Talk:Matt Fraser (psychic)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article republished

Hi there @Rp2006:. Re Matt Fraser (psychic), I think a lot of notable articles and events have happened since the previous page for this guy was deleted back in 2016. I understand why it was deleted before as what was there contained very little reliable source info - it was pretty thin. There's now stories in Variety and NYT, there's 2.5 articles of critique which now really can fill the page, Fraser has done a lot more TV appearances since, he's now got international recognition (see AU article), not to mention his international TV show next year which will be substantially reported on (and it has already). Generally there seems to be a lot more reliable source info to fill a page for Fraser. Efefvoc2 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Fraser certainly has been busy since I nominated the article for deletion! RobP (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Amazon source

Currently, Amazon is being used tosource biographical information about Matt Fraser. Amazon is regarded as a reliable source for things like whetehr or not a book was published, but in this case that's not just what it is being used for. Amazon is copying a press release by Fraser published here. I'll swap the Amazon reference for the biographical data to the actual source, but if it helps I'll make sure we keep it for the book. Hopefully that will address the issue. - Bilby (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bilby please don't add non rs to support you're changes to page. A press release is not a rs nor can it be used to support. Efefvoc2 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That Amazon source you are using is the press release. Does this mean you want to remove the Amazon source? - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bilby I never said such, amazon ref is for the books. Please stop pushing non rs on this page and proving edit wars by you pushing non rs. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is for the books, but it was also being used as a source for where he was born, shows he has been on, and that his live shows are often sold out. Now that you've replaced the Amazon ref with a worse one (a search page) and removed the source using his website, we don't have a source for twi of those claims at all. How about a suggestion? We add a list of his publications and source them to Amazon, then look for an alternative source for the now unsourced claims? - Bilby (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry cant help you, cause you put a edit war warning on my page in order to further the edit war youre just as involved in. Knock yourself out adding your non rs. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you took offence to the warning. However, I'm hoping that we can still fix the sourcing issues without having to remove content. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Then remove the warning and identify yourself as a provocateur in the edit war. Then we can move on. And stop pushing non rs. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to remove any warning from your talk page - it is your talk page, and removing warnings is regarded as perfectly reasonable. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Cold case commitment

Currently we say of Fraser, quoting Gerbic, "skeptic Susan Gerbic has questioned his commitment to solving cold cases of missing children, saying: "He might find some time to sit down and solve some of these cold cases of missing children? We can hope". (source). This is an acurate quote, but it is a minor comment in the article . The bulk of the comments on misisng children in the article are not directed at Fraser per se, but about Miller, the person conducting the interview being reported on. It seems to be giving a lot of weight to comment made by Gerbric that isn't the focus of the article. Is this due? - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is as the quote is directly critical of the subjects unsubstantiated claims. The other parts of the article relate to other subjects. You're arguement is pedantic and hope youre not trying to start another edit war again based on fuzzy logic. Efefvoc2 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is WP:DUE - is an interpretation of a single line in an article that was much more focused on criticising someone else about the subject creating undue weight, especially given the prominance you have now given it? At least, would you be ok with reducing the prominance to what it was before, rather than increasing it? - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No. As you've contradicted yourself again today on this article trying to water down critique of Fraser's unsubstantiated fantastic claims. And the 'weight of the comment' is based on the 'weight of that comment', and not based on rest of the article as you try to claim - that is not quoted. A simple concept. You are very wrong and complicated when you say a direct quote 'is an interpretation of a single line' with regards to that direct quote - that why we use "" - most people understand a direct quote to be a quote, and an interpretation not to be a direct quote. Simple. Efefvoc2 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We consider the due weight of content to try an make things neutral. At the moment, we spend more time stating that Gerbic has questioned his commitment to cold cases than we do stating that he claims to be engaged in cold cases. This seems unbalanced, given that it is a single opinion, and not a major part of the article we're pulling it from. If we at least trimmed the criticism back to what it was we'd be a bit better off. Could we do that while this is discussed?

