Talk:James Randi - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andries (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 28 January 2007 (→Possible violation of []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:54, 28 January 2007 by Andries (talk | contribs) (→Possible violation of [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Various

Seeing how many self-proclaimed "psychics" and other such folks love to twist the truth around (which is how they make a living), I have to ask where this supposed quote "I always have an out" attributed to Randi comes from. And are there really any "serious" parapsychologists? -- Modemac

This quote was reported by one of the CSICOP founding members, Dennis Rawlins, in an article ultimately published in the Oct-1981 issue of FATE magazine. Supposedly the text of the article is available at ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard/rawlins-starbaby.

I'm pretty sure the original quote was in the context of one of his magic shows; another similar quote is said to apply to the JREF challenge and the fact that Randi has safeguards in place in case someone tries to cheat (ie. photo and physical documentation proof of the challenger's performance). It is taken incorreclty out of context here, in the article by Rawlins, and by many of Randi's critics. Here's the sentence: However, Randi has been quoted as saying that it is not possible for paranormal abilities to be true and he has been quoted as saying, "I always have an out." Documentation, anyone? From a non-biased source?

Without context, the whole sentence sounds POV. Consider an actual quote by Randi stating his views about the paranormal, in context. It would be more effective and less POV. I will do some research and find out where the I have an out quote actually came from to begin with and where it actually shows up in reference to the challenge. There is a quote on the James Randi Educational Foundation page, but it is lacking citation as well. For now I placed a citation needed.AuroraMae 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, there are serious parapsychologists (scientists) out there in the world, with admitted programs as many accredited universities around the world as well as other independent labs and institutions. Just as there are "serious" scientists involved in SETI. Take a look at the parapsychology article for links and references. Grizzly 07:37 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

The text of sTarbaby can be found here: http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt Lippard 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Randi did say that quote, but apparently Rawlins took it out of context:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1798659314d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=u1jTL4Bwsbi4Ew%24N%40hutch.demon.co.uk Lord Kenneth

Hey, Lord! What's with removing the link? "Contains misleading and untrue information"? By that criterion then you'd better remove links to JREF pages as well. Look, NPOV requires presenting or at least providing pointers to all points of view, even those that may not cast the Great Randi in the best light. Certainly there are many people who do not take Randi very seriously. Their view needs to somehow be represented. Grizzly 22:45 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You can post a link criticizing the challenge and Randi-- however, the link you posted didn't even understand the basics of how the challenge is performed.

I don't know what you think you are-- psychic, astrologer, homeopath...? -- but posting a link as an "analysis of the challenge" should at least understand the very basics of the challenge. Also, posting links dealing with James Randi is NPOV. Same with giving the URL to the KKK's website on the Ku Klux Klan entry. I am using "no point-of-view". A poorly written rant (it was certainly not in-depth about the subject) that doesn't even get the basic facts right is not what I would put in an encyclopedia. You can certainly put in some links casting Randi in a bad light, but I would expect those to generally be accurate as well-- not to a T, but no lies or things to confuse or mislead the reader. We are not going for "We MUST give all points of view a chance"-- that would be near impossible on some, if not most, subjects. We are going for "no bias". Linking to the JREF is as appropriate as linking to conspiracy sites under the UFO conspiracy section (if one exists), for example. Lord Kenneth

False: We do not aim for "no bias," or "no point of view." http://en.wikipedia.org/NPOV#Giving_equal_validity

We aim for a neutral point of view. This page is not presently neutral point of view. - LionKimbro

Of course you would include a link to the KKK home page in the KKK article, just as National Alliance includes a link to their home page and The Turner Diaries includes a link to the text of the book. Where on Earth did you get the idea that NPOV requires otherwise? - David Gerard 23:54, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Randi appears to me to be either very arrogant and uninformed or simply a Fundamentalist Materialist spending a whole lot of money in attempt to propogate his views...

I doubt he's ever really investigated the 'paranormal'... Considering that I've personally witnessed dozens of doctors accurately diagnose patients based completely on what they call an 'energy field' that they sense...

He's a fraud, if you ask me...

Khranus

This from the person who claims that dolphins work with cold fusion. RickK 01:18, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excellent point, Rick. Khranus, if you had ever read anything by Randi or observed his hundreds of television appearances, you would know that he is no fraud. You don't have to like him (he's often unlikable) nor do you have to agree with the conclusions he reaches (though they are on solid ground in terms of being well-documented, etc.) to admit that he has spent a very long time investigating paranormal phenomena, and he has an established track record of exposing "psychic" frauds. I'm sure that what I've just said promotes a larval meme of some kind, but I think Randi (though, as I said, often unlikable) worth defending. Jwrosenzweig 23:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have, actually, and I find his 'methods' very flawed... Sure, there are plenty of 'psychic' and 'spiritual' frauds (which should be obvious), but there are also plenty of very real psychics, shamans and the like that most certainly are doing something more than just making up stories... Shamans in Peru discovered 'the twisted essence of life' (twisted as in coil-like) thousands of years ago whilst having out-of-body-experiences on DMT. As I said, several doctors see/sense 'energy fields', by which they can diagnose disease.

I don't promote anyone who just stomps out memes from a minute amount of evidence against them, especially not when they themselves follow a silly religious meme like materialism ('science' that isn't really very scientific, in my opinion, especially when one considers Quantum Mechanics and Superstring Theory...

To all those who think that Materialism isn't a dangerous cult just like Catholicism (if not worse), behold: Falun Gong Practitioners Persecuted in China - Khranus (and that was speculation. I wasn't necessarily saying that dolphins 'do' in any way use cold fusion, only pondering the possibility that they do, based on the evidence. "If at first an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it." -Einstein)

I'm Catholic, and I think the previous statement is retarded.

I strongly suggest you read about the 100th Monkey and morphogenetic fields (proposed by Rupert Sheldrake)... There is such a multitude of evidence out there supporting the theory that all consciousness is connected (making psionic abilities possible), that to deny the possibility can only be the result of ignorance. Khranus

Would this be the completely discredited nonsensical 100th monkey fable? MrGalt

Oh, "energy fields", eh? What kind of "energy" is this? Certainly the new-age type, and not anything remotely resembling science. There is no scientific evidence to support this claims-- in fact, why don't these superpower doctors go take the JREF's test? There is no excuse not to do so.

Additionally, your anti-materialism "evidence" is laughable. What you are linking to is a result of government tyranny, not materialism.

http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html

I think you're just wacked in the head. Sorry, but you talk about scientific evidence, and none supports your claims. - Lord Kenneth

I moved this from the article:

As time passes, Randi seems to exhibit a high level of anxiety when it comes to the subject of religion and magick. Other magicians are concerned about his obvious cognitive distortions and the effect they have on his admirers, especially young magicians who are unaware of his faults and ignorance in this field. He ridicules faith. Yet he called upon the trust and faith of other magicians when confronting Uri Geller. (Abracadabra 2Feb 74). As with many other skeptics, he dictates different rules for himself.

Can anyone NPOV this? I could not find who the magicians, which were mentioned, were.

Rasmus (talk) 13:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

Provoked by the 11 Sep 01 terrorist attacks on the USA, Randi roared about being an atheist, and blasted religious faith with ridicule and sarcasm.

Can someone give some evidence of him ridiculing religious faith because of the Setpember 11 attacks? - snoyes 17:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the silly attempt to defame Randi by claiming that we should celebrate December 25 as Isaac Newton's birthday "instead of" Jesus, here's what Randi actually wrote in his commentary column:

"Happy Newton's Birthday! Just 361 years ago this next Thursday, Sir Isaac Newton was born, a man we know existed, someone who contributed hugely to his and to our world, and a chap we can and should commemorate by means of observance of his birthday. Instead, most of the world chooses to believe that another guy was born on this day, a notion for which there's no proof at all."

