Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Skepticism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WP:UNDUE is being violated, with editors promoting fringe science. I ask you to refrain from these activities, as this has been noted on the fringe noticeboard. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed some more promo sounding content and wanted to explain one of them so hopefully it won't keep happening. There was a sentence that said, "The series began broadcast on the E! Television Network in the United States in January 2016, enjoying immediate ratings success and prompting the network to order additional episodes," that I changed to: "The series began broadcast on the E! Television Network in the United States in January 2016, and was E!'s largest launch of a non-spinoff unscripted series in the past three years with 3.2 million viewers for its third episode." I changed the wording b/c the show was originally ordered for 8 episodes and it was extended to 10 only recently. It might be extended for a 2nd season next month and then a 3rd and then a 4th and that one sentence in the lead would have had to be constantly updated if it was left the way it was, so per WP:NOTNEWS I tried to change it to something that would be more static. Someone can delete the last part about the number of viewers if they want btw. I couldn't decide. PermStrump(talk) 17:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that many or all of the sources used in this section do not meet WP:RS and some have been cited to support statements not contained in the source. I've corrected one statement so far but not yet deleted it for lack of WP:RS. This is not sufficient for WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicimanyd (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I deleted the section. This is a concern, this article is on WP:FT/N because of the praise section. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you will consistently reinstate EVERY pieces of criticism edited but you remove the ENTIRE section for praise? Why is that OK???? Sounds like someone is using their wiki gig as a place for personal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizza2 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not the way to contribute to Wikipedia and can get you blocked. Since you are new and unfamiliar with our editorial policies I suggest you read them, particularly WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Our policies specify we don't give equal credibility to fringe ideas (e.g. that someone's psychic powers are validated). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My husband and baby sister passed. I.Did my husband have enough time to get right with God? And are they both out pain.? I'm not rich. Right now I'm not even employed. But I will come up with your fee. Ellen Pennington (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is incredibly sad, and exactly the reason why Henry is castigated as a grief vampire. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2016, Henry had Corey Feldman on his show, and conveniently managed to "conjure up the soul of the late Corey Haim." On the show, he claimed that Haim was glad that Feldman has published his private sexual abuse, and encourage to come forward to name names. Well, Corey Haim's mother saw this show, and said that this was all nonsense, as he (Corey H.) did not want his abuse publicized and was never as close friends with Feldman, as Hollywood made them out to be. She also said that the ring Feldman brought on the show, claiming that was given to him by Haim, was not the one he had given to him.

In other words, she said everything Tyler Henry has said about her son, were lies!!!!--Splashen (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that. It's almost as if he doesn't have psychic abilities at all. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor added a new section, Rebuttal, as a counterpoint to the material in the Criticism section. This is not encyclopedic style. I therefore have deleted it. RobP (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in on the talk page about your edit. However, your removal of this section has made the article one-sided and biased.

I mean, all that psychic stuff is spooky (and I honestly don't know whether it's true or not), but you have this huge section "against" the subject, and the small section "for" him was deleted, making a biased article even more biased. This is not encyclopedic.

But, if you mean that my edit (adding the rebuttal section in right here) was too brief and curt, I would agree with you. Help me fix that, so the article is balanced and explains both (or all) sides of the issue.96.59.177.219 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, I added one other criticism not mentioned earlier, of an authenticity or religious nature, not related to alleged accuracy issues. See my subsequent edit.96.59.177.219 (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that your edit was too short. A Wiki article is not the place to have an ongoing argument. Reliably cited facts are stated in a Wiki article and then, when appropriate, challenged... either in a criticism section as here, or after each point. There is no Rebuttal section needed. Should there then be a Rebuttal to the rebuttals section? And so on? If there are more (reliably sourced) facts on the positive side, add them to the sections above Criticisms. Also, please open an official Wiki account. RobP (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On the Henry page, I was actually trying to soften the impact slightly of having the section named just Criticism. Please see WP:CRITS. As an example, see the article on the queen of medium scam artist: Sylvia Browne. There is no section named Critisism there, though many sections actually are just that. RobP (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob, I do understand where you are coming from on this, and I agree that your edit softened the feel of the title somewhat, and that is why I reverted. I don't think we should waiver from the mainstream scientific POV that Wikipedia is written in. The people listed represent that very well, and don't need to be highlighted as anything special over and above their own articles. (I also note that I personally don't like "Criticism" sections if they can be avoided, but this article is too short to incorporate the mainstream view into other sections.) So, what do we do? Would you mind if I moved this discussion to the article talk page? Roxy the dog. bark 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points... and please do. RobP (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from my talk page

It seems QG was watching. I wont be reverting him. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception" seems problematic. Positive or negative opinions would both fit under such a name. So all the items placed under Rebuttal (and deleted) could be added back within this section now. No?RobP (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comments seem to be very positive for what they have done. I tried different names. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love Critical analysis... but I do not get the meaning of your comment... They? And comments about what? Not following you. RobP (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical analysis", which is there right now, seems quite pretentious for a collection of brief criticisms with quotes, IMO. Sorry, QuackGuru. It makes the reader expect something different, something more academic and thorough. I think either "Criticism", "Reception" or "Commentary" would work. The second and third of those could conceivably accommodate some more positive commentary of reasonable quality and provenance, if any such can be found; I don't think the IP's credulous anecdotes qualify, and even less their suggestion of demoniac possession. (<sarcasm>Great source there.<sarcasm>.) Bishonen | talk 23:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not really following this page. I was just driving by. I don't understand what I previously wrote on the talk page. I swapped Critical reception for Critical analysis. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we should go back to plain old Criticism? (Rp2006) 24.186.54.68 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]