Talk:Char Margolis

Notability
While certainly the ranking is low, she is prominent enough to have five articles in the Proquest database, over the last ten years, about her from major newspapers like the Plain Dealer, New York Daily News, and Los Angeles Times, and she is a regular guest on CNN, so I would keep her in. Calwatch 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth metioning she acted as herself in an episode of the Larry Sanders Show? (Season 6 Episode 8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.63.135 (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Of Interest
I found a transcript of a an episode of Larry King Live with Char as a guest. It includes a short interview and a session where she takes calls, using her "psychic" abilities.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/09/lkl.00.html

Most interesting is the fact that she asks 32 questions throughout the calls, yet makes ZERO statements.

Perhaps somebody could work this source into the article?

Controversy
What is now written in the 'Controversy' section looks more contradictory as it really seems to have been. I have just read Ricci Martin's book, "That's Amore" (I got only to the Margolis Wiki entry because of the book) where Ricci (Dean Martin's son) wrote about the search for the lost plane in detail. He and a friend of Dean Paul's went to Margolis for help, and together they went to the military. The people in command were sympathetic but didn't want a psychic being part of the regular search unit, instead provided them with a helicopter to search the area for themselves.

With the helicopter, guided by Margolis, they were just approaching the actual spot where the plane had crashed when they were called back, because the regular search unit had about the same time detected the exact location. However the military appears to have been lucky this time because their superiors were informed by Margolis beforehand that the right spot must be definitely somewhere in that area.

In short: there were TWO parties simultaneously looking for the crashed plane. Both were apparently successful. One party was a military unit, whose members probably were not aware of Margolis's indirect involvement, the other party was a semi-private one, led by Margolis herself. Whether the military unit would have found the right spot without Margolis involvement, but also whether the helicopter unit would actually have discovered the exact location rather than merely approaching it remains unclear. Anyway, from what I read in the book, Margolis's accuracy in divining the right location was remarkable and can hardly have been coincidence.

At that time the military had been searching the lost plane for several days without any success. As it later turned out the search was so difficult because the plane had been hitting a canyon wall at near-supersonic speed, making it explode to little pieces not bigger than footballs. The remnants were not easy to detect by air.

Before that, Ricci Martin and friend also had gone to see another psychic, Peter Hurkos, but he was more vague and gave them an uncomfortable feel. After that they approached Margolis who was an acquaintance of Shirley MacLaine. 77.182.206.205 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC) A Reader Char is the real deal. Very few are but she is one of them and I know that personally. If you would like a reading you can call her and book one and find out for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.235.120 (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have just completed a rewrite of this bio article. This included removing long standing claims (~8 years in some cases) without a reference, and adding new material with applicable references. RobP (talk) 18:28, 8 December 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) 02:39, 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; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 02:59, 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) 03:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming see also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? 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. RobP (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the purpose of a See Also section. A "biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession" if they are relevant.  Your argument of 'any' biography is an illogical 'slippery slope' argument. What would you propose to put in this section instead?--Akrasia25 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All links in the "see also" section should be topics that could eventually be incorporated into the article (e.g. "present in a comprehensive article on the topic"). The point of a "see also" section is not just to have one for its own sake, and it should be empty if there are no relevant or appropriate topics. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)