Make of that what you will. Apparently our anonymous contributor feels that being a skeptic prevents you from being allowed to display sarcasm and a sense of humor. And incidentally, there are several different days put forth as the "true" date of Jesus' birth, other than December 25th. --Modemac 18:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what Randi says here, but including it in the article would result in POV. Maroux 18:51, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Everytime I bring up Randi's preferred silence on the subject of the remote, mundane, possibility of telepathy in Folie a deux some close-minded person removes it. I don't mind it. I just find it amusing. I guess convictions are always true. Kazuba magician

You could try offering a reference for this supposed refusal of Randi to approach the subject, instead of making accusations against him that are not NPOV. --Modemac 19:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my letter. Go to YAHOO select charlie turek magician folie a deux, my letter is still in the all experts answers. I am not making an accusation. That ain't my way. Nor is it my my way to claim another of accusations, and blow away their entries, Mr Modemac. Randi may be wrong about telepathy. Notice the responses to my letter from others; especially those in psychology and psychiatry. Notice too who finked outKazuba magician

You mean this letter, I presume: http://experts.about.com/q/3278/2493018.htm It says the following: "Once I went to a CSICOP convention. I saw Randi the first night. His beard was snowy white! I never got to meet him. The next day he was gone." Then after that he apparently never responded to your letter of inquiry. So what? --Modemac 09:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Modemac, Randi, Paul Kurtz, Martin Gardner and I have known each other for at least 20 years. Only Martin has impressed me as being an honest person. I admire him deeply. Randi will speak to me about other things magic, magicians, blah, blah ,blah, but when I write to him about Folie a deux he bails out. This was not the only time I sent him that letter. I can only surmise Randi has made up his mind, and folie a deux just doesn't exist. The medical profession says it does. What do you want to believe? What pleases you? Oh yeah, look me up on YAHOO as charles turek magician and look at my book reviews on Amazon. Start with Morton Smith's "Jesus the Magician". You might find them of interest. You are welcome to have the last word. I'm through. Kazuba

Oh, one thing more ,Mr Modemac, after you have looked at all that stuff, you can put my entry back about Randi avoiding the possibility of telepathy in folie a deux. That would be the kind thing to do.Kazuba magician

I've made some updates and corrections. The criticism section should also be rewritten and organized better.AuroraMae 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

including the FBI and former U.S. presidents

I know that SB has made these claims (well the first anyway not sure about the second). I can't recall much in the way of evidence that they are true.Geni 15:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. You might want to take a look at the Sylvia Browne article where I have copied this text from. Rafał Pocztarski 13:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James Randi never called Josephesen a "scoundrel"

These were his actual words from the BBC interview:

There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP, or whatever we wish to call it, and I think it is the refuge of scoundrels, in many aspects, for them to turn to something like quantum physics — which uses a totally different language from the regular English that we are accustomed to using from day to day — to merely say, "Oh that's where the answer lies, because that's all very fuzzy, anyway." No, it's not very fuzzy, and I think that his opinion will be differed with by the scientific body in general.

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html

Somebody needs to edit this so he is not quoted saying something he did not say.

One ahead

The article makes mention of the "'one ahead' routine," but does not explain what this is. - anonymous

I also would like to know what that means. Andreac 17:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from Rick Boatright 17:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Simple One-Ahead Test by Cornelius Christian

Effect: You hand out small slips of paper to different people in the audience to write down any question or statement they wish. When they are done, you ask them to fold up the slips and you pass a tray around to collect the slips. Then you turn the lights to a dim and holding up each slip to your head, you give an almost accurate description of what is written inside. Then you read out the actual question, and give an answer to it! My version of this test uses no confederates and no special equipment. All you'll need are as many slips of paper as there are volunteers and a tray to carry them in. This trick gets pretty good reactions from my audience.

Preparation: None.

Method: The secret in work here is something known as the one-ahead principle, or staying one-ahead of your audience. Let me explain:

At the time the audience is folding up the slips, ask them to fold it up into quarters. I like to work with small square pieces of paper.

When you go up to collect the slips of paper, you place them all in a tray. Then, as you are walking up to the stage, you palm one of the slips in your hand. Once you have distracted the audience's attention, open the slip and secretly read what's written on it. Then fold it up again and give it a small twist to distinguish it from the others.

Now instead of picking up the slip you just read, pick up a different slip and pretend to concentrate. Then, give an almost accurate description of the question or statement. Not too accurate mind you or they may start to suspect some trickery at work here. Just almost accurate. But the question you are revealing is actually the question you peeked at previously. After your almost accurate prediction, open the slip and read the actual question that person wrote. In reality, you are reading to yourself the question which is really written on this slip of paper. Now you give an answer to this question. Here you may want to use cold reading techniques which I explain later. You shouldn't disappoint the audience with your answer. Try to please. You may also want to add a little humour here and there.

Now, crumple up that slip of paper, throw it away and reach out and pick a different slip. Then you pretend to divine the general content of this paper but you are in reality telling the audience what you read to yourself on the last paper. This is the one-ahead principle.

The absolute last slip you should pick up should be the one you sneeked a peek at in the beginning. The one with the twist in it.

Fascinating, thanks! Can that get made into an article which could then be linked to from the Randi page? Andreac 21:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above would be a copyvio - feel free to write your own version... Rick Boatright 22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See new article: billet reading. Please add to it. -- Krash 23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Randi is a fraud

The Amusing Randi is as big a fraud as the people he exposes.

Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pass the tests he creates. And isn't it interesting that he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people? (That's from his own website.) That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test. The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge. And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action. In essence, the deal is rigged.

James Randi's behavior and demeanor were so culturally insensitive that he actually created a gigantic backlash against skepticism.

Here are the ways that the test is rigged, from Randi's own website:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

"Preliminary tests are conducted by associates of the JREF"

"Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run."

In addition, according to The Amusing Randi's own rules, he controls all data generated from the tests and all information about them and you have to waive your right to sue him. This combination of facts makes it very easy to rig the tests and essentially impossible for anyone to pass it.

IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process. They are setting up the process to guarantee that it finds the results that they wanted it to find.

And Randi has been quoted as saying that there is no possibility that any paranormal acts could be genuine.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

"Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it. Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy."

This is how Randi rigs the system so he will never have to pay out the million dollars, or even acknowledge the possibility of anyone having any paranormal abilities. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Randi

"Randi revealed that he had been able to orchestrate a years-long and complete compromise of a privately-funded psychic research experiment."

By his own admission, Randi sponsored one of his aides as a fake "psychic." He toured and took people's money for his performances. Randi says they did this "to show how gullible people are," but it's still a fraudulent method of doing so.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb106721.htm

"For years the Randi organization has pretended to offer a bogus million dollar reward to any person who can successfully demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability. This has naturally generated a lot of publicity and profit for the lead charlatan of the Randi organization, former sleight of hand con artist James Randi. That is until the Yellow Bamboo organization from Bali INDONESIA called his bluff and actually demonstrated paranormal ability in front of scores of independent witnesses and a media representative from the Radio Republik Indonesia broadcasting network On 14 September 2003 Mr. Nyoman Serengen, the founder of Yellow Bamboo (with over 40,000 members) successfully slammed down, without touching, the Randi representative Mr. Joko Tri clearly demonstrating extraordinary paranormal ability. Once the demonstration was successfully carried out James Randi frantically scrambled to concoct a phony pretext not to pay."

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

"That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums - and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal.

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Gary Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal."

"Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfill his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests"

http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

"Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.

(So) What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims."?

Again, we must remember, it is Randi's assertion that there is NO VALID EVIDENCE of any paranormal or supernatural phenomena, so there really can be no such thing as "degrees of plausibility" in this field."

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#JamesRandi

"James Randi is a conjurer (the “Amazing Randi”) and showman who is described on his web site as “the world’s most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.” He used to be a leading figure in CSICOP, but had to resign because of litigation against him."

"(A)s a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." ( www.skeptic.com/archives03.html)

Randi’s fellow showman Loyd Auerbach, President of the Psychic Entertainers Association, is likewise sceptical about this “prize” and sees it as a stunt of no scientific value."

This is from a "skeptic" website, so it's not just people that The Amusing Randi "debunked."

From the same "skeptic" website:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

"Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi's claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments."

Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. "It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments." "

William James nailed Randi (even before Randi was here) when he said, "I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are impossible." Yet this is exactly the mindset from which Randi operates and from which his million-dollar challenge is issued. Stated simply, there is NO proof, no matter how thorough, that someone with James Randi's worldview will EVER accept! They have already ruled out the possibility of any of these experiments succeeding before they conduct them.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein, in The New Convergence.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

"The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now, I'm certainly no advocate of the paranormal. I tend to be very skeptical of these paranormal things myself -- although I am not closed to them. Some may be real.

