Talk:Uri Geller/Archive 2

Reference 11 "Anti-Semitic" statements

"Geller has since admitted that he has not been in contact with Jackson since this time. Geller says that he has split with Jackson because of anti-Semitic statements Jackson had purportedly made" - Please correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see any mention of this in the referenced article, I think the line should be deleted. Waffle247 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The following info keeps getting deleted

Uri boldly stated there was a difference between himself and magicians. He was always willing to subject himself to scientific scrutiny in the laboratory. He defied magicians to do the same. ref (The Search For Psychic Power by David Hammond, Bantam books, 1975) James Randi's Project Alpha did just that. Two young amateur magicians thoroughly fooled scientists in the lab into believing they possessed psychic powers. It was a blow to the credibility of parapsychologists and their science. User:Kazuba 18 Mar 2007 Are not friends allowed to disagree?

James Randi's plan to demonstrate the excessive bias and lax controls of parapsychology was called Project Alpha. This project has nothing to do with Uri Geller directly, though it was inspired in part by the lax controls of the Geller experiments at the Stanford Research Institute. It was an embarassing time for a lot of people in the field of parapsychology, and it further discredited the SRI's Geller experiment (which had been criticized for lax controls from the time of its publication) but Randi (and probably others) had made numerous vain attempts to have these problems addressed in an open and honest manner. I don't believe that Geller ever submitted to laboratory testing after Project Alpha decimated the field of parapsychology. I don't know why the paragraph above keeps getting removed, but perhaps somebody does not consider it relevant. That's just speculation on my part, however. 209.0.0.29

I can recall Randi stating that he voluteered his time and efforts in helping to make sure testing on self-proclaimed mediums would be fair since his experiance as a magician he would recognize the signs of trickory but several times he said that scientists dismissed him because he wasn't a scientist. With the Project Alpha Randi got the last laugh. - Throw 12:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened. Randi sometimes gets criticized for the whole Project Alpha thing, but that's hardly fair. It wasn't Randi that pounded a stake through the heart of parapsychology. There were too many people in the field that played fast and loose with the scientific method, and even more that apparently lacked the ability to detect manipulation and deception on the part of the subjects. I don't know that this belongs on the Uri Geller Wikipedia page, though, because I don't think it's relevant. Neither Geller nor the experiments he participated in were in any way involved in Project Alpha, except perhaps as a source of inspiration. Joel Blanchette 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it totally belongs on this page, it would be naive to think that randi wasnt out to get at geller with project alpha, he was always one of his leading critics and he knew what effect it would have on him and his performances, it was the great motivator.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.74.65 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 April 2007

It's naive to think that James Randi is motivated purely by Uri Geller's claims. Can you find a good source to prove that Uri Geller was the motivating force behind Project Alpha? It wasn't Geller that Randi was aiming to expose as playing fast and loose with science. It was parapsychology researchers who were validating such claims through bad science that were his targets. The effect on Geller was minimal, since he was already by that time avoiding serious scientific scrutiny of his claimed powers. Joel Blanchette 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

James Randi's motivations are actually very clear, if you read the web site of The James Randi Foundation (www.randi.org) -- he is motivated by any and all fraud, misdirection, or misleading usage of claims of paranormal behavior. This includes, but is not limited to, Uri Geller's claims. Randi's motivation is further fueled by his knowledge that even scientists are fallible, and that as a professional illusionist he is able to show how many of these claims can be faked. It falls under that saying from Carl Sagan -- "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And the "psychics" that Randi targets are making extraordinary claims without giving ANY proof, as defined in a strict scientific context. The fact that Geller is one of these who refuses to give any proof as to how what he does is not sleight-of-hand (or other well known devices) doesn't mean that Randi has singled him out. Oh, and let's not forget the Randi Foundation's "million dollar challenge" -- if ANY paranormal claims that are in the media spotlight can be proven to exist in a proper scientific study (with appropriate controls in place) then the claimant will be given a one million dollar prize that is currently being held in escrow pending such proof. And who can honestly say "I don't need a million dollars"? (Given his current legal struggles, I'll bet Geller could use every penny he can get -- why doesn't he go after this prize?)

Curse

I dont think a journalists opinions of a fictional and un prooveable curse on a spoon bending celebrity belong on Wikipedia. Honestly..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.127.73.46 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

And it will certainly cut into Geller's sports betting business.

Anyway it is demonstrated that Geller "predicts" winners, and when they lose then backpedals by suggesting it wasn't a psychic prediction per se, but just a win he was rooting for. / edgarde 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If we were to remove all material of unprovable claims then do we remove the entire section about Geller's purtported abilities? It's sourced, it stays. Arbustoo 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be sourced but I dont think a 'Curse' is a) something many people associate with Uri Geller - His physic abilities, real or not, are

b) A story, even if there is scientific proof.... Im sure I can find scientific proof somewhere to find a curse of Tony Blair, a curse of Maddonna, a curse of any celebrity, and your saying, if that goes online, it warrents an entry in an encyclopedia? Im keeping well and truelly out of the debate of weather I think geller is real or not - im not getting involved or saying what I think about that - But childish claims of curses is petty and very unencyclopedia

I think if you are going to keep it - it should at least clearly explain the sources are a Uri Geller skeptic of the century and a British Tabloid.... Its at least a little less unbiased then and less weasle wordy - 'some think he is cursed, yada' - SOME eh?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.73.46 (talk • contribs) 00:34 24 April 2007

I don't understand your writing. However, I wish you luck on finding "scientific proof of the curse of Tony Blair." Good luck with that. Arbustoo 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright dispute

I was reading about the copyright dispute on the inquirer. Not the most reliable source perhaps but I think it's accurate. From what I can tell, both James Randi and Geller agree that there is one clip in the youtube thing whose copyright is owned by Geller. The primary point of contention is whether the use of it is legal in either the US or the UK under their respective fair use/critical commentry laws. The clip in question is 3-10 seconds long. While Geller might be an idiot, it's important we're accurate here IMHO. Currently the article suggests that nothing in the video is copyrighted by Geller Nil Einne 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't entirely clear who owns the copyright for the one video in question. It was apparently taken from a NOVA episode and is 10 seconds long. Whether displaying it constitues fair use is not really relevant. From YouTube's Terms of Use:

YouTube also reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement and violations of intellectual property law, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User's access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.

It's their site, and they really don't need to justify the removal of any content from it. I just read the terms of use twice, and there is no explicit provision for "fair use". It is in their best interests to use an abundance of caution when dealing with intellectual property claims. If the subject of a video on YouTube asks that the video be removed, they will almost certainly accede to the request. Look at it this way: they can be sued for refusing to remove copyrighted content of which they have been made aware, but they can't be sued for removing content from their site. Joel Blanchette 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Uri Nation"

"Geller semi-retired from public life in the 1980s, although he returned to the screens for the current affairs show Uri Nation in the early nineties, which could be seen then on satellite TV."

This was in the article since March 2006! And upon checking, this is an obviously fake info. Moreover, it has spread to other languages. Just another reason why Wiki sucks. --Sergey Romanov 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Magicofgeller.jpg

Image:Magicofgeller.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 03:53, 6 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 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Feynman

What is the source for the allegation that Feynman considered Geller to be a fraud? If that cannot be substantiated it should be removed according to my imperfect understanding of Wiki rules? SamuelJohnson714 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 It's on Richard Feynman's book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!.

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetruthuri.jpg

Image:Thetruthuri.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 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I added a line in the introduction stating that Gellar has been caught cheating on camera. The introduction didn't make it clear enough that Gellar's claims are pseudoscientific at best, given that wis this new video there can be next to know doubt that he cheats. 68.239.32.46 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issue.

My concern that the article is not neutral is because a large proportion of the article appears to be devoted to controversy surrounding the subject of the article. This content in terms of length is longer than the biography provided. It may well be that the content about the controversy may be valid encyclopaedic content but at present it's unbalanced, and may give a reader the wrong impression about the subject of the article. Sfan00 IMG 11:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I will tend to agree with that statement. A biography needs to be ... biographical and little is expounded on the life and work of this person, despite many books and other sources available on the subject. I have removed some weasel words and cleaned up a bit, but this article requires the attention of well-intentioned editors interested in having a good article on the life of this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is about Uri Geller, not about the views of James Randi on Uri Geller. These views can be expounded in the James Randi article, as many of the material used to substantiate claims is self published by Randi, or his foundation. See WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be trimmed, but Geller's paranormal claims are what gave him celebrity. NNtw22 01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a frame-by-frame study of the video that allegedly shows Uri Geller cheating on camera. All that I could find was that Uri rubbed his thumb, but there is no real evidence of a false thumb. see video: [1] In order for this article to be fair, neutral, and unbaised, it would be best to change statements such as "Geller was caught cheating on camera" to "Geller was allegedly caught cheating on camera" or "Geller was caught cheating on camera, according to James Randi." Failure to do so may make the editor subject to litigation if the editor was not a first-person witness to the alleged incident. This is a standard routine for all forms of news journalism. Fkapnist (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, this article is not at all neutral Sfan00 IMG. James Randi's name appears 47 times in the article, much more than any other single reference, and almost as much as Uri Geller himself. The name of Dr Harold Puthoff appears only 5 times. The names of Dr. Wernher von Braun (NASA scientist & father of the Rocket) and Dr Edgar D. Mitchell (Apollo 14 Astronaut and 6th man to walk on the moon) do not appear at all in this obviously biased article. Yet they examined Geller's abilities and are renown academics of high distinction. James Randi is a former magician and stage manager for Alice Cooper's band. He has no credentials to debunk the conclusions of leading scientists. Fkapnist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the need to keep the article from being a place to simply record everything negative about the subject, below is an excerpt from official Wikipedia policy. Has a poll ever been taken worldwide to determine the public's approval/disapproval of Mr. Geller? 5Q5 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

I agree that this article is not neutral, I agree with the points above, and especially with the point made by Jossi that this is an article about Uri Geller, and NOT on James Randi's opinions of Uri Geller.

Reading this article, I get very confused - is it the Uri Geller article, or is it the "James Randi Vs. Uri Geller" article?

Shipi, Uri Geller's manager & brother in law, who has been part of nearly everything Uri Geller has done throughout his whole career, is mentioned in the article twice.

Hanna, his wife, who has again been part of nearly everything he's done throughout his career, even prior to their marriage - is again mentioned twice in the article.

Other people who play an important part in the Uri Geller story, such as Andrija Puharich & Edgar D. Mitchell, are not mentioned at all.

Randi however, is mentioned a total of 52 times!

This is just ridiculous, the only way that James Randi has had anything to do with Uri Geller's career, is in trying his very best to destroy it.

James Randi is not just a critic, there is a heck of a lot more to it than that, and the more you research this the more strange it becomes. In chapter 13 of "Uri Geller, Magician or Mystic" by Jonathan Margolis, we discover a strange, almost sinister beginning to Randi's obsession for Geller, which began with a series of letters which border on stalking, and which became increasingly disturbing. Including statements such as "I make no secret of the fact that I consider you to be one of the finest performers that I have ever seen," and “you have all the charisma and chutzpa needed to become the greatest illusionist of this age,” and in which Randi pleaded for a meeting with Geller.

Over time as the letters were ignored, they became increasingly venomous, leading eventually to a seven thousand word letter from Randi, in which he stated that he had been investigating Geller, his children, and his financial affairs!

So this is not just someone who has been critical of Geller, this is someone who has literally stalked him for decades, starting off with pleasant almost fan mail type correspondence, and eventually leading to hate mail.

In fact, in the Margolis book, he finishes off this section with “What is to be made of a man who writes increasingly intemperate letters over a period of twenty-three years to the same person is for the individual to decide. I would merely contend that it suggests he may not quite be the hero of rationalist thought that his supporters make him out to be.”

So with this in mind – does anyone else find it slightly odd that this person is mentioned so many times in the Uri Geller article, and that there are 11 references from Randi (despite the fact that I thought it had been agreed that James Randi is not an appropriate source for this article).

This is a person who stated openly that he is out to destroy Uri Geller's career, just read the open letter James Randi sent to Abracadabra in 1974. Moondial (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference

References 13 and 36 are calling an undefined reference named "SkepdicGeller". --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

old versions use The Sceptic's Dictionary: Uri Geller for this reference --h2g2bob (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that site reliable? --h2g2bob (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its a book by Robert Todd Carroll. NNtw22 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a citation needed about the many languages he speaks. Mr. Geller requires a bilingual interpreter in Germany. I do not believe he speaks German, other than a few words. What is the source for this claim? Carlosrealm (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Ryan radio show

I removed the below quote as it seemed to be WP:OR. NNtw22 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In his telepathy demonstrations, Geller sometimes, but not always, reveals his answer slowly while asking whether he is on the right track. This approach is consistent with a stage magic technique known as cold reading, in which a magician tricks a subject into revealing information by suggesting that he already knows it. Geller's approach is apparent in an interview on the Gerry Ryan radio show on February 20, 2002:

Ryan: Are you getting the image that I'm sending to you? I'm concentrating very hard on it at the moment.

Geller: It's very, very hard for me because, you know...

Ryan: Just say what comes into your head, what's in your head?

