Talk:James Randi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Randi article.
Article policies
OTRS icon This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation:

Issues identified are: Subject confirms atheism and skepticism beliefs and confirms no conversion to Christianity.
 The OTRS ticket number is 2008011110008286
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Reach consensus before removing a large chunk of an article

I don't mind the section, it's just that it is badly written, and makes Randi look stupid. Didn't think anyone would want it. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed information in the million dollar challenge

A note citing the webmaster of what was once one of the most popular psychic sites before it's closing (psipog.net) and webmaster of alittleweird.com, Sean Connelly's experience dealing with James Randi and his staff member Kramer was removed and I'd like to know why. The information comes from here http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.221.73 (talk • contribs).

Probably because of W:RS -PhDP (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it, I read up on the article on verifiability, and the source comes from the webmaster of one of the biggest sites for psychic information before it closed (leaving an archive). -216.26.221.73 (talk • contribs).

A recent addition to million dollar challenge was reverted "due to non-NPOV edits", which I assumes means non-neutral point of view. Some of the comments could be taken that way, although this is very much a matter of personal preference, but the changes add some valuable information that should not be deleted out of hand. Could someone explain why the entire section should be removed? I would think, if you have a problem with the point of view, you should just edit it... -128.189.169.57 (talk • contribs).

The edits were removed because they were very clearly non-NPOV and were full of weasel words. However most importantly the sources were quite questionable and seemed to be blogs/personal webpages that contained no references themselves.Postmortemjapan 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that the claims are complete rubbish. http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice find Mercifull! Maybe that can be worked into the article in someway, so as to avoid any future erroneous claims about the million dollar prize.Postmortemjapan 11:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone that contacts the JREF for proof will get a copy of that scan and you can also contact the company who is holidng the money for proof too. Those that claim the money doesnt esist are fools. It would be nice to work it into the article but someone would probably need to drop the JREF an email for permission to upload the image onto Wiki servers --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. I don't know, I haven't investigated enough to have an informed opinon. However, I do believe that wikipedia should acknowledge all sides of an issue, and there are a lot of people providing a lot of evidence that the challenge is not what it is claimed to be. Maybe all the letters are forged, maybe it's all some huge hoax, I don't know, but I think it is wrong to imply that there is no disagreement. I would particularly emphasise that the rules he lays down for the challenge allow latitude in interpretation, and could potentially make the challenge unpassable. At the moment, it looks biased in favour of randi... and that can hardly be NPOV. 128.189.169.146 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Merciful, what about the claims do you find to be "complete rubbish," exactly. Please specify. The main claims are: 1) he made a polite enqirey to JREF about the million dollars, and got an abusive reply. 2) JREF published an account of the matter, but changed the details, making themselves seem more reasonable, and inventing commentts for him that he never made. In other words, JREF lied. Kramer, Randi's former unlamented lackey, has admitted both of these allegations. And while we're on the subject, who precisely has claimed that the money doesn't exist? You claim that they are fools who say this. Can you actually cite any such statements being made by anyone? Name me three people who have claimed the money doesn't exist. 82.44.204.128 (Harry Mudd) 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To User:128.189.169.146 (Harry Mudd)[This user is NOT Harry Mudd, despite the fact that User:Harry Mudd refactored these comments and inserted his own name after the anon IP. I left it in so that several comments below would make sense] First of all, "forged letters" or any other "hoax" would constitute fraud. JREF, as a non-profit corporation, is highly regulated by the IRS. If Randi didn't have $1,000,000 held in trust as potential prize money, he wouldn't be able to make that claim for long before it was exposed by (a) the IRS, (b) one of his many enemies, or (c) the investment firm with whom he claims to have deposited the negotiable bonds (in fact, many journalists who have interviewed Randi have personally verified that the million dollars exists. Are they lying? If the $1,000,000 was a fraud, it would be very easy to expose.
  • ...there are a lot of people providing a lot of evidence that the challenge is not what it is claimed to be.(emphasis added)
Just one piece of actual hard evidence would be enough. Where can I find it?
  • ...the rules he lays down for the challenge allow latitude in interpretation, and could potentially make the challenge unpassable.
The rules allow absolutely no latitude in interpretation. The "rules" that Randi "lays down" are different for each claim and the specific experimental protocol used is developed with the claimant and must be agreed to by the claimant. For example, the claimant can either predict (or whatever else the claim may be) something correctly X times out of Y attempts, or not. Where is the "latitude"? Where is there room for interpretation? Experiments are set up to have observable, "black and white" results. I'm not doubting that the challenge is not passable (that's sort of the point —nobody has passed it because there have been no paranormal claims that have stood up basic, objective, experimental methods employed everyday in hundreds of fields. Don't blame the scientific method for the failure of paranormal claims to stand up to testing or generate any supporting empirical evidence). Some claims simply aren't testable experimentally (e.g., 'God has a fluffy white moustache') and of course those claims are rejected by JREF. The whole point of the challenge is that claimants must prove the existence of psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under controlled conditions. These conditions are agreed to in advance, with the claimant making the initial proposal and suggesting the threshold that must be reached in order for the claim to be "proved". JREF statisticians ensure that the experimental design is valid and if it is not, they work with the claimant to develop a protocol that both parties agree to. So, if the claimant can actually do what he or she claims, the test is very passable.
  • ...it looks biased in favour of randi...
It is not biased in favor of Randi, it is biased in favor of evidence. Both parties agree to the experimental protocol together to eliminate the possibility of bias. Not one single person has been able to prove a claim according to rules that he or she helped to develop (and agreed to in writing). Well-designed experiments are not biased. Claims can either be demonstrated to influence an observable outcome at a rate more statistically significant than chance, or they cannot. There is no gray area.
Wikipedia does not need to acknowledge "all sides of an issue". Articles should only mention significant views on controversial topics, without giving undue weight to tiny minority opinions. If you have evidence from a reliable source indicating that there is significant controversy regarding the veracity or fairness of the million dollar challenge (i.e., that it is "not what it claim[s] to be"), then by all means, include it in the article. By the way, the opinions of scorned former participants (which is pure sour grapes) do not constitute a reliable source (or a significant opinion, for that matter). — DIEGO talk 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) To User:82.44.204.128: (Harry Mudd) 1) Your list of "claims" does not come from a reliable source, so it is pointless to debate them. 2) If Kramer has "admitted these allegations", please provide verifiable evidence from a reliable source (although I still don't think you've necessarily made a case that this he said/she said spat is a notable "controversy" worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article). Since the claim is inflammatory (if Randi was actually called a "liar"), it meets a much higher burden of proof for inclusion according to Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP). Incidentally, people tend not to claim that the money doesn't exist (that's easily refuted), they simply imply it (usually on Larry King or Montel when Randi isn't around to defend himself). I have personally seen Sylvia Browne imply that the money doesn't exist (in the manner of the "FOX-News-accusation-masquerading-as-an-innocent-question" [e.g., "Does Obama hate America?" or "How do I know that Randi even has a million dollars?]). Also, you can find (at least) two more examples of people claiming that the money doesn't exist here on the JREF forums. — DIEGO talk 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Diego, that's a load of waffle that avoids the main points. You've gone off at a load of tangents that have nothing at all to do with anything I said. To recap, here's the main points: 1) Someone wrote to Randi asking for details of the bonds. 2) He never claimed that the bonds don't exist, he asked what type of bonds they are, when they mature, what company are they with, and things like that 3) JREF did not supply the requested information 4) They responded instead with abuse 5) they then published a false account of the correspondence, changing details in their own favour 6) Randi's assistant of the time (Kramer) admitted such in the forum, and was condemned by many Randi supporters for his admitted dishonesty. It's easy enough to find the discussion, it's come up several times. But doubtless you will say that Kramer's published admission is not "reliable." Perhaps you would care to consider these issues.
