Talk:Uri Geller

Swapped paragraphs three and four in litigation section
I swapped the third and fourth paragraphs in the litigation section to put the history of litigation in a more chronological order.

Colinj (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh?
'Geller is well known for making predictions regarding sporting events. Skeptic James Randi and British tabloid newspaper The Sun have demonstrated the teams and players he chooses to win most often lose.'

This would constitute a paranormal power, albeit a negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.181.33 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That may be true if the choice was between only two teams/players, however the article does not state how many other possibilities there were. As the source material is no longer on the website, one cannot tell (although im sure there are copies of it elsewhere on the internet). Benboy00 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to be wrong more than right when trying to choose the winners of sporting events. Even with something that is random, like coin tosses, you can be wrong more than half the time, though the longer you continue the closer you are likely to be to 50/50, but does not need to reach it to be well within the limits of probability. With sporting events the situation is even less likely to be 50/50 because the outcome is not random, and our choices are not random. A fan of a particularly bad team can be wrong nearly 100% of the time if they refuse to face the reality of the situation.

BBC Documentary, the Secret Life of Uri Geller
This was a fascinating documentary and made lots of interesting claims. The funny thing is that none of it is anywhere in the encyclopedia article although some of it is apparently quite well known and documented.

Was or is Uri Geller a member of Mossad? - Did he do work for the CIA and other intelligence services?, did he take part in remote viewing experiments, was he part of Stargate? The real question is, does any part of the documentary stand up?

I must admit that I have some knowledge of the psychic and far viewing. Some of what the program says seems very insightful and powerful, other things much less so. Some parts of Uri Gellar's descriptions of his 'powers' do not add up, some things are not mentioned but their censorship would make sense. Its always been very hard to tell whether Uri Geller was fake or real but the answer seems to be that it has to be a bit of both - and that really fits more than anything with being a 'spook'..

Ok this is only a warning that this documentary is out there, I'm sure there is other related evidence, or maybe it will be published in the near future. Without at least mentioning this aspect of Uri Gellar's life (real or not) the article is incomplete. Lucien86 (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum : There is a book "The Secret Life of Uri Geller: CIA Masterspy?" by Jonathan Margolis due to be published on the 19th of September. Lucien86 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it bizarre that the BBC web page describing the TV programme was considered an 'unreliable source' for the assertion in the article that "A 2013 BBC documentary claimed that the scientists who did research on Geller were funded by the CIA, for whom he worked secretly as a 'psychic spy'." Is someone suggesting that the writeup on the BBC's web site does not correctly describe the content of the programme?  That would be most surprising.  Anyway, I added an independent source describing the programme's content, namely a review in the Telegraph, which backs up what the website says. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Now located in Israel
Tel Aviv, (Now located in Israel) sounds like Tel Aviv moved to a new location, kind of like when the hardware store on the corner moves to the mall. This whole "British Mandate of Palestine" also sounds awkward and unclear. How about "Uri Geller, born on December 20, 1946, in Tel Aviv, Israel (which was at the time still under British rule as the Palestine Mandate)... I am going to be bold and change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplysavvy (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that the change you've made says something not true. Uri Geller was not born in Israel, he was born before the state of Israel came into existence. I'll modify the sentence so that it's at leatt true. - Nunh-huh 05:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As Nunh-huh says. Geller was born in 1946, and the Israeli Declaration of Independence was issued in 1948.


 * We use the name of the country that holds the land ("British Mandate of Palestine") not the name of the land ("Land of Israel"? "Palestina"?). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Uri Geller article
Towards the end of the 2013 documentary, Geller stated "I am an entertainer, I am a showman, I am in showbusiness - but, there is that other side to Uri Geller, and I love that side as much as I love the totally showbusiness side of Uri Geller - and that side is the dark side; it's what you see in spy movies." Charlie Koczka, former U.S. Customs Agent stated that Geller worked for the Mexican Government in an undercover capacity. Roger Sawyer, Former U.S. Consular Official, stated Geller was a regular guest at the home of the President of Mexico, José López Portillo. None of this shows I "believe in" anything about Geller, merely that important people allowed themselves to be duped by him. I am finished with editing Uri Geller on Wikipedia Dickie birdie (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Geller's latest claims made on a TV show of being a psychic spy may have a mention in the article body but showcasing them in the article lead is seriously WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Uri Geller and mineral dowsing. (Moved discussion left on my talk page).
The following was left on my talk page, so I have moved it here for continued discussion.--Dmol (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't know much about Uri Geller or about his success as a mineral dowser - whatever you think, he's been paid and I will dig out the Financial Times article from 1986 that reported this.