I know these fields attract a lot of hucksters and charlatans. But they are no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself, IMO.

"The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery." -- Fred Alan Wolf

"The Universe is self-aware through us." -- Dr. Amit Goswami, The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World

This isn't UBB. Your attempts at markup are distracting; HTML works, as do Misplaced Pages's own proprietary tags explained at Misplaced Pages:Editing. At least preview before you post to see that your markup isn't working, and remove it if you don't know how to fix it.

What sorts of experiments would fail these 'rigged' tests of Mr. Randi's? So far as I can tell, at most paranormal ones, and really at most fraudulent ones by scientific lights. This is of course debatable, but this whole section of yours sounds like special pleading - "what I favor can't pass the test but that's the test's fault", but you know what special pleading means already...

The rest (no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself? Even if I were to grant your main point, have you met more than a few of these people? Some of them certainly are frauds of the highest order.) is hyperbole. Recognize it. Avoid it. Schissel : bowl listen 16:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You said: "This is from a "skeptic" website, so it's not just people that The Amusing Randi "debunked."" - Look at the people you made that page. You are wrong, those are not part of the current skeptic movement. Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake, and Brian Josephson are well-known pro-paranormalists, and Marcello Truzzi's main job is criticizing skeptics. Those people call themselves "real skeptics", as opposed to skeptics (who they call "pseudoskeptics"). They maintain that sitting on the fence is the only valid position. Disagreeing with them is unscientific, according to them - especially if you disagree in one particular direction, which borders on being a crime. So you should take their propaganda with a grain of salt - look at both sides instead of just believing what they write. And it is "Amazing", not "Amusing". --Hob Gadling 13:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think this addresses addresses that point - they claim to be skeptical investigators when they're really the opposite. Bubba73 (talk), 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Randi can be irritating, dogmatic and wrong-headed without being a fraud. I agree with him sometimes and disagree others, but nobody is compelled to take his test, and all are entitled to draw their own conclusions about it. Doovinator 16:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The poster who claims that the preliminary testing in the million dollar challenge is done by Randi's own people is totally erroneous. On Randi's website (the forum section) one can follow the correspondance between JREF and the nutjobs who apply for the challenge. The preliminary test is in fact NEVER performed by JREF employees, for the very reason of avoiding accusations that the test is rigged. The testing is usually done by a skeptic organization in the vicinity of the testee. If the person posting these lies about Randi claims that an organization of skeptics will be equally biased, then he will show himself to be a true conspiracy theorist, worthy of being ignored by everyone.

Maybe Tbpsmd is a fraud himself? He removed from this talk page the above text, which is unpleasant for his cause. --Hob Gadling 15:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hob, Randi frequently performs the tests himself. Here's a few examples:

Lithuanian psychic doctor : http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html

Russian X-ray eyes girl : http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html

American dowser : http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Harry Mudd July 14 2005

Or rather, he frequently writes about those he performs himself. --Prosfilaes 01:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A few points in reply :

"Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pass the tests he creates."

One of the rules of the test is that the JREF must agree the conditions with the claimint in advance. Meaning every test subject goes into the test thinking they will succeed because THEY helped plan it in advance!

"And isn't it interesting that he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people?"

Actually his own people do them sometimes, but not even close to always. And the whole point of the tests are that they are structured in such a way that it doesn't matter who does them.

"That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test. The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge."

Again, he designs the tests in accordance with the claimant. And in terms of being a judge, tests are NEVER designed so that success or failure is a judgement call. In dowsing for water, for instance, it may be agreed before that the claimant will find water more than 50% of the time. If he does, he wins. How could Randi or anybody possibly pretend that such a test had been failed when it had not?

"And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action."

Simply not true.

"Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run."

Again, the JREF does NOT dictate the terms of the test. That is stated explicitly in the rules.

"In addition, according to The Amusing Randi's own rules, he controls all data generated from the tests and all information about them and you have to waive your right to sue him. This combination of facts makes it very easy to rig the tests and essentially impossible for anyone to pass it."

This is a misinterpretation. What the rules say is that the JREF owns the data. So for example if they film somebody actually doing something paranormal, then they would be able to sell it to TV companies afterwards. This is perfectly reasonable and standard - no scientist would agree that a test subject owns the results of a test done on them!

"IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process. They are setting up the process to guarantee that it finds the results that they wanted it to find."

Simply impossible.

"And Randi has been quoted as saying that there is no possibility that any paranormal acts could be genuine."

So? It's his opinion that nothing paranormal exists, so of course he would think that there is no possibility that such things could be genuine. The whole point of the test is that he's challenging people woho claim to have these abilities to prove him wrong.

No it doesn't. It means only that he can use and profit from it afterwards.

"By his own admission, Randi sponsored one of his aides as a fake "psychic." He toured and took people's money for his performances. Randi says they did this "to show how gullible people are," but it's still a fraudulent method of doing so."

So what? It's no worse than what many investigative journalists do.

In actual fact, the Yellow Bamboo people NEVER APPLIED FOR THE CHALLENGE!

The claimed to be able to do something. An acquaintance of Randi went along to observe and report on what he saw. Whilst there he agreed to be a test subject to a demonstration NOT done under controlled conditions. From his report, it appears that what happened was that he was hit from behind with a stun gun!

But whatever happened, the Yellow Bamboo people never submitted an application, never agreed a testing procedure with the JREF - if they had, one of the conditions would have been that observers would be present to make sure nobody was sneaking up behind the guy with a stun gun!

Hell, even if you accepted what happened as a preliminary test - which it wasn't - they would still have to go on to do a formal test, and they never even ASKED about that!

Frankly, for them to claim they beat the challenge is absurd.

"Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.

There IS no such evidence.

W: May I interject here. Actually you are dead wrong about that. The Ganzfeld experiments in telepathy and the Princeton PEAR experiments in PK were replicable and proved the existence of psi. See Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe". Combine that with the fact that 40-50 percent of the world population has had some psychic or paranormal experience, and that's a ton of evidence that is irrefutable. See my article www.geocities.com/WWu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm for more arguments you can learn from. ... added at 09:50, 13 November 2005 by 172.185.180.169 (who 54 minutes later returned to make it all bold).

That's a silly site. It's full of bad logic. For example, it uses one definition of the word "skeptic" when in fact there are several definitions in use, and it claims (not in those words) that all cases where other definitions apply, should be called "pseudo". By the same reasoning, all homonymous words should be preceded by "pseudo". Your definition of "skeptic" includes that opinions are a big no-no. Others allow more freedom. So you and your ilk are the Only True Skeptics, and want to ban everybody who disagrees with you from using the word. That's just a power game by seizing the definition. There are a lot more errors in your site, but this is the basic one. As long as this error is there, the site is hopeless. --Hob Gadling 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims."?

Generally, he means that you can't risk your health or that of another. For instance, there are those who claim to be able to survive without food indefinitely. If a person were denied food long enough for the purposes of the challenge, they would die. If JREF participated in that they could well be open to criminal charges. Another guy claimed to be able to blind people by means of a personal agreement he had with god.

Randi has never claimed that passing the challenge would provide scientific proof. He does not regard himself as a scientist, nor does he expect scientists to change their mind because of anything that happens in the challenge. All he asks is that people perform in what they themselves agree is a fair test.

Both parties have to agree on the terms before-hand, and then they enter into a contract. I haven't heard anything about Randi being sued over this.

Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem appropriate to the talk page. Or does it? 70.66.9.162 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the challenge. I'll admit that I am somewhat biased, but all indications I've seen is that the challenge is not designed to discredit legitimate claims of the paranormal, but to find actual paranormal evidence. It is true that the actual interpretation and design of the test is subject to the foundation's judgment. And it is recognized that it's less than ideal to have a challenge in this manner, but the nature of the test deals with the "paranormal." It's simply too broad a subject to have a set procedure to test all claims. There has to be judgment on someone's part. Obviously Randi is the JREF which administers and controls the test, because if it were open to anybody to decide if the person has passed the test or not, then one could simply have their friend say that they saw them do so.