Oh, and it's off topic, but I'll bite anyway. I glanced through the thread you linked to. I didn't study it in detail, I have a low tolerance for idiocy. I saw nobody claim that RANDI's $1M doesn't exist. I did see a Randi supporter claim that Victor Zammit's $1m does not exist. That is a different thing altogether. Harry Mudd 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Tangential waffles aside, the majority of my points above were directly in response to your anon posts (I even quoted the points I was responding to), so specifically what points were tangential? Whatever your "main points" were is irrelevant. You asserted specific things in your post ("a lot of evidence", "biased toward Randi", etc.) and I asked for the evidence and addressed the points that made no sense.
And I didn't avoid your main points. Here is how I responded to them: "Your list of "claims" does not come from a reliable source, so it is pointless to debate them". Full stop. That is not tangential or evasive — it is the actual issue. Unverifiable, contentious information has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia article. Simply repeating these ridiculous points does not lend them inherent credibility or require me to address them as if they were credible. Even if they are true (and I'm not doubting that they are true — Randi seems like he can be an pompous ass sometimes, and he is often hostile toward the paranormal). However, I went one step further and actually addressed the claim itself by writing: "Since the claim is inflammatory...[there is] a much higher burden of proof for inclusion according to Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP)." I don't care if the claim is true! It is irrelevant. Why is that so difficult to understand? If the claims aren't appropriate to put in the article, who cares? What is your point? If you believe that the $1,000,000 exists, and if (as you seem to assert) no one has said it doesn't exist, then what would the be the point of including your little "phone call to Randi/Randi is rude" anecdote? Even if it had been printed in the New York Times, it still would not be notable or germane to an encyclopedia article on Randi because it is not directly relevant to Randi's notability whether he was rude or lied on the phone. Please read WP:BLP! Even if you don't agree that this is non-notable or violates WP:BLP, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for your information (internet forums are not a reliable source in general, and especially not acceptable in support of contentious statements in a BLP).
And yes, the "Randi's money doesn't exist" accusations are off topic, but you brought them up. And please log in and sign any future posts with using four tildes (~~~~) rather than refactoring anon comments. Thank you. — DIEGO talk 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
<< the majority of my points above were directly in response to your anon posts (I even quoted the points I was responding to), >> no, the things you quoted were not said by me.
<< You asserted specific things in your post ("a lot of evidence", "biased toward Randi", etc.) >> I bloody didn't. I said no such thing. Someone else may have said those things, but don't attribute them to me.
<<I don't care if the claim is true! It is irrelevant. Why is that so difficult to understand? >> And that tells me everything I need to know about you. You don't care about truth. You adore Randi and dismiss everyone that doesn't share your opinion.
<< If the claims aren't appropriate to put in the article, who cares? What is your point? >> They ARE appropriate to put in the article. The fact is that Randi is a proven liar. He is in reality an idiot, but by distorting tales he makes himself sound clever. He tells stories of how HE defeated the "woowoos" but most of the stories he tells are distorted, or pure invention. He doesn't have the intelligence to actually do it for real. That is the main point.
<<what would the be the point of including your little "phone call to Randi/Randi is rude" anecdote?>> MY anecdote? what the hell makes you think it's MY anecdote? Are you assuming that I'm the guy that wrote the article? Let me assure you, I'm not him. The point of including it is to show that Randi has lied. He is a liar. He makes up stories to make himself sound clever. He isn't actually clever in reality. The basic point is, that he lies constantly, he frequently gets caught lying, and exposed as a liar, his lies have done more damage to the reputation of the sceptics than the so-called psychics, and every critical thinker should oppose him.
<<internet forums are not a reliable source in general,>> I don't think you understand the concept of reliability. If Kramer states in an internet forum that 2+2=5, then that is not a reliable source. But if Kramer admits lying on behalf of JREF in an internet forum, then that is a reliable source that Kramer has lied on behalf of JREF.
<<And yes, the "Randi's money doesn't exist" accusations are off topic, but you brought them up.>> Again, I did no such thing. I was responding to another poster who brought it up. It wasn't me.
Harry Mudd 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Harry Mudd, my post in response to the quotes you mentioned was addressed to the user who wrote them, 128.189.169.146. Someone refactored my comment and wrote "(Harry Mudd)" after the anon IP. If anon IP 128.189.169.146 was not you, and you didn't refactor my comments, then take your gripe to the editor who refactored my comments.
Then, in a separate (unindented) post below that comment, I responded to comments by 82.44.204.128. Again my comment was refactored and "(Harry Mudd)" was added following the anon IP. I assumed that it was you who refactored my comments, which is why I wrote ...please log in and sign any future posts with [sic] using four tildes (~~~~) rather than refactoring anon comments." My comments, as I wrote them, were addressed directly to the users to whom I was responding. Had you read the comments carefully, you would have seen the different IP addresses, along with the different time stamps on my signatures. I did not originally attribute anything to you. Only after I thought you had taken credit for both anon posts did I attribute the statements to you. Had you noticed the (Harry Mudd) addition to my posts, you would have seen clearly why I attributed the posts to you. Someone else apparently attributed the comments of 128.189.169.146 to you. For the record, I did not think that 128.189.169.146 and 82.44.204.128 were the same person (which is why I responded with separate comments) because the writing style is different and one user seemed to have vastly more knowledge of the subject than the other.
Now, concerning your point. You don't have one. Did you actually read WP:BLP? Did you actually read WP:V? An internet forum is clearly a questionable source. A JREF internet forum would be considered a self-published source in the case of the James Randi article. Statements in a BLP article can only cite self-published and questionable sources if the material is not contentious and is relevant to the subject's notability. Your argument fails on both of these ground. Calling Randi a liar is indeed contentious (did Randi himself ever say "I am a liar"?) and whether or not Randi lied about a telephone conversation is not relevant to his notability. So, per Wikipedia policy, this story/claim/accusation CANNOT be included in the article. Give it up. I respect your opinion that this is important and should be included, but it is nothing more than your opinion (aka POV). Wikipedia policies and guidelines simply don't support your opinion on this. If, after actually reading WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, you believe that this material (as attributed to the sources you mentioned) should be included in the article, here are the steps that you can take: 1) try to obtain consensus on this talk page, (unlikely) 2) post an RFC notice to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to obtain input from disinterested outside editors regarding your proposed changes, and if that doesn't satisfy you, 3) Post your concerns at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to determine whether your proposed content violates WP:BLP. Please be constructive, assume good faith, and don't continue to repeat your points ad infinitum hoping to change peoples minds. Blunt force will get you nowhere. Most editors are quite capable of evaluating an argument on its merits in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidleines. If they don't agree with you, please accept that and don't continually try to restate your point. Thank you. — DIEGO talk 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Just to emphasize a point that DIEGO talk made: So one of the basic arguments being made is not about the million dollars but about a case of rudeness from someone at JREF. Alright, what is it about a case of rudeness that makes it deserving of being included in an encyclopedia? Assuming for a moment that it's true, it still doesn't deserve to be included, there is nothing special about run of the mill, everyday rudeness. It's not nice, but it's not noteworthy. Postmortemjapan 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not about a case of rudeness. It is about a case of dishonesty. Its the fact that the JREF was offensive and then LIED about it in their account. And the fact that such lies are pretty standard from Randi. He has been caught lying numerous times. And that is certainly something that should be included in an encyclopedia article about him.Harry Mudd 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Harry Mudd, just as I suspected, this diff clearly shows that you are the user who attributed the comments of 128.189.169.146 to yourself by adding your name to my post addressing that user. I will assume good faith. This may have simply been a case of sloppy editing, but please recognize that your comments like "no, the things you quoted were not said by me" and "I bloody didn't. I said no such thing. Someone else may have said those things, but don't attribute them to me." were pointless since you attributed those comments to yourself when refactoring another user's post (something you had no business doing).