What you seem to overlook is that the very best skeptical treatment of Uri Geller by the likes of Paul Kurtz and others CANNOT, CANNOT legislate against Company Directors of Oil Companies and Presidents of Countries and Defence Security Agencies taking a serious interest in him. Don't get too surprised because as Julian Assange has shown, the people at the top are mediocre.

Please don't interpret these statements by me as some sort of "endorsement" by me of Uri Geller Dickie birdie (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My reply. ...


 * You are missing the point, which was clearly stated by myself (and others) in the edit summary. I am not disputing that Uri Geller claims to be a "psychic spy", or that he claims to have knocked out radars at an airport.  The point is that this is not info for the lede.  He is known internationally as a magician and for his claimed ability as a psychic, and this is what should be in the lede.  The first few sentences of should be a brief overview of the subject, not an exhaustive list of everything about the subject.
 * The fact that he has been paid does not make his claims valid, it just means that someone believes what he claims.
 * Feel free to add the info in to the body of the text, with refs of course, as it seems to be quite an interesting bit of info. --Dmol (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I have moved this info from the lede. His income from mineral dowsing is still mentioned in the article, but there is not enough to warrant its own section. Dowsing is pseudoscience, and should be in the paranormal claims section with all the rest of his claims. Geller is not a suitable reference for his own claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmol (talk • contribs) 06:58, 14 November 2014‎

GELLER AND SKEPTICS
Skeptics like Paul Kurtz only did a HALF-ASS JOB on Geller, omitting the fact he made his wealth from mineral dowsing and not from bending spoons and forks. The only place in the world this info is missing is on Wikipedia. Just because the Skeptics did a HALF-ASS job on Geller does not mean the info has to be omitted from Wikipedia. Geller did not get his mansions and Rolls Royces from bending forks. Dickie birdie (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And if anyone actually bothers to read Geller's biography by Puharich, it will be instantly seen that both Targ and Puthoff are goofballs who accepted the accounts of ET Communication between Geller and the Flying Saucers when the "evidence of the tape recordings" were presented to them by Puharich and Geller at the SRI. Dickie birdie (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"He made his wealth from mineral dowsing", actually this is false. Jeffrey Mishlove writes in his book "The Roots of Consciousness":

"Which companies he has worked for Geller won't say. "They do not want their name to be linked to the psychic, to the paranormal." His only really public venture to date is his success in bringing together Japan's Aoki Corporagtion and the U.S. Tishman Reality in a $500 million hotel, condominium shopping development near Disney World in Florida. Both John Aoki and John Tishman were personal friends. But Geller claims to be more than a mere go-between. "My role is that I predict the success of the venture."

Mishlove's book is utterly credulous and he is a personal friend of Geller. It isn't a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia but you get the idea. There is not a shred of evidence he made any money from mineral dowsing. There are no reliable sources that discuss it, so there is no reason to mention it on Wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

