Talk:Uri Geller

Reference 11 "Anti-Semitic" statements

"Geller has since admitted that he has not been in contact with Jackson since this time. Geller says that he has split with Jackson because of anti-Semitic statements Jackson had purportedly made" - Please correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see any mention of this in the referenced article, I think the line should be deleted. Waffle247 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The following info keeps getting deleted

Uri boldly stated there was a difference between himself and magicians. He was always willing to subject himself to scientific scrutiny in the laboratory. He defied magicians to do the same. ref (The Search For Psychic Power by David Hammond, Bantam books, 1975) James Randi's Alpha Program did just that. Two young amateur magicians thoroughly fooled scientists in the lab into believing they possessed psychic powers. It was a blow to the credibility of parapsychologists and their science. User:Kazuba 18 Mar 2007 Are not friends allowed to disagree?

James Randi's plan to demonstrate the excessive bias and lax controls of parapsychology was called Project Alpha. This project has nothing to do with Uri Geller directly, though it was inspired in part by the lax controls of the Geller experiments at the Stanford Research Institute. It was an embarassing time for a lot of people in the field of parapsychology, and it further discredited the SRI's Geller experiment (which had been criticized for lax controls from the time of its publication) but Randi (and probably others) had made numerous vain attempts to have these problems addressed in an open and honest manner. I don't believe that Geller ever submitted to laboratory testing after Project Alpha decimated the field of parapsychology. I don't know why the paragraph above keeps getting removed, but perhaps somebody does not consider it relevant. That's just speculation on my part, however. 209.0.0.29

I can recall Randi stating that he voluteered his time and efforts in helping to make sure testing on self-proclaimed mediums would be fair since his experiance as a magician he would recognize the signs of trickory but several times he said that scientists dismissed him because he wasn't a scientist. With the Project Alpha Randi got the last laugh. - Throw 12:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened. Randi sometimes gets criticized for the whole Project Alpha thing, but that's hardly fair. It wasn't Randi that pounded a stake through the heart of parapsychology. There were too many people in the field that played fast and loose with the scientific method, and even more that apparently lacked the ability to detect manipulation and deception on the part of the subjects. I don't know that this belongs on the Uri Geller Wikipedia page, though, because I don't think it's relevant. Neither Geller nor the experiments he participated in were in any way involved in Project Alpha, except perhaps as a source of inspiration. Joel Blanchette 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it totally belongs on this page, it would be naive to think that randi wasnt out to get at geller with project alpha, he was always one of his leading critics and he knew what effect it would have on him and his performances, it was the great motivator.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.74.65 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 April 2007

It's naive to think that James Randi is motivated purely by Uri Geller's claims. Can you find a good source to prove that Uri Geller was the motivating force behind Project Alpha? It wasn't Geller that Randi was aiming to expose as playing fast and loose with science. It was parapsychology researchers who were validating such claims through bad science that were his targets. The effect on Geller was minimal, since he was already by that time avoiding serious scientific scrutiny of his claimed powers. Joel Blanchette 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

James Randi's motivations are actually very clear, if you read the web site of The James Randi Foundation (www.randi.org) -- he is motivated by any and all fraud, misdirection, or misleading usage of claims of paranormal behavior. This includes, but is not limited to, Uri Geller's claims. Randi's motivation is further fueled by his knowledge that even scientists are fallible, and that as a professional illusionist he is able to show how many of these claims can be faked. It falls under that saying from Carl Sagan -- "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And the "psychics" that Randi targets are making extraordinary claims without giving ANY proof, as defined in a strict scientific context. The fact that Geller is one of these who refuses to give any proof as to how what he does is not sleight-of-hand (or other well known devices) doesn't mean that Randi has singled him out. Oh, and let's not forget the Randi Foundation's "million dollar challenge" -- if ANY paranormal claims that are in the media spotlight can be proven to exist in a proper scientific study (with appropriate controls in place) then the claimant will be given a one million dollar prize that is currently being held in escrow pending such proof. And who can honestly say "I don't need a million dollars"? (Given his current legal struggles, I'll bet Geller could use every penny he can get -- why doesn't he go after this prize?)