This comment: "<<And yes, the "Randi's money doesn't exist" accusations are off topic, but you brought them up.>> Again, I did no such thing. I was responding to another poster who brought it up. It wasn't me.", seems to indicate that you are now saying that neither the comments of 128.189.169.146 nor 82.44.204.128 were written by you (despite adding your own name to the signature of one and to my comments addressing both) because "Name me three people who have claimed the money doesn't exist. 82.44.204.128 (Harry Mudd) 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)" just does not fit with it wasn't me. It looks like you initiated a challenge (i.e., "started it") for other editors to name three people who have claimed the money doesn't exist. Is that not correct? Were both the anon comments erroneously attributed to you?

Furthermore, please ASSUME GOOD FAITH! You crossed the line with this comment: <> And that tells me everything I need to know about you. You don't care about truth. You adore Randi and dismiss everyone that doesn't share your opinion.

Your statement, which assumes bad faith regarding my intentions, tells me that you don't really understand the purpose of an encyclopedia or care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I did not say that I don't care about the truth. It is indeed irrelevant (to an encyclopedia article) whether or not a statement is true if it can't be verified by a reliable source. And even if it can be verified, inclusion of a contentious statement in a BLP article requires that it not be given undue weight and that it should be included only if it is relevant to the subject's notability. Your proposed changes fail to meet either threshold. Don't assume that I dismiss people who don't share my opinion. Opinion simply has no place in an encyclopedia article. For example, it may be true that celebrity X is gay. But unless celebrity X admits to being gay, it can't be included in the article on celebrity X (or any other article [see WP:BLP]). Even if a reliable third party source claims that celebrity X is gay, it can only be included if the celebrity's sexuality is directly relevant to his or her notablility. If celebrity X was a senator who had spoken publicly against gay rights, then it would be relevant. If celebrity X was an actor or singer and had never commented publicly on the issue, it could not be included in Wikipedia, no matter how true the claim is. That is what I meant when I said "I don't care if it's true. It is irrelevant" (I assumed you had some familiarity with WP:BLP, which I had previously asked you to read.). The truth of your claim is not the central issue here, but its appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia is. If you don't like the Wikipedia WP:BLP policy, you're welcome to comment on it and try to change it, but the James Randi talk page is not the place to do that. — DIEGO talk 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I do not "adore Randi". I support the work of scientific skeptics in general, but Randi often seems like a grumpy, bitter old man who doesn't do much to support the cause with his vicious attacks. That should not matter however, since my commitment to neutrality on Wikipedia is paramount. You don't seem to have such a strong commitment to neutrality and Wikipedia policies. Please don't let your POV and insistence on "truth" degrade the quality of this encyclopedia. Thanks. — DIEGO talk 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Diego, you are wrong again. It would help matters if you actually posted in the correct place. You addressed your comments to me, though you intended them for someone else. Your comments were below my message, and indented. Thus it seemed as if you were replying to me. But even after I pointed out to you that I had not said those things, you kept on accusing me of saying them. You are STILL accusing me of things that I never said. Will you be told thatI responded to YOUR comments about the money "not existing." Do you accept that your comments, as addressed to me, were wrong and inappropriate?
by the way, after I posted my original comment, I noticed that I wasn't logged in. So I went back and appended my name bto my post, to make it clear who posted it. Nothing sinister about it. Don't YOU go assuming bad faith.
As for the reliability of the link to Randi's forums, you are wrong about that too. Just consider this. The article, as it stands right at the moment contains a link to the log of challenge applications. that is currently #45 in the footnotes. Go take a look at it. The link goes to information posted by Kramer (and Randi's later lackeys) on Randi's own forums. Tell me, do YOU, Diego, consider that to be reliable? Just be consistent. Either information posted by Kramer on Randi's forums is reliable, or it isn't. If you think it isn't, then go ahead and delete the link. Harry Mudd 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Harry Mudd, have you actually read anything that I have said? I have never addressed comments to you intended for someone else, except those that I wrote following your refactoring of my comments by addressing them to yourself). When have I accused you of saying something that you didn't say? YOU reformatted MY comments and addressed them to yourself. I addressed each of my two initial comments to separate anon IPs. Which IP was yours? Am I correct that your IP is 82.44.204.128? If so, then the comments I addressed to 128.189.169.146 were not addressed to you (and you should not have added your name to them). You created the confusion by refactoring my comment (adding your name). My second comment was addressed to 82.44.204.128 and directly addressed the points made by 82.44.204.128. My first comment was indented under yours (if you are 82.44.204.128, at this point I'm not sure) because you made a post while I was responding to User 128.189.169.146, resulting in an edit conflict, so I pasted my comment below yours (assuming that YOU were also responding to 128.189.169.146) The fact that I prefaced my comment by specifically addressing it to an IP user (who was not you) should have clarified any confusion. I stand by each of my comments AS I ADDRESSED THEM. I did not accuse you of anything "sinister". I simply said that you should not have appended your name to a comment that was not addressed to you and that, had you been more careful, this could have been avoided. If I attributed statements to you that you did not make, it was due to your actions! As I said above, I did not assume that you were user 128.189.169.146 until your unnecessary actions (refactoring my comments) led me to believe that you were taking credit for that comment. Now please drop it. You're beating a dead horse.
  • Either information posted by Kramer on Randi's forums is reliable, or it isn't.
You are wrong! Please stop making arguments based on semantics and your personal rhetorical insights rather than Wikipedia policy. Will you PLEASE read WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:NPOV before posting any further comments on this issue. It is clearly possible for the same source to be acceptable in one instance and not acceptable in another. Your argument is ridiculous and demonstrates that you do not understand WP:BLP. You don't seem to understand that what "I, DIEGO, thinks" is reliable is not the point (nor is Diego's opinion on truth). It is not inconsistent to treat a source differently depending on the context. There are plenty of sources that can be considered reliable in some circumstances but not others. For example, the New York Post is a reliable source for news coverage, but the gossip column (Page Six) is not an acceptable source for biographical articles, especially in support of contentious statements. The JREF forum is a self published source, which is generally not considered reliable, but may be used in a BLP to support non-contentious claims or notable and germane information about the subject (similarly to citing germane information from a singer's fan site). However, statements from unreliable sources (self-published or not) cannot be used to support inflammatory or contentious claims about the subject. Since Randi himself did not say "I am a liar" on the JREF forum, it IS NOT an acceptable source to support the claim that Randi lied. Why don't you read WP:BLP and WP:V? You might learn something. You might also notice this line in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." — DIEGO talk 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
<< The JREF forum is a self published source, which is generally not considered reliable, but may be used in a BLP to support non-contentious claims or notable and germane information about the subject >> Yep, I knew it. Kramer's posts are reliable when they support Randi, unreliable when they show him to be a liar. How pathetic. Fact is, old chum, you don't care about the policy at all. What you care about is removing uncomfortable truths about Randi that you just don't want to admit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Mudd (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Harry Mudd, you may think that Wikipedia policies are "pathetic", but they are not my policies. I don't appreciate the personal attacks and your rapidly declining level of civility. — DIEGO talk 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Diego, will you please apply the policies consistently. Kramer, and Randi's other assistants have published threads on the JREF forum, purporting to be accounts of the correspondence that JREF has received. On one occasion Kramer admitted falsifying certain parts of the chain of correspondance. This one thread is no more or less contentious than any of the others. Either they are all good or they are all bad. But you want to cherry pick. You want to allow the ones that make Randi look good, while excluding the ones that make Randi look bad. And that's not acceptable.
And BTW, I don't think you are in much of a position to lecture on politeness. Harry Mudd 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:AGF. — DIEGO talk 02:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And WP:NOR — DIEGO talk 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And True-believer syndrome *rolls eyes*. This is a case of someone who clearly does not like Randi and is really clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to have some negative comments placed into the article. I don't think that Harry Mudd will ever come to a compromise here and will continue to say the same things over and over despite none of the arguments being substantiated with evidence and fact. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you assume that anyone that doesn't like Randi is a "true believer," do you? You are completely wrong. The evidence and facts are there for all to see. Randi is a liar, he has been caught lying many times, and his lies only damage the sceptical movement.The evidence is there, but you refuse to accept it. You cut out references because they don't support your agenda, not because of any Wikipedia policy. Harry Mudd 10:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Not streictly no but you have provided no evidence being anyhting anecdotal. When you provide a proper reference rather than someones opinion on rudeness i might accept it. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to Randi's forums

