complex, I think it would be a good idea to extend it.  I think the best time to do that would be when there is about a week left for it to run, and extend it for another month.  I read the instructions about changing the first date stamp and I should be able to handle it with no problem.
      Concerning the issue of whether or not Wikipedia should directly refer to someone as a psychic, I would say that you and I are not just on the same page but the same paragraph (I'd go so far as to say the same sentence.)  I believe it should always be worded such that it's clear that Wikipedia is simply reporting that So-and-so describes himself as, or claims to be, or calls himself a psychic; I believe that to do otherwise would be interpreted at least by some readers as Wikipedia declaring them to actually have psychic powers.  But there are many editors who would disagree with us on that.
      Concerning the splitting vs. moving issue, I would tend to agree with you about there not being enough notability to have an article for each.  I think there's just about enough notability for one or the other; but I think that whichever one the article is about, there should be an article named for the other that redirects to the full article.  Moving (which I believe amounts to renaming) would require a few changes here and there, but would probably be much easier than having two articles.
      Something important to keep in mind here is the fact that the move/split option (what's been called "option (C.)) is only one of three options.  There's no guarantee that there will be consensus on it or that the uninvolved closing editor will determine it to be the RfC's result.  But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still pursue it, including preparing a sandbox version.
      I know I've written a lot here, but as I've written before, this RfC has evolved into something much more complex than what it started out as.  Anyway what do you think about all this?
Richard27182 (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem a bit confused as to what a closing editor would do. They don't necessarily have to do any of the work. They're basically saying what the result of the discussion was, including if no consensus was reached. I think it's fairly obvious what the results are at this point, either we need to rename or split the article, or we need to reword it to indicate that she only played a psychic/shaman. I mean look at the survey, and discussion, the majority are in favor of rewording (option B). I think that's actually itself been resolved, and now we're discussing how to do it. Our options are, leave the page as is, and just reword it, rename the page and put Miss Cleo as her most well-known character, or split the page. I came to the RfC as a neutral party on the subject. I actually could have closed it when I came as a SNOW. I didn't because the discussion of how to resolve it needs to be completed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jerodlycett.
      Sorry if what I wrote mislead you.  I know that the job of the closing editor is just to determine the result of the discussion in the RfC (including the possibility of no consensus).  But at least in some cases, the closing editor will implement the change called for (assuming it's just changing a few words in the article or something like that).  At least that's what happened in the last RfC I participated in.
      I must admit I'm a little confused when you write that the majority are in favor of option (B.) and now we're discussing how to do it.  Option (B.) describes a very specific wording to be used.  If we choose option (B.) there is nothing to discuss in terms of wording; the wording is already specified.  Where there is a need for discussion concerns option (C.), how to rename or split the article.
      If I'm missing the point here then please correct me.  But my understanding is that option (B.) means simply changing the article to read that she "describes herself as a psychic and shaman."  While option (C.) calls for renaming or splitting the article, and that option would require discussion and figuring out specifically how to implement it.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that you started it as a poll. It should have been a discussion of if the change in wording was needed. In discussion of the poll it was pointed out that splitting or renaming the article is a better solution. You added it as an option C. It wasn't a third option actually, it was a separate proposal. Iff the page isn't renamed or split we'll go with B, which was WP:SNOWED. Next time consider WP:POLLING only after a long discussion. We have had one actually just now. It would be best to start a new section on this page, point out the discussion that occurred here, and poll on the three options of splitting the page, renaming the page, and keeping the page the same, but following the snow to option B. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jerodlycett.
      Actually I modeled this RfC after the previous RfC in which I participated (which was opened and more or less managed by Robert McClenon (see Wanderer RfC)).  In this RfC (as in that one) there was an "extra" option simply defined as "Other (please specify)".  At some point during the discussion, ONUnicorn proposed the splitting/renaming idea, and that became known as option (C.)
      I agree with you 100% that, if we do not use option (C.) then option (B.) is the best choice. I am about to post a suggestion in which I describe what I feel would be the simplest way to implement options (C.) and (B.).  If enough editors agree with it, we could either declare consensus, or request formal closure by an uninvolved editor when the RfC auto-closes around Sept. 15th.  Please let me know what you think.  (Also please hold your response for at least 5-10 minutes to give me time to post my suggestion).  (Also, I'm about to go out for the day and may not be able to reply right away, but I definitely will reply.)  Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion about discussion is not helpful. It shouldn't matter whether it started as a poll or a discussion; in pretty much all cases, an RfC evolves to have both. Also, I do recommend that Richard figure out a system for adding comments that better fits with what's generally used; indenting with NBSPs is not clean or easy to follow, and it makes replying inconvenient. I'm going to split this discussion into subsections based on your arbitrary space-creating and bolding. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 01:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi KarasuGamma.

