Talk:James Randi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee James Randi was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 26, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

Carlos hoax in Australia[edit]

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, 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. (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. (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 (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." (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

it remains the case that referring to alvarez/pena arteaga as randi's "friend" is disingenuous. Zach bender (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
incidentally, if we need court documents these can easily be retrieved from PACER. the sentence was three years' supervised release. Zach bender (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
in the course of the sentencing hearing, randi makes the excellent point that pena would not have had to take on a false identity if he had been allowed to marry randi back in 1988. all of which goes to underscore that if we started adding any of this we would find ourselves very far afield of the biographical subject. i do not know that pena rates a bio of his own, but all this material would be more appropriate there.
but i do think the reference ought to be "life partner" rather than "friend." Zach bender (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

so can we at least have consensus the reference should be "life partner" rather than "friend"? Zach bender (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Source for more biographical material[edit]

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'[edit]

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. (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed text on the million dollar challenge[edit]

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:

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 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[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nature article[edit]

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

Randi's views in the 1960s[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

The neutrality of this article should be discussed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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, 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 (talkcontribs) 30 October 2010


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[edit]

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 (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 (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 (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?[edit]

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 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 to source information on the Challenge[edit]

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." [5] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. -- (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
- the documentation about the Würzburg Test refuting Randis claim, the Skeptiker 2/2005
- the publication of the accusation on DailyGrail
Best regards -- (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 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated documentary claim[edit]

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)

File:JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate Page for Million Dollar Challenge?[edit]

What do people think about creating a separate page for the million dollar challenge? Clearly, it should be included in the Randi page, as well as in the James Randi Educational Foundation page, but given how well known this challenge is, shouldn't it have its own separate page? It seems like a plausible search term. And, it's a topic that is frequently discussed on this page (probably more so than any other topic.) Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Has merit but soon as it is created, someone will try to merge it to Randi. Waste of time and effort. Moriori (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Scientific skeptic[edit]

Whatever the above phrase is meant to mean (someone who mistrusts science?) it does not appear in the sources given. If it is meant to suggest that Randi is a scientist, that is misleading. Redheylin (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The ref clearly identifies Randi as a skeptic and the topics which he is skeptical of - scientific claims not actually backed by science. if you have a problem with the term debate it here, don't delete refs on a wholesale basis. Your edit also deleted the ref that indicated he was a magician. I have restored the accurate information. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for delay - no problem saying that R. is a debunker of phony science - and of many barely-scientific subjects too - the problem is in suggesting or implying that he is himself a scientist: this is the matter not supported by the given citations. This happens when you call him a "scientific" this or that: it implies that he is qualified to peer-review research - he is not. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, get consensus, don't re-insert your change without it, see WP:BRD. secondly, Scientific skepticism has a precise definition, we are using the word for that usage. If someone misunderstands the word they will quickly realize their mistake when they look at the respective article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an article on "scientific scepticism", that's true, yet the article is basically a synthesis, lacking authority and general currency in science and philosophy, that shows the term is no more than the jargon of an ideological cult that exists in a Wikipedia walled garden, having no importance except to amateur pseudo-skeptical pseudo-scientists. Hence, as I said in the beginning, the claim in question lacks citations - this plain fact certainly does not require consensus. It is unacceptable to suggest that readers must be initiated into a cult's special language if they are to avoid a misunderstanding intentionally inserted in English. Redheylin (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The article manifestly relies upon in-house and in-cult sources - see references. It begins the lede which, as admitted above, requires further reading to find that the meaning of the term "scientific sceptic" is not the ordinary meaning of these words, but a special meaning, again derived from sources close to the subject, and is therefore unclear to the general reader. Redheylin (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That is precisely why we have links to other pages here, so we don't have to explicitly explain every term on every page it is used on. How many editors have now disagreed with your viewpoint and contested your drive by tagging of this article? Consensus exists and it is against you, stop you slo mo edit war to insert tags that are basically meamingless. Heiro 18:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Date of appearance on "That' My Line"[edit]

Randi appeared on this show in response to the December 1980 appearance of James Hydrick on "That's Incredible". Most online refs state that the appearance was in 1981 but I cannot find a definitive date. To get someone to appear on a different show back in 1980 in less than 1 month is improbable. Another editor states that this Wikipedia article and Imdb stated 1980 so that must be the true date, however the date on Imdb is relation to the series not 1 show and a unrefed item on Wikipedia is not reliable. Does anyone have the actual air date? --Daffydavid (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A comment left here - appears to be by Randi himself and indicates Feb/81.--Daffydavid (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The External Links section is getting a tad too long. I'm going to go through and remove dead links and incorporate as much as possible into the actual article.Dustinlull (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the "Criticisms" links from the External Links section. If a "Criticisms" section is warranted in the article, then listing three WP:PRIMARY links under the heading "Criticism" doesn't seem like the ideal way to do it. The External Links needs trimmed, and this seems like a logical cut.Dustinlull (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Randi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 00:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the numerous issues with this article I feel this would meet the quick-fail criteria, but I am going to give a little latitude since there seem to be quite a few active editors. First off is just the preliminary overview of where I feel it passes and fails:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Now, the tag that keeps getting removed is clearly valid, but there are other issues not explicitly addressed by that tag. The most glaring issue for me is the "legal disputes" section, which is filled with BLP problems. Specifically, citing Randi's foundation almost exclusively for claims about third parties such as Geller and Dubois is inappropriate. If third-party sources discuss all these legal disputes with third parties then those sources should be used and, if such sources do not exist, the material should be removed. Also, a lot of the wording in this article reads more like a glowing review then an encyclopedic biography and it clearly isn't stable with the edit-warring over the tag, the "scientific skeptic" wording, and other content disputes. Until these problems are resolved the stability issue will remain an impediment as well. I will try to provide a more detailed listing of the problems tomorrow.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The following is a list of the problematic material I have found in the article that still needs to be fixed, not including the legal dispute section I mention above:

  • " . . . which he collectively calls 'woo-woo'"
  • No mention of this in the article body.
  • "Although often referred to as a "debunker", Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an 'investigator'."
  • Same problem as above, except it does not even seem to be in the cited source, and the bolded phrase is editorializing. If this is Randi's perception then that should be made clear.
Early life
  • "He took up magic after seeing Harry Blackstone, Sr and reading magic books while spending 13 months in a body cast following a bicycle accident. He confounded doctors who expected he would never walk again."
  • First sentence is rambling. The part of the sentence dealing with him spending time in a body cast should be split off into a new sentence or combined with the second sentence. Additionally, the second sentence seems a bit sensationalist in its wording. Everything after the bit about Blackstone also appears to be a close paraphrasing of the news article.
  • "Although a brilliant student . . ."
  • Puffery. Would be easier note his IQ level, which is mentioned in the article.
  • " . . . posed as a psychic to establish that they were actually doing simple tricks and briefly wrote an astrological column in the Canadian tabloid Midnight under the name "Zo-ran," by simply shuffling up items from newspaper astrology columns and pasting them randomly into a column."
  • Use of simple in both parts is unnecessary puffery. The first bolded phrase is also problematic in its description of his motivations. If he claims in the source that he posed as a psychic to do this, then that should be what the article says, rather than saying it in the editorial voice.
  • " . . . Randi worked in Philippine night clubs and all across Japan."
  • Material about Japan is not in the source.
  • " . . . to convince churchgoers of his divine powers."
  • I cannot find a version of the source for this that is not behind a paywall, but unless it indicates that he has claimed to personally have divine powers, as opposed to claiming that he is communicating with God, this phrasing is a BLP violation.
  • "Randi worked as a professional stage magician, though preferring to be called a "conjurer", and escapologist beginning in 1946, initially under his birth name, Randall Zwinge, and then as The Amazing Randi."
  • This sentence runs on a bit too long and the use of commas is confusing. Splitting this sentence up would make it easier to read.
  • "In the February 2, 1974, issue of Abracadabra (a British conjuring magazine), Randi defined the magic community, saying, 'I know of no calling which depends so much upon mutual trust and faith as does ours.' In the December 2003 issue of The Linking Ring, the monthly publication of The International Brotherhood of Magicians, Points to Ponder: Another Matter of Ethics, p. 97, it is stated, 'Perhaps Randi's ethics are what make him Amazing' and 'The Amazing Randi not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.'"
  • These sources should be cited in the reference section and the second sentence should remove most material about the issue when that is done.
  • " . . . which focused on Houdini and his cohorts."
  • "Cohorts" is a pretty loaded term to use. Sentence changed based on reliable secondary sources IRWolfie- (talk)
  • " . . .on other major paranormal figures"
  • Describing people as paranormal seems inappropriate from a clarity and neutrality perspective.
  • "In 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a hoax of his own. By teaming up with Australia's 60 Minutes program and by releasing a fake press package, he built up publicity for a spirit channeler named Carlos who was actually artist Jose Alvarez, a friend of Randi's. Randi would tell him what to say through sophisticated radio equipment. The media and the public were taken in, as no reporter bothered to check Carlos's credentials and history, which were all fabricated. The hoax was exposed on 60 Minutes; Carlos and Randi explained how they pulled it off."
  • The bolded phrases in this paragraph have a general tone of mockery and triumphalism to them that are unnecessary and not neutral.
  • No citation is provided in the reference section.
Personal life
  • "Randi has said that one reason he became an American citizen was an incident while on tour with Alice Cooper where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police searched the band's lockers during a performance. Nothing was found, yet the RCMP destroyed the room."
  • There needs to be a reliable third-party source to verify that the incident occurred, and the second sentence needs to be reworded as it seems to be overly sympathetic to Randi and hostile to the Mounties.
Awards and honors
  • The claim that he won a Philip J. Klass Award needs to be supported by a source independent of Randi.

