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)