Talk:James Randi/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives


Contents

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 atheist

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 Wikipedia; 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)
Being a CSICOP Fellow is a membership position rather than an award. Lippard 15:24, 10 June 2007 (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)

I just wanted to support the identification of Randi as an atheist--he is quite outspoken about it and has frequently spoken before atheist organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation. (BTW, I've corrected the spelling of "atheist" in the heading of this section.) Lippard 15:23, 10 June 2007 (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

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."
- [ Byrd v Randi (Civil Action No. MJG-89-636 in the United States District for the Court for the District of Maryland.] 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 [press release] 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
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors must follow its policies, notably Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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,[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] 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: [1]. The URL of the chapter is the one given above: [2] - 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 Wikipedia. I think it is clearly the best, and I've outlined those reasons at User:Bubba73#Wikipedia. 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...

Wikipedia: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 [3] [4] that may be forbidden according to the arbcom decision. See Wikipedia: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. [[5]Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Robert_Priddy_edit_war
Andries 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of WP:POINT violation? I find it nigh inconceivable that the arbitration committee would demand that we remove a link to the main page of James Randi's website from James Randi, and even more inconceivable that they would ban contributers for adding said link to said page without making it explicitly clear that they would do so.--Prosfilaes 13:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Linking to websites with criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be forbidden even if authored and maintained by the subject. See talk:Robert Priddy I will file every contributor who adds the homepage of James Randi to the article James Randi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Not because I agree with this kind of reasoning, but exactly the same kind of reasoning is applied on Robert Priddy and I would like to hear a general principle about this without making exceptions to specific articles. I already filed user:Skollur there for posssible violation of the arbcom decision when s/he added a link to the wenbsite of the Indian Skeptic in the article Indian CSICOP. You may be banned for a period of time if the arbcom (or its clerks) decides that adding the homepages of James Randi to the article Jamws Randi constitutes a violation of the arbcom decision. I was banned for one month for adding one of the homepages of Robert Priddy to the article Robert Priddy. [6] Andries 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Andries, are you not misinterpreting the judgment you quote? As I read it, it is quite clear: Any information in an article which criticises Sathya Sai Baba may be removed if the source for the article is poor. It does not say, and it is a quite bizarre interpretation, that any source which at some point criticises Sathya Sai Baba may be removed from any article. The point is that the article on James Randi does not even mention Sathya Sai Baba. How any arbitration ruling on sources concerning Sathya Sai Baba could be relevant on this article is really beyond me. Sam Blacketer 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I cited the wrong remedy. Here is the correct just above it that is applicable for this article. From [[7]]
"Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)."
Andries 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't seem to have understood what I was saying. That finding does not give you or anyone else carte blanche to remove any and all links from any and all articles, merely because the site linked to happens to contain accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba. It only comes into play where an article itself includes this negative information, or a report of it. Sam Blacketer 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer, your interpretation is incorrect and not the way I or arbitration clerks have understood it. Again, I have been banned for one month only for adding a an external link critical of Sathya Sai Baba to the article Robert Priddy, though the external link was authored and maintained by the subject! It will be clear that I do not agree with this interpretation of the arbcom decision, but I will nevertheless file any contributor who adds the homepage of James Randi to the article James Randi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement to enable arbcom clerks to make a decision about this. They will hopefully give some more clarity to me and the community about what is allowed and what is not. I believe that we will all benefit from clarity about what is allowed and what not. Andries 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you've been blocked unfairly, then I'm sorry for you, but I don't think that you will get anywhere by trying to get people indefinitely blocked for adding a relevant link. It looks very like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The case of Robert Priddy is quite different: his notability is derived from writing a book critical of Sathya Sai Baba. His article naturally includes a lot of information concerning Sathya Sai Baba. James Randi's article contains none. Sam Blacketer 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I admit that my request to the arbcom to have contributors here indefinitely blocked for following generally accepted Wikipedia practices possibly violating the arbcom decision was sarcastic. I think that the worst that can happen to contributors here is that they will receive a warning on the first offense. Nevertheless, I am serious about the similarities between the articles Robert Priddy and James Randi in this respect, because they have both external links authored by the subject that contain criticism of Sathya Sai Baba that may be poorly sourced. Andries 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I deny that my warning here is a violation of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If I wanted to make a point then I would have removed the homepage of James Randi from this article citing the arbcom decision. Instead I will only file contributors here for possible violating of the arbcom decision by linking to the homepage of James Randi to enable the arbcom members to make a decision about what is allowed and what not, because this is totally unclear to me now. We will all benefit from clarity regarding the rules in this respect, I believe. Andries 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom (clerk user:Thatcher131)seems to have decided that linking to the homepage of James Randi here is not a violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_negative_information. [8]Andries 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Change in JREF prize policy?

