Talk:Tyler Henry

Promotion

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)

I also removed some more promo sounding content and wanted to explain one of them so hopefully it won't keep happening. There was a sentence that said, "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)

Praise section

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)

Edit warring is not the way to contribute to Wikipedia and can get you blocked. Since you are new and unfamiliar with our editorial policies I suggest you read them, particularly WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Our policies specify we don't give equal credibility to fringe ideas (e.g. that someone's psychic powers are validated). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 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)

The above is incredibly sad, and exactly the reason why Henry is castigated as a grief vampire. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Grief Vampire

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)

Imagine that. It's almost as if he doesn't have psychic abilities at all. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal section deleted

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)

Thank you for weighing in on the talk page about your edit. However, your removal of this section has made the article one-sided and biased.

I mean, all that psychic stuff is spooky (and I honestly don't know whether it's true or not), but you have this huge section "against" the subject, and the small section "for" him was deleted, making a biased article even more biased. This is not encyclopedic.

But, if you mean that my edit (adding the rebuttal section in right here) was too brief and curt, I would agree with you. Help me fix that, so the article is balanced and explains both (or all) sides of the issue.96.59.177.219 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be fair, I added one other criticism not mentioned earlier, of an authenticity or religious nature, not related to alleged accuracy issues. See my subsequent edit.96.59.177.219 (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not that your edit was too short. A Wiki article is not the place to have an ongoing argument. Reliably cited facts are stated in a Wiki article and then, when appropriate, challenged... either in a criticism section as here, or after each point. There is no Rebuttal section needed. Should there then be a Rebuttal to the rebuttals section? And so on? If there are more (reliably sourced) facts on the positive side, add them to the sections above Criticisms. Also, please open an official Wiki account. RobP (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism copied from Roxy's Talk page

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)

Hi Rob, I do understand where you are coming from on this, and I agree that your edit softened the feel of the title somewhat, and that is why I reverted. I don't think we should waiver from the mainstream scientific POV that Wikipedia is written in. The people listed represent that very well, and don't need to be highlighted as anything special over and above their own articles. (I also note that I personally don't like "Criticism" sections if they can be avoided, but this article is too short to incorporate the mainstream view into other sections.) So, what do we do? Would you mind if I moved this discussion to the article talk page? Roxy the dog. bark 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your points... and please do. RobP (talk) 19:21, 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)

"Reception" seems problematic. Positive or negative opinions would both fit under such a name. So all the items placed under Rebuttal (and deleted) could be added back within this section now. No?RobP (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The comments seem to be very positive for what they have done. I tried different names. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I love Critical analysis... but I do not get the meaning of your comment... They? And comments about what? Not following you. RobP (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Critical analysis", which is there right now, seems quite pretentious for a collection of brief criticisms with quotes, IMO. Sorry, QuackGuru. It makes the reader expect something different, something more academic and thorough. I think either "Criticism", "Reception" or "Commentary" would work. The second and third of those could conceivably accommodate some more positive commentary of reasonable quality and provenance, if any such can be found; I don't think the IP's credulous anecdotes qualify, and even less their suggestion of demoniac possession. (<sarcasm>Great source there.<sarcasm>.) Bishonen | talk 23:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

I'm not really following this page. I was just driving by. I don't understand what I previously wrote on the talk page. I swapped Critical reception for Critical analysis. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 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)

See WP:CSECTION for what to avoid. QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Or not! OK, let's leave it as Critical analysis then. RobP (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger

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)

• Merge There is no existing material that would be out of place if Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry is merged to Tyler Henry, or vice versa. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry. Everything on Tyler Henry article is about the show. Mymis (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to the TV show article, where the scoundrel has become notable - good job bilking the celebs too. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

My thought is that is should go the other way. Looking to the future (without claiming any psychic abilities), I can see Henry gaining more and more of a following and being involved with other projects perhaps for decades,(what did Barnum say about suckers?), but the TV show's run will be more fleeting. So I think a merge to the Henry page makes more sense. No? RobP (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. New projects, new TV shows, new scandals and controversy, etc. would overburden the TV show article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not make a lot of sense. At this moment, there is absolutely nothing else to put into the article besides the TV show-related stuff. We do not know what is gonna happen in the future, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we cannot speculate that. Once the person becomes notable for other stuff in the upcoming years, a separate article can be created. Mymis (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying the Henry article should be merged into the (new) TV show article? That seems backwards. The show IS all Tyler Henry. Without him it would not exist. If a merger is needed, that is the only direction that makes sense. As an example of a similar situation, there is the article on Brian Dunning. There was an attempt at creating a separate article for the Skeptoid podcast he does, but it was merged into the Dunning article. RobP (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

