Talk:James Randi

Carlos hoax in Australia

I seem to recall some contention over whether the Carlos hoax in Australia was a "success," from the Australian Skeptics, who thought that it was a failure. Lippard (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it: Barry Williams' editorial, "The Carlos Hoax - a personal view," The Skeptic (Australia), vol. 8, no. 1, 1988: "In this case, I believe that, in its own terms, this hoax was not particularly successful, but that the ensuing media furore may have produced the useful result of focusing media attention more clearly on the ease with which 'genuine' charlatans can manipulate our uncritical media." His main concern was that the media outlets which bit on this hoax were those that were most skeptical. He had been approached by the media to ask if this were a skeptical hoax, and he denied it, since he was unaware of Randi's involvement.

This editorial is online in PDF form at http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2ndcoming/editorials.pdf, p. 6 of that PDF. Lippard (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The man who portrayed "Carlos," who has has lived with Randi and been known as Jose Luis Alvarez for the past 24 years, has been arrested in Florida on charges of identity theft dating back to 1987. Newspapers accounts report that grand jury charges state that the identity theft, by which Pena was able to obtain a U.S. passport to travel to Australia with Randi, was part of "an elaborate hoax by Randi" from which Randi profited for 15 years. This material has been added to the article, with citations from two reputable Florida newspapers. 70.36.137.124 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed it. The section headed Legal disputes included such notables as Eldon Byrd, Uri Geller, Allison Dubois, Earl Curley and Sniffex, all of whom has some sort of legal dealing with Randi. Carlos/Alvarez doesn't, so that doesn't fit the article. A BLP for Carlos/Alvarez might survive. Moriori (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are three places in the bio where Carlos / Alvarez / Pena was mentioned and mention of his arrest has been removed from all three, namely:

(1) The "Skeptic" section: This is where Carlos is discussed but the new information about the 24-yea life-partnership connection between Randi and "Carlos" and the arrest of "Carlos" was removed; this seems spurious, as does the newly re-inserted peacock language about how Randi "tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a fraud" which was substituted for the neutrally worded statement that Randi and Pena "perpetrated a fraud," pure and simple. I suggest re-inserting this version, which begins "In 1988..." and concludes "for 15 years". I would like to see this reinstated and the peacock-language re-deleted.

(2) The "Legal issues" section: This was admittedly a problematic addition to the article, since the arrest was of Pena, not Randi. Carlos / Alvarez does have legal dealings with Randi, but Moriori's point is well taken: This material probably does belongs in an Alvarez / Pena bio page.

(3) The "Personal life" section: This removal of any mention of the arrest of "Alvarez" (Pena) looks like page-sanitzing, because the truth is that Pena has been Randi's full-time live-in life-partner for 24 years and was arrested in the home he shares with Randi. Now, had this been the arrest of say, the husband of a United States senator, in the their shared home, on a federal identity theft warrant, or the arrest of the wife of a famous movie star, in their shared home, on a federal identity theft warrant, you KNOW that two sentences about the arrest would have been admitted to Wikipedia as part of the "Personal life" biography of the BLP subject. Randi's life-partner, the man he came out with when he came out as gay, with whom he has shared his life for almost a quarter-century, was arrested in their shared home on a federal identity theft charge -- and this is NOT supposed to be part of Randi's personal life? I have re-inserted the fully-cited two sentences covering this, which begins "in September 2011..." and concludes with "24 years". Two sentences, folks; that is not hijacking this article. It is merely stating something factual about Randi's personal life in the section devoted to his personal life.

Opinions are welcomed. 70.36.137.124 (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be patient. Many editors now more aggressively insist that WP:BLP be followed, so if you have previously seen cases of articles with material on the misadventures of someone's spouse, you should not assume the same would occur again. I won't give links, but I have recently seen mentions of the arrest on child pornography charges of the husband of a notable woman removed from the article on the woman because the matter was simply not pertinent to her long term notability. If the matter escalates and the woman's career is actually affected, then suitable material will be added to the article. The same principle applies here. I have not taken the time to look for sources, but a quick scan suggests that not much is known at the moment. Accordingly, it may not be appropriate to add exciting tidbits to the biography of Randi now. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, This is not an "exciting tidbit" in the sense of "new" news. The arrest was on September 8, 2011. Pena was in federal custody for six weeks before revealing his name and being bailed out on $1.5 million bond on October 21, 2011. Then, on November 9, 2011 his lawyer stated that he would plead guilty. It is now November 22, 2011, long enough for court appearances to be scheduled and statements to be made. .

While your point about the arrest of a man on child pornography charges being deleted from the BLP article about the man's wife makes sense in the context in which you present it -- "because the matter was simply not pertinent to her long term notability" -- such is NOT the case with Randi and Pena / "Carlos" / "Alvarez" -- in fact, the highly publicized and media-celebrated Carlos hoax perpetrated in Australia by Randi and Pena, which was only made possible due to Pena's theft of Alvarez's identity in order to get a U.S. passport, and was perpetuated by Randi's sheltering of Pena for the next quarter-century, was and is materially important to Randi's notability.

Your statement, "a quick scan suggests that not much is known at the moment" shows the trouble with making "quick scans" instead of reading the results of another Wikipedia editor's solid research or, better, reading the cited news stories in full. A great deal is known, actually -- far more than was considered notable in connection to Randi.

The name, occupation, and location of the man whom Pena parasitized with the quarter-century identity theft is known, as is the fact that over the years this man has been subjected to false IRS bills for Pena's taxes and was denied a U.S. passport to attend his sister's wedding in Jamaica on the grounds that he was the fraudster (so reputable and well-entrenched was Pena as Randi's partner "Carlos" / "Alvarez" that the REAL Alvarez was doubted, in other words).

The name of Pena's lawyer, Susan Dmitrovsky, is known. The lawyer's statement that Pena is going to plead guilty and is seeking a plea deal is known. The postponement of Pena's trial until January 2012 is known.

