This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Looks like we should go back to plain old Criticism? (Rp2006) 24.186.54.68 ( talk) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
As Tyler Henry has no notoriety without his TV show, Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry, I believe they should be covered in one article. RobP ( talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
So where are we with this? I was about to start adding reviews of Henry's first book to the book section of the Tyler Henry article, but don't want to do that until a decision about this merge is reached, especially if the TH article is going to go away. RobP ( talk) 14:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's fine. Way too much overlap just now. More than enough time passed already, feel free to reorganize the articles if you have time. You can keep the logo in the appropriate section of the article but not in the top infobox. Mymis ( talk) 17:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have done a basic redirect of Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry to Tyler Henry. There is no Talk page content to merge, however anyone wishing to salvage text from the previous article and relocate it in this article should go back in the article history and extract it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed the Nicki Swift bit from the article, since it´s only sourced to Youtube. [3]
It was reinstated by Rp2006 [4]. I think I´m right. Opinions, anyone? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The addition of he COI banner seems incongruous at this time. I am unaware of the origins of the article, but have made extensive edits along with other editors over a long period of time. There was also the recent merger of the Hollywood Medium article into this one done by consensus. If you want the banner returned, please discuss detailed issues here first. RobP ( talk) 01:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we can all agree on the merits (or lack thereof) of Tyler Henry, but the critical analysis section feels like overkill. We don't need fourteen different bullet points making the same points again and again, especially since half of them seem to come from just one person (Susan Gerbic). 69.119.69.88 ( talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Opening with "this guy is a fraud according to opinionated sources" is extremely biased. Controversy belongs in the controversy section. The critical analysis section is written in a "gotcha" tone; the info is fine, but the tone is not neutral & needs to be revised. The info needs to be presented without showing bias. Waterv1 ( talk) 08:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It's absolutely not written neutrally. If I went through the critical analysis section & changed some minor wording without removing any info, would that be acceptable? I'll forget the opening for now Waterv1 ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
At the very least, "It is the opinion of scientific skeptics that mediumship is a con, and that Henry is no exception."
Should be changed to something like
"Many skeptics have voiced criticism of Henry and his practices"
As it is now, the tone is very accusatory and "gotcha"-esque. The article as a whole is set up to paint him in a negative light, not neutrally presenting balanced facts and opinions.
Waterv1 ( talk) 09:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That may be so, but there still ought to be cleanup. Regardless of bias, it's repetitious and more complex than it needs to be. 109.246.15.19 ( talk) 12:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed
"In 2015, the Independent Investigations Group awarded Henry's show the Truly Terrible Television Award "in acknowledgment of the extraordinary ongoing deceit of the American public represented in this television program".[16]"
from the lead. The year is wrong, BTW, Henrys show started 2016.
Rp2006 reverted: It’s an important item from the article summarized in the lead
The body says:
"In 2016, the Independent Investigations Group awarded Henry's TV show the "Truly Terrible Television Award", which read: In recognition of the lack of scientific integrity, and in acknowledgment of the extraordinary ongoing deceit of the American public represented in this television program, the IIG is unfortunately obligated to present this award to Hollywood Medium for truly terrible television 2016.[16]:06:15"
It's a small section, only adds a longer quote to what lead says, and it's primary sourced, no indication that any indendent RS noticed that this happened. It's not lead material. Perhaps not even article material ("Death of AT" and "Critical analysis" are still bloated), but not lead.
Comments? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
90% of it is about criticism of him, while numerous editors have tried to add in positive claims about him but been deleted. This is not an encyclopaedic article. Especially considering that BLP is meant to be generally positive towards people who are alive, this is simply a bad article. 58.179.159.63 ( talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree. This article is really bad. Searching for other psychics such as John Edwards, who is also discredited as a fraud; his WP article makes him out to be an lauded BLP. Someone really needs to take the time to clean this article up and scrub it of the negative bias that is obviously associated with psychics, but give the BLP the same respect and treatment as John Edwards and the like. Whoever wrote this had an agenda. Shameful. Even Sylvia Brown has a positive spin in her lede and she was a convicted felon! Maineartists ( talk) 18:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Counter NPOV article Tendentious editing littered with biased information spammed with links to Susan Gerbic,Mark Edward and Skeptic organisations , please get off your soapbox this article is no longer readable due to vandalism and editing warring, I want to know about the person not your opinion GigiDT ( talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I removed a lot from the see also section. Most of it was not relevant to Tyler Henry beyond his being a medium. Per MOS:SEEALSO, I think more of a connection is needed, as the section was too long and most of the entries would not be part of a comprehensive article on the biographical subject here. I kept two entries that were about TV reality shows, as Henry is described as a "reality show personality" in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how to fix it on mobile (I see no place to directly edit birth date) but Henry stated in episode 4 of his new Netflix series that he was born in 1996, so the ‘1996/1997’ can be edited. Please forgive me, very new to Wikipedia editing. 2607:FEA8:5CE0:3A60:C8FE:773F:D42E:CE73 ( talk) 16:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Looks like we should go back to plain old Criticism? (Rp2006) 24.186.54.68 ( talk) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
