Talk:James Randi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misc

Seeing how many self-proclaimed "psychics" and other such folks love to twist the truth around (which is how they make a living), I have to ask where this supposed quote "I always have an out" attributed to Randi comes from. And are there really any "serious" parapsychologists? -- Modemac

This quote was reported by one of the CSICOP founding members, Dennis Rawlins, in an article ultimately published in the Oct-1981 issue of FATE magazine. Supposedly the text of the article is available at ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard/rawlins-starbaby.

I'm pretty sure the original quote was in the context of one of his magic shows; another similar quote is said to apply to the JREF challenge and the fact that Randi has safeguards in place in case someone tries to cheat (ie. photo and physical documentation proof of the challenger's performance). It is taken incorreclty out of context here, in the article by Rawlins, and by many of Randi's critics. Here's the sentence: However, Randi has been quoted as saying that it is not possible for paranormal abilities to be true and he has been quoted as saying, "I always have an out." Documentation, anyone? From a non-biased source?

Without context, the whole sentence sounds POV. Consider an actual quote by Randi stating his views about the paranormal, in context. It would be more effective and less POV. I will do some research and find out where the I have an out quote actually came from to begin with and where it actually shows up in reference to the challenge. There is a quote on the James Randi Educational Foundation page, but it is lacking citation as well. For now I placed a citation needed.AuroraMae 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, there are serious parapsychologists (scientists) out there in the world, with admitted programs as many accredited universities around the world as well as other independent labs and institutions. Just as there are "serious" scientists involved in SETI. Take a look at the parapsychology article for links and references. Grizzly 07:37 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

The text of sTarbaby can be found here: http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt Lippard 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Randi did say that quote, but apparently Rawlins took it out of context:

See [[1]] Lord Kenneth

Hey, Lord! What's with removing the link? "Contains misleading and untrue information"? By that criterion then you'd better remove links to JREF pages as well. Look, NPOV requires presenting or at least providing pointers to all points of view, even those that may not cast the Great Randi in the best light. Certainly there are many people who do not take Randi very seriously. Their view needs to somehow be represented. Grizzly 22:45 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You can post a link criticizing the challenge and Randi-- however, the link you posted didn't even understand the basics of how the challenge is performed.

I don't know what you think you are-- psychic, astrologer, homeopath...? -- but posting a link as an "analysis of the challenge" should at least understand the very basics of the challenge. Also, posting links dealing with James Randi is NPOV. Same with giving the URL to the KKK's website on the Ku Klux Klan entry. I am using "no point-of-view". A poorly written rant (it was certainly not in-depth about the subject) that doesn't even get the basic facts right is not what I would put in an encyclopedia. You can certainly put in some links casting Randi in a bad light, but I would expect those to generally be accurate as well-- not to a T, but no lies or things to confuse or mislead the reader. We are not going for "We MUST give all points of view a chance"-- that would be near impossible on some, if not most, subjects. We are going for "no bias". Linking to the JREF is as appropriate as linking to conspiracy sites under the UFO conspiracy section (if one exists), for example. Lord Kenneth

False: We do not aim for "no bias," or "no point of view." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Giving_equal_validity

We aim for a neutral point of view. This page is not presently neutral point of view. - LionKimbro

Of course you would include a link to the KKK home page in the KKK article, just as National Alliance includes a link to their home page and The Turner Diaries includes a link to the text of the book. Where on Earth did you get the idea that NPOV requires otherwise? - David Gerard 23:54, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Randi appears to me to be either very arrogant and uninformed or simply a Fundamentalist Materialist spending a whole lot of money in attempt to propogate his views...

I doubt he's ever really investigated the 'paranormal'... Considering that I've personally witnessed dozens of doctors accurately diagnose patients based completely on what they call an 'energy field' that they sense...

He's a fraud, if you ask me...

Khranus

This from the person who claims that dolphins work with cold fusion. RickK 01:18, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excellent point, Rick. Khranus, if you had ever read anything by Randi or observed his hundreds of television appearances, you would know that he is no fraud. You don't have to like him (he's often unlikable) nor do you have to agree with the conclusions he reaches (though they are on solid ground in terms of being well-documented, etc.) to admit that he has spent a very long time investigating paranormal phenomena, and he has an established track record of exposing "psychic" frauds. I'm sure that what I've just said promotes a larval meme of some kind, but I think Randi (though, as I said, often unlikable) worth defending. Jwrosenzweig 23:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have, actually, and I find his 'methods' very flawed... Sure, there are plenty of 'psychic' and 'spiritual' frauds (which should be obvious), but there are also plenty of very real psychics, shamans and the like that most certainly are doing something more than just making up stories... Shamans in Peru discovered 'the twisted essence of life' (twisted as in coil-like) thousands of years ago whilst having out-of-body-experiences on DMT. As I said, several doctors see/sense 'energy fields', by which they can diagnose disease.

I don't promote anyone who just stomps out memes from a minute amount of evidence against them, especially not when they themselves follow a silly religious meme like materialism ('science' that isn't really very scientific, in my opinion, especially when one considers Quantum Mechanics and Superstring Theory...