Now for some stuff that is a little easier. The two images in the career section need captions that explain the relevance of the image and prompt people to read the article, I feel the JREF image also needs a better caption. I have also tagged a few places where I think there need to be citations. Another issue is the "" source used in the paragraph about Hydrick as the other link doesn't appear to work. It is not clear to me that this would qualify as a reliable source. Should someone be able to locate a better source for this I would be satisfied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone addresses the issues with one of the specific statements above, I would like it to be crossed off.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
After 20 days with very little change, I do not feel there is much point in keeping this up any longer. Fail for the reasons provided above. These concerns should be easy to address if a sufficiently interested editor comes along and then it can be renominated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and Randi's Partner[edit]

It doesn't surprise me that my addition of the situation with Randi's partner Deyvi Pena was reverted, but I can see no genuine reason to do this. Randi may have been dishonest on more than one occasion, his knowledge of Pena's true identity being the latest example. Pena was also the central figure in the Carlos Hoax, so his criminal activity is especially relevant. Here is my proposed addition:

On May 29th 2012 James Randi's long term partner, Deyvi Pena was convicted of stealing the identity of Jose Luis Alvarez, a teaching assistant from the Bronx. Pena was sentanced to 6 months house arrest, but may face deportation. He had lived for 24 years under the stolen identity causing numerous problems for the real Alvarez, including an IRS investigation. James Randi confirmed under oath that he had seen Pena's real identity years before, so was aware of the deception. [Burstein, Jon. "Artist pleads guilty to passport fraud", "Sun Sentinel", March 14, 2012][Franceschina, Peter. "Plantation artist avoids prison for stealing man's identity two decades ago", "Sun Sentinel", May 29, 2012]

I hope we can come to an agreement on how to add criticisms. - Solar (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. Randi knowing that someone else was using a false identity seems hardly noteworthy. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Right. But even if it was noteworthy, nobody gets to add negative information about a named third party here, Solar. The community has already come to an agreement on that, which is set out in the policy WP:BLP. If you seriously think your addition might be deemed acceptable per policy, please take it to the BLP noticeboard for comment by uninvolved editors. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC).
May just be borderline, if the name of the person is omitted. There's a useful source in any case at a more respectable site, even if it is a blog on that site. Javier Cavanilles James Randi, un honrado mentiroso El mundo, 19/03/2012. But as Bish says, this info has to pass the BLP noticeboard to have a chance of being registered here.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit (text is above) which added a note about "James Randi's long term partner" and included "so was aware of the deception". That last point is an editorial comment (WP:SYNTH) which should not occur at Wikipedia—it may very well be true, but that kind of slant on a story is only suitable in something like a blog or an opinion piece where a specified author takes responsibility for the angle they are taking (someone else might focus on "'He was tempest tossed. He was cruelly treated,' Randi told the judge. 'This was a crime of desperation in which no one was hurt.'" in the first ref, which adopts a different slant). This matter was discussed previously: see my comments dated "22:29, 22 November 2011" above where I posed "what would you say here about Randi given that this is an article about him?", and in the same discussion I mentioned another article about a well known author of children's books whose husband was arrested on child pornography charges—dynamite material, and great stuff for a blog, but not suitable at Wikipedia (except in an article on the husband or the event—it's just coatracking in an article on the author unless a secondary source identifies the influence on the author). Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Leave it out. It's shit slinging at its lowest. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
So the opinion here is that Randi being gay is relevant to a section on his personal life, but the fact his partner of 24 years and key figure in the Carlos hoax is a criminal is not? And the fact Randi has clearly stated that he knew about it for some years. It is not mud slinging, Randi makes a career out of his honesty. This does not destroy his credibility totally, but it is certainly relevant. If we were talking about a psychic here I'm sure you would all support the inclusion of this information. But yes lets follow the proper proceedure, I will add the suggstion to BLP noticeboard without the final few words and instead quote Randi. - Solar (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me this section needs changing in light of this information also, "a spirit channeler named Carlos who was actually artist Jose Alvarez, a friend of Randi's." - Solar (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
"Randi makes a career out of his honesty." No he doesn't. In fact, most every notable person who has made it their business to debunk psychics, paranormal phenomenon and the like, does the exact opposite of making a career out of honesty. Many are themselves illusionists slight of hand artists and even NLP experts. Rand was a stage magician, and debunks many supernatural claims by showing the illusions which allow people to believe them - he made a fair part of his living out of dishonesty. Additionally, dishonesty in private matters rarely has much correlation to professional reliability. People pull this when politicians get caught cheating on their spouse - claiming a betrayal of the public, because the people who elected that politician voted for who they thought was an honest person, and honest people don't cheat on their partners. There are two huge problems with such arguments. One, otherwise honest people cheat on their spouses all the time - depending on the study you cite, anywhere between 25% and 75% of married people have had at least one affair. If anything, many unfaithful politicians are sometimes examples of otherwise honest people who cheat. Second, other than comments on Discus, forums, etc., I have never heard a single person state they voted for a politician, because they believed they were faithful to their spouse. If my accountant cheats on his taxes, I'm worried. If he cheats on his spouse, I really don't care.
"[Pena's attorney] said that when Pena was an art student in New York City he took on a new identity so he didn’t have to go back to Venezuela and continue to face “horrific persecution” as a gay man. He resolved not to go back to Venezuela after someone had put a gun to his head in a bar, Dmitrovsky said outside of court. Pena believed he was taking on the name, date of birth and Social Security number of a dead man, his attorney said." Hiding from persecution in the U.S., via identity fraud may be illegal, but in no ethical universe, is it always indicative of a criminal or dishonest person. And not turning in a friend or loved one, who might be sent back to a country where such persecution happens, is even less an example of criminal or dishonest person. The fact that these two people make a shining light on people claiming to have magical powers, isn't remotely relevant to matters of passport fraud. CleverTitania (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maddox, Stewart and Randi[edit]

We don't appear to mention Jacques_Benveniste#Critical_investigation at all. I thought for completeness it would be good to mention it somewhere. Opinions? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. This is one of Randi's most important (non)results. It probably had a lot to do with him receiving the Burton Award. At least it's what he talked about when he received it (I was lucky enough to be there).KaturianKKaturian 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no Critics section ?[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:44, 3 June 2013‎

For the same reason there is no "Supporters" section? Incidentally, when you open a new section on a talk page, plese do so at the bottom of the page, not the top. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit needed to Legal Disputes- Other[edit]

The first item listed under "Legal Disputes - Other" just launches into the topic in medias res, as it were. There is no antecedent for "Byrd" anywhere in the article. The reader is forced to follow the references to the footnotes, to find out who Byrd was and why Randi was involved in a lawsuit with him. I recommend editing this section to correct this.