Even Randi's official statements on the subject has been reported: "Our lawyers have said we are not to comment on our knowledge or lack of knowledge. I simply cannot say anything." [...] "Randi acknowledged that the arrest of Alvarez and the allegations of identity fraud have opened himself up to attack by his critics" [...] "It is good press fodder, I would say."

But, as noted, what is relevant to THIS article -- and what should not be deleted -- is that Randi's performance-partner and life-partner "Carlos" was engaged in double identity theft at the time of the "Carlos" fraud (Randi unmasked "Carlos" as "Alvarez," which was also a false identity), then "Carlos" / "Alvarez" lived with Randi for the next quarter-century, until, in September 2011, he was arrested in the home he shares with Randi on a federal fraud warrant, and that his real name is Deyvi Pena. All of this speaks directly to Randi's supposed life-long goal of unmasking fraud, as does Randi's refusal "to comment on our knowledge or lack of knowledge" with regard to his partner's true identity.

Here are the articles used in researching this event. Read them yourself:

"Celebrated South Florida artist Jose Alvarez accused of identity theft". South Florida Sun Sentinel. September 09, 2011. Mentions that "Carlos" / "Alvarez" / Pena had "teamed with Randi on the world stage," interviews the victim of the quarter-century of identity theft, the real Jose Luis Alvarez -- "he said he's been dunned by the IRS for taxes he didn't owe on income in Florida, that his bank account has periodically been frozen and that he had difficulty renewing his driver's license."

"'The Amazing' Randi, renowned supernatural investigator, immersed in mystery about partner's alleged ID theft". The Palm Beach Post. September 16, 2011. States "it is unclear if Randi is cooperating with them" (federal authorities), details the earlier "Carlos" fraud, explains how Randi and "Alvarez," as life-partners, have profited from the "Carlos" fraud, interviews Randi.

"Celebrated Plantation artist to plead guilty in identity theft case". South Florida Sun Sentinel. November 3, 2011. Reveals Deyvi Pena name for the first time, states amount of bond, gives lawyer name, trial schedule, lawyer quotes, and a quote from the judge.

The information is all there, including Randi's refusal to explain his "knowledge" of the identity theft, which has caused so much trouble to the victim of this fraud.

To repeat: The highly publicized and media-celebrated Carlos hoax perpetrated in Australia by Randi and Pena, which was only made possible due to Pena's theft of Alvarez's identity in order to get a U.S. passport, and was perpetuated by Randi's sheltering of Pena for the next quarter-century, was and is materially important to Randi's notability 70.36.137.124 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, and perhaps when solid facts are known you could write an article about the subject. However, what would you say here about Randi given that this is an article about him? We can guess that it's all a pretty amazing emotional roller coaster, but apart from that, what can we say? Wikipedia is an excellent resource but it is very open to abuse which is most commonly seen in articles on politicians where opponents want to add the latest misadventure that has befallen some relative of the politician. There is a very justified pushback against coatracking information about Y into articles about X: if Y is notable, write an article about Y, but don't find some other article to insert information about Y. If the matter is as substantial as described above, it will develop, and secondary sources will write a thoughtful analysis of the situation. That is when information should be added here. Perhaps that time is very close, and if someone were to study the available texts they might be able to construct reasonable material for use here, however it would require some care. By the way, the claim "is materially important to Randi's notability" is known as synthesis here—that is, the opinion of an editor, constructed by assembling various factoids (not permitted in an article). Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Johnuniq, (1) None of the deleted text mentioned an "emotional roller coaster" in any way. nor was there any speculation about anyone's emotions. That is a straw man. (2) Your explanation that "is materially important to Randi's notability" is known as synthesis here—that is, the opinion of an editor, constructed by assembling various factoids (not permitted in an article)" is true -- but you are falsely utilizing this as an argument against inclusion of the material because the statements that Randi's promotion with Pena of the "Carlos" / "Alvarez" hoax aided Randi's notability were not made by a Wikipedia editor. Rather, they given by the two reporters (Franceschina and Burstein). Among the newspaper texts you will find an account of how Randi and Pena promoted the "Carlos" hoax for years and are profiting from it to this day. No Wikipedia editor synthesized that from "factoids" -- the newspaper reporters stated it, with a yearly dollar-amount attached. Citing a professional journalist in a reputable source is not "synthesis." 70.36.137.124 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Source for more biographical material

As I write this, Mr. Randi, 81, is undergoing chemotherapy treatment post surgery for intestinal cancer. Here is a great recent article in a San Fransisco weekly newspaper that provides a lot of personal life and career material and is a good reference source for editors who wish to expand those sections: The Demystifying Adventures of the Amazing Randi (the health info is sourced in the article from there, too). 5Q5 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I set up a multiple reference name to make it easier to quote from the above article. Use: <ref name = "SF-Weekly"/>  No other template needed.   5Q5 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Most recent edit using term 'liable for'

The most recent edit changes 'guilty of' to 'liable for', and not entirely sure that is the case. While I agree that 'guilty of' is certainly inappropriate because it is civil, can he be liable for something when he must pay $0? Iæfai (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He was found guilty of libel, but no damages were awarded. You could say that he was found responsible, or that his content met the legal definition of libel, etc.98.225.230.65 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed text on the million dollar challenge

Recently the following text has been added on the million dollar challenge. 9Immediately after the mention of the "rules.")

One of which is to give all rights to any data or material produced during the test over to the JREF. As well as agree that no legal action will be taken against Randi or JREF.(1) Randi and/or the JREF have their own conditions under which they would consider someone having paranormal powers. Some participants have said that their conditions are both unscientific and unrealistic.(2)(3)

Here are the footnotes for that material:
1. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html
2. http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
3. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/169-swift-february-29-2008.html#i9

This material has been repeatedly reverted and re-inserted and I'm about to delete it again. Since edit summaries haven't settled this, here's the reason.

First, the first sentence misuses the source. That is to say the challenge rules do not state that the applicant must "give all rights" to the data "over to the JREF", only that the data "may be used freely" by the JREF. This simply means that the applicant can't keep the results of the test a secret.