   I agree that discussion about discussion is not helpful.  We should all be discussing the best way to improve the article, not discussing how we should be discussing it.  I'll also agree that indenting with all those &nbsp's makes the wiki code more difficult to follow; but I do like to indent my paragraphs.  Is there an easier way to do an indent than using a bunch of &nbsp's?

   Thank you for adding the subsections.  It not only makes things clearer and easier to follow, but it will also make adding new postings much easier (especially for people like me who use a mobile device and have to touchscreen scroll down from the last (sub)section title).  You've made editing this RfC a lot easier for me and I'm sure a lot of others.

   (Please see my other posting (below).)
Richard27182 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude with this, but after a quick bit of research it became rather obvious that sticking to the standard indentation scheme described at WP:TALK#Layout is a Wikipedia guideline. I'm not sure there is another option. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 18:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of the end result

Pinging all editors involved so far:
@DESiegel: @Omnedon: @KarasuGamma: @SMcCandlish: @Johnuniq: @TransporterMan: @Meatsgains: @Cwobeel: @ONUnicorn: @Comatmebro: @Lord Mondegreen: @Roches: @Lisapollison: @Brustopher: @Jerodlycett: (I believe I've included everyone).
      We've spent a long time discussing what (if any) changes should be made to the Miss Cleo article.  There seems to be an overall pseudo-consensus for either option (B.) or option (C.) or a combination.  I think the most simple and effective way to implement both options would be to do the following:

• Create an article for Youree Dell Harris which redirects to the Miss Cleo article, and .......
• Change the first paragraph of the Miss Cleo article to read:
  • Miss Cleo, who describes herself as a psychic and shaman, achieved fame as a spokeswoman for a psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003.  Miss Cleo is actually portrayed by actress Youree Dell Harris.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss Youree Dell Harris; which is just as well because there's not much more to say about the character "Miss Cleo."
      I really don't think we're going to come up with anything simpler that addresses both concerns.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: I forgot to mention her birthday. That could be included in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Richard27182 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At that point, wouldn't Harris be a more appropriate title for the article, since Miss Cleo would only be one part of it, and The rest of the article goes on to discuss Youree Dell Harris? That would be in line with what I suggested above about moving it to Harris, since she's likely more notable than her character. The lead would then read something like "Youree Dell Harris is an American actress who gained fame for portraying the character of Miss Cleo, a fictional psychic and shaman, as a spokeswoman for a psychic pay-per-call service from 1997 to 2003." The article would have sections on Harris' biography, Miss Cleo, and her other characters. Such a move would allow for cleanup by way of removing the long string of "aliases" from the lead and mentioning them in the latter section. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 01:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm with the raven, I say move to Youree Dell Harris if we're going to discuss more than just Miss Cleo. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

*Crow. Ravens always steal all the glory from the rest of us corvids. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 06:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I love all corvids, we just have more ravens around here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@KarasuGamma:  @Jerodlycett:

  I'll agree that "Youree Dell Harris" would be a more appropriate title for the article since Miss Cleo would only be a part of it.  Also I like the way the "psychic" would then be identified as a fictional character; it sounds a lot better than referring to a real person as a psychic.  My only concern would be that probably a lot more people have heard of Miss Cleo than Youree Dell Harris, and they might have trouble locating the article.  Could we also have an article titled "Miss Cleo" that would just redirect to the Youree Dell Harris article?

Richard27182 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course we'd leave Miss Cleo as a redirect. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the whole point of redirects. The implementation, as it is currently, is that Youree Dell Harris already redirects to Miss Cleo, so to do it this way would require a technical move request to swap the two around, but that's not any sort of challenge. At this point, I'm not even sure we'd need to extend the RfC if there aren't any other objections to this outcome; there is no deadline for doing the resultant rewrite work. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 17:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan to me - I appreciate the ping. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett:  @KarasuGamma:  @Comatmebro:

Just a few remarks, observations, and questions.