Geller: Well the first thing that I drew was a ... it had a triangular shape at the top. Am I very wrong?

Ryan: I have sent you an image of the Pyramids. That's it! Are you really? You're not pulling my leg? No!

Geller: Gerry, I swear to you I drew a pyramid, and I also drew the stones in the pyramid, but I was not sure, so the first image that came into my mind was a triangle and then I drew the lines in it as the stones.

Phenomenon Episode on Oct 31

Just to be clear, Uri Geller did not fight with Criss Angel on the show. Criss called out a contestant who claimed to have the ability to speak with the dead. Criss offered both the contestant and Uri the chance to get $1 million if either could tell what was in two envelopes he brought with him. The contestant got loud and angry, and the whole thing escalated into Criss being held back by Uri and the contestant being held back by the show's host. My point is that Uri seemed to ignore the challenge from Criss, and focused on keeping a fight from breaking out.

I removed a section from the page that had incorrectly stated that Criss and Uri got in a fight. - EndingPop 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:Angel did not "fight" with anyone. Yes, a "fight" leads to confusion as it was referring to a "verbal fight" and "argument" is a better word. Please correct information don't just remove a notable event. Uri tends to ignore all challenges. Just last week on the Today show, he was asked if his spoon-bending was a trick and Uri avoided the challenge to his "abilities" refusing to answer. C56C 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I correct what I wrote. The section YOU removed said nothing about a "fight."[2] Please don't remove material. If you want to change "argument" with "challenge" per the source fine. But don't assert the article said something that isn't true. Geller was clearly challenged by Angel and was offered one million dollars on live TV if he could read the contents of the evenlope. C56C 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess I will clear up what I wrote below. I was apologizing for outright removing the section. I agree that I should have modified it instead of removing entirely. The section that I removed said this: "On October 31, 2007 Geller got into an argument with Criss Angel on Phenomenon regarding paranormal abilities. Angel offered Geller one million dollars if Geller could tell what word was written on an envelope in his pocket." I used the term "fight" when the section actually said "argument". Regardless, it's in inaccurate statement. An argument requires two people to actively exchange words. Geller did not respond to the challenge --> not an argument. As I mentioned before, I've since cleared up the section to be accurate per the cited MSNBC article and the actual video of the event (not cited due to copyright concerns). - EndingPop 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Please correct information don't just remove a notable event." You're right, I should have. Since then I have updated the section to more accurately describe the event. I have one question though. Currently, it uses a reference to an MSNBC article twice, resulting in the same link at the bottom twice. Is this the correct way to cite? - EndingPop 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenon Finale

I have added the "final chapter" to the Phenomenon argument. On November 21, 2007, Criss Angel again challenged Uri Geller $1,000,000.00 on the finale of NBC's nationally televised "Phenomonon" to tell Angel what was in a sealed envelope and then quickly cut Geller off when he appeared to intuitively begin zoning in on it's content. What was in the sealed envelope were the numbers 911. When Criss Angel asked Geller what was in the envelope Geller for some reason began rattling off dates that unknown to Geller were zoning in on the contents. Uri said Angel was born on the 19th, just 1 day prior to Geller's birthday. He then said that he had bent his 1st spoon when Angel was 1 (years old.) A nervous Angel, knowing what was in the envelope quickly cut him off, and diverted attention by quickly opening the envelope. see video: [3] It is worth noting that Geller apparently knew that the mystery in the envelope was an important date, whereas it could have been a drawing, poem, or other inscription.

That's called cold reading, you say lots of names and things until you hit on one that is right. Criss Angel recognised that he didn't know and cut him off. All he wanted was an answer, Geller was offering a lot of window dressing. If he knew what it was he would have had said something like "Yes it's a date the 11th of September", immediately, the fact that he didn't makes it obvious he didn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.37.86 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also did a frame-by-frame study of the video that allegedly shows Uri Geller cheating on camera. All that I could find was that Uri rubbed his thumb, but there is no real evidence of a false thumb. see video: [4] In order for this article to be fair, neutral, and unbaised, it would be best to change statements such as "Geller was caught cheating on camera" to "Geller was allegedly caught cheating on camera" or "Geller was caught cheating on camera, according to James Randi." Failure to do so may make the editor subject to litigation if the editor was not a first-person witness to the alleged incident. This is a standard routine for all forms of news journalism.Fkapnist (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not allow that type of reporting. And anyway Geller offered a lot of numbers in that segment: 20, 40 and so on, which you excluded. If you have a source that Geller won the million dollars, or Geller claimed he did, it can be added. C56C 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BLATANT WALL-TO-WALL BIAS

this article is elitist, overly-sceptical and biased trash and if its not fixed fors it blatant anti-geller bias i will reocmmend that it be speedy-deletd and it will start over from the very scratch. Smith Jones (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles aren't speedily deleted for being biased. If you think the article should be deleted, you'll need to begin an articles for deletion discussion. Also, please do not threaten other editors - it is uncivil and suggests that you think you own this article. Natalie (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uri Geller is a fraud; we've caught him on video tape, not that it wasn't obvious anyway, and Johnny Carson owned him in the 1970s. The guy is a stage magician who claims psychic powers, and Wikipedia needs to show that. Remember what NPOV means - it doesn't mean we lend equal credence to everything, it means we take a neutral point of view. Of course, that is often highly unflattering to people such as Geller, the KKK, and scientology, but what did you expect, the article on Adolf Hitler to call him a wonderful human being? Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Study your history, little man. geller was NEVER exposed by ANY of his critics, and toehr contrarily he was VINDICATED by resarch conducted by NOTED PARAPSYCHOLGOISTS known as Dr. Gary Schwartz and Dr. Stephen Liebaum. On the contary, Jimmy Carson was a late nigth talk show host with no scientifc credentials or siginicant background on the parapsychological field. Why are we trusting the "evidenc" collected by Carson over the years of research and expeirnce of a real profesional scientist like Dr. Schwartz? Is it becuase Geller and people like him thraten the mainstream (fale) consensut of scientific promoted by the mainstream media and the government? Becuase HTAT is not what Wikipedia is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what Wikipedia is about. All information has to be verified by reliable sources, and original research is not allowed. The mainstream scientific consensus is exactly the sources we allow. Natalie (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

and i assume that Gary Schwartz despite being notable enoguht oget his own article here, is not considered "notable" enoguh to be quoted from in defense of Mr. Geller? Of course, im sure he isnt. thats alwyas the way around here; only sources that spport hte article editors opinion are allowed, whcih is why Johnny Carson is a respected scientific source here and parapsychologists are not. Smith Jones (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Being notable and being reliable are not the same thing. For example, Adolph Hitler is a notable person, but he is not a reliable source about several topics. That said, if Schwartz tested Geller he may have published a paper in a peer reviewed journal - that would be considered a reliable source. If Schwartz has given interviews about his testing to some major media outlet, that would also be fine. The burden of proof for adding information is on the person wishing to add the information, however, so you will have to find these sources if you wish to include the results of this testing. Natalie (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• the very fact that Schwartz is a practicing parpayschologist is proof that his expressed views are noticeable enough to be atributable to him when

in an article. and the very fact that you decided to break Godwin's Law on a Uri geller article is really strange, concidering that i mentioned neitehr Nazism nor the Jew holocaus t in any of my previous comnetnts. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a commentary databste supportive of Schwartz's research run by a well-known and insiteful detractor of Randi's.

Here is a CNN interview with many famous psychics conducted yb Larry King that references schwartz's work with Uri Geller on the project

the National Institue for Discovery Science released this report on PK (psychokinetics]] and other scientifically-rpoven phenomena and cites Schwartz's worth involving Uri Geller.

another critical commentary on randi's "work" involving Geller and Schwartz, detailing the steps that she has taken to haras and supprpess their scientific resarch. it also quotes schwartz's scientifica papers heavily.

extensive compliations of schwartz's work studying life-after-death, and icmpotant subject in parpayschology

i am asking for CTREDIBLE reasons why these sources cannot be used this article. i remind you that i havesubmitted almost all ofthese obefore only to have tmy aditions summarily removed without explanation. once before. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. I'm not invoking Godwin's Law - if I had suggested that Schwartz was like Hitler then that statement might be true. But I didn't. I just used Hitler as an example because he is a well-known person who is obviously notable, and the reason he would not be considered a reliable source is also, I hope, obvious. Just to make this unmistakably clear - I am not in any way drawing comparisons between Schwartz and Hitler. Feel free to substitute Hitler with any notable person or publication that is also not a reliable source. My point was that being notable and being a reliable source are not the same thing. You should also note that Godwin's Law is a law in the same sense as a natural or philosophic law, not a criminal code, and thus cannot be "broken".

i never siad that gdowings law was a Criminal Code, only that you vinoked it by bringing up the NAzis in order to taint my argument. i undewrestand what you meant but it was still an inapropriate comment and one that you should have avoided to prevent this conversation to be derailed by a controversial subject such as Hitler and the Nazis. Smith Jones (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"the very fact that Schwartz is a practicing parpayschologist is proof that his expressed views are noticeable enough to be atributable to him when in an article." I'm honestly not really sure what you mean by this statement. Could you rephrase or elaborate? Natalie (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

since Schwartz is a pracrticisng parapsycholigist his opinions on his subject are automatically notable, just as how a comment made by george bush regarding us politics is automatically notable, regardles of whether or not you personally agree with him. i am also aksing if you can find even one reason why the sources i listed above are not considered notable enough to be used as evidence an this article? Smith Jones (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"i never siad that gdowings law was a Criminal Code" No, but you said I had "broken" it. One cannot break a philosophical law.

"only that you vinoked it by bringing up the NAzis in order to taint my argument. i undewrestand what you meant but it was still an inapropriate comment and one that you should have avoided to prevent this conversation to be derailed by a controversial subject such as Hitler and the Nazis. " I disagree that it was inappropriate - it was just an illustration of my point that notability and reliability do not equal each other. If you feel like it has tainted your argument I'm sorry, but I really don't think anyone reading this (except possibly yourself) would think I was equating Schwartz and Hitler. Hitler was just a convenient and easy to understand example.

"since Schwartz is a pracrticisng parapsycholigist his opinions on his subject are automatically notable, just as how a comment made by george bush regarding us politics is automatically notable, regardles of whether or not you personally agree with him." This does not in any jibe with Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. The simple fact that someone works in a particular industry does not make them a reliable source. To continue with your example of politics, George Bush happens to be a very well known politician. However, there are many low-level politicians in the United States, and even more in every other country of the world. None of those people's statements would be considered reliable sources about politics simply because they work in politics. There are other standards Wikipedia uses. To give another example, until recently I worked in a library. But I am still not considered a reliable source on libraries.

As to your specific sources: this website is someone's personal site and doesn't appear to have any sort of editorial oversight or formalized fact checking procedure. A google search of the author turns up a few sites about reverse speech engineering, but he refers to himself as a hobbyist. That does not make him a reliable source in any way.

The CNN transcript is an excellent source, which is exactly why I suggested earlier that you might wish to look for news reports on Schwartz' work.

This is a book review of someone else's book, and only mentions Schwartz in passing. I hope I don't have to explain why this does not constitute a reliable source as to Schwartz's validity as a scientist or the specific results of any of his research.

This is the exact same article as your first reference, and as such has the exact same problems. It is also hosted on someone's personal website, with no apparent editorial policy or fact checking procedure.

This article doesn't mention Uri Geller at all. Remember, this is the Uri Geller article, not the Gary Schwartz article. This particular news story has absolutely no information about any testing of Uri Geller that Schwartz may have performed. Natalie (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help iw iwll use the NCNN transcript to get sources that i can use for this article. Smith Jones (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be good. I have just a few other suggestions about your last addition to the article. You added quite a bit of content, but you only added one citation, near the end of the article. It's general practice to cite every statement. You should also be careful that you don't insert your new information before a citation, because that gives the impression that the reference supports your new information. You should add information after the reference tag. Lastly, your personal speculation isn't permitted, so I've removed several sentences based on "Might it be that...?", "Is it possible...?" and so on. Speculation like this is considered synthesis of material and thus original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. If notable individuals have suggested these same explanations, they can be included if they are attributed to a source and that source is cited. Natalie (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A few things that may be worth adding...