Best regards, Brad TheBaron0530 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)TheBaron0530

Copyright violations from antivax POV-pusher[edit]

Recently, there have been some attempts [6][7] to add material copied from copyrighted website (Note: website is on Wikipedia's blacklist, presumably for WP:BLP violations.) Please keep an eye out for any further disruption of this or related Wikipedia pages, and if you see any copyright violations, place a warning on the user's talk page using Template:Uw-copyright. Thanks!

Also, note the irony of a page that claims that Randi and other skeptics control Wikipedia and then proceeding to (mis)quote Wikipedia as a source. Sort of like someone who murders his parents asking for leniency because he is an orphan... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

An Honest Liar: The Amazing Randi Story[edit]

I tried to add this kickstarter link as a reference for "An Honest Liar: The Amazing Randi Story" in this article, but User:Daffydavid claims that I shouldn't use it because it's WP:CRYSTALBALL. It clearly says on the kickstarter updates page that it will be showing at the TRIBECA 2014 Film Festival next month. Someone else listed the documentary in this article, so I decided that it might be a good idea to add a reference to prove the project existed. This is obviously NOT a crystal ball issue! • SbmeirowTalk • 03:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a WP:RS ref, it needs to be filled out. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Though many Kickstarter projects are highly over-rated / over-hyped / over-fluffed, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used as a reliable source for information about a project. At least Kickstarter is proof of funding, which is far more proof than studios and businesses in general will ever provide about their upcoming releases. My kickstarter link contains far more information about the video than the IMDB link that you provided. That IMDB web page contains almost no information, nor any good links or videos, thus it's worthless as a reference until someone expands it. IMDB isn't a perfect source, nor should its information be treated as a gold standard. IMDB has numerous pages containing rumors about unreleased movies that might not ever be released, which clearly means that IMDB isn't a perfect source either. I don't have anything against IMDB, but in this case your link is substandard to the one that I provided. In summary, I claim that my Kickstarter link isn't a crystal ball nor is it a bad source for a reference. At this point, I propose to keep both links until someone creates an article about the video. • SbmeirowTalk • 06:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I would propose that 2 links are a bit much for what is a single line in a very big article. Also IMDB has been deemed WP:RS but I'm going to need more than your assertion that Kickstarter is considered WP:RS. By your own admission - "many Kickstarter projects are highly over-rated / over-hyped / over-fluffed". Feel free to take it to the notice boards. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Tell me EXACTLY what part of WP:RS proves THIS kickstarter fails to meet RS? • SbmeirowTalk • 00:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Your own statements as I have quoted in my comment above is what brings Kickstarter into question. It is not up to me to show that it isn't WP:RS, the burden falls to you to prove that it is. Once again, I invite you to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN which I have linked for you. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring for a moment the fact that it is clearly reliable for this purpose, the burden is on the editor who questions the reliability of a source to bring it up at RSN. You don't demand that someone else go to RSN and prove reliability. This is a general principle; I shouldn't demand that you go to SPI and show that you aren't a sockpuppet. Instead, I should post to SPI and post evidence that you are. Likewise, I shouldn't demand that you go to ANI and show that you aren't being disruptive. Instead, I should post to ANI if I have evidence that you are being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was wondering if Kickstarter would be considered a primary source in this case? In any case, I still think 2 refs for a single line of text is too much but Sbmeirow seems awfully fond of this ref. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

cites re sylvia browne[edit]

the items at footnotes 80 and 81 do not support the text. it is larry king who says they have a deal, and sylvia browne is saying they have to work out the protocols. she would not be the only person who was not able to work out the protocols with JREF. weirdly, she does seem to predict randi's heart trouble. Zach bender (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"KING: All right -- Sylvia has agreed to your conditions."
"BROWNE: Yes."
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Zach bender, what is weird about someone guessing that an elderly person would have heart problems? Lots of elderly people have heart problems, such as Browne herself who died of a heart attack. Moriori (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
for my own sake, i hope age 73 is not "elderly." Zach bender (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a pretty good online source which says the following -- "....Euphemisms and terms for old people include, old people (worldwide usage), seniors (American usage), senior citizens (British and American usage), older adults (in the social sciences[1]), the elderly....", and, "Old age comprises ...the period of life after youth and middle age", and, "The United Nations has agreed that 60+ years may be usually denoted as old age". Seventy three is "elderly". However, as it seems to bug you, let me rephrase -- What is weird about someone guessing that an old person would have heart problems? Lots of old people have heart problems, such as Browne herself who died of a heart attack. Incidentally, you didn't answer my question. Moriori (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
the question i did not answer was "what is weird," etc.? first of all, i was being a little facetious, but since you ask, what would be "weird" is if she was correct about the left ventricle. Zach bender (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
"Typically, heart failure begins with the left side, specifically the left ventricle, your heart's main pumping chamber." -- Mayo Clinic. Why would it be weird to guess that an old person, at a stage in life more susceptible to heart attack, would have a left ventricle problem where heart attacks typically begin? Ok, I will answer for you. There is nothing weird about it at all. A charlatan makes a statement based on common knowledge, while pretending to be one of them thar sickics, and there are people ready to believe she had paranormal powers. That's the only weird bit.Moriori (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
obviously we are getting far off track here. in the interview, randi said he would get a checkup. did he? and what was the result? etc. but my initial point was there are factual assertions here that are not sufficiently documented by the cited sources. actually, this whole section on the million dollar challenge has a sort of pro-randi flavor that, among other things, assumes the challenge and its protocols are transparent, statistically meaningful, fair, etc. which they may be, but this also could be disputed and would require documentation. in other words, to say someone refused the challenge may not be the same as saying they got nothin', but the flavor here implies that.Zach bender (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is the protocol Browne agreed to on larry King Live:
"At a date and time convenient to you — and I know how very busy you are — we would randomly select one of those ten persons — by choosing a number from a hat."
"Then, either you would call us or we would call you — your choice — you'd be given the gender, name, and age of the chosen subject, and you would do a reading over the telephone without getting feedback, that is, without doing questions-and-answers or asking for guesses to be accepted or refused. That reading could take a minute or two, or as much as half an hour — again, Sylvia, your choice, so that you could be sure that you've made "connection" with the subject."
"When the reading is finished, you would so indicate, and the subject would then be asked to give a score to the reading, from zero to ten points."
"Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten."
"Now, we should expect that the person for whom the reading was done would obtain a score, say, from six through ten, and — unless my "guessing game" scenario is correct — the other nine for whom the reading was not done, would have scores of zero to five."
"But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds — which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! — eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done."
Also see: and --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
did JREF produce the ten subjects? Zach bender (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
in fairness, i should acknowledge i do stand corrected on my use of the word "protocols." but it is unclear whether the conditions for the test were ever actually put in place. let's say footnote 80 does accurately reflect that browne "accepted the challenge." i do not think the next sentence is adequately supported by footnote 81, and actually i am wondering whether the "clock" is a secondary source to begin with. Zach bender (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The citation follows the words "However, she refused to be tested, and Randi kept a clock on his website recording the number of weeks since Browne accepted the challenge without following through, until Browne's death in November 2013.[81]" Using JREF as a source for the claim that Randi kept a clock is fine -- it is a reliable source about itself. Given the controversial nature of this topic, I would like to see a third-party source for "she refused to be tested" instead of taking Randi's word for it. Sylvia Browne#James Randi challenge has a cite to that seems to fill the bill. lays out the sequence of events quite nicely. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
i do not know that we will be able to find a neutral source for "refused to be tested," because this incorporates a conclusion that someone made an unambiguous offer that was unambiguously accepted. having now read the larry king interview much more closely, i am not sure browne understood the protocols. she clearly misunderstood randi's purpose in asking that the reading also be distributed among the other nine participants. Zach bender (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, "refused to be tested" also describes an unambiguous offer that was not accepted. She could have contacted Randi and tried to set something up. If, as some True Believers claim, Randi's offer was a sham, she could have asked Larry King to act as an intermediary. She could at the very least have posted something on her website explaining why she thinks the "refused to be tested" claim is false. She could even have hired some third party to do the test and publish the results. I think that is is pretty well established that she didn't have the powers she claimed to have and that she refused to be tested under any sort of controlled conditions. And I think that is a reliable source for that claim. It was published in The Oklahoman, the largest daily newspaper in Oklahoma. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
i am not sure i agree the burden is on browne to explain why she thought whatever protocols ultimately offered by randi were not acceptable. in any event, this argument assumes an unambiguous offer was in fact made, which is again something i do not think the cited sources establish. your citation to newsok is hardly a "reliable" source of anything but that writer's opinion. Zach bender (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Zach, your argument that The Oklahoman is not a reliable source is going to need more than just your say-so. The newspaper in question meets WP:RS easily and the piece itself is unusually well documented for a news article. Sylvia had ample time from the offer to accept the offer or request clarification and she would have had to be living under a rock to think an offer hadn't been made. Also, since she was psychic shouldn't she have known what Randi meant? --Daffydavid (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
the piece by bryan farha in the oklahoman, to the extent it provides more detailed documentation of the question, seems to be original research i do not think your or my speculation about whether browne had "ample time" or why she acted as she did is sufficient for an encyclopedia entry objectively stating verified facts. and i think your closing remark about what a psychic "should have known" is entirely speculative. Zach bender (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You really need to re-read that link you provided, you clearly don't understand it. The Oklahoman is a WP:RS and if you feel strongly enough that it isn't then take it to WP:RSN, but do read WP:OR and understand it before bringing your argument there. The point here isn't the definition or even a subjective interpretation of "ample time", we have RS sources that state she didn't take the test. While you are at it please look up WP:NPOV, it doesn't mean we need "to find a neutral source" as you put it. My closing line in my previous comment was sarcasm, clearly you missed it. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
sarcasm, check. civilty, not so much. the oklahoman is a newspaper, i actually get that. farha is a columnist recounting details of an investigation he himself undertook. primary source. not quite sure why we are talking about him anyway, as this source is not currently cited in the article. but if it were, an accurate description would be "in correspondence with a journalist randi asserted thus and such." lots of people did not take the test. several of them have said randi keeps moving the goalposts. i do not think we need to clutter the article with this stuff, but i also do not think we need to present only his interpretations, without indicating that is what they are.Zach bender (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
We may be looking at a case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
if that is directed toward my conduct here, i will simply say the following and then drop it, the end.
james randi is a controversial figure. sylvia browne was a controversial figure. there are controversies surrounding the million dollar challenge. an encyclopdia entry might make these things clear to the reader. if the entry says browne accepted the challenge and then reneged, the reader should have confidence in the neutrality of the sources for that statement. the fact of her acceptance is arguably a synthesis of the larry king interview. the opinion piece in the oklahoman includes original source material.
wikipedia is an ongoing process of consensus among its editors. i am suggesting a neutral statement would be that browne appeared to accept the challenge and that randi told a journalist she had reneged. if we cannot build a consensus around this, i am willing to walk away, albeit somewhat disappointed in the process. Zach bender (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo Caption[edit]