To all those who think that Materialism isn't a dangerous cult just like Catholicism (if not worse), behold: Falun Gong Practitioners Persecuted in China - Khranus (and that was speculation. I wasn't necessarily saying that dolphins 'do' in any way use cold fusion, only pondering the possibility that they do, based on the evidence. "If at first an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it." -Einstein)

I'm Catholic, and I think the previous statement is retarded.

I strongly suggest you read about the 100th Monkey and morphogenetic fields (proposed by Rupert Sheldrake)... There is such a multitude of evidence out there supporting the theory that all consciousness is connected (making psionic abilities possible), that to deny the possibility can only be the result of ignorance. Khranus

Would this be the completely discredited nonsensical 100th monkey fable? MrGalt

Oh, "energy fields", eh? What kind of "energy" is this? Certainly the new-age type, and not anything remotely resembling science. There is no scientific evidence to support this claims-- in fact, why don't these superpower doctors go take the JREF's test? There is no excuse not to do so.

Additionally, your anti-materialism "evidence" is laughable. What you are linking to is a result of government tyranny, not materialism.

http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html

I think you're just wacked in the head. Sorry, but you talk about scientific evidence, and none supports your claims. - Lord Kenneth

I moved this from the article:

As time passes, Randi seems to exhibit a high level of anxiety when it comes to the subject of religion and magick. Other magicians are concerned about his obvious cognitive distortions and the effect they have on his admirers, especially young magicians who are unaware of his faults and ignorance in this field. He ridicules faith. Yet he called upon the trust and faith of other magicians when confronting Uri Geller. (Abracadabra 2Feb 74). As with many other skeptics, he dictates different rules for himself.

Can anyone NPOV this? I could not find who the magicians, which were mentioned, were.

Rasmus (talk) 13:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

Provoked by the 11 Sep 01 terrorist attacks on the USA, Randi roared about being an atheist, and blasted religious faith with ridicule and sarcasm.

Can someone give some evidence of him ridiculing religious faith because of the Setpember 11 attacks? - snoyes 17:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the silly attempt to defame Randi by claiming that we should celebrate December 25 as Isaac Newton's birthday "instead of" Jesus, here's what Randi actually wrote in his commentary column:

"Happy Newton's Birthday! Just 361 years ago this next Thursday, Sir Isaac Newton was born, a man we know existed, someone who contributed hugely to his and to our world, and a chap we can and should commemorate by means of observance of his birthday. Instead, most of the world chooses to believe that another guy was born on this day, a notion for which there's no proof at all."

Make of that what you will. Apparently our anonymous contributor feels that being a skeptic prevents you from being allowed to display sarcasm and a sense of humor. And incidentally, there are several different days put forth as the "true" date of Jesus' birth, other than December 25th. --Modemac 18:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what Randi says here, but including it in the article would result in POV. Maroux 18:51, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Everytime I bring up Randi's preferred silence on the subject of the remote, mundane, possibility of telepathy in Folie a deux some close-minded person removes it. I don't mind it. I just find it amusing. I guess convictions are always true. Kazuba magician

You could try offering a reference for this supposed refusal of Randi to approach the subject, instead of making accusations against him that are not NPOV. --Modemac 19:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my letter. Go to YAHOO select charlie turek magician folie a deux, my letter is still in the all experts answers. I am not making an accusation. That ain't my way. Nor is it my my way to claim another of accusations, and blow away their entries, Mr Modemac. Randi may be wrong about telepathy. Notice the responses to my letter from others; especially those in psychology and psychiatry. Notice too who finked outKazuba magician

You mean this letter, I presume: http://experts.about.com/q/3278/2493018.htm It says the following: "Once I went to a CSICOP convention. I saw Randi the first night. His beard was snowy white! I never got to meet him. The next day he was gone." Then after that he apparently never responded to your letter of inquiry. So what? --Modemac 09:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Modemac, Randi, Paul Kurtz, Martin Gardner and I have known each other for at least 20 years. Only Martin has impressed me as being an honest person. I admire him deeply. Randi will speak to me about other things magic, magicians, blah, blah ,blah, but when I write to him about Folie a deux he bails out. This was not the only time I sent him that letter. I can only surmise Randi has made up his mind, and folie a deux just doesn't exist. The medical profession says it does. What do you want to believe? What pleases you? Oh yeah, look me up on YAHOO as charles turek magician and look at my book reviews on Amazon. Start with Morton Smith's "Jesus the Magician". You might find them of interest. You are welcome to have the last word. I'm through. Kazuba

Oh, one thing more ,Mr Modemac, after you have looked at all that stuff, you can put my entry back about Randi avoiding the possibility of telepathy in folie a deux. That would be the kind thing to do.Kazuba magician

I've made some updates and corrections. The criticism section should also be rewritten and organized better.AuroraMae 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

including the FBI and former U.S. presidents

I know that SB has made these claims (well the first anyway not sure about the second). I can't recall much in the way of evidence that they are true.Geni 15:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. You might want to take a look at the Sylvia Browne article where I have copied this text from. Rafał Pocztarski 13:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James Randi never called Josephesen a "scoundrel"

These were his actual words from the BBC interview:

There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP, or whatever we wish to call it, and I think it is the refuge of scoundrels, in many aspects, for them to turn to something like quantum physics — which uses a totally different language from the regular English that we are accustomed to using from day to day — to merely say, "Oh that's where the answer lies, because that's all very fuzzy, anyway." No, it's not very fuzzy, and I think that his opinion will be differed with by the scientific body in general.