Curse

I dont think a journalists opinions of a fictional and un prooveable curse on a spoon bending celebrity belong on Wikipedia. Honestly..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.127.73.46 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

And it will certainly cut into Geller's sports betting business.

Anyway it is demonstrated that Geller "predicts" winners, and when they lose then backpedals by suggesting it wasn't a psychic prediction per se, but just a win he was rooting for. / edgarde 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If we were to remove all material of unprovable claims then do we remove the entire section about Geller's purtported abilities? It's sourced, it stays. Arbustoo 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be sourced but I dont think a 'Curse' is a) something many people associate with Uri Geller - His physic abilities, real or not, are

b) A story, even if there is scientific proof.... Im sure I can find scientific proof somewhere to find a curse of Tony Blair, a curse of Maddonna, a curse of any celebrity, and your saying, if that goes online, it warrents an entry in an encyclopedia? Im keeping well and truelly out of the debate of weather I think geller is real or not - im not getting involved or saying what I think about that - But childish claims of curses is petty and very unencyclopedia

I think if you are going to keep it - it should at least clearly explain the sources are a Uri Geller skeptic of the century and a British Tabloid.... Its at least a little less unbiased then and less weasle wordy - 'some think he is cursed, yada' - SOME eh?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.73.46 (talk • contribs) 00:34 24 April 2007

I don't understand your writing. However, I wish you luck on finding "scientific proof of the curse of Tony Blair." Good luck with that. Arbustoo 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright dispute

I was reading about the copyright dispute on the inquirer. Not the most reliable source perhaps but I think it's accurate. From what I can tell, both James Randi and Geller agree that there is one clip in the youtube thing whose copyright is owned by Geller. The primary point of contention is whether the use of it is legal in either the US or the UK under their respective fair use/critical commentry laws. The clip in question is 3-10 seconds long. While Geller might be an idiot, it's important we're accurate here IMHO. Currently the article suggests that nothing in the video is copyrighted by Geller Nil Einne 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't entirely clear who owns the copyright for the one video in question. It was apparently taken from a NOVA episode and is 10 seconds long. Whether displaying it constitues fair use is not really relevant. From YouTube's Terms of Use:

YouTube also reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement and violations of intellectual property law, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User's access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.

It's their site, and they really don't need to justify the removal of any content from it. I just read the terms of use twice, and there is no explicit provision for "fair use". It is in their best interests to use an abundance of caution when dealing with intellectual property claims. If the subject of a video on YouTube asks that the video be removed, they will almost certainly accede to the request. Look at it this way: they can be sued for refusing to remove copyrighted content of which they have been made aware, but they can't be sued for removing content from their site. Joel Blanchette 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Uri Nation"

"Geller semi-retired from public life in the 1980s, although he returned to the screens for the current affairs show Uri Nation in the early nineties, which could be seen then on satellite TV."

This was in the article since March 2006! And upon checking, this is an obviously fake info. Moreover, it has spread to other languages. Just another reason why Wiki sucks. --Sergey Romanov 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Magicofgeller.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Secrets of the PsychicsVideo.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Feynman

What is the source for the allegation that Feynman considered Geller to be a fraud? If that cannot be substantiated it should be removed according to my imperfect understanding of Wiki rules? SamuelJohnson714 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetruthuri.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I added a line in the introduction stating that Gellar has been caught cheating on camera. The introduction didn't make it clear enough that Gellar's claims are pseudoscientific at best, given that wis this new video there can be next to know doubt that he cheats. 68.239.32.46 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issue.

