Talk:Theresa Caputo

Speedy deletion nomination of Theresa Caputo

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Theresa Caputo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.

Persondata Short Description

The short description item in the persondata has been revised several times recently. I have changed it to "television personality" as that is how the subject is described in the lead. I think this is the most appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing that. I like the version you wrote. Andrew³²⁷ 09:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

There is a maintenance tag on the article that says it needs additional citations. However, it has five citations, which is more than most short stubs. Would there be opposition to removing it? Andrew³²⁷ 04:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. It has a sufficient number of citations for an article of its size, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Andrew³²⁷ 05:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content reverted

I have restored sourced content that was removed. Per NPOV a core policy WP represents what is published in reliable sources. If it is published in reliable sources and discusses the subject of the article it belongs in the article. NPOV does not mean not presenting published material that has a point of view. Multiple publications were in refs to support that statement. Direct quote from source provides explicit detail and context, is a small quote from an entire article on the subject. What is the contention of due weight, when there are not other sources providing a differing opinion? Published reliable sources carry due weight to be represented if they discuss the subject of the article. Published statements by notable individuals about the subject belong in the article. Attempting to whitewash an article using false or mistaken assertions of DUE and POV are not appropriate, discuss here with policy based arguement and get consensus before making wholesale changes to the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not your blog. The article already talks about The Amazing Randi and his opinion of this charlatan. It is not necessary to prattle on for paragraphs about it. If you feel strongly about such bullshit as so-called "mediums", start a blog or contribute to an existing one. This is Wikipedia, not a whipping post. Right at this very moment, I can come up with FIFTY fucking paragraphs about how this person is full of shit. Shall I include them because I can cite a source? Undue weight. Randi has been cited in the article. Move on. 174.24.215.30 (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This is the policy. In what way specifically did you think the content was not a representation of published significant views? In terms of proportion, what other significant published views were under represented? The content as it was fairly represented the published discussion of the subject. Your foul mouthed vitriol is not clear and does not seem to reflect any policy. If you think specific content is problematic, identify that specific content here and give a reason that the content is not within policy. Repeated removal of sourced content after being reverted is vandalism. If there is fifty paragraphs worth of sourced content about the subject the article should certainly be expanded. I wasn't aware there was that much published on the subject. We include what is written in reliable sources about the subject that's what WP is. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is more from NPOV on DUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It would seem you are arguing for the inclusion of the content you have removed as it represents such widely held views as to be supported by enough sources to add fifty paragraphs of widely supported aspects. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

TLDR version: Caputo is a controversial figure and her article should accurately reflect that controversy as it is described in reliable sources. Andrew³²⁷ 11:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with MrBill3 and Andrewman327. NPOV doesn't mean we present all possible points of view equally, it means that we present the available facts, as reported by reliable sources, in a non-partisan and neutral manner. Fringe viewpoints may be mentioned, but they are not given undue weight.

Since there is obviously a consensus here on the talk page (and, in fact, in the editing of the article as well), I have removed the inappropriate "NPOV" tag placed on the article by an IP editor. BMK (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and editorial work. I have opened an SPI here, the change of IP's just before a 3RR aroused my suspicions. Adding this page to a few watchlists may be a good idea as there is recent news. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Needs more information about Caputo and a lot more balance

This article is disappointingly imbalanced and lacking in real information about Caputo, her life, her background, her TV show, and not least, its success (sorry but regardless of Randi's opinion, it has millions of viewers); her popularity on Twitter, and so on. Like the article on the Long Island Medium TV show, it devotes the bulk of the text to negative opinion of her as a medium - notably without proof of any kind. It is not enough to quote those who decry her as a fake by referring to "cold readings" without specific proof that this is indeed what Caputo relies on in her work. Caputo has appeared on many other TV shows besides Anderson Cooper, and these are not mentioned in either article. And surely there must be somebody who has had a reading done by Caputo who has been interviewed in media other than the Long Island Medium program. ?? Wiki can do better than this!Cesca1910 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think there is information out there from reliable sources, go get it -- but be warned that it will not be allowed for this article to turn into a fan page or any kind of biased pro-Caputo or pro-parapsychology article. That would be a violation of WP:FRINGE. As for her popularity of that of her show, it certainly can be mentioned (if its sourced), but is totally irrelevant to the question of whether her claims have any truth to them. Scientific facts are not determined by Neilson ratings. BMK (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to be hijacked by non-believers when it should be balanced. There should be no emotionally charged language from either 'side' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.182.77 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles report verifiable information from reliable sources. If you have specific recommendations for edits, I encourage you to suggest them here. Andrew³²⁷ 21:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a Template:POV to this article because it is wildly imbalanced. I also added some basic information to the page, which needs to be there to at least give the article some balance. If you have a problem with Caputo, that's fine, but really the citations for the criticism are from very questionable sources: Radar, Inside Edition, a Gawker website, Daily Mail?!? These are very non-ideal citations. Not disputing the charges levied against her but come on, this is not a balanced entry whatsoever. I sort of object on principle. Only reason why I'm wading in here. BrillLyle (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and I appreciate your edits. The article primarily takes a negative spin because the BLP's subject is a FRINGE figure and the coverage of her in the general press is slanted to the negative. Andrew³²⁷ 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree on the negative spin justifying what the slant of the article. It seems to be a bit more than just a Fringe issue going on here -- and the "general press" as you characterize it is almost all from gossip websites. If this article had a different subject focus I would actually ask the editors who added these citations to reconsider the majority of these citations as they are not, in my opinion, legitimate news sources.