I have removed a link to Randi's forums. The section on the $1M challenge used to contain the following line :

"JREF maintains a log of past participants for the "Million Dollar Challenge" for public access."

This was followed by a link to the log of applications on JREF forum.

However, Links to forums are not reliable sources. Randi's supporters insist they aren't. Randi's supporters remove other links to Randi's forums, claiming they are against Wiki policy. Therefore, this link must also be against wiki policy. Harry Mudd 10:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again you fail to understand policy. You don't see how the same source can be both appropriate and inappropriate at the same time. Someone earlier gave the example of a Newspaper website being a good source but the same newspaper website which has a "gossip" section cannot. I will wait for someone that knows police more than me to come along but i can almost guarantee that the reference to the JREF forums will be re-added. You should be careful when removing things without discussing them on the talk pages in future though. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. anything that supports your agenda is "reliable" even when against wiki policy. Harry Mudd 17:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify something. The link to the official log on James Randi's forum is a reliable source because it comes directly from the JREF. A JREF employee updates that log and no one else is allowed to post there. That section of the forum is specifically for the Challenge log and that's it and it comes directly from the JREF, thus is reliable per WP:RS. Any other links to the forum that come from individual unaffiliated with the JREF wouldn't be reliable. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Let ME clarify something. In at least one of those official logs, The JREF altered the correspondance they received. The published log changed both the letters they had received, and the letters they sent out. That very same official JREF staff member admitted lying on the JREF forum. An old version of this article linked to the admission as a reference. It was deleted by Randi supporters, who insist that Forum postings are not reliable sources. Were they wrong? Should the reference showing admitted dishonesty by JREF senior staff be re-inserted? Harry Mudd 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS a reliable source since it comes directly from JREF and isn't posted anonymously on the message board. This would be considered a self published primary source and would thus be included under this policy which allows it. This isn't the same as normal message board sources as it's not posted anonymously but is posted by an official employee of the James Randi Education foundation. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a long discussion with other Randi supporters. They insist that Kramer's postings are NOT reliable. They have removed other links to Kramer's posts on the grounds of reliability. I thought they were wrong, but the consensus of opinion is against me. So, I'll remove the other links to Kramer's posts too. What's good for the goose, etc. Harry Mudd 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
They are incorrect, As I've explained above. Who claims that the logs of the challenge aren't reliable? Where have these discussions occurred? Please explain. The Log is no longer maintained by Kramer but by RemieV, another employee of JREF. SINCE we're dealing with known representatives of the JREF then it is a reliable source per this policy. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have PROOF that the JREF change the correspondence? It sounds like you're using Original research to claim that the source isn't reliable. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Mudd, please stop trying to prove your WP:POINT. If you continue to be disruptive and make tendentious edits against established consensus, you will be blocked. Stop now. The fact is, you had absolutely no problem with the source until you were made aware that you could not use the source to support the contention that Randi is a liar (see Talk:James Randi#Removed information in the million dollar challenge). You refuse to understand that sources in support of contentious statements (e.g., "Randi is a liar") in a BLP article must meet a much higher burden of proof. The JREF forum is NOT a reliable source (for your statement) because Randi did not say on the forum that he is a liar. You want to use that source combined with your own original research to make a contentious statement in a BLP article. This violates Wikipedia policy.However, the JREF forum is perfectly reliable as a self-published source for non-contentious information about the subject of the article. If you would actually read WP:BLP, like I have asked you to do several times, you would know that. Instead of following policy, you simply tried to prove your point by removing a perfectly acceptable reference to the JREF forums elsewhere in the article. Please stop. — DIEGO talk 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong on ecvery single point. But We're used to that by now. ALL Kramers posts on Randi's forums are contentious. Every single one of them. The whole thing is a contentious subject. The JREF says to people "I don't believe you" accuses them of lying, fraud, insanity. It's all contentious.
The only difference between the two is that one makes the JREF look good, the other makes the JREF look bad. And that is the ONLY distinction between them. If you delete one, you must delete the other too. Harry Mudd 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of your assertions. This seems like a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. You've provided absolutely no proof of your assertions that the source isn't reliable. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
so, would you object to re-inserting BOTH of them? Re-insert the reference where Kramer logs the alleged challenge applications, and also re-insert the reference where Kramer admits to falsifying at least one of the logs? We can have both, or we can have neither. But we can't choose to have one and not the other. Harry Mudd 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to where he admits to falsifying the logs? Wikidudeman (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"We can have both or we can have neither." What? You're not in a position to make demands. Harry Mudd, please answer with a simple yes or no. Did you read WP:BLP? — DIEGO talk 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, I've read it. Have you? You don't appear to understand what it's about. And please don't be so vain to remove the indentations. If you want to reply to my messages, put your reply directly under them. Harry Mudd 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Vain? What are you talking about? I have already asked you to refrain from personal attacks (even attacks that make absolutely no sense), and you don't seem capable of doing so. Anyway, since you have read WP:BLP, you must be aware that a self published source (which is generally unreliable) is acceptable in a biographical article as long as it meets certain criteria. The statement you are objecting to (and we all realize that you aren't actually objecting to it -- you're just trying to prove a ridiculous point because you lost a previous bid to insert poorly sourced contentious material into the article) says:
