This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography 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 New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal Low‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Coding has been fixed and also a second source added, along with links to pertinent material. The delete message also contains the "keep" line so I am not sure if it is relevant any longer. Siinda ( talk) 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Can the opening be changed to something along the lines of "Coffey has been described as a psychic" or "Coffey describes himself as a psychic"? I might claim to tame unicorns, but that doesn't make me a unicorn tamer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.142.178 ( talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed. I changed it to reflect this.-- 66.201.219.76 ( talk) 17:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

For WP:BLP purposes, it is better to use descriptors used by the general media rather than going with "alleged" or other descriptors.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

If this article is still taking votes on keep or stay. I vote stay. Chip Coffey is well known in the skeptic universe. His Frank's Box is notorious in the pseudoscience world, and his name generates many anti-blogs against him. With this much attention he deserves his own page as (at least in the skeptic and paranormal world) he is noteworthy. And people searching the Internet for his name deserve to find out who he is. I don't have time to work on the page at the moment but if this is deleted (I won't cry any tears) then in the future I can see another one needing to be made. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

MERGE-after some consideration (and realization that he is not the Frank Box guy) I support a merger with the Psychic Kids page. Sgerbic ( talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Reap I undid the changes you just made to the page. Mainly because they were not formatted correctly. Before you hit save, you should hit "preview" so you can see if the changes your making are done correctly. We were all new once, so maybe try leaving the citations here on the talk page and we can add them if relevant to the page. You can then look at the "edit" page again and the text we used to make the citations correct. That's how I learned, carefully look at other edits. Copy and paste. Welcome, this page needs a Ton of work. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

We certainly cannot be posting accusations of child abuse sourced to blogs and message boards. That's a huge violation of WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 11:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi all. I'm planning to do a bit of a literature search and expand this page. The trouble is I'm coming up with a lot of coverage in reliable sources that's rather suspicious/negative toward Chip Coffey. If that's what the majority say, then so be it, we can report what they say, but as a WP:BLP Biography article, I'd like to ensure it has due balance, while relying on WP:RS Reliable Sources to source the most salient facts and opinions. So, if you know of any suitably reliable sources that say nice things about Coffey, please share them on this talk page. I intend to add some new information about TV and movie roles/appearances as well. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 16:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Didn't Randi.org give Coffey a Pigasus Award? Wasn't Coffey the focus of something called "Operation Bumblebee"? Not sure why that stuff isn't being covered by our article, but if you're looking for a sympathetic source, try Huffington Post, known to pursue readership with often credulous treatment of fringe ideas, yet considered reliable. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I was aware of Operation Bumblebee, and quite a few other things but not the Pigasus Award. The HuffPo one was about the only sympathetic source I found, so I'll try to reflect it, but without undue weight. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 18:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy for anyone to look over my draft, [1] expanding this article, which I'd hope to merge into the article later today. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Looks OK to me. One thing: the skeptic blog and the Coffey blog are iffy sources, but as they are now, they might be justified as a rough WP:PARITY. You want to avoid tit-for-tat coverage, e.g. "skeptics blogged A, psychic replied in his blog B, skeptics wrote in their blog C, psychic replied in his blog D", etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It's biased and WP:UNDUE, you merge and I'll revert immediately. Dreadstar ☥ 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe you can be specific about what parts are biased and undue. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe the proposing editor can bring his proposed edits to the article to this talk page for discussion, so we can go over them one at a time. Dreadstar ☥ 17:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

That sounds reasonable and a useful exercise in interpreting BLP rules for us all, especially where news sources are limited. I'll bring up a section at a time. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, all proposed sections are now included below, in order, each indented, where we can comment on each individually. All the references from the proposed version of the article are now shown at the bottom of the Talk Page. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

My last edit to my own Sandbox version before it was deleted includes the following Lead Section (double-indented). I would welcome discussion (with reasons) of whether this fits with WP:BLP. As the new content compared to the current page relies on the new section I proposed called Criticism, I follow with the contents of that, where I'd welcome comments too. Also, for discussion here: Is there any value in trying to obtain sources to elevate this page from a stub to a smallish article?