The photo caption of the third photo on the Career/Skeptic section identifies "Pip Smith (standing on left)". Pip Smith is the woman in the far left of the frame. She is married to Dick Smith, the man seated furthest from Randi. (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Klass was also mentioned twice. I have fixed the caption and deleted the double mention. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a really good article...[edit]

Maybe its time to ask for reassessment? Djcheburashka (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph criticism[edit]

I have removed a "criticism" section that in its entirety was based on this piece published in the Telegraph. Firstly, I think basing an entire "criticism" section of five paragraphs on a single source is undue weight. Secondly, it's pretty much a bunch of fact-free allegations, insinuating (without ever saying so outright) that Randi lied about having tested Rupert Sheldrake's claims on dog telepathy (at least that's what I think it insinuates). I couldn't find a source independent of Will Storr, the author of the Telegraph piece, for that claim. (I did find Storr's book, The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science, which repeats the story almost literally.) I do not think it's appropriate to insinuate Randi was lying based on a single source that does not explicitly make that claim. Huon (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. An old man with a very long career of public statements on controversial topics may have stretched the truth a bit once or twice? Shocking revelation! News at 11. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Alvarez sues Randi[edit]

I seem to remember reading that the real Jose Alvarez sued Randi or the JREF over the identity theft incident, and they settled. I can't find a cite for it though. If anyone does, I think it would be good for the end of that subsection in "Personal Life" Dingsuntil (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked pretty hard, and I can't find any evidence that Randi was ever charged in either criminal or civil court in the matter. I found two articles in 2011, while Pena's trial was going on, that claimed Randi "should be charged" or "was in danger of being indicted' , but this doesn't seem to be based on anything, and just served as an excuse for rabid Randi-bashing (it should tell you something that I tried to post the links, but at least one of them was blacklisted by WP!). Since Pena himself was ultimately let off with a slap on the wrist, charging Randi with anything seems like a stretch. In An Honest Liar, he comes as close to admitting he knew about the whole thing than he ever has, but it would never hold up in a court of law.KaturianKaturian 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rollback vs. Rollback Vandalism[edit]

Hi - I've been an infrequent Wikipedia editor who's finally trying to learn the intricacies of some of this, since opening my big mouth got me nominated to make big changes to another article. But a situation on this page made me wonder about the rules of tagging a rollback as vandalism, and what it looks like in the History page. So I was hoping a less newbie person would clarify this for me.

User altered this line in the Personal Life section, "The couple were married in a ceremony in Washington on July 2, 2013." to add quotation marks around the word married. Now I did check, to make sure that gay marriage was legal in the state of Washington at the time of their ceremony, and the user wasn't referencing the fact that the ceremony wouldn't have been legal in that state at that time. Since I've confirmed it was legal (and had been for several months), I can't conceive of another reason someone did this, beyond thinking the word marriage should not be applied to same-sex ceremonies. Obviously such a personal view would not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article - particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision which has settled the legality of the term.

Since the user doesn't have a page to ask them about it, and they didn't post in the talk page why they were making the change, my instinct would've been to do a rollback-VANDAL on the change. But user had already rolled it back, and I didn't see anything in the revision comparison or the History page, which suggested they had tagged the change as vandalism. So my questions are...

  1. Would the History show up as tagged as rollback due to vandalism, or would I have no way of seeing that on my end?
  2. Should you wait until the user has done it a couple of times, assuming it's just a good-faith edit, before you tag it as vandalism?
  3. Should you open a discussion on the article's Talk page before tagging a behavior as vandalism - again when you're dealing with a user who has no Talk page to take the conversation to?

I have reviewed the articles on Wikipedia Vandalism and Cleaning up Vandalsim to see if my question was already addressed, and I don't think this edit falls in any of the "This is not vandalism even if it kinda looks like it" categories. So I want to make sure I have this clear before I end up prematurely tagging something as vandalism in the future. Thanks for any insight you can offer. CleverTitania (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi CT. It was not wp:vandalism imo. I suggest you to always assume good faith as much as possible, you can revert without vandal accusations anyways. Open a discussion if possible on the article talkpage or the users talkpage, if they don't have one then create one for them and welcome them and make a comment about their edit there, see I have created the user a talkpage here User_talk: using wp:twinkle gadget, you can activate it in in preferences. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
CleverTitania, I agree that this change was insulting, putting scare quotes on "married", but this kind of edit is borderline. It was reverted by simply undoing it rather than by anyone using rollback.
Regarding rollback, there are two major types on Wikipedia. The first one, Wikipedia:Rollback, is a single click that reverts the edit and does not leave an edit summary. The second one is Wikipedia:Twinkle which allows four types of rollback: good faith with no edit summary, neutral with an edit summary allowed, vandalism with no edit summary, and "restore this version" with no edit summary. I like using Twinkle's neutral rollback because I like to have an edit summary for others to see what I was thinking. I use the Twinkle neutral rollback for a wide range of reversions, from this clearly bad faith revert, where I knew the IP was evading a block, to this somewhat gentle revert of an Easter egg piped link that might mislead the reader. I would have used Twinkle's neutral revert for the scare quotes surrounding "married". Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Govindaharihari and Binksternet for the info on Twinkle. I was not familiar with this tool, and I can see now that it would be invaluable in questionable situations like this - especially since I was partly trying to determine if there is a consensus on the faith of such an edit, and obviously it's a very subjective situation where people see it differently. This discussion has cleared the issue up for me a great deal. Thanks again.
For future reference - if you saw an edit like this, reverted it and then it happened again; would you then tag it vandalism, or would you first create the user's talk page in Twinkle, and put a note about the issue on this Talk page, opening it up to discussion before making such a tag? I don't want to be an inappropriately quick-flagger. But I've never actually been in an edit war, so I don't have a frame of reference on how and when you start asking for admin intervention - which I believe is caused by tagging something vandalism. CleverTitania (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
My advice: I would read Help:Revert, and completely avoid automated reversions, rollback, undo, Twinkle and Huggle, and accusations of vandalism for any potentially ambiguous or grey(gray) areas. Explain as clearly as you can why you are making the changes you are making. Sometimes an edit summary can be enough, but if not it should progress swiftly to a talk page. If you are trying to get the help of an admin, NOTHING can be clearer than a simple human explanation, anywhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