I understand the negative perspective and think that it is important to represent both the negative and positive for Wikipedia entries. If there is better quality legit press for the negative, that is the thing that would make me happier with this entry. As it stands the argument against Caputo is actually weakened by the sources of the information. It makes me feel sorry for her and think that this is a personalized attack versus a factual argument.

The other thing is that this is someone who is essentially a reality TV person and is being treated differently than other reality TV personalities in this field -- people who have much more neutral entries. I can see one person has a much less egregious entry than Caputo, and it sounds like he was an actual active criminal: James Hydrick. Others with more balanced entries: Chip Coffey, Miss Cleo, etc.

I think this entry could be improved from all sides. Thank you for having a discussion about this. I really appreciate it. BrillLyle (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional information, especially with better sources, seems a reasonable desire. Perhaps material can be found that would adjust the balance. However, minor show-business personalities tend to be ignored except in Infotainment, which tends strongly towards frivolous news and gossip. This leaves me skeptical as to whether the desired, sourced information can be found, though of course I'm not suggesting that our more hopeful editors should refrain from seeking it. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I looked again, and noticed that almost everything is either James Randi and his foundation, or an interview with the subject herself. Randi and his works have been well known for decades, and are covered in several well done WP articles. I am aware of him from my habit in the 1970s of reading Science (journal). The fact that this serious investigator is cited here via outlets of frivolous news would be of great interest if they appeared to be misrepresenting his views, but otherwise it merely reflects the lack of interest on the part of serious media and their thoughtful audiences. As for critic Ron Tebo, my hasty search has found no background at all. So, far as I see, our subject has the attention of a few million fans too thoughtless to provide us with anything useful, one thoughtful critic of sterling reputation, and one of unknown qualification or motive. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Jim.henderson:! Did not know this about Randi. I am still concerned with the shoddy sources of the citations. But I'm glad the edits I added were at least kept so there's some sort of balance. Really appreciate your critical eye on this! -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth

There were two contrasting edits about whether or not to include the claim that Caputo is worth one million dollars. Frankly, that number seems low and the website has come under fire in the past and RSN doesn't seem to like it very much. As a result I think we should ignore it in this article. Andrew³²⁷ 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many discussions about this source not being reliable. All have ended with that conclusion, so it's absolutely best to leave it out here as well. Gloss 04:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DOB

To publish the full date of birth (and a location of birth) for a living person requires a quality reliable source per BLP. The source I removed was nowhere near what is needed. Exact DOB and location of birth are privacy concerns, if not publicly available in reliable sources this information should not appear on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2015 (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) 02:50, 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) 03:05, 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) 03:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. RobP (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How are you claiming the links in the "see also" section are not unsourced? 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) 04:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Teresa can you please tell me if I am pregnant because I am which one I mean can you tell me if I'm pregnant with twins for free I need to know and my name is Danielle can you please let me know something thank you I don't have no email account

i don't have no email account 2600:100A:B1C5:B49A:0:21:15EB:2801 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have no email can you please help me out and I need to know if it's free I like to know if I am pregnant with twins right now but I'd be angry and and mad I like to know if there's somebody kill my Mom Carmen my name is Danielle 2600:100A:B1C5:B49A:0:21:15EB:2801 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to have Teresa get give gibbons for free

My name is Danielle 2600:100A:B1C5:B49A:0:21:15EB:2801 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to figure out a way to have a reading and the title would be my family and a few friends but I never done this before so somebody call me 814-671-9457 my name is Rob thank you so much for your time I really appreciate this Teresa and I’m sorry for the inconvenience I hope I’m doing this right cause I have no clue it says topic but I am not sure at what time that we’re maybe I’m wrong I don’t know 107.123.53.12 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Come on help real people there is a lot of shit im from new york and this is the shit hi hope you can do your stuff 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Family

A lot of family shit 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The real shit can you handel real of not tv shit 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Real family long island

Real shit long island 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Why again

Family shit you are fucking with me are you real this is bullshit been waiting for over 10 years 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Im done with this thanks bs 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Really help

Really this is bs it is not my first born wtf 69.114.32.76 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)