• Geller was pretty public about his struggles with bulimia. Here's plenty of places to start, but I haven't the interest in paying for old articles or signing up for papers I'll never read...
• This article has more info about his modern wars with Youtube & general copyright stuff
• The guy owns Elvis Presley's former home, I guess...wait! Guess not? eBay can be tricky...ruining plans to make it into a museum[5][6]
• Geller sues everyone in sight, but is it notable when someone does it to him? What about if it's Glenn Hoddle?
• In a letter to the editor, responding to a story on Randi, Geller wrote "My abilities are genuine and I can never predict whether they are going to work on TV or not, and on "The Tonight Show" I have failed like on many other shows that I have been on and not because of any trap that has been set up for me as your article suggests. One cannot switch on and off psychic powers."[7]

I don't think any of these are covered in the article...rather than crowd the page, inserting the contents where they might best fit, I thought I'd offer these tidbits for evaluation. — Scientizzle 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should he be added as a link under the "Categories: Hoaxes" entry? This guys sounds like quite the charlatan.Ndriley97 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

While we can agree that this is "potentially" controversial, consensus is not required here as everybody knows that Uri Geller (b. 1946) is older than the Israeli declaration of independence (1948). Also, referring to the edits as "potentially controversial" is bound to get attention and attract controversy. TINYMARK 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find an article for pre-Israel Palestine, you probably should link to it. "Clarifying" by removing a clearly relevant link in favor of non-wikilinked expression is not constructive, although (possibly) technically correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would counter that Wikipedia is about information and not about having a link to everything and, thus, you seem to miss the point, In 1946, Tel Aviv was in Palestine under the British Mandate so we could have a link to that section of the Palestine article (or, one level higher, Palestine in the 20th century). Either way, the link to Tel Aviv would remain. For an example we could take the Paul von Hindenburg article where his place of birth is stated as "Posen, Prussia" and not "Poznań, Poland"! I shall wait for your reply but, as this is currently factually incorrect, a change is needed. Happy editing TINYMARK 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This differs from Paul von Hindenburg in that it became part of Israel during Geller's lifetime, so, while it may be incorrect to say he was born in Tel Aviv, Israel, it isn't incorrect to say that he lived in Tel Aviv, Israel. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, TinyMark, but your edits were possibly controversial and thus should have been discussed first. I don't particularly have an opinion on how you want to convey this information, but considering the history of Israel/Palestine issues on Wikipedia, much less in the real world, discussing this first seems like the obvious choice. Natalie (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, but then we should change the birth place of Augustus from Rome, Roman Republic, to Rome, Italy.Kope (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we're discussing it now. What about using "Palestine" (in the infobox and start text) and linking it to one of the sections I mentioned above, and then, in the start text after "Palestine", "(now/later [[Israel]])"? Or using a footnote after "Palestine"? I'm a British-born lapsed-Christian so I don't have an agenda, but I would like to see the information presented accurately.

As for the Paul von Hindenburg article, Posen, Prussia became Poznań, Poland in 1919 and Hindenburg died in 1934. TINYMARK 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. I think you should wait a day or so for consensus, but I would have no objection to your making that change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe you should type it as British Palestine to make sure that nay ignorant sreaders dont belive that you are claiming that he was born in the teritories controleld by the current Palestine PNA. Smith Jones (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

After a little more research, I think perhaps "Mandate for Palestine" would be appropriate. Palestine was never regarded as a British colony, so "British Palestine" would be misleading. Strangely enough, the Mandate is explained in detail in the Palestine and History of Palestine articles, but there is also a British Mandate of Palestine article, which would make an ideal article to link to. TINYMARK 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

fine, althoguy it is assumed by any EDUCATED PERSON that British Palestine was a british-adminiterested mandate of the fromer Turkish kingdom. i would recommend calling it Mandate of Palestine and not "mandate for palestine" as you have it inaccurately since the articles all use 'of' instead of 'for'. Smith Jones (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mandate of Palestine, fine. Should check other people (e.g., Saharon Shelah), too.Kope (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume things about Wikipedia users, and anyone really educated wouldn't need Wikipedia ;-)

Simply stating 'Tel Aviv, Israel' for an event that occured in 1946 is sheer historical revisionism. This this is an important principle, not to allow description of geography to be conditioned by nationalist postconstructs. The Middle East is by no means the only region in the world which has seen territorial conflicts, and setting a precedent that factually incorrect labellings can be used isn't leading anywhere. What is the point of writing 'Tel Aviv, Israel' relating to 1946, when Israel had not been founded at the time? 'Palestine' was the term used internationally at the time, including by the Zionist movement. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Has any consensus been reached on this question? Is there an appropriate Wikipedia policy to which one should refer?

--206.248.129.16 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Very detailed Interview

see "Forget the paranormal!", Telepolis, 05.02.2008.--Nemissimo (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

German television show, formerly on YouTube

This is why we need full citations of web content. The German TV show that's reverenced in the section Reversal (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrn1IkMXbE) has been removed from YouTube by whoever uploaded it, so citation information cannot be provided. The citation was also incorrectly replaced with "fact" tags, on the basis that the YouTube video was a copyright violation. These need to be replaced with the full citation - name of the show, network, date aired, etc., and then it doesn't matter if there's an online copy we can link to or not. Does anyone have this information? Natalie (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! Strangely enough, the user who inserted the text and link has the same user name as the person who uploaded it to YouTube! TINYMARK 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess it would make sense that it's the same person. I wonder why they removed it... Natalie (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A note on Mr. Geller and his kind

Though Randi often says Geller's abilities "are only parlor tricks" he is exaggerating. Geller is a brilliant opportunist who will resort to any and probably all methods of deception available. Randi knows better but he just likes to keep things simple. The mind of a master confidence artist is more complex and devious than that. Take my boy Ingo Swann, who calls himself "the Man who has Astounded Physicists and Parapsychologists Throughout the World" for example. He not only fooled some members of the parapsychological community, he also bamboozled (and still does) members the of the U.S. Army and the CIA. That takes creativity and talent! While walking one dark night I was stopped by a voice coming out of the shadows. "Hey Mister would you be kind enough to help a poor, hungry fellow without a job?" Then was added, "Besides this revolver, I haven't a thing in the world." Kazuba (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck? randis opinions of geller are comtpletely irrelevnet except in the section where randis criticism are included, and you have no proof for the wild accusation against Mr GEller and his psychic powers such as your claims of deception, which are dangerously close to violating WP:BLP. Smith Jones (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I have experience. The worst it can be is reality. Watch your language.Kazuba (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

you shouldwatch what you say about living people. wikipedia is based on sources and verifiable fact,s nto on "experience". even if your claims are valid (witch they probably aent) you need a source if you plan to include them in the article. wikipeida talk pages are not a location for generalized dicusions of a particular subject; if you have issues with mr. geller you can go whine about it on James Randis site, which hs extensive forums relating to supernatural and skepticial stuff. Smith Jones (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I admire Mr. Geller. He has originality. Who's complaining? Kazuba (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

you mispelled the word "revolver" in your first comment above. Smith Jones (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, this discussion really isn't going anywhere. Smith Jones is correct that this is not a forum for discussing Uri Geller in general. This talk page exists so that editors can discuss improvements to the article. If you have suggestions on how to improve the article in a way that satisfies our various content policies, Kazuba, than make those suggestions. If you have no sources to substantiate your claims or these claims are merely your personal opinion, then they are better made on some other website. Smith Jones, I would suggest that characterizing someone else's comments as "whining" and criticizing their spelling are possibly less than helpful. Natalie (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

youre right about that i was way out of line with my comments. i apologize to Kazuba. Smith Jones (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazuba (talk) It is common knowledge among magicians that Uri Geller has raised the popularity of mentalism. Effects done with spoons and forks are all over the place. (My favorite is when you break it and put it back together). If you have been in magic for the last 25 years it is very noticable. But nothing has appeared in any literature about this except in books of our craft. Magic is a mystery entertainment. The real magic is beyond tricks and is only learned by devotion and practice, practice, practice. I am NOT a skeptic. I am an amateur magic historian with a taste for the VERY unusual and obscure. I am used to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. Kazuba (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, misunderstood or not, we can't include information in an article because you say it's common knowledge. Articles have to be supported by reliable sources, and given the nature of this encyclopedia we can't accept the knowledge of individual editors. If this information has appeared in books about magic or whatever you mean exactly by "books of our craft" then it is perfectly acceptable to include, provided it's sourced to those specific books. Natalie (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Natalie. These will have to suffice. [8] [9] [10] I have always found it interesting that the teachings of illiterates and preliterates have so little value in literate societies. Put it in writing and THAT'S the story. THAT'S what REALLY happened.Kazuba (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

i think your misunderstanding oyur policies. the reason we favor written sources is purely for rverifiability. there is no bigotry against illiterates on wikpiedia other than the obviously unavoidable tendency. we even has some spoken articles for people who cannot read or see for one reason or another. we use written sources not because they are more "true" than spokekn accounts but because it is easier to verify the credibility of those soruces. Smith Jones (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

aerosmith back cover

Uri Gellar is pictured on the back cover of aerosmith's one with mirrors album apparently bending a fork with his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.187.157 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith "Done With Mirrors" 1985 album back cover art

Uri Geller is pictured on the back of Aerosmith's 1985 Album "Done with Mirrors". The picture appears to show Uri bending a fork with his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.187.157 (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

geller "claimed" (past tense) to have psychic powers for most of his career

i am changing this sentence to "claims to have psychic powers" from "claimed" because as far as i know, he still claims to be a psychic. unless he has admitted that it was all trickery, i would think it's accurate to say he still claims to be a psychic. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

after checking some sources, it seems that he now does not deny supernatural powers, but does not claim them. it seems ambiguous. i would say to keep it in that he claims to be a psychic since he has not flat out denied being one. any comments? this is tricky. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

HOOVA

Why is there nothing here about his relationship with Puharich and all the Uri from the planet HOOVA nonsense? See http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/mind.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.130.233 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gellér György birth name

Another editor, Niki76 (at User talk:Sladen#name abuse) has raised a concern verifiability of the György Gellér name cited in the lead section. Are we able to substantiate this further? —Sladen (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the current name in his (British) passport might be Uri Geller Freud[11]. —Sladen (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

it s ok with the "freud"but saying born Gyorgy Geller born,on the next line,is like saying,My name is Niki,passport Niki,but my name is Nickole.Gyorgy Geller,delete.Where this information get?and why British-Isareli?His parents been brtish or something?Why not British-Israeli-mexican?(you should add this).In some countries names are not having mcommon meanings.Niki for example,my name in Greek means "victory",it s not coming out of Nichole or Nikos.It s ancient Greek from mythology.It can t be anything else.Uri ,means "MY light".I have nothing more to say thank you!--Niki76 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Niki76

Accent

If he is really Israeli, why does he have an American accent? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Portman is Israeli, and has an American accent. Keanu Reeves is Lebanese by birth - American accent. Mel Gibson was born in the U.S., moved to Australia as a child where he picked up an Aussie accent, eventually reverting back to an American accent over his acting career... you get the picture. Not everyone retains their native accent over the course of their life. Kt'Hyla (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Metal dowsing?

The current account of the Tonight Show episod ends with a contradictory claim that Uri was thwarted only at "metal dowsing" and not spoon bending. If this is true, then the entire account should be rewritten because it asserts at the start that it was about spoon bending. If not, this comment should be removed. Phiwum (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources that I've read indicate it was spoon bending. I'll put a fact tag on the metal dowsing.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Verification please?

Verification on edit 07:22, 30 April 2009 144.132.163.152 (talk) (48,498 bytes) (→Early life) ?? "Also has ruined Kadabra the Pokemon because of a fued he had with Nintendo." seems like vandalism to me... EDIT: NVM, but that is totally insane of him.Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Uri Geller's controverisal statement after Michael Jackson's death

Last night when watching the news covering MJ's death I saw an interview on Sky News, where Uri Geller talked a lot about MJ. During the interview he claimed that he "did something highly unethical", specifically hypnotised MJ for a different cause and while he was in a deep trance, asked him if he had touched any children inappropriately, to wich MJ allegedly answered no, and which Uri Geller presented as a kind of evidence that MJ had never done anything like that. I think something about this interview needs to be added to this article, but realize it is controversial so I won't take any action. TH (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly it was TV2 News, I'm not sure.TH (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A long-running problem with Uri Geller's statements is the way in which they should be taken, eg, not always as fact. I wouldn't react to this on Wikipedia, it sounds like one of his justifications. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Various edits by Moondial

Moondial (talk · contribs) seems to be attempting to whitewash Geller's reputation, and, even where the truth is not negative, reverting to Geller's own story.

Questions include:

1. Birth name: For what it's worth, György does not sound like Uri in English, although it may in Hebrew.
2. Occupation: He's either a magician or a psychic, but we should use only what he's called, not what he calls himself.
3. Relationship to Freud: So far, the only references are his word and a rather odd bio at NBC which he or his publicist probably wrote. It certainly can't be traced to an NBC employee.

Some of the edits are improvements in keeping with Wikipedia policies, removing unsourced contraversial data, but most remove sourced data which, although negative, is not contraversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not, in any way attempting to whitewash Geller's reputation, but I am editing content which is untrue, and does not have a reliable source.

And, most of what I have edited has NOT been sourced, some of it is - but very weak source.

Uri Gellers birth name, is Uri Geller - Proof can be shown in the form of Uri Geller's birth certificate, but you have even stated that this cannot be taken as proof - however you were happy for the previous source to be used, which was a blog in which someone says that a friend told them... and you're happy with the source you have cited - which you have admitted yourself is an unreliable source!?

>>György does not sound like Uri in English

Uri's mother - who named him, was NOT English. In Hebrew György does sound similar to Uri.

György was Uri's cousin who died in a tram accident, the name Uri was chosen by his mother because of the meaning of the name, and because it had a similar sound to the name of his cousin who had died.

>>Occupation: He's either a magician or a psychic, but we should use only what he's called, not what he calls himself.