  • "JREF maintains a log of past participants for the "Million Dollar Challenge" for public access."
That is not a contentious statement. It is a statement of fact with a link to the JREF forums so readers can verify that JREF does indeed maintain a log of past participants. Statments written in the actual logs are not being referred to. Just the existence of the logs. In this situation, how, specifically, is that not a reliable source? Remember, we're not talking about the content of the logs. The reference simply points to their existence to support a non-contentious statement in the article. You are trying to compare two very different scenarios to prove your point, and it is not working. And I don't believe that you actually read and understood WP:BLP or you wouldn't continue wasting your time. — DIEGO talk 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Diego, would you please get over yourself. You go on and on about imagined personal insults. Would you just shut up about it. Nobody cares.
As for your statement that the two scenarios are different, the only difference between them is that one makes Randi look bad, the other makes him look good. You are a liar and a hypocrite wanting to keep one and remove the other.
You claim that I "lost" the argument to insert the one that makes Randi look bad. Well, I accept that. You are right. Kramer's postings in Randi's forums are not Wiki-reliable. That means they must not be cited as references.
It is of course obvious to everyone that you don't give a damn about Wiki policy. You just look for any excuse to remove uncomfortable facts about Randi that don't suit your agenda. Harry Mudd 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
First, how does this statement make Randi "look good": "JREF maintains a log of past participants for the "Million Dollar Challenge" for public access."? Second, you have not achieved any sort of consensus here to remove the statement or the reference. You know that. Stop removing it or you will be blocked. Third, when you attack the editor himself, rather than the editor's argument, that crosses a line. I did not make that up. You have crossed that line several times. For example, calling me a "liar and a hypocrite" immediately after mentioning "imagined personal insults". Your edits to the article are disruptive and tendentious. Your statements here on this talk page have been uncivil, you have repeatedly failed to assume good faith and ignored the consensus on the talk page in an attempt to make your point. Please read WP:EQ for more information on why your behavior is unacceptable. Please tone it down, or you will be blocked. Again. — DIEGO talk 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Diego, where to begin? First of all your behaviour has benn 10 times worse than mine. You want a count of personal attacks? Just go back and look at the things you said to me. You were aggressive from the start. Repeatedly posting links and demanding that I read them, do you not understand that your behaviour was offensive? You have repeatedly attacked me rather than the argument.
Secondly, who exactly are you to go issuing warnings. I don't see anything to indicate that you are a moderator or administrator. What gives you the right to tell others how to behave. Particularly when you don't follow the rules yourself.
You accuse me of going against consensus. No, diego, I am not. I am going against you and you alone. You are the only one arguing your peculiar position. You are falsely claiming to have a consensus behind you when clearly you don't. Some people thought that Kramer's posts on the JREF forum are reliable and should be left in. Some people thought they are unreliable and should be deleted. You are arguing that one post on the JREF forum by Kramer is reliable, while another post on the JREF forum by Kramer is unreliable. Nobody agrees with you. You are going against consensus, not me.
You claim that I'm doing this to "make a point." Well, now who is assuming bad faith? Your assumption of Bad Faith is wrong, of course. I'm not doing to make any kind of point, I'm doing it to keep the article honest. The fact is that the article is biased and distorted in Randi's favour. Linking to the logs, but removing the evidence that some of those logs have been falsified, that is just dishonest. I will continue to eliminate such dishonesty.
Then there's the matter of that edit war. I made a good faith edit. You reverted it. Three times. Didn't you break the rules by doing so? Please explain why YOU should not be blocked for that.
All in all, what you have been doing is wrong. Please stop it. Harry Mudd 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Harry, after reading this entire discussion it's still unclear to me what you want. You seem to want the reference to the challenge log in the article deleted, is that right? - LuckyLouie 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to give a bit of balance to the article. Harry Mudd 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems really strange to me. The article states that the JREF maintains a log of claimants, and there is a link to the list of claimants. What's the problem with that? This isn't a link to a blog that simply states that there is a log - this is the log itself. I think that is called Prima facie evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple. There have been accusations that the JREF alters the logs to make themselves look good, and make the applicants look stupid. And on at least one occasion a senior staff member at JREF named Kramer has admitted falsifying the logs. However, a factual statement that these logs are occasionally falsified was deleted on the grounds that Kramer's posts on the JREF forums aren't reliable cites. By that same token, ALL of Kramers posts on the JREF forums aren't reliable cites either, and must be deleted. Harry Mudd 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"There have been accusations"?? So what if they alter their logs. It is still their log of the event. This makes it an official publication and hence mets WP:RS for the purposes of this particular usage of a particular area of JREF forums. Other areas (ie/ discussion areas) probably fail. Shot info 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get to GA

This article needs some good improvments to reach GA status. Please help me improve it. Here are some suggestions:

[edit] Criticism of Randi

The first sentence of this section seems not to be "criticism" but pointless insults. It lacks substance or any explanation as to why or how it's even criticism. Please comment. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That sentence by itself doesn't seem to help the article much. Also the last sentence in that section about Doyle and Houdini may not be needed. Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