My concern that the article is not neutral is because a large proportion of the article appears to be devoted to controversy surrounding the subject of the article. This content in terms of length is longer than the biography provided. It may well be that the content about the controversy may be valid encyclopaedic content but at present it's unbalanced, and may give a reader the wrong impression about the subject of the article. Sfan00 IMG 11:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I will tend to agree with that statement. A biography needs to be ... biographical and little is expounded on the life and work of this person, despite many books and other sources available on the subject. I have removed some weasel words and cleaned up a bit, but this article requires the attention of well-intentioned editors interested in having a good article on the life of this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is about Uri Geller, not about the views of James Randi on Uri Geller. These views can be expounded in the James Randi article, as many of the material used to substantiate claims is self published by Randi, or his foundation. See WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be trimmed, but Geller's paranormal claims are what gave him celebrity. NNtw22 01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a frame-by-frame study of the video that allegedly shows Uri Geller cheating on camera. All that I could find was that Uri rubbed his thumb, but there is no real evidence of a false thumb. see video: [1] In order for this article to be fair, neutral, and unbaised, it would be best to change statements such as "Geller was caught cheating on camera" to "Geller was allegedly caught cheating on camera" or "Geller was caught cheating on camera, according to James Randi." Failure to do so may make the editor subject to litigation if the editor was not a first-person witness to the alleged incident. This is a standard routine for all forms of news journalism. Fkapnist (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, this article is not at all neutral Sfan00 IMG. James Randi's name appears 47 times in the article, much more than any other single reference, and almost as much as Uri Geller himself. The name of Dr Harold Puthoff appears only 5 times. The names of Dr. Wernher von Braun (NASA scientist & father of the Rocket) and Dr Edgar D. Mitchell (Apollo 14 Astronaut and 6th man to walk on the moon) do not appear at all in this obviously biased article. Yet they examined Geller's abilities and are renown academics of high distinction. James Randi is a former magician and stage manager for Alice Cooper's band. He has no credentials to debunk the conclusions of leading scientists. Fkapnist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the need to keep the article from being a place to simply record everything negative about the subject, below is an excerpt from official Wikipedia policy. Has a poll ever been taken worldwide to determine the public's approval/disapproval of Mr. Geller? 5Q5 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

Reference

References 13 and 36 are calling an undefined reference named "SkepdicGeller". --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

old versions use The Sceptic's Dictionary: Uri Geller for this reference --h2g2bob (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that site reliable? --h2g2bob (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its a book by Robert Todd Carroll. NNtw22 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a citation needed about the many languages he speaks. Mr. Geller requires a bilingual interpreter in Germany. I do not believe he speaks German, other than a few words. What is the source for this claim? Carlosrealm (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Ryan radio show

I removed the below quote as it seemed to be WP:OR. NNtw22 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In his telepathy demonstrations, Geller sometimes, but not always, reveals his answer slowly while asking whether he is on the right track. This approach is consistent with a stage magic technique known as cold reading, in which a magician tricks a subject into revealing information by suggesting that he already knows it. Geller's approach is apparent in an interview on the Gerry Ryan radio show on February 20, 2002:

Phenomenon Episode on Oct 31

Just to be clear, Uri Geller did not fight with Criss Angel on the show. Criss called out a contestant who claimed to have the ability to speak with the dead. Criss offered both the contestant and Uri the chance to get $1 million if either could tell what was in two envelopes he brought with him. The contestant got loud and angry, and the whole thing escalated into Criss being held back by Uri and the contestant being held back by the show's host. My point is that Uri seemed to ignore the challenge from Criss, and focused on keeping a fight from breaking out.

I removed a section from the page that had incorrectly stated that Criss and Uri got in a fight. - EndingPop 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:Angel did not "fight" with anyone. Yes, a "fight" leads to confusion as it was referring to a "verbal fight" and "argument" is a better word. Please correct information don't just remove a notable event. Uri tends to ignore all challenges. Just last week on the Today show, he was asked if his spoon-bending was a trick and Uri avoided the challenge to his "abilities" refusing to answer. C56C 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I correct what I wrote. The section YOU removed said nothing about a "fight."[2] Please don't remove material. If you want to change "argument" with "challenge" per the source fine. But don't assert the article said something that isn't true. Geller was clearly challenged by Angel and was offered one million dollars on live TV if he could read the contents of the evenlope. C56C 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess I will clear up what I wrote below. I was apologizing for outright removing the section. I agree that I should have modified it instead of removing entirely. The section that I removed said this: "On October 31, 2007 Geller got into an argument with Criss Angel on Phenomenon regarding paranormal abilities. Angel offered Geller one million dollars if Geller could tell what word was written on an envelope in his pocket." I used the term "fight" when the section actually said "argument". Regardless, it's in inaccurate statement. An argument requires two people to actively exchange words. Geller did not respond to the challenge --> not an argument. As I mentioned before, I've since cleared up the section to be accurate per the cited MSNBC article and the actual video of the event (not cited due to copyright concerns). - EndingPop 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Please correct information don't just remove a notable event." You're right, I should have. Since then I have updated the section to more accurately describe the event. I have one question though. Currently, it uses a reference to an MSNBC article twice, resulting in the same link at the bottom twice. Is this the correct way to cite? - EndingPop 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenon Finale