Who are you to say what Uri Geller is? Uri is called many things by many people, he has been called a mystic, a psychic, a mentalist, a paranormalist, an entertainer, a magician, an illusionist - so why is it that YOU seem to be so keen to call him the one very thing that you know upsets him the most?

Surely it would make sense to call him something that people call him, which he doesn't passionately disagree with? Which would mean calling him just about anything BUT magician.

>>Relationship to Freud: Does his full name not act as a hint that this is true? Also - we're not arguing here over whether or not it is true, we're arguing over whether or not it should be made to look asif Uri is the only one stating this, and this is not the case.

OK so you're saying that this is not a reliable source because "he or his publicist probably wrote it.

I find this innapropriate - this is your opinion, you do not know who wrote it.

Also you state "It certainly can't be traced to an NBC employee." How can you know that - have you contacted NBC and asked them?

Also, you're saying that this isn't a reliable source because it's potentially written by someone to close to the article, yet the previous source used to back up the allegation of Uri gellers name, was a blog post by James Randi himself, in which he said a friend told him it was his real name - and the new source that you added, is from a publicly edited page that anyone could have edited, and that you have admitted yourself is unreliable.

My problem with this article, is it is full of opinion, heresay, very poor sources, and a lot of it looks as if it could have been written by James Randi himself. Please, have a read through the full article and tell me that you can't see that it's full of BLP violations?

Moondial (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the so-called BLP violations are clearly Randi's opinion; as Randi is a notable magician and psychic-hunter, his opinion is notable, as long as it's not presented as fact.

It's clear that the "NBC" reference was written as attempt to build up Geller's reputation, and cannot possibly be considered as credible, not to mention reliable.

As for the name; well, Uri is not a Hungarian name. If it's his birth-name, you would have to specify a language it was written in. Perhaps the birth-name and relationship to Freud both need to be removed, as there are no credible sources other than possibly some of Uri's own statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the opinions stated do seem - to me - to be stated as fact.

This is your opinion - You do not however, have any proof that this is the case. It is also clear that most of the references used to debunk Uri Geller, were written in an attempt to destroy his reputation, by someone who has built their career at least in part by debunking Him, yet you seem to have no problem with these sources? So you're saying that sources that have been written in an attempt to destroy his reputation, are fine - but sources that have been written in an attempt to build or protect his reputation, are not.Moondial (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing Geller's birth certificate Moondial? It would help if there is some independent source to back that up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rider to this, it's very hard to put together Geller's various statements about his mother and come up with a consistent story. For example, in an interview with Wynn Free [12], he states that his mother "was a poor seamstress". One of the defining characteristics of the various Sigmund Freud heirs has been their success - most are rich or at least very successful people in their various fields. Freud himself left a good deal of money in his will, the result of many donations from grateful clients over decades. In addition, given that Geller says he was born in 1946 - let's assume for the sake of argument then that his mother was born before 1928 - there is no viable Freud female descendant born then or before who is not fully accounted for. Is Geller saying he is an illegitimate descendant of Freud? That's quite a claim! So there's a problem, as always, with the veracity of various (apparently conflicting) accounts by Geller himself, which illustrates why people don't always take what Geller himself says about his past as a source, but do listen to people known to have a higher overall level of integrity, such as Randi. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying, is that Uri Geller's Mothers social class is good enough evidence to you that she was not a relative? Not all of a wealthy person's relatives are likely to be wealthy as a direct result of the relationship. Can you imagine how many relations Sigmund Freud must have, do you think that his wealth must have been spread through to every single relative regardless of how distant? Again, your comments are very opinionated - it is your opinion that James Randi is "known" to have a higher level of integrity. And "Known" is a weasel word - known by whom? Your comments about Sigmund Freud's relatives all being wealthy - would you care to back this up with evidence that he did in fact have no relatives that are not wealthy - and how are you defining wealthy?Moondial (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think Geller said he was a descendant of Freud, just a relative. Still, the inconsistency in Geller's statements are a good point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

He may not have said it in the particular source being cited, but he is quoted as saying "My mother’s maiden name was Freud, and she was descended from the great psychiatrist, Sigmund" and calling Sigmund Freud "my own ancestor" at [13]. I think that we need to make perfectly clear that Geller's claims of descent from Freud have not been verified in a reliable source. Nor has Geller been specific about the line of descent, which would make proof (or disproof) possible. - Nunh-huh 12:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I have lengthened the intro, and I have taken out the opinionated & unsupported view that Uri geller is a performer of Magic Tricks, and I have replaced this with both view points, that some people call him a magician, some people call what he does a display of paranormal abilities - I cannot see how anyone can argue that this is not a more fair description than stating he is a magician, which is only a view shared by some - and certainly not by Uri Geller himself.

The previous description is not NPOV, my new description is far more neutral.

I have no problem if someone doesn't like the way this is written, but if you feel you need to change it, please keep NPOV in mind, because stating that he is a "Magician" is taking one side of a hotly debated topic.

Moondial (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube video

Hi

The discussion about the Youtube Video relating to the compass, is all completely wrong.

First of all, it was stated that it was in the early 90's, in a documentary - completely incorrect yet for some reason allowed to remain by certain editors who seem very willing to undo edits which make the article more neutral, but seem to ignore completely incorrect & unsupported comments.

Secondly, This is NOT the video that Uri geller had taken down, this was a different video. The video of the compass incident is here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Y7QR314xA and all that can bee seen is that Geller touches his hair, and touches his thumb, therefore to state what he actually does to seem like it's a fact, is completely wrong. There is no factual evidence that he stuck a magnet to his thumb.

I would advise that we keep it neutral, and state that he can be seen to touch his hair, and then his thumb, which brought accusations of trickery, as these are the only known facts.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be edited from a neutral point of view, this article has been completely riddled with opinion & unsupported comments which have lead to it not at all being so.

Moondial (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page, to reflect the reply to it, which Nunh-huh pasted below & changed)

Nunh-huh, Wikipedia is not a place for your to express your opinions, and the Uri Geller article is just completely riddled with opinion, and appears to be watched very carefully by editors who ignore incorrect (ie dates 10 years out, and his Birth name incorrect) information that makes the article not only incorrect, but also to appear slanted to one viewpoint. Moondial (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(copied & adapted from my talk page) :Wikipedia is not a place for you to express your opinions,. If you want to change information that is appropriately sourced, you will have to find a reliable source that differs with it, and not simply rely on your dislike of the opinions expressed. So far you haven't done so. Your say-so is not sufficient for us to believe there is an error: you need a source to back your opinion up. Do not remove cited facts again; your disagreement with a source isn't adequate justification. The source states very clearly: "One slow-motion clip shows Geller quickly placing a small magnet on his left thumb before purporting to move the needle of a compass in front of a live television studio audience". The fact that you say you can't see a magnet is pretty much irrelevant. - Nunh-huh 01:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way Nunh-huh, I think it's quite inappropriate that you copied your comment from your talk page, and changed it - I was the one who said to you "Wikipedia is not a place for you to express your opinions" - and you have changed your message to try to make out that it was the other way around. Moondial (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to discuss this article on my talk page, and I repeatedly asked you to discuss it here, not there. It's entirely appropriate to copy my comments from there, and I indicated that they were changed for their new setting at the same time. - Nunh-huh 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I said exactly the same to you, as I had asked you twice to discuss here! Sorry, but the changes you made to your comment on the talk page were out of order - you changed your comments so that they copied exactly the comments I had said to you, in so doing you completely twisted the conversation we had had via talk pages to make it look like you initiated the conversation. This conversation is no longer about the article, therefore if you would like to continue it, I would suggest we do so via our own talk pages.Moondial (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's just consider it over, then, if you can manage rhat. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is an rhat, and how does one manage it? Sorry.... couldn't resist ;-).Moondial (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on your talk page - firstly, lets talk about it here - as you say yourself on your talk page...

Secondly, as I replied on your talk page - How can you say that my edit "contradicts reliable sources" when the source that was there, did not even contain the video?

The video, which I have cited, shows that he touches his hair, and his thumb - therefore this is all that we can say in the article, saying that he does, or does not stick a magnet to his thumb, is subjective.

Watch the video, and be very honest - is it true that Uri Geller is "Clearly seen" to put a magnet on his thumb? It is not - the video only shows that he touches his hair, and his thumb - that is all that can be clearly seen, therefor to say that he can be clearly seen sticking a magnet to his thumb, or adding a thumb tip, is wrong, and is not NPOV. To remain neutral, we can only say that he can be seen to touch his hair, and his thumb, and that he has been accused of adding a magnet to his thumb, it cannot be stated as if it is a fact.

Moondial (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that unambiguously describes a YouTube video existing in which Geller is seen "placing a small magnet on his left thumb". This outranks a single editor's interpretation of a (possibly-different) YouTube video.

Take a look at WP:PRIMARY for further explanation of this: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." [...] "Articles may include [interpretive] claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." --McGeddon (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your so called reliable source, does NOT support the comment that "slow motion footage of the episode showed Geller applying a magnetic thumb tip" it says : "One slow-motion clip shows Geller quickly placing a small magnet on his left thumb" so to say that he used a magnetic "thumbtip", is yet more unsupported hearsay & opinion.

Secondly - once again, this is a case of editors taking one side of a very much 2 sided debate, there are many sources I could cite which state that he does not use a magnet, or a thumbtip, and that give other reasons for the footage which simply shows that he touches his hair.

You're citing a blog post written by someone who does not hide the fact that they have extremely skeptical opinions of Geller, and who does not back up the accusations - there is no screenshot in the blog post which shows that he can be seen to put a magnet on his thumb, there is no link to footage of the clip on Youtube (which is still on there posted by other people, which I have cited previously)which only clearly shows that he touches his thumb.

So what you're saying is that a blog post in which someone shares their unsupported opinion, is a reliable source - is that correct?

As far as I am aware - and correct me if I'm wrong - where there is a hotly debated subject like this, where there are two sides that can be taken, both with which sources can be sited - Wikipedia editors are supposed to remain neutral, and to present what both sides of the argument are - rather than taking one side.

Am I wrong?

Moondial (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The thumb tip sentence is a combination of the Randi source saying "placing of a sort of thimble on his left thumb" and the USA Today source saying "placing a small magnet on his left thumb", both of which are referenced at the end of the sentence. I trust it's not too much of a leap of WP:SYN to assume they're talking about the same thing, and that a "sort of a thimble you place on your thumb to conceal something" is a thumb tip, but feel free to reword it if you disagree.

I'm not sure which source you are rejecting as a "blog post" - Randi's site meets the "established expert" requirement of WP:SPS, and the USA Today source is an Associated Press article.

If you have a reliable source that presents another side of the issue (it'd be particularly good to see a quote from Geller if he's given a response), then yes, by all means add this to the article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, actually we shouldn't be quoting Randi's site here, per WP:SPS; "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". We should make sure that any Randi quotes have been made on television shows or in print media. I'll cut the thumb issue back to remove any information taken from Randi. --McGeddon (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Randi is an expert magician and investigator of psychics (I was going to say "psychic investigator", but that has an entirely different meaning); his statements could be used to support statements such as "Geller could have done it" this way, and that such a trick is consistent with the video; he probably cannot be used as a source to say that "Geller did" something.

On the other hand, I don't agree that Randi saying something on television makes his statements any more reliable. In most cases, the editors don't vet statements made by guests on their programs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon, Wikipedia clearly states that self publish sources should not be used. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with Uri Gellar’s own self published material to be used as source. Randi's self published material shouldn't be used, for the same reasons. ,

Also I feel strongly that Randi is a "questionable source," as he publishes unfounded, non-factual information.

Wikipedia states:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

Firstly, Randi's views rely heavily on rumors and personal opinion. He does not cite sources, even when he makes allegations. This is something that lead to him being found guilty of defaming, in a court of law in the US. (see the James Randi Wikipedia page).

Secondly, Randi DOES have a poor reputation for fact-checking & editorial oversight.

For example, one of the sources that was previously being cited with ref Uri Gellers birth name - in which he published the information about Uri Geller's birth name, saying that someone told him. He did not have any evidence, and he did not cite anything other than a conversation he had with a friend. (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-07/072707bashing.html under "hot news")

Other examples, reference 72, "Geller on the Ropes" he has self published completely un-supported and factually incorrect information. The case between explorologist Ltd & Sapient, was about a different video! This case was about a video filmed over 20 years ago, which featured Uri Geller's Dr, Dr Hughes. Explorologist ltd owned the copyright to this video, and sued Sapient for publishing this without consent. See : http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv01848/228702/ Neither Uri Geller or his company own the copyright to the clip including the copyright, this belongs to the TV company, so if anyone was trying to get the compass clip removed it would have to be the TV company. Moondial (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason Geller has come under such criticism is that he is alleged to have claimed copyright that was in fact not his, and issued take-down notices for material that he had no copyright in. What should be the case and what actually is the case are often two different things. - Nunh-huh 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, and has anyone bothered to check that the source used to back up this allegation, is correct? Obviously not, because it only took me a few minutes of digging to find that the case that was been talked about, was nothing at all to do with the compass clip!

He did not claim copyright or issue take down notices for anything that was not his copyright.