Second, the third sentence (Randi and/or the JREF have ...) is simply an unsourced falsehood. Neither Randi nor the JREF have "their own conditions" about what constitutes a successful test. That's something that has to be agreed upon by both the JREF and the applicant.

Third, the fourth sentence (Some participants have said ...) misuses the source. There are no "participants" quoted in either source saying anything at all about the challenge, let alone characterizing it as "unscientific and unrealistic."

Fourth, using dailygrail.com as an allegedly reliable source. Why don't you pull my other leg? That one's got bells on it.

Fifth, and most importantly, this material is not suitable for the article regardless of how it might be sourced and rewritten. The article is a biography of James Randi, not a forum for debating niggling details about the challenge. It's not helpful to the reader to get into this petty back-and-forth in the article about whether the challenge is everything it's supposed to be. The text doesn't belong in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

About his coming out

I just reverted an edit that added "homosexual" to "Canadian American stage magician and scientific skeptic" in the opening. His being gay or not is not very notable in relation to his career, and I feel the blurb in the Personal Life section is more than enough, at least for now. 207.255.35.246 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; good revert. Steve Smith (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed. That was ordinary vandalism. Note that the IP you reverted had a red user talkpage link, which tends to be characteristic of non-serious editing. Thanks for your help! Bishonen | talk 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Being homosexual is a very important fact, and his being a rational skeptic gay person is a source of pride in the LGBT community. Removing his sexual orientation from the lead is homophobic POV. Creostines (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not homophobic, it's just not very relevant. Consider "Enrico Fermi was a heterosexual Italian physicist considered by many to the father of the atomic age". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

TV and film section

This whole section, minus a few, needs citations added to them. I was going to template them but it's a long list so I thought it better to put the notation here to make it aware to those who edit this article regularly. If no citations can be found then they should be removed. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nature article

Not sure where to put it, but Randi coauthored an article which appeared in the November 2008 edition of Nature. [1] 212.159.69.4 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Randi's views in the 1960s

Jim Moseley, in his book Shockingly Close to the Truth (2002, Prometheus Books), p. 189, wrote that "At the time, Randi was relatively open-minded about saucers and other weirdness"--referring to when Randi's radio show on WOR competed head-to-head with Long John Nebel. Randi appeared at Moseley's UFO convention in July 1967, and was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "Let's not fool ourselves. There are some garden variety liars involved in all this. But in among all the trash and nonsense perpetrated in the name of Ufology, I think there is a small grain of truth." (Willard Clopton, "Air Force's UFO Expert Meets the Man From S.A.U.C.E.R.S.," Washington Post, June 27, 1967, as cited in Tim Cridland, "The Real James Randi," Electricity of the Mind, The Anomalist #14, pp. 161-169). Cridland's article argues that Randi was somewhat of a promoter of the paranormal in his youth (as a fake psychic, astrology column author, and radio show host) and has slightly revised his biography subsequently to be more consistent with his current views. As Cridland notes, however, Randi himself admits he posed as a fake psychic in The Magic of Uri Geller, where he reprints two newspaper articles about the subject. Cridland seems to have his facts straight, but his interpretation that Randi has consciously modified his biography (as opposed to making minor errors in his recollections as biased by his current views, or simply being a bit sloppy in tracking down accurate details) seems unsubstantiated. Lippard (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Anomalist

Someone has made edits to this article sourced to an article by one Tim Cridland called "The Real James Randi" in a publication called The Anomolist. Does anyone here know anything about this publication and whether it qualifies as a reliable source? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just spent a few minutes on this myself. Here are a couple of relevant links. [2] [3] And here's a google search. [4] Clearly not reliable. I'll revert forthwith. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see the section above this one. Since you think it looks doubtful, too, Lippard, I'm sure you won't object to my revert. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Steven, I object to your reverts. The specific claims sourced to Cridland are reliable and accurate, and have been written about by Randi himself. He posed as a psychic named "Prince Ibis" and he wrote an astrological column for Midnight under the name Zo-ran. Where I disagree with Cridland is on his interpretation, not about these specific facts. Lippard (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now my concern is limited to whether The Anomolist passes or fails WP:RS. I don't think it does (my opinion). Remember that per WP:BLP sourcing must be impeccable in Wikipedia bios of living persons. If you disagree, we can take that dispute to WP:RSN, but the edit itself is a small one and perhaps not worth the trouble. You say on my talk page that you have other sources. Perhaps it would be better to use them, instead. There's also a possible WP:UNDUE issue here. Is this particular detail of Randi's life story significant enough that it warrants a mention in his Wikipedia article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The current text is misleading in that it describes his initial "Prince Ibis" career as "conjuror" instead of "psychic" and omits mention that he was to some extent a promoter, rather than debunker, of woo in his youth. That is a pretty significant biographical detail that shouldn't be revised out of his life, especially since Randi himself has reported it in The Magic of Uri Geller. Lippard (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've redone my edits with references to Randi's own published statements on the subject. Lippard (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The neutrality of this article should be discussed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.217.228 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, IP, you added the neutrality tag, let's hear you discuss it. I suggest you begin now because the tag looks entirely unjustified and is likely to be removed within minutes.

Oh, I see what happened. You tried to add material sourced to a website called rense.com, website of the noted nutcase Jeff Rense. This site is host to all manner of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and Obama-is-a-Kenyan idiocy, not to mention a heaping helping of Holocaust denial and other assorted antisemitism. This is probably the most obviously unreliable source I've ever seen anyone try to use on Wikipedia. Your edits were then swiftly reverted and now you're pouting about it. Say goodbye to the tag. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve ,this is an ad hominem phallacy , even nutcracks like Rense can have good ideas ( of course not those on Nazy false theories and so on ) . However I have noticed the bigotry in this article . Randi is so perfect , flawless , being labeled " the " representive of scientific research and the truth that has never been consistently criticised and won all challengers, that makes one wonder if the whole article is anything but either a political discourse or a piece of propaganda.

It is pretty obvious that he built most his career on the midia by chasing Geller for many years .

