This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it Wallyfromdilbert. I returned the link to Mark Edwards as it is relevant, and you deleted it. This is disruptive and unwelcome behaviour. CatCafe (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is the link relevant? You can't just state it as a fact with no explanation or sourcing. Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations and instead engage in a discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. RobP (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are you claiming the links in the "see also" section are not unsourced? Also, regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your def of unsourced? They are not links to external articles. They go to Wiki pages which have their own sourcing. RobP (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing has to be done on this actual page, and wikilinks to other articles are not considered reliable sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. Also, the articles I removed from the "see also" section do not mention this article subject. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Of course the articles linked to "don't mention the subject of this article." Wikilinks - esp those in See Also - rarely do. That's why they are "tangential." You cannot be seriously arguing that you can only wikilink to articles that mention the ones linking to it, can you? RobP (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the links have no relevance other than to disparage the article subject, then they need to be sourced per the WP:BLP policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wally, you are disruptive editing, edit warring, uncivil and do not have concensus. Your behaviour akin to a vandalism. Stop it. CatCafe (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how WP:VANDALISM works here, and you should stop because that can be considered a personal attack. How about instead actually responding to what I have said? Also, what New York Times article are you referencing in your edits? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologise to you for any offense. You are also making personal attacks. As you were the one who started an edit war refusing to discuss on talk pages and you now have 3RR and no concensus because of your uncivil behaviour, please sort out your own problematic editing behaviours first. CatCafe (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of stuff like this on the page - “My life mission is to bring peace of mind, comfort, joy and sometimes laughter to those who long for contact with a loved one who has passed and I am grateful to be able to make connections nightly, because our spirits never die.”[14] Isingness (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isingness: "Lots of stuff" is not very helpful. Mind you I wrote this article - and did not add all of the Peacock stuff, but am glad to remove it. Good now? RobP (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, doesn't like there is much left after the clean-up. Isingness (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources describe them pleading guilty to a felony, or being convicted of a felony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mountebank dropped his last name and re-branded himself as a medium after pleading guilty to theft and computer fraud. "It was basically something I did out of necessity," John told The News last year. "I've turned my life around since then."[36] 99g (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock[reply]

The word felony is suspiciously absent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomas Flanagan, also known as drag entertainer Lady Vera Parker, has been jailed on two felony counts" [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charged, convicted or pled guilty seems to be missing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't synthesize that he's a felon from the two sources. You need a source saying he pled to felonies. Charges often change after arrest and during plea bargaining. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mountebank dropped his last name and re-branded himself as a medium after pleading guilty to theft and computer fraud. "It was basically something I did out of necessity," John told The News last year. "I've turned my life around since then."[2] 99g (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock[reply]

Where does it say felony? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{ScottishFinnishRadish, why do you repeatedly claim the sources do not say he plead guilty? That's plainly an untrue statement by you. 99g (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock[reply]

I'm saying that it doesn't say he pled guilty to a felony, which it doesn't. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't grasp your current argument considering your reverts have been accepted and the other the other editor tidied up the section. The. sources do say what you said they didn't - both in their own words - and any synthesis has been sorted in the article. Currently seems like WP:soapboxing to me. 99g (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock[reply]

My current argument is that we can't call a BLP a felon without sourcing. You'll notice that when I edited the article originally I left the information about his pleading guilty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out edits by a blocked sock. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little sourcing for this, and I think it is undue weight in the lead. The other information on the lawsuit is probably undue as well, per the very few sources covering it, but it's like to start by at least removing a minor criminal matter with only a few sources mentioning it from the lead. Thoughts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the lead, as it does not seem to be an issue which he is primarily known for, even though it's in the body. For comparison, the lead for Alec Baldwin does not mention the Rust shooting incident, and George Washington's mentions almost none of the famous battles he fought or led. Undue weight for the lead indeed. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for now. We'll see if there is any other input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas John (medium) → Thomas John Flanagan – Natural disambiguation, and avoids issues regarding the uncritical use of "medium". BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually any reliable sources that use the name Thomas John Flanagan? Do we even know that's his name? Actually, it's here. It's not the common name, nor does he use that name anymore, but I'm not strongly bothered one way or another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME. Nearly all reliable sources use "Thomas John" exclusively (he starred in The Thomas John Experience, not The Thomas John Flanagan Experience). Natural disambiguation is only appropriate if the alternative is in common use, albeit not as much as the preferred title. I think "medium" is a fine disambiguator: Merriam-Webster defines it as "an individual held to be a channel of communication between the earthly world and a world of spirits" and Collins as "a person who claims to be able to contact and speak to people who are dead, and to pass messages between them and people who are still alive." Another possible disambiguator term is "(psychic)" as seen in Category:American spiritual mediums and Category:American psychics. We can call someone a magician without implying they actually do supernatural magic tricks, and can call someone a medium or psychic if that's what they are most prominently known as. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]