A large block of unsourced content was added to the article, rightly removed because it was unsourced, then added again. I have once again removed it per policy on BLPs: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article". If anyone wants to discuss the removal of the content, please do so here per WP:BRD. -- WV 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you overlooking the word "contentious", as you appear to be? The discussion among some pretty experienced editors here determined that with possibly one exception, noted in the discussion, the edits were not controversial, and that sources should be sought rather than reverting. General Ization Talk 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The text inserted is copied from The page is copyrighted by the JREF and I've emailed them. - NQ (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"Are you overlooking the word "contentious", as you appear to be?" Uh, no. Contentious indicates something that's arguable. I am arguing that because this content is unsourced, its validity is suspect. Content added to a BLP (especially so much content that makes some very big claims) needs to be sourced and sourced reliably. If it isn't, it's to be removed. We have no (and I repeat, NO) guarantee who added it. And even if it is the article subject who added it, the content remains unsourced and needs to be sourced. Why is everyone totally forgetting policy on this and acting as if because it could be a celebrity adding the content, it's somehow sacred and cannot be removed? It makes no sense to me.
Further, if it is copied from Randi's website (as NQ noted above), it's a copyvio and needs to be removed based on that policy, as well. -- WV 22:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it was correct to remove the unsourced material added by the IP, whether or not he or she is the subject of the article. It makes no difference and we have no way of knowing. Indeed, it is commonomplace to remove long lists of unsourced material from biographies, even if it is clear that the person adding it is the subject. However, lists of awards are not "contentious" BLP issues or anything exempt from 3RR. Tjey were, however, unsourced, and whoever added it should be asked to source it, no matter who it is. I don't like the situation we have here in which the material was re-added, the page was frozen, and editors are asked to scurry around sourcing all this stuff. Also, because of the page protection, we have an overlong list lumping in both significant and insignificant awards, replete with "Mr. Randi" references that don't belong there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Awards and honors section[edit]

I have protected the page for a day so that emotions can calm down, ideological debates set aside, and attention refocussed so that we can balance the three goals of:

  • Completeness of coverage
  • Complying with NPOV/PROMO/COPYVIO policies
  • Not biting new editors, especially given that there is a reasonable chance that the IP editor is the subject editing in good faith (and in a position to donate any copyrighted material that is at issue)

So instead of reverting the 10 kilobyte of material in toto, and arguing over interpretations of WP:BURDEN, may I request some of the experienced editors involved to take the time to see which particular items in the added list can be sourced and are worth retaining once the current protection expires (or is lifted)? (I understand from the ANI discussion that some editors are already attempting this). Thanks in advance to all those who chip in. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NQ! I have copied the list below. May I suggest that the references be added were available; the awards for which no reference is available, or which are thought undue, be struck-out; and the wordings rewritten to avoid copyvio issues? Then we can replace the current section with the updated one in a few hours or say a day. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to lobby for CorporateM and my sadly redlinked WP:BLPAWARDS to be applied here. Paraphrased from WP:ORGAWARDS, "The significance of an award or ranking can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page or if secondary sources (independent from both the subject and the award-organizers) cover that the subject was honored with it, with more than a brief mention or directory listing." --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. In case it is not clear, I am not proposing that all the awards listed below stay in the article. Only that we give them a once over instead of making a keep all/delete all decision. Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with that standard. Most of the information below seems to be confirmed in reliable sources (for instance, the APS award is confirmed by the APS itself, which is surely reliable as a source of that information), but it doesn't seem particularly relevant/significant. Out of what I managed to cite below, only the MacArthur Fellowship and the asteroid being named after Randi seem important enough to include. -sche (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how reliable this page would be considered to be, but it confirms Randi's receipt of the Blackstone Cup, Koetser prize, Gold Medal of the University of Ghent, honorary doctorate from University of Indianapolis, Forum Award of the American Physical Society, Humanist Award of the American Humanist Society, and "Genius Fellowship" of MacArthur Foundation. It also mentions that an asteroid carries his name, Asteroid 3163 Randi. -sche (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The bit about the asteroid is also confirmed by the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. -sche (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The APS Forum Award bit is confirmed by the APS itself. -sche (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That Randi and Carl Sagan were friends is mentioned here but doesn't seem important enough to be included, IMO (independent of whether or not is a RS). -sche (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Asha: A Journal of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, volume 29, issues 1-6, page 13, says: "Magician James Randi, luncheon speaker at the 1983 ASHA Convention in Cincinnati, was named a MacArthur fellow by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation." -sche (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -ische. Agree with you on the Sagan friendship not worth mentioning here. Also note that some of the awards (including the APS, McArtthurs, etc, were already listed and sourced in the wikipedia article. Also you can add any additional references you find directly to the list below. Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Citation 1 in the Talk page reflist at the bottom says it's The Toronto Star, but it's actually a personal blog on Blogspot. The rest appear to be primary sources directly from the award organizers themselves, press releases, etc. WP:NOTRS says secondary sources should be the primary basis on which an article is based, but in this case we have a massive section that relies exclusively on primary sources and a personal blog. Seems like a pretty routine cleanup. Regarding the idea of vetting each award individually to find better sources, in most cases it's unlikely better sources exist (hence why primary sources were used in the first place). It's also the responsibility of the person adding the content to provide adequate sources. Nothing is stopping an editor from adding some of the awards later if an adequate source is indeed found. CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I fixed the broken link problem with WP:BLPAWARDS. CorporateM (Talk) 01:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course we shouldn't bite new editors, but we also shouldn't suggest that posting resumes is a good idea. If an award or whatever can be sourced, that's one thing (and in this case it doesn't matter if we get permission to copy what's on his website--his website is not a reliable source), but the award has to be relevant, notable, important in the first place. The only way to prove that is by listing secondary sourcing that establish that it's relevant (beyond just mentioning some award or other). If this isn't supposed to be all black and white and knee-jerky, then we should certainly allow for editorial discretion. The article is already big (bloated, IMO) enough. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, and also ordinarily the person adding the material is expected to source it. Whether that person is the subject or not is beside the point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

List of awards to be sourced[edit]