I have added the "final chapter" to the Phenomenon argument. On November 21, 2007, Criss Angel again challenged Uri Geller $1,000,000.00 on the finale of NBC's nationally televised "Phenomonon" to tell Angel what was in a sealed envelope and then quickly cut Geller off when he appeared to intuitively begin zoning in on it's content. What was in the sealed envelope were the numbers 911. When Criss Angel asked Geller what was in the envelope Geller for some reason began rattling off dates that unknown to Geller were zoning in on the contents. Uri said Angel was born on the 19th, just 1 day prior to Geller's birthday. He then said that he had bent his 1st spoon when Angel was 1 (years old.) A nervous Angel, knowing what was in the envelope quickly cut him off, and diverted attention by quickly opening the envelope. see video: [3] It is worth noting that Geller apparently knew that the mystery in the envelope was an important date, whereas it could have been a drawing, poem, or other inscription.

That's called cold reading, you say lots of names and things until you hit on one that is right. Criss Angel recognised that he didn't know and cut him off. All he wanted was an answer, Geller was offering a lot of window dressing. If he knew what it was he would have had said something like "Yes it's a date the 11th of September", immediately, the fact that he didn't makes it obvious he didn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.37.86 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also did a frame-by-frame study of the video that allegedly shows Uri Geller cheating on camera. All that I could find was that Uri rubbed his thumb, but there is no real evidence of a false thumb. see video: [4] In order for this article to be fair, neutral, and unbaised, it would be best to change statements such as "Geller was caught cheating on camera" to "Geller was allegedly caught cheating on camera" or "Geller was caught cheating on camera, according to James Randi." Failure to do so may make the editor subject to litigation if the editor was not a first-person witness to the alleged incident. This is a standard routine for all forms of news journalism.Fkapnist (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not allow that type of reporting. And anyway Geller offered a lot of numbers in that segment: 20, 40 and so on, which you excluded. If you have a source that Geller won the million dollars, or Geller claimed he did, it can be added. C56C 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BLATANT WALL-TO-WALL BIAS

this article is elitist, overly-sceptical and biased trash and if its not fixed fors it blatant anti-geller bias i will reocmmend that it be speedy-deletd and it will start over from the very scratch. Smith Jones (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles aren't speedily deleted for being biased. If you think the article should be deleted, you'll need to begin an articles for deletion discussion. Also, please do not threaten other editors - it is uncivil and suggests that you think you own this article. Natalie (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uri Geller is a fraud; we've caught him on video tape, not that it wasn't obvious anyway, and Johnny Carson owned him in the 1970s. The guy is a stage magician who claims psychic powers, and Wikipedia needs to show that. Remember what NPOV means - it doesn't mean we lend equal credence to everything, it means we take a neutral point of view. Of course, that is often highly unflattering to people such as Geller, the KKK, and scientology, but what did you expect, the article on Adolf Hitler to call him a wonderful human being? Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Study your history, little man. geller was NEVER exposed by ANY of his critics, and toehr contrarily he was VINDICATED by resarch conducted by NOTED PARAPSYCHOLGOISTS known as Dr. Gary Schwartz and Dr. Stephen Liebaum. On the contary, Jimmy Carson was a late nigth talk show host with no scientifc credentials or siginicant background on the parapsychological field. Why are we trusting the "evidenc" collected by Carson over the years of research and expeirnce of a real profesional scientist like Dr. Schwartz? Is it becuase Geller and people like him thraten the mainstream (fale) consensut of scientific promoted by the mainstream media and the government? Becuase HTAT is not what Wikipedia is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what Wikipedia is about. All information has to be verified by reliable sources, and original research is not allowed. The mainstream scientific consensus is exactly the sources we allow. Natalie (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