• As I've indicated, I am in favor of the current plan as discussed, as long as the person referred to as a "psychic" is clearly identified as fictional.
• Just as a temporary stopgap measure, would anyone have any strong objections to temporarily implementing option (B.) after the RfC is over and before the actual reworking of the articles begins?  I only ask this so that, just in case we never get around to doing the reworking, at least one of the issues will have been dealt with.  Assuming the reworking of the articles does take place, the language of option (B.) would no longer be needed.
• Do we currently have sufficient consensus to proceed with the proposed reworking of the articles?
• Is it our intention to establish consensus, close the RfC ourselves, and implement the article reworking?  Or are we planning on having an uninvolved editor do a formal closure?  (Either way is OK with me.)

Richard27182 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't controversial, I say we can close ourselves. After closure the articles should be moved, and the lead rewritten to something like Youree Dell Harriss is an actor who gained fame for playing psychic Miss Cleo... Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett:

Closing it ourselves is fine with me.

In the unlikely event that the proposed reworking of the articles gets put off (say a month goes by with nothing being done), would you be willing to have me implement option (B.)?

Also what about consensus? (About seventeen editors have participated in this RfC.) Is there enough overall agreement to say we've achieved consensus?

Richard27182 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett:  @KarasuGamma:  @Comatmebro:

Our discussion seems to have ground to a halt; just when it seemed we had (at least a mini-) consensus.  I'm still OK with doing what we talked about doing.  Are the rest of you?  And if so, what's the next step?

Richard27182 (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If no one else is saying anything and everyone's agreeing, that's consensus. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jerodlycett
I know that the four of us (you, me, KarasuGamma, and Comatmebro) have more or less reached a consensus (assuming you're OK with my contingency plan of using option (B.) if for some reason the restructuring of the articles never gets done). But what about the other thirteen editors who participated, many of whom selected option (B.)?   Can the four of us declare consensus when a majority of the participants have chosen something different?
Richard27182 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182:Yes. Consensus isn't a vote, it's a discussion. They didn't participate in it though, and from what I can see most of them chose B before a third option was presented, so it wouldn't be really valid. It'd all be made moot by moving the article though. If you're so worried about closing it, ask someone else to do it, WP:AN/RFC is where you'd go. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jerodlycett.  If I post a message on WP:AN/RFC asking for someone to close the RfC, doesn't that result in an uninvolved editor determining consensus himself and making any appropriate changes based on that determination?  Also if I do do that, would it be advisable to wait until after the RfC auto-closes (for new comments) on or about September 14?  You've been an editor longer than I have, so I'll just trust your judgement.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To all editors:  Please note that this RfC's 30 day auto close date is rapidly approaching at which point the RfC will be automatically closed to further postings. If anyone has any additional comments, suggestions, or opinions to post, now is the time to do it. Thank you to everyone who participated.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Reflist

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miss Cleo's occupation

(Please note that this section is not part of the RfC.)
There is currently an active RfC about whether we should say that Miss Cleo "is" a psychic or "describes herself as a psychic." To list her occupation as "Psychic, shaman" at this point in time tremendously complicates things. If you wish to make this change, I only ask that you please hold off until the RfC is fully concluded (by around the middle of September). At that time it will be clear whether or not listing her occupation as such is consistent with what the rest of the article will say. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There is some discussion on whether to split it into two pages too. If the page is split, only Miss Cleo and not the actress would be a psychic. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A topic can only be split to a separate article if it satisfies WP:N, and I doubt there is sufficient material for two articles about notable topics. Far too much time is being spent on this minor issue—no one is a psychic because such things do not exist. Therefore, some alternative wording is necessary because the principle at WP:Real world applies—Peter Capaldi is an actor, not a time lord. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I came here to read the RfC (which I do not think is a minor issue - but one which has serious implications for all articles dealing with subjects related to what people or groups believe or claim to believe independent of scientific or historical research, i.e. almost all articles dealing with religion). However, in the article I noticed the line " It emerged that Harris was actually born in Los Angeles, and that her parents were U.S. citizens." This wording implies that she was claiming something different. But there is not content in the article detailing this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)