I beg to differ with you on this one. From my own personal observations from television and national magazines through out my youth Randi was certainly well known in the world of magic and with the public long before Uri Geller came along. User:kazuba 11 Nov 2010

I agree with kazuba--the content of the entry makes it clear that he was an established figure in popular culture prior to and independent of Geller. It might be accurate to say that the Geller controversy helped him make his name as a public figure of skepticism, but even in skepticism he's done many noteworthy things that didn't involve Geller (e.g., going after faith healers, his role in the Benveniste affair, Project Alpha, his investigation of the Columbus poltergeist case, his public demonstrations of psychic surgery, and on and on). Lippard (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, people here are so quick to delete dissent voices, once it comes to skeptics biographies here that I see anything but a democratic debate ( and I doubt these words I am typing now will last long ).

It is no help to cite here a lots of scholarly articles on how Randi and some of the CSICOP are consistently criticised by their methods and atttitudes and also explain how they should not be taken as the sole representatives of Science research on PSI ( of which I doubt the existence before one says anything ).

Thanks for the tips on setting up an account guys. I will think it over. Before I forget: Good bye tag !  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.217.228 (talk • contribs) 30 October 2010

E-mail

Chaoticfluffy, about sharing your e-mail address in public, which you redacted: good call. I have explained on the IP's talkpage how to enable wikipedia e-mail (i.e. by creating an account). Also warned them about edit warring by repeatedly reinserting the neutrality tag. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

The article about James Randi is not correct

Quote: "The JREF sponsors The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offering a prize of US$1,000,000 to applicants[6] who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties."

Comment: This is not true. James Randi dictates the test conditions and there are no compromises. If a person says: "Let me demonstrate this and this, but I am not interested in any money reward, only the investigation and demonstration of paranormal phenomena," James Randi will refuse. The one million dollar reward is simply a gimmick, a magicians's trick to draw away the audience's attention to the fact, that James Randi is being unreasonable in his demands to the person under test. A million dollar reward seems to justify almost anything. (Rasmussen, Denmark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.183.177 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2010

Unless there's a source to support these assertions this is an unhelpful contribution.   Will Beback  talk  10:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, who responds to the James Randi challenge will meet the (fixed) terms set for the challenge and find out that they are not for negotiation. This information (or rather: warning) is very helpful for anyone considering responding the James Randi challenge. (Rasmussen, Denmark)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.183.177 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2010

We're not here to warn people. We're here to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You ask me to provide a source. Here it is: THE SIXTEEN OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE. Is that OK? (Rasmussen, Denmark) Will you edit the main article now, so that the rreaders will not get the impression that the "test conditions are agreed to by both parties"? (Rasmussen, Denmark)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.183.177 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2010

That source does not support the claims you're making, so the answer is no. Also, if you can't figure out how to sign your posts, that's ok, but please don't delete the sig put there by the bot. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Who can take the million dollar challenge?

There is a common misunderstanding that pretty much anyone can take part. BullRangifer's recently revert on the basis that "Anyone can apply" exemplifies this, and indeed anyone could take part a few years ago. However, the current JREF rules very explicitly state that only a tightly limited subset of the general population will be considered as applicants. This limit screen outs time-wasters, the mentally ill and so on.

My original solution to the inadequacy of the word "anyone" was to replace it with "eligible persons". This was choice of wording was legalistically neutral precisely to avoid the tedium of POV wars. My second edit intended no expression of POV either. It was an attempt to exhibit zero ambiguity - BullRangifer had misunderstood before.

A good article lede should actively discourage perpetuation of verifiably superseded information. Using an unqualified "participants" as the replacement for "anyone" totally fails in this respect. I'm therefore reinserting minimalist mention of the eligibility concept. If you see POV in this, please feel free to thrash out an alternative below these words. K2709 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bio of James Randi. The edits you made were to the lead of this article. The lead of this article is not the place to explicate every niggling detail of the JREF challenge. Furthermore, the lead was accurate in stating that the million dollars is offered to "applicants". If you think this requires a more detailed explanation that is not currently available to Wikipedia readers, go to the relevant section of the JREF article and have a go at improving it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think the material should have been moved to a section other than the Lead, then you should've moved it to that section, and not delete it outright from the article. Moving to the section on the Challenge would've at least been a fair compromise, and not exhibited the appearance of tendentious editing. As for POV, that policy has nothing to do with the level of detail appropriate to a given section. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're either not paying attention or pretending to be stupider than you actually are. That material doesn't belong in ANY section of THIS article, certainly not the lead, because it is not information about the life of James Randi. The JREF article has a very detailed section on the challenge, which already discusses changes to the challenge. If you think it belongs there, put it there. Contrary to what you may think, I am not your slave and it's not my job to run all over Wikipedia finding a place for the information you want included. Now stop trying to edit war your changes into the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Steven, if you want to disagree with me or any other editor, you do so by citing the relevant policies, guidelines principles of good writing, and by focusing on the evidence or reasoning offered for each person's position. You do not attack or insult others by calling them "stupid" or claiming they're not paying attention simply because you disagree with them. Ever. Policies such as WP:Civility are as important as any other that you cite with regards to good article writing, and are not to be cast aside because you don't feel like following them.

I indeed paid close attention to your edits and your talk page messages, and I responded accordingly. You emphasized, in both your edit summaries and in your messages here, that the Lead was not the appropriate place to include the level of detail initially in the article, and I agreed, first by reducing the quote to a simple adjective or qualifier, and then moving it to the right section. If you wanted to opine that it should be in a different article entirely, then you should have done so. The wording you chose did not convey this to me, and since I simply wasn't aware that the JREF had its own article, I responded to your statements about the Lead by pointing out that the word "eligible" could've been moved to the right section, as per your concerns. As I said, this would've been a fair compromise, pursuant to civil collaboration and dispute resolution, and has nothing to do with being anyone's "slave", or "running all over Wikipedia", much less "edit warring".