Please remove all red links in the article, Especially in the "TV and Film" section. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) DONE — DIEGO talk 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am against removing red links that may eventually be working. If that article is ever written then the links automatically become live everywhere. For instance, the second author of The Oxford Companion to Chess didn't have an article, and over 100 references to him were not linked. When he got his own article, I had to go and link to him in over 100 places. It would have saved hours of work if he had been redlinked. Bubba73 (talk), 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Redlinks in articles are quite ugly. It would be better to just remove them, make sure the pages where they exist are noted and then go through using AWB to add them once the article is created. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
that makes a lot of extra work for editors, in my experience. In the hours it took me to put links in 100+ articles, I could have been doing something more useful. Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would have taken about 2 minutes using AWB and redlinks scattered around the article make it distracting when reading. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I got authorized to use AWB several months ago, but it refuses to run. Today I downloaded the current version, and when I try to run it, it says "AutoWikiBrowser has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience." I can't even get to the first screen. Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
For example, there are around 100 unlinked references to The Oxford Companion to Chess, but I have no easy way to create them. Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO redlinks encourage readers to create a new article for the linked item. Harry Mudd 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't believe that. When I see redlinks my first thought is to remove them, not create the corresponding article. Do you have any evidence that redlinks increase the likelihood of the article being created or encourage readers to create them? I think it's more of a style issue. Redlinks are simply distracting and are somewhat of a side effect of having no corresponding article which should have never been linked to to begin with. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Redlinks are no more distracting than bluelinks, IMO. I think you can set the color under Preferences if red bothers you. And they are so beneficial to editors. A couple of times I've created articles and all of a sudden there are links to it! Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well according to WP:RED, redlinks shouldn't be added unless the creation of the article for them is imminent and is bound to happen anytime. Otherwise they should be removed. If the likelyhood of the article being created soon is slim, then remove the redlinks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that policy, but at least last night I finally got AWB to run. Now I just have to learn how to use it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions about AWB, just let me know. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the merit in both sides of the red links argument. I have no doubt that in the early days of Wikipedia (when there were fewer than 100,000 articles), red links could indeed serve as an incentive (by indicating "article needed") for someone to create the article. But Wikipedia currently has over 2,000,000 articles and the chances of someone (in the near future) creating an article for the majority of red links is increasingly remote. I'm not saying that the subjects of red links aren't notable or don't deserve articles, but with over 2,000,000 articles already (many covering some extremely obscure topics), the chance of any one red link suddenly being turned into an article is extremely remote.

WP:RED really is a good guideline (note that it is not a policy). Red links look ugly. Not aesthetically, but because for many readers red=error. On the internet, links that leads nowhere are considered broken. They are not desirable because they have absolutely no functionality as a link. While red links in Wikipedia are not quite as bad as a broken hyperlink, they are nonetheless an indication of error. Especially when there are several red links in a single article (as there were in the Randi article), they can detract from the reader's experience and subtly compromise the perceived credibility of of the article. Plus, as noted above, there are tools to quickly Wikilink references to new articles when they are created. — DIEGO talk 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Another big benefit of redlinks is that they show us what articles are needed. See User:Voorbot/Most wanted redlinks. Bubba73 (talk), 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just created Chess Review and nine links came alive without me having to do anything else! Bubba73 (talk), 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Is this section books by Randi or about him? If it's by him then please include the rest of them as there are more. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the other books in the bibliography section are by Randi. Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV deletion

A POV edit to keep this out is being made with no justification.

Some have also criticized Randi and his methods. In the book Reading the Enemy's Mind author Paul H. Smith states that Randi's attempt to debunk serious scientific inquiry done at Stanford Research Institute in 1972/1973 was riddled with misrepresentations and false statements(p.55-57).[1]

This part of the book has to do specifically with randi and his interactions with this group. The accused have a right to speak for a balance view. IF the person deleting this info can not come up with a legitimit reason for its deletion It should be returned.Hardyplants 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant, notable nor is it even backed up with any sort of argument. It's just a random baseless non-notable potshot added for no apparent reason. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
So, get a bit more context. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Explain why it's notable, In the context of James Randi. Explain why he is criticizing him. Explain his argument used to back up those statements. Etc. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How is not relevant? the book responds to randi, in the area that it covers relating specifically were randi, so called "debunked" their research. An how is the book not notable- it has many reviews in main stream press 15,000 hits on google for the book title.? The potshot argument is just a complaint that "some one is attacking my guy" argument.Hardyplants 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What research did Paul H. Smith do? How is the assertion that "scientific inquiry done at Stanford Research Institute in 1972/1973 was riddled with misrepresentations" a "response" Randi's debunking of his research? Also, How does 15,000 hits on google make this individual notable in the context of James Randi? Uri Geller is notable in the context of James Randi, But Smith? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one easily accessible quote from the book;

Professional magician and die-hard skeptic James “The Amazing” Randi is fond of demonstrating a trick that he says explains away spoon bending. I have seen Randi do this and, frankly, his results bear little resemblance to what I held in my hands that day.

The book is notable and it intersects with randi, especially in regards to one of randis more famous demonstrations. Also see http://books.google.com/books?id=_faOWonIle4C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%22reading+the+enemy's+mind%22+randi&source=web&ots=5Gf3uPSZvj&sig=ToG1QJ_Dk-ohr0iGUMvXdJs53FEHardyplants

Firstly, That quote doesn't answer any of my questions. Secondly, How does commenting on Randi make it notable? There are literally thousands of authors who comment on George Bush yet none are notable enough to be included in the Criticism of George Bush article. How is this man notable in the context of James Randi? Also, Please answer the previous questions. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Go back and READ the linked page.Hardyplants 14:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have already. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Smith? If he is a notable critic, then this is a good source for a criticism section, though it should probably not be quoted directly. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Smith was involved with the US governments attempt to use mind readers as spies during the cold war, he's the author of the book above. Thats All that I know about the topic right now since this is the first time I have come across this- except for some TV programs that covered the project.Hardyplants 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The section seems to need work. There are a lot of criticisms of Randi, many of which I think are more serious than what is there. This could be one source among many which need to be used. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't "is the person notable" but "is the person notable in the context of the article". Is this individual notable in the context of James Randi? I have seen no reason so far to believe so. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the book cited above. It has only the one incident and a couple of incidental passing mentions of Randi. The book is primarily about this guy's exploration of government experiments; not about Randi. I'm not sure this book is very reliable to begin with -- it's published by Tor/Forge, which is primarily a science fiction & thriller press although they do sometimes publish nonfiction. The author is clearly a believer (his biography at Tor/Forge lists him as president of the "International Remote Viewing Association") which I think scarcely makes him credible as an unbiased third party. At any rate, I'd be very surprised to find anyone agreeing that this is a "notable" book, and also surprised if the critique from the author, Mr. Smith, represents a significant strand of criticism.
I'd also like to suggest that a "criticism" section is inelegant and out of context. If there are serious criticisms, they should be added to the relevant sections. In this case, I would guess "career as a skeptic." But we need reliable third-party sources here. --lquilter 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MagicworldofRandi.JPG

Image:MagicworldofRandi.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 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 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Randi, "Expert" needed?