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html

Somebody needs to edit this so he is not quoted saying something he did not say.

One ahead

The article makes mention of the "'one ahead' routine," but does not explain what this is. - anonymous

I also would like to know what that means. Andreac 17:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from [2] Rick Boatright 17:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Simple One-Ahead Test by Cornelius Christian

Effect: You hand out small slips of paper to different people in the audience to write down any question or statement they wish. When they are done, you ask them to fold up the slips and you pass a tray around to collect the slips. Then you turn the lights to a dim and holding up each slip to your head, you give an almost accurate description of what is written inside. Then you read out the actual question, and give an answer to it! My version of this test uses no confederates and no special equipment. All you'll need are as many slips of paper as there are volunteers and a tray to carry them in. This trick gets pretty good reactions from my audience.

Preparation: None.

Method: The secret in work here is something known as the one-ahead principle, or staying one-ahead of your audience. Let me explain:

At the time the audience is folding up the slips, ask them to fold it up into quarters. I like to work with small square pieces of paper.

When you go up to collect the slips of paper, you place them all in a tray. Then, as you are walking up to the stage, you palm one of the slips in your hand. Once you have distracted the audience's attention, open the slip and secretly read what's written on it. Then fold it up again and give it a small twist to distinguish it from the others.

Now instead of picking up the slip you just read, pick up a different slip and pretend to concentrate. Then, give an almost accurate description of the question or statement. Not too accurate mind you or they may start to suspect some trickery at work here. Just almost accurate. But the question you are revealing is actually the question you peeked at previously. After your almost accurate prediction, open the slip and read the actual question that person wrote. In reality, you are reading to yourself the question which is really written on this slip of paper. Now you give an answer to this question. Here you may want to use cold reading techniques which I explain later. You shouldn't disappoint the audience with your answer. Try to please. You may also want to add a little humour here and there.

Now, crumple up that slip of paper, throw it away and reach out and pick a different slip. Then you pretend to divine the general content of this paper but you are in reality telling the audience what you read to yourself on the last paper. This is the one-ahead principle.

The absolute last slip you should pick up should be the one you sneeked a peek at in the beginning. The one with the twist in it.

Fascinating, thanks! Can that get made into an article which could then be linked to from the Randi page? Andreac 21:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above would be a copyvio - feel free to write your own version... Rick Boatright 22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See new article: billet reading. Please add to it. -- Krash 23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Randi is a fraud

The Amusing Randi is as big a fraud as the people he exposes.

Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pass the tests he creates. And isn't it interesting that he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people? (That's from his own website.) That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test. The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge. And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action. In essence, the deal is rigged.

James Randi's behavior and demeanor were so culturally insensitive that he actually created a gigantic backlash against skepticism.

Here are the ways that the test is rigged, from Randi's own website:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

"Preliminary tests are conducted by associates of the JREF"

"Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run."

In addition, according to The Amusing Randi's own rules, he controls all data generated from the tests and all information about them and you have to waive your right to sue him. This combination of facts makes it very easy to rig the tests and essentially impossible for anyone to pass it.

IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process. They are setting up the process to guarantee that it finds the results that they wanted it to find.

And Randi has been quoted as saying that there is no possibility that any paranormal acts could be genuine.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

"Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it. Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy."

This is how Randi rigs the system so he will never have to pay out the million dollars, or even acknowledge the possibility of anyone having any paranormal abilities. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Randi

"Randi revealed that he had been able to orchestrate a years-long and complete compromise of a privately-funded psychic research experiment."

By his own admission, Randi sponsored one of his aides as a fake "psychic." He toured and took people's money for his performances. Randi says they did this "to show how gullible people are," but it's still a fraudulent method of doing so.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb106721.htm

"For years the Randi organization has pretended to offer a bogus million dollar reward to any person who can successfully demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability. This has naturally generated a lot of publicity and profit for the lead charlatan of the Randi organization, former sleight of hand con artist James Randi. That is until the Yellow Bamboo organization from Bali INDONESIA called his bluff and actually demonstrated paranormal ability in front of scores of independent witnesses and a media representative from the Radio Republik Indonesia broadcasting network On 14 September 2003 Mr. Nyoman Serengen, the founder of Yellow Bamboo (with over 40,000 members) successfully slammed down, without touching, the Randi representative Mr. Joko Tri clearly demonstrating extraordinary paranormal ability. Once the demonstration was successfully carried out James Randi frantically scrambled to concoct a phony pretext not to pay."

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

"That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums - and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal.

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Gary Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal."

"Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfill his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests"

http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

"Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.

(So) What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims."?

Again, we must remember, it is Randi's assertion that there is NO VALID EVIDENCE of any paranormal or supernatural phenomena, so there really can be no such thing as "degrees of plausibility" in this field."

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#JamesRandi

"James Randi is a conjurer (the “Amazing Randi”) and showman who is described on his web site as “the world’s most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.” He used to be a leading figure in CSICOP, but had to resign because of litigation against him."