Again, I admit to being biased, but I do not think it is proper to confuse Randi's irreverence and occasional sarcasm for malice. All indications I've seen are that fairness is important to the challenge. It's also important to understand what the challenge is looking for: Scientific proof of the paranormal.

Try to imagine what this means. If you truely believe in the paranormal, then more power to you, but you will probably admit that it's a belief, not a provable fact. Perhaps it could never be proven, but IF it could, it would change everything. If one could prove a paranormal phenomenon, then it would eliminate the idea of "belief" and make it a cold hard fact, and in doing so, expand humanities understanding of the world. It would be the first step to opening up the area for serious scientific study and remove the stigma of psuedo-science.

However, those who pass themselves off as having supernatural powers, when they are infact using trickery or deception really don't help anyone's cause. At best, they muddy the waters. Randi has encountered many over the years, and that hasn't helped with the whole cynical additude.

Please at least consider the possibility that Mr. Randi will give you a fair shake, before saying the challenge is rigged. You have the right to believe anything you want, as does Mr. Randi. If you do not agree with Mr. Randi's view of the world, that's fine. But if you think you can provide him with the proof that what you believe is accurate, consider doing so.

Again... I'm not claiming to speak on his behalf. That's just my take on it. DrBuzz0 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Folie a deux

I think if folie a deux (here a sharing of the same visual hallucination) can be produced by the use of 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate. The purpose of confusing the enemy, by the use of chemical warfare, belongs here. It certainly casts doubts on Randi's strong convictions that there is no such thing as psychic phenomena, a stand he has taken for many years. Why should these things not be referenced here? user talk: Kazuba 28 Jul 2005

1. You have provided no outside or noteable reference for what you "think". Remember, you have been told before about the No original research policy here. Please review this policy again. 2. Regardless if the issue is true or false, it is still not relevant to Mr. Randi's bio page. You have provided no outside or noteable references to support any connection. Eclipsed 20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Folie a deux 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate chemical warfare This is not not new original research. This is just a collection of different topics already on the Misplaced Pages. They are very interesting. This not a "what I think thing" this is what the data says if carefully read. It is very revelant to Randi's biography. Certainly it casts doubts on his personal crusade; (against PSI?) But, I'll tell you what, Randi and I go way way back. I'll ask him if he thinks if it should be in his Misplaced Pages bio. (He is gonna love this one!). If I sweet talk him, he does have a soft side, maybe we'll get him to comment here. What say you? (I'm gonna share it with him anyway. He is one of my heroes. Love to make him laugh!). user talk Kazuba 28 Jul 2005

1. You have provided no outside or noteable reference to support the claim "this is what the data says if carefully read". 2. We all look forward to reading Mr. Randi's response to your request via his weekly commentary. Eclipsed 21:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Furry lifestyler is not new original research, either; it's just a topic already on Misplaced Pages. But if I put it on this page, it would be original research, because I would be implying something by the juxtaposition. As much to the point, you shouldn't put random links at the bottom of the page if they aren't completely obviously connected; Saki's aricle links to Anti-Semitism in the middle of a sentence discussing that, not in a link collection at the bottom.

To boot, I've read these articles and don't see the connection. Chemicals have effects on the mind; so what? If you can read the original article and the linked article and still can't put it together, it needs text explaining the connection in the main article. --Prosfilaes 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

After rereading your statement, I still don't see the relevance. Folie a deux seems like an extreme example of people picking up quirks off each other, not psychic phenomenom. Even if it is psychic phenomenom, it doesn't go on a biography of Randi; it might go on a page about the belief system Randi holds, or other pages about the existence of psychic phenomenom. --Prosfilaes 22:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for caring enough to share.I will weigh your advice carefully. Still it is Randi's bio. Like to see what he has got to say. I am a very curious person. I'm out of here! user talk:Kazuba 28 Jul 2005

This may take some time how long I can't say. Want to do some more research. Hopefully before either Randi or I kick the bucket. But I'll get back to you (guys?). Be patient. Oops! I have one more thing to say, before I gallop off into the sunset. If tommorrow a flying saucer came down at the White House, and Elvis stepped out singing "Hound dog", and it was on the national news, and I said something about on the Misplaced Pages, would I get the wailing and gnashing of teeth with the cries of NO NEW RESEARCH? Shades of Galileo! We have made no progress? Adios user talk: Kazuba 29 Jul 2005

1. If tommorrow a flying saucer came down at the White House, and Elvis stepped out singing "Hound dog", and it was on the national news (I assume you mean TV news, for example CNN), and you said something about it here on Misplaced Pages, then you would have the national news as your source. 2. Additionally, in writing a good article about the event, one might appropriately link to official pages of the national news source that supported what you are writing. Eclipsed 17:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No "see also" J. Allen Hynek? I am not trying to be funny. I am trying to understand other people's boundaries. When I entered Milbourne Christopher at "see also" there was no complaint. What is the big difference? That I added Christopher's biography on the Misplaced Pages? User talk:Kazuba 29 July 2005

1. Adding Milbourne Christopher as a "see also" to a James Randi page can be justified. By reading both of their pages, one can notice similarities. For example: both magicians, both illusionists, both writers about magic and debunking, they even shared a respect for Harry Houdini. 2. J. Allen Hynek however is a ufologist that has written almost exclusively about UFOs. This has no connection to Mr. Randi, beyond the general idea that Mr. Hynek writes about one specific topic that is one of the hundreds/thousands of topics that Mr. Randi debunks. Eclipsed 18:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. I am being misunderstood here. What if I linked "see also" J. Allen Hynek to the CNN Elvis Saucer at the Whte House? That's okay? User talk: Kazuba 29 July 2005

1. In that specific hypothetical situation one probably could justify inclusion. Eclipsed 18:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You have lost me, brother. It is as clear as mud. Thanks for the effort though. It seems justifyng the inclusion is just about an individual thing. What you see connects is different than what I see connects. Why I am not surprised? Anyhow, I'll try to please you guys. The digging will take a while. Bye Bye User talk: Kazuba 29 July 2005

1. I find it very confusing when you write "brother". I am not a brother, nor am I your brother. 2. In any case, if you have anything specific to James Randi, then feel free to discuss it here. Y Eclipsed 19:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Ah, James Randi. Idiocy at its best... I really hate television. And the tabloids. Perhaps if psychic abilities were not shown to be "fictional" all over the media, people like this wouldn't exist... one can only dream what that would be like. (by 66.190.145.221)

The goal of Misplaced Pages is make neutral encyclopedia, and the talk pages are here in service to that goal. Your personal opinions on the subject, as they don't pertain to the article, don't help that at all; it's just basically a troll. --Prosfilaes 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So this is the psychic killer i've been sensing. --Cyberman 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia's Clock

Going to that page, I don't see any clock at all. Does anyone else see this supposed week clock? --Prosfilaes 18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That page talks about the clock, but the main page James Randi Educational Foundation shows it. It shows 208 weeks in the graphics of the sign but 232 in the text. Bubba73 18:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I used to read Randi's site a lot. The reason the two numbers are different is because they refer to different dates. One is when Silvia agreed to take the test, and the other is when she ... did something else. I've forgotten. 70.66.9.162 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, she appeared on another show (Larry King I think) and restated her willingness to take the Randi test. He reset the clock at that point, figuring the earlier offer was now moot. BobThePirate 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Randi's caustic style

It seems to me that Randi's "caustic" style only seems that way to believers in something he debunks. What I see happening is that he nails them and leaves them no way out. Bubba73 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. I'm an avid fan of Randi's, and despise the superstitious claptrap he exposes through the Challenge and his regular activities. But he certainly can be caustic. However, one should consider the situation: millions of people actively scamming credulous people out of billions of dollars on unproven (and likely unprovable) mumbo-jumbo, millions more who remain convinced of paranormal elements even when confronted by clear evidence to the contrary, and a worldwide culture promoting blind belief over the testing and critical analysis of theory that has essentially invented the modern world — a culture that turns its collective back on the very things that brought it into being and make it sustainable. Who couldn't help but be occasionally caustic when confronted by this self-destructive mass psychosis? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the use of "caustic," which helps provide an immediate insight into Randi's style of delivery. For many, the medium seems to overrun the message, which I see as integral to why many people dislike him. (I am not among them).Edbanky 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the changes that some anonymous person made to this section. Ads it stands it is totally one sided. "Randi's bold, uncompromising style of writing and presentation has won him enemies among paranormal proponents and friends among those who appreciate the direct and no-nonsense approach he takes to writing." That makes it sound as if ALL people that oppose him are believers, and that ALL skeptics support him This simply is not true. As a skeptic myself, I find him to be offensive and childish. I think his behaviour does no favours at all to the skeptical movement. I don't think there is any word other than "childish" that describes his language, such as "woo-woo" Harry Mudd 15 June 2006