and i assume that Gary Schwartz despite being notable enoguht oget his own article here, is not considered "notable" enoguh to be quoted from in defense of Mr. Geller? Of course, im sure he isnt. thats alwyas the way around here; only sources that spport hte article editors opinion are allowed, whcih is why Johnny Carson is a respected scientific source here and parapsychologists are not. Smith Jones (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Being notable and being reliable are not the same thing. For example, Adolph Hitler is a notable person, but he is not a reliable source about several topics. That said, if Schwartz tested Geller he may have published a paper in a peer reviewed journal - that would be considered a reliable source. If Schwartz has given interviews about his testing to some major media outlet, that would also be fine. The burden of proof for adding information is on the person wishing to add the information, however, so you will have to find these sources if you wish to include the results of this testing. Natalie (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• the very fact that Schwartz is a practicing parpayschologist is proof that his expressed views are noticeable enough to be atributable to him when

in an article. and the very fact that you decided to break Godwin's Law on a Uri geller article is really strange, concidering that i mentioned neitehr Nazism nor the Jew holocaus t in any of my previous comnetnts. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a commentary databste supportive of Schwartz's research run by a well-known and insiteful detractor of Randi's.

Here is a CNN interview with many famous psychics conducted yb Larry King that references schwartz's work with Uri Geller on the project

the National Institue for Discovery Science released this report on PK (psychokinetics]] and other scientifically-rpoven phenomena and cites Schwartz's worth involving Uri Geller.

another critical commentary on randi's "work" involving Geller and Schwartz, detailing the steps that she has taken to haras and supprpess their scientific resarch. it also quotes schwartz's scientifica papers heavily.

extensive compliations of schwartz's work studying life-after-death, and icmpotant subject in parpayschology

i am asking for CTREDIBLE reasons why these sources cannot be used this article. i remind you that i havesubmitted almost all ofthese obefore only to have tmy aditions summarily removed without explanation. once before. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. I'm not invoking Godwin's Law - if I had suggested that Schwartz was like Hitler then that statement might be true. But I didn't. I just used Hitler as an example because he is a well-known person who is obviously notable, and the reason he would not be considered a reliable source is also, I hope, obvious. Just to make this unmistakably clear - I am not in any way drawing comparisons between Schwartz and Hitler. Feel free to substitute Hitler with any notable person or publication that is also not a reliable source. My point was that being notable and being a reliable source are not the same thing. You should also note that Godwin's Law is a law in the same sense as a natural or philosophic law, not a criminal code, and thus cannot be "broken".

i never siad that gdowings law was a Criminal Code, only that you vinoked it by bringing up the NAzis in order to taint my argument. i undewrestand what you meant but it was still an inapropriate comment and one that you should have avoided to prevent this conversation to be derailed by a controversial subject such as Hitler and the Nazis. Smith Jones (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"the very fact that Schwartz is a practicing parpayschologist is proof that his expressed views are noticeable enough to be atributable to him when in an article." I'm honestly not really sure what you mean by this statement. Could you rephrase or elaborate? Natalie (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

since Schwartz is a pracrticisng parapsycholigist his opinions on his subject are automatically notable, just as how a comment made by george bush regarding us politics is automatically notable, regardles of whether or not you personally agree with him. i am also aksing if you can find even one reason why the sources i listed above are not considered notable enough to be used as evidence an this article? Smith Jones (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"i never siad that gdowings law was a Criminal Code" No, but you said I had "broken" it. One cannot break a philosophical law.

"only that you vinoked it by bringing up the NAzis in order to taint my argument. i undewrestand what you meant but it was still an inapropriate comment and one that you should have avoided to prevent this conversation to be derailed by a controversial subject such as Hitler and the Nazis. " I disagree that it was inappropriate - it was just an illustration of my point that notability and reliability do not equal each other. If you feel like it has tainted your argument I'm sorry, but I really don't think anyone reading this (except possibly yourself) would think I was equating Schwartz and Hitler. Hitler was just a convenient and easy to understand example.

"since Schwartz is a pracrticisng parapsycholigist his opinions on his subject are automatically notable, just as how a comment made by george bush regarding us politics is automatically notable, regardles of whether or not you personally agree with him." This does not in any jibe with Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. The simple fact that someone works in a particular industry does not make them a reliable source. To continue with your example of politics, George Bush happens to be a very well known politician. However, there are many low-level politicians in the United States, and even more in every other country of the world. None of those people's statements would be considered reliable sources about politics simply because they work in politics. There are other standards Wikipedia uses. To give another example, until recently I worked in a library. But I am still not considered a reliable source on libraries.