All the sources are about the television show, not about the person, hence it would make sense leave the television article. And Brian Dunning clearly seems to be notable on his own apart from the podcast. Mymis (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Henry has published his first book, is currently on-tour[1], and is for private hire to give readings to desperate folks.[2] Still think it's just about a TV show? I reiterate: the show should be merged to the Tyler Henry article. RobP (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with RobP here, merging the tv-show to this article seems the better way. The huge "Critical analysis" sections are identical (or nearly so) in both articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 10 September 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 think a merge of the TV show to the bio article is best. Our sources take note of the TV show - yet largely focus on Henry: his attitudes, beliefs, practices, etc. and a good number of sources headlines only mention Henry. FWIW: WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit editors from making common sense editorial decisions based on past experience with such articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Mymis, are you ok with that? If so, I think we have a rough consensus. After a merge, I´d like to condense the critsism section, IMO it´s currently given too much WP:WEIGHT. Basically less extensive quotes, more general summary, a lot of the critics seem too agree. Wikilinks like cold reading, mediumship etc can to some extent speak for themselves, that mediums are considered humbug is unsurprising. RobP, what reviews of the book were you thinking of? Last I checked, it wasn´t easy finding anything independent even mentioning the book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:The best one I found so far is: huffingtonpost

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)

Over to someone who can do a merge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just so I am clear on directionality, is my recommendation to merge the TV article into the Henry article the agreed upon path forward? And how exactly is a merge accomplished? RobP (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe so? Does an admin need to do this, or is there a WP guide anyone can use? RobP (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I´ll try to ask somebody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anyone_feel_like_helping_us_merge_a_medium_and_his_TV-show.3F. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 18 October 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)

Thank you very much! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nicki Swift-BRD

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)

To summarize the issue, Gråbergs Gråa Sång deleted the material in question stating: "Removing Nicki Swift, using Youtube like this is wrong in any WP-article, not just a WP:BLP." Well, I find this hard to believe, as YouTube references are ubiquitous across Wikipedia. Specifically, this is criticism of a TV personality/show by a YouTube channel that covers TV. RobP (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There are correct ways to use Youtube on WP, hence "like this". I don´t think it´s used right here. The problem isn´t YT, it´s Nikki Swift. I don´t see anything at [5] or [6] that makes me think that this is a good source for anything in a WP:BLP. I can´t tell if it´s selfpublished, but to me it seems very tabloid-y. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Except when coming from critics, the media coverage of Henry is entirely "tabloid-y." Even the CNN Entertainment reference you used about Henry and Thicke's death is. Not an ounce of critical thinking or reporting is reflected there. Shame on CNN. RobP (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a problem, sure, and that google-news searches are somewhat dominated by his employer, but critical thinking is a little too much too expect in entertainment journalism. Critical thinkers have better things to do than investigating a recent tv-medium with proper scientific methods. In CNN:s defense, even the headline is somewhat carefully worded, you don´t read "predict" anywh... ere except in the title of the YT-video. My bias is that I´ve heard of CNN, Variety, Cosmopolitan, EW, HuffPo etc, but I don´t know anything about NS that makes me think it can be a decent source about a living person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And come on, Facebook as a source? Well, note that NS self-describes as "obsessed".[7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Facebook is allowed and rules are covered by WP, though not very clearly IMHO, here: WP:Facebook. I just used it to verify that Nicki Swift is what I said it was in the text, an Entertainment website, and nothing more, so I think that is fair. Not sure with the site saying it is obsessed has to do with anything. And, BTW, if you dislike any social media used as references, take a look at THIS argument [8] I had trying to keep an Instagram post off a different article. As far as I can see, Instagram is not even mentioned by any WP guidelines, but I was more objecting to what I feel is inappropriate content in the context of the use. I gave up so it remains for now. Care to chime in there? RobP (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don´t question that they´re an entertainment website, I question that they´re a source we should use as is currently done in this BLP. Anyway, I think we´re at a dead end, we´ll see if other editors can help form a consensus on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. But I was serious about you giving input on the Porsha Williams Instagram issue. RobP (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If I think of anything worth saying, I will comment there. I have to say, your WP:Facebook link really confused me, but then I realised there´s also WP:FACEBOOK :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The use of a gossip blog to make negative claims about a WP:BLP is clearly not appropriate. Before restoring, please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

COI banner

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)