In the future, please try to resolve such disputes without attacking those you disagree with. Peace, Steven. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, the lead of an article is definitely not the place to deliberately allow common misunderstandings to be perpetuated. You are using the word "applicants" in a very non-standard sense, a sense that no reader without prior knowledge could possibly suspect. According to this sense, the act of applying does not make one an applicant; you must additionally and counter-intuitively...be a minor celebrity. Two neutral words in place of one trap-laden one is not explication of every niggling detail, that is ridiculous. Repetition of the million dollar sum just a few words apart in that same sentence causes you no concern. K2709 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

First, may I request that we please keep the comments in chronological order. I think that mixing them up makes it harder to follow the order in which the conversation has unfolded and respond to them.

Use of the word "applicant" is accurate, since people tested have to apply. That there are other criteria is true, but this does not mean "applicant" is incorrect. The word connotes application, but does not carry with it the completely unrelated notion that there aren't other factors involved. What reader with no prior knowledge would understand otherwise? Including "eligible" before the word "applicant" can convey this, but removing the word "applicant" goes to the extreme of removing application entirely from the process, which makes no sense. How does wanting to convey that application isn't the only criterion lead one to edit it out as even one of them? Nightscream (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the ordering! There are other factors and there are other factors. The particular other factors here reduce the potential participant pool from billions to at most thousands - an unarmed reader wouldn't naturally assume that kind of unstated dynamic, nor would one who was aware of previous challenge publicity but was out of date. I don't object to the word used in such a way as to elucidate rather than brush aside information, that's a positive step - thank you. K2709 (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of Skeptico and Randi.org to source information on the Challenge

On a Skeptiko podcast Randi has stated "I freely admit it (the Million Dollar Challenge) is a theatrical stunt, but it has its place, it has accomplished at least to bring some doubt into some of the believers minds as to why these million dollars have not been snapped up." Kazuba (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

cur | prev) 00:33, 13 December 2010 Nightscream (talk | contribs) (58,271 bytes) (1 space between sections is enough, not three; No reason for this to be in the Lead; ce; etc.) (undo) Totally removed.

So it is not in the lead, so you delete it rather than move it somewhere else? Why? I think this revealing Randi statement on Skeptiko tells the reader about the motives and theatrical showmanship of James Randi. He was an entertainer. Is that supposed to remain a secret? Certainly this statement should be debated on the Randi discussion page before it is entirely removed...

Randi has been one of my heroes in magic. I do not like Randi's statement. I thought he was above such things. But I never made my lively hood from show business. Perhaps that is how you play the game. I do not believe it should be entirely deleted. Please reply on Randi dicussion page. Kazuba (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream's advice to another contributor: 27 November 2010 Nightscream (talk | contribs) (57,807 bytes) (If the material belongs in a different section, then you should move it to that section, and not delete it outright from the article.) This looks like a double standard to me. Kazuba (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

REMOVED AGAIN.(cur | prev) 01:52, 13 December 2010 Steven J. Anderson (talk | contribs) (57,845 bytes) (→The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge: Not a chance. This web forum fails WP:RS by about a thousand miles.) (undo) What you can hear Randi say on a podcast just DOES NOT matter.. Kazuba (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Next time I communicate with Randi I'll let him know. Gee! Why does Randi speak on JREF? What is it? on recorded Swift videos? Doesn't he know it means nothing to Wikipedians? It has to be published. Oh, Well!! Kazuba (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The point you're missing, Kazuba, is that you sourced this material to a web forum that is, frankly, one of the worst sources I've ever seen anyone try to use on Wikipedia. I mean, seriously, a web forum? Where any jamoke off the street can post anything he wants without restriction? That's just not gonna happen. Now I suppose it's possible for someone to come up with a better source for the claim that he made that statement, but you just can't expect other editors to jump through hoops and run in circles trying to clean up the poorly sourced work you do here.

Furthermore, there is another article James Randi Educational Foundation which contains a more detailed discussion of the challenge where this sort of thing would be better placed. Bear in mind of course that anything you say about Randi must comply with WP:BLP regardless of what article you put it in. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point Steven J. Anderson if you LISTEN to the podcast you can hear Randi SAY it. I only directed to a trans script excerpt. I figured if anyone was really curious they would LISTEN to the podcast. What anyone can POST in response to that stuff, and they do POST some weird stuff, just really doesn't matter. Kazuba (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it really does matter. That's why Wikipedia has a reliable source policy that specifically excludes sources like the one you used. If you want to put the material in with an acceptable source, you will have at least followed Wikipedia's reliable source policy, but I think it would be far more appropriate to place it at the JREF article, bearing in mind, of course, that there are other policies that may apply. (I personally think this is an insignificant detail that doesn't bear mentioning, but that's a matter of opinion.) What's not a matter of opinion is that WP:BLP says that poorly sourced statements (like the one you inserted) about living persons must go until they are adequately sourced. That policy is non-negotiable and trumps consensus. If you're having trouble understanding any of this, you may benefit from perusing WP:COMPETENCE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy does not "trump" consensus, because consensus is sometimes needed to determine what the proper interpretation of a policy is, particularly with respect to a given piece of material, in this case, whether a particular source meets WP:IRS.

If the subject of a BLP, or other relevant source is seen or heard making the statement in question in an audio or video clip, as long as there is no question as to whether it is him/her, then where that clip is hosted is hosted is unimportant, since a user can see that it is indeed that person, which satisfies Verifiability. My problem with that page is that I don't see a link for the podcast in question. I also think the remark about publicity is not that vitally important to either article.

Lastly, I would advise against presuming that disagreement with another editor automatically indicates lack of "understanding" on their part, or that citing inflammatory essays like WP:COMPETENCE are a constructive solution during disputes such as this. Essays like that are not policies, do not represent any consensus or widespread view, have no place on Wikipedia in the first place, only lend themselves to remarks like the one above that may be interpreted as insults. Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One reason why a reliable source is needed is that it quite easy for nonreliable sources to cherry pick items to convey a certain POV that may be misleading. Perhaps Randi did say something at a particular time and place, but you need a reliable source to give some assurance that the comment was not a joke or a misstatement, where the words convey a false impression.