I think it is a violation of NPOV to call him childish. Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's in the article text. Here, it's just a "bold" opinion, to use the same adjective currently applied in the article. The wording would be less of an issue if we did a better job sourcing the statements in this section. Currently, the only source provided, which is supposed to be for the above quoted sentence, is a bare link to "Fakers and Innocents", Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2005. It fails to explain exactly how this is a valid source for the sentence. Considering how incredibly long the article is, this is a bad idea in general, and even worse in an article where editors are arguing over wording. (I found one possible explanation — a passage where Randi mentions a German scientist who called him "too aggressive and rude" (with which he agreed, with qualifications) — but it isn't an adequate source for the entire sentence, and proper citations should include any relevant quotes to confirm published opinions on such a controversial subject.)

Making statements about how people think, without sources, or with sources where the actual evidence is buried and uncited, invites edit wars. We must remember that if we make claims that people think some particular way, we must provide properly referenced reliable sources. Otherwise they are nothing more than our own opinions of others' opinions, which is original research at its worst. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is in the article:

However, his hostility, his often childish behaviour and frequent use of insulting language has also alienated many sceptics. His overuse of the word "woo-woo" has been seen as especially juvenile by many.

Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that. I still maintain that this entire section is merely the opinion, whether pro or con, of the current editors. It needs proper sources to avoid being completely removed as original research (which, I will remind everyone, can be perfectly true but still unacceptable as Misplaced Pages material). Please consider how respectable publications will put words like "bold" or "childish" in quotes and mention the quotee. If we can't do this, we have no business making such claims. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bubba wrote : "I think it is a violation of NPOV to call him childish." No, violating NPOV is when an article presents only one point of view, and rejects differing opinions. The line presents an alternative view to counterbalance the unequivocal praise in the earlier version. I think there is general agreement that Randi is rude, it would be hard to deny it. Some skeptics consider his rudenes to be "bold" and admire him for it. Others consider his rudeness to be "childish" and condemn him for it. Any NPOV article must acknowledge both sides, or else remove the section altogether. Harry Mudd. 16 June 2006

I removed this section. As an outsider to this discussion, I feel qualified to effect a compromise that pleases no one. :) But seriously, I think Jeffq stated it best above that making general statements about how people think without sourcing them is original research. If you want to quote a verifiable source that says good things about Randi, that's fine. If you want to quote a verifiable source that says bad things about Randi, that's fine, too. But the section as it was espoused mere editorial opinion without anything to back it up. --GentlemanGhost 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sentence about Csicop

I have removed a disputed sentence from the article about one of the court cases with Geller leading Randi to part ways with Csicop. Randi has sent an e-mail advising that this is not correct and there does not seem to be any verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a sentence suggested by Randi "This case was directly responsible for the decision of Randi to part company with CSICOP.". This sentence is substantially the same as what was there before. Capitalistroadster 15:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Overlinking

I have just removed massive overlinking from the article, especially these types:

Links that have little or nothing to do with the subject.

Links that lead to places that a reader is unlikely to be interested in going.

Generally dates, common words, and ordinary terms should never be linked. Only things relevant to the article topic need linking.

Will whoever it is who is doing this please quit it! If anyone can find out who it is, please notify/warn them on their own talk page. -- Fyslee 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ticker trouble

I removed this:

Randi's website claims that on Thursday 2 February, 2006, Randi underwent emergency coronary artery bypass surgery. He is said to be "in stable condition' and "receiving excellent care" . The circumstances surrounding his admission to hospital are not clear at this time but it appears to be unexpected.

Misplaced Pages is not a news report. I'm not questioning the verifiability of the text, only its importance and relevance. If his condition worsens, something notable or public comes of the surgery, or he dies as a result of it then I could justify its mention here. But presently it's only an unneeded breaking news mention which is completely unnecessary. -- Krash (Talk) 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WP often follows developing news stories and has a Template:current tag just for that purpose. Also, if someone has had emergency heart surgery, that's worthy of mention in a biography even as non-current info. So IMO the mention should go back. 70.231.131.185 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this whole sentence as I would argue that the personal health problems of a person does not have encyclopedic value. If editors believe stoingly that this needs to be included, feel free to re-add. I will not pursue this further. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

How the hell can an emergency coronary artery bypass surgery not be considered worthy to add? A man's health is definitely something that should be included in his article. DarthJesus 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Major health problems are encyclopedic in a biography. It is a direct relationship between the person and their body. Ans e ll 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the article should state that "on Thursday February 2, 2006, Randi underwent emergency coronary artery bypass surgery". I would leave out "He is said to be "in stable condition' and "receiving excellent care" . The circumstances surrounding his admission to hospital are not clear at this time but it appears to be unexpected. " Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems okay to me to have the single sentence describing the event in a consise manner. :) Ans e ll 11:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Randi was at The Amazing Meeting on January 18 through 21st 2006. He appeared to be in good health and showed no sign of physical weakness. Obviously, he is not a young man, but he never needed a wheelchair, nor even a cane and showed no signs of fatigue, even though the events took up a large portion of the day. He did address his health issues, saying that he felt very well and was grateful for all the support and concern shown by his friends and members of the foundation. He also mentioned that the surgery did leave him weary for some time after and that the meeting and other events helped to provide the motivation to not slow down.

I have absolutely no idea how this could possibly be added to the artificial, because this was my own personal observation. (I was there myself). I know wikipedia now seems to want very good and speffic citations. Also, I'm not sure how to say that he was very lively and appeared to be well, without resorting to weasel words like "By all accounts, Randi was in good spirits"... that'd get flagged pretty fast. I suppose I could write about it elsewhere and then quote myself and hopefully it won't get tagged? DrBuzz0 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the right way is to wait for the mainstream press or other reliable source to report this information. Barring that, Randi's or others' published statements in Swift (not the JREF Forum!) may be acceptable, so we can wait for those as well. This is probably not such an essential element to the article (however critical it obviously is to Randi and his fans, and possibly his detractors) that we should be overly concerned about the latest updates. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that that the forum would not be the place to cite, and given no press articles as such that I have found, I'm not sure if there will be any. However, I think it's relevant and important to note that Mr. Randi got through his surgery well and is doing well. The current biography is somewhat dated to early 2006, when things were still uncertain. The fact that Mr. Randi is no longer hospitalized and that he has resumed speaking, traveling and writing seems a completely legitimate and important amendment to the information on his health. The only way I can think of citing it would possibly be to cite one of his television appearances as the source of the information. Even though the information that he is out of the hospital and has resumed activities is not given in the interview, it is apparent by his very appearance at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrBuzz0 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Awards

Does the CSICOP fellowship count as an award? (If so, it should be added.) Bubba73 (talk), 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

JREF link

The article contains a link to James Randi Educational Foundation, but that just redirects back to this article. So either it needs to be unlinked, or there needs to be at least a stub at James Randi Educational Foundation. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How's it look now? -- Krash (Talk) 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeptic and athiest

Randi is a prominant skeptic. As far as I know, he is not prominant or notable as an athiest. Should we put in everyone's religion in wikipedia, even if it isn't relevant? Just wondering. Bubba73 (talk), 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Randi's atheism is not strongly relevant. It comes up occasionally but isn't important enough for the initial summary. JoshuaZ 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should put just about everyone's religion in Misplaced Pages; it's often informative as to how they behave and how other people behave towards them. It's also something that people might want to find in an encyclopedia. Randi has made his religion part of his public persona, and I think that's noteworthy. It is not, however, noteworthy in the same sentence as his life's work.--Prosfilaes 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. I'm just bringing up the topic for discussion, due to the edits and reverts. Bubba73 (talk), 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Randi is a prominent atheist, which is why he was awarded the inaugural Richard Dawkins award. Given that there are only three such awards given, I suggest that ensuring that those 3 entries mention what the award is for.