  • 1977: James Randi was nominated as “Visiting Magician of the Year” by the Academy of Magical Arts & Sciences at the Magic Castle in Hollywood.
  • 1981: Mr. Randi received a certificate of appreciation from the MIT Club of Boston, and the designation of Grand Master of Magic from Hocus Pocus Magazine. Also in 1981, asteroid “#3163 Randi” was named by the International Astronomical Union.[1] Randi has always been an active amateur observer. His friend Carl Sagan encouraged his interest.
  • 1983: Mr. Randi received the Blackstone Cup of the International Platform Association as Outstanding Speaker in his category for his lecture, Science & the Chimera, and became the only second-time recipient of this award in 1987.
  • 1984: The Bay Surgical Society of Los Angeles granted Honorary Membership to Mr. Randi following his lecture to the group on pseudoscience and quackery in medicine.
  • 1986: Mr. Randi was made a Fellow of the prestigious John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, an honor awarded him for his work in investigating claims of supernatural, occult and paranormal powers, in particular his exposures of the TV evangelist/healers and “psychics.” He received a grant of $272,000 to assist him in these continuing endeavors.[2] Also in 1986, the Israeli Society for Promoting the Art of Magic conferred membership on James Randi, and Assembly 22 of the Society of American Magicians gave him their Award of Merit: “in recognition of an outstanding contribution to the advancement of the Art of Magic and for exemplary promotion and defense of the Art of Magic.”
  • 1987: The Academy of Magical Arts & Sciences in Los Angeles created a Special Fellowship for James Randi in recognition of his contributions to preservation of the art of conjuring as a form of entertainment, as opposed to the use of deception for purposes of fraud. Also in 1987, Ring 254 of the International Brotherhood of Magicians conferred upon him their Certificate of Appreciation: for increasing community awareness of Magic's contribution to society as shown in his recognition by the MacArthur Foundation.” He also received the Society of American Magicians Award of Merit and was elected to their Hall of Fame.
  • 1988: The National Council against Health Fraud gave Mr. Randi their National Consumer Service Award: “in recognition of outstanding service to the community against health fraud, misinformation and quackery in harmony with the principles of the NCAHF.” Also in 1988, James Randi was appointed to the Hall of Fame of the Society of American Magicians (SAM). He was named an International Ambassador of Magic for the SAM, reporting to the Society from all over the world on developments in techniques and new talent discoveries. Mr. Randi also received a silver plaque from The Magicians of Italy.
  • 1989: The American Physical Society presented James Randi with their Forum Award. The citation read: “For his unique defense of science and the scientific method in many disciplines, including physics, against pseudoscience, frauds and charlatans. His use of scientific techniques has contributed to refuting suspicious and fraudulent claims of paranormal results. He has contributed significantly to public understanding of important 6 issues where science and society interact.”[3] Also in 1989, Mr. Randi was awarded the Gold Medal of the University of Ghent, Belgium, for his work in combating pseudoscience and quackery, and he received the Book of the City of Ghent, plus the Medal of the City of Ghent.
  • 1990: The American Humanist Association gave Mr. Randi their Humanist Distinguished Service Award: “for his lifetime contributions to Humanism through the effective promotion of rationality and critical thinking.” The Committee for Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) presented James Randi with their 1990 Distinguished Service Award for his research into the fraudulent practices of faith healers and the legal activity against the evangelists that resulted from his work. The Baton Rouge Proponents of Rational Inquiry & Scientific Methods gave Randi their annual Thomas Paine Award “For his unceasing campaign to expose charlatans, fakers, and other purveyors of unreason and illogic, the whole world over.”
  • 1991: Randi became a MacArthur Fellow.
  • 1992: The Hungarian Society for the Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge awarded its highest decoration, the Commemorative Medal with Golden Wreath, to James Randi “For his very successful activity and his enlightening efforts during several decades in the field of unmasking pseudoscientific beliefs.” The Mu Epsilon Chapter of Phi Theta Kappa, Miami-Dade Community College, recognized Mr. Randi “For his contribution to Education and his tireless pursuit of Truth.” Mr. Randi was also the 1992 Isaac Asimov Lecturer at the Asimov Seminar of the Rensselaerville Institute of New York.
  • 1993: James Randi delivered the first Koetser Memorial Lecture in Zürich, Switzerland. The Memorial Prize was awarded him: “In recognition of his continuous efforts to educate the public on science, to make scientists more aware of methods and possible fallacies, and for his intellectual integrity in enlightening us.” In November of 1993, James Randi was keynote speaker at the European Week of Scientific Culture in Lisbon, Portugal, and also in Madrid, Spain. On October 19, 1993, the PBS-TV “NOVA” program broadcast a one-hour special titled “Secrets of the Psychics” dealing with Mr. Randi's life work, particularly with his investigations of “psychic” Uri Geller and various healing claims being made by evangelists in the USA and by scientists in Russia.
  • 1994: In April, at the request of Dean Guido Calabresi, James Randi addressed the Yale University Law School as part of their “Science & the Law” seminar. It was only the third time that the Law School auditorium was filled to capacity for a speaker. Dean Calabresi wrote: “I am thank you for your wonderful discussion...Your presentation was a major boost for our TechLaw group. You certainly lived up to your reputation as an articulate, knowledgeable, and entertaining speaker....Your presentation was a great success!” Also in 1994, Mr. Randi received the Florida Crime Prevention Training Conference Certificate of Appreciation.
  • 1995: A degree honoris causa, Doctor of Humane Letters, was awarded Mr. Randi from the University of Indianapolis. The citation read, in part: “James Randi, prolific author, lecturer, and scientific investigator, celebrated MacArthur fellow, and truly amazing magician, your studies have exposed the falsities of pseudoscience, the paranormal, and the occult in order to enlighten the world to genuine science and the authentic powers of the intellect and spirit. In recognition of your scholarly investigations which have helped to define the boundary between true and false faith, between playful magic and the manipulation of quackery, in honor of your distinctive genius in the services of humanity....”
  • 1996: The International Astronomical Union officially named a planetoid in honor of James Randi. Asteroid 3163/1981QM C now known as “Randi” has an orbital period of 3.71 years and a magnitude of 17. The Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal gave Mr. Randi their Distinguished Skeptic Award in 1996.
  • 1997: Mr. Randi gave the Annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Lecture for the New York Area Skeptics Society. The mayor of Miami, Florida, named Sept. 27th, 1997, “James Randi Day,” “for his outstanding contributions on behalf of humankind.” The Aventura Marketing Council noted the Lifetime Achievement Award given to “author, lecturer, and humanitarian” James Randi by the International Brotherhood of Magicians. Mr. Randi was honored by the Science & Engineering Society of the National Security Agency, Washington, D.C. with a plaque bearing these words: “Venisti, Vidisti, Vincisti”: “You came, you saw, you conquered.” In the December/97 Esquire Magazine, he was named “One of the 100 Best People in the World, people who make our lives richer or larger or happier,” sharing the honor with Nelson Mandela, Stephen Hawking, Bob Dylan – and Homer Simpson. The Academy of Magical Arts elected Randi as “Visiting Magician of the Year.”
  • 1999: The “Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sul Paranormale” presented their “In Defense of Reason” Special Lifetime Achievement Award to James Randi.
  • 2000: Nova Southeastern University gave Mr. Randi their “Distinguished Lecturer” Award.
  • 2002: The International Brotherhood of Magicians presented Mr. Randi with their “Presidential Citation.”
  • 2003: The first annual Richard Dawkins Award was presented to Mr. Randi by the Atheist Alliance International at their conference in Clearwater, Florida. The citation read, in part: “Demonstrating a nontheist world view in a straightforward manner, Randi has combined entertainment and education while debunking charlatans who would encourage human ignorance.” The Canadian Association of Magicians gave James Randi their Camaraderie Award and honored him with an all-star banquet and show in celebration of his Canadian origins. The Society of American Magicians designated Randi as a “Distinguished Leader of the Skeptical Movement.”
  • 2004: Erwin Fischer Prize from the International League of Non-Religious and Atheists, in Germany.[4]
  • 2007: Randi was given the Philip J. Klass Award.[5] The Independent Investigations Group (IIG) awarded Mr. Randi their Lifetime Achievement Award – previous recipients Carl Sagan & Harry Houdini.[6]
  • 2009: From the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Randi received their In Praise of Reason Award.
  • 2010: Mr. Randi was elected a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and an Honorary Member of the New York Academy of Sciences.
  • 2012: James Randi received both the Academy of Magical Arts Lifetime Achievement Fellowship[7] and the American Humanist Association Lifetime Achievement Award.[8] The Australian Skeptics Inc. also gave him their Lifetime Achievement Award “In recognition of his incomparable contribution to the establishment and continued growth of the global skeptical movement.”


  1. ^ Orwen, Patricia (August 23, 1986). "The Amazing Randi". The Toronto Star. Torstar Corporation. Retrieved October 9, 2013. 
  2. ^ "Fellows List – August 1986". MacArthur Foundation. Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Archived from the original on July 19, 2011. Retrieved August 19, 2012. 
  3. ^ "Joseph A. Burton Forum Award". College Park, MD: American Physical Society. Retrieved July 23, 2015. 
  4. ^ Traynor, Lee (2005). "Mind, Brain, and Consciousness - The Skeptics Society 2005 Conference at Caltech". Skeptic. 12 (1): 12–15,96. Retrieved 22 July 2015. 
  5. ^ Randi, James (March 23, 2007). "In Closing". Swift (Newsletter). JREF. Archived from the original on March 26, 2007. Retrieved May 18, 2007. 
  6. ^ "The 2008 IIG Awards". The Independent Investigations Group. Hollywood, CA: Independent Investigations Group. August 21, 2010. Retrieved July 1, 2011. 
  7. ^ McMaster, Shawn (April 2, 2012). "The Academy of Magical Arts Awards Results". The Mandala. Shawn McMaster. Retrieved April 6, 2012. 
  8. ^ Magee, Brian (May 23, 2012). "Atheists 'Marching' to New Orleans for 71st Annual American Humanist Association Conference" (Press release). Washington, D.C.: American Humanist Association. Retrieved October 9, 2013. 