Revised LEAD SECTION proposal:

Chip Coffey is an American self-proclaimed psychic from Elmira, New York, currently living in Atlanta, Georgia. ^[1] He has appeared as a medium on various paranormal television programs, primarily Paranormal State and Psychic Kids. On Psychic Kids he acted as a mentor towards children who claimed to have psychic abilities, primarily seeing ghosts. He has been the subject of criticism by skeptics, including three who obtained false readings from the spirits of fictitious loved ones in 2014, and he has won a tongue-in-cheek Pigasus Award in 2009.

Only the last sentence differs from the current page. Please provide any comments specific to the Lead Section below this line or if more relevant to other proposed new sections, include them there. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing, 'self-proclaimed' is unnecessary.
• Per WP:UNDUE, the Pigasus award doesn't belong in the lead
• Per WP:UNDUE, the line "including three who obtained false readings from the spirits of fictitious loved ones in 2014," doesn't belong in the lead.

Dreadstar ☥ 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for responding.

The 'self-proclaimed' is in the current live article, so that should probably be removed straight away. I think I saw that same discussion going on in another article's talk page, and was a little surprised it was still here, but couldn't remember where I'd seen it discussed, so hadn't wanted to change it myself without knowing which policy or similar to cite. I should probably have found a way to highlight only what I'd changed more clearly.

Re the WP:UNDUE parts, do you think we should simply say "He has been the subject of criticism by skeptics" or omit that from the Lead entirely? I'm tempted to keep it, if it's notable/reliably-sourced enough to feature in the article, but I'd appreciate opinions from those more versed in interpreting policy. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, best to remove the self-proclaimed part. Leaving a general statement in the lede such as you describe, "He has been the subject of criticism by skeptics" is fine too, any details belong in the body of the article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I propose adding sourced material at the end of the History section, leaving the section as follows:

HISTORY (proposed version)

According to Coffey, when he was a child, he would tell his parents when the phone was about to ring and who was calling; referring to his ability to read the past, present and future as a "God given talent" ^[1] He said that his family was very accepting of his abilities and had a history of paranormal experience. ^[2] Coffey said that when he reached adulthood, he began to see full-body apparitions. He also defines what he feels is the difference between a ghost and a spirit is that "the latter has completed the journey between the world of the living and the world of the dead. Ghosts, on the other hand, are souls that, for whatever reason, have chosen to stick around. They may not know they're dead, or they may fear judgment on the other side." ^[3] He had worked as an actor and a travel agent then became a full-time medium in 2001 when he says that a co-worker's dead brother had spoken to him. ^[4]

Please comment on this section only, below. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments

This seems to be fine. Although it would be best if you highlighted your proposed changes. Dreadstar ☥ 00:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for looking it over Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 12:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a proposed New Section as part of my suggested rewrite:

Pet rescue and adoption group

With at least five rescue animals among his pets, Coffey has supported Georgia-based charity Angels Among Us Pet Rescue by hosting animal adoption web pages highlighting animals in need of adoption until around 2010. ^[1]

Please comment on this section below. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments

Seems fine. Dreadstar ☥ 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment. I had been a little concerned it was a single news source and appeared to be old news and of minor relevance to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicimanyd ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a proposed new section:

Television and film appearances and autobiography

Coffey joined the cast of The Night Visitor 2: Heather's Story in 2014 to play the character of Daniel, a psychic and medium.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).Moore, Debi (13 February 2014). "Casting News and an Update on The Night Visitor 2: Heather's Story". Dread Central. Retrieved 1 March 2015.</ref> He appeared in 31 episodes of Paranormal State and three seasons of Psychic Kids: Children of the Paranormal. ^[1] His autobiographical book, Growing Up Psychic, was published in 2012. ^[2]

Please leave comments on this section below. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments

Seems ok, but please format your references in a consistent manner. Dreadstar ☥ 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This proposed new section has two sub-sections.