Re the issue, I believe we are talking about adding On a Skeptiko podcast Randi has stated "I freely admit it is a theatrical stunt, but it has its place, it has accomplished at least to bring some doubt into some of the believers minds as to why these million dollars have not been snapped up." ref to James Randi#The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. But what is this quote supposed to suggest?

According to the nonreliable source, the context is that Randi was answering a question which included "I saw you on TV holding out a $10,000 cheque...who could say no to that?". Randi's reply was:

Well, a lot of people do say no to that. They say it's a theatrical stunt which I freely admit it is a theatrical stunt, but it has its place, it has accomplished at least to bring some doubt into some of the believers minds as to why these million dollars have not been snapped up.

The quote probably means that Randi uses the stunt of offering a pile of money to attract attention, but the offer is genuine and the fact that the million dollars has not been won should bring doubt to the minds of believers. Other people might interpret the extract to imply that the Million Dollar Challenge is not genuine (claiming that it's only a stunt). The quote has to unambiguously mean something for it to be useful in an encyclopedic article, or it has to be accompanied by a secondary source with an analysis. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be my last post on this thread. Kazuba introduced poorly sourced material to a BLP. I deleted it. I was right to do that. This is black-letter Wikilaw. There's nothing to debate. I've spent all evening trying to explain this to him, but he's unwilling or unable to get the explanation. The only explanations for that are a failure of competence or "I didn't hear that" problems. Here is a quote from WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced ..." That either means what it says or it doesn't. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Steven, you really need to calm down. Stop accusing others of incompetence, and making similar personal comments. I already warned you in the past about this sort of thing here and here, and if you continue, you risk being blocked from editing.

If explaining policies and their proper interpretation to those not as familiar with them as you takes more than a five-hour series of exchanges, then so be it. Those of us with a bit more patience, and bit more civility than you are more than able and willing to discuss things with editors like Kazuba, regardless of your "there's nothing to debate" dismissal, since if there were nothing to debate, then we wouldn't be debating, now would we? Personally, I am confident that the messages that preceded your most recent one from myself and Johnuniq may be sufficient to explain to Kazuba the nuances here. Johnuniq's post in particular neatly explains the reasons why that forum quote is not a good source. I'm guessing that it will now be clear to Kazuba, but if he/she has any further questions, I'll be happy to take it from here.

In the meantime, please read up on WP:Civility. That policy is as important as WP:BLP. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

At the age of 81, Randi came out as gay in a post on the JREF Swift blog in March 2010. Shouldn't this also be removed because the source is tagged as coming from his own SWIFT blog. Isn't this self promoted. Here is a quote from WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced ..." That either means what it says or it doesn't. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Well, exactly what does it mean? There are double standards? People who BELIEVE in James Randi can play by other rules? Shouldn't it read: James Randi no longer says he is gay Kazuba (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please find another way to continue the previous discussion (i.e. do not edit with "Monkey business" as edit summary). If you want to question whether a source is reliable, try WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kazuba, reading Wikipedia's policy about biographies you'll find explanations for both why a forum anyone can contribute to isn't seen as a reliable source and why Randi's official statement (in this case) is. Six words (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kazuba, statements about oneself are not "promotional", unless they are unduly self-serving, and/or are not relevant to a person's notability. A BLP subject is naturally the best source for their own sexual orientation, so this obviously falls into that range of material that can be self-published. See WP:ABOUTSELF for more on this.

In any event, how would the lack of a source for his coming out as gay mean that he no longer admits that he's gay, or that the passage in the article should be changed to state that "Randi did not come out as gay..."? If a source is insufficient, then the material should be tagged or removed. Not edited to state the opposite idea. And why did you use use the edit summary "monkey business" for this edit? Doing this carries the appearance that it was vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I called it monkey business because, nightscream, you are playing double standards. POSTS have nothing to do with both entries either from Skeptiko or Randi's blog. (You can use a blog as a source?) I am dealing with what Randi SAYS. The words he SPEAKS in both entries. Why can't you get that? When Randi SPEAKS on his blog and SAYS "he is gay" this is acceptable for the Randi entry but when Randi SPEAKS in a Skeptiko intervue and SAYS "the Million Dollar Challenge was a theatrical stunt" it is NOT acceptable in the Randi entry. How can that be? This looks like favoritism and censorship to me. I do not see how this is objective. If Randi speaks HERE it is golden. If Randi speaks THERE it JUST DOESN'T MATTER. DELETE IT. People POST things on the Skeptiko FORUM that you are unhappy with. So what? The FORUM and the INTERVIEW on Skeptiko have nothing to do with each other. The forum is for listeners' comments not for adding material to the words of the person being interviewed. These are two different distinct and seperate formats. You want to put them together and make yourself happy. When Randi says something you think is unpleasant Randi remains untouchable. Randi has inferred he did not come up with the the MDC for science. He infers he came up with it to make headlines for himself and to be a center of attention on talk shows and the media. I think this should be pointed out. Obvious you don't. I get the feeling (and of course I could be wrong. But I see no evidence of that) that you want it all swept under the carpet. In fact, if it is added to the Randi entry this unpleasant data should be inserted down near the end so it will not draw attention and maybe skipped over by the reader. I think it should be at the beginning so the reader can find out how Randi ticks right-away. How readers interpret Randi's statements is totally up to them. We have no business telling them the way to interpret Randi's words. This is a speech commentary show? (WOW. Did I say all that? I get on here kinda seldom. Nothing like a what? 5 hour exchange.) Kazuba (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please do not create new section headings for individual messages. Headings are intended to group discussions together, and creating a new one for a new message makes it harder to see where one discussion ends and a different one begins.

Edit summaries should clearly summarize your edit, and/or any relevant policies under which you were operating when making it. Writing "monkey business" in your edit summary does not clearly convey your intent, and could be construed as intentionally disruptive. Please adhere to WP:EDITSUM when writing your edit summaries.

Regarding the rest of your message, I never said anything about posts or listeners' comments. The policies have been explained to you quite clearly, by myself and others, so if you want to dispute that we are relating those policies accurately, or accurately interpreting them, then you should provide some type of counterargument explaining why you feel this way. Simply saying, "How can that be? This looks like favoritism and censorship to me." implies that you either do not understand the policies as we have explained them to you, or have not even bothered reading our messages to you. Let me see if I can explain it to you again.