The only take down that is sourced - is the case between explorologist ltd & Sapient. As you will see if you care to follow the link (http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv01848/228702/) this was concerning a video which included Uri Geller's Doctor, Dr. Hughes, which was filmed many years ago - and the copyright to this film WAS owned by explorologist ltd, and this is why the case was won by Eplorologist ltd, and the video was taken down.

EXPLOROLOGIST LIMITED v. SAPIENT Plaintiff Explorologist Ltd. alleged that Defendant Brian Sapient a/k/a Brian J. Cutler d/b/a Rational Response Squad for infringing British copyright law. Defendant allegedly uploaded to YouTube a sequence of images entitled "James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff," which included portions of the film "Dr Hughes."

This just another example of what is really fustrating me with this article. It appears that as long as it promotes the skeptical viewpoint, then editors do not spend any time to check the material.

The clip with the magnet has now had 1.5 million views, has not been removed, and I cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever tried to have it removed, other than the text at the beginning of the video which makes this claim. Moondial (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article supports the statements in our article. If you have a reliable source supporting your statements, please add them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I need to give you the reference?? See ref 72 :

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv01848/228702/

The associated press article which has been posted on the USA today blog, is incorrect, and this source proves that.

Moondial (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, please stop editing my changes without properly explaining your reasons for doing so. Part of your explanation appears to talk about something I had not actually edited, which I found strange - and then you stated that my source does not say what I say it does?

Source 72 : http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv01848/228702/

This source clearly states that the legal case was with reference to a clip owned by explorologist ltd which includes the Dr Hughes footage.

EXPLOROLOGIST LIMITED v. SAPIENT Plaintiff Explorologist Ltd. alleged that Defendant Brian Sapient a/k/a Brian J. Cutler d/b/a Rational Response Squad for infringing British copyright law. Defendant allegedly uploaded to YouTube a sequence of images entitled "James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff," which included portions of the film "Dr Hughes."

Can you please explain to me how this source does not clearly say what I am saying it does?

The fact is, the clip that Uri Geller took legal action to have removed due to copyright claims, was video footage which his company owns copyright to - and was nothing to do with the compass clip. The compass clip is not mentioned in the legal paperwork.

Moondial (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of personal interpretation you're peddling. Don't change the article before you've obtained actual consensus on the talk page. Which I think you're unlikely to do unless you come up with a source rather than your personal interpretations - which fall under WP:OR. - Nunh-huh 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal interpretation?

Please do explain.....

once again, the legal paperwork on the link given says :

XPLOROLOGIST LIMITED v. SAPIENT Plaintiff Explorologist Ltd. alleged that Defendant Brian Sapient a/k/a Brian J. Cutler d/b/a Rational Response Squad for infringing British copyright law. Defendant allegedly uploaded to YouTube a sequence of images entitled "James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff," which included portions of the film "Dr Hughes."

How does this include any personal interpretation?

It clearly states that the clip that the legal action was taken due to copyright claims on the film "Dr Hughes"

And with ref to changing the article - I have edited factually incorrect information, and I have cited a reliable source. Moondial (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The information you edited out might be factually incorrect (although I doubt it), but it's in the source that was there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Geller and EFF were in so many lawsuits involving Youtube, it wouldn't be surprising if both the one referred to in the article and the one you were referring to were separate lawsuits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As for Randi being a questionable source; I doubt it, but, removing his commentary might be appropriate if all material prepared by Geller, whether or not SPS, is considered unreliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The information you edited out might be factually incorrect (although I doubt it), but it's in the source that was there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Geller and EFF were in so many lawsuits involving YouTube, it wouldn't be surprising if both the one referred to in the article and the one you were referring to were separate lawsuits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As for Randi being a questionable source; I doubt it, but, removing his commentary might be appropriate if all material prepared by Geller, whether or not SPS, is considered unreliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:2, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You doubt it? What has doubt got to do with it? Check my source, regardless of your doubts, opinions & otherwise, the source clearly shows what the case was about, which proves incorrect the claims that it was about the compass clip.

Regards to the "many lawsuits," regardless of how many there were, the fact is that the article stated that the case was about the compass clip - and it was not, it was about the Dr Hughes video. The source I stated clearly shows that.

If you would like more evidence still – see the legal documents: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv01848/228702/1/

Yes - YouTube did suspend the YouTube account for a period of 2 weeks, meaning that ALL of the video's posted, were unavailable for this time, but this was the decision of YouTube. The fact remains that the action by explorologist Ltd, Uri Geller's company, was in relation to the Dr Hughes clip, and this is on the Justia website in black & white. This is also stated on the legal documentation for the Sapient / EFF vs. Uri Geller case,

Also - contrary to your comment that you made while undoing my edit - in which you implied that that EFF successfully sued & therefore YouTube did reverse their decision. No - you are wrong once again, and I'm not sure why to be honest, as the evidence is very easy to find - the legal documentation is freely available, even on the EFF website.

The facts are as follows.

Uri Geller’s company Explorologist, took action against Sapient:

EXPLOROLOGIST LIMITED v. SAPIENT, May 7 2007, Pennsylvania Eastern District Court.

"Plaintiff Explorologist Ltd. alleged that Defendant Brian Sapient a/k/a Brian J. Cutler d/b/a Rational Response Squad for infringing British copyright law. Defendant allegedly uploaded to YouTube a sequence of images entitled "James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff," which included portions of the film 'Dr Hughes'."

This case was eventually settled out of court. On the EFF website it is stated: "Explorologist and Sapient have settled their dispute. As part of the settlement, Explorologist has agreed to license the disputed footage under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, preempting future legal battles over the fair use of the material. A monetary settlement was also reached as part of the agreement."

On May 8 2007, the day after Explorologist issued proceedings against Sapient - EFF & Sapient launched legal action against Geller, see http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/.

On February 4th, 2008, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, dismissed this case. Legal papers: http://www.uri-geller.com/pdf/ruling.pdf

With ref your remarks: ‘As for Randi being a questionable source; I doubt it’

Once again – what has doubt got to do with it? On what are you basing this doubt? Do your research, from a NPOV, and you will see that without a doubt James Randi IS a questionable source under Wikipedia’s definition of an unreliable source.

Individuals & organizations should be more careful about taking Randi’s comments with anything other than a pinch of salt.

It seems that Discover magazine will certainly be more careful about what sources they rely on in future. See http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/200905/?pg=6#pg6 & http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0409/uri-geller-print.php. (paragraph 18)

In reply to your comment ‘but, removing his commentary might be appropriate if all material prepared by Geller, whether or not SPS, is considered unreliable’ :

This article is the Uri Geller article – NOT the James Randi article. It should not be a case of “OK, we’ll consider Randi’s material unreliable as long as we also consider Geller’s material unreliable. The two are separate issues.

This is not the “James Randi” article, and nor is it the “James Randi Vs. Uri Geller” article, it is “supposed” to be an article about Uri Geller. So, whether or not James Randi material is reliable – has no bearing on whether or not Uri Geller’s material is reliable.

Currently, looking through the reference list on the Uri Geller article – it’s Randi, Randi, Randi – I can see very little of Uri Geller’s own material being used as reference, most is Randi’s – which is the reason the article is so one sided – and the reason that there is SO much incorrect information. For example, at one point the article stated that Uri had a different birth name, and this information cited Randi’s website – in which Randi stated that a friend had told him.

Conversely – look at the James Randi Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi – look through the references, and what do you see? Randi, Randi, Randi….. How many times does Uri Geller show on the James Randi reference page – Zero.

Look at how one sided in Randi’s favor, the James Randi article is – despite the fact that Randi has had a very controversial history, you would hardly know this from reading the article. It’s not a balanced article. There are a number of events from Randi’s life & career that are not discussed, and it’s is quite obviously being heavily edited by those with a skeptical point of view.

Now look again at the Uri Geller article, and tell me honestly that you cannot see that this article is also obviously being edited by those with a skeptical point of view? It is not balanced, it is NOT neutral. Where it is obvious that there are two trains of thought, and no definite right or wrong – the article is being edited heavily in favor of the skeptical point of view.

It is becoming more & more apparent to me that there are a number of editors watching this article, who have no intention whatsoever of allowing this article to be made more neutral & balanced – even when faced with overwhelming evidence in black & white, it is just being ignored – while the opposite of this is true with negative edits.

Over quite a period of time, I have been aware of this very strange phenomenon – and I have been monitoring this article & the activity of it’s editors. What I have recorded, is that negative, skeptical edits stay – regardless of how in factual & poorly supported they are, and any edits that are not negative or from a skeptical point of view, do not stay – regardless of how well supported they are.

To quote Wikipedia:

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.

I’ll repeat that last bit – “studiously refrain from taking sides.”

Are the editors watching this page, studiously refraining from taking sides?

Moondial (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are making several mistakes.

1. EFF ... sued ... and the video was later restored does not imply the suit was successful. In fact, EFF's stated that there was a settlement. A settlement normally leads to dismissal of the case. Careful study of Geller's posted document suggests that the counter-suit was dismissed for being filed in the wrong jurisdiction, which would not be considered "successful". I haven't checked the actual court documents; but none of the sources you've provided here would be considered reliable for the purpose of listing that suit in the main article, and Geller is at least strongly suspected of falsifying documents. However, the original suit was settled, and the video was restored.
2. You are assuming that EXPLOROLOGIST LIMITED v. SAPIENT is the only lawsuit involving YouTube videos containing Geller. I would be surprised if that were the case. The timing is unclear. EFF seems to state that Sapient v. Geller was filed before the settlement in Explorologist v. Sapient. In any case, there was an EFF lawsuit.
3. Geller's words can be used only to support his opinions and what he said he has done, not for statements about what he has done. Randi, as an expert magician and psychic debunker can be used a reliable source to support statements that Geller's act(s) "could have been done" by stage magic, although possibly not that they were done by stage magic.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making all the mistakes. You may want to go ahead & check them documents before you comment. This is yet another example of the fact that you're just working from opinion & hearsay - you're not even checking out the sources.

Having said that, I find it interesting that you appear to have looked in to certain sources - but it's the ones which contain the undisputable evidence, that you just so happen to have not got around to looking at.

Regardless of how you're twisting it - the case of Sapient & EFF Vs Geller, was dismissed. Regardless of the reason for it being dismissed - it was dismissed. Who said anything about it being "successful" ? I simply stated the facts, that the case was dismissed.

The timing, is extremely clear - it couldn't be much clearer. Check the documentation on Justia - or are you insinuating that these have been falsified?

Now that you clearly cannot give reasonable argument - you're coming out with complete & utter unsupported nonsense, that I am assuming you have just made up? And it's quite clear this is the case, or you would have expanded upon it rather than just making a throw away comment like that.

Would you care to back up your weasel word claims "Geller is at least strongly suspected of falsifying documents," strongly suspected by whom? Strongly suspected by yourself, since you've just come up with the idea, due to lack of anything factual? Moondial (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that Sapient was sued, the video was removed, the video was restored, EFF and Sapient sued Geller, the first suit was dismissed as settled, and the second suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Nowhere is it even implied that the EFF suit restored the video, although perhaps the references to lawsuits should be removed, but any legal actions by other that alleged copyright holders were lawsuits.

You still have no argument for removal of the material. The video was critical of Geller, it was removed becaue of a DMCA allegation which was later dropped. The details of who sued whom need to be corrected, but the facts remain of interest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You implied in your edit notes, when undoing my edit, "EFF _did_ sue, and Youtube reversed their decision" and in the article, it states : On 8 May 2007, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued Geller on behalf of Brian Sapient for making false claims to force YouTube to remove a video. YouTube eventually reversed their decision to remove the video.

This implies that it was the EFF case that was responsible for the video being restored, when in fact the EFF case was dismissed - and Youtube did not "reverse their decision" Geller & Sapient came to an licensing agreement, and it was this agreement which saw the video in question back on Youtube, and his YouTube account made live again.

But - you're focusing on this unimportant part of the argument to smoke-screen the main point - which is that it's talking about the wrong video! This discussion is about the compass clip, and the case between sapient & explorologist, which is being cited - is NOT about the compass clip.

The video in question, was 'a sequence of images entitled "James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff," which included portions of the film "Dr Hughes."'

Are you trying to tell me that I have not given sufficient proof in this discussion, that this case is not about the compass clip?

>>You still have no argument for removal of the material

Removal of what material?

>>The video was critical of Geller?

Which video?

I am not trying to remove the material about the compass clip - what I want to remove, is the incorrect information - that I have given plenty of evidence to prove incorrect - that says that the compass clip was the video in question with the take down & court cases. I have plenty of argument to remove this.

The article implies that Geller tried to have the compass clip removed, and goes on to discuss the legal cases between himself & Brian Sapient, however as I have proven - these cases were not about the compass clip, they were about the video which includes footage of Dr Hughes.

Therefore the current material which states that Uri Geller tried to have the compass clip removed - is incorrect. In fact, the compass clip was placed on YouTube over 2 years ago - by "thefriendlyskeptic" and has not been removed, this video has had over 1.5 million views in this time, and has remained at the top of YouTube search for "Uri Geller" for quite some time.