As to your specific sources: this website is someone's personal site and doesn't appear to have any sort of editorial oversight or formalized fact checking procedure. A google search of the author turns up a few sites about reverse speech engineering, but he refers to himself as a hobbyist. That does not make him a reliable source in any way.

The CNN transcript is an excellent source, which is exactly why I suggested earlier that you might wish to look for news reports on Schwartz' work.

This is a book review of someone else's book, and only mentions Schwartz in passing. I hope I don't have to explain why this does not constitute a reliable source as to Schwartz's validity as a scientist or the specific results of any of his research.

This is the exact same article as your first reference, and as such has the exact same problems. It is also hosted on someone's personal website, with no apparent editorial policy or fact checking procedure.

This article doesn't mention Uri Geller at all. Remember, this is the Uri Geller article, not the Gary Schwartz article. This particular news story has absolutely no information about any testing of Uri Geller that Schwartz may have performed. Natalie (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help iw iwll use the NCNN transcript to get sources that i can use for this article. Smith Jones (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be good. I have just a few other suggestions about your last addition to the article. You added quite a bit of content, but you only added one citation, near the end of the article. It's general practice to cite every statement. You should also be careful that you don't insert your new information before a citation, because that gives the impression that the reference supports your new information. You should add information after the reference tag. Lastly, your personal speculation isn't permitted, so I've removed several sentences based on "Might it be that...?", "Is it possible...?" and so on. Speculation like this is considered synthesis of material and thus original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. If notable individuals have suggested these same explanations, they can be included if they are attributed to a source and that source is cited. Natalie (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A few things that may be worth adding...

• Geller was pretty public about his struggles with bulimia. Here's plenty of places to start, but I haven't the interest in paying for old articles or signing up for papers I'll never read...
• This article has more info about his modern wars with Youtube & general copyright stuff
• The guy owns Elvis Presley's former home, I guess...wait! Guess not? eBay can be tricky...ruining plans to make it into a museum[5][6]
• Geller sues everyone in sight, but is it notable when someone does it to him? What about if it's Glenn Hoddle?
• In a letter to the editor, responding to a story on Randi, Geller wrote "My abilities are genuine and I can never predict whether they are going to work on TV or not, and on "The Tonight Show" I have failed like on many other shows that I have been on and not because of any trap that has been set up for me as your article suggests. One cannot switch on and off psychic powers."[7]

I don't think any of these are covered in the article...rather than crowd the page, inserting the contents where they might best fit, I thought I'd offer these tidbits for evaluation. — Scientizzle 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should he be added as a link under the "Categories: Hoaxes" entry? This guys sounds like quite the charlatan.Ndriley97 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

While we can agree that this is "potentially" controversial, consensus is not required here as everybody knows that Uri Geller (b. 1946) is older than the Israeli declaration of independence (1948). Also, referring to the edits as "potentially controversial" is bound to get attention and attract controversy. TINYMARK 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find an article for pre-Israel Palestine, you probably should link to it. "Clarifying" by removing a clearly relevant link in favor of non-wikilinked expression is not constructive, although (possibly) technically correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would counter that Wikipedia is about information and not about having a link to everything and, thus, you seem to miss the point, In 1946, Tel Aviv was in Palestine under the British Mandate so we could have a link to that section of the Palestine article (or, one level higher, Palestine in the 20th century). Either way, the link to Tel Aviv would remain. For an example we could take the Paul von Hindenburg article where his place of birth is stated as "Posen, Prussia" and not "Poznań, Poland"! I shall wait for your reply but, as this is currently factually incorrect, a change is needed. Happy editing TINYMARK 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This differs from Paul von Hindenburg in that it became part of Israel during Geller's lifetime, so, while it may be incorrect to say he was born in Tel Aviv, Israel, it isn't incorrect to say that he lived in Tel Aviv, Israel. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, TinyMark, but your edits were possibly controversial and thus should have been discussed first. I don't particularly have an opinion on how you want to convey this information, but considering the history of Israel/Palestine issues on Wikipedia, much less in the real world, discussing this first seems like the obvious choice. Natalie (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, but then we should change the birth place of Augustus from Rome, Roman Republic, to Rome, Italy.Kope (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we're discussing it now. What about using "Palestine" (in the infobox and start text) and linking it to one of the sections I mentioned above, and then, in the start text after "Palestine", "(now/later [[Israel]])"? Or using a footnote after "Palestine"? I'm a British-born lapsed-Christian so I don't have an agenda, but I would like to see the information presented accurately.