This article says that soon the JREF will no longer consider private applications for the paranormal prize, instead requiring both media presence and the support of an academic to apply. I was unable to find anything about this on the official JREF site. Do we have a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspie1 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, look here and scroll down to "a major revision". Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
They're doing it because so far most of the people who contact them attempting to win the prize tend to be unstable people who likely have mental illnesses(who usually make up nonsensical excuses for their inability to show their 'powers' under tests) or people who are simply trying to make a joke of some kind. Such as "magical vanishing poo" etc. In order to cut down on the workload of reviewing applications and to increase effectiveness they have decided to tighten the criteria on who can or can not apply. They are requiring those who want to apply to have some sort of 'media recognition'(a television interview, a newspaper account, some press writeup, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant.) They are also requiring applicants to have an endorsement of an academic nature (validation from an appropriately-qualified academic). Obviously people like Sylvia Browne or John Edwards or Uri Geller would fit the criteria. And even if they didn't James Randi has removed some red-tape for special cases like Sylvia in the past to make it easier and more convenient for them to take the challenge such as abolishing the "Preliminary" challenge in their distinct cases. These changes will hopefully make it easier for the challenge to get more media attention and cut down the workload of those who are forced to review dozens of applicants at a time and go through endless clarifications with them that usually last for months before they even take the challenge.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Randi is also about 80 years old and has had some health problems. Do Browne and Edwards have the support of an academic? Bubba73 (talk), 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
James Randi doesn't do any of the reviewing himself. He has assistants (Jeff Wagg, Formerly Kramer) who do the reviewing of applications and dealing with applicants. The log of past and present applicants can be found here [[http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43[[. Do Browne or Edwards have support of an academic? That doesn't matter in their cases. James Randi will issue an official challenge to them on April 1st thus qualifying them for the challenge regardless of any academic support.Wikidudeman (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
He says that he's had to cut most of his staff and move the JREF into his house. I think that it is unlikely that many of the Browne/Edwards/Geller will accept the challenge. Browne already said that she would many moons ago, but she still hasn't done it, and I don't expect her to. I saw John Edwards on Larry King or Glen Beck a month or two ago and he said that he wasn't going to accept any challenge from anyone who's first name was an adjective. Bubba73 (talk), 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did you hear that he cut most of his staff and moved the JREF into his house? Have a link?Wikidudeman (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
From all I have heard, I do not believe that the JREF has been downscaled at all and I believe it still retains the original office. - In regards to the Million dollar challenge. The reason that there has been a change in the rules is that, quite frankly, there has been a frustrating lack of any credible or even semi-credible applications for the challenge. The entire application base is made up almost entirely of rather unstable individuals or those who have a great deal of trouble articulating what they want to prove or what they believe they can do.
You might think that high profile psychics and self-proclaimed mystics, healers or UFO buffs would be lined up to take on the challenge. No.. none. And that's really something that has been very underwhelming for the challenge. The foundation has tried to bend over backwards to create a fair, flexible and accommodating challenge process. But there just aren't any serious contenders. The challenge is designed to provide a beforehand agreement and be as binary and non-subjective as possible. But the applications from those you might expect (Browne, Edwards, Gellar) just aren't there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.54.230 (talk • contribs)
I heard an interview with him two or three months ago in which he said that (1) he was moving JREF out of its own building into his house, and (2) he was letting (I think) two of the three employees go. I don't know if it has actually happened. Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip J. Klass Award 2007

I suspect the reason we don't have a source for this yet is because it must have just happened a few hours ago on 18 March 2007, the very day an anonymous editor added this note. Randi was the guest speaker at the National Capital Area Skeptics' 20th anniversary meeting Sunday, and I believe they are the folks who give out the Klass Award (or at least they did last year, to Michael Shermer). I suppose we'll need to wait for a press release, their next newsletter, a report in a local paper, or a mention in JREF's Swift column. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

emailed that group asking about it yesterday, but I haven't gotten a reply. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

"Test your ESP potential" is a book by Randi, so it seems to me that it should be listed in the bibliography. Bubba73 (talk), 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well enough. Randi has a very bad sense of humor. Michaelbusch 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. He does not have a bad sense of humour. He doesn't have one, so how can it be bad? Harry Mudd 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Randi's caustic style

Which parapsychologists have "tried to downplay the Randi challenge using attacks on Randi's character" ?

I removed this, per citation request, but the removal was reverted. Please can someone find a citation for this generalization, or attribute it to a particular parapsychologist or group of parapsychologists? Otherwise, it should be deleted. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually reading through this entire section (Randi's Caustic Style) has me asking "Why does this deserve a special mention" especially given that it doesn't even really discuss "Randi's Caustic Style" per se. As such, I recommend that this section is reworded and integrated into the general article proper (first part into the Challenge, the other into a subsection with a relevant name under "Background". Martin's point above is valid inasmuch as I cannot find a source that says "parapsychologists attack Randi's character". Lots of references to "parapsychologists attacking the challenge" but none supporting the particular line. Perhaps a better sentence under the Challenge heading would be "Parapsychologists and other critics say that Randi has set up the system..."? Shot info 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would work. We shouldn't say that parapsychologists attack his character or are enemies without saying which ones. But I think I would not bother to fact tag that they say he has rigged things. They do, because it would cost more than a million to win the challenge. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
They say lots of things ;-) Shot info 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. But they can't beat Randi at being mouths. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about that one :-) Shot info 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, should be true. That's one of Randi's draws- one of the things that makes him so Amazing (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

