Talk:Colin Fry

POV

This page is obviously a skeptics view and is defamatory. The only people I have ever come across who are cold readers are skeptics like Derren Browne who try and prove psychics to be fake. Whilst there is so much evidence to support paranormal, dating back over thousands of years, it seems the people who cannot accept this are in some kind on denial. I really don't know how you skeptics manage to have kept breathing so long as you can't see air but its there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by YinYangChing (talk • contribs) 12:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody keeps changing 'medium' to cold reader. even if people do not believe that he has genuine abilities, he should be called a medium until proven otherwise. to call him a cold reader is highly pov Phallicmonkey (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

POV? No way it's fact, he is a complete faker 90.221.107.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

References messed up

I seem to have screwed up the references at the bottom, and im unsure how to correct it. I'm great with computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macromonkey (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be because you deleted named references which are being used elsewhere in the article. Fixed. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in introduction

I still think that there is too much criticism in the introduction, it belongs in the controversy section. I will change this if nobody else is willing to 86.135.4.81 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it should remain, since it is a summation of content in sections of the article. Read WP:LEAD for the requirements for the LEAD (we don't use the word "introduction" here, since the LEAD isn't made exactly like introductions in other places, although it serves much the same function. BTW, Macromonkey, remember to log in. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all very well and good, but how is it appropriate to have more than half of the 'lead' covering criticism, when this is already mentioned elsewhere in the article? It is useless, and serves no purpose other than to present a viewpoint from the outset. I think that 'he is a performer who claims to be a psychic and a medium' is good enough, as the criticism follows this statement in the controvesy section. And i was, but i cleared my cookies and was unaware it had signed me out, but thanks for the tip. Macromonkey (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you are relatively new here, so I'm just explaining that that is the way things work here. The LEAD should mention any content significant enough to have its own heading. It should not be a whitewashed definition or statement. If the subject of the article involves controversy, that should be mentioned in the lead.

Don't worry about the signing in thing. It can easily happen to even experienced users. It may be possible to tweak your browser's settings by adding the link to Wikipedia as an approved link. Also remember to indent your comments so they maintain the flow of the conversations. If the indents get to be too many, just outdent. We'll understand what's going on. So far I have done it for you a number of times: "Use indentation as shown in WP:TP (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)." Source: WP:Talk page guidelines

I commend you on your frequent use of edit summaries. To ensure that you always leave an edit summary, you can turn on the automatic reminder, which is found in the "my preferences" tab at the top right of the page. Then go to the "editing" tab and check off the bottom option. That's a great help and will quickly improve your statistics to 100%, which can be a factor in future situations where your editorial habits can count for or against you. Good habits will earn you respect and get you preferential treatment in some situations. This isn't your problem, but editors who consistently fail to use edit summaries will often have this fact mentioned and counted against them by other editors. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and advice; I have just changed the preferences as you recommended. I know that the introduction provides a summary etc, but I can't help thinking that it reads in a slightly bias way, and, it is a little repetitive when the reader comes to the later section of the article. I don't mind having the criticism in the lead, yet maybe it should be toned down and just say that he has numerous critics or even mention the trumpet, and go into the details later in the article? I know the information should still be in the article, yet maybe it should be shuffled about a little Macromonkey (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording isn't etched in stone and can be tweaked. Propose a better wording here and we'll all discuss it. If it gains consensus, then you can install it. -- Fyslee (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have recently thrown myself into fighting vandalism. How about: Colin Fry (born 1962) is an English television entertainer who claims to be a psychic and medium. He had attracted criticism, with some claiming that he uses cold reading techniques. I don't see the need for the trumpet incident in the lead, as the same thing exactly is said later. see what you think Macromonkey (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The trumpet incident seems important to me and should probably remain in the lead. Verbal chat 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, of course, relevant. But to include it in the lead is a little pointless as it is repeated later. And this is not done with other facts in the article, so too much weight in the lead is a little POV. I think the lead i suggested gives both opinions in fairly equal amounts Macromonkey (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article, so everything should be repeated :) It also got a lot of public attention and effected his career somewhat. Verbal chat 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm it should indeed I can't really argue with that, but in that case perhaps we should put something in about his television career? Macromonkey (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, that does get across the point more accurately. I was thinking of a slight rewording, such as 'was accused of using deception', as no real retribution has come to him through this, and it does seem a bit mroe neutral Macromonkey (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Testimony / General cleanup