"(A)s a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." ( www.skeptic.com/archives03.html)

Randi’s fellow showman Loyd Auerbach, President of the Psychic Entertainers Association, is likewise sceptical about this “prize” and sees it as a stunt of no scientific value."

This is from a "skeptic" website, so it's not just people that The Amusing Randi "debunked."

From the same "skeptic" website:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

"Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi's claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments."

Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. "It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments." "

William James nailed Randi (even before Randi was here) when he said, "I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are impossible." Yet this is exactly the mindset from which Randi operates and from which his million-dollar challenge is issued. Stated simply, there is NO proof, no matter how thorough, that someone with James Randi's worldview will EVER accept! They have already ruled out the possibility of any of these experiments succeeding before they conduct them.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein, in The New Convergence.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

"The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now, I'm certainly no advocate of the paranormal. I tend to be very skeptical of these paranormal things myself -- although I am not closed to them. Some may be real.

I know these fields attract a lot of hucksters and charlatans. But they are no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself, IMO.

"The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery." -- Fred Alan Wolf

"The Universe is self-aware through us." -- Dr. Amit Goswami, The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World

This isn't UBB. Your attempts at markup are distracting; HTML works, as do Wikipedia's own proprietary tags explained at Wikipedia:Editing. At least preview before you post to see that your markup isn't working, and remove it if you don't know how to fix it.

What sorts of experiments would fail these 'rigged' tests of Mr. Randi's? So far as I can tell, at most paranormal ones, and really at most fraudulent ones by scientific lights. This is of course debatable, but this whole section of yours sounds like special pleading - "what I favor can't pass the test but that's the test's fault", but you know what special pleading means already...

The rest (no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself? Even if I were to grant your main point, have you met more than a few of these people? Some of them certainly are frauds of the highest order.) is hyperbole. Recognize it. Avoid it. Schissel : bowl listen 16:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You said: "This is from a "skeptic" website, so it's not just people that The Amusing Randi "debunked."" - Look at the people you made that page. You are wrong, those are not part of the current skeptic movement. Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake, and Brian Josephson are well-known pro-paranormalists, and Marcello Truzzi's main job is criticizing skeptics. Those people call themselves "real skeptics", as opposed to skeptics (who they call "pseudoskeptics"). They maintain that sitting on the fence is the only valid position. Disagreeing with them is unscientific, according to them - especially if you disagree in one particular direction, which borders on being a crime. So you should take their propaganda with a grain of salt - look at both sides instead of just believing what they write. And it is "Amazing", not "Amusing". --Hob Gadling 13:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think this addresses addresses that point - they claim to be skeptical investigators when they're really the opposite. Bubba73 (talk), 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Randi can be irritating, dogmatic and wrong-headed without being a fraud. I agree with him sometimes and disagree others, but nobody is compelled to take his test, and all are entitled to draw their own conclusions about it. Doovinator 16:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The poster who claims that the preliminary testing in the million dollar challenge is done by Randi's own people is totally erroneous. On Randi's website (the forum section) one can follow the correspondance between JREF and the nutjobs who apply for the challenge. The preliminary test is in fact NEVER performed by JREF employees, for the very reason of avoiding accusations that the test is rigged. The testing is usually done by a skeptic organization in the vicinity of the testee. If the person posting these lies about Randi claims that an organization of skeptics will be equally biased, then he will show himself to be a true conspiracy theorist, worthy of being ignored by everyone.

Maybe Tbpsmd is a fraud himself? He removed from this talk page the above text, which is unpleasant for his cause. --Hob Gadling 15:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hob, Randi frequently performs the tests himself. Here's a few examples:

Lithuanian psychic doctor : http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html

Russian X-ray eyes girl : http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html

American dowser : http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Harry Mudd July 14 2005

Or rather, he frequently writes about those he performs himself. --Prosfilaes 01:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A few points in reply :

"Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pass the tests he creates."

One of the rules of the test is that the JREF must agree the conditions with the claimint in advance. Meaning every test subject goes into the test thinking they will succeed because THEY helped plan it in advance!

"And isn't it interesting that he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people?"

Actually his own people do them sometimes, but not even close to always. And the whole point of the tests are that they are structured in such a way that it doesn't matter who does them.

"That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test. The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge."

Again, he designs the tests in accordance with the claimant. And in terms of being a judge, tests are NEVER designed so that success or failure is a judgement call. In dowsing for water, for instance, it may be agreed before that the claimant will find water more than 50% of the time. If he does, he wins. How could Randi or anybody possibly pretend that such a test had been failed when it had not?

"And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action."

Simply not true.

"Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run."

Again, the JREF does NOT dictate the terms of the test. That is stated explicitly in the rules.

"In addition, according to The Amusing Randi's own rules, he controls all data generated from the tests and all information about them and you have to waive your right to sue him. This combination of facts makes it very easy to rig the tests and essentially impossible for anyone to pass it."

This is a misinterpretation. What the rules say is that the JREF owns the data. So for example if they film somebody actually doing something paranormal, then they would be able to sell it to TV companies afterwards. This is perfectly reasonable and standard - no scientist would agree that a test subject owns the results of a test done on them!

"IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process. They are setting up the process to guarantee that it finds the results that they wanted it to find."

Simply impossible.

"And Randi has been quoted as saying that there is no possibility that any paranormal acts could be genuine."

So? It's his opinion that nothing paranormal exists, so of course he would think that there is no possibility that such things could be genuine. The whole point of the test is that he's challenging people woho claim to have these abilities to prove him wrong.

"Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it."

No it doesn't. It means only that he can use and profit from it afterwards.

"By his own admission, Randi sponsored one of his aides as a fake "psychic." He toured and took people's money for his performances. Randi says they did this "to show how gullible people are," but it's still a fraudulent method of doing so."

So what? It's no worse than what many investigative journalists do.

"For years the Randi organization has pretended to offer a bogus million dollar reward to any person who can successfully demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability. This has naturally generated a lot of publicity and profit for the lead charlatan of the Randi organization, former sleight of hand con artist James Randi. That is until the Yellow Bamboo organization from Bali INDONESIA called his bluff and actually demonstrated paranormal ability in front of scores of independent witnesses and a media representative from the Radio Republik Indonesia broadcasting network On 14 September 2003 Mr. Nyoman Serengen, the founder of Yellow Bamboo (with over 40,000 members) successfully slammed down, without touching, the Randi representative Mr. Joko Tri clearly demonstrating extraordinary paranormal ability. Once the demonstration was successfully carried out James Randi frantically scrambled to concoct a phony pretext not to pay."

In actual fact, the Yellow Bamboo people NEVER APPLIED FOR THE CHALLENGE!

The claimed to be able to do something. An acquaintance of Randi went along to observe and report on what he saw. Whilst there he agreed to be a test subject to a demonstration NOT done under controlled conditions. From his report, it appears that what happened was that he was hit from behind with a stun gun!

But whatever happened, the Yellow Bamboo people never submitted an application, never agreed a testing procedure with the JREF - if they had, one of the conditions would have been that observers would be present to make sure nobody was sneaking up behind the guy with a stun gun!

Hell, even if you accepted what happened as a preliminary test - which it wasn't - they would still have to go on to do a formal test, and they never even ASKED about that!

Frankly, for them to claim they beat the challenge is absurd.

"Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.

There IS no such evidence.

W: May I interject here. Actually you are dead wrong about that. The Ganzfeld experiments in telepathy and the Princeton PEAR experiments in PK were replicable and proved the existence of psi. See Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe". Combine that with the fact that 40-50 percent of the world population has had some psychic or paranormal experience, and that's a ton of evidence that is irrefutable. See my article www.geocities.com/WWu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm for more arguments you can learn from. ... added at 09:50, 13 November 2005 by 172.185.180.169 (who 54 minutes later returned to make it all bold).

That's a silly site. It's full of bad logic. For example, it uses one definition of the word "skeptic" when in fact there are several definitions in use, and it claims (not in those words) that all cases where other definitions apply, should be called "pseudo". By the same reasoning, all homonymous words should be preceded by "pseudo". Your definition of "skeptic" includes that opinions are a big no-no. Others allow more freedom. So you and your ilk are the Only True Skeptics, and want to ban everybody who disagrees with you from using the word. That's just a power game by seizing the definition. There are a lot more errors in your site, but this is the basic one. As long as this error is there, the site is hopeless. --Hob Gadling 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims."?

Generally, he means that you can't risk your health or that of another. For instance, there are those who claim to be able to survive without food indefinitely. If a person were denied food long enough for the purposes of the challenge, they would die. If JREF participated in that they could well be open to criminal charges. Another guy claimed to be able to blind people by means of a personal agreement he had with god.

"(A)s a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

Randi has never claimed that passing the challenge would provide scientific proof. He does not regard himself as a scientist, nor does he expect scientists to change their mind because of anything that happens in the challenge. All he asks is that people perform in what they themselves agree is a fair test.

Both parties have to agree on the terms before-hand, and then they enter into a contract. I haven't heard anything about Randi being sued over this.

Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem appropriate to the talk page. Or does it? 70.66.9.162 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the challenge. I'll admit that I am somewhat biased, but all indications I've seen is that the challenge is not designed to discredit legitimate claims of the paranormal, but to find actual paranormal evidence. It is true that the actual interpretation and design of the test is subject to the foundation's judgment. And it is recognized that it's less than ideal to have a challenge in this manner, but the nature of the test deals with the "paranormal." It's simply too broad a subject to have a set procedure to test all claims. There has to be judgment on someone's part. Obviously Randi is the JREF which administers and controls the test, because if it were open to anybody to decide if the person has passed the test or not, then one could simply have their friend say that they saw them do so.

Again, I admit to being biased, but I do not think it is proper to confuse Randi's irreverence and occasional sarcasm for malice. All indications I've seen are that fairness is important to the challenge. It's also important to understand what the challenge is looking for: Scientific proof of the paranormal.

Try to imagine what this means. If you truely believe in the paranormal, then more power to you, but you will probably admit that it's a belief, not a provable fact. Perhaps it could never be proven, but IF it could, it would change everything. If one could prove a paranormal phenomenon, then it would eliminate the idea of "belief" and make it a cold hard fact, and in doing so, expand humanities understanding of the world. It would be the first step to opening up the area for serious scientific study and remove the stigma of psuedo-science.