As for the Paul von Hindenburg article, Posen, Prussia became Poznań, Poland in 1919 and Hindenburg died in 1934. TINYMARK 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. I think you should wait a day or so for consensus, but I would have no objection to your making that change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe you should type it as British Palestine to make sure that nay ignorant sreaders dont belive that you are claiming that he was born in the teritories controleld by the current Palestine PNA. Smith Jones (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

After a little more research, I think perhaps "Mandate for Palestine" would be appropriate. Palestine was never regarded as a British colony, so "British Palestine" would be misleading. Strangely enough, the Mandate is explained in detail in the Palestine and History of Palestine articles, but there is also a British Mandate of Palestine article, which would make an ideal article to link to. TINYMARK 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

fine, althoguy it is assumed by any EDUCATED PERSON that British Palestine was a british-adminiterested mandate of the fromer Turkish kingdom. i would recommend calling it Mandate of Palestine and not "mandate for palestine" as you have it inaccurately since the articles all use 'of' instead of 'for'. Smith Jones (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mandate of Palestine, fine. Should check other people (e.g., Saharon Shelah), too.Kope (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume things about Wikipedia users, and anyone really educated wouldn't need Wikipedia ;-)

Simply stating 'Tel Aviv, Israel' for an event that occured in 1946 is sheer historical revisionism. This this is an important principle, not to allow description of geography to be conditioned by nationalist postconstructs. The Middle East is by no means the only region in the world which has seen territorial conflicts, and setting a precedent that factually incorrect labellings can be used isn't leading anywhere. What is the point of writing 'Tel Aviv, Israel' relating to 1946, when Israel had not been founded at the time? 'Palestine' was the term used internationally at the time, including by the Zionist movement. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very detailed Interview

see "Forget the paranormal!", Telepolis, 05.02.2008.--Nemissimo (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

German television show, formerly on YouTube

This is why we need full citations of web content. The German TV show that's reverenced in the section Reversal (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrn1IkMXbE) has been removed from YouTube by whoever uploaded it, so citation information cannot be provided. The citation was also incorrectly replaced with "fact" tags, on the basis that the YouTube video was a copyright violation. These need to be replaced with the full citation - name of the show, network, date aired, etc., and then it doesn't matter if there's an online copy we can link to or not. Does anyone have this information? Natalie (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! Strangely enough, the user who inserted the text and link has the same user name as the person who uploaded it to YouTube! TINYMARK 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess it would make sense that it's the same person. I wonder why they removed it... Natalie (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A note on Mr. Geller and his kind

Though Randi often says Geller's abilities "are only parlor tricks" he is exaggerating. Geller is a brilliant opportunist who will resort to any and probably all methods of deception available. Randi knows better but he just likes to keep things simple. The mind of a master confidence artist is more complex and devious than that. Take my boy Ingo Swann, who calls himself "the Man who has Astounded Physicists and Parapsychologists Throughout the World" for example. He not only fooled some members of the parapsychological community, he also bamboozled (and still does) members the of the U.S. Army and the CIA. That takes creativity and talent! While walking one dark night I was stopped by a voice coming out of the shadows. "Hey Mister would you be kind enough to help a poor, hungry fellow without a job?" Then was added, "Besides this revolver, I haven't a thing in the world." Kazuba (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck? randis opinions of geller are comtpletely irrelevnet except in the section where randis criticism are included, and you have no proof for the wild accusation against Mr GEller and his psychic powers such as your claims of deception, which are dangerously close to violating WP:BLP. Smith Jones (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I have experience. The worst it can be is reality. Watch your language.Kazuba (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