URI GELLER AND WIKIPEDIA EDITORS
For the first time, in 2014, Wikipedia editors are finding out that Geller stopped doing his spoon bending and fork bending tricks during the 1970s. And for the very first time also, Wikipedia Editors are finding out about Geller's mineral dowsing, something that has been reported by other people since at least the 1980s. But something that has been overlooked by skeptics, who continuously keep referring to Geller's spoon bending and fork bending tricks of the 1970s, frozen in a time-warp. Dickie birdie (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Editors are unable to offer any response in the form of discussion. But continue to delete material containing bonafide references. Dickie birdie (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't see that the Financial Times source you added to the lede supports the claim that Geller "stopped doing his spoon bending and fork bending tricks in a regular and professional way during the 1970s", so I've cut this sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the "vague" tag that Dickie birdie added because the sentence isn't vague and is supported by the content and references in the main body of the article. As for the edit summary stating that "needs evidence to support statement Geller has been bending forks and spoons after the 1970s" the sentence doesn't say this? Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dickie birdie has requested a citation required for "Geller bending spoons and forks "for decades" but the sentence doesn't say this? Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tendentious requests of citations for things already established by multiple reliable sources is considered to be disruptive. Ditto for repeated attempts to insert claims of citizenship and social relationships related to Mexico, sourced to a TV show. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia editors are finding out that Geller stopped doing his spoon bending and fork bending tricks during the 1970s", this is false. Look on Wikipedia Commons for photographs or just any internet search engine there are photographs as recent as the late 2000s of Geller performing spoon bending or similar feats in public. Goblin Face (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

W. E. Cox
I've cleaned up the material referring to psychical researcher W. E. Cox that was being misrepresented as scientific testing by ostensibly objective magician(s), but would prefer an independent reliable source to the Parapsychological Association paper reprinted by "www.zem.demon.co.uk". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I see the Puthoff-Targ material is duplicated, with slightly different wording - in both the "paranormal claims" and "scientific testing" section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Edward William Cox was a parapsychologist who worked with J. B. Rhine at Duke University. He was a believer in psychokinesis - even publishing several fringe papers on it. His only link to magic was becoming an associate member for the Society of American Magicians. This does not mean anything, anyone can become an associate member. It is incorrect to refer to Cox as a magician (even though paranormal books like to do this). I think Cox should be removed from the article. He is a minor parapsychologist with a minority fringe view and the sourcing to a parapsychology paper is not good in my opinion. I have no complaint with this source  as it gives some background on Cox, but it does not mention Geller. So in short I would request to remove Cox from the article. If anyone declines let me know. Goblin Face (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth
Mentioning that the local paper is reporting the Geller has moved to Tel Aviv. Specscat (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hoax demonstrations"
I'm not sure whether this phrase in the lead paragraph could be changed to "stage acts" to be more neutral and/or accurate. Thoughts? -- &oelig; &trade; 07:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:License2ill changed it from "television shows and appearances" to "television appearances and hoax demonstrations" today. The entirety of their edits here seem general unhelpful and POV (that Geller didn't have a "career", he had "appearances"), beyond their first edit about Randi's lawyer and the bit about the gorilla statue. I've reverted those edits. --McGeddon (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah thank you. Silly me for not checking into the history first. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
"Geller is well known for making predictions regarding sporting events. Skeptic James Randi and British tabloid newspaper The Sun have demonstrated the teams and players he chooses to win most often lose. John Atkinson explored "predictions" Geller made over 30 years and concluded "Uri more often than not scuppered [i.e., destroyed] the chances of sportsmen and teams he was trying to help." This was pointed out by one of Randi's readers, who called it "The Curse of Uri Geller."

During the Euro 96 football match between Scotland and England at Wembley, Geller, who was hovering overhead in a helicopter, claimed that he managed to move the ball from the penalty spot when Scotland's Gary McAllister was about to take a penalty kick, something that, if true, would be against the rules of association football, as the ball would then have been "out of play". The penalty kick was saved and Scotland lost 2-0."

User:Arthur Rubin and {User:Jzg]], this is some of what you added to the article. It is sourced to The Daily Express and "sports fan John Anderton" in The Sun. Oh, and some (unsourced) stuff about Geller's car, "...a 1976 Cadillac adorned with thousands of pieces of bent tableware given to him by celebrities or otherwise having significance to him. This includes spoons from such people as John Lennon and the Spice Girls, as well as those with which Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy supposedly ate."