According to Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of self-published sources for information that the subject of the article gives about themselves, which you can read yourself at WP:ABOUTSELF:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Because a BLP subject is naturally the best source on things such as where they live, what they're favorite food is, who influenced them, what their sexual orientation is, etc., using the JREF site, or Randi's own blog entry in which he came out as gay, as the source for adding that material to the article, is perfectly within that policy, and perfectly reasonable.

By contrast, if an uncredentialed blog is relating things that Randi said, that's different. In order to meet the requirements of Reliability, a source has to have obtained some standing as a reliable source in the industry or area of study in question. If, however, it statement in question is an audio or video clip, then in my opinion, this is moot, so long as there is no dispute that the person seen or heard in the clip is indeed the BLP subject in question, and the clip has not been unduly edited. Now I cannot see the link to the clip in question at that page, as I mentioned before, but if you can point it out to me, I'd appreciate it. Saying that a given person is a reliable source about aspects of their own life, but a blog created by uncredentialed persons is not is not a "double standard", it's just a truth. When an expert witness is called to give expert testimony in a court of law, they're naturally going to call someone with credentialed expertise in the field in question, and not just some guy off the street. That is not a "double standard", any more than this is.

That said, even if the clip's authenticity/reliability is satisfied, there are other principles involved in good encyclopedia writing that help determine whether or how to include that information. Specifically, whether it's presented in context, and whether that information is proportionately relevant to an article on Randi, as opposed to an article on the Million Dollar Challenge. Johnuniq pointed this out above in his 6:38 post today:

But what is this quote supposed to suggest? According to the nonreliable source, the context is that Randi was answering a question which included "I saw you on TV holding out a $10,000 cheque...who could say no to that?". Randi's reply was:

Well, a lot of people do say no to that. They say it's a theatrical stunt which I freely admit it is a theatrical stunt, but it has its place, it has accomplished at least to bring some doubt into some of the believers minds as to why these million dollars have not been snapped up.

The quote probably means that Randi uses the stunt of offering a pile of money to attract attention, but the offer is genuine and the fact that the million dollars has not been won should bring doubt to the minds of believers. Other people might interpret the extract to imply that the Million Dollar Challenge is not genuine (claiming that it's only a stunt). The quote has to unambiguously mean something for it to be useful in an encyclopedic article, or it has to be accompanied by a secondary source with an analysis.

This has nothing to do with "favoritism", "censorship", what is "golden", what "doesn't matter" or whether some piece of material is "unpleasant", since I have no opinion about the Challenge's publicity purposes being "unpleasant", and no motive to sweep anything "under the carpet". If someone wants to add a brief passage or clause, either on this article or in the JREF article, that the Challenge is at least in part for publicity, I have no problem with that, so long as Wikipedia policies and principles of good writing are satisfied. The Lead is a summary of the article's most salient points, and this point is a minor one. Nightscream (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone added "in part for publicity" this is adding a personal interpretation. I like quotes. Randi never said "in part for publicity" Randi. Randi said the MDC was a "theatrical stunt and it has its place." One can not say this probably means something else. It means what the words say. I cannot see reinterpreting his statement. This doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think someone edited the Skeptiko audio interview to get this. And as for the Randi blog you can edit a video and its audio just as well. Just because you see it. It makes no difference. That's what some deception in magic is all about. All recordings are suspect. I do the best I can on the wikipedia. There is no way I could make any sense out of your user: page. I am not that computer literate [It was just 3 weeks ago when I found out from a child what an I pod is.] so I could not leave a note there. And isn't the sandbox just a wordpad. So you can straighten out your stuff before it goes on the wikipedia. Kazuba (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the threshold for editing is what serves the article best, in terms of good writing and the policies that maintain the project's quality, and not whether "you like quotes". Quotes should not be included for such arbitrary reasons, and it is for this reason that we employ paraphrasing, which is to restate an idea with other words. It does not mean interpreting it to "mean something else". Responding to this by saying "Randi never said this" ignores the fact that paraphrasing is the legitimate means by which original material is properly related. The paraphrase that I suggested is one possible way to relate what he said in a way that can be incorporated into the relevant passage. Another might be to insert the following blue text in the section on the Challenge:

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) currently offers a prize of one million U.S. dollars to eligible applicants who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. Similar to the paranormal challenges of John Nevil Maskelyne and Houdini, in 1964, the Challenge, which is intended to raise public awareness of scientific skepticism, and to cast doubt on those who advocate psychic and other phenomena, first began when Randi put up $1,000 of his own money, payable to anyone who could provide objective proof of the paranormal."

Regarding the rest of your message, you either aren't making an genuine attempt to understand the issues that we have been trying to explain to you, or just don't care to. It doesn't matter if you think the Skeptiko interview was not edited, or that Randi is capable of editing a clip on his site. The point is that certain types of sources are reliable, and some are not, and with regards to that, a BLP subject's official site is a valid source for certain types of information about themselves, but an uncredentialed blog is not. Nightscream (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Kazuba (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how paraphrasing the subject's quote somehow improves the understanding of that quote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said it did. There is no justification for that statement to be taken out of context and not be given undue weight with a direct quote. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How is quoting the article's subject "undue weight"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it did. The point is that giving 'this particular bit of material a direct quote would be, because it's not that salient vis a vis Randi's notability. It's a minor point, slightly descriptive of the Million Dollar Challenge, that at best, should be incorporated into the passage that describes the Challenge, and not something that deserves its own direct quote. Nightscream (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Atheist again