In the Criticism of Randi section there is an "Expert needed tag". What does this mean? What sort of expert is needed? Wikidudeman (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this and was wondering myself. First of all, I'm not sure that somebody shouting from the audience constitutes "criticism". Second, a "criticism" section is surely the last useful way to present critical information. If there is serious criticism of Randi, then it should be included in appropriate sections. --lquilter 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's not even really criticism. I've moved it to the "Career as a magician" section since that's what it really relates to. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSICOP & geller

There's some confusion in the paragraph about geller & scicop litigation. It starts with Randi achieving international renown (or notoriety) with debunking geller; says that geller sued randi; then says geller's suit against CSICOP was thrown out; then explains randi's association with csicop. I'm not sure of the chronology myself, so I can't edit it, but I'm guessing it goes something like this: Randi & others founded scicop; Randi debunked Geller; Geller sued Randi & csicop; geller's litigation as dismissed & he was ordered to pay $120K for frivolous litigation. If that chronology is accurate, that leaves this question: Did geller's continued litigation occur after he was ordered to pay $120K? (Surprising if so, because that would daunt most people.) Or is the continued litigation and randi's leaving csicop occur before geller was ordered to pay $120k? --lquilter 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the following: 1)the litigation was only dismissed against CSICOP (note spelling). The action against Randi still stood. 2) It wasn't the case itself that was deemed frivilous, it was blaming CSICOP for Randi's words. 3) the $120k award was pretty much down to the mistakes made by Gellers lawyers, failing to file documents at the correct time, etc. Geller changed lawyers and sued his original ones. The action against Randi continued. 4) Geller and Randi came to an agreement a short time later ending the matter. It's unknown if any money changed hands. Only they know, and they aren't saying. Harry Mudd 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
fixed the spelling -- tx. (i have had a blind spot for years at being unable to spell that damn thing correctly.) As for the specifics you add, would it be correct to change the current text from:
Geller later sued Randi for 15 million dollars[21]. Eventually Geller's suit against CSICOP was thrown out in 1995, and he was ordered to pay $120,000 for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit.[22] Randi was a founding fellow and prominent member of CSICOP, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.[23] Randi later resigned from CSICOP during the period when Geller was filing numerous civil suits against him. CSICOP's leadership, wanting to avoid becoming a target of Geller's litigation, requested that Randi refrain from commenting on Geller. Randi refused and resigned.
to:
In YEAR, Geller sued Randi and CSICOP for 15 million dollars[21]. Eventually Geller's suit against CSICOP was thrown out in 1995, and he was ordered to pay $120,000 to CSICOP for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit.[22] Shortly thereafter Geller and Randi settled.{{fact}}
However, the chronology and reasoning for Randi's resignation are still unclear. Did Geller file more than one suit against Randi, as it appears from the current text? Did Randi resign prior to the $120K judgment against Geller in Geller v. CSICOP? --lquilter 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This (the proposed change to the text) leaves out (what I think is) an important element of the story. Randi left CSICOP because of the Geller lawsuits. Basically, Randi has a big mouth (and a tendency to attack the person as well as the claim, venturing into possible defamation teritory) and CSICOP did not wish to be bankrupted by any possible future lawsuits based solely on Randi's actions (as a CSICOP representative). Perhaps the chronology could be stated more clearly in the current article, but I think it is important to mention that Randi and CSICOP parted ways (officially) because of the lawsuits. As User:Harry Mudd stated above, the CSICOP lawsuit was dismissed because it was "frivolous" to blame CSICOP for Randi's actions, but that was no guarantee that CSICOP wouldn't be dragged into other potential lawsuits against Randi (who would have been compromising his ideals by toning down the rhetoric). It was in CSICOP's best interest to cut any official ties to Randi. So, the chronology goes like this: 1)Geller files suit against Randi and CSICOP. 2)CSICOP lawsuit is dismissed. 3)Randi is asked to resign from CSICOP and steps down. 4) Geller and Randi settle (terms not disclosed). — DIEGO talk 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that's an important detail and aspect. The only other question I have is were there any other lawsuits filed by Geller against Randi? Or, once they achieved settlement on the litigation we've been talking about, was that it? Because it currently sounds like there were other litigations, which is a little different than Randi left (was asked to leave) CSICOP because of the potential for future litigation. --lquilter 14:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there have been any other Geller vs. Randi lawsuits since the settlement. I could be wrong though. You're right, as currently written it does seem to imply that. Maybe the editor who wrote it knows something I don't, or maybe it is just not clearly written. I'll try to get to the bottom of it and find some additional sources to clarify. Once I know for sure, I'll go ahead and rewrite the section for clarity. Also, we need to be certain of the terms surrounding the $120,000 decision against Geller (i.e., there are reasons — other than filing a frivolous lawsuit — that a judge could order a plaintiff to pay a defendant's attorney's fees, etc.). When accusations against living people are involved, it's very important to get it right. Thanks. — DIEGO talk 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A case citation could help ... i'll try to find one. --lquilter 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CITE HERE : http://www.skepticfiles.org/randi/legal.htm I don't know how to code those footnotes. Can someone add it properly. Article cites the following points

  • CSICOP distanced themselves from Randi's comments and "cut him lose from the very beginning"
  • action only dropped against CSICOP, but continued against Randi.
  • None of the money awarded to CSICOP went to Randi.
  • Randi and Geller make "confidential settlement"
  • Randi makes "confidential settlement" with Geller.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.205.156 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(fixed formatting) Pete 82.44.205.156 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag on 'Background' section

Why is there a {{cn}} tag following the short paragraph introducing the background section? Is someone actually contesting the factual basis of the statements? If not, it probably doesn't need the tag. Every single statement on Wikipedia does not need to reference a source. Statements only need to cite sources when their factuality is challenged or clearly dubious. A quick look at the cover photo of Randi's children's book (to the right of the 'background' section) and a look at the list of books he has authored can quickly confirm all the statements in that section. Exactly which statement is contentious enough to require a separate <ref>? — DIEGO talk 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't see any need for that fact tag at all. Anyone can check that he has written books on those subjects. Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please improve lead

Please improve the lead. Lead sections are supposed to summarize articles. So far this lead section leaves out most of the information that the article contains. The lead needs to be expanded to include at least 2 large paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD for more info. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real name?

The link is an interview with Randi, and he says that his name was not and never will be "Zwinge". Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This link says:

There's something else going here for Dudley's ego-trip; kids who consult Who's Who or other biographical listings, can discover my original name — Zwinge — and they take great glee in sending letters to me under that name, as if they've cleverly rooted out a dark secret — as Dudley has done. Well, let him have his thrill. It may be the best he can do. He also has a unique view of reality. He writes:

Think of Zwinge as a brass player; He toots the same horn over and over, desperately hoping that the audience will notice him instead of the other performers on the stage. Zwinge is an illusionist — a self-described liar and con artist — who discovered early in his career that he could make more money by debunking the work of other illusionists. So he reinvented himself as James Randi and hit the road as — get ready for it — The Amazing Randi.