--Couttsie 22:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then, given that I am in favor of listing it.

On the topic of awards, is the CSICOP fellowship an award? If so, that should be listed under awards. Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Randi's atheism should certainly be addressed in the article somewhere. But I don't see enough importance to include it in the leader. -- Krash (Talk) 01:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "addressed." Mentioning it might be proper, since it's a fact, but doing much more than that could be construed as an attempt to poison the well, which of course is a tactic to unwarrantedly and improperly divert attention (an ad hominem trick) and to detract from the reputation or authority of a person or source. He is primarily known as a skeptic and debunker, and that should be the main emphasis. -- Fyslee 12:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that is "poisoning the well", you shoud see Philip J. Klass! Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! No joke! I have added a few citation tags, but more are needed. Most of that article should be split to a new article dealing with criticisms of Klass. -- Fyslee 16:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

About two days ago I nominated that article and two others to be considered by the Rational Skeptics project. here Bubba73 (talk), 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne and Randi's heart

A paragraph about Sylvia Browne was added and then deleted. Randi talks about this here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant; Sylvia Brown may have said he should "check" his "left ventricle," but as he says there, he has a "public record as having had heart attacks and an angioplasty", and a check of said ventricle turned up nothing. We don't even know if his left ventricle had anything to do with his heart surgery.--Prosfilaes 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which award?

There are two mentions of an award received in 1986. One instance states that it as the "MacArthur Foundation Genius award" and in another instance it is referred as "MacArthur Foundation fellowship" award. Which one is it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The official name is the "MacArthur Foundation fellowship". It is unofficially called the "MacArthur Foundation Genius award". That could be clarified. Bubba73 (talk), 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nature" and Dr. Jacques Benveniste (1988)

Part of Randi's fame in the scientific skeptic community: http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html There are many references. -Wfaxon 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Breatharianism

What does this one claim have a large place in the crit section? What's it's purpose?

(forgive me if I'm being dense?)

--Charlesknight 07:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the writing style and the presentation of information, I suspect this was some opponent of Randi's way of using individually accurate bits of information to make Randi look hypocritical. I've completely rewritten the "Criticism" section, using most of the same citations and perhaps half of the text, but rearranging it not only for better flow and comprehension, but also to raise each sourced criticism and Randi's response, adding some sources where they were lacking. I also decided to expand on the criticisms a bit, using the existing breatharian examples to reduce the sheer quantity of quoted material, but ran out of time to flesh out everything with proper sources. Can someone else jump in to find both published examples of the described criticisms and examples of Randi's responses? Of course, feel free to edit anything else that looks like it needs improvement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Breatharianism the correct term here? I changed it to "water fasting" but it was changed back. Correct me if I am wrong, but Breatharianmism refers to surviving solely on air. mapetite526

I guess you are right; breatharianism often does imply no water too. But water fasting doesn't imply long-term survival. How about Inedia (which Breatharianism actually currently redirects to)? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with Inedia. mapetite526

Personal Life

This article needs to be expanded to include elements of Randi's personal life such as who his parents were, his heritage, etc. Do any of you know if Randi was ever married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.39.127 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but he seems like a homo to me.

Oh, grow up, you anonymous homophobe you. RobertAustin 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above. I have not heard anything to the effect of Mr. Randi being homosexual, or at least not seriously. It's possible, but I do not see how that changes anything or would reflect on his work. Mr. Randi is free to speak of his personal life, but I find it distasteful to speculate about anyone's private life, especially when it does not relate directly to his public or professional life. That having been said, adding the location where he was raised, names of parents and such may be worthwhile, if only for general biographical reference. DrBuzz0 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

controlled test?

The article says "that he somehow "controls" the tests,..." Is this being confused with a controlled experiment? In doing scientific tests/experiments, or in a statistical test, a "controlled" test means that you have controlled (kept constant) all variables except the one that you are testing, so any results must be to that variable instead of another one. Bubba73 (talk), 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the claim is that he is controlling the experiments by surreptious means to prevent the testers from succeeding. JoshuaZ 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Byrd v. Randi

I have twice reverted attempts by 220.240.249.134 (talk · contribs) to smear Randi by including a very select portion of the Byrd v. Randi case, misrepresenting it as a sex scandal involving Randi, when it is actually about an accusation Randi made about parapsychologist and Uri Geller associate Eldon Byrd. If we are going to list this, it should be presented for what it is, good and bad for both parties, not edited down for maximum effect for one side. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex Tapes Scandal

- James Randi, was involved in a scandal in which, according to court records states: "The scientist's lawyers sought to discredit Mr. Randi by playing taped conversations of teen-age boys who called the magician's home allegedly for sex."

- Transcripts of the tape are also part of the court record in Geller v Randi, (Civil Action No 91-1014-SSH in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The transcripts are contained in Exhibit 40 to Exhibit U]. In court Randi admitted that the tapes were real.

Sorry about that... OK... But it seems that all of the comments in this profile are one sided, if you use your measure? I did have it in the wrong section first time up...sorry about that... but I moved that over to the 'Legal' section to balance up the page. But if it is one sided info you need then that fine with me. Oh by the way I did not smear James... this is from public domain info from a a court transcript. 220.240.249.134

PS: I should also point out to any Fanboys, that James loves using the courts, so I guess I find it odd, when things go agaist James, someone follows up with a "brush & pan" to clean it all up? Regards 220.240.249.134

220.240.249.134, please do not rearrange existing posts to give your own statements prominence. (I have done so to your material, but only to restore my original posting.) New comments should be placed below old ones to preserve the flow of discussions.

If you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are completing ignoring what Byrd v. Randi was about, don't be surprised if someone calls you on it. You took a case about a suit over an accusation that Randi made against Byrd, in which the jury found Randi guilty of defamation but awarded Byrd no damages (an interesting item to report, indeed), and stripped it of everything but the claim about some tapes, in an obvious attempt to turn it into a insinuation about Randi. I found no details on this case that backed up your claim about the teenage callers, Randi's "admission", or whether it even had relevance. (Were these invited solicitations? Were they pranks? Did the court or the jury consider this information germane? The lack of detail and of easily verified sources make this sound like mere innuendo, raised by a party with an agenda who apparently failed to move the jury, making the entire issue suspect.) If you wish to make a specific point, provide a source that someone who isn't a legal clerk can confirm or reject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the jury found in favor of Byrd but awarded no damages (not even $1 or his expenses), because if they went the other way, Byrd could appeal. With the way they ruled, Byrd couldn't appeal. The jury must have realized that it was nonsense. Randi said that Byrd was convicted of being a pediophile. He was charged with that but pleaded guilty to a lesser crime, so he wasn't actually "convicted". Big deal. Bubba73 (talk), 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think the point about Byrd not receiving damages should be included but that has nothing to do with his character. A jurist may throw out damages for many reasons, including that there may be no set criteria for deciding them. On to the pedophilia. I'm unaware of pedophilia or pedarasty on the part of James Randi. However, if there have been allegations made in the public arena of law about such events, then there is no reason to exclude that from the wikipedia article about James Randi. This is a part of the story of his life and should not be excluded. I will search for this. If nothing was brought up at his trial then it is not important, but if it was, it is certainly relevant to his legal issues with Mr. Byrd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

The important thing here is verifiable sources. If the editors of this article jointly decide, through discussion, that this case merits inclusion, we should invest some effort in producing sources that make it possible for us to review the information so we can summarize it. I didn't find any convenient Internet source for details on this case (except some references in JREF, which might be expected to present the case in the most favorable light for Randi). Unless someone wants to dig up a neutral digest of this court case, we shouldn't even consider including it. (I haven't reviewed the other items under "Legal disputes", but the same criteria for NPOV and verifiable sources should be applied to them if yhey haven't been already.) My goal, contrary to 220's opinion, is not to be a Randi apologist, but rather to ensure that we editors can verify the statements made in the article with proper citations. Byrd v. Randi may be somewhere in the public record, but I don't know how to fetch it, so I won't accept an obviously biased claim, not backed up by a neutral source, about what it contains. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this from his lawyer, said to be corraborated by the Baltimore Sun newspaper. Bubba73 (talk), 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