Good stuff, gotta keep all that in, removing it makes me guilty of adding a "crank perspective", according to JzG, and it's all "well-sourced appropriate info" apparently. Two administrators edit-warring to add unsourced trivia (to a BLP). I am reverting again, since both of them obviously did not try reading any of it before adding it back. zzz (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You apparently didn't read the sources. Gellar is known for (attempting to) influence sports events, so commentary about that from the sources one would expect (sports columns) is appropriate.   The reference to rules violations does seem inappropriate, though.  That particular paragraph is subject to debate for relavence, but it is clearly not a WP:BLP violation.  If you think it is, try WP:BLPN; if you don't, I'll restore the material within 12 hours.
 * However, you've removed clearly reliably sourced and clearly relavent material, as well.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Such as? zzz (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look. User:JzG and User:Arthur Rubin, it is unsourced. The car ("relavent"? how?) is not mentioned in a source. "Sports fan John Anderton" is the most pathetic excuse for a source that I have seen - not a Sun journalist, even, but a "sports fan" written about by a Sun journalist (and now, also by Wikipedia). I do not care if it is a BLP violation. Frankly, I can't believe this is up for debate. zzz (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, user Signedzzz, you have two very long-standing Wikipedians pointing out that your undiscussed changes are sub-optimal. I have looked at your edit history, most of it seems to be promoting woo. Wikipedia is a reality-based project, not liking criticism of woo does not magically make the woo valid. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User JzG, I realise that being "a Sceptic" is a pseudo-religious calling for such as yourself, with special buzzwords like "woo" that you can proudly use as a badge of honour at every opportunity. However, this is WP:NOTAFORUM, as I told you already. If you so desperately want to add unsourced trivia about a car, and the opinion - or "research" - of a sports fan as reported in The Sun, to this (or any) article, then that definitely tells me all I need to know. Thank you. zzz (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have that entirely reversed. Being a skeptic means following the evidence, wherever it leads, even if it shows you are wrong. Which I have been on several occasions, and changed my mind as a result. The problem for this article is that a small number of people - apparently including Geller himself - refuse to believe the evidence and instead insist on presenting outlandish claims as fact. As Randi said, if he is using psychic powers to bend spoons, he is doing it the hard way. Everything he has done can be (and has been) reproduced by conjurers, there is absolutely no credible evidence of the existence of psychokinesis, so our article will follow the reality-based consensus that Geller is a conjurer. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, Randi the great all-knowing Skeptic, who absolutely needed to be wiki-linked half a dozen times in this one single article. "Geller is a conjurer"... no, surely not. You jest. zzz (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Randi the expert on stage magic who wrote The Truth About Uri Geller and has a long history of debunking frauds like Peter Popoff, yes. As we say in the article, Geller's tricks are all within the realms of what's possible with stage magic, and there is zero credible evidence for the existence of psychic powers such as Geller claims. That's the way it is: the universe has laws, and people who wish they were not laws are every bit as bound by them as those of us who don't care either way. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX - they also apply to "Skeptics".
 * This revert by User:JzG, with the summary "Still unexplained, still inflating nonsensical over sensical views", is incompetent, to put it mildly. "Still unexplained" - this section (if it needed explaining). And the edit in question has absolutely nothing to do with any views of any description, nor have any views been discussed here, except with regard to the sourcing for a Wikipedia article (which some "long-standing editors", it seems, are staggeringly deficient in). zzz (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're allowed to belittle Randi and I'm not allowed to point out why he is specifically relevant as a source for this page? Sorry, that ain't how it works. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Geller v. Nintendo
I see we note this case but as far as I can tell it was thrown out. A search today did not find any reliable independent sources discussing the outcome of the case, does anybody know of any? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Geller's magic
"Throughout the years, Geller has used simple conjuring tricks to simulate the effects of psychokinesis and telepathy." I have changed simple to skilful. His tricks are not simple, they require great skill. His skill is highly admired by magicians. The award he has received for services to magic is highly prestigious, and rarely given. And James Randi, for all his boating, has never come close to reproducing them, he simply does not have the skill. 82.42.185.174 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm taking out the adjective altogether. Not up to WPdians to decide on subjective issues regarding ability - WP:WORDS - puffery Edaham (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Toroid (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Need for Open-minded Skepticism
I am not a proponent of Uri Geller. In fact, what brought me to this site initially was seeing the BBC story about the digital release of the CIA documents on him. I simply wanted to understand who he was. What I found was an overwhelming skeptical take on his abilities. That may be warranted, but I didn't think the documents released would justify such a definitive judgement on the matter. So I simply summarized what was in the CIA documents on Geller. Immediately someone took out this factual information citing the poor source (the BBC) and stating that the info was not really news since it had resided previously in an archive. Why then did papers around the globe run it as a news item? Simply because no one had previously located the documents hidden away in a dusty warehouse and they had not been published. With digital archiving, the documents instantly became accessible and news stories were generated. I reverted the edit removing the info and then someone indicating he/she is a skeptical atheist removed the factual material again. Why are people on this site so fixated on suppressing information. Let people judge themselves. I really don't have a dog in the question about Geller and ESP, but I do value fairness and objectivity. I applaud the person who again added back the factual information and hope that somewhere there is a wikipedia editor who also values objectivity and will keep this encyclopedia entry factual and dispassionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroid (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The document release adds nothing new. We already knew about Puthoff's credulous experiments. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Open-minded skeptic here (really, there is no other kind, save pseudo-skeptics). These documents prove nothing. Thanks for participating, allow us to offer you a door prize consisting of a free trip to our luxurious policy article on how to handle claims which fall outside the mainstream of accepted knowledge. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to be careful enforcing “accepted knowledge” because what we think we know is a moving target. Quantum mechanics is deeply counter-intuitive and was firmly rejected by mainstream science when it was first introduced into scientific thought. If we tried to enforce only “accepted views” at any given time, we can be sure we would be hamstringing the growth of knowledge. There is something called the CIA fact book (also called the world fact book) which many people consult as their go-to source of reliable information. This points up that most people regard the CIA as a reliable purveyor of knowledge. Does this mean that the CIA is never wrong? Hardly, indeed, they may well be duped in the case of their experiments on Geller. However, prima facie, most reasonable people would regard the CIA as a generally reliable source of information. Why then is simply citing a CIA document equivalent to pushing fringe information? How can you be so sure that you know better than everybody else? Why must people be “protected” from seeing any other opinion than your own? I think your position is logically untenable. Toroid (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a question of WP:UNDUE weight on the fringe viewpoint. Our article already summarizes the CIA-funded Putoff tests and even includes a positive quote from it regarding Geller's performance. Now a new paragraph has been been added (based on a recent news story) that showcases Geller's hits, but omits other details (from the same news story) such as Geller's misses, and the study's conclusion that Geller did better when there were no "sceptical observers" present. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your objection is rooted in the dual assumptions that "now" is a meaningless distinction and that one day, psychic abilities will be confirmed. The first assumption is ridiculous and pointless, and the second is so highly unlikely as to be of a similar weight. Please review the (second) link I provided. WP does not exist to push the boundaries of accepted knowledge, but to document accepted knowledge. If WP existed in paleolithic times, it quite rightly would have reported that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited it. WP is undergoing constant editing and correction, therefore we do not concern ourselves with whether or not a claim will be shown to be false in the future, only whether it is verifiable at the current time. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the article I read listed many more hits than misses. I could have quoted more but limited it to the first two for the sake of brevity. The summary opinion in the CIA document clearly supported Geller's abilities. There is abundant info on this website claiming Geller is a fraud and one item explains in detail how Geller duped the Stanford investigators. I don't have a firm opinion in the matter. Reading the CIA documents, however, the supposed explanation doesn't seem to hold water. They talk about Geller reacting immediately to the posting of the drawing so I don't know he would be able to peak through keyholes. I don't think the CIA documents or the opinions expressed therein ultimately "prove" anything. This is just one data point and one would have to carefully analyze the totality of the evidence. I think the duty of an encyclopedia is to present valid evidence and not decide on absolute truth at any given moment. If you look at the old issues of the Encyclopaedia Britannica from the 19th century it presented evidence that light was a particle and other equally convincing evidence that light was a wave. Opinion was divided and it was only in the 20th century that we realized that both (contradictory) opinions were correct. Should the editor who was convinced light was a wave have eliminated all contrary opinions?Toroid (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the article I read listed many more hits than misses. I have no idea what that "actually" is in reference to, because I never suggested the article described more misses than hits. In fact, I haven't addressed the source for your edits at all, instead limiting myself to explaining WP policy and accepted rational thought regarding this issue. I hazard to suggest that if you would limit yourself to understanding WP policy and rational though regarding this, we could do away with this argument entirely.
 * Be that as it may, nothing you have said here has been novel in any way. Your 'point' about the Encyclopedia Britanica ignores the fundamentally and phenomenally important detail that the dueling descriptions of light had been around for several centuries at that point, and the equally important and fundamental detail that both descriptions were backed by solid science and reproducible evidence. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL and understand that even if you were correct that the EB predicted wave-particle duality (you're not, they never attempted to predict any such thing), that would not make it acceptable for us to do so, as well. Two wrongs don't make a right. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You totally misconstrued what I said. It would be absurd to say that the EB or anybody in the 19th century "predicted" wave-particle duality. I spoke to presenting evidence, even when that evidenced conflicted with "accepted" opinions. To explain my point more clearly, beginning with Thomas Young's double slit experiment in 1803 showing that light interfered with itself, scientific opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of the wave interpretation. After James Clerk Maxwell showed later in the century that light behaved mathematically like a wave, the argument was essentially closed. Things changed in 1905 with Einstein, but an EB editor in the latter half of the 19th century might well have been tempted to eliminate all discussion of the particle theory. Fortunately, the EB like wikipedia understood that this is not the way science works. Look up the articles on Superstring Theory or Supersymmetry in the wikipedia. There is no hard evidence at all for these theories, but they are within the ambit of scientific discussion and so are a valid subject for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroid (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't misinterpret anything, you've simply elected to only respond to the part of my comments where I preemptively cut off one possible tact of argument from you, while ignoring the part where I responded to exactly what you just said you meant. Everything I said stands on its own. If you will not read and comprehend WP policy, your editing tenure here is likely to be very short. So take my advice: go back and read those links I've presented you with. If you still don't understand what's wrong with your edits, then read them again and again until you do. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is sad you have no reading comprehension ability. It seems to match your overall intellectual abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroid (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you cannot heed simple advice does not speak to my intelligence. The fact that you ignored the larger portion of my comments in order to set up a straw man to tilt at does not speak to my reading comprehension. To add to the list of articles you should read, I now add WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your editing so far seems very likely to get you site banned very quickly. I'm trying to help you avoid that, but you need to let me help you for that to work. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The claims of Puthoff and Targ were investigated, with access to all of this documentation, by Hyman, at the time. His judgment was that the protocols were sloppy and inadequate. This is consistent with their approach ot other purported psychics. They were hoaxed quite badly, more than once. The release of their documents does not constitute new knowledge, and a lot of work since this time has shown that a lot of the demonstrations that sparked interest in the paranormal in the 60s and 70s were, in fact, fraudulent. We now know more about this, and what we know has made Geller's claims of the time less, not more, plausible. Nothing has changed with the release of these documents. There is no new science, no new data to analyse, no reason to revisit the conclusions that led tot he eventual shutdown of these silly programs. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We should mention the CIA document release online, but not devote a whole uncritical paragraph to the contents. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe if it were an actual "release" of newly-declassified information online. But it's not . It would add nothing to the article to state, "In January 2017 the CIA posted the documents online which were previously available to the public at the National Archives in Maryland". Better to add the link to the archival materials section of External links. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We could add it as a source to the existing text that discusses it (the subsection Scientific testing). I really don't see any need to expand upon what's already there. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone added a link to the online docs in that section as a source (ref name="CIAsri") almost a week ago, so I think we're done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The article appears bias in the skeptical direction and omits a larger number of the most relevant references, for instance: http://www.urigeller.com/scientific-paranormal/what-scientists-say-about-uri-geller/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.1.77 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Uri Geller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/espsucc.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.randi.org/hotline/1994/0048.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526200049/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n6_v22/ai_21275515 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n6_v22/ai_21275515