@Rp2006: I have added a few banners on articles that have been manipulated by a particular undisclosed paid editor and his sockpuppets following this discussion Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akrumoftruth/Archive; There are other sockpuppets still out there that are sleepers and coming back to life to edit now he has been blocked, see Vital Farms, this tag is a way warning readers that the subject may have paid editors to manipulate the information. At the moment there are hundreds of accounts that are WP:SPA and probably socks; this page is rife with them, have a look at User:Sasslandia User:Morom54 User:David1206 User:BookOfTheWormpvP User:Brando628 or User:Sonnywyatt all created just to edit this page in a positive manner or this editor User:Bigenglish who oddly enough has only edited subjects that are linked to "E!". Domdeparis (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: OK... all that may be true, but my problem in adding the banner implies some action is required to fix the article. It says "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." I do not think the banner is necessary if there is actually no cleanup necessary, and I do not think that there is any at this time. If there isn't any cleanup required, then what change would trigger the banner to be removed? Unlike Henry, I cannot predict the future (see what I did there!), but for now it seems it is not needed. RobP (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Erm...it is not "may be true" but "is true" you only have to check out what I've written. As a non COI editor (which I presume you are) if you consider that what has been added is strictly NPOV and this article is clean then by all means remove it but I would suggest an edit summary that reflects this verification. The action that is required is checking the info added. I personally don't have the time but as we are fighting an uphill battle to try and keep undisclosed paid editing off WP I imagined that most other editors will understand the need to tag, check and clean the potentially infected articles. The idea is to alert all interested editors to the possible pollution of the articles they are spent their valuable time editing. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I was not implying you were being dishonest. Just that I have no time to spend to check it out for myself. What I meant was that regardless of that past history being true, the article now shows no sign of the pro-Henry POV I believe you were concerned with. Thus I see no use for a banner saying the article "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." As I said above, if there isn't any cleanup required, then what change would trigger the banner to be removed? IMHO, there is no cleanup required, so that banner is not needed. If you believe there is POV cleanup required, then please point it out here. Thanks. RobP (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No response on this in 3 months, so I have now deleted the COI banner. RobP (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Critical Analysis section cleanup

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)

We should have the section, but agree that it is to big per WP:PROPORTION. As you say, much repetition. Also think "Death of Alan Thicke" is too big. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Super. You can edit if you'd like! 69.119.69.88 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Opening isn't appropriate

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)

You are wrong, it's fine. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The content that you removed is well sourced, perhaps too well. It fits under wp:NPOV and wp:BLP. It has also been discussed above. There is no need to remove it. Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec)And edit warring to remove more than half of the article (and very well-sourced material at that) is not acceptable. I also see no problem with the material. It's written neutrally and is very well sourced. Meters (talk) 08:44, 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)

You have three experienced editors who think it is fine the way it is. If you wish to propose a change, please suggest it here. A "change X to Y" format would be preferred. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:50, 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)

Where did you get the idea that wikipedia presents "balanced facts and opinions"? Read WP:NPOV in order to understand the policy concerned. We write what reliable sources tell us, and do not try to hide criticism. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:32, 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)

Independent Investigations Group in lead BRD

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)

Wow this article is incredibly biased

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)

WP:BLP says no such thing. Go there and search for "positive". Better: Read the whole thing, because you misunderstand it.

When reliable sources say almost exclusively bad things about a person, we cannot "balance" things by using inferior sources saying good things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If the policy allows and encourages such blatant lying, then the policy needs changing, badly. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You haven't stated which parts of the article you consider to be lies. --Dmol (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That said, IMO the CA section is bloated and repetetive, "everything and the kitchensink", and I'm not sure that the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry which is used a lot is a very good BLP source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 10 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)

Well, I have to agree that maybe the article goes on for too long on the Critical analysis section, and that could be edited down a bit. Although the tone is on point. The guy is a fraud and the article should reflect that. The main takeaway from Maineartists's comment, IMO, is that John Edward's and Sylvia Browne's articles could use more criticism. Especially the latter. VdSV9•♫ 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that’s your opinion, but it’s not like any truly rational person uses Wikipedia as an only source.2601:340:C501:E750:65FC:88FC:4DA2:E184 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The article has been cleaned up quite a bit since this thread began. It's a bit more encyclopedic now, in my opinion. Obviously the article can't say that psychic/medium powers are real. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2022 (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)

See also section

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)

Birth Year

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)

I'll take your word for it and make the change. If it turns out I shouldn't have, someone can always revert me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Done:[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Btw, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)