James Randi's spouse[edit]

This may have been hashed out previously, but there's a lot of back talk archives to look through. Question is this: Is there some reason not to recognize in the "Personal Life" section that the person Randi met at the Fort Lauderdale library was Deyvi Pena using the alias "Jose Alvarez", not the actual Jose Alvarez? I made an edit to that effect, and it was immediately reverted. It's a bit jarring to see one place that Randi moved in and is still living with "Jose Alvarez", and then later in the section see that he married and is still living with "Pena" (no Deyvi mentioned there). Randi fans might know what's going on, but I guarantee that will confuse people who don't know, and are looking for information on him. Personally, I think all the information about Randi and Deyvi's love life should be consolidated into one passage. I know it's chronological as is, but it would be clearer if it were topical instead of chronological. Applejuicefool (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive228#James Randi's spouse I am taking the liberty of reposting one of the comments from that discussion here:

For folks that might not know, the reason that "Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga" is being shortened to simply "Deyvi Peña" has to do with Venezuelan personal-names having the form FirstName MiddleName PaternalLastName MaternalLastName, whereas in the United States and American English FirstName PaternalLastName is the typical style. Also, I have seen the 2014 documentary about this, not sure if that makes me biased or not.  :-)     There are eight personas involved here (to date!), but only three humans.
#1. Randi (everyday), The Amazing Randi (stage), Randall Zwinge (birth) ; #2. Alvarez (real) ; #3. Peña (everyday), 'Alvarez' (false), The Great Carlos (stage), Peña-Arteaga (birth).
  • persona#1A. James Randi (professional magician and skeptic), bluelink
  • persona#1B. The Amazing Randi (stage-name of a professional magician), redirect to the person above
  • persona#1C. Randall James Hamilton Zwinge (birthname of the above), redirect to the person above
  • persona#2A. José Luis Alvarez (full legal name of the innocent New York resident aka the REAL José Alvarez), redlink presumably -- and per WP:BLP1E likely to remain a redlink, unless they are wiki-notable for reasons unrelated to the spouse-of-James-Randi
  • persona#3A. Deyvi Peña (spouse and former hoax-participant), currently a redirect under Deyvi Peña-->>James Randi as the spouse thereof, which is prolly appropriate since most people searching for that name "Deyvi Peña" will be interested in the human-as-revealed-to-be-not-the-same-as-José-Alvarez-of-New-York, and because whilst "José Alvarez" was in the WP:RS for various things "Deyvi Peña" is mostly not in the public eye, that I'm aware, in terms of being featured in the WP:RS by name, with the exception of the WP:NOTSCANDAL stuff directly related to the identity theft of the human from New York, and the WP:NOTINHERITED stuff about being the spouse of Randi.
  • persona#3B. 'José Alvarez' aka 'José Luis Alvarez' (false identity used by Deyvi Peña), should be a redirect to the article on the human who is the spouse of James Randi (whatever name that article is... right now we just redirect to James Randi methinks). This persona#3B -- as very much distinct from #2A -- should be listed at the DAB-page for Jose_Alvarez, which right now it is not so listed. Something like, "Deyvi Peña fka 'José Alvarez' (born YYYY), spouse of James Randi and participant in the Carlos Hoax" seems appropriate, but we could also go with two DAB-entries, which I think some annoying WP:MOS rule mandates because one-bluelink-per-DAB-entry, which means we need one DAB-entry for "Deyvi Peña, aka Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga, fka 'José Alvarez' (born YYYY), spouse of James Randi, used a false identity to immigrate from Venezuela to the United States" and then another DAB-entry saying "Deyvi Peña fka 'José Alvarez' (false identity), participant in the Carlos Hoax" or something along those lines.
  • persona#3C. The Great Carlos (stage name), which is a redirect to the Carlos Hoax. Since 99%[citation needed] of the WP:RS on the Carlos hoax call the faux-psychic by the stage-name The Great Carlos, and call the person behind that stage-name 'José Alvarez' , wikipedia should stick with what the sources actually say. However, the first time we *use* the now-known-to-be-false-persona-name 'José Alvarez' in the article about the Carlos hoax, we should have a footnote or a parenthetical mention or something, which explains that the REAL human named José Alvarez is a relatively-unknown resident of the great state of New York, and the REAL human named Deyvi Peña was actually the person with the stage name of The Great Carlos and the false identity of 'José Alvarez' ... but that at the time, this false identity was still fully intact, and thus almost all the wiki-reliable sources refer *incorrectly* to José Alvarez as the man behind The Great Carlos, when it is *correct* to refer to 'José Alvarez' as the man behind The Great Carlos (not addition of scarequotes).
  • persona#3D. Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga , the full legal birthname of Deyvi Peña , and almost certainly (though I've not read them all so I don't know) the most commonly-found name in the WP:RS. There are conflicting guidelines here; WP:COMMONNAME says that *article-titles* should be the most common name of the topic as used in the WP:RS, other things being equal. However, in this case, there *is* no dedicated article for the human Deyvi Peña aka Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga fka 'José Alvarez' fka 'José Luis Alvarez' fka The Great Carlos. The other guideline, is that when it doesn't matter, defer to what the BLP wants, aka the human named Deyvi Peña, and to a lesser extent, the human named James Randi. Nowadays, if the BLP themselves wants to call themselves by the name Deyvi Peña, then that is what *we* should call that human, per the WP:BLP rules of being nice to humans when we can, see also WP:NICE which is similar in ultimate nature. There are undoubtedly a lot of WP:PRIMARY court-documents, which refer to only the full legal name Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court-recording-service. Similarly, there are undoubtedly WP:109PAPERS that mimic the court-documents, and use the full legal name, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. In other words, I think the case can be made that wikipedia should, in articles and/or subsections-of-articles where it makes sense, use the everyday name Deyvi Peña, as preferred by James Randi, and presumably as preferred by the human-sometimes-called-Deyvi-Peña-et-cetera. (See the example of The artist formerly known as Prince for a case where the preferences of the BLP-in-question were trumped by WP:COMMONNAME, by contrast; wikipedia does not call the article about the singer some unpronounceable un-type-able symbol, though we *do* have the symbol listed there, and I believe we even have a redirect somehow implemented ... is there a unicode-codepoint for the Prince-symbol? Anyways, methinks Deyvi Peña is a case where we can use the everyday name, even if we have a lot of primary-court-docs and a lot of churnalism-newspaper-reports that use the full legal name of the defendant aka the accused, because "encyclopedia".)
So, with the redirect mostly covered, in terms of our *textual* use of names, in the prose of articles (as opposed to redirects and titles), I recommend the following: in the article on Carlos hoax ... and holy WP:42 batman, why don't we even have a dedicated article about that incident, there must have been hundreds of newspaper reports and television coverage and all that stuff, sheesh ... in the hypothethetical article Draft:Carlos hoax about the incident, we should refer to the stage-name The Great Carlos when we are giving details *about* the hoax-persona, aka "According to the hoax-paperwork, The Great Carlos claimed to be a psychic that performed at The Majestic Theater in Woodstock New York, when in reality no such theater actual exists." Elsewhere in the hypothetical article about the hoax, we can say that the WP:RS at the time reported that the person behind the stage-name was 'José Luis Alvarez' with scarequotes explicitly included, and then parenthetically mention that it was later discovered that the REAL unscarequoted José Luis Alvarez was not involved at all, but that the human actually behind The Great Carlos was Deyvi Peña ... and then give a fuller explanation, of exactly why Peña was using the 'Alvarez' persona, with all the extended details, over at the appropriate linked article. Most of this is hypothetical, all wikipedia has right now is a one-liner at List of hoaxes#Proven_hoaxes_of_exposure which says this:
My long-term suggestion is that we use the documentary and the 60 Minutes footage and all the other coverage, and write a dedicated article about the Carlos hoax, but for the short-term-moment, I suggest we revise the one-liner like this:


