Talk:Uri Geller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hebrew name

Maybe someone should add his name in Hebrew at the beginning, seeing as he's an Israeli and is quite famous in Israel. What does his name work out as in Hebrew?

Toronto Star

Does anyone have a reference for the comment that Randi's comment about a scientist shooting himself appeared in the Toronto Star? I've never seen this before, and can't find an on line reference anywhere.

You can find it on Lexis/Nexis or a mircofilm copy of the newspaper.

Because some people don't believe something is real unless it is on the Internet, I have posted the full story at this site...[1]

Uri Geller

Uri Geller has said that he is related (through his mother) to Sigmund Freud. Does anyone know the specific relationship? (preferably with names!) -- Someone else 01:15 21 May 2003 (UTC)

This page is so non-NPOV, I don't even know where to begin.

"Note that Geller's initial answer ("a triangular shape on the top") can apply to many different common objects (e.g. a house), and his second answer ("I swear to you I drew a pyramid") is somewhat in contradiction with that, but still sufficiently compatible for the suggestion to work."

Just to pick something at random- Is this article about Uri Geller? Or is this article about attacking Uri Geller's claims?

Is the author of this article willing to commit to NPOV?

-- LionKimbro

Hi Lion. Thanks for reading the article. I consider myself the primary author, although many other people have worked on it.

I have removed the dispute header for now. Let's try to resolve this in the next few days and see if we can come to an agreement. I promise that I will not just walk away -- this article is on my watchlist.

NPOV does not mean that we have to defend pseudoscience. Is the above claim controversial? If so, we can mark one opinion as the majority one and the other as the minority one.

Please show me citations of people disputing the above claim, and we can certainly include these poitns of view.—Eloquence

The video says it all. Geller is an accomplished trickster, but to claim special powers is, simply, fraud. Doovinator

No, NPOV does not mean that you have to defend pseudoscience. However, it does mean that we express a neutral point of view.

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Pseudoscience

There's two major things I think would be good to do here:

1. Make an entry on spoon bending, and lend discussion on the validity, or non-validity, of spoon bending to that page. Spoon bending is something I have seen several people do, including close friends, and it is something I have done personally. While I am not convinced it is super-natural, I do believe it deserves a little more attention than has been given to it. People thought that lifters were a hoax. But then, they turned out to be real. But after still more time, it turned out to have a normal, mundane, scientific explanation. (Ionic breeze, or something like that.) But the people who said it was a hoax were wrong- something actually was happening. I believe this may be the case with spoon bending. It deserves fair treatment. In that page, I would include a link to: http://www.fork-you.com/

2. Write to encompass the world of perspectives about Uri Geller. Just because people aren't editing the page, doesn't necessarily mean that the globe's concensus is that your interpretation of Uri Geller is correct. I myself, don't really know whether Uri Geller is intentionally tricking people or not. I think he's honest. However, the article writes as if he's clearly dishonest. While I could be convinced that he is dishonest, the form of the article is hardly persuasive, and furthermore, hardly reflects a neutral point of view.

Do you agree with the general approach? (That is, seperating spoon bending from Uri Geller, and then talking about Uri Geller exclusively, on this page, and spoon bending on the other page.)

-- LionKimbro

Hello?

-- LionKimbro

I don't agree with separating spoonbending from Uri Geller. It is like separating the Watergate affair from Richard Nixon. You can make a separate article on spoon bending though. Andries 18:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Second that. Without spoon bending Uri Geller is neither famous nor a fraud. If I were writing the article I'd title it Famous Fraud Uri Geller, which is why I'm not writing it by the way :) Doovinator 20:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a separate article on spoon bending. I am also in favor of adding additional perspectives on Geller, as long as citations are provided; the more reputable the better.—Eloquence 22:08, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, citations are not necessary to establish a Neutral Point of View. If citations are provided, they need not be from a "reputable" source.

I do not believe that you are making an effort at NPOV, and I do not believe that you even believe in NPOV. This is very frustrating.