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uri Geller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028225327/http://www.springfilms.tv/productions/past-productions/uri-geller/ to http://www.springfilms.tv/productions/past-productions/uri-geller/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias Toward the Skeptical Side
The article appears to be strongly bias toward the skeptical side as shown by selections and omissions of many relevant sources, e.g. http://www.urigeller.com/scientific-paranormal/what-scientists-say-about-uri-geller/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.1.77 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Contrast the Randi related presentation in the article with:

"Pseudoskeptics will say that an experiment was uncontrolled even when they were never at the location of the experiment. This happened with the SRI (Stanford Research Institute) experiments on famous psychic Uri Geller, which was published in the scientific journal Nature in 1974.  Psychic debunker James Randi (Geller’s nemesis) and other skeptics who were not at SRI when Geller was tested, made a bunch of accusations against SRI such as poor controls and deliberate skewing of the results on the part of the scientists there, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ.  But since Randi and his skeptics were never there, all they have is speculation based on their closed beliefs.  Randi has no explanation for Geller’s success in some of the experiments such as guessing the exact number of the roll of a die in a cup 8 times in a row, or finding the cup with water or metal in it out of a series of cups. All he can say is that Puthoff and Targ are not magicians and do not know how to detect magic tricks. (Though suffice to say, Randi is not qualified as a scientist in any way, while Puthoff and Targ are) And of course, he charges SRI and Geller with clumsy inadequate controls or fraud, which are merely blanket statements from him cause he has no concrete evidence or explanations."  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page18.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.1.77 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And contrast the "It's just stage magic" thread in the article with:

