Talk:James Randi/Archive 2

JREF link
The article contains a link to James Randi Educational Foundation, but that just redirects back to this article. So either it needs to be unlinked, or there needs to be at least a stub at James Randi Educational Foundation. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. How's it look now? -- Krash (Talk) 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

"Nature" and Dr. Jacques Benveniste (1988)
Part of Randi's fame in the scientific skeptic community: http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html There are many references. -Wfaxon 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

(forgive me if I'm being dense?)

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


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

Is Breatharianism the correct term here? I changed it to "water fasting" but it was changed back. Correct me if I am wrong, but Breatharianmism refers to surviving solely on air. mapetite526
 * I guess you are right; breatharianism often does imply no water too. But water fasting doesn't imply long-term survival. How about Inedia (which Breatharianism actually currently redirects to)? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with Inedia. mapetite526

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


 * Sex Tapes Scandal


 * - James Randi, was involved in a scandal in which, according to court records states: "The scientist's lawyers sought to discredit Mr. Randi by playing taped conversations of teen-age boys who called the magician's home allegedly for sex."
 * - [ Byrd v Randi (Civil Action No. MJG-89-636 in the United States District for the Court for the District of Maryland.] Transcripts of the tape are also part of the court record in Geller v Randi, (Civil Action No 91-1014-SSH in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The transcripts are contained in Exhibit 40 to Exhibit U]. In court Randi admitted that the tapes were real.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

From: MCGARRAH%CITADEL1.BITNET@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu Subject: Psychic powers

(From Dennis Owens, the morning drive-time host of WGMS (radio)in Washington, DC)

"All of you out there who believe in telepathy, raise your hand." "All right. Now, everyone who believes in telekinesis...raise MY hand."
 * It seems to have made some joke databases at the time. --Alvestrand 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


 * Yes, and when he wears a red suit and cap, he reveals yet another one of his secret identities, especially in late December. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not funny, guys. Look at their respective article's pictures. It looks like someone took the Pratchett pic, rotated it, and changed the subject's outfit. Personally, I'm surprised that Dan Brown (the name that I'm currently using for Randi/Pratchett until I figure out what his real name is) didn't bother to dye his hair.


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


 * One interesting network phenomenon: If you search for that phrase on Google, you're inundated with hits, but it turns out that most of them are quotes from the Wikipedia articles. So much for fame... --Alvestrand 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: After scanning WP:RS, I am still of the opinion that linking to the email & JREF forum postings is a service to the community. Their proven reliability is, of course, not the best, but their existence is a fact. --Alvestrand 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Could someone reword this paragraph as I don't really understand what happened as it stands at the moment, but I'd like to. In what way did he orchestrate it/compromise the experiment? Merkinsmum 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details, but Randi basically sent agents into the experiment, after instructing them how to fake 'psychic' abilities. He did this for several years without any of them being caught and then revealed what he had done. Michaelbusch 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a youtube video that sorta shows a bit of project alpha hoax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1S5CRcqJQo And here's Skepdic's article on it: http://skepdic.com/projectalpha.html I'll go band and reword the paragraph. --Havermayer 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We happen to have a good article on this at Project Alpha. Michaelbusch 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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


 * The truth, I suspect, is a little less elevating. James Randi, I believe, wanted to be part of the Geller roadshow, not a disgruntled customer heckling from the back row. My evidence for this is a series of extraordinary letters he wrote Uri between February 1975, when he was coming to the end of writing The Magic of Uri Geller, and February 1998. The first was almost a fan letter: 'I make no secret of the fact that I consider you to be one of the finest performers that I've ever seen. Your demeanour, your mechanical skill and your psychological handling of the most difficult situations has evoked great admiration on my part,' Randi wrote. He went on to claim that he 'really' understood how Geller did his effects and pleaded for a secret meeting of the two men - to save Geller from certain ruination.
 * Geller ignored the letter, and another followed in July 1975, this time more threatening. Geller again ignored it. Five years later, Randi wrote again, flattering once more - 'You are a charming, witty, presentable and clever performer, experienced and tempered in showbusiness, You have all the charisma and chutzpah needed to become the greatest illusionist of this age' - and pleading still for a meeting. There followed 14 years of silence, after which arrived at Geller's house in England a 13-page, close-typed, rant, amounting to 7,000 words of venom and reading like a fully-fledged stalker's letter. It began, simply 'Geller:' and went on to suggest strongly Randi had been gathering intelligence not just from press cuttings, but on the Geller children and Geller's financial affairs. Most of the letter, however, was sheer insult, along with the promise Randi had been making since 1975 that Geller would never amount to anything, and end up, 'miserable, alcoholic, friendless, drug-crazed and disgraced.' Before signing off with 'I leave you to your kismet.' Randi warned that if Geller used any part of the letter in any way, he would 'make the entire document available'. Bemused to hear from Randi after so many years, Geller saved his 70 year-old foe the postage, and sent copies to anyone who requested one.
 * --Alvestrand 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Disinformation Department
I've removed a statement (actually two) about Randi working for the "Disinformation Department"; specifically:
 * Randi works for the Disinformation Department in the (U.S.)Department of Defense-high level research projects. He started working there in 1973.citation:Reality Hackers Magazine 1988