However, those who pass themselves off as having supernatural powers, when they are infact using trickery or deception really don't help anyone's cause. At best, they muddy the waters. Randi has encountered many over the years, and that hasn't helped with the whole cynical additude.

Please at least consider the possibility that Mr. Randi will give you a fair shake, before saying the challenge is rigged. You have the right to believe anything you want, as does Mr. Randi. If you do not agree with Mr. Randi's view of the world, that's fine. But if you think you can provide him with the proof that what you believe is accurate, consider doing so.

Again... I'm not claiming to speak on his behalf. That's just my take on it. DrBuzz0 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Folie a deux

I think if folie a deux (here a sharing of the same visual hallucination) can be produced by the use of 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate. The purpose of confusing the enemy, by the use of chemical warfare, belongs here. It certainly casts doubts on Randi's strong convictions that there is no such thing as psychic phenomena, a stand he has taken for many years. Why should these things not be referenced here? user talk: Kazuba 28 Jul 2005

1. You have provided no outside or noteable reference for what you "think". Remember, you have been told before about the No original research policy here. Please review this policy again. 2. Regardless if the issue is true or false, it is still not relevant to Mr. Randi's bio page. You have provided no outside or noteable references to support any connection. Eclipsed 20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Folie a deux 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate chemical warfare This is not not new original research. This is just a collection of different topics already on the Wikipedia. They are very interesting. This not a "what I think thing" this is what the data says if carefully read. It is very revelant to Randi's biography. Certainly it casts doubts on his personal crusade; (against PSI?) But, I'll tell you what, Randi and I go way way back. I'll ask him if he thinks if it should be in his Wikipedia bio. (He is gonna love this one!). If I sweet talk him, he does have a soft side, maybe we'll get him to comment here. What say you? (I'm gonna share it with him anyway. He is one of my heroes. Love to make him laugh!). user talk Kazuba 28 Jul 2005

1. You have provided no outside or noteable reference to support the claim "this is what the data says if carefully read". 2. We all look forward to reading Mr. Randi's response to your request via his weekly commentary. Eclipsed 21:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Furry lifestyler is not new original research, either; it's just a topic already on Wikipedia. But if I put it on this page, it would be original research, because I would be implying something by the juxtaposition. As much to the point, you shouldn't put random links at the bottom of the page if they aren't completely obviously connected; Saki's aricle links to Anti-Semitism in the middle of a sentence discussing that, not in a link collection at the bottom.

To boot, I've read these articles and don't see the connection. Chemicals have effects on the mind; so what? If you can read the original article and the linked article and still can't put it together, it needs text explaining the connection in the main article. --Prosfilaes 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

After rereading your statement, I still don't see the relevance. Folie a deux seems like an extreme example of people picking up quirks off each other, not psychic phenomenom. Even if it is psychic phenomenom, it doesn't go on a biography of Randi; it might go on a page about the belief system Randi holds, or other pages about the existence of psychic phenomenom. --Prosfilaes 22:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for caring enough to share.I will weigh your advice carefully. Still it is Randi's bio. Like to see what he has got to say. I am a very curious person. I'm out of here! user talk:Kazuba 28 Jul 2005

This may take some time how long I can't say. Want to do some more research. Hopefully before either Randi or I kick the bucket. But I'll get back to you (guys?). Be patient. Oops! I have one more thing to say, before I gallop off into the sunset. If tommorrow a flying saucer came down at the White House, and Elvis stepped out singing "Hound dog", and it was on the national news, and I said something about on the Wikipedia, would I get the wailing and gnashing of teeth with the cries of NO NEW RESEARCH? Shades of Galileo! We have made no progress? Adios user talk: Kazuba 29 Jul 2005

1. If tommorrow a flying saucer came down at the White House, and Elvis stepped out singing "Hound dog", and it was on the national news (I assume you mean TV news, for example CNN), and you said something about it here on Wikipedia, then you would have the national news as your source. 2. Additionally, in writing a good article about the event, one might appropriately link to official pages of the national news source that supported what you are writing. Eclipsed 17:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No "see also" J. Allen Hynek? I am not trying to be funny. I am trying to understand other people's boundaries. When I entered Milbourne Christopher at "see also" there was no complaint. What is the big difference? That I added Christopher's biography on the Wikipedia? User talk:Kazuba 29 July 2005

1. Adding Milbourne Christopher as a "see also" to a James Randi page can be justified. By reading both of their pages, one can notice similarities. For example: both magicians, both illusionists, both writers about magic and debunking, they even shared a respect for Harry Houdini. 2. J. Allen Hynek however is a ufologist that has written almost exclusively about UFOs. This has no connection to Mr. Randi, beyond the general idea that Mr. Hynek writes about one specific topic that is one of the hundreds/thousands of topics that Mr. Randi debunks. Eclipsed 18:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. I am being misunderstood here. What if I linked "see also" J. Allen Hynek to the CNN Elvis Saucer at the Whte House? That's okay? User talk: Kazuba 29 July 2005