LionKimbro 07:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Attribution_and_citation.—Eloquence 14:23, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

(Done. LionKimbro 20:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))

LionKimbro & Eloquence, I am the main author about a person who makes similar claims as Uri Geller. You may want to compare the article. See Sathya Sai Baba Andries 22:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you edit the Uri Geller article, Andries? Doovinator 19:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, here- let me whip out some claims. I've bent a spoon before. I've seen my best friend bend all sorts of cutlery, right in front of me. Cutlery of my own choosing. I've seen lots of people bend cutlery. I've seen people get half-way. I've read Michael Chrichton's autobiography, where he talks about himself bending cutlery, with pretty much the same instructions that I followed. (In his own words.) My friends learned how to bend cutlery at a Ren Fair. They say that there were hoards of people bending cutlery at the Ren Fair. I learned from my friends. (I was only able to do it completely once, but I got half-way probably a dozen times.) Now there's this lady over at http://fork-you.com/, who say's she's bent cutlery. And she's got instructions, again, more or less the same as the one's I've followed, and Michael Chrichton has followed. Follow the links list on her page, and you'll find hoards of other people who claim they've bent spoons.

If I want, at any time, I can pick up my phone, make a few phone calls, and find new people who've bent spoons. I can find kids, adults, poor, rich, whatever. This is not an uncommon thing.

So, what's your deal here. You going to open up the page, or not? Because this ain't NPOV.

You can say it's "fraud." You can whip out ol' Randy. (Our attitude? It's basically: Imagine an Objectivist Ayn-Rand worshipper. Now imagine that this Objectivist made a challenge: "Million dollars to the first person who can prove, to my satisfaction, that Objectivism is wrong." How far are you going to get? Is anyone ever going to get that million? Of course not.) You can say me and the rest of the spoon-bending world is part of this massive elaborate hoax, or massive self-deception, or whatever. You can think whatever you want to think.

But if this is Wikipedia, then the game is Neutral Point of View.

You do not seem to be interested in Neutral Point of View. You seem faaar more interested in, "Let's grab this piece of land, and keep it as the last best defence that Rationalism has against the world of insanity."

So I ask you: Are you REALLY interested in NPOV?

This page is an NPOV conflict. No efforts have been taken to remediate the situation.

LionKimbro 20:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's another one for you.

http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit03_04/edit2-oct03.htm

I mean, I can fish these things out all day, if you like.

LionKimbro 20:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean, "open up the page"? It is not protected. Edit away. There's no point in adding dispute headers if there's not even a conflict over your additions.

Look, all these kids are doing is rediscover basic principles of physics. By repeatedly applying weak pressure to the article of cutlery, they are creating a progressive break of the molecular grid of the metal, until the metal reaches the yield point (no Wikipedia article yet, basic definition: "the stress beyond which a material deforms by a relatively large amount for a small increase in stretching force", Hutchinson encyclopedia). There's a whole area in engineering which deals with cracks above and below the yield point, known as fracture mechanics. Some areas of fracture mechanics are not fully understood even today, but this isn't one of them.

I looked at the fork-you site and one thing I immediately noticed is how important it was which kind of cutlery to use to avoid breaking, that sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes hours, that you have to hold the spoon/fork with both hands etc. That's all exactly what is expected. The older the spoon, the better, as various internal processes of oxidation weaken the molecular grid of the metal. Some metals are so weak, however, that they even bend under normal conditions. For example, my local cafeteria uses metal cutlery that will barely resist a well hung steak.

Now Uri Geller goes beyond applied physics. He claims that he can bend spoons by supernatural force, and that's what makes him a fraud. Yes, NPOV means that we can't directly call him that, and we don't. But claims of the nature that spoon bending is somehow a mysterious "unexplained phenomenon" are completely bogus and provably so, and such claims are intolerable in an encyclopedia article unless they are at the very least attributed to a somewhat reputable source.

Humans have worked metal for thousands of years, every blacksmith operates by the same principles that are at work on a smaller scale in spoon bending. I'm all in favor of discovering basic concepts of physics through experiments, but when the people who do so accuse others of arrogance for not acknowledging that they have discovered some mysterious new phenomenon then that speaks worlds about those people's horizon and their respect for our cultural and scientific heritage. Before you call for "scientific investigations", maybe you should examine the possibility that your own knowledge about the world around you is limited.—Eloquence 00:18, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

LionKimbro, I agree with Eloquence. First change it into a version that you think is NPOV and if this is unaccpetable for others, only then a NPOV stamp should be added. Andries 04:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay- I'll rewrite the page to reflect what I believe to be NPOV, and then we can work it to reflect a neutral point of view.

Eloquence, this response of yours is much fairer.

However, I still disagree that Uri Geller is necessarily a fraud because you believe that there is a proper materialist explanation for what he does. Even if there is a materialist explanation that is correct, it does not mean that a person is a fraud.