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

biography to be printed?
I heard that there was a biography of Randi to be printed, somehow related or commissioned by Penn and Teller. Perhaps written by them. Does anyone know any details? Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Penn and Teller commisioned the book. Someone I know was contacted/interveiwed by a woman author regarding it. Don't know if P&T are involved as the main authors and she as a "with" credit (all the legwork, since they're too busy performing) or if Randi will claim main credit. I think Mr. Randi mentioned it in his Commentary last year, don't as me the date. 5Q5 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Is this some sort of WP:POINT violation? I find it nigh inconceivable that the arbitration committee would demand that we remove a link to the main page of James Randi's website from James Randi, and even more inconceivable that they would ban contributers for adding said link to said page without making it explicitly clear that they would do so.--Prosfilaes 13:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Linking to websites with criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be forbidden even if authored and maintained by the subject. See talk:Robert Priddy I will file every contributor who adds the homepage of James Randi to the article James Randi at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Not because I agree with this kind of reasoning, but exactly the same kind of reasoning is applied on Robert Priddy and I would like to hear a general principle about this without making exceptions to specific articles. I already filed user:Skollur there for posssible violation of the arbcom decision when s/he added a link to the wenbsite of the Indian Skeptic in the article Indian CSICOP. You may be banned for a period of time if the arbcom (or its clerks) decides  that adding the homepages of James Randi to the article Jamws Randi constitutes a violation of the arbcom decision. I was banned for one month for adding one of the homepages of Robert Priddy to the article Robert Priddy.  Andries 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, are you not misinterpreting the judgment you quote? As I read it, it is quite clear: Any information in an article which criticises Sathya Sai Baba may be removed if the source for the article is poor. It does not say, and it is a quite bizarre interpretation, that any source which at some point criticises Sathya Sai Baba may be removed from any article. The point is that the article on James Randi does not even mention Sathya Sai Baba. How any arbitration ruling on sources concerning Sathya Sai Baba could be relevant on this article is really beyond me. Sam Blacketer 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cited the wrong remedy. Here is the correct just above it that is applicable for this article. From []
 * "Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)."
 * Andries 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you don't seem to have understood what I was saying. That finding does not give you or anyone else carte blanche to remove any and all links from any and all articles, merely because the site linked to happens to contain accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba. It only comes into play where an article itself includes this negative information, or a report of it. Sam Blacketer 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer, your interpretation is incorrect and not the way I or arbitration clerks have understood it. Again, I have been banned for one month only for adding a an external link critical of Sathya Sai Baba to the article Robert Priddy, though the external link was authored and maintained by the subject! It will be clear that I do not agree with this interpretation of the arbcom decision, but I will nevertheless file any contributor who adds the homepage of James Randi to the article James Randi at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement to enable arbcom clerks to make a decision about this. They will hopefully give some more clarity to me and the community about what is allowed and what is not. I believe that we will all benefit from clarity about what is allowed and what not. Andries 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you've been blocked unfairly, then I'm sorry for you, but I don't think that you will get anywhere by trying to get people indefinitely blocked for adding a relevant link. It looks very like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The case of Robert Priddy is quite different: his notability is derived from writing a book critical of Sathya Sai Baba. His article naturally includes a lot of information concerning Sathya Sai Baba. James Randi's article contains none. Sam Blacketer 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit that my request to the arbcom to have contributors here indefinitely blocked for following generally accepted Wikipedia practices possibly violating the arbcom decision was sarcastic. I think that the worst that can happen to contributors here is that they will receive a warning on the first offense. Nevertheless, I am serious about the similarities between the articles Robert Priddy and James Randi in this respect, because they have both external links authored by the subject that contain criticism of Sathya Sai Baba that may be poorly sourced. Andries 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I deny that my warning here is a violation of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If I wanted to make a point then I would have removed the homepage of James Randi from this article citing the arbcom decision. Instead I will only file contributors here for possible violating of the arbcom decision by linking to the homepage of James Randi to enable the arbcom members to make a decision about what is allowed and what not, because this is totally unclear to me now. We will all benefit from clarity regarding the rules in this respect, I believe. Andries 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * Yes, look here and scroll down to "a major revision". Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They're doing it because so far most of the people who contact them attempting to win the prize tend to be unstable people who likely have mental illnesses(who usually make up nonsensical excuses for their inability to show their 'powers' under tests) or people who are simply trying to make a joke of some kind. Such as "magical vanishing poo" etc. In order to cut down on the workload of reviewing applications and to increase effectiveness they have decided to tighten the criteria on who can or can not apply. They are requiring those who want to apply to have some sort of 'media recognition'(a television interview, a newspaper account, some press writeup, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant.) They are also requiring applicants to have an endorsement of an academic nature (validation from an appropriately-qualified academic). Obviously people like Sylvia Browne or John Edwards or Uri Geller would fit the criteria. And even if they didn't James Randi has removed some red-tape for special cases like Sylvia in the past to make it easier and more convenient for them to take the challenge such as abolishing the "Preliminary" challenge in their distinct cases. These changes will hopefully make it easier for the challenge to get more media attention and cut down the workload of those who are forced to review dozens of applicants at a time and go through endless clarifications with them that usually last for months before they even take the challenge. Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Randi is also about 80 years old and has had some health problems. Do Browne and Edwards have the support of an academic?  Bubba73 (talk), 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * James Randi doesn't do any of the reviewing himself. He has assistants (Jeff Wagg, Formerly Kramer) who do the reviewing of applications and dealing with applicants. The log of past and present applicants can be found here [Do Browne or Edwards have support of an academic? That doesn't matter in their cases. James Randi will issue an official challenge to them on April 1st thus qualifying them for the challenge regardless of any academic support.[[User:Wikidudeman| Wikidudeman ] (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He says that he's had to cut most of his staff and move the JREF into his house. I think that it is unlikely that many of the Browne/Edwards/Geller will accept the challenge.  Browne already said that she would many moons ago, but she still hasn't done it, and I don't expect her to.  I saw John Edwards on Larry King or Glen Beck a month or two ago and he said that he wasn't going to accept any challenge from anyone who's first name was an adjective.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you hear that he cut most of his staff and moved the JREF into his house? Have a link? Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From all I have heard, I do not believe that the JREF has been downscaled at all and I believe it still retains the original office. - In regards to the Million dollar challenge. The reason that there has been a change in the rules is that, quite frankly, there has been a frustrating lack of any credible or even semi-credible applications for the challenge.  The entire application base is made up almost entirely of rather unstable individuals or those who have a great deal of trouble articulating what they want to prove or what they believe they can do.