'Jeffq' has another agenda on this, no matter what doc are presented - its called "white washing the randi" - "Jeffq" stated "we editors can verify the statements" as our "editor" he may now like to reset the court facts back into the profile? As I have said above, James loves the courts so I see no reason why this item should not make an entry. Oh well I bet he wont! Regards 220.240.249.134

Misplaced Pages has the goal of being like reputal encyclopedias. Would Encyclopedia Britannica publish some of this stuff? Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To 220, I say you are once again refusing to acknowledge the stated information; i.e., all Misplaced Pages editors must follow its policies, notably Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, when adding information to articles. This is not about you or me; it's about fact-checking. Were I Randi's personal servant (which I'm not; I've never even met the man), I would still be bound by WP's rules, and so are you. To Bubba73, I'd have to say that skepticfiles.org is not the best source for such controversial information, as it clearly has an opinion on such subjects. It would be better to quote from the June 5, 1993 Baltimore Sun article, but since their website charges money for fetching such an old archive, I'm afraid it would require a real-world trip to the library. Ugh. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun would definitely be better, but I don't have access to it. Perhaps someone can do the legwork. Bubba73 (talk), 00:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text of the Baltimore Sun article. (now referenced under Legal Disputes section) Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Misattribution Watch: "Everyone who believes in telekinesis...

James Randi's JREF office confirmed in an email on July 11, 2006 that he did not coin the saying "Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand" and he doesn't know where it originated. It should not be included if anyone attempts to add it to his entry, as it is often misatributed to him elsewhere on the Internet. the saying can be traced back to a skeptics message board in 1994, but even that may be mere use. It may be from a cartoon caption. If anyone ever locates the source, please update it at the entry for psychokinesis.

OK, he didn't originate the sentence, but he did use it in 2002. Bubba73 (talk), 03:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Found this quote on a page archive dated Jan 30, 2001:

 From: MCGARRAH%CITADEL1.BITNET@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu
 Subject: Psychic powers
 (From Dennis Owens, the morning drive-time host of WGMS (radio)in
  Washington, DC)
 "All of you out there who believe in telepathy, raise your hand."
 "All right. Now, everyone who believes in telekinesis...raise MY hand."

It seems to have made some joke databases at the time. --Alvestrand 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

8 years better: rec.humor.funny, dated 1992 --Alvestrand 08:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Info on the coining of the saying can be found in the wiki article List of cultural references to psychokinesis and telekinesis. 5Q5 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very interesting! Too bad that the quote is no longer in the article, else I'd add "see <that article>". Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious Likeness?

I've done some research and I find it really suspicious that James Randi and Terry Pratchett look exactly the same. Not only that, I have never found a single public source that depicts them as being in the same room at the same time. I think that this should be included in the article, or at least a link to the Pratchett article in the see-also section. Smith Jones 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely a different person. Not worth mentioning in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and when he wears a red suit and cap, he reveals yet another one of his secret identities, especially in late December. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not funny, guys. Look at their respective article's pictures. It looks like someone took the Pratchett pic, rotated it, and changed the subject's outfit. Personally, I'm surprised that Dan Brown (the name that I'm currently using for Randi/Pratchett until I figure out what his real name is) didn't bother to dye his hair.

And why exactly would they ever be in the same place at the same time? What reason would they have to both be there? Mapetite526 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the suspiciousness is the fact that both of them have had heart complications. Very CONVENIENT heart complications, which allows "Pratchett" and "Randi" to make public appearances in two different locations.

If anyone can find me PROOF in the form of a real, unedited photograph that picture BOTH Randi and Pratchett IN THE SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME, then I will personally give you a million dollars as well as a million copies of the newest Pratchett novel -- Thud. Smith Jones 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you find a real, unedited photo of me and Terry Pratchett I'll pay you $1,000,000. Here are some other photos of Randi for you to compare. Bubba73 (talk), 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Another of Randi's secret identities. Harry Mudd 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He's on the podcast "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" now.

He's agreed to do a five minute opinion piece on the show The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast each week. This week he talked about exorcisms. click here. --Havermayer 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"I always have an out" quote

I see that the quote & citation I added on "I always have an out... I'm right" has been removed

Just to clarify: I copied the reference from the James Randi Educational Foundation page because it had a {{fact}} tag attached to it. The Foundation article is much better at this, explaining that "I always have an out" was quoted in the citation, and that "...I'm right" was Randi's completion of the quote, published in another place, not in the cited article. But I thought the whole story was too long to copy over, so I just put in that one citation. It would be better to cite the article where '...I'm right' was included - or to delete the entire quote and let people read the other article. --Alvestrand 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is trying to find a reliable source for Randi's stated full version, which as far as I've seen, only occurs in an email and a JREF Forum post, neither of which are reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. If I recall correctly, Bubba73 was hoping to get Randi to include some mention in Swift, which is WP-reliable, but no luck so far. (I can imagine Randi not feeling this issue, which must seem like a silly technicality to outsiders, to be a high priority with all the other stuff he has to talk about on Swift.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One interesting network phenomenon: If you search for that phrase on Google, you're inundated with hits, but it turns out that most of them are quotes from the Misplaced Pages articles. So much for fame... --Alvestrand 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: After scanning WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources, I am still of the opinion that linking to the email & JREF forum postings is a service to the community. Their proven reliability is, of course, not the best, but their existence is a fact. --Alvestrand 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Randi and the I.B.M.

The think the following information should be added because it tells others that the world organization of the I.B.M. holds Randi in high esteem. Many new magicians and other non-magicians are completely unaware of this. In the December 2003 issue of the The Linking Ring, the monthly publication of The International Brotherhood of Magicians, Points to Ponder: Another Matter of Ethics, p. 97, it is stated, "Perhaps Randi's ethics are what make him Amazing" and "The Amazing Randi not only talks the talk, he walks the walk." User:Kazuba 14 Oct 2006

Project Alpha Hoax

"Randi has gone on to write several books criticizing beliefs and claims regarding the paranormal. He has also been instrumental in exposing frauds and charlatans who exploit this field for personal gain. In one example, his Project Alpha hoax, Randi revealed that he had been able to orchestrate a years-long compromise of a privately-funded psychic research experiment. The hoax became a scandal and demonstrated the shortcomings of many paranormal research projects at the university level. Some said that the hoax was unethical, while others claimed his actions were a legitimate exercise in debunking poor research techniques."

Could someone reword this paragraph as I don't really understand what happened as it stands at the moment, but I'd like to. In what way did he orchestrate it/compromise the experiment? Merkinsmum 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but Randi basically sent agents into the experiment, after instructing them how to fake 'psychic' abilities. He did this for several years without any of them being caught and then revealed what he had done. Michaelbusch 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a youtube video that sorta shows a bit of project alpha hoax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1S5CRcqJQo And here's Skepdic's article on it: http://skepdic.com/projectalpha.html I'll go band and reword the paragraph. --Havermayer 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We happen to have a good article on this at Project Alpha. Michaelbusch 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And there's a link to it in the text of the article. Should it also be in the See also section to make it stand out better? Bubba73 (talk), 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper sourcing

During my latest pass at formatting sources, I replaced with {{fact}} tags several citations of pages from someone's personal Mindspring account. Personal web pages are not reliable sources. I also deleted a bare Usenet post from Google Groups. Usenet can be considered a reliable source for factual statements about the posts themselves, but Usenet has no editorial board or anyone taking responsibility for the accuracy of the information in the post, including who the authors are. The Usenet posts hosted by randi.org can be considered vetted by JREF, especially when they claim to be from James Randi. However, it would be much better to have a print publication for this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rand's Letters To Geller ?