I don't want to arbitrarily mess with another editor's contributions, but audience testimony from "Gail" seems like an irrelevance for a Wikipedia article, and a misguided attempt at balance to counter the more factual 'spirit trumpet' incident from the previous Controversy section (now Skeptic/Sceptic section).

I'm not convinced Believers / Sceptics is the best way to structure this article - the Believers part largely goes without saying (he was a medium, of course a lot of his audience believed he could communicate with people who had died; ditto for the Skeptics "critics usually assert that he had no paranormal powers and merely used basic cold reading techniques" - same for every medium.

I'd say the spirit trumpet incident is worthy of inclusion as specifically relating to Colin Fry - a lot of the rest is meandering or of little to no value in a Wikipedia article. Lythalicious (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Gail is important as a witness to Colin Fry's mediumship. Her reading appears on the Colin Fry 6ixth Sense DVD, she has written online about her reading with Colin Fry and her reading appears online for everyone to watch. I think wiki in the past has shown an unfair bias against mediums by not taking into consideration the testimony of people who had mediumship readings and gave evidence of their legitimacy and accuracy to the media. I don't know how you can call someone's personal experience of a televised mediumship reading irrelevant? Colin Fry was famous for his televised readings so you have to give some details about what he did and the outcome.

I am convinced that the Believers and Skeptics/Sceptics approach is the only way to structure this article for the sake of balance. If you just have the bare bones of a biography about Colin Fry without any detail about people's response to him and then a lot of detail about the trumpet incident you will have a ridiculous looking biased article. The trumpet incident relates to a time when Fry was known for Trance Mediumship something he appears to have moved away from at some point. He is better known for 6ixth Sense and giving readings, not for being in a trance. Don't build this article around the trumpet incident. I have already provided arguments here for both sides and I think I did a good job with difficult subject matter.C3MC2 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think it is the place of a Wikipedia article to prove or disprove Colin Fry's mediumship, so the talk of evidence and testimony seems moot. The spirit trumpet appears to me to be a notable incident - not something to "build an article around" or to be included as some sort of proof of Fry's fraudulence, just a noteworthy incident in his career. If there are other noteworthy incidents I'm happy for them to be included in a wider career section. An apparently successful reading is not noteworthy - he will have done hundreds (if not thousands) of these in his career, and in my view "Gail's" is no more noteworthy than his hundreds of other satisfied clients. Why single out this one if not simply to try to give some sort of evidence of his credibility? Wikipedia isn't Yelp, we're not rating Fry.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, I don't read it that the recording of opposing viewpoints is necessary for ensuring the article is written from a neutral point of view. Additionally:

- There is no case made for "Gail" being a reliable source. Let alone that her opinion should have equal weight to a published source (e.g. reporting of the spirit trumpet incident).

- The "Making necessary assumptions" section suggests there is no need to hash out the general issue of whether mediums are or are not frauds on every page about mediums. Maybe a couple of lines briefly summing up the opposing viewpoints in a single paragraph would be enough.

If the consensus is that the spirit trumpet incident puts an unfair or biased slant on the article, how about trying to give some more (sourced) context to it as you have alluded to in your comment?

If any other editors could chime in with their views that would be appreciated.