 * You might think that high profile psychics and self-proclaimed mystics, healers or UFO buffs would be lined up to take on the challenge. No.. none.  And that's really something that has been very underwhelming for the challenge.   The foundation has tried to bend over backwards to create a fair, flexible and accommodating challenge process.  But there just aren't any serious contenders.   The challenge is designed to provide a beforehand agreement and be as binary and non-subjective as possible.  But the applications from those you might expect (Browne, Edwards, Gellar)  just aren't there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.54.230 (talk • contribs)


 * I heard an interview with him two or three months ago in which he said that (1) he was moving JREF out of its own building into his house, and (2) he was letting (I think) two of the three employees go. I don't know if it has actually happened.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * Actually reading through this entire section (Randi's Caustic Style) has me asking "Why does this deserve a special mention" especially given that it doesn't even really discuss "Randi's Caustic Style" per se. As such, I recommend that this section is reworded and integrated into the general article proper (first part into the Challenge, the other into a subsection with a relevant name under "Background".  Martin's point above is valid inasmuch as I cannot find a source that says "parapsychologists attack Randi's character".  Lots of references to "parapsychologists attacking the challenge" but none supporting the particular line.  Perhaps a better sentence under the Challenge heading would be "Parapsychologists and other critics say that Randi has set up the system..."?  Shot info 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would work. We shouldn't say that parapsychologists attack his character or are enemies without saying which ones.  But I think I would not bother to fact tag that they say he has rigged things.  They do, because it would cost more than a million to win the challenge.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They say lots of things ;-) Shot info 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. But they can't beat Randi at being mouths.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno about that one :-) Shot info 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, should be true. That's one of Randi's draws- one of the things that makes him so Amazing (:  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

discussion removed from the talk page
I don't think you are supposed to remove valid discussion from a talk page. I have no strong opinion one way or the other about the link in question. However, I did listen to the whole interview (about an hour) and I think it is good. Randi does a good job of explaining his positions, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is odd that an editor feels fit to not AGF in this regard, assume a SOCK and perform deletions...all without CONSENSUS using his interpretation of ArbCom decisions...mind you, he is probably right, but he he equally could be wrong especially with the SOCK assumption. Shot info 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How is was that post a "valid" discussion? Banning_policy reads "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves."


 * The user has 200+ sock puppets, which are solely interested in promoting himself and related-subjects. I removed an obvious spam then registers and with its first edit readds the material within hours then posts on the talk page.


 * It is normal to remove talk pages and edits by accounts adding Gastrich's links. For example, 's edit history is 1) adding Gastrich to the SAB article, 2) commenting on the talk, and 3) (without any contact from me) he left a message on my talk. This edits were reverted, and comments removed from the talk page (Note: This example is from this April 2007).


 * It is also worth noting he recently asked to be unblocked. It was denied. Arbustoo 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining all of that. Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not like it should matter when removing an edit by a user with one edit who just inserts links, but checkuser results confirmed it. Arbustoo 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew, lucky editors assumed good faith prior to the CU ... O hang on... Shot info 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot use check user for accounts that make only a few edits (in this case two) see WP:RFCU. A user with a few edits means you "Block. No checkuser is necessary." Thus, in the future get use ALL edits by spammers getting reverted. The reason this checkuser was ran was the user was dumb enough to lie to ArbCom. I suggest you learn about policy before being rude. Arbustoo 16:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem that the above is indicative of a certain behaviour. From another user's talkpage [], "An interesting essay.". Shot info 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That poster was a sock puppet too. In fact, the context of that post was me asking if that user was a sock puppet, something the person denied. Well, I was right it was a sock puppet and the person was blocked. If you have a point please make it, as of right now your continuing this for no reason. Arbustoo 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But not a sock of the other editor you are obsessing over? I'm not the one making the point here, another slightly more obsessed editor is.  Shot info 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Shows up odd on Yahoo Search (Rnadi not Randi)
This Article was showing up as: James Rnadi - Wikipedia On yahoo's search: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=james%20randi entry two. Why is this? User:rose 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Rose
 * I would guess that the article was vandalised and the search spider then updated. It will probably fix itself soon. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I looked at the info on the image, and it seemed OK to me. I know that JeffQ is a fine editor.  Maybe he can explain.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True - I'll ask on his talk page --h2g2bob (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * MAybe it is because "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid. " But that takes a few days.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the initial image?
The initial image that was released by Randi himself into the public domain seems to have been erased. Specifically this image here [] was released into the public domain by Randi via E-mail to the original uploader of the image. However the image seems to have been totally erased by the database. Not only that but other free images have been removed from this article. Can someone please elaborate? Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally belive its been done by critics of Randi and are acts of vandalism. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The image probably shouldn't be used on this page but the image itself should not be deleted because its used to show the cover of the book The Faith Healers (ISBN 0-87975-369-2) which does come under fair use --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just E-mail James Randi and he will allow you to use it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Probably because of W:RS - PhDP (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it, I read up on the article on verifiability, and the source comes from the webmaster of one of the biggest sites for psychic information before it closed (leaving an archive). -216.26.221.73 (talk • contribs).

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


 * The edits were removed because they were very clearly non-NPOV and were full of weasel words. However most importantly the sources were quite questionable and seemed to be blogs/personal webpages that contained no references themselves.Postmortemjapan 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the claims are complete rubbish. http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice find Mercifull! Maybe that can be worked into the article in someway, so as to avoid any future erroneous claims about the million dollar prize.Postmortemjapan 11:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone that contacts the JREF for proof will get a copy of that scan and you can also contact the company who is holidng the money for proof too. Those that claim the money doesnt esist are fools. It would be nice to work it into the article but someone would probably need to drop the JREF an email for permission to upload the image onto Wiki servers --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right. I don't know, I haven't investigated enough to have an informed opinon. However, I do believe that wikipedia should acknowledge all sides of an issue, and there are a lot of people providing a lot of evidence that the challenge is not what it is claimed to be. Maybe all the letters are forged, maybe it's all some huge hoax, I don't know, but I think it is wrong to imply that there is no disagreement. I would particularly emphasise that the rules he lays down for the challenge allow latitude in interpretation, and could potentially make the challenge unpassable. At the moment, it looks biased in favour of randi... and that can hardly be NPOV. 128.189.169.146 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merciful, what about the claims do you find to be "complete rubbish," exactly. Please specify. The main claims are: 1) he made a polite enqirey to JREF about the million dollars, and got an abusive reply. 2) JREF published an account of the matter, but changed the details, making themselves seem more reasonable, and inventing commentts for him that he never made. In other words, JREF lied. Kramer, Randi's former unlamented lackey, has admitted both of these allegations. And while we're on the subject, who precisely has claimed that the money doesn't exist? You claim that they are fools who say this. Can you actually cite any such statements being made by anyone? Name me three people who have claimed the money doesn't exist. 82.44.204.128 (Harry Mudd) 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To User:128.189.169.146 (Harry Mudd) [This user is NOT Harry Mudd, despite the fact that User:Harry Mudd refactored these comments and inserted his own name after the anon IP. I left it in so that several comments below would make sense] First of all, "forged letters" or any other "hoax" would constitute fraud. JREF, as a non-profit corporation, is highly regulated by the IRS. If Randi didn't have $1,000,000 held in trust as potential prize money, he wouldn't be able to make that claim for long before it was exposed by (a) the IRS, (b) one of his many enemies, or (c) the investment firm with whom he claims to have deposited the negotiable bonds (in fact, many journalists who have interviewed Randi have personally verified that the million dollars exists. Are they lying? If the $1,000,000 was a fraud, it would be very easy to expose.


 * ...there are a lot of people providing a lot of evidence that the challenge is not what it is claimed to be.(emphasis added)


 * Just one piece of actual hard evidence would be enough. Where can I find it?


 * ...the rules he lays down for the challenge allow latitude in interpretation, and could potentially make the challenge unpassable.


 * The rules allow absolutely no latitude in interpretation. The "rules" that Randi "lays down" are different for each claim and the specific experimental protocol used is developed with the claimant and must be agreed to by the claimant. For example, the claimant can either predict (or whatever else the claim may be) something correctly X times out of Y attempts, or not. Where is the "latitude"? Where is there room for interpretation? Experiments are set up to have observable, "black and white" results. I'm not doubting that the challenge is not passable (that's sort of the point —nobody has passed it because there have been no paranormal claims that have stood up basic, objective, experimental methods employed everyday in hundreds of fields. Don't blame the scientific method for the failure of paranormal claims to stand up to testing or generate any supporting empirical evidence). Some claims simply aren't testable experimentally (e.g., 'God has a fluffy white moustache') and of course those claims are rejected by JREF. The whole point of the challenge is that claimants must prove the existence of psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under controlled conditions. These conditions are agreed to in advance, with the claimant making the initial proposal and suggesting the threshold that must be reached in order for the claim to be "proved". JREF statisticians ensure that the experimental design is valid and if it is not, they work with the claimant to develop a protocol that both parties agree to. So, if the claimant can actually do what he or she claims, the test is very passable.


 * ...it looks biased in favour of randi...


 * It is not biased in favor of Randi, it is biased in favor of evidence. Both parties agree to the experimental protocol together to eliminate the possibility of bias. Not one single person has been able to prove a claim according to rules that he or she helped to develop (and agreed to in writing). Well-designed experiments are not biased. Claims can either be demonstrated to influence an observable outcome at a rate more statistically significant than chance, or they cannot. There is no gray area.


 * Wikipedia does not need to acknowledge "all sides of an issue". Articles should only mention significant views on controversial topics, without giving undue weight to tiny minority opinions. If you have evidence from a reliable source indicating that there is significant controversy regarding the veracity or fairness of the million dollar challenge (i.e., that it is "not what it claim[s] to be"), then by all means, include it in the article. By the way, the opinions of scorned former participants (which is pure sour grapes) do not constitute a reliable source (or a significant opinion, for that matter). —  DIEGO  talk 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Diego, that's a load of waffle that avoids the main points. You've gone off at a load of tangents that have nothing at all to do with anything I said. To recap, here's the main points: 1) Someone wrote to Randi asking for details of the bonds. 2) He never claimed that the bonds don't exist, he asked what type of bonds they are, when they mature, what company are they with, and things like that 3) JREF did not supply the requested information 4) They responded instead with abuse 5) they then published a false account of the correspondence, changing details in their own favour 6) Randi's assistant of the time (Kramer) admitted such in the forum, and was condemned by many Randi supporters for his admitted dishonesty. It's easy enough to find the discussion, it's come up several times. But doubtless you will say that Kramer's published admission is not "reliable."  Perhaps you would care to consider these issues.


 * Oh, and it's off topic, but I'll bite anyway. I glanced through the thread you linked to. I didn't study it in detail, I have a low tolerance for idiocy. I saw nobody claim that RANDI's $1M doesn't exist. I did see a Randi supporter claim that Victor Zammit's $1m does not exist. That is a different thing altogether.  Harry Mudd 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tangential waffles aside, the majority of my points above were directly in response to your anon posts (I even quoted the points I was responding to), so specifically what points were tangential? Whatever your "main points" were is irrelevant. You asserted specific things in your post ("a lot of evidence", "biased toward Randi", etc.) and I asked for the evidence and addressed the points that made no sense.


 * And I didn't avoid your main points. Here is how I responded to them: "Your list of "claims" does not come from a reliable source, so it is pointless to debate them". Full stop. That is not tangential or evasive — it is the actual issue. Unverifiable, contentious information has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia article. Simply repeating these ridiculous points does not lend them inherent credibility or require me to address them as if they were credible. Even if they are true (and I'm not doubting that they are true — Randi seems like he can be an pompous ass sometimes, and he is often hostile toward the paranormal). However, I went one step further and actually addressed the claim itself by writing: "Since the claim is inflammatory...[there is] a much higher burden of proof for inclusion according to Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP)." I don't care if the claim is true! It is irrelevant. Why is that so difficult to understand? If the claims aren't appropriate to put in the article, who cares? What is your point? If you believe that the $1,000,000 exists, and if (as you seem to assert) no one has said it doesn't exist, then what would the be the point of including your little "phone call to Randi/Randi is rude" anecdote? Even if it had been printed in the New York Times, it still would not be notable or germane to an encyclopedia article on Randi because it is not directly relevant to Randi's notability whether he was rude or lied on the phone. Please read WP:BLP! Even if you don't agree that this is non-notable or violates WP:BLP, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for your information (internet forums are not a reliable source in general, and especially not acceptable in support of contentious statements in a BLP).


 * And yes, the "Randi's money doesn't exist" accusations are off topic, but you brought them up. And please log in and sign any future posts with using four tildes (~) rather than refactoring anon comments. Thank you. —  DIEGO talk 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * << the majority of my points above were directly in response to your anon posts (I even quoted the points I was responding to), >> no, the things you quoted were not said by me.
 * << You asserted specific things in your post ("a lot of evidence", "biased toward Randi", etc.) >> I bloody didn't. I said no such thing. Someone else may have said those things, but don't attribute them to me.
 * <>  And that tells me everything I need to know about you. You don't care about truth. You adore Randi and dismiss everyone that doesn't share your opinion.
 * << If the claims aren't appropriate to put in the article, who cares? What is your point? >> They ARE appropriate to put in the article. The fact is that Randi is a proven liar. He is in reality an idiot, but by distorting tales he makes himself sound clever.  He tells stories of how HE defeated the "woowoos" but most of the stories he tells are distorted, or pure invention. He doesn't have the intelligence to actually do it for real. That is the main point.
 * <> MY anecdote? what the hell  makes you think it's MY anecdote? Are you assuming that I'm the guy that wrote the article? Let me assure you, I'm not him. The point of including it is to show that Randi has lied. He is a liar. He makes up stories to make himself sound clever. He isn't actually clever in reality. The basic point is, that he lies constantly, he frequently gets caught lying, and exposed as a liar, his lies have done more damage to the reputation of the sceptics than the so-called psychics, and every critical thinker should oppose him.
 * <> I don't think you understand the concept of reliability. If Kramer states in an internet forum that 2+2=5, then that is not a reliable source. But if Kramer admits lying on behalf of JREF in an internet forum, then that is a reliable source that Kramer has lied on behalf of JREF.
 * <>   Again, I did no such thing. I was responding to another poster who brought it up. It wasn't me.
 * Harry Mudd 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Harry Mudd, my post in response to the quotes you mentioned was addressed to the user who wrote them, 128.189.169.146. Someone refactored my comment and wrote "(Harry Mudd)" after the anon IP. If anon IP 128.189.169.146 was not you, and you didn't refactor my comments, then take your gripe to the editor who refactored my comments.


 * Then, in a separate (unindented) post below that comment, I responded to comments by 82.44.204.128. Again my comment was refactored and "(Harry Mudd)" was added following the anon IP. I assumed that it was you who refactored my comments, which is why I wrote ...please log in and sign any future posts with [sic] using four tildes (~) rather than refactoring anon comments." My comments, as I wrote them, were addressed directly to the users to whom I was responding. Had you read the comments carefully, you would have seen the different IP addresses, along with the different time stamps on my signatures. I did not originally attribute anything to you. Only after I thought you had taken credit for both anon posts did I attribute the statements to you. Had you noticed the (Harry Mudd) addition to my posts, you would have seen clearly why I attributed the posts to you. Someone else apparently attributed the comments of 128.189.169.146 to you. For the record, I did not think that 128.189.169.146 and 82.44.204.128 were the same person (which is why I responded with separate comments) because the writing style is different and one user seemed to have vastly more knowledge of the subject than the other.


 * Now, concerning your point. You don't have one. Did you actually read WP:BLP? Did you actually read WP:V? An internet forum is clearly a questionable source. A JREF internet forum would be considered a self-published source in the case of the James Randi article. Statements in a BLP article can only cite self-published and questionable sources if the material is not contentious and is relevant to the subject's notability. Your argument fails on both of these ground. Calling Randi a liar is indeed contentious (did Randi himself ever say "I am a liar"?) and whether or not Randi lied about a telephone conversation is not relevant to his notability. So, per Wikipedia policy, this story/claim/accusation CANNOT be included in the article. Give it up. I respect your opinion that this is important and should be included, but it is nothing more than your opinion (aka POV). Wikipedia policies and guidelines simply don't support your opinion on this. If, after actually reading WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, you believe that this material (as attributed to the sources you mentioned) should be included in the article, here are the steps that you can take: 1) try to obtain consensus on this talk page, (unlikely) 2) post an RFC notice to Requests for comment/Biographies to obtain input from disinterested outside editors regarding your proposed changes, and if that doesn't satisfy you, 3) Post your concerns at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to determine whether your proposed content violates WP:BLP. Please be constructive, assume good faith, and don't continue to repeat your points ad infinitum hoping to change peoples minds. Blunt force will get you nowhere. Most editors are quite capable of evaluating an argument on its merits in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidleines. If they don't agree with you, please accept that and don't continually try to restate your point. Thank you. —  DIEGO  talk 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Diego, you are wrong again. It would help matters if you actually posted in the correct place. You addressed your comments to me, though you intended them for someone else. Your comments were below my message, and indented. Thus it seemed as if you were replying to me. But even after I pointed out to you that I had not said those things, you kept on accusing me of saying them. You are STILL accusing me of things that I never said. Will you be told thatI responded to YOUR comments about the money "not existing."  Do you accept that your comments, as addressed to me, were wrong and inappropriate?


 * by the way, after I posted my original comment, I noticed that I wasn't logged in. So I went back and appended my name bto my post, to make it clear who posted it. Nothing sinister about it. Don't YOU go assuming bad faith.


 * As for the reliability of the link to Randi's forums, you are wrong about that too. Just consider this. The article, as it stands right at the moment contains a link to the log of challenge applications. that is currently #45 in the footnotes. Go take a look at it. The link goes to information posted by Kramer (and Randi's later lackeys) on Randi's own forums. Tell me, do YOU, Diego, consider that to be reliable?  Just be consistent. Either information posted by Kramer on Randi's forums is reliable, or it isn't. If you think it isn't, then go ahead and delete the link.   Harry Mudd 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Harry Mudd, have you actually read anything that I have said? I have never addressed comments to you intended for someone else, except those that I wrote following your refactoring of my comments by addressing them to yourself). When have I accused you of saying something that you didn't say? YOU reformatted MY comments and addressed them to yourself. I addressed each of my two initial comments to separate anon IPs. Which IP was yours? Am I correct that your IP is 82.44.204.128? If so, then the comments I addressed to 128.189.169.146 were not addressed to you (and you should not have added your name to them). You created the confusion by refactoring my comment (adding your name). My second comment was addressed to 82.44.204.128 and directly addressed the points made by 82.44.204.128. My first comment was indented under yours (if you are 82.44.204.128, at this point I'm not sure) because you made a post while I was responding to User 128.189.169.146, resulting in an edit conflict, so I pasted my comment below yours (assuming that YOU were also responding to 128.189.169.146) The fact that I prefaced my comment by specifically addressing it to an IP user (who was not you) should have clarified any confusion. I stand by each of my comments AS I ADDRESSED THEM. I did not accuse you of anything "sinister". I simply said that you should not have appended your name to a comment that was not addressed to you and that, had you been more careful, this could have been avoided. If I attributed statements to you that you did not make, it was due to your actions! As I said above, I did not assume that you were user 128.189.169.146 until your unnecessary actions (refactoring my comments) led me to believe that you were taking credit for that comment. Now please drop it. You're beating a dead horse.


 * Either information posted by Kramer on Randi's forums is reliable, or it isn't.


 * You are wrong! Please stop making arguments based on semantics and your personal rhetorical insights rather than Wikipedia policy. Will you PLEASE read WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:NPOV before posting any further comments on this issue. It is clearly possible for the same source to be acceptable in one instance and not acceptable in another. Your argument is ridiculous and demonstrates that you do not understand WP:BLP. You don't seem to understand that what "I, DIEGO, thinks" is reliable is not the point (nor is Diego's opinion on truth). It is not inconsistent to treat a source differently depending on the context. There are plenty of sources that can be considered reliable in some circumstances but not others. For example, the New York Post is a reliable source for news coverage, but the gossip column (Page Six) is not an acceptable source for biographical articles, especially in support of contentious statements. The JREF forum is a self published source, which is generally not considered reliable, but may be used in a BLP to support non-contentious claims or notable and germane information about the subject (similarly to citing germane information from a singer's fan site). However, statements from unreliable sources (self-published or not) cannot be used to support inflammatory or contentious claims about the subject. Since Randi himself did not say "I am a liar" on the JREF forum, it IS NOT an acceptable source to support the claim that Randi lied. Why don't you read WP:BLP and WP:V? You might learn something. You might also notice this line in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." —  DIEGO talk 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * << The JREF forum is a self published source, which is generally not considered reliable, but may be used in a BLP to support non-contentious claims or notable and germane information about the subject >>   Yep, I knew it. Kramer's posts are reliable when they support Randi, unreliable when they show him to be a liar. How pathetic. Fact is, old chum, you don't care about the policy at all. What you care about is removing uncomfortable truths about Randi that you just don't want to admit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Mudd (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Harry Mudd, you may think that Wikipedia policies are "pathetic", but they are not my policies. I don't appreciate the personal attacks and your rapidly declining level of civility. —  DIEGO talk 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Diego, will you please apply the policies consistently. Kramer, and Randi's other assistants have published threads on the JREF forum, purporting to be accounts of the correspondence that JREF has received.  On one occasion Kramer admitted falsifying certain parts of the chain of correspondance. This one thread is no more or less contentious than any of the others. Either they are all good or they are all bad. But you  want to cherry pick. You want to allow the ones that make Randi look good, while excluding the ones that make Randi look bad. And that's not acceptable.


 * And BTW, I don't think you are in much of a position to lecture on politeness. Harry Mudd 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:AGF. —  DIEGO talk 02:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And WP:NOR — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And True-believer syndrome *rolls eyes*. This is a case of someone who clearly does not like Randi and is really clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to have some negative comments placed into the article. I don't think that Harry Mudd will ever come to a compromise here and will continue to say the same things over and over despite none of the arguments being substantiated with evidence and fact. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you assume that anyone that doesn't like Randi is a "true believer," do you? You are completely wrong. The evidence and facts are there for all to see. Randi is a liar, he has been caught lying many times, and his lies only damage the sceptical movement.The evidence is there, but you refuse to accept it. You cut out references because they don't support your agenda, not because of any Wikipedia policy. Harry Mudd 10:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not streictly no but you have provided no evidence being anyhting anecdotal. When you provide a proper reference rather than someones opinion on rudeness i might accept it. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

However, Links to forums are not reliable sources. Randi's supporters insist they aren't. Randi's supporters remove other links to Randi's forums, claiming they are against Wiki policy. Therefore, this link must also be against wiki policy. Harry Mudd 10:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again you fail to understand policy. You don't see how the same source can be both appropriate and inappropriate at the same time. Someone earlier gave the example of a Newspaper website being a good source but the same newspaper website which has a "gossip" section cannot. I will wait for someone that knows police more than me to come along but i can almost guarantee that the reference to the JREF forums will be re-added. You should be careful when removing things without discussing them on the talk pages in future though. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand perfectly. anything that supports your agenda is "reliable" even when against wiki policy. Harry Mudd 17:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify something. The link to the official log on James Randi's forum is a reliable source because it comes directly from the JREF. A JREF employee updates that log and no one else is allowed to post there. That section of the forum is specifically for the Challenge log and that's it and it comes directly from the JREF, thus is reliable per WP:RS. Any other links to the forum that come from individual unaffiliated with the JREF wouldn't be reliable.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let ME clarify something. In at least one of those official logs, The JREF altered the correspondance they received. The published log changed both the letters they had received, and the letters they sent out. That very same official JREF staff member admitted lying on the JREF forum. An old version of this article linked to the admission  as a reference. It was deleted by Randi supporters, who insist that Forum postings are not reliable sources. Were they wrong? Should the reference showing admitted dishonesty by JREF senior staff be re-inserted? Harry Mudd 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS a reliable source since it comes directly from JREF and isn't posted anonymously on the message board. This would be considered a self published primary source and would thus be included under this policy which allows it. This isn't the same as normal message board sources as it's not posted anonymously but is posted by an official employee of the James Randi Education foundation.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just had a long discussion with other Randi supporters. They insist that Kramer's postings are NOT reliable. They have removed other links to Kramer's posts on the grounds of reliability. I thought they were wrong, but the consensus of opinion is against me. So, I'll remove the other links to Kramer's posts too. What's good for the goose, etc. Harry Mudd 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are incorrect, As I've explained above. Who claims that the logs of the challenge aren't reliable? Where have these discussions occurred? Please explain. The Log is no longer maintained by Kramer but by RemieV, another employee of JREF. SINCE we're dealing with known representatives of the JREF then it is a reliable source per this policy.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have PROOF that the JREF change the correspondence? It sounds like you're using Original research to claim that the source isn't reliable.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I agree.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on ecvery single point. But We're used to that by now. ALL Kramers posts on Randi's forums are contentious. Every single one of them. The whole thing is a contentious subject. The JREF says to people "I don't believe you" accuses them of lying, fraud, insanity. It's all contentious.
 * The only difference between the two is that one makes the JREF look good, the other makes the JREF look bad. And that is the ONLY distinction between them. If you delete one, you must delete the other too. Harry Mudd 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of your assertions. This seems like a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. You've provided absolutely no proof of your assertions that the source isn't reliable.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * so, would you object to re-inserting BOTH of them? Re-insert the reference where Kramer logs the alleged challenge applications, and also re-insert the reference where Kramer admits to falsifying at least one of the logs? We can have both, or we can have neither. But we can't choose to have one and not the other. Harry Mudd 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * yes, I've read it. Have you? You don't appear to understand what it's about. And please don't be so vain to remove the indentations. If you want to reply to my messages, put your reply directly under them. Harry Mudd 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Vain? What are you talking about? I have already asked you to refrain from personal attacks (even attacks that make absolutely no sense), and you don't seem capable of doing so. Anyway, since you have read WP:BLP, you must be aware that a self published source (which is generally unreliable) is acceptable in a biographical article as long as it meets certain criteria. The statement you are objecting to (and we all realize that you aren't actually objecting to it -- you're just trying to prove a ridiculous point because you lost a previous bid to insert poorly sourced contentious material into the article) says:


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


 * That is not a contentious statement. It is a statement of fact with a link to the JREF forums so readers can verify that JREF does indeed maintain a log of past participants. Statments written in the actual logs are not being referred to. Just the existence of the logs. In this situation, how, specifically, is that not a reliable source? Remember, we're not talking about the content of the logs. The reference simply points to their existence to support a non-contentious statement in the article. You are trying to compare two very different scenarios to prove your point, and it is not working. And I don't believe that you actually read and understood WP:BLP or you wouldn't continue wasting your time. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Diego, would you please get over yourself. You go on and on about imagined personal insults. Would you just shut up about it. Nobody cares.


 * As for your statement that the two scenarios are different, the only difference between them is that one makes Randi look bad, the other makes him look good. You are a liar and a hypocrite wanting to keep one and remove the other.


 * You claim that I "lost" the argument to insert the one that makes Randi look bad. Well, I accept that. You are right. Kramer's postings in Randi's forums are not Wiki-reliable. That means they must not be cited as references.


 * It is of course obvious to everyone that you don't give a damn about Wiki policy. You just look for any excuse to remove uncomfortable facts about Randi that don't suit your agenda. Harry Mudd 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, how does this statement make Randi "look good": "JREF maintains a log of past participants for the "Million Dollar Challenge" for public access."? Second, you have not achieved any sort of consensus here to remove the statement or the reference. You know that. Stop removing it or you will be blocked. Third, when you attack the editor himself, rather than the editor's argument, that crosses a line. I did not make that up. You have crossed that line several times. For example, calling me a "liar and a hypocrite" immediately after mentioning "imagined personal insults". Your edits to the article are disruptive and tendentious. Your statements here on this talk page have been uncivil, you have repeatedly failed to assume good faith and ignored the consensus on the talk page in an attempt to make your point. Please read WP:EQ for more information on why your behavior is unacceptable. Please tone it down, or you will be blocked. Again. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Diego, where to begin? First of all your behaviour has benn 10 times worse than mine.  You want a count of personal attacks? Just go back and look at the things you said to me. You were aggressive from the start. Repeatedly posting links and demanding that I read them, do you not understand that your behaviour was offensive? You have repeatedly attacked me rather than the argument.


 * Secondly, who exactly are you to go issuing warnings. I don't see anything to indicate that you are a moderator or administrator. What gives you the right to tell others how to behave. Particularly when you don't follow the rules yourself.


 * You accuse me of going against consensus. No, diego, I am not. I am going against you and you alone. You are the only one arguing your peculiar position. You are falsely claiming to have a consensus behind you when clearly you don't. Some people thought that Kramer's posts on the JREF forum are reliable and should be left in. Some people thought they are unreliable and should be deleted. You are arguing that one post on the JREF forum by Kramer is reliable, while another post on the JREF forum by Kramer is unreliable. Nobody agrees with you. You are going against consensus, not me.


 * You claim that I'm doing this to "make a point." Well, now who is assuming bad faith? Your assumption of Bad Faith is wrong, of course. I'm not doing to make any kind of point, I'm doing it to keep the article honest. The fact is that the article is biased and distorted in Randi's favour. Linking to the logs, but removing the evidence that some of those logs have been falsified, that is just dishonest. I will continue to eliminate such dishonesty.


 * Then there's the matter of that edit war. I made a good faith edit. You reverted it. Three times. Didn't you break the rules by doing so? Please explain why YOU should not be blocked for that.


 * All in all, what you have been doing is wrong. Please stop it. Harry Mudd 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Harry, after reading this entire discussion it's still unclear to me what you want. You seem to want the reference to the challenge log in the article deleted, is that right? - LuckyLouie 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just trying to give a bit of balance to the article. Harry Mudd 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * It's perfectly simple. There have been accusations that the JREF alters the logs to make themselves look good, and make the applicants look stupid. And on at least one occasion a senior staff member at JREF named Kramer has admitted falsifying the logs. However, a factual statement that these logs are occasionally falsified was deleted on the grounds that Kramer's posts on the JREF forums aren't reliable cites. By that same token, ALL of Kramers posts on the JREF forums aren't reliable cites either, and must be deleted. Harry Mudd 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "There have been accusations"?? So what if they alter their logs.  It is still their log of the event.  This makes it an official publication and hence mets WP:RS for the purposes of this particular usage of a particular area of JREF forums.  Other areas (ie/ discussion areas) probably fail.   Shot info  03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * I am against removing red links that may eventually be working. If that article is ever written then the links automatically become live everywhere.  For instance, the second author of The Oxford Companion to Chess didn't have an article, and over 100 references to him were not linked.  When he got his own article, I had to go and link to him in over 100 places.  It would have saved hours of work if he had been redlinked. Bubba73 (talk), 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redlinks in articles are quite ugly. It would be better to just remove them, make sure the pages where they exist are noted and then go through using AWB to add them once the article is created.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * that makes a lot of extra work for editors, in my experience. In the hours it took me to put links in 100+ articles, I could have been doing something more useful.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I got authorized to use AWB several months ago, but it refuses to run. Today I downloaded the current version, and when I try to run it, it says "AutoWikiBrowser has encountered a problem and needs to close.  We are sorry for the inconvenience."  I can't even get to the first screen.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, there are around 100 unlinked references to The Oxford Companion to Chess, but I have no easy way to create them. Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I just don't believe that. When I see redlinks my first thought is to remove them, not create the corresponding article. Do you have any evidence that redlinks increase the likelihood of the article being created or encourage readers to create them? I think it's more of a style issue. Redlinks are simply distracting and are somewhat of a side effect of having no corresponding article which should have never been linked to to begin with.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redlinks are no more distracting than bluelinks, IMO. I think you can set the color under Preferences if red bothers you.  And they are so beneficial to editors.  A couple of times I've created articles and all of a sudden there are links to it!  Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well according to WP:RED, redlinks shouldn't be added unless the creation of the article for them is imminent and is bound to happen anytime. Otherwise they should be removed. If the likelyhood of the article being created soon is slim, then remove the redlinks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that policy, but at least last night I finally got AWB to run. Now I just have to learn how to use it.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

POV deletion
A POV edit to keep this out is being made with no justification. "Some have also criticized Randi and his methods. In the book Reading the Enemy's Mind author Paul H. Smith states that Randi's attempt to debunk serious scientific inquiry done at Stanford Research Institute in 1972/1973 was riddled with misrepresentations and false statements(p.55-57)." This part of the book has to do specifically with randi and his interactions with this group. The accused have a right to speak for a balance view. IF the person deleting this info can not come up with a legitimit reason for its deletion It should be returned.Hardyplants 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant, notable nor is it even backed up with any sort of argument. It's just a random baseless non-notable potshot added for no apparent reason.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, get a bit more context. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain why it's notable, In the context of James Randi. Explain why he is criticizing him. Explain his argument used to back up those statements. Etc.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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


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

"Professional magician and die-hard skeptic James “The Amazing” Randi is fond of demonstrating a trick that he says explains away spoon bending. I have seen Randi do this and, frankly, his results bear little resemblance to what I held in my hands that day."The book is notable and it intersects with randi, especially in regards to one of randis more famous demonstrations. Also see http://books.google.com/books?id=_faOWonIle4C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%22reading+the+enemy's+mind%22+randi&source=web&ots=5Gf3uPSZvj&sig=ToG1QJ_Dk-ohr0iGUMvXdJs53FEHardyplants


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


 * Go back and READ the linked page.Hardyplants 14:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Smith? If he is a notable critic, then this is a good source for a criticism section, though it should probably not be quoted directly. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Smith was involved with the US governments attempt to use mind readers as spies during the cold war, he's the author of the book above. Thats All that I know about the topic right now since this is the first time I have come across this- except for some TV programs that covered the project.Hardyplants 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The section seems to need work. There are a lot of criticisms of Randi, many of which I think are more serious than what is there.  This could be one source among many which need to be used. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The question isn't "is the person notable" but "is the person notable in the context of the article". Is this individual notable in the context of James Randi? I have seen no reason so far to believe so.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the book cited above. It has only the one incident and a couple of incidental passing mentions of Randi. The book is primarily about this guy's exploration of government experiments; not about Randi. I'm not sure this book is very reliable to begin with -- it's published by Tor/Forge, which is primarily a science fiction & thriller press although they do sometimes publish nonfiction. The author is clearly a believer (his biography at Tor/Forge lists him as president of the "International Remote Viewing Association") which I think scarcely makes him credible as an unbiased third party. At any rate, I'd be very surprised to find anyone agreeing that this is a "notable" book, and also surprised if the critique from the author, Mr. Smith, represents a significant strand of criticism.
 * I'd also like to suggest that a "criticism" section is inelegant and out of context. If there are serious criticisms, they should be added to the relevant sections. In this case, I would guess "career as a skeptic." But we need reliable third-party sources here. --lquilter 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Randi, "Expert" needed?
In the Criticism of Randi section there is an "Expert needed tag". What does this mean? What sort of expert is needed?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw this and was wondering myself. First of all, I'm not sure that somebody shouting from the audience constitutes "criticism". Second, a "criticism" section is surely the last useful way to present critical information. If there is serious criticism of Randi, then it should be included in appropriate sections. --lquilter 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not even really criticism. I've moved it to the "Career as a magician" section since that's what it really relates to.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)