"Randi also claimed in a Town Meeting speech that no magician considers Geller to be real, which was again flat out wrong. Have a look at these quotes from some of the top magicians of the world, including David Blaine and David Ben... http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page18.htm


 * I'm sorry but "debunkingskeptics.com" isn't considered a reliable source, or more significantly, an independent one. As for your other question, Wikipedia relies on scholarly material rather than on anecdotes and testimonials found on web pages. Dozens of scientists could express their opinion that Geller has psychic powers, but if none of them can get those opinions published in peer reviewed scientific journals, Wikipedia has no choice but to ignore them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uri Geller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620234050/https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/israeli-psychic-uri-geller-thinks-save-newcastle-utd-022210457--spt.html to https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/israeli-psychic-uri-geller-thinks-save-newcastle-utd-022210457--spt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Repetition
There is a phenomenal amount of repetition in this article. Aside from the obvious - eg: massive overlinking of James Randi - numerous statements, such as those concerning the opinions of watchmakers, are repeated time (sic) and again. I am loathe to get involved because I deal with enough crazies elsewhere but perhaps someone is prepared to take it on. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Simulate" vs "fake"
I've been reverted on removing weasel wording from the lead, which had said that Geller "simulates" psychic powers, using the sources as an excuse maintain that bias. No, Randi simulates them, Geller fakes them. That's what the sources in the lead actually say. The lead was worded as if Geller were an honest stage magician and TV entertainer, while the sources say that he's been conning people by denying that he's a magician. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition/meaning of simulation does not imply your change, which is better POV. Oxford: Simulation is a situation in which a particular set of conditions is created artificially in order to study or experience something that could exist in reality.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC))

No personal life?
From the section titled "Personal Life" comes the impression that he has none. Max2x4 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2024
Here is the original version of the lead before the spate of recent edits began:

Uri Geller (אורי גלר; born 20 December 1946) is an Israeli-British illusionist, magician, television personality, and self-proclaimed psychic. He is known for his trademark television performances of spoon bending and other illusions. Geller uses conjuring tricks to simulate the effects of psychokinesis and telepathy. Geller's career as an entertainer has spanned more than four decades, with television shows and appearances in many countries. Magicians have called Geller a fraud because of his claims of possessing psychic powers.

Please discuss changes to the lead here so that consensus can be reached. Thanks, &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)