1. In that specific hypothetical situation one probably could justify inclusion. Eclipsed 18:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You have lost me, brother. It is as clear as mud. Thanks for the effort though. It seems justifyng the inclusion is just about an individual thing. What you see connects is different than what I see connects. Why I am not surprised? Anyhow, I'll try to please you guys. The digging will take a while. Bye Bye User talk: Kazuba 29 July 2005

1. I find it very confusing when you write "brother". I am not a brother, nor am I your brother. 2. In any case, if you have anything specific to James Randi, then feel free to discuss it here. Y Eclipsed 19:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Ah, James Randi. Idiocy at its best... I really hate television. And the tabloids. Perhaps if psychic abilities were not shown to be "fictional" all over the media, people like this wouldn't exist... one can only dream what that would be like. (by 66.190.145.221)

The goal of Wikipedia is make neutral encyclopedia, and the talk pages are here in service to that goal. Your personal opinions on the subject, as they don't pertain to the article, don't help that at all; it's just basically a troll. --Prosfilaes 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So this is the psychic killer i've been sensing. --Cyberman 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia's Clock

Going to that page, I don't see any clock at all. Does anyone else see this supposed week clock? --Prosfilaes 18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That page talks about the clock, but the main page James Randi Educational Foundation shows it. It shows 208 weeks in the graphics of the sign but 232 in the text. Bubba73 18:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I used to read Randi's site a lot. The reason the two numbers are different is because they refer to different dates. One is when Silvia agreed to take the test, and the other is when she ... did something else. I've forgotten. 70.66.9.162 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, she appeared on another show (Larry King I think) and restated her willingness to take the Randi test. He reset the clock at that point, figuring the earlier offer was now moot. BobThePirate 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Randi's caustic style

It seems to me that Randi's "caustic" style only seems that way to believers in something he debunks. What I see happening is that he nails them and leaves them no way out. Bubba73 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. I'm an avid fan of Randi's, and despise the superstitious claptrap he exposes through the Challenge and his regular activities. But he certainly can be caustic. However, one should consider the situation: millions of people actively scamming credulous people out of billions of dollars on unproven (and likely unprovable) mumbo-jumbo, millions more who remain convinced of paranormal elements even when confronted by clear evidence to the contrary, and a worldwide culture promoting blind belief over the testing and critical analysis of theory that has essentially invented the modern world — a culture that turns its collective back on the very things that brought it into being and make it sustainable. Who couldn't help but be occasionally caustic when confronted by this self-destructive mass psychosis? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the use of "caustic," which helps provide an immediate insight into Randi's style of delivery. For many, the medium seems to overrun the message, which I see as integral to why many people dislike him. (I am not among them).Edbanky 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the changes that some anonymous person made to this section. Ads it stands it is totally one sided. "Randi's bold, uncompromising style of writing and presentation has won him enemies among paranormal proponents and friends among those who appreciate the direct and no-nonsense approach he takes to writing." That makes it sound as if ALL people that oppose him are believers, and that ALL skeptics support him This simply is not true. As a skeptic myself, I find him to be offensive and childish. I think his behaviour does no favours at all to the skeptical movement. I don't think there is any word other than "childish" that describes his language, such as "woo-woo" Harry Mudd 15 June 2006

I think it is a violation of NPOV to call him childish. Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's in the article text. Here, it's just a "bold" opinion, to use the same adjective currently applied in the article. The wording would be less of an issue if we did a better job sourcing the statements in this section. Currently, the only source provided, which is supposed to be for the above quoted sentence, is a bare link to "Fakers and Innocents", Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2005. It fails to explain exactly how this is a valid source for the sentence. Considering how incredibly long the article is, this is a bad idea in general, and even worse in an article where editors are arguing over wording. (I found one possible explanation — a passage where Randi mentions a German scientist who called him "too aggressive and rude" (with which he agreed, with qualifications) — but it isn't an adequate source for the entire sentence, and proper citations should include any relevant quotes to confirm published opinions on such a controversial subject.)

Making statements about how people think, without sources, or with sources where the actual evidence is buried and uncited, invites edit wars. We must remember that if we make claims that people think some particular way, we must provide properly referenced reliable sources. Otherwise they are nothing more than our own opinions of others' opinions, which is original research at its worst. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is in the article:

However, his hostility, his often childish behaviour and frequent use of insulting language has also alienated many sceptics. His overuse of the word "woo-woo" has been seen as especially juvenile by many.

Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that. I still maintain that this entire section is merely the opinion, whether pro or con, of the current editors. It needs proper sources to avoid being completely removed as original research (which, I will remind everyone, can be perfectly true but still unacceptable as Wikipedia material). Please consider how respectable publications will put words like "bold" or "childish" in quotes and mention the quotee. If we can't do this, we have no business making such claims. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bubba wrote : "I think it is a violation of NPOV to call him childish." No, violating NPOV is when an article presents only one point of view, and rejects differing opinions. The line presents an alternative view to counterbalance the unequivocal praise in the earlier version. I think there is general agreement that Randi is rude, it would be hard to deny it. Some skeptics consider his rudenes to be "bold" and admire him for it. Others consider his rudeness to be "childish" and condemn him for it. Any NPOV article must acknowledge both sides, or else remove the section altogether. Harry Mudd. 16 June 2006

I removed this section. As an outsider to this discussion, I feel qualified to effect a compromise that pleases no one. :) But seriously, I think Jeffq stated it best above that making general statements about how people think without sourcing them is original research. If you want to quote a verifiable source that says good things about Randi, that's fine. If you want to quote a verifiable source that says bad things about Randi, that's fine, too. But the section as it was espoused mere editorial opinion without anything to back it up. --GentlemanGhost 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sentence about Csicop

I have removed a disputed sentence from the article about one of the court cases with Geller leading Randi to part ways with Csicop. Randi has sent an e-mail advising that this is not correct and there does not seem to be any verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a sentence suggested by Randi "This case was directly responsible for the decision of Randi to part company with CSICOP.". This sentence is substantially the same as what was there before. Capitalistroadster 15:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Overlinking

I have just removed massive overlinking from the article, especially these types:

Links that have little or nothing to do with the subject.

Links that lead to places that a reader is unlikely to be interested in going.

Generally dates, common words, and ordinary terms should never be linked. Only things relevant to the article topic need linking.

Will whoever it is who is doing this please quit it! If anyone can find out who it is, please notify/warn them on their own talk page. -- Fyslee 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ticker trouble

I removed this:

Randi's website claims that on Thursday 2 February, 2006, Randi underwent emergency coronary artery bypass surgery. He is said to be "in stable condition' and "receiving excellent care" [3]. The circumstances surrounding his admission to hospital are not clear at this time but it appears to be unexpected.

Wikipedia is not a news report. I'm not questioning the verifiability of the text, only its importance and relevance. If his condition worsens, something notable or public comes of the surgery, or he dies as a result of it then I could justify its mention here. But presently it's only an unneeded breaking news mention which is completely unnecessary. -- Krash (Talk) 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WP often follows developing news stories and has a Template:current tag just for that purpose. Also, if someone has had emergency heart surgery, that's worthy of mention in a biography even as non-current info. So IMO the mention should go back. 70.231.131.185 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this whole sentence as I would argue that the personal health problems of a person does not have encyclopedic value. If editors believe stoingly that this needs to be included, feel free to re-add. I will not pursue this further. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

How the hell can an emergency coronary artery bypass surgery not be considered worthy to add? A man's health is definitely something that should be included in his article. DarthJesus 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Major health problems are encyclopedic in a biography. It is a direct relationship between the person and their body. Ans e ll 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the article should state that "on Thursday February 2, 2006, Randi underwent emergency coronary artery bypass surgery". I would leave out "He is said to be "in stable condition' and "receiving excellent care" [1]. The circumstances surrounding his admission to hospital are not clear at this time but it appears to be unexpected. " Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems okay to me to have the single sentence describing the event in a consise manner. :) Ans e ll 11:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Randi was at The Amazing Meeting on January 18 through 21st 2006. He appeared to be in good health and showed no sign of physical weakness. Obviously, he is not a young man, but he never needed a wheelchair, nor even a cane and showed no signs of fatigue, even though the events took up a large portion of the day. He did address his health issues, saying that he felt very well and was grateful for all the support and concern shown by his friends and members of the foundation. He also mentioned that the surgery did leave him weary for some time after and that the meeting and other events helped to provide the motivation to not slow down.

I have absolutely no idea how this could possibly be added to the artificial, because this was my own personal observation. (I was there myself). I know wikipedia now seems to want very good and speffic citations. Also, I'm not sure how to say that he was very lively and appeared to be well, without resorting to weasel words like "By all accounts, Randi was in good spirits"... that'd get flagged pretty fast. I suppose I could write about it elsewhere and then quote myself and hopefully it won't get tagged? DrBuzz0 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the right way is to wait for the mainstream press or other reliable source to report this information. Barring that, Randi's or others' published statements in Swift (not the JREF Forum!) may be acceptable, so we can wait for those as well. This is probably not such an essential element to the article (however critical it obviously is to Randi and his fans, and possibly his detractors) that we should be overly concerned about the latest updates. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that that the forum would not be the place to cite, and given no press articles as such that I have found, I'm not sure if there will be any. However, I think it's relevant and important to note that Mr. Randi got through his surgery well and is doing well. The current biography is somewhat dated to early 2006, when things were still uncertain. The fact that Mr. Randi is no longer hospitalized and that he has resumed speaking, traveling and writing seems a completely legitimate and important amendment to the information on his health. The only way I can think of citing it would possibly be to cite one of his television appearances as the source of the information. Even though the information that he is out of the hospital and has resumed activities is not given in the interview, it is apparent by his very appearance at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrBuzz0 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Awards

Does the CSICOP fellowship count as an award? (If so, it should be added.) Bubba73 (talk), 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Section James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)

The photograph of the offices of the JREF in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is out of date. That office has been closed for over a year. I personally took photos in October 2011 that show "For Sale" signs on the property. Rumor has it that a site has been selected in Los Angeles for a new office, but the location hasn't been announced. But in any event, the photo shown is at least a year out of date. I'd delete it myself, but I'm not experienced with with photos, I don't want to mess up something else.Professor Hosquith (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)