you shouldwatch what you say about living people. wikipedia is based on sources and verifiable fact,s nto on "experience". even if your claims are valid (witch they probably aent) you need a source if you plan to include them in the article. wikipeida talk pages are not a location for generalized dicusions of a particular subject; if you have issues with mr. geller you can go whine about it on James Randis site, which hs extensive forums relating to supernatural and skepticial stuff. Smith Jones (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I admire Mr. Geller. He has originality. Who's complaining? Kazuba (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

you mispelled the word "revolver" in your first comment above. Smith Jones (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, this discussion really isn't going anywhere. Smith Jones is correct that this is not a forum for discussing Uri Geller in general. This talk page exists so that editors can discuss improvements to the article. If you have suggestions on how to improve the article in a way that satisfies our various content policies, Kazuba, than make those suggestions. If you have no sources to substantiate your claims or these claims are merely your personal opinion, then they are better made on some other website. Smith Jones, I would suggest that characterizing someone else's comments as "whining" and criticizing their spelling are possibly less than helpful. Natalie (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

youre right about that i was way out of line with my comments. i apologize to Kazuba. Smith Jones (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazuba (talk) It is common knowledge among magicians that Uri Geller has raised the popularity of mentalism. Effects done with spoons and forks are all over the place. (My favorite is when you break it and put it back together). If you have been in magic for the last 25 years it is very noticable. But nothing has appeared in any literature about this except in books of our craft. Magic is a mystery entertainment. The real magic is beyond tricks and is only learned by devotion and practice, practice, practice. I am NOT a skeptic. I am an amateur magic historian with a taste for the VERY unusual and obscure. I am used to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. Kazuba (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, misunderstood or not, we can't include information in an article because you say it's common knowledge. Articles have to be supported by reliable sources, and given the nature of this encyclopedia we can't accept the knowledge of individual editors. If this information has appeared in books about magic or whatever you mean exactly by "books of our craft" then it is perfectly acceptable to include, provided it's sourced to those specific books. Natalie (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Natalie. These will have to suffice. [8] [9] [10] I have always found it interesting that the teachings of illiterates and preliterates have so little value in literate societies. Put it in writing and THAT'S the story. THAT'S what REALLY happened.Kazuba (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

i think your misunderstanding oyur policies. the reason we favor written sources is purely for rverifiability. there is no bigotry against illiterates on wikpiedia other than the obviously unavoidable tendency. we even has some spoken articles for people who cannot read or see for one reason or another. we use written sources not because they are more "true" than spokekn accounts but because it is easier to verify the credibility of those soruces. Smith Jones (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

aerosmith back cover

Uri Gellar is pictured on the back cover of aerosmith's one with mirrors album apparently bending a fork with his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.187.157 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith "Done With Mirrors" 1985 album back cover art

Uri Geller is pictured on the back of Aerosmith's 1985 Album "Done with Mirrors". The picture appears to show Uri bending a fork with his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.187.157 (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

geller "claimed" (past tense) to have psychic powers for most of his career

i am changing this sentence to "claims to have psychic powers" from "claimed" because as far as i know, he still claims to be a psychic. unless he has admitted that it was all trickery, i would think it's accurate to say he still claims to be a psychic. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

after checking some sources, it seems that he now does not deny supernatural powers, but does not claim them. it seems ambiguous. i would say to keep it in that he claims to be a psychic since he has not flat out denied being one. any comments? this is tricky. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

HOOVA

Why is there nothing here about his relationship with Puharich and all the Uri from the planet HOOVA nonsense? See http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/mind.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.130.233 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gellér György birth name

Another editor, Niki76 (at User talk:Sladen#name abuse) has raised a concern verifiability of the György Gellér name cited in the lead section. Are we able to substantiate this further? —Sladen (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the current name in his (British) passport might be Uri Geller Freud[11]. —Sladen (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

it s ok with the "freud"but saying born Gyorgy Geller born,on the next line,is like saying,My name is Niki,passport Niki,but my name is Nickole.Gyorgy Geller,delete.Where this information get?and why British-Isareli?His parents been brtish or something?Why not British-Israeli-mexican?(you should add this)I have nothing more to say thank you!--Niki76 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Niki76