Randi is a vocal atheist. Why is User:Bloggyelf removing the bit from the infobox? Is it regarding the role of the infobox vs the article body and categories? Article editors to date have been okay with keeping it in. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He has now violated the three revert rule and refuses to discuss this at all on the talk page, so the case for getting him banned is getting pretty strong.Prebys (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Starting small, probably, with a short block. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about religion in infoboxes (in general) based on this episode. For what it is worth, I don't think it is necessary to include religion in the infobox, since it is discussed in more detail in the article and since the article is included in Category: American atheists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Was the user ever blocked? If so it must have expired because they are at it again... –CWenger (^ • @) 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The 24 hour block expired, but now he is blocked for 60 hours. Let's see what happens on 17 July; see if the warring continues. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to see someone's block history? Why doesn't it show up here? –CWenger (^ • @) 18:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the page that would log any blocks made by Bloggyelf, rather than against them. Their block log for blocks issued against them is here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, of course. I figured that's what I was looking at but couldn't figure out how to reverse it. Thanks so much. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. Bloggyelf's is here. The easiest way to get there if you don't have popups or a similar gadget is to go the the history page for this article (or any page he has edited) and find Bloggyelf's name. Clicking on the link labeled "contribs" after his name takes you to his contribution history. In the upper left corner of that page, under the large text "User contributions", you'll find this list of links: "For Bloggyelf (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log)". Click on the words "block log" and you're there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at bios, there's not a lot of consistency in what's included in the info box. Things like religion or political party are typically included if they have some relevance to the person's actions and/or notoriety. Since atheism is rather central to Randi's philosophy, it certainly seems perfectly appropriate to include it here. In any event, the fact that User:Bloggyelf insists on constantly reverting edits without even entering into discussion is out of line.Prebys (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1956 newspapers

In this recent edit, a brand new editor implies improved knowledge of two 1956 articles from the Toronto Star. I don't have access to microform of the Star for 2006, let alone 1956; would somebody else like to judge this edit? -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the **1986** According to some blogger, here is the 1986 article. Found a link to the 1986 here so that article looks genuine. It sounds like he was following in Houdini's footsteps in parts of his early career so that makes the 1956 jailbreak claims plausible but since I can't find the 1956 ref text, who knows. --Javaweb (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

First of all, both of the venues in which that article is shown are user-generated, one being a personal blog, and the other being a message forum. This is not an acceptable source under WP:USERG.

Second, even if we were the put that aside (since the citation does not require an online link, just the print publication info), the fact that the article is legitimate does not mean that Accessbutter97's edits were. That source make no mention of anything that supports the following passage that Accessbutter97 added:

At school he was a shy but brilliant student, scoring up to 168 in IQ tests. He often skipped school. One day he wandered into a performance by legendary magician Harry Blackstone Sr. The boy was hooked, and Blackstone took him on as an apprentice.

Or this one:

As an escape artist, he performed numerous jailbreaks all over the world.

This material is unsourced per WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I saved my previous talk entry before completing it. It is a little confusing. The facts very well might be in the **1956** reference which I cannot easily find online. I have not seen what is in the **1956** reference. My comments above describe the separate **1986** source. The **1986** reference is well sourced. It is from a major newspaper with enough details to track it down. There is no requirement that it be available online. I have provided the text from unofficial sources as a check. It would be a tremendous amount of effort to fake an entire **1986** news article and the material makes sense with what else we know about Randi. The **1956** article sounds promising but I have no way to verify it either way. --Javaweb (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Criticism of Randi

I have found out something and I would like to hear other opinions if this is relevant for Wikipedia. 2004 there was a well-known media event in Germany, the "Paranormal challenge" in Würzburg. Together with Randi the German section of the CSI(COP), the GWUP, set up an event where several persons tested alleged psychic abilities. Randi was himself at the event and overseeing it. The event was well documented in the "Skeptiker" magazine, the distribution organ of the GWUP.

Some years later during vehemently defending JREF, Randi stated in SWIFT a deliberate lie which can be proved by accessing the documentation by the GWUP.

One one hand: This observation has not been printed before by a source which people will accept as reliable by Wikipedia standards ("The Daily Grail"). But given the documented sources (which would be available for everyone) anyone can prove the lie. Still it is the question how exactly it does come in conflict with WP:NOR and WP:BLP, so I need some feedback about this.

On the other hand: The integrity of the whole million dollar challenge comes in question if it can be shown that Randi lies and distorts the truth if it is convienient for him. Think about it: How many dollar "challenges" are available on the net if you can "prove" something and you will ignore them because you cannot trust the people who present them.

And it was not a relatively private event, it was featured in the German media.

I am also a bit astonished that the description of Randi lacks criticism at all. Even the infamous "Climate change" denial which caused quite an uproar in the scienceblogs followed by a hasty retraction is not mentioned. Seeing the discussion I am inclined to assume that there are many people here who are severely disinclined to allow criticism at all. --136.172.253.10 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention? What are the sources? Can you name them here, with their complete publication info? If any of them are online sources, can you provide links? Do the sources accuse him of lying, or are you concluding this based on the sources, which would be WP:SYNTH? Nightscream (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention?

Never mind because for example I did not know about WP:SYNTH.

What are the sources ?

- Randis own organ, SWIFT http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/169-swift-february-29-2008.html

- the documentation about the Würzburg Test refuting Randis claim, the Skeptiker 2/2005 http://www.gwup.org/zeitschrift/skeptiker-archiv/155-skeptiker-2005-2

- the publication of the accusation on DailyGrail http://www.dailygrail.com/Skeptics/2008/3/Randis-Sleight-Hand

Best regards --136.172.253.10 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather drawn out dispute about what was said and what happened at this event 7 years ago. Could you be a little more specific about what exactly you would like to see in the article?Prebys (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My first proposal: (Title:)Criticism (Text:) Randi has been accused to not only ridiculing his opponents, but actually distorting the truth during his attacks on opponents. The Daily Grail[Link] cites an incidence where Randi claims: (Passages of SWIFT as citation) Contrary to the claim of Randi Suitbert Ertel was neither participating as candidate for the challenge nor was he tested as can be shown on the documentation of the Würzburg event[Link]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.172.253.13 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated documentary claim

I cannot find anything in Google to support this edit. --Javaweb (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Nope, can't find anything either - zero relevant results for a "justin weinstein" "james randi" Google search. If nothing's out there yet, Wikipedia shouldn't be writing about it yet. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)