On the Geller website there is reference to an extarordinary series of letters James Randi is supposed to have sent Geller. Does anyone know anything about this ? Thank you Robert2957 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, please don't SHOUT. It's considered rude, and as it is frequently used by vandals and other disruptions, carries a sometimes unfair association with bad-faith editing, which can have the opposite effect of its intent. Headings are already bold and don't need capitalizing for emphasis. On to the question… When I tried your URL, I got a page that began with "URI GELLER'S / LIFE SIGNS / Which life sign are you?", and seemed not to contain any discernable reference to any letters between Randi and Geller. (It was somewhat hard to sift through the very long and confusing page, although it might have been made more chaotic by the failure of a Java applet to run properly.) In any case, it doesn't seem to match the expectation of a URL that ends with "books/magician-or-mystic/chapter13.htm". Could you provide another URL, or quote some material verbatim from the page, so we can try to find it elsewhere? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The magic of Uri Geller book:

"The original edition contained a number of factual errors, including the claim that Geller had been convicted of fraud in a criminal trial, and misstatements about whether there was a clear view of the window in the room where Geller did his work, a place Randi had never been to.Randi's critics claim these errors are deliberate and that they undermine Randi's credibility. Several publications that reprinted Randi's allegations were successfully sued by Geller, or they settled with him. Randi subsequently produced a revised edition of the book, called The Truth About Uri Geller."

How much of this is true? When citations are found it'll be put back on the main page. --Havermayer 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just got the book today. It is my bedtime, so I'll briefly say that the book has an insert pasted inside the front cover with four corrections. They have to do with references in the book that Geller was "tried and convicted" in court. The insert says that Geller was not actually physically in the court, but that legal action was brought against him and a settlement was paid to the plaintiff. Bubba73 (talk), 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, the book I got is the revised The Truth About Uri Geller. It has the inserted sheet with the corrections. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Randi's Letter To Geller ? (Reformulated Question)

If you type "leave you to your kismet" into the search engine on Geller's website you will find reference to an extarordinary series of letters James Randi is supposed to have sent Geller. Does anyone know anything about this ? Did he really send these letters ? Thank you Robert2957 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote from the book "Uri Geller: Magician or mystic?" by Jonathon Margolis, which is available at the website: . The URL of the chapter is the one given above: - the relevant content, for those with problems with the Javascript:

The truth, I suspect, is a little less elevating. James Randi, I believe, wanted to be part of the Geller roadshow, not a disgruntled customer heckling from the back row. My evidence for this is a series of extraordinary letters he wrote Uri between February 1975, when he was coming to the end of writing The Magic of Uri Geller, and February 1998. The first was almost a fan letter: 'I make no secret of the fact that I consider you to be one of the finest performers that I've ever seen. Your demeanour, your mechanical skill and your psychological handling of the most difficult situations has evoked great admiration on my part,' Randi wrote. He went on to claim that he 'really' understood how Geller did his effects and pleaded for a secret meeting of the two men - to save Geller from certain ruination.

Geller ignored the letter, and another followed in July 1975, this time more threatening. Geller again ignored it. Five years later, Randi wrote again, flattering once more - 'You are a charming, witty, presentable and clever performer, experienced and tempered in showbusiness, You have all the charisma and chutzpah needed to become the greatest illusionist of this age' - and pleading still for a meeting. There followed 14 years of silence, after which arrived at Geller's house in England a 13-page, close-typed, rant, amounting to 7,000 words of venom and reading like a fully-fledged stalker's letter. It began, simply 'Geller:' and went on to suggest strongly Randi had been gathering intelligence not just from press cuttings, but on the Geller children and Geller's financial affairs. Most of the letter, however, was sheer insult, along with the promise Randi had been making since 1975 that Geller would never amount to anything, and end up, 'miserable, alcoholic, friendless, drug-crazed and disgraced.' Before signing off with 'I leave you to your kismet.' Randi warned that if Geller used any part of the letter in any way, he would 'make the entire document available'. Bemused to hear from Randi after so many years, Geller saved his 70 year-old foe the postage, and sent copies to anyone who requested one.

--Alvestrand 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Disinformation Department

I've removed a statement (actually two) about Randi working for the "Disinformation Department"; specifically:

Randi works for the Disinformation Department in the (U.S.)Department of Defense-high level research projects. He started working there in 1973.citation:Reality Hackers Magazine 1988

A magazine title and year are not sufficient for proper sourcing; we need at least the issue, and should also have the article title and/or page number(s). I attempted to get this information, but found that the only semi-notable Reality Hackers magazine seems to have been a 1988-89 title for what eventually became Mondo 2000. Even in its earliest incarnation, that mag began in 1984, so there could not have been a 1973 issue. The Library of Congress doesn't even have a record of any version of this as a periodical, although it does have a book form (currently listed in our Mondo 2000 article). These findings, plus the rather improbable nature of the claim, makes this sound like a hoax. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Fyslee for doing the actual removal. I don't know why, but the edit I did at the same time I posted this message did not "take". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Awards

His bio on his website lists many more awards than the two listed here. Does someone want to enter more of them? Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

criticism sentence

I'm tempted to remove this sentence "It is not known whether this statement was said in jest." The source (James Alcock) gives no indication that it might have been in jest. He talks about the accusor's wife trying to get him to shut up. Bubba73 (talk), 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like unsourced speculation to me. In any case, it'd be nice to have the page number of this information for easier verification. I plan to grab my library's copy of the book, but if you've got it in front of you, Bubba73, can you add it? And while you're at it, convert the anachronistic ref/note reference to follow the ref/references system that every other citation in this article uses? If not, I'll do it shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The part about being in jest is unsourced. The book and page number are listed using the current ("cite book") form of Harvard referencing, so it isn't anachronistic. I think it is much better to put the bulk of the info about a book in the references section instead of the text. Bubba73 (talk), 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, I emailed the author last night to ask if he thought there was any indication of "jest", but I haven't heard back yet. Bubba73 (talk), 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence because it seems to be unsourced speculation. I still haven't heard from the author, but I've reread it carefully, and there is no indication that it might have been in jest. He uses it as an example of rationalization. If anyone comes up for a reliable source saying that it was in jest, put it in. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my inappropriate term; I should have said "out of place" when I said "anachronistic" (although one could make an argument for the latter, given the drive to replace the older footnoting with the newer one). I meant to point out that this citation is the only proper reference in the article that does not use ref/references, and there is no good reason for this. Perhaps this is encouraged by the "Footnotes" heading, despite the fact that every "footnote" is actually a work reference, not an explanatory note. They should all be in the same format for intra-article consistency. Yes, there are technical concerns with the currently favored standard, but there are also technical issues with the Harvard referencing formatting as well. Let's stick to the current system unless there is a compelling reason favoring the other. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Harvard referencing is one of the three methods recomended for Misplaced Pages. I think it is clearly the best, and I've outlined those reasons at User:Bubba73#Misplaced Pages. You can change it if you want to, but it is so much easier on readers and also on editors to use Harvard references. Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

using a "cite book", and you are going to reference that book two or more times, and it will reference different pages, how do you do that without duplicating all of the rest of the "cite book" info? Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Referring to the possibility of it being in jest, I got email back from the author (James Alcock) and he assures me that it was not in jest, and goes into more detail in describing it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for help from regular editors here

I'm very impressed with the quality of this article, especially given how controversial Randi is. I'd appreciate advice from regular editors here on how they've resolved disputes. I'm looking for suggestions that could be helpful in resolving the many ongoing disputes on Stephen_Barrett and related articles. Thanks and my apologies if this request is disruptive here. --Ronz 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing to note is that these are both are a "biography of a living person", which is indicated at the top of the talk page. "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous..." Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We seem to have difficulty agreeing upon the meaning of "unsourced or poorly sourced", especially in light of the fact that what's especially notable about Barrett is that he publicly criticizes individuals, organizations, and professions. --Ronz 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

biography to be printed?

I heard that there was a biography of Randi to be printed, somehow related or commissioned by Penn and Teller. Perhaps written by them. Does anyone know any details? Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Penn and Teller commisioned the book. Someone I know was contacted/interveiwed by a woman author regarding it. Don't know if P&T are involved as the main authors and she as a "with" credit (all the legwork, since they're too busy performing) or if Randi will claim main credit. I think Mr. Randi mentioned it in his Commentary last year, don't as me the date. 5Q5 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information

This article links to the homepage of James Randi that contains possibly poorly sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba that may be forbidden according to the arbcom decision. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information. I requested the arbcom members to consider an indefinite ban for contributors who added the homepage of James Randi to the article James Randi. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Robert_Priddy_edit_war
Andries 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories: