Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation/Archive 1

Merge from Uri award, Pigasus (Randi)
Anyone object to this proposed merger? I'm not sure if this page or James Randi would be the better target article since the "awards" are more of a product of Randi rather than the JREF. -- Krash (Talk) 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 *  I agree with the merge.  The article is probably too small by itself.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)  I retract my previous vote due to the fact that the two award articles have been merged and expanded. Bubba73 (talk), 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose. Wikipedia works in exactly opposite way: smaller articles for separate topics are spawned off big ones. Both articles are large ahd still have a potential for expansion. On the other hand I did merge Uri award into Pigasus Award, because this is basically one and the same topic. mikka (t) 03:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because it's a Randi thing, not a JREF thing. I think mikka's merge to "Pigasus Award" was the best approach. I noticed that there was no explicit mention of either version of the award in James Randi — just unexplained links to the articles — so I added a sentence to the "Awards" section, plus a clarifying sentence to separate received and distributed Randi awards. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that Krash has pulled the mergefrom tag, so I guess we're in agreement on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Guska example
I have removed the paragraph on the Mike Guska test for the following reasons: There may be something useful in this material relevant to the criticism topic, but as it stands, the failure of the sources to support the text is unacceptable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It misrepresents the test, which the cited source (Swift, 29 March 2002) reported as a mutually agreed-upon protocol developed by email discussion (common Challenge practice), as something determined solely by Randi and merely agreed to by Guska (an unsourced claim).
 * It leaves out the fact that Guska failed the agreed-to test, which is a rather relevant point.
 * It uses a JREF Forum posting by "edge", who signs the post "Mike Guska", as a source for Guska's second proposal. Discussion boards are not wiki-reliable sources, as anyone can post to them, and there is no assurance that people are who they claim to be. (This is the same reason I've fought the use of JREF Forum postings to cite Randi's rebuttal to Rawlins' quote, so I'm not playing favorites here.)
 * It misrepresents Randi's statement in Swift, 4 August 2006, that Guska could come to JREF or be tested in his own location by a local JREF representative, claiming it was a flat refusal to test locally.
 * It incorrectly claims that "Randi falsely accused Guska of not appling for a test", when the source given (Swift, 11 August 2006) makes clear that Guska was posting to the JREF Forum, not applying to JREF properly. (Randi does not monitor the Forum directly. To the best of my knowledge, JREF does not in any way suggest that applications should be posted there.) What the source actually shows is (A) Randi acknowledging that he hadn't seen "edge's" postings, and (B) after reading them, he saw the list of conditions in advance of an application as a very common avoidance tactic for those who wish to claim Randi is being unfair. There is no suggestion in this source that Randi has refused or will refuse a new application, in keeping with the published process.
 * It concludes with an unsourced opinion derived from these misrepresentations: "Randi is apparrantly [sic] more concerned with insulting Guska in public than attempting to negotiate a mutually satisfactory test." Randi certainly doesn't give Guska any slack, and is happy to use him as an example of how dowsers who fail tests will create post hoc excuses for their failure (after having carefully negotiated a precise test, mutually agreed to by all parties). But that isn't a license to stretch beyond the sources for conclusions.
 * Besides all that, its grammar and spelling leave much to be desired.


 * I agree with your edit. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken note of your comments and made some changes. However, I cannot accept it being deleted. It is iomportant to recognise what happens when an applicant tries to negotiate a protocol with Randi. Many of Randi's supporters have a totally distrorted view of what he does. The myth is that Randi is an intelligent and reasonable man who will calmly discuss the matter in reasonable terms. This example clearly demontrates the reality.

Basic story as follows, supported by Randi's comments in his column, and Guska's comments in the forum : 1) Guska claims the ability to dowse for gold in Californian creek beds. 2) Randi invites him to come to Florida for testing. 3) Guska wants Randi to come to California instead. 4) Randi claims that Guska is being unreasonable, refuses to compromise, and subjects him to a load of childish insults.

Randi seemingly does this all the time.

And note that I say this as a sceptic who is pissed at Randi for bringing the rest of us into disrepute by being caught out lying and cheating time after time. Harry Mudd 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Harry, but you are being selective in what you list in the timeline. I'll summarize it more completely, based on the info above and some thread skimming:
 * Guska claims the ability to dowse for gold in Californian creek beds.
 * Guska applies to JREF.
 * Guska and Randi negotiate a means to test Guska's gold-dowsing claim. Guska agrees he can perform his dowsing in at JREF in Florida.
 * Guska fails the mutually agreed-upon prelimary test.
 * Guska posts to JREF Forum with a revised test to be done in Hayfork, CA, changing the target of his dowsing. He also interprets clauses in the Challenge in a way I suspect is inaccurate, but may be an honest concern about potential abuse of the results.
 * Four years later, Randi, in Swift, says Guska had demanded to be retested at his location and refused to accept a nearby JREF representative, citing this and other behavior as standard avoidance tactics.
 * Forum reader points out to Randi that Guska had posting on the Forum and says Guska has moved to California. (I saw no mention of the move in his posts; perhaps this is an assumption based on the new location.)
 * Randi posts reader's correction, but dismisses it as more avoidance.
 * While Randi's dismissal, looked at only within the scope of this case, certainly seems rude, it is not at all surprising given the standard ways failed dowsers and other applicants try to rework the conditions of the test to avoid the controls needed to prevent intentional or unintentional confusing of the data, after they've had a chance to see just how careful those controls are. In a perfect world, someone with a staff of thousands and a budget of hundreds of millions would fly representatives out to each location to go through every single hoop to accomodate each applicant. But given the utter lack of scientific evidence of dowsing's effectiveness, the resource limitations of the Foundation, and the determination of these folks to persevere in the face of repeated failure, it's not hard to see why Randi gets testy. Guska would serve his cause for a second test better if he stopped ranting about Randi's unfairness and got a friend with scientific training to advise him on how to develop a proper testing protocol before reapplying for a test, wherever it might be. And we would serve our cause for a better Wikipedia article if we did more to ensure the prose we write actually reflects the details of the sources we cite. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, just to be clear, I reverted the rewritten text, as it still makes inaccurate claims, like considering a JREF Forum posting to be an application; failing to cite other claims, like Randi's inflexibility in negotiations; and unsupported vague statements like "many other applicants have complained of similar treatment". Again, there is potential for accurate substance, especially in the conflicts between applicants and JREF/Randi over protocols and terms, but it must be better sourced and from reliable publications, not discussion boards. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The claims I made are totally supported by Randi's own words. Note the following :
 * Guska's post in the forum makes it plain that he has sent the same letter to Raandi. A formal application, AND a forum post AS WELL. I never stated that the forum post IS an application, but that it is a COPY of his application.
 * What more evidence of Randi's inflexibility do you need? Guska wants to be tested in California, Randi won't even discuss it. All of Guska's suggestions have been rejected out of hand, and Guska mnust either agree to another run of the cup test, or he won't be tested at all.
 * What better sources do you need? The sources are Randi's and Guska's own words. Who better than Guska to say what Guska's claim is? Who better than Randi to show Randi's response?
 * note also, Guska's letter to Randi was only a few weeks before Randi's article, not four years as you claim in your timeline.

The fact remains that Randi has wilfully misrepresented Guska's application. It is Randi that refuses to negotiate a test, not Guska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Mudd (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 September 2006


 * I am going to respond using several paragraphs. Based on previous experience with irate anti-skeptic editors, I give fair warning that I consider inserting responses in the middle of my posting here to be needlessly disrupting my arguments and not in keeping with Etiquette, and I will move any such interspersed comments below my post to restore its integrity. Now, on to the response.


 * Harry, please read Reliable sources to find out what "better sources" are. Swift is a reasonably acceptable source, given its web prominence, although one must take into account its biases (most noticeably a contempt for paranormal believers). As a web discussion board, the JREF Forum is not a reliable source. We have no way of knowing who "edge" is, and there is no professional reputation being put on the line in making the claim that a letter was sent to JREF. (I concede that this may very well have happened, but as Verifiability bolded says — several times — "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".)


 * Based on this, there is no reliable source for a second application, let alone Randi's dismissal of it. Were I to engage in verboten original research, I would point out that JREF's "Application for Status of Claimant" clearly says "No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted without the mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance. Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been an applicant." Thus, if Guska did indeed send the material posted in "Dowsing By Edge" as a part of a second application, it was probably rejected per the rules of the Challenge. But again, we cannot say this either, any more than we can use edge's posting as evidence of that application, as we have no reliable source for it yet.


 * As for the timeline, what sourced evidence do we have?
 * First test reported as "last week" in Swift, 29 March 2002. (reliable)
 * Guska postings May through October 2002. (not reliable; cannot verify "edge" is Guska or that letter was sent)
 * Randi uses cites 2002 Guska example in Swift, 4 August 2006 (4.4 years later). (reliable)
 * Reader correction and Randi dismissal in Swift, 11 August 2006. (reliable)
 * You may detect an unfortunate pattern here — that we have a reliable source for Randi's "side", but none for Guska (except where Randi quotes Guska, which, as an objective editor, I would feel uncomfortable with, given the likelihood that a biased source may misrepresent or a least selectively include statements). This is a very common and frustrating problem when writing Wikipedia material. But we can't bend the rules for one side just because it either doesn't or can't make itself heard in respectable publications.


 * Criticism of the Challenge can be reliably sourced, and has been elsewhere in this article, but this Guska passage isn't. That is why I have again removed your second version of the Guska material, per WP:V. Please do not restore this without resolving the identified problems. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeff, just for a start let me emphasize that I am in no way "anti-skeptic." Why do you assume that just because I see fault in Randi? I am actually a long time sceptic myself. The fact is that Randi is a liar, and as a sceptic I must oppose his lies. It's that simple.  The thing that makes me irate is that you keep on deleting factually true information that doesn't suit your personal agenda.


 * "Edge" has been on the Randi discussion boards off and on since his original test in 2002. You are probably the only person to have doubts they are the same person. But just consioder this couple of facts. First, what Randi reports Guska as saying matches closely what Edge had been  saying for years. Second, when it was pointed out to Randi that all forum members had seen Edge's proposal already, what did he do? Did he deny that Guska had sent that proposal? No he did not. He agreed that it is indeed from Guska, but attacked Guska for sending it. If your theory is right, and Edge isn't Guska, why didn't Randi say "I've never seen that proposal before" then?


 * But ultimately it does not matter. You can reject Edge's testimony and only accept Randi's words, and the point STILL stands. From Randi's own writings in Swift the story is plain to see. 1) Randi invited Guska to come to JREF for testing. 2) Guska requested that Randi come to him. 3) Randi dismissed the suggestion out of hand, no discussion, no negotiation, no flexibility. That's pretty low, even by itself.


 * This incident disproves the notion that Randi negotiates the protocols withapplicants. He does not. He tells them the test he is willing to give, take it or leave it. Guska wants Randi to come to him for the test, Randi refuses and demands that Guska come to him. Edge's postings flesh out the details of the dispute, but the bare bones of it have been admitted by Randi already.


 * Practise what you preach, Jeff. Read your own cite for what is a reliable source. See the point about self published material. Randi's writings have no independant fact checking, they are outside his only field of expertise (that is conjuring, on EVERY other subject he's an amateur), It's self-serving and self-aggrandising. Besides, the objection to blogs is that they are an unreliable source of facts. They are, however, reliable cites for the author's opinions. We can state with 99.9% certainty that Edge and Guska are the same person, thus Edge's posts are a reliable cite for Guska's claims. ie, we can say reliably what Guska claims, not that the claims are true.


 * I'm re-inserting the Guska paragraph. However, since you are so pedantic about it, I won't call it an "application" Can you accept "proposal for testing?" Don't delete it without resolving these points. Harry Mudd 22:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry, I don't have the time right now to do a proper review of your latest revision and arguments. (Contrary to what you may believe, I spend at least an hour each time poring over each update to make sure I understand the current state before making a response and taking actions.) But I will make the following points: That said, I will in the near future review what you've done to the Guska material to see if you've resolved the problems I've identified. If so, I'll be happy to back off. If not, I'll delete it again (unless someone else beats me to it). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was afraid my phrase "irate anti-skeptic" would be unnecessarily inciting, but I was trying to keep my post down to something less than an essay. I included the preface to my comments because I'd just gotten through a lengthy argument with folks at Talk:Bullshit! about the problems with posting links to copyright violating sites, and one of those editors kept inserting their comments into my detailed analyses and responses, making it incredibly difficult to follow the logic of my postings. I was just trying to head this off, as I see this discussion is apparently going to turn into yet another "book". Now that I think of it, I was wrong to include "anti-skeptic" anyhow, as the guilty editor actually thought I was the anti-skeptic who was fighting Bullshit! content because I was a religious nut. (This is an excellent example of how easy it is for editors to read inaccurate biases and agendas into others' posts, just because they disagree with content.) Even the word "irate" was poorly chosen, as you hadn't really directed your obvious displeasure with Randi's brusqueness toward the editors like myself removing the material you'd added. For that, I apologize. I should have take a few extra moments to choose better words.
 * You still seem to be refusing to accept that discussion boards are not a wiki-reliable source. It wouldn't matter even if someone named "randi" (on a board operated by Randi supporters, who could be expected to prevent impersonations) posted a note that "edge, of course, is Guska". Discussion boards are simply not editorially acceptable sources of information, except perhaps for articles actually about the discussion boards themselves. As I've already said, any editor is encouraged to remove material based on unreliable sources, so anything that comes out of the JREF Forum, including the deduction that "edge" is Guska, is delete-bait. I am not arguing that he isn't; I'm pretty sure he is. That's not the point. As I've already quoted, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". This is not pedantry, but rather basic principles of Wikipedia.
 * My sole agenda at this point is sourcing information in this article. (To make more specific an incident I earlier alluded to, I have an ongoing argument with Bubba73 that we can't use Randi's statements in letters and in the Forum about the "I always have an out" quotation as a source for his rebuttal. If my agenda were to support Randi, I wouldn't be making this argument.) Because of my focus on proper sourcing, I will continue to remove any material that doesn't have a reliable source.


 * Jeff, let me address your comment "You still seem to be refusing to accept that discussion boards are not a wiki-reliable source. " I have in fact read the linked article and based on that, I still think it's wiki-reliable. The rules state that "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves"


 * What do you think that means? My understanding of the words is :
 * - I CANT use a forum post by Mike Guska to cite a comment about dowsing.
 * - I CAN use a forum post by Mike Guska to cite a comment about Mike Guska.
 * As far as I can see, under these rules, Guska's comments that he sent a letter to Randi is a Wiki-verified cite that Guska sent a letter to Randi. Do you disagree with my interpretation?


 * I renew my comment above, If you think this is an invalid cite, then for the same reasons everything on Randi's self-published, self-aggrandising with no independant fact checking website should also be excluded. Seriously, if you delete my paragraph, then I hope you will be consistent and delete the rest of the article too. And, actually, most of the rest of Wikipedia. Harry Mudd 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What "used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves" means is what I alluded to "for articles actually about the discussion boards themselves" — namely, that we can use JREF Forum to talk about the JREF Forum in an article about the JREF Forum. That is not a license to assume that statements made in the Forum or any other unreliable source are accurate, as the sponsor of the Forum, JREF, does not editorially back the content. That's what a discussion board is for — unedited reader input, subject only to basic site rules but not guaranteed by the sponsor — and that's why they are considered unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. I don't know how else to penetrate your seemingly invulnerable insulation against this basic Wikipedia principle. Discussion boards must be considered useless for factual information, and are only useful for samples in their own articles.


 * You can't use a forum post by Mike Guska, because there are no forum posts by Mike Guska, as far as we have cited evidence for. Wikipedia cannot assume or deduce, as you do, that they are the same; we must cite a Swift passage or other reliable source that ties them together explicitly. Swift content is an entirely different matter. JREF and Randi take responsibility for the content of Swift, so as long as Swift meets other WP reliability guidelines, we can cite what Randi says in Swift, whether or not we believe it to be true. We wiki editors are not allowed to make such value judgments in the article text (even if we make them painfully clear in the talk pages). When we say, "Randi says" or "claims", it means exactly that — the citation provided backs up this assertion, and the reader must judge the merit of his statements. It is our job to collect such reliably sourced assertions and contrast them as necessary to present a neutral discussion of the topic.


 * Oh, and please spare us the specious delete-the-rest-of-Wikipedia argument. This kind of "throw out the baby with the bath water" exaggeration was funny when Hoover used it in Animal House, but Wikipedia requires a sober, critical eye toward sourcing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But Randi's website is a self published, self aggrandising website with no independent fact checkinhg. Why don't you disregard that under the same rules? Harry Mudd 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, all this talk of Wiki-reliability is ultimately irrelevent. Randi reacted to the forum post, and published his reaction in his own column. The main subject in the paragraph is Randi's behaviour, and that is attested by his own writings. Whether the post was by Guska, or by someone impersonating him, Randi's reaction to the suggested protocol was to sneer and dismiss it. He made no attempt to discuss it rationally. And the paragraph is about Randi sneering. Guska is unimportant, he's merely the thing that was the target of Randi's insults.

Whether or not Randi is sneering is completely a matter of opinion. And statements like "many other applicants have complained of similar treatment" are pointless without sourcing to back them up. Since you seem to think that Randi's website is "self published, self aggrandising website with no independent fact checking" and this is your only source for the Gurka claims, you should not put that in this article. DarthJesus 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Darth, you are a hypocrite. Try and be consistent. Either Randi's website is wiki-reliable, or it isn't. If you consider it wiki-reliable, then it is a valid cite for the Guska example. If you don't think it's wiki-reliable, then you may delete the Guska example, but you must also delete EVERYTHING ELSE that cites Randi's web site too.

Speaking personally, I see serious flaws in the relability of information given by Randi, but his website is still wiki-reliable. Especially in statements Randi makes about his own behaviour.

Also, please respect NPOV. These are facts. Randi himself acknowledges them, and that's clear enough for me. I don't delete information about how Randi promises to negotiate each test individually with the applicant. You must not delete information about him breaking that promise. NPOV requires that both sides be presented. Harry Mudd 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not presenting this in a NPOV way. You keep saying that Randi is sneering at Guska or he is insulting him. That is not NPOV. Your claim that Randi broke his promise is similiarly your opinion, not a verifiable fact. And dont call me a hypocrite.

Another problem is the statement "many other applicants have complained of similar treatment" is un-reliable without sourcing. Let me say that again-the statement "many other applicants have complained of similar treatment" is un-reliable without sourcing. Now the way for you to respond to this is not to simply ignore my arguement about that statement, you must provide verifiable sources that support the statement "many other applicants have complained of similar treatment". When you do so then the validity of those sources can be assessed by everyone interested in this article. Until that time, the paragraph doesn't belong. DarthJesus 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So why didn'y you delete the entire articlee then? I say agaIN. either you think Randi's website is a wiki-verifiable source, or youn don't. If it is, then you accept my paragragh verified by Randi's website. If you don't, then delete the entire article. You, of course, take the cowards option, ie you venerate information that suits your POV, and ignore anything that doesn't. Harry Mudd 20:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, look. If that Guska piece is factual and backed up by Randi's web site, why don't you just provide citations to some of the key sentences and add the paragraph back in? As far as I can tell from reading this conversation, the only problem with the Guska paragraph is that it doesn't cite sources. You're saying you know what the sources are. So cite them in the article. Problem solved. -Amatulic 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Harry Mudd continues to talk about "Randi's website" as if it were one solid mass of equally reliable information. Wikipedia policy makes clear that this is not the case. JREF forum quotations, whether they support or undermine any argument, are not valid sources for anything but an article on the JREF forum itself, and only then as a sample of what can be found there. Discussion boards are not reliable sources. This is no different from treating IMDb's factual data in its film and TV pages completely differently than its "Message Boards" for those same pages. One is vetted by the IMDb staff; the other is whatever anyone wants to post, subject only to censoring to avoid legal problems for IMDb. Ignoring this distinction is at best a harmful failure to understand the WP principle of reliable sources; at worst, a deliberate attempt to introduce bias. There are reliable sources for the kinds of arguments Mudd makes, but he appears not to be interested in finding them. While simply deleting the offending (i.e., inadequately sourced) text may not be the ideal approach, it is sanctioned by Verifiability (see above arguments). To retain it would require properly sourcing the material. It should not be any surprise that Randi supporters are not spending time to do this work (establishing valid Randi criticism) when there are others who want to make this point, although it would be a good show of neutrality to locate these sourced arguments. (I'd rather do that than argue the point all the time, but I barely have enough time at the moment to make this point. Research can be time-consuming, unfortuately, which is why it often doesn't get done for quite a long time.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * << Harry Mudd continues to talk about "Randi's website" as if it were one solid mass of equally reliable information. >> Rubbish.  I make no such claim. I'm just pointing out the utter hypocrisy when Randi's supporters quote him when it suits them, and ignore his words when it doesn't. You are being inconsistent, deliberately and dishonestly so.


 * << JREF forum quotations ... are not valid sources >> Nor am I using therm as such. The source is Randi's own words on his own website. The forum post only shows the thing  he was reacting to. Harry Mudd 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep putting your own opinion in there when you say Randi "mocked" Guska. And you still have not provided any sources for the "many other applicants have complained of similar treatment" statement. DarthJesus 06:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Randi's words are plain to see. And I've told you before, if you object to a few individual words in the paragraph, then tweak those particular words to your satisfaction. Don't delete the whole paragraph. Harry Mudd 09:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the source of JREFs reason for dismissing the application
The statement regarding grave physical danger gives the impression that this was at least one of the reasons for dismissing the application. As www.archive.org indicates, the FAQ was first published in February 2005. The application happened in 1999. So the article gives a false impression because ex post explanations aren't acceptable explanations at all. Could you provide a source that Randi/JREF had indeed mentioned this problem before 1999 ? --136.172.253.189 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, what the Internet Archive Wayback Machine indicates is that it only has a copy of the FAQ (with that URL) as far back as February 2005. I seriously doubt the FAQ is only 19 months old. However, the point is valid. If we are making a statement that the Kolodzey Breatharianism application was rejected on the basis of self-harm, we need to show appropriately dated evidence. If no one else picks this up before I do, I'll try to tackle this when I resume updating the bare links in this article to proper citations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another possible objection
I've heard another objection to Randi's challenge that isn't mentioned in the article: The privacy of the applicant isn't protected, so only non-legitimate charlatans who want the publicity will try for the prize. Someone with a legitimate paranormal ability either wouldn't need a million dollars, or wouldn't think a million dollars is fair compensation for being publicly labeled "legitimate" by Randi's organization. If the agreement stated that the prize would be awarded quietly, and that the identity of the subject wouldn't be revealed, then somebody legitimate might be induced to apply. The winner would get the prize and return to his/her normal life playing poker or finding missing persons or whatever, and Randi would get an interesting and worthy phenomenon on which to run tests. -Amatulic 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The whole purpose of the challenge is to show, publicly and openly, that paranormal powers don't exist. If the winner was kept secret it would completely violate the purpose of the challenge. And really now, who wouldn't want 1 million? DarthJesus 01:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This argument basically says that the challenge is designed for a predetermined outcome. Someone with a legitimate paranormal ability may either not need $1 million, or a personal cost/benefit analysis leads to a conclusion that $1 million is inadequate compensation for a bona-fide demonstration. If that's true, then the only applicants to the challege will be charlatans, and the challenge becomes a fallacy of begging the question. -Amatulic 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask again, who wouldn't want $1 million? If they don't need it they can donate to charity, fund research into paranormal activity, burn it, or spread the money on their bed and roll around in it naked. They can do whatever they want with it. And if they don't want it, why not just take the test to prove they can do what they claim? They don't have to accept the money. And if $1 million isn't enough, just how much would be adequate? And how would JREF get the money for it? I imagine Randi offers $1 million because that is the maximum amount he can offer. If those are the arguements to support the fallacy designation, then I don't agree with you. DarthJesus 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When Randi first offered the prize (nearly 40 years ago, I think) it was $10,000. They said that #10,000 was too small for them to bother with.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying this was my argument, it's one that I had heard. And after thinking about it, I can see its merit. Personally, if I actually had legitimate paranormal abilities, Randi would be welcome to test them provided he agrees that (a) my identity is kept private, and (b) that he write a check to a worthy cause, not to me, so no paper trail leads back to me. He would only have to agree to publish the test results. The notoriety simply wouldn't be worth $1 million to me. If you can't understand the mindset of money being irrelevant, then naturally you disagree with the objection. The challenge is constructed to attract charlatans, in which case the challenge will never be met. This is known as the fallacy of begging the question, where the proposition to be proved is implicitly assumed in one of the premises. -Amatulic 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Randi tells how it got started: "during a radio panel discussion back in 1964, I was challenged by a parapsychologitst to "put your money where your mouth is" and I offered to pay the sum of $10,000 to any person who demonstrates a paranormal power under satisfactory observatonal conditions." Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with Randi's challenge with the publicity and money prize, you can take another one. You can come here and prove your paranormal power to me and I will promise not to publicize your name and a guarantee that I will not pay you anything.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This completely misses the point. If you have a problem with the argument I presented, then pick it apart instead of trying to shift away from it. There is a section on criticisms in the article. Above I presented an additional one for possible inclusion in the article. If you can't discuss its merits (or lack of them), why bother writing anything in this section? -Amatulic 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do have problems with the validity of your arguement. I've stated them but apparently you simply discarded them. The challenge is not constructed to attract charlatans. It is not begging the question. Unless you have evidence of someone asking to have their identity kept secret and Randi refusing, your arguement isn't valid. DarthJesus 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. What he says sounds like original research to me, and shouldn't be in the article unless sourced.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's something I heard, I can't supply a source. In that case, I agree it's original research and shouldn't be included. Consider the proposal retracted. -Amatulic 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this argument merits at least a little more deliberation. I don't think it's "begging the question" exactly but some people (not just potential psychics) do not seek publicity, or even actively avoid it. Perhaps Randi is exerting a stronger selection bias than he intends. I like his website, and I understand how he might get frustrated, irritated, angry, etc. at all the nutters and frauds out there. However, I do not like his supercilious, smarter-than-thou tone, a tone I see frequently used by people identifying themselves as skeptics, atheists, rationalists, etc. It's no better than a holier-than-thou tone from the other end of the spectrum, and is no more justified by the excuse that he's tired of dealing with frauds. This is the business he's chosen to be in. I'd think he'd try use a bit more charm, the same bait used by the individuals being debunked. Being right should not equal being a jerk - being wrong shouldn't be such a terrifying thing. Jawshoeaw 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Jawshoeaw

Bad external link to TAM4
The external link to The Amaz!ng Meeting 4 points to a squatter page. Two posible solutions would be to point to the real The Amaz!ng Meeting 4 page or point to the page that lists all The Amaz!ng Meetings. If an active maintainer would like to take a look I will avoid making the decision. 166.70.7.109 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the latter, a page about The Amaz!ng Meeting series, which includes summaries of 1-4, as well as separate pages for TAM 1 and 4. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

April 1st
About the announcement of the challenge on April 1st. I don't know if that is factually true, but note that Randi's annual Pigasus Award (aka the Uri's) are held on April 1st. The date is definitely chosen deliberately.

I certainly find it plausible that Randi deliberately chose April 1st to launch his challenge. Though I would like to see a reliable cite for the date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry Mudd (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Harry, if you're going to use the word "I" in your posts, you really need to sign the dang things. (You should be doing this anyway.) As for the Challenge announcement, I removed the paragraph because it was hopelessly speculative. Yes, we need a source if we want to cite the date, but we need sources even more for the material that 195.93.21.7 wrote, with words like "some critics have noted" and "it has been suggested". There's a reason why they call these things weasel words — namely, they allow editors to weasel out of specific, verifiable statements. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Objections to the Million Dollar Challenge
I think the section The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge should have a subsection about objections, separate from the descriptive comments. -George100 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eldon Byrd case
I've removed the following paragraph entirely because it makes no sense:
 * Other reasons given as to why potential applicants may doubt Randi's honesty and integrity include the fact that he once claimed that parapsychologist Eldon Byrd was a child molester (Byrd was actually arrested for possessing with intent to distribute obscene material involving children). In a subsequent libel trial a jury found Randi guilty but awarded Byrd $0 in damages, apparently to keep him from filing an appeal..

This is POV and unverifiable - why would anyone think that potential applicants would "doubt Randi's honesty" because of this incident? According to the source given (among others), he had a relationship with a 12-year-old. The story of the court case should probably be included in this or the James Randi article, but in the proper context. -George100 12:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Randi, speaking off the top of his head, got the facts a little wrong.  Byrd was not a convicted child molester - he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge (therefore he wasn't actually convicted).  And I don't see how that has anything to do with Randi's honesty.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is discussed in more detail at Talk:James Randi. I was planning to fetch a copy of the relevant Baltimore Sun article to clear this up, on my trip to the Library of Congress a few weeks ago, but I'd stupidly forgot to include the article date in my notes, so I couldn't track it down then. I'm hoping to try again sometime in the next 2-3 weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you go to the Miami Herald's webpage and search for James Randi in 1993 you can get a copy of the article. But you have to pay for it of course. DarthJesus 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

removed paragraph from judging the results
I removed this paragraph fron "Judging the results": * The required 100% success rate in the open test


 * Some critics point out the harsh 100% success rate needed to pass the open test.  They argue that a 100% success rate is hard to get even with scientifically proven tests, and that it is an unrealistic expectation of the participant.

For one thing, this is not part of judging the results. This is a pleminary test given to e.g. dowsers to show that their method of dowsing works when they know where the target is. 100% is not required for the actual test. Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Million Dollar Challenge Should Be Its Own Article
Well, I think the headline says it all. This article is supposed to be about the Foundation itself and while the Challenge is a big part of it, I think this article should only mention the bare facts - a sketch, if you will, - about the challenge and include a link to a new article going into further detail. I mean, the secion on the Challenge has FOUR subheadings of its own! Definitely needs to be cleaned up. --- Wellesradio, 12 March 07
 * Sounds reasonable (I don't intend to do it), but there are other "Million Dollar Challenge"s out there, too. Here's a Google. 5Q5 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. There is enough material for its own article. Arbustoo 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to rememberthat it (and the JREF and James Randi) all had seperate articles at one time a couple years ago. (I may be wrong about that though.)  They all got merged into one article.  Then the JREF and Pigasus articles got split out again.  That is the way I remember it, I may be wrong.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you split the $1,000,000 prize and "similar offers", that doesn't leave much for JREF. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, just something to consider.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 7 May 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)

Christopher Hitchens and $1,000,000 Challenge
I am just curious if anyone thinks it is worth noting that Christopher Hitchens recently outed himself as one of the sponsors/underwriters of the $1,000,000. I'd always just assumed it was Johnny Carson, though I suppose he still could have been part of it.BathTub 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that should be in the article, with a source (I haven't heard it elsewhere). I had guessed that it was Penn Gillette.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P&T would be good guesses as well. Yeah I will have to dig up the interview to give the exact source, I have it saved, it was one of the multitude of interviews Christopher has done promoting God Is Not Great over the last few weeks.BathTub 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New section: "History of the foundation"
I added this new section today. Since it is major new material for the article, I'm mentioning it here. 5Q5 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)