The "interpretation" is in reading that comment as a criticism of his commitment - it isn't an unreasonable interpretation, but that's not the wording of the quote.. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the direct quote again rebutting his fantastic claims: "He might find some time to sit down and solve some of these cold cases of missing children? We can hope". As you said your 'interpretation' of the quote is 'not the wording of the quote'. Simple you answered your own question and I shouldn't need to be part of this debate which is another storm-in-a-teacup. Efefvoc2 (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say there. But either way, isit ok with you if we return to the previous wording at least while this is discussed? - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand you at all. No it's not ok. As your original removal of Gerbic sentence, meant you had no faith in my original edit, and thus you demanded the addition of the quote I added to satisfy you. So it's there because you need it there to satisfy your mis-'interpretation'. Efefvoc2 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you finished this provocative debate? Efefvoc2 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I though it was a reasonable request. I'm surprised that you don't see it that way. The problem we now have is that to a casual reader it appears that Gebric is saying that he should be spending time on cold cases because that might be a valuable use of his skills, as without context the sarcasm is lost. How about a compromise:

Fraser claims that he has worked with local police and private investigators on cold cases, in which he helped families locate their missing children, but skeptic Susan Gerbic has argued that if he was able to perform such tasks the damand for his services would be much higher.

Would that help? - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I dont agree with you and dont want to debate you any more.Efefvoc2 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but just to close this off, are you ok with my proposed alternative? - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No I made that very clear above. You are badgering .Efefvoc2 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll let it sit for the night, but unless you have a reason for not using the proposed new wording, I'm inclined to go that way. - Bilby (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No I do not agree, and you have no support for your proposal. Efefvoc2 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think my proposal is a decent compromise given the concerns I've raised and your wishes. If you don't I'll see what we can do in terms of dispute resolution. Maybe WP:3O? - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to leave wikipedia because of your approach Bilby. Will you let me, or will you continue to leave me little messages to try and draw me back? Efefvoc2 (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

- 1. This new phrase is WP:INACCURATE to the cite: “but skeptic Susan Gerbic has argued that if he was able to perform such tasks the demand for his services would be much higher.”. - 2. But the original phrase is accurate to cites used: “but skeptic Susan Gerbic has criticized journalists who have failed to press him on this issue arguing that if he has these paranormal skills, he should do more to "help out some of these desperate families who have missing children" highlighting that there were "424,066 reports of missing children in America in 2018”.”. - 3. So the latest addition needs to be removed and reverted back to previously accurate phrase as per WP:INACCURATE. 60.242.191.86 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the source:

"Fraser has over 60K subscribers, which is okay for a low-level celebrity I suppose, but nothing for someone who claims to demonstrate communicating with dead people. You would think that governments might be interested in that knowledge. Historians would be beating down his door to be able to ask questions of the past. Police departments would be clearing up all the cold cases and finding every missing child. Scientists would be interested in how this all works."

I interpreted this as saying that if he was genuine he would be in greater demand, which seems in keeping with the article, and clearly suggests that she belives that he is not genuine.

As to the alternative:

"Susan Gerbic has criticized journalists who have failed to press him on this issue ..."

She has, but this article isn't about journalists, it is about Matt Fraser.

"... he should do more to "help out some of these desperate families who have missing children" highlighting that there were "424,066 reports of missing children in America in 2018”."

This reads as if Gerbic is giving him credit for being able to find lost children, and is requesting that he spends more of his time on this. Without the context the sarcasm is lost, leading to unintended interpretations. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Using the wrong citation over and again

Editor Bilby, you cannot understand the simple concept trying to be explained to you. In your claim of inspiration for the sentence you re-added, you state it comes from cite 12 on the page, it doesn't. Cite 12 "Meet Matt Fraser" does not contain any resemblance of content you claim it does as above. Your own interpretation of the content you state above likely comes from cite 13 "What's Wrong With The News Just Reporting The News? Matt Fraser On Morning TV". You have your cites mixed up and are referring to cite 12 whereas if you truly believe your interpretation in the sentence you should using cite 13 in the article. From above, you seem to have been debating your preferred sentence for 3 weeks, and during that time haven't been listening to any other opinion. I, nor any other person I assume, wants to discuss this article with you, as your page edit contributions appear to be impossible single-mindedness editing and your talk-page edit contributions resemble a refusal to listen to any advice or compelling explanation. Period. 49.195.91.194 (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. All fixed now. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Links in "See also" section

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) 03:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@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) 03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations. 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) 03:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems stupid to keep repeating this argument on every page you take exception to. What is your def of unsourced? See Also are not links to external articles. They go to Wiki pages which have their own sourcing. RobP (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Content on this article needs to be sourced here. Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:V and WP:RS. 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) 04:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Purported vs Celebrity