If Uri Geller honestly believes he is who he claims he is, and if he honestly believes that he has super-natural powers, then he cannot (in my book) be a fraud. A fraud is a con artist, a huckster. You have to intentionally be setting out to deceive people. If you didn't, then every member of every religion that happens to be incorrect would automatically be a fraud. Newton would be a fraud, because his understandings of Mechanics were incomplete. Consider that perhaps Uri Geller may understand things about human beings that you and materialist/scientist cultures do not? Would that make you all frauds? I know that you believe that Uri Geller is intentionally setting out to fool people. But can you conceive that maybe you are wrong, and that Uri Geller might only be ignorant, but not a Fraud? (However, I do not necessarily believe that he is ignorant, either. I lend more credit to his claims than you do.)

This discussion of spoon bending furthers my belief that we need a seperate article on it, incorporating your views on what is happening, instructions on how to bend spoons, perhaps pictures of bent spoons, etc., etc.,.

LionKimbro 06:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another thing I just thought of. Let's suppose that it is just fracture mechanics. (Which I know little about.) Let's suppose that is the case.

Then, materialists/scientists should be able to, given spoons, create repeatable experiments in bending spoons. They should be able to say, "These spoons will bend, these ones will not." Then they should be able to follow a standard procedure, and bend spoons just like the people who think they are bending spoons psychicly.

Just like the fire walkers: Scientists figured out how fire walking worked, and then regularly repeated the show on their own.

It should be the same way with spoon bending. If there is a spoon that a scientist cannot bend, but that a alleged psychic spoon bender can, then we would have a good way of detecting whether the scientist's understanding was incomplete, or if it were the alleged psychic's understanding that was incomplete. Just a thought.

-- That thing about the pokemon yungera causing a lawsuit was only an urban legend, at least the pokemon article says so. One of the articles is false.

LionKimbro 06:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

very nonNPOV

this article is VERY NON-POV, it assumes geller powers are fake from the start (not that iam saying they are real..) , the photo of geller is horrible and offensive

1) Where does the article assume Geller's powers are fake? 2) The photo was chosen not to present Geller in a particularly unflattering light, but to show his strong, muscular hands, which are being directly referred to in the text. I have therefore restored it.--Eloquence*

well , the whole article looks like a big skeptic attack on Uri Geller and the photo is very direspectufull (just look at his mouth! :P ) , note that ,it´s not that i believe (or not) in Uri Geller Psychic Powers but the Article should have a "pro" or at least neutral part first and then a section called something like "Controversy and criticism"(like in Scientology) instead of being the whole article just criticism. about the photo, maybe there could be the two of them, the current one would illustrate the criticism part. --[User:Cyprus2k1|Cyprus2k1]]

I second Cyprus2k idea. That is the way I did it in Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 18:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think what we're saying here is that the article should show both points of view, but retaining a factual stance without being firmly one way or the other. It is then up to the reader to investigate more, and make up their own minds. -TonyW 18:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection against a criticism section, as long as it stays part of the main article and no criticisms are removed. Furthermore, responses should be of substance, and not of the "Some people argue" wishy-washy type.--Eloquence* 18:59, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

well, the "pro" part should be someting like "Geller claims that.." and the critic part should have "critics say". Otherwise it would´t be neutral. only obvious true facts should be "IS" like, Michael Jackson IS Geller´s best man. i created a temp page Uri_Geller/temp to work on the NPOV stuff and some of the critiscism (separate them).

Well, if we're going to disregard the obvious, the blatant, and the transparent, we might as well point out that Uri may have not actually been at the wedding, and may have psychically projected himself there. Then again, Michael Jackson make have even been a psychic projection of Geller all along. Ronabop 08:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

im afraid i dont understand you, did i say we´re going to disregard the obvious? --Cyprus2k1 10:47, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi ppl!

I am german and 2 hours ago we had an Uri Geller show on german television. Thats why i was looking for more infos and found this article.

One thing i dont like in this article is, it is always written, that HE is doing spoon or fork bending and that HE is repairing watches and so on.

This show on german TV was a little bit different, because the guests and the audience were doing these things.

Let me explain:

Moving the needle of a compass: It was done by some guests of this show. He was standing far away. Of course it could be a fake if the guests were having some magnets in their hands...

Spoon and fork bending: He told the guests, the audience and the ppl