Well, folks, in each of the biographical sketches of me that have appeared in various parts of the world, I've planted one totally invented piece of family information, a different one for each biography. Then, when I've been given back one of those false bits of information by a "reader" or a "spiritualist," I can tell where they really got the item...

So, the way I take it is that Zwinge was not his real name. Bubba73 (talk), 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's so clear. Here's a continuation of the second unnamed link above, which is actually the 19 November 2004 Swift commentary, more specifically the "Dudley — Do Right" topic. (Basic rule of hypertext: one does not say "link" or "this link" — one identifies with meaningful words what the link points to. This has long been true for HTML anchor tags; it's even more important for wiki links. Besides the jarring shift of perspective — one is forced to jump to the link to understand the context — non-descriptive text prevents one from easily referring to previous, ambiguous links, as I've just had to do.) Anyway, here's the continuation of the "Dudley — Do Right" passage:

… I can tell where they really got the item. In Dudley's case, he reveals by his devastating "self-described liar and con artist" "coup" that he's been out on the Internet archives flailing around for apparently grubby details he can use. That quotation first appeared in The New York Times back in February of 2001, has been picked up and repeated many other places, and was part of my regular opening address to my audiences, back when I did my cabaret magic act. You have to understand that in this case Dudley has to grab at whatever he can get.

Though he's obviously been to my web-page, and knows that I strenuously deny the "debunker" label, he ignores that fact in order to enrich his account.

It seems to me that Randi is claiming here that the "self-described liar and con artist" quote was information he planted in the 2001 NY Times interview that Dudley is unwittingly parroting.
Bubba73's first undescribed link is an unnamed MP3 file that one must listen to even to begin to attempt to assess it as a reliable source. It turns out to be an undated episode of "Kaufman and Company", a local radio program on WDNA-FM hosted by a "Charlie Kaufman" (not WP's Charlie Kaufman, nor anyone I found in WP or at randi.org, although I'd swear I'd heard of this guy before, somewhere). I deduce it's 5 December 2007 by a synthesis — forbidden original research — of part of the URL ("12-5"), the show's mention on WDNA's Programs page, which says it airs on Wednesdays, and the fact that last Wednesday was 5 December. (But what's to say it wasn't Wednesday, 5 December 2001?)
Anyway, Randi's opening words in the interview, as Bubba73 suggests above, are "Good morning. My name never was 'Zwinge', and, uh, never will be." That would seem to be quite clear — except that how do we know this is not the "totally invented piece of family information" he chose to plant for the bio information in this interview?
With the information presently at hand, I would say the most we can do is include a note that cites specific wiki-reliable sources that give his commonly reported "real name" and add a citation for his denial of this name in the interview. But perhaps we could use more independent sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
How 'bout something like this?
James Randi (born August 7, 1928), stage name The Amazing Randi, is a stage magician and scientific skeptic best known as a challenger of paranormal claims, debunker of pseudoscience and founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)]. According to some biographical records , Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, was born in Toronto, Canada, however Randi has said that he's purposely varied some items of biographical information found in public sources in an attempt to expose fraudulent psychic "readings" of him.(http://www.randi.org/jr/111904the.html)
--- LuckyLouie (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Too heavy with details in the lead section, but that's putting the cart before the horse anyway. So far we have only a single interview in a single, apparently obscure radio program that indicates the name is wrong, versus many reliable sources for it being right, or at least that's how it seems at the moment. We can't be sure how much weight to give the question while we have no review of sources for and against. Once this is assembled, we might better judge whether there should be a main-text paragraph or a mere footnote on this question, and how it should be phrased. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is too much for the introductory paragraph, but it should probably go in there somewhere, somehow. BTW, I shouldn't get "credit" for the link to the radio program. Yesterday someone took out the "Zwinge" and cited that as a source, but it was soon reverted. I listened to the link and he does say that Zwinge never was his name. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This gives Zwinge also, but who knows? Bubba73 (talk), 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, your suggestion of "Biography for James Randi" from IMDb would be considered a reliable source, although it's possible they are in error. It can be one of several sources we cite for the name. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Errors tend to get propegated. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly why Wikipedia requires reliable sources, which are organizations that have professional editorial boards who pay a price for propagating errors. It's hardly an infallible system, but it tends to screen out most of the rumor-spreading flotsam that people try to cite in this "believe everything you read on the Internet" age. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't know of a reliable enough source for what his birth name is. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting tidbit: page 243 of The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (1907) apparently includes, in its list of officers and members for that year, a "Mr. Randall J. Zwinge" of Leaside, a Toronto neighborhood. This could hardly be Randi, of course, as he's hardly old enough to have held a position of responsibility in 1907 (presumably having been –21 years old). But it could be either a relative from whom he got his name, or just an interesting name he decided to claim in the NY Times interview as part of his stated disinformation effort. This is sheer speculation, of course, and can't be used as a source. But it may inspire more research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not featured?

This is one of the best written and well-referenced articles I've read on the 'pedia. Why isn't it a featured article? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] debunker

I linked to debunker in the article, but Randi has said that he denies that label, presumably because he doesn't really go out and show things to be false - he asks the ones making the claims to prove it, and the proof is never forthcoming. Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did he lose?

user:Frecklefoot asks when did Randi lose a legal action? The only one I know of that he lost was against Eldon Bird, and the jury awarded $0.00. If the jury had rules in Randi's favor, Byrd could appeal and cause Randi a lot more trouble. Bubba73 (talk), 21:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He lost the case to Geller in Japan by not entering a defense. It's accurately described in the article. Lippard (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite errors

I'm getting a bunch of big red "cite errors" when viewing the main article. Does someone know how to fix that? Bubba73 (talk), 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any errors. There could be some template editing going on elsewhere, but there are a lot of citations here, so it's hard to know where to start looking. Could you be more specific (e.g., "a red blah-blah-blah appears after the text yada-yada-yada, and it happens in X other places")? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still getting them, fon instance right under "early and personal life", it shows: "Randi is the oldest of three children born to a Bell Canada employee.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title ", and the Cite Error and the rest is in large red letters. Bubba73 (talk), 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, now it is OK. Bubba73 (talk), 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up 4 references (including one duplicate) by using the {{cite news}} template on them. This is not just an exercise in formality. Not only does it standardize the source information we display, it also makes it easier while editing to find the references, identify any problems or omissions, and fix or update them. I had thought that I'd done a lot of source cleanup, but it looks like most of the sources in this article are still (or once again) tossed in in any old fashion, in wildly varying forms, and so embedded in the text it would take an obfuscated-code programmer to extract and work on them. Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by mortals, not code fiends. I highly recommend we put some effort into cleaning up the rest of the references. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to do this; I'm also be happy to answer questions on my talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference For Florida Segregation Incident

I like the anecdote about Randi in Florida and walking away from the performence, however it remains uncited. Can anyone provide or I may remove it.. --99.247.120.178 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)