  1. ^ Although it was not known in 1988 at the time of the Carlos hoax, later in 2011 it turned out that 'José Luis Alvarez' was a false identity used for immigration purposes, and that in actuality Deyvi Peña was the person who played and helped concoct The Great Carlos.
We can leave the details out of the hoax-article (and the DAB-page and redirects and such), and concentrate on getting all the details right in our main article. Now, at the moment, we have no dedicated article on Deyvi Peña the human (under any article-title), nor on their various personas and stagenames used at earlier dates. What we do have, is a redirect to James Randi, their spouse since 2013, and also their co-worker and friend since 1988 in the skeptic-investigation-slash-debunking-business. Thus, the "main article" that wikipedia has about the human-sometimes-known-as-Deyvi-Peña, and thus the main article that we have about persona#3A thru persona#3D, is in fact the James Randi article (which also necessarily covers the human behind persona#1A thru persona#1C of course).
suggestions for what exact human-monikers ought be used in 3 specific sections of James Randi , which is also the 'main' article currently about Peña-fka-'Alvarez'
   In the context of the James Randi article, we generally refer to "Randi" and in rare cases to "James Randi" ... in other words we use abbreviated and full-length instances of persona#3A to refer to that human ... because that is the title of the article, and that is what 99% of the WP:RS call him, and that is what he calls himself nowadays. We *also* refer to him by his full legal name at birth (persona#1C), thrice plus the infobox, and we also mention that he was a magician with a stage name (persona#1B) at least a dozen times, e.g. in the bibliography-discography-section and in the paragraphs on his career as a magician. So that all seems to be done properly, in my eyes.
   We cannot do the same thing for Peña fka 'Alvarez' fka 'Carlos' because he has been using the 'Alvarez' persona most of his adult life, rather than his birthname. In a way, though, the situation is very similar to Randi; the exact same reason we call him "Randi" instead of his birthname "Zwinge" is simply because, per WP:NPOV, the vast majority of the WP:SOURCES call him "Randi". Wikipedia needs to reflect what the sources say, for all encyclopedic topics, and the bulk of the sources refer to magician and skeptic as Randi, plus the human refers to themselves in that fashion, so wikipedia follows suit. Most of their lifetime, 'Alvarez' referred to themselves as 'Alvarez' at all times, and thus the vast majority of the WP:RS about 'Alvarez' follow suit, and thus so must wikipedia follow suit... in the appropriate sections of our articles on the topic.
   Taking it section by section: when we are covering the subtopic of the Carlos hoax in the appropriate place, which right now is paragraph starting with "In February 1988,..." under the James_Randi#Skeptic subsection, we need to refer to 'Alvarez' with scarequotes... since per WP:THETRUTH we now know that the unscarequoted-Alvarez was NOT actually involved. The first time we so refer to 'Alvarez' in the James_Randi#Skeptic section, we need a footnote that explains the truth: Randi described 'Alvarez' by that name, and said he was a friend, at the time, and 'Alvarez' described himself by that name, also at the time, and thus so did all the WP:RS at the time... but later, it turned out they were more than friends, and later it also turned out that from 1987 through 2011 'Alvarez' was the false identity being used by Deyvi Peña (born Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga).
   In the James_Randi#2010s subsection, where the 2014 documentary I saw is briefly covered, we currently have the following sentence-fragment: "...focuses on Randi's life, his investigations, and his relationship with longtime partner José Alvarez, a.k.a. Deyvi Peña.[75]" First off, this is not an NPOV-compliant description of the film. The focus of the film, as evidenced by the title thereof, is on the seven distinct personas jointly utilized by Randi and by Peña-fka-'Alvarez', plus on how those personal personas are related to their joint work skeptically-investigating-and-debunking. The goal of the skeptic is to seek truth, and the goal of the debunker is to reveal fraud. Randi and 'Alvarez' perpetuated a falsehood known as The Great Carlos in an attempt to reveal truth, that the mainstream media is gullible and won't fact-check a juicy story. There was a deeper falsehood hidden within the overt fraud of Carlos: it turned out that 'Alvarez' was not really Alvarez, and that 'Alvarez' and Randi were not mere friends. Randi's career as a magician (aka an honest liar) is also covered; Randi's use of a stagename, rather than Zwinge that he originally used for his magic act, is also covered. But the core of the documentary, is that Randi has been forced to be a liar his entire life: about his work (professional magician), about his sexuality (non-heterosexual), and about his spouse's legal name (not 'Alvarez')... yet at his core, Randi is still an *honest* liar. It's a good documentary, I highly recommend it; try the veal. So what is the neutral boring cold hard just-the-facts prose, which wikipedia should use in wikipedia's voice to summarize the focus of the film, and more broadly, to summarize the real-world-events that the film is a documentary about? Currently we say that the film is:
  • ...focuses on Randi's life, his investigations, and his relationship with longtime partner José Alvarez, a.k.a. Deyvi Peña.
I suggest instead we ought to say something like this:
  • ...focuses on Randi's name-change from Zwinge to The Amazing Randi early in his career as a magician, his later skeptic investigation-and-debunking work (including the Carlos hoax with 'Alvarez'). Additionally the film focues on Randi's relationship with Deyvi Peña, both since their overt marriage at a federal courthouse in 2013, as well as their earlier personal and professional partnership since 1987, when Peña (who was born Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga in Venezuela) began using the false identity 'José Luis Alvarez' to illegally remain in the United States (convicted in 2011 and assigned NNN hours of community service but allowed to remain in the country as a non-citizen).
That is obviously quite a mouthful, and should probably be chunked up into a triplet or quadruplet of sentences. But, it cannot be cut by much, if we want to neutrally cover what Honest Liar is ACTUALLY about. We cannot be vague and weasel-worded; the documentary is not about Randi's "life and investigations and relationship" the documentary is very specifically about lies, and liars, and which ones are "honest liars" (e.g. James Randi per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at least), and which ones are not (e.g. Peter Popoff per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at least). Similarly, we cannot simply replace every instance of Alvarez in wikipedia with the name Peña, because that's not what happened (and it's not the name that the WP:SOURCES actually use). What we *can* do, with wiki-honor fully intact, is replace every unscarequoted use of Alvarez ... except when referring to the New York resident who is the REAL Alvarez o'course... with the corrected 'Alvarez' using explicit scarequotes, and in a footnote explain that the real Alvarez was not involved whatsoever, but that the real Peña was involved, though at the time he was impersonating the real Alvarez and calling himself 'Alvarez' while never calling himself Peña. Make sense? As simple as possible, but no simpler.
   Finally, when we are covering the |spouse= portion of the infobox on Randi, we can simply say "Deyvi Peña" since that is what Randi *calls* his spouse nowadays, and then in a footnote attached thereupon, explain the details: namely, that Randi has been living with his spouse since 19xx (not sure what year exactly... I believe 1987... but the recent 2014 documentary mentioned that specific factoid, methinks, if no other WP:RS does), and that due to the laws related to marriage, they did not *formally* get married until 2013. Furthermore, go on to explain that during most of their decades together, 1980s/1990s/2000s but not 2010s, both of them publicly referred to Deyvi Peña (born Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga) by the false name of 'José Alvarez' aka 'José Luis Alvarez' which moniker was in turn related to a different bunch of laws revolving around passports and legal immigration and identity theft. Might also mention the Carlos hoax and the stage name of The Great Carlos which Peña fka 'Alvarez' briefly assumed during the late 1980s, since that hoax involved international travel to Australia under the now-known-to-be-falsified passport, or might leave that bit out of this particular spouse-specific-footnote; depends on whether we want to combine everything into a single big footnote, or have a set of three or four footnotes for different subsections of the "main" article about Deyvi Peña.
Apologies for the length of my reply. The BLP-conundrum is an interesting one, partly because the real-world-topics-which-led-to-this-BLP-conundrum are in fact real-world-interesting; I think wikipedia should treat it (the real-world-topic) correctly, and as neutrally as possible, but without varnishing nor censoring the cold hard facts. (talk), originally posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive228#James Randi's spouse, 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The above seems like a good plan to me. Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My concern with this issue has always been undue weight. The article is about Randi, not his spouse and not his spouse's life history. -- WV 03:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WV. I haven't followed this recently (are we supposed to read all the gumph above??) but in the past people have wanted to add gotcha statements to show some negativity about its subject (Randi). Is there a specific proposal? If it's above, please quote the first couple of words so I can find it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Junk sources[edit]

Somebody has recently added something attributed to I quote the foot of the top page of this website:

The opinions expressed on TDG reflect solely the opinion of the person posting the material, not TDG nor its editors.

So there's no editorial oversight, and what appears is only on the authority of its writer. Seems to be junk. I'll remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)