It's plain & simple, the takedown notice & court cases were NOT about this clip, the complaint made was about the clip including Geller's doctor, Dr Hughes.

Therefore, any comments about Geller having tried to remove the video, or about legal cases surrounding this - should be deleted, OR a new section should be created about the video that Geller DID actually take action to remove.

By the way - you seem to have gone very quite now about your insinuations that Geller is suspected of falsifying documentation. "Geller is at least strongly suspected of falsifying documents."

Are you going to expand upon this for those of us who would like to know more - or do I take your lack of response on this, to mean that you're admitting that you did actually just make this up, and that you cannot expand upon it for that reason? Moondial (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What we (think we) know is that:

1. Geller (not Explorologist) has made claims against YouTube, in addition to his many libel suits against those calling him a "trickster" or other similar terms. I don't know whether those claims are copyright or libel.
2. No such claim has been found valid (in the long run), even by YouTube.
3. No video was permanently removed because of such claims.

I agree that this case appears only tangentally relevant to Geller, so it shouldn't be here, but other actions in regard Geller and YouTube are probably relevant.

It's difficult to determine whether a video was temporarily removed, so unless YouTube is willing to assert it was never removed, or some reliable source states that it was never removed, then — even if you were correct that no such video was remoed by YouTube — we cannot assert that in the article.

As for falsifying documents; at least some of the videos by him were found to be falsified (even more than expected by normal editing practice.) I'm not sure whether the now-missing-from-this-article claims of being related to Freud involve documents "of questionable provenance". And some of his libel suits were thrown out on the grounds that the evidence presented in the briefs were falsified. That last may be normal legal tactics, and, even if unethical, might not be Geller's responsibility.

My only other source for the assertion that Geller falsified documents is Randi, who appears not to be reliable for these statements, although I believe it likely that they're accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making statements about what we think we know, should we? We should be writing about what we can back up with reliable source - and there is NO reliable source to show that Uri Geller tried to have the specific video of the compass clip, removed. The source that is currently cited, is talking about a different clip.

>>:#Geller (not Explorologist) has made claims against YouTube, in addition to his many libel suits against those calling him a "trickster" or other similar terms. I don't know whether those claims are copyright or libel.

All there is to back up this claim, is wooly messages at the beginning of youtube clips & so on, and other hearsay comments on blogs. I have not been able to find anything to prove that Uri Geller has made any claims against Youtube - other than the ones about the Dr Hughes clips that escalated to the legal cases.

Besides – none of this relates to the discussion we’re having.

Regardless of what your opinions are, or what you’ve heard on the grapevine about what Uri Geller has tried to have removed from youtube – this discussion, is about whether or not the sentences about the compass clip in the article are factual.

To confirm, below are the sentences that I am disputing, and my reasons: “Geller unsuccessfully attempted have the clips removed from YouTube, issuing a DMCA takedown request against the uploader.[53]”

This is stating that Uri Geller issued a DMCA takedown request to sapient, in relation to the compass clip.

In the cited source – which is an associated press article posted on the USA today blog –-the legal case which is discussed, is not in relation to the compass clip. As I have shown in previous sources, the legal case which this article discusses, was a complaint from explorologist ltd, about the clip which included the footage of Dr Hughes.

There is no evidence that there was actually a takedown notice issued in relation to the compass clip.

“In March 2007, videos clearly showing Geller cheating were removed from YouTube due to copyright claims by Explorologist Limited.[72] Explorologist Limited is operated by Geller who owns 75 percent of the company and his long time manager/brother-in-law Shimshon [Shipi] Shtrang who owns 25 percent.[72] James Randi noted that Geller did not own the copyright to the clips, which includes Geller's appearance on The Tonight Show.[72]”

To state “videos clearly showing Geller cheating” is POV, and both sides of the argument should be stated. I have previously added sources which share a contrary point of view – but these have been deleted. For example : http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0409/uri-geller-print.php paragraph 8.

There is no source to back up that the compass clip was removed – nor that it was due to copyright claims. Once again, the video that was removed due to the copyright claims was a different video – and the legal cases that escalated from this claim, clearly state which video it was concerning.

With regards your allegations of falsifying documents, I'm confused what are you saying? You say he has falsified documents - then you say that he has edited videos - which is hardly document falsification.... and then you go on to suggest that he has possibly falsified documents to do with his connection to Sigmund Freud?

If you're not actually just making this up - then come on, tell. What documents? What exactly do you suspect him of falsifying?

My guess is - that you have absolutely no idea, because you're just making it up as you go along...

Moondial (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I take your lack of response, as a sign that we have reached consensus on this matter? And, are you going to provide any further explanation of your previous comments about document falsification, or are you now admitting that you actually made this up & have absolutely nothing even remotely truthful to base these malicious comments upon?Moondial (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, everything you've written so far is irrelevant to what's presently in the article; only the legal case you think the article refers to. Although the EFF lawsuit (not legal action) appears to refer to the same acts as the case you're referring to, and hence irrelevant to Geller, your "correction" removed only those parts which are verifiable (assuming the other parts refer to something coherent), not those which are not. I think perhaps the whole section may be unsourced, and possibly could be removed, but not because of any defamation of Geller. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So, have we reached consensus that this section is to be removed? By the way - I'm not sure what you mean ref defamation, I did not say that the wrong information defamed him, I said that it was incorrect & un-sourced - which you have argued until blue in the face, until now.

The only defamation occurring - was you making up stories about Uri Geller having been involved in document falsification, which you appear to have forgotten about now - I'm assuming this is because you're embarrassed that you stooped as low as making up stories when you ran out of valid argument?Moondial (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith of other editors. --McGeddon (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No reply? Have we reached consensus?Moondial (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We've reached consensus (well, I'm not willing to argue it anyway), that USA Today is incorrect in regard the removal of YouTube videos. We have no indication that it's not reliable as to the content of the videos, whether or not removed. UFO Digist is not reliable as to anything. I edited out the video removal from that section, and am neutral as to the removal of the the entire section as to Geller sueing to remove the videos (although, if Explorologist is 75% owned by Geller, as was in the article at one point, then the question of whether Explorologist or Geller sued Sapient is moot). I am not willing to accept UFO Digist as a reliable source as to the content of videos, and am willing to accept USA Today as a reliable source, even if they may have gotten the question of whether the videos had been removed wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are once again taking sides Arthur. There are very clearly two sides to this argument, and to say "the video clearly shows" that Geller attaches a magnet, or a thumbtip, is just completely & utterly POV, as the video shows absolutely nothing clearly, other than the fact he touches his thumb. We must discuss this neutrally, yes the video shows that he touches his thumb, but what he actually does in the clip is a subjective matter, and you are taking one side of the argument. I know which point of view you take Arthur, you've made this quite clear in the past - but lets have some common sense here please, this is so obviously a 2 sided debate, we need to state both sides of the argument neutrally - NOT state that one side of the debate is fact.

I personally do not agree that USA today IS RS. You have admitted yourself that they have published incorrect information in the past about this same video, and this is NOT a USA today article, it's an AP article posted on the USA today Blog. They didn't just get it wrong that it wasn't this video that was taken down, the whole article is full of errors, and once again - it is not written by a USA today author, it's a blog post submitted by a member of the associated press. The fact that they're posting such badly sourced incorrect articles, is a strong reason to argue that it is an unreliable source.Moondial (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Demonstration at University of California at Berkeley

I realize this isn't independent third-party, but since there were so many professors present, perhaps one of them published these results.

I was allowed into a demonstration at UCB given by Gellar, where 75 people were present, mostly university professors. They had with them various measuring devices, whose readings Gellar intended to influence. He failed to make a change in any of them, claiming that he couldn't work in the hostile atmosphere. After the demonstration, I went with a group of about 10 people to talk with him personally. At this point, he said that there was a more receptive attitude. He demonstrated how to bend someone's keys, and how to bend someone's wedding ring. Later, I was shown how to duplicate these tricks: select keys that are already bent, and a ring that has been worn for a considerable time. The owner naturally remembers these objects in their original form: straight keys, and a perfectly circular ring. In use these often become distorted. It just remained for Gellar to "find" a suitable set of keys and a wedding ring from an older person. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reverts by Nunh-huh

Some editors - particularly Nunh-huh - seem intent on adding unsupported POV comments to the intro.

My version of this section of the intro is:

Some consider Geller's work to demonstrate paranormal abilities, while others describe his performances as easily replicated magic tricks.

This is completely neutral. Nunh-huh repeatedly edits to take the skeptical side of the argument. Not only this - but he has now reverted to exactly copying my edit summary when undoing, without adding his own explanation, which I find to be extremely childish.

Nunh-huh, if you would like to discuss this, then lets do so here.

Moondial (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you don't understand the principle of NPOV, which is not "present the two sides of an argument as though they were equally well-supported, even though they're not", but rather, "present the two sides of an argument with weight proportional to their acceptance". In this case...at a very minimum...the existence of psychic phenomena has not been scientifically verified, while the existence of magic tricks has. - Nunh-huh 18:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the principle of NPOV - however you obviously do not. It is only your point of view that one side of the argument is heavier or more well supported than the other. You have cited zero references to support your opinon. The fact is that there are plenty of available sources on both sides of the argument, it's your opinion that more experts believe that what he does, is easily replicated magic tricks - hence it is POV. Moondial (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that more experts in magic tricks believe that Geller is one of them; it's not clear that the concept of an expert in psychic phenomena exists, so deferring to the opinions of experts is very difficult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. The article does not state which kind of expert is being referred to, it does not state that more experts in magic, believe that what he does is magic tricks, nor does it relate to psychic phenomena, so your opinion about whether not "it is clear" that psychic phenomena exists, is also completely irrelevant. If the comment about experts cannot be clarified or supported, then it should be changed to what it was previously, which was that some people believe what he does to be a display of some kind of paranormal ability, while others believe it to be magic tricks. I did not add the line about experts.Moondial (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the statement which you consider biased, as all experts who have taken a stand (in verifiable sources) agree he does tricks. "Most experts" is a compromise position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. First of all, can we please get some clarity on what you mean by "experts?" Are you referring to experts in a particular field? From your previous comments it appears that what you mean, is experts in magic tricks. If this is the case, then it would need to say "Magicians" and not "Experts" , as this is too vague. "Experts" could refer to anyone who is an expert in any field - therefore this is unverifiable.

Also, in reply to your comment that ALL experts agree that he does tricks - you're implying that no experts believe that what he does is anything but magic tricks - and this is wrong.

Based on not knowing which kind of "experts" you're referring to, I will note here, just SOME comments from expert scientists, and expert magicians, who have stated that they do believe that there is more to Uri Geller’s abilities than just tricks.

Magicians:

David Copperfield:

You know, I like Uri Geller. He is a good guy. I think he made many things with his abilities. I think some of the things he shows are illusion. But I cannot claim for sure, that this applies to everything. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWDE6aDe0o&feature=related)

David Blain:

Uri bent a spoon for me, the first time he did it, I thought there must be a trick. The second time I was stunned, completely, completely stunned and amazed. It just bent in my hand. I've never seen anything like it. It takes a lot to impress me. Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn't recognize that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person.

REV. Mark Townsend:

Uri Geller's inspiration has been immense throughout this span of years, but back at the beginning of my journey I never thought I'd one day have the privilege of meeting him - let alone performing my own 'magic' in his own home on a radio show! The man is a major influence and true mentor. He is a man of mystery who has maintained the power of his persona throughout his career, even after some harsh criticsim from those within my own 'stage magic' world. His performances continue to lead people into the long lost world of enchantment and wonder - and I say we need MORE of that not less. And, let me say this, as one who does performs mentalism and mind magic (and therefore knows the secrets) I was shocked, amazed and delighted by the genuine mysteries I encountered in his presence.

Drew McAdam:

I have seen Uri do things that, even as a mentalist and amateur conjuror of some 30 years, I cannot explain. I know how mind-magicians obtain the effects they do... I know the illusionist's mechanics of producing so-called psychic effects that look incredibly convincing to the layman. However, I can categorically say that Uri Geller uses none of these methods. Quite simply, the man is a phenomenon.

Lee Earle:

Geller has shown us that the limits of our understanding are not the limits of all there is to understand.

Barrie Richardson:

Some of the self-called “greatest magicians” should desperately try to become Uri’s pupils. From him they could learn how to produce effect, how to accomplish miracles! One can talk and think differently about Uri Geller. But one can’t bypass one fact: The “boy” has ideas – ideas that once changed many people’s, many scientists’ and even some conjurors’ way of thinking. And through his ideas he influenced the conjurors’-tricks scene in many a way. (Uri und die Zeitmaschine / Uri and the time-machine, Magische Welt, Vol. 40, Nr. 3, September 1991. 243-244)

Clifford Davis:

Any worthwhile magician could perform similar feats, but it would be trickery. Uri must be genuine...Anyone performing feats like this under such conditions cannot be a fake. Uri has stood up to thirteen laboratory tests in the United States. It shows that in rare cases the power of the mind can move or even bend inanimate objects. (Daily Mirror 1974)

David Ben:

When I think of Uri Geller and his spoon-bending today, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief. Because I still believe in the mysterious, that it’s possible that these things may happen. (Interviewed on Heroes of Magic Channel Four television. December 2000 )

Scientists:

Dr Edgar D. Mitchell S.C.D. Apollo 14 Astronaut.6th man to walk on the moon:

I was in Scientific laboratories at Stanford Research Institute investigating a rather amazing individual Uri Geller. Uri's ability to perform amazing feats of mental wizardry is known the world over. We in Science are just now catching up and understanding what you can do with exercise and proper practice. Uri is Not a magician. He is using capabilities that we all have and can develop with exercise and practice.