As Tyler Henry has no notoriety without his TV show, Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry, I believe they should be covered in one article. RobP ( talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
So where are we with this? I was about to start adding reviews of Henry's first book to the book section of the Tyler Henry article, but don't want to do that until a decision about this merge is reached, especially if the TH article is going to go away. RobP ( talk) 14:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's fine. Way too much overlap just now. More than enough time passed already, feel free to reorganize the articles if you have time. You can keep the logo in the appropriate section of the article but not in the top infobox. Mymis ( talk) 17:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have done a basic redirect of Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry to Tyler Henry. There is no Talk page content to merge, however anyone wishing to salvage text from the previous article and relocate it in this article should go back in the article history and extract it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed the Nicki Swift bit from the article, since it´s only sourced to Youtube. [3]
It was reinstated by Rp2006 [4]. I think I´m right. Opinions, anyone? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The addition of he COI banner seems incongruous at this time. I am unaware of the origins of the article, but have made extensive edits along with other editors over a long period of time. There was also the recent merger of the Hollywood Medium article into this one done by consensus. If you want the banner returned, please discuss detailed issues here first. RobP ( talk) 01:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we can all agree on the merits (or lack thereof) of Tyler Henry, but the critical analysis section feels like overkill. We don't need fourteen different bullet points making the same points again and again, especially since half of them seem to come from just one person (Susan Gerbic). 69.119.69.88 ( talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Opening with "this guy is a fraud according to opinionated sources" is extremely biased. Controversy belongs in the controversy section. The critical analysis section is written in a "gotcha" tone; the info is fine, but the tone is not neutral & needs to be revised. The info needs to be presented without showing bias. Waterv1 ( talk) 08:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It's absolutely not written neutrally. If I went through the critical analysis section & changed some minor wording without removing any info, would that be acceptable? I'll forget the opening for now Waterv1 ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
At the very least, "It is the opinion of scientific skeptics that mediumship is a con, and that Henry is no exception."
Should be changed to something like
"Many skeptics have voiced criticism of Henry and his practices"
As it is now, the tone is very accusatory and "gotcha"-esque. The article as a whole is set up to paint him in a negative light, not neutrally presenting balanced facts and opinions.
Waterv1 ( talk) 09:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That may be so, but there still ought to be cleanup. Regardless of bias, it's repetitious and more complex than it needs to be. 109.246.15.19 ( talk) 12:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed
"In 2015, the Independent Investigations Group awarded Henry's show the Truly Terrible Television Award "in acknowledgment of the extraordinary ongoing deceit of the American public represented in this television program".[16]"
from the lead. The year is wrong, BTW, Henrys show started 2016.
Rp2006 reverted: It’s an important item from the article summarized in the lead
The body says:
"In 2016, the Independent Investigations Group awarded Henry's TV show the "Truly Terrible Television Award", which read: In recognition of the lack of scientific integrity, and in acknowledgment of the extraordinary ongoing deceit of the American public represented in this television program, the IIG is unfortunately obligated to present this award to Hollywood Medium for truly terrible television 2016.[16]:06:15"
It's a small section, only adds a longer quote to what lead says, and it's primary sourced, no indication that any indendent RS noticed that this happened. It's not lead material. Perhaps not even article material ("Death of AT" and "Critical analysis" are still bloated), but not lead.
Comments? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
90% of it is about criticism of him, while numerous editors have tried to add in positive claims about him but been deleted. This is not an encyclopaedic article. Especially considering that BLP is meant to be generally positive towards people who are alive, this is simply a bad article. 58.179.159.63 ( talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree. This article is really bad. Searching for other psychics such as John Edwards, who is also discredited as a fraud; his WP article makes him out to be an lauded BLP. Someone really needs to take the time to clean this article up and scrub it of the negative bias that is obviously associated with psychics, but give the BLP the same respect and treatment as John Edwards and the like. Whoever wrote this had an agenda. Shameful. Even Sylvia Brown has a positive spin in her lede and she was a convicted felon! Maineartists ( talk) 18:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Counter NPOV article Tendentious editing littered with biased information spammed with links to Susan Gerbic,Mark Edward and Skeptic organisations , please get off your soapbox this article is no longer readable due to vandalism and editing warring, I want to know about the person not your opinion GigiDT ( talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I removed a lot from the see also section. Most of it was not relevant to Tyler Henry beyond his being a medium. Per MOS:SEEALSO, I think more of a connection is needed, as the section was too long and most of the entries would not be part of a comprehensive article on the biographical subject here. I kept two entries that were about TV reality shows, as Henry is described as a "reality show personality" in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how to fix it on mobile (I see no place to directly edit birth date) but Henry stated in episode 4 of his new Netflix series that he was born in 1996, so the ‘1996/1997’ can be edited. Please forgive me, very new to Wikipedia editing. 2607:FEA8:5CE0:3A60:C8FE:773F:D42E:CE73 ( talk) 16:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)