discussion removed from the talk page

I don't think you are supposed to remove valid discussion from a talk page. I have no strong opinion one way or the other about the link in question. However, I did listen to the whole interview (about an hour) and I think it is good. Randi does a good job of explaining his positions, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is odd that an editor feels fit to not AGF in this regard, assume a SOCK and perform deletions...all without CONSENSUS using his interpretation of ArbCom decisions...mind you, he is probably right, but he he equally could be wrong especially with the SOCK assumption. Shot info 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
How is was that post a "valid" discussion? Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits reads "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves."
The user has 200+ sock puppets, which are solely interested in promoting himself and related-subjects. I removed an obvious spam then AthurR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) registers and with its first edit readds the material within hours then posts on the talk page.
It is normal to remove talk pages and edits by accounts adding Gastrich's links. For example, GruntGrunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s edit history is 1) adding Gastrich to the SAB article, 2) commenting on the talk, and 3) (without any contact from me) he left a message on my talk. This edits were reverted, and comments removed from the talk page (Note: This example is from this April 2007).
It is also worth noting he recently asked to be unblocked. It was denied. Arbustoo 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining all of that. Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not like it should matter when removing an edit by a user with one edit who just inserts links, but checkuser results confirmed it. Arbustoo 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Whew, lucky editors assumed good faith prior to the CU ... O hang on... Shot info 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You cannot use check user for accounts that make only a few edits (in this case two) see WP:RFCU. A user with a few edits means you "Block. No checkuser is necessary." Thus, in the future get use ALL edits by spammers getting reverted. The reason this checkuser was ran was the user was dumb enough to lie to ArbCom. I suggest you learn about policy before being rude. Arbustoo 16:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that the above is indicative of a certain behaviour. From another user's talkpage [[9]], "An interesting essay.". Shot info 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That poster was a sock puppet too. In fact, the context of that post was me asking if that user was a sock puppet, something the person denied. Well, I was right it was a sock puppet and the person was blocked. If you have a point please make it, as of right now your continuing this for no reason. Arbustoo 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
But not a sock of the other editor you are obsessing over? I'm not the one making the point here, another slightly more obsessed editor is. Shot info 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

With this discussion above, who is the blocked identity please? I saw two names when I followed the links. How do you tell if a person is a sock puppet? This is new to me and I am just trying to understand what is going on here. Also, if a blocked person puts information into any article, does this mean immediately delete even if the info is backed up? Thanks--Crohnie 09:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jason Gastrich was adding a link of his to this article (read here). EVERYTHING add by a blocked user is to be reverted. See policy Arbustoo 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shows up odd on Yahoo Search (Rnadi not Randi)

This Article was showing up as: James Rnadi - Wikipedia On yahoo's search: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=james%20randi entry two. Why is this? User:rose 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Rose

I would guess that the article was vandalised and the search spider then updated. It will probably fix itself soon. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg

Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image - huh?

I added Image:James Randi crop.jpg to the page. It was removed by Jeffq (talk · contribs), and I don't really get why. The edit summary was "rm image; no assertion of ownership on image description page to validate claimed CC license". It's tagged as cc-by on Flickr: what more does it need?! --h2g2bob (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the info on the image, and it seemed OK to me. I know that JeffQ is a fine editor. Maybe he can explain. Bubba73 (talk), 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
True - I'll ask on his talk page --h2g2bob (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
MAybe it is because "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid. " But that takes a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the initial image?

The initial image that was released by Randi himself into the public domain seems to have been erased. Specifically this image here [[10]] was released into the public domain by Randi via E-mail to the original uploader of the image. However the image seems to have been totally erased by the database. Not only that but other free images have been removed from this article. Can someone please elaborate?Wikidudeman (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally belive its been done by critics of Randi and are acts of vandalism. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faithhealers.gif

Image:Faithhealers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The image probably shouldn't be used on this page but the image itself should not be deleted because its used to show the cover of the book The Faith Healers (ISBN 0-87975-369-2) which does come under fair use --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just E-mail James Randi and he will allow you to use it. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Secrets of the PsychicsVideo.jpg

Image:Secrets of the PsychicsVideo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian or American?

I was going to replace Category:Skeptics with one of the more specific sub-categories that are broken down by nationality, but I don't know whether to use Category:American skeptics or Category:Canadian skeptics (which doesn't exist at the time of this writing) since Randi was born Canadian but became naturalized as an American citizen. I'm leaning toward American since that seems to be Randi's own choice (given that he chose to become naturalized) but for the sake of consistency that would mean changing the current Canadian categories to their American counterparts, and I thought I should check here first before doing that. --Sapphic 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would choose American, since that is what he is now. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)