After the Geller work, I was asked to brief the director of the CIA, Ambassador George Bush (Later to become President of the United States), on our activities and the results. In later years during the Brezhnev period, I met with several Russian scientists who not only had documented results similar to ours, but were actively using "psychic" techniques against the U.S. and its allies.

Professor Gerald Schroeder:

Uri appears to have concentrated energy. What makes me accept Geller at face value is that unlike a magician, he does not have a bag of tricks. He bends spoons. The one he bent with me peering over his shoulder continued to bend even after he placed it on the ground and stepped away. The Talmud claims there are two types of "magic." One is the "catching of the eye," an optical illusion. The other is the real thing, a mustering of the forces of nature. With Uri, I opt for the latter, though he claims he has no idea how these are mustered.

Dr Wilbur Franklin. Physics Department, Kent State University - U.S.A.:

The evidence based on metallurgical analysis of fractured surfaces (produced by Geller) indicates that a paranormal influence must have been operative in the formation of the fractures.

Dr Friedbert Karger. Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Munich, Germany:

Based on preliminary investigations of Uri, I cannot establish fraud. The powers of this man are a phenomenon which theoretical physics cannot yet explain.

Dr Edward W Bastin:

Geller asked me to put my hand over a spoon supplied by me, we could all see the spoon clearly. Geller then put his own hand over mine and began concentrating. It was just as he stopped that we all saw the handle of the spoon begin to distort.

For more, see http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page18.htm

Moondial (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias in article?

I'm about 1/3-way (over 100 pages) through reading Geller's 1975 autobiography, and I also read an article about him from a Time book called Mind Over Matter. I'm concerned that this short Wikipedia article may be a little biased, specifically because it doesn't include a lot of info I've read about Geller, especially from the early period of Geller's career as a psychic.

I long dismissed Geller as pretty patently a fraud (although in the mid-'70s, when Geller achieved his fame, I wasn't even born yet) just because the mainstream media seemed to portray him so uniformly in that manner. For most of my life, I was never much more interested in paranormal stuff than your average person, so I never bothered to look into it. However, I recently have begun reading some books on psychic phenomena by supporters who take a more science-based point of view to it-- these are books that are written by professional scientists and psychologists and the like, and don't start out from the very first page of the introduction with a lot of stuff about angels, near-death-experiences, UFOs, and a lot of mystical or pseudo-Christian fluff. Their books avoid fluff, and are instead concerned mostly with the results of university and think-tank funded lab experiments, statistical analysis, the experimental methodology, and theories to explain how psychic phenomena may operate. In the course of getting inot this reading, I was surprised to discover that some scientists who have had long careers doing this research in the most scientific, rigorous kind of way that probably exists in the world today had actually done tests with Geller back in the '70s. I was surprised not only that they mentioned him in their books (although typically with only a single sentence), but that some of these references made no mention of the efforts or success of any skeptics to debunk Geller.

I don't believe in psychic powers, but I find the debate, and the fact that so there are in fact so many scientists investigating this, interesting. After coming across a few of the more positive mentions of Geller in these books by the more-sane-sounding of the believers in psychic phenomena, I decided to check out more info on Geller, including his autobiography. The book, right from the beginning, includes a few of Geller's accounts of his performing successfully on radio and television shows in Europe in the mid-'70s. These anecdotes usually end with the local newspapers all giving him front-page coverage the day after his performance, because at that time, supposedly a lot of weird phenomena would occur in the homes of listeners and viewers of the shows he was on when he would appeal to them to concentrate with him. These people allegedly called into the shows to report what happened, and supposedly it became a big sensation. Besides Geller's book, I've also seen these stories recounted in another book that was published by the editors of Time magazine. If the story is true that all this happened, that makes the Geller story a lot more interesting, and it would be pretty easy to verify, because the newspaper stories described in Geller's book would be out there on electronic archive and microfilm collections. However, this Wikipedia article doesn't include the information about those performances and newspaper coverage-- mostly it's just about Geller acting goofy and screwing up in the 1990s and 2000s.

From what I've read so far, it seems that Geller's career can be broadly divided up into two periods: In the first period, he was repeatedly (over a period of years) being requested (and paid) to perform on radio and TV shows (sometimes very popular ones) all over the world, as well as performing in labs supervised by teams of scientists working with strict controls, and he performed often to the satisfaction of these scientists and TV/radio audiences. He also defied skeptics and critics. And he wrote an autobiography that seems humble and down-to-earth enough, and seems like basically what a normal, non-flaky person would write if he just happened to be able to do psychic feats and wanted to write a book about it. The second period of his career seems to be a marked contrast: during that period (the period reported detailedly in this wikipedia article), instead of astounding and amazing all sorts of people again and again, impressing even the most sophisticated of observers, except for a handful of publications who seemed not to like him, and magicians who (according to Geller) refused to try to show how he could have gotten away with doing his stunts under lab conditions, Geller is making a total fool of himself, failing not just obviously but in ridiculous, dorky ways, vouching for Michael Jackson, and so on. While he used to be someone that celebrities like Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Carter wanted to meet and talk to, he's become someone one may even want to feel a little sorry for. If more of the info about Geller's early career were included (that is, if the description I give of it, based on Geller's autobiography and one or two other sources is correct), than it seems the marked contrast between his early career and his later career would show very clearly in this article, and would seem in many ways to be the main story, or one of the main stories, of his life. I don't claim that it would prove that psychic powers are real or anything like that, but it would be a very interesting insight into this person. For instance, maybe it would point to some very big influence in Geller's life that has resulted in him making a very different impression on the world beginning at a certain point. 173.3.113.155 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Swan

I agree that there is a lot of bias in the article, for me it reads as the "James Randi's opinion on Uri Geller." There are 11 references from Randi in the article, and 52 mentions of him in total - so I get the impression that this article is more about James Randi than anything else. And yes, there is a heck of a lot that is missing, but I don't think there's any point us just complaining about that - if we think it's missing something then it's up to us to add it.

There is a vast number of things that could be included in the article, all very easy to verify, but I disagree that later events are all about him "goofing" or that he needs feeling sorry for. From what I can gather he is very happy - and as busy as he has ever been, with recent TV shows in France, Holland, Germany, Japan & a new series of The Successor just starting in Greece. He's constantly in the press, and not just about Michael Jackson, authors & movie producers are still taking reference from his life in books & movies - he's writing books, designing jewelry, travelling all over the world - I personally cannot see what there is to feel sorry for - and if you feel sorry for someone with a life like this, then Wow, you must be living it up!! ;-) Moondial (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:V

Moondial, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability. It is not our job to prove or disprove information contained in a reliable source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You have repeatedly attempted to justify removing an indisputably reliable source by suggesting that you have disproven the information. Your justification for removing sourced material is out of the bounds of Wikipedia's editorial policies. — e. ripley\^talk 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. This has been part of an ongoing discussion, in which it has been agreed that the USA today article is incorrect, and for this reason I do not beleive USA today to be RS. It is a badly sourced associated press article which has been posted on the USA today blog.

You may want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. This argument is very obviously a 2 sided one, common sense tells us that with a video like this, interpretation is completely down to the opinion of the viewer, as it shows NOTHING clearly, other than the fact that he touches his thumb, therefore it is our job to neutrally describe both sides of an obviously 2 sided debate, not to take one side as fact, especially not when the source is an associated press article posted on a blog, that we have already agreed is incorrect. Moondial (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been no agreement that I can see that the USA Today link (which reposts an AP article) is incorrect. AP is certainly a reliable source. If you have a reliable source that refutes that there is a magnet present in this video, we can consider adding it as a contrasting view. Do you have such a thing? — e. ripley\^talk 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already spent quite some time arguing about this, I'm not prepared to now have the same argument with you. Moondial (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you have posted a refutation from something called "American Chronicle." Okay, now editors must decide whether or not this can be considered a reliable source for our purposes. The author's name is Peter Fotis Kapnistos, and he appears to write quite a bit on UFO phenomena [14]. We must be careful of undue weight. Is this person notable enough or enough of an expert that Wikipedia should consider his opinion valid for the purposes of the article? — e. ripley\^talk 02:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who the editor is, American Chronicle IS a reliable source. Your concern appears to be with the article, and the author of the article, not with the reliability of the source. No matter what your opinion is on this author, what matters is whether or not the source is reliable - and I cannot see any reason that AC can be seen as anything other than RS. Moondial (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I do not find it to be a reliable source. It seems to be reposted wire stories seeded with stories ripped right out of UFO Digest. It has no information about what it is or who runs it, its editorial structure or anything else that would make me think it adheres to any sort of editorial rigor at all. — e. ripley\^talk 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This story isn't ripped from UFO digest, it tells you the source of the article, and it's not UFO digest. We could also say that USA today "rips" articles from the associated press.

I'm afraid it is in fact ripped from UFO Digest. The reposted story is properly sourced to UFO Digest, since that's where it appears to have been originally published. The American Chronicle link seems to me to be simply reposted from UFO Digest, which makes the debate over American Chronicle's reliability as a source moot. Similarly, we would not source the USA Today's reposting of an AP article to USA Today; rather, it would be properly sourced to AP -- which is also a reliable source. — e. ripley\^talk 02:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

American Chronicle shows the source of the article, and it's not UFO today. The original source of the article, is the authors own website, BLACKRAISER.COM Moondial (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As for no info about who runs it, how about the link at the bottom of each page that tells you who runs it? ULTIO, LLC. Click on that link & you get their address. One click from the home page gets you to their editorial board contributor policy - and the mailing address, and email address of the managing editor.

American Chronicle has been online over 5 years, I've just checked & they have over 300,000 pages cached on Google, so it's not as if they've just popped up. I agree this doesn't mean it's an RS, but personally I can't see any reason why it isn't RS, especially seeing as it has been used as source in other Wikipedia articles.

• interpolated by User:Moondial, without signing or dating — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wwhat might be appropriate in one article (and I make no judgment about whether or not American Chronicle is appropriate as sourcing in another article) can't be used to argue what is appropriate in another article. — e. ripley\^talk 02:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean this quote, at the bottom of every page?

This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content. In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates. All services and information provided on this website are provided as general information only. Any medical advice, home remedies and all other medical information on this website should not be treated as a substitute for the medical advice of your own doctor. We are not responsible for any diagnosis of treatment made by anyone based on any of the content of this website. Always consult your own doctor if you are in any way concerned about your health.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean the "Ultio, LLC" link at the bottom of each page which gives the info that E.Riplay claimed was not available. Also, the "help" link in the navigation provides this info.

It really doesn't matter now, consensus is reached, I believe.Moondial (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This same article was posted on "UFO Digest." In fact, a lot of UFO Digest's articles seem to be reposted here, in a format I'm guessing is deliberately designed to make it look more credible. Since Uri Geller himself refuted it, and these sources are questionable, I do not find this article to be appropriate for inclusion. — e. ripley\^talk 18:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite normal for an article to be picked up by other publications - but just because UFO digest are re-publishing these article, doesn't change the fact that American Chronicle is RS. Moondial (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence that the American Chronicle is reliable. Please recheck before adding. We know that USA Today is reliable, although they can, of course, be mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the author of that article is reliable per se, but evidence would need to be provided here on this talk page. It's still questionable, as the article accuses Randi of lying, which would could not state as fact in Wikipedia, even if the author were a reliable source. However, the line "I´m sorry to report that after I posted my video analysis results on Wikipedia…" (from the AC article) suggests that you, Moondial, are that author, and hence you may not add the reference to a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, no, I am not the Author Peter Fotis Kapnistos, and I'm surprised Arthur, that as a mathematician you can't work out that this can’t be me – seeing as the article is submitted to American Chronicle in Feb of this year, and I did not begin editing this article until August.

With regards to the article saying that Randi lied, I've just read it & I'm not sure what you mean, are you referring to : "Not long ago, "Discover" magazine published a short interview with James Randi in which Uri Geller was pointlessly mocked before Israel´s Knesset, referring to derogatory statements that were false. In its most recent issue, "Discover" printed a formal apology to Geller (although you might need a magnifying glass to see it)." ?

Anyway, previously - when discussing the USA today article, in which I stated that the article was full of holes & that the author was unknown - I was repetedly told that this doesn't matter, that what matters is whether the source of the material is reliable.