Lythalicious (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Differing opinions exist as to the nature of mediumship so the tone of the narrative is often influenced by belief or sceptism. This article has a long history of sceptical bias that contradicts your assertion that, "I don't think it is the place of a Wikipedia article to prove or disprove Colin Fry's mediumship". In order to discuss what Colin Fry is famous for doing, giving readings, you have to give details or citations about what he did and the outcome. If there is dispute about what he did (scepticism) then this too must be discussed. I added the information about Gail because I was told to provide a citation to support my text about what Fry did. Now you are saying individual readings are irrelevant! I've tried to expand this article, you are trying to shrink it. Any "incidents" are likely to be unusual and added to show Fry in a bad light while more positive stories are not considered noteworthy here?

Let's discuss the trumpet incident further. In terms of Fry's long career this was an irrelevant incident in terms of this article. It was a long time before he appeared on TV and it involved a type of mediumship different to what he is known for on TV. This incident is an obscure and curious event. It has been brought to people's attention in order to discredit Fry. It is frequently cited online, a spin is often put on it to make it appear that he was found to be a fraud, this was not the case. An explanation was given to explain these curious events that was accepted at the time and he was not considered a fraud. Would Living TV employ a known fraudulent medium? I added the trumpet incident here in full with a proper source as it has followed Fry around and someone will mention it. People can make up their own minds whether the explanation given for this incident clears Fry of accusations of fraudulence or not.

Let's also remember that this is a recently deceased person. He carried on doing readings while dying of cancer. He only stopped when he was physically unable to carry on. One particular sceptic tried to get Fry to admit he was a fraud during the time he was dying of cancer. Fry's rebuke to this suggestion was to carry on giving readings until the end. He believed so much in the value of mediumship work.C3MC2 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've done a re-write as a compromise but I am still concerned that bias might creep back in at some point with this new structure. I've written a bio that doesn't go into detail about the nature of mediumship. Instead it has the main points that a decent Colin Fry article should cover. The trumpet incident gets coverage and there's a response to it. There is more information about Fry and new sources. Gail and the You Tube videos has gone to external links.C3MC2 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work on this. I think you've done a very good job with it and it's a very nice summary of his career. I think it deals with the trumpet incident fairly and not putting it in a scepticism section doesn't give it undue prominence. We don't know how people are going to try to edit it in future - it's a subject that some people feel very strongly about on both sides - but I personally think the presence of believers/sceptics sections would be more likely to encourage people to consider it in these terms and try to bulk out "their" section at the expense of adding more general information to the article. Cheers. Lythalicious (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by C3MC2

This user has a strong spiritualist POV, he/she moans above about sceptical sources that are supposedly biased but the only source this user added to the article was Colin Fry's own biography, this is not a reliable source. This user deliberately deleted any negative secondary sources that discuss Fry. This is unacceptable and against Wikipedia policy. Please read up on fringe views and weight on Wikipedia. There are numerous sources that describe Fry as a cold reader, and committing fraud in the trumpet incident. JuliaHunter (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is a sceptic's point of view version I have reverted to my version which is factual and unbiased. It includes both positive and negative information about Colin Fry. It includes the Trumpet Incident. Please refrain from opinionated content.C3MC2 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit was an agreed compromise version. It is NOT the purpose of a wiki article to prove or disprove mediumship. Allowing a clearly pro sceptic slanted article is not an acceptable outcome and damages the credibility of wiki and this article.C3MC2 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure who agreed to that version, but it states supernatural phenomenon as having occurred in wiki voice. That is not acceptable. You may make a case for removing the sentence about cold reading being his MO from the lead, but you may not write an article that credulously describes supernatural phenomenon. That runs contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:VNT. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The pro sceptic version is clearly not acceptable and should NOT remain.C3MC2 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You are edit warring to enforce your preferred version. You are also apparently alone in preferring this version. If you do not cease edit warring and use discussion to make your case, you will be reported. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia by supporting content that is clearly an ideological attack on a medium by a skeptical point of view.C3MC2 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Skepticism is not an ideology in that it does not have any doctrinal underpinnings. Supernatural claims cease to be considered supernatural once they have been demonstrated objectively to be true, and as such, there is no bias inherent in skepticism towards the supernatural. I have made the attempt to compromise above, however you continue to violate the 3 revert rule in order to push your own ideology on the article. That is unacceptable, as it not only violates a number of WP policies and guidelines concerning content, but it violates WP policy concerning behavior. As I already notified you on your talk page, you have been reported for your behavior. An admin will come along presently and decide what to do with you. Until then, any further reverts you make will be included in that report. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