@Ssmacd: By definition of having a TV show, Fraser is a celebrity. Replacing purported with that vanilla word is merely a way to give him more credibility here. By WP rules, paranormal claims are just that - claims. Not to be taken as reality without scientific proof. Hence "purported" is correct, and is in fact used (along with self-proclaimed) as a description for these people on WP. It is not just an "opinion" as you said in your edit summary (replaced opinion term "purported" with factual term "celebrity"). RobP (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see support for using the word celebrity, "Celebrity is a condition of fame and broad public recognition of an individual ... as a result of attention given them by mass media." Elwood P. Dowd (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't being the star of a reality TV show by definition make you a celebrity? Not a-list, obviously, bit some sort of celebrity. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My point was that the phrasing "...an American celebrity psychic medium who features in the reality TV show" is redundant. A featured star of a TV show is by most people's definitions a celebrity. But the main point is that the edit replaced "purported" with "celebrity", intentionally changing the intent of the introductory sentence to imply mediums are recognized by Wikipedia as authentic. RobP (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that when you say "psychic" you are automaticly implying "not authentic". It feels a tad redundant. Perhaps we need different wording - I'll think abut it. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree if it were in air quotes but it is NOT in that way in the sentence under discussion! RobP (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Merriam Webster defines purported as "said to be true or real but not definitely true or real", which is why I believe that this is not an appropriate modifier. We cannot say with certainty that his abilities are definitely not true or real. Using the term "celebrity" as a modifier I believe puts his abilities or lack thereof in the proper context, just as they would with "celebrity doctor" "celebrity judge" etc. Purported is not accurate in this case.Ssmacd (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just wow. You are reading that in an odd way. "...not definitely true or real" does NOT mean "absolutely not true or real" It means not for sure true or real. Maybe another source's def of the word would help you understand. The same company (Merriam Webster) has its online version giving its definition as: "OSTENSIBLY, ALLEGEDLY". Get it? It means "claimed but not proven". Purported is an exact fit for the required usage on Wikipedia of claimed paranormal abilities. RobP (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rp2006:Actually I think I am being very precise with my wording. I don't think the first sentence of a Wikipedia page should include a value judgement - we accomplish that by including the info about the fact that he was the target of a sting in the next sentence, and include a detailed section about the sting later in the page. I went and checked the other celebrity psychics there are pages on and couldn't find one that said "purported" in the first sentence. Does Wikipedia have a stated position that all psychic mediums are frauds? I am not on here often, so might have missed it. Ssmacd (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ssmacd: Fraud is a stronger word than is permissible. But theser powers have not proven to be real, hence purported... claimed but not proven to be real. (Also, Theresa Caputo uses in the first sentence "self-professed" with psychic medium in air quotes. Would you prefer that?) See here for the WP standards on paranormal fringe items and "Yes. We are biased" which is applicable commentary on the subject from @Roxy the dog: Most importantly, according to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience proclamation: "The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors… when dealing with subjects and categories related to 'pseudoscience': Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Neutral point of view as applied to science: “Wikipedia: Neutral point of view”, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. RobP (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Thanks for the reference. Air quotes are used on several other celebrity psychic pages, so I think that would be a consistent usage for this particular type of "profession." I still think that celebrity psychic complies with the goal of not presenting this as science, as the term "celebrity" to me indicates pop culture, rather than seriousness.

@Rp2006:Here is an actual credible news source calling Matt Fraser a Celebrity Psychic. So technically, using the word celebrity as opposed to purported in the first sentence is correct along with all what @Ssmacd: mentioned too. https://www.providencejournal.com/entertainmentlife/20190705/cranstons-matt-fraser-has-become-psychic-celebrity

I got one of those bullshit "we are not allowed to show this page to you because reasons" notice on that site. I propose that the world boycott the Providence Journal. ALSO he isn't a celeb, he is a huckster, con-man, fraud and Grief vampire. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:All those names you are calling him are just your opinion which we are all entitled to of course, but not facts. And on the link it says this for some countries: We are temporarily unavailable to users from certain countries while we upgrade our site to implement new methods for data processing as required by applicable laws. Like in the EU, they need to have GDPR in place first otherwise it's against the EU data regulations. Common sense really. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

But I'm not in the EU, and my descriptions of this shyster are perfectly accurate. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

While I said that you are entitled to your own opinion, I found out that wikipedia does not allow you to put your opinion in this way everywhere User:Roxy the dog. Do you have any reliable sources to back up what you said "ALSO he isn't a celeb, he is a huckster, con-man, fraud and Grief vampire"? Because, if not, you are clearly violating wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people which clearly states " it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Are you sure you dont have a point of view? If you do, we all may benefit from a declared point of view. If you did not mean to violate or flaunt wikipedia policy, you may strike off your comments, perhaps you got carried away. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)