Therefore - regardless of what this article says about Randi that you may not like (please do try to remember that this article is NOT about James Randi, it's about Uri Geller!) what matters is whether ot not American Chronicle is a reliable source, and I cannot see why not - it has been used as source in other Wikipedia articles, for example Warren G. Harding. Moondial (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the author of the article, Peter Fotis Kapnistos, who you insinuated was myself, is Fkapnist I have looked through the discussion page and he has participated in the discussion here a few times. Moondial (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding tagged; as he's not alive, immediate removal is not required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, what is appropriate for one article is not necessarily appropriate for another. In this case, I find the sourcing inadequate. — e. ripley\^talk 02:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your request for more evidence to be provided that the author is reliable:

Peter Fotis Kapnistos is an American journalist, editor, and publisher now residing in the Eastern Mediterranean islands. After a career in fashion and advertising photography, Peter turned to photojournalism. He was editor for the "Athens News," Greece's oldest English-language daily newspaper. In cooperation with the Associated Press and Apple computers, he later oversaw the production of "Greece Today," one of the first direct online English-language desktop-published tabloids in the Near East.

Peter helped to introduce public access to the Internet in the eastern Aegean islands by establishing a number of Internet Cafes there. He currently writes code for various websites and lives in the Patmos group of islands.

From : http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/3800

Moondial (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This "publication" also sells itself to potential writers by saying Writers may regularly submit their work on a variety of subjects to gain exposure for themselves as experts in their fields or to refer employers to professionally published examples of their writing to obtain positions as full-time, freelance, or syndicated columnists. [15]. To me, it's barely a step above a self-published source or vanity press, which is almost always prohibited by WP:RS, except when referencing someone's opinions about themselves. — e. ripley\^talk 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

American Chronicle is not RS. Anyone can get published there, and they explicitly say that "This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here." I know someone who writes articles there to give everyone the impression that he has a career as a "media and foreign affairs analyst", rather than an internet connection and too much time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Moondial (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Compass Video - Controversial performances

This part of the article is still heavily biased. And any edits I make are being reverted despite the fact that I have cited a reliable source.

We cannot state "Geller was clearly caught cheating" or "caught putting a magnet on his thumb" as this is clearly taking one side of the debate.

The American Chronicles article is a very well documented article with still frames to back up each point - the USA today article is purely the unsupported spouting of an unknown author, in an associated press article which has been posted on the USA today blog.

I propose that we keep NPOV, by showing both view points, and leaving in both sources - so the viewr can make up their own mind. It is not up to us as editors to take sides, and it's certainly not up to us to completely ignore one side of the debate and only discuss the side that we happen to agree with due to our own beliefs.Moondial (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to bring to your attention previous discussions on this page about this same matter nearly a year ago. See “NPOV Issue” above.Moondial (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's clear up the sourcing matter. It's an AP article. Period. Doesn't matter whether USA Today reposted it or not, the source of the article is AP. That's AP's job, it's a wire service; other publications pick up their articles and run them. Trying to suggest the source is inappropriate because it's been reposted by another perfectly legitimate news organization is a little silly. It's also silly trying to besmirch AP as a source because it doesn't list an author; wire service articles often list no byline as a matter of course.

I agree that the article here should not definitively say that Geller was caught with a magnet on his thumb (I viewed the video and while I personally feel his actions are suspect, we can't say that definitively). Rather, some critics say he was caught with a magnet, which he disputes. I inserted just such couching language, but it's been obliterated in the edit warring. — e. ripley\^talk 02:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One other note: American Chronicle is not an appropriate source and I will revert its inclusion. However, we don't need it to stake out the opposite side in this matter, really, since Geller did himself. — e. ripley\^talk 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My point about the USA today article was in reply to your comment that American Chronicles wasn't RS because it publishes material from other sources, so I was merely pointing out that the same is true of USA today.

I think you misunderstood me, I said "unknown author" - the author is listed, yet he is not a known author. And I only mentioned this, because you seem to be placing an importance on how well known the author is who wrote the atricle on American Chronicle.

OK - so we have reached consensus. I have edited accordingly. Moondial (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your focus was slightly off and I have restored the version I used originally. — e. ripley\^talk 12:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, your version is fine, it's NPOV, this is all I was asking for. Moondial (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of Jonathan Margolis

Arthur Rubin has requested that we verify the credibility of Jonathan Margolis.

Margolis is a very experienced, award winning journalist and author, who writes for many UK newspapers including The Guardian, the Financial Times magazine, The Mail on Sunday, Time Magazine and the Daily Mirror.

He is also a very successful author of biographies, including:

The Big Yin: Life and Times of Billy Connolly

Bernard Manning: A Biography

Cleese Encounters (John Cleese)

Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?

Freddie Star Ate My Hamster

Lenny Henry

Michael Palin

http://www.incword.com/the_writers.php?wid=78333b7c-c273-102a-8694-ece8c2162578:

One of Britain's most sought after freelance feature writers, Jonathan writes regularly for The Guardian, the Financial Times magazine, The Mail on Sunday, Time Magazine and the Daily Mirror. He is also a successful author of biographies (John Cleese, Billy Connolly and others) and, more recently, popular science books, including a history of futurology and, this year, a history of the orgasm.

http://www.londonspeakerbureau.co.uk/Jonathan_Margolis.aspx:

Jonathan Margolis has established a national and international reputation for writing (and more recently, speaking) in an informed and extremely witty, accessible style on a variety of topics of interest to business audiences, from technology to modern cultural issues.

As a journalist, he writes both for popular and broadsheet newspapers. He appears principally in The Independent, the Financial Times’ ‘How To Spend It’ magazine, the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday and is a frequent contributor to TIME magazine, the Reader’s Digest and Red magazine. He has won a clutch of journalism awards in Britain and was nominated for two US journalism awards for his nine-page TIME cover story on reconstructive surgery by British doctors which rebuilt the face of a young Kosovo Albanian man after it was destroyed by a Serb militiaman’s point blank shot.

Jonathan is an accomplished and polished TV and radio guest, appearing frequently on Radio 4 and 5, RTE, BBC TV, Channel 4 and Sky TV. He wrote and produced a 50-minute 1998 Channel 4 / National Geographic documentary on the race between amateur rocket scientists in the US, UK and Australia to get the first home-made spacecraft into orbit.

He has given talks to university societies at both Oxford and Cambridge, at the think tank Demos, where he spoke at London Calling, a symposium sponsored by Vodafone and Orange on how mobile technologies will transform our capital city.

Arthur - your comment was Verify credibility of _Martgolis_; I think it's clearly incredible (i.e., not reliable), but others may differ

With all due respect, I can't quite understand why you thought it was clearly incredible? Just putting his name into Google would have alerted you to the fact that this guy is one of the most prominent biography writers in the UK, and one of the most saught after feature writers. Moondial (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this book in your possession? Does Margolis have any footnoting to indicate whether he attempted to source the Freud claim to something other than Uri Geller? I'm curious because it seems that this has been disputed in some circles. — e. ripley\^talk 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have the book in front of me. No footnoting - however Margolis (as noted above) as a very experienced biography writer & journalist, so I doubt that he will have published anything that he hasn't researched himself. It does appear that he has done a heck of leg work - as you would expect from someone like this. He actually went to Israel (and other parts of the world) and interviewed a great number of people. It's very doubtful that Margolis would have taken much from Uri Geller himself, in my humble opinion, without finding his own source, as Margolis makes it quite clear from the outset that he is skeptical.Moondial (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, the publisher is not a reliable source, nor is there any indication that the publisher exercised editorial control, so the book is not allowable for claims of fact in an article about a living person, per WP:BLP#Reliable sources. If Margolis is an expert, it would be allowable toward his opinion about Geller, and that opinion might be notable.

The same applies to Randi's claims as to what Geller did; but would allowable toward Randi's expert opinion about what Geller might have done.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the book specifically, can anybody point me to where someone notable has disputed this claim? — e. ripley\^talk 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this right Arthur - you are trying to say that this book, a biography of Uri Geller, written by one of the most successul & most well respected biography writers & award winning journalists in the UK, a guy who has written articles for time magazine that have won him awards in the states, cannot be considered a reliable source? Yet, you have defended the reliability of IMDB to which anyone can contribute, James Randi's blog in which "a friend told me" is apparently his version of editorial control... a USA today article which you admitted was incorrect in some parts (but it was OK, because USA today is RS)... Arthur, lets be honest here - it really doesn't matter what the source is, if it's contrary to your opinion (or Randi's, they seem to be one & the same) you are going to fight tooth & nail to not allow it to be considered RS. When faced with the fact that this guy IS extremely reliable, you're now turning to the publisher as potentially unreliable - but you're incorrect there too. Orion media is one of the leading book publishers in the UK : http://www.orionbooks.co.uk they're not some backstreet publisher who will publish poorly sourced material. I cannot agree for one second that this book, this author or this publisher can be considered as non RS, and I think you're really clutching at straws here.Moondial (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that this book was already being used as source for this article, and this had not been challenged before, until I added it as source in reference to Geller's relation to Sigmund Freud, which Arthur Rubin had previously challenged. Also, I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that he is a distant relative of Sigmund Freud, his last name is Geller-Freud, and I'm not quite sure what he would gain by stating that he's a distant relative if he isn't? No one is saying he was his grandfather.Moondial (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say. He has traded on it a bit and mentioned it in interviews quite a lot. In associating himself with someone of such renown when it comes to the mind and psyche, perhaps he is hoping to add to his own gravitas. I am somewhat torn on whether this is an appropriate source for such a fact. While I don't necessarily doubt the credentials of the author or its publisher per se, biographies are not the most scupulously-sourced works, and not having seen what sort of footnoting this book contains or how rigorously researched it seems, it's difficult for me to judge. You might want to put this to folks at the reliable sources noticeboard and get their thoughts. — e. ripley\^talk 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine - I see what you're saying. But Arthur Rubin has tagged the other citations to the Margolis book as potentially unreliable. It appears that he is questioning the reliablility of this book period, not just for the relation to Sigmund Freud.Moondial (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what the noticeboard is -- determining whether or not sources can be considered reliable. Of course everything has to be taken in context. One source may be reliable for one article, but not for another, for instance. But that's what the noticeboard is for. — e. ripley\^talk 21:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but this book was being used in this article as source previously, and no one had a problem with that, it's only since it was used as source for the relationship to Freud. And - if we need to go to the noticeboard to agree on the reliablity of this book, then I think we have to do the same with just about every single source used for this article - as this book, as far as I can see, is the most reliable, and well researched source in this article. The Randi references certainly need to be questioned. Moondial (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't exist in a vacuum. Just because something has been inside an article forever doesn't mean it ought to have been. I found a racial slur hidden in an article the other day; could've been there for years. Should I have left it just because it had been there for a while ? Of course not. Randi is a well-known debunker and he's fine as a source, as long as he is presented as an opinion, rather than a fact, about something. In other words, Randi believes Geller is a fake. Not, Geller is a fake (source Randi). One of the reasons this source is coming in for extra scrutiny is because you are using it to source what is portrayed in the article an absolute fact about a living person, not an opinion about something. — e. ripley\^talk 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Randi is fine as a source. You're saying here that this book, written by an award winning journalist & author, one of the most successful & most saught after writers in the UK, and published by one of the leading UK publishing companies, is potentially unreliable source - yet James Randi, who HATES Uri Geller with a Passion, and who stated in an open letter in 1974 that he was setting out to destroy Geller's career, and who has stalked Geller with sinister letters for decades, and who's idea of a footnote is "a friend told me," and who has been previously convicted in a court of law in the US for defamation, is reliable source? I really don't get it. Also, much of Randi's work is self published, and I think he's mentioned too much in this article for him to be an appropriate source.

Also, you seem to be saying that because the book is being used as source for one fact, that it should be questioned as a source entirely, not just as an appropriate source for this fact about a living person? Moondial (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pulling back over here for readability's sake. Randi is a fine source for citing information about Randi's opinions about people who make certain paranormal claims. I haven't proposed using Randi as a source for any facts. Of course as always we must be careful of undue weight, as with anything else. Whether he is mentioned too much or not, I take no position as I haven't examined it closely enough although I do think the article needs serious work, generally speaking. You'll note that I also take no position about the appropriateness of using Margolis as a source for a fact about Geller's life. That leaves us at a standstill, one for, one against, one abstain. That is why it would be useful to put the question about Margolis to the broader community on the noticeboard as I suggested. That's all I have to say on this, I am not here to re-argue all your grudges about this article in this space. Let's resolve this question first, then move on to others. — e. ripley\^talk 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll post the question to the noticeboard, just to get this started. — e. ripley\^talk 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you did that, I was concerned it was going to end up one word thick ;-). OK, but the same person who is now saying that this book is not a reliable source, previously argued that Randi was a reliable source for fact. The James Randi blog was previously a source for the statement which said that Uri Geller's birth name was György Geller. Arthur Rubin previously argued that this was a reliable source, despite the fact that Randi's footnotes were that a friend had told him. He then argued that IMDB was a reliable source for this fact about a living person, regardless of the fact that IMDB is a publicly edited. He even stated that he would not take a copy of Geller's birth certificate as fact, insinuating that it would be faked. Can you not see where I'm coming from? Anyway - yes, I can see what you mean with regards the question of a source when it relates to a fact about a living person. But I don't agree that we should question the source of this book completely just because it has been used as source for this one fact about a living person. Yes I appreciate you're playing piggy-in-the-middle to a certain degree. Moondial (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)