C3MC2, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, there is no 'pro-sceptic' version, the current article represents mainstream secondary sources (in this case some mainstream newspaper coverage or obituaries). I am afraid sourcing 90% of an article to Fry's own biography is unacceptable, it reads strongly biased. Old mediums from the nineteenth century are very easy to find reliable references for, unfortunately Fry being a more recent medium, references are scarce. There are no academic books or journals that discuss his mediumship. I can't find a single reliable academic book on Google Books that discusses his mediumship, and nothing on JSTOR or from my personal library. So there is not much more we can do right now apart from use the obituaries. Take care. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am a sceptic myself and someone not in favour of "mediums" at all, but the latest version is undoubtedly pro-sceptic and not speaking in a neutral, factual voice. "His illusions of paranormal capabilities were sustained using basic cold reading techniques" and "The presented entertainment were [sic] based on basic cold reading techniques" are not neutral, unbiased statements. They are loaded statements that he was a fraud when the cited references do not prove this was the case, however likely it may have been. The Telegraph reference states, unsourced, that "Sceptics countered that Fry’s main talent lay in basic “cold reading” techniques" - hardly a definitive statement that he was undeniably a cold reader - something that would be necessary to make statements like this. The obliteration of all of C3MC2's edits also seems overkill - yes, I agree that it was too in-depth and took too liberally from Fry's biography, but information has been removed that would be allowed, even encouraged, in any other Wikipedia article. For example, the information "[Fry was born at] Cuckfield Hospital near Haywards Heath, West Sussex, England where he grew up. His parents were Arthur Frederick Fry and Margaret Briggs." Are we disallowing information like this sourced from biographies, or is Colin Fry a special case and every piece of information seen as inherently untrustworthy? Lythalicious (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In situations like this, wikipedia does not and should not maintain a perfectly neutral POV. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are misreading this. It isn't about being perfectly neutral or giving equal validity to mediumship. The line "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world" seems to me wholly at odds with what is written in the article. In stating without any qualification whatsoever that 'Fry created the illusion of paranormal capabilities using cold reading' - despite there being no cited evidence for this - the article is taking a stand on the issue. It is outright saying that he was a fraud. It's not saying "Critics assert that his paranormal capabilities were sustained using basic cold reading techniques", it's saying that they 100%, unquestionably were, despite there being not citations that back these assertions up. Even though I believe it's the case that Fry was a cold reader and had no paranormal abilities whatsoever, I don't think it's in the least bit fair to phrase it this way due to the inherently unprovable nature of the issue. You can say without qualification that a pseuoscience like homeopathy doesn't work because it can be tested and has been tested; we can only strongly suppose that mediums like Fry rely on cold reading and demonstrate how what he did was possible using these techniques. I was extremely against the inclusion of testimony from Fry's clients "Gail" because it wasn't a valid or legitimate evidential counterbalance to the actual facts, but this stating of "facts" calling Fry a charlatan without citation that concretely backs them up is too far, even though I firmly believe he was.Lythalicious (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And this does not address the wholesale removal of C3MC2's edits; the good with the bad. They have obviously spent a lot of time doing their best to build out the article - even if the end result wasn't perfect - and some of that research is, I think, worthy of inclusion by any measure. To delete everything seems an unnecessary kick in the teeth.Lythalicious (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note C3MC2 has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. He won't be discussing anything here for at least that long. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Fry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908185355/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/isil.telemnar/Doublexposure/colin_fry_felixstowe.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/isil.telemnar/Doublexposure/colin_fry_felixstowe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)