Criticism

===Pigasus Award===

Coffey was awarded a Pigasus Award "For the psychic who tricked the most people with the least effort" in 2009 by the James Randi Education Foundation ^{[1] [2]}

===Operation Bumblebee===

At his San Jose, California, show in September 2014, Coffey was the first subject of Operation Bumblebee, described as a skeptical sting operation, which later also tested another medium giving telephone readings. The operation, in part, included a carefully-designed double-blind experiment that would have produced strong evidence of hot reading if it had been employed by either psychic tested. ^[3] While Coffey provided readings to three of the skeptics present, including the operation's leader Susan Gerbic, claiming to communicate with spirits of people who were fictitious or who were still alive, he made no mention of the planted false information, indicating that he did not use hot reading, though not ruling out cold reading. He did not appear to be able to detect that the three purported spirits were of non-existent or living people, and he claimed to be receiving communication from them. This was said to cast doubt on his claims of psychic ability.

In his own blog, responding in February 2015, he asserted that he knew all along, thanks to his team, that the three were skeptical infiltrators and that he deliberately gave them "precisely what they paid for: fake readings!" He did not say why he did not expose their fake stories or deceit at the time. ^[4] His response did not mention that he met them all very cordially and posed with each of them for smiling photographs after giving these false readings, again without referring to their identities or the falsehood of their readings. ^{[5] [6]} He also made no mention of the skeptics present at his show two days previously in Los Angeles, for whom he did not provide readings. ^[6]

Please comment on this section below. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Commments

A section on the Pigasus award? You must be kidding me. As for Bumblebee, it appears to be sourced on a self-published blog, find reliable second or third party sources instead. This is a WP:BLP, source it per that policy. Dreadstar ☥ 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Best to fold Pigasus into the "Criticism" section (I assume there will be one in this article). Here's some reliable sources to use for Bumblebee: [2] [3]. Also, some additional critique of Coffey can be reliably sourced to Joe Nickell. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit concerned that a self-published commentary by User:Sgerbic, who has shown an interest in this article for several years would be allowed such freedom to be a reliable source on Wikipedia for this subject. Dreadstar ☥ 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I wasn't sure how best to separate the Pigasus and Operation Bumblebee things, so tried the sub-headings, but perhaps they're too bold. Let's go with separate paragraphs then.

Re Operation Bumblebee, the principal source was Skeptical Inquirer, which I believe is WP:RS and subject to editorial overview etc., albeit that Susan Gerbic was the author. Susan Gerbic and Sheldon Helms' blogs are very much in accord, but with fewer details of the hot-reading test and more general details plus more photos including one of Coffey and Gerbic which doesn't appear entirely consistent with his claim that he knew she was a skeptic on the night. It's principally the photos of these skeptics with Coffey that I was citing their blogs for, plus the Los Angeles show two days previously. All the rest seems to be in Skeptical Inquirer. I find it all interesting, but would appreciate a dispassionate view of what should be in the Article and what level of sourcing is required. My intentions in my citing various sources shouldn't distract from deciding what it right according to Wikipedia policies, of course.

Thanks again, for the comments. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 13:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Dynamicimanyd, on review, your draft Criticism section was a bit wordy and depended too much on blogs as sources. I've added a more concise and copyedited version of a Criticism section to the article, along with a short sentence in the lead that summarizes what's contained in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for finding the additional sources and inserting that section. Sticking to these WP:RS seems to reduce the risk of giving WP:UNDUE weight to Coffey's response, which is just a personal blog, or to the blogs or Gerbic and Helms on the other side of the argument. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 15:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

No problem. I would hold off on inserting a photo of Coffey/Gerbic at this time. It might be appropriate if at some future date the Bumblebee story is picked up and commented on by multiple news outlets (for example), but right now it would be pushing the WP:UNDUE envelope. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Agree with LL. You might want to read over Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section, it has some helpful advice. Dreadstar ☥ 18:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Is there anyway that you would do a reading for me over the computer or on the phone and how much would that be you please email me at my email address And I will then send you my cell phone number I'm curious about someone in my family And I trust you I seen you on TV I've read your articles I just trust you to do this and I believe who you are New York great. Thank you sincerely Miss D. Miss Deborah Wilder ( talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry Miss Wilder - but Chip Coffey does not read the talk page of his Wikipedia page. If you pay him enough money I'm sure he will be happy to so a reading for you. I think his contact information is on the Wikipedia page, but you need to read it completely first. Good luck. Sgerbic ( talk) 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Miss Deborah Wilder: Additionally, this talk page is not a forum and cannot be used for discussion about Chip Coffey. It is strictly for improving the parent article. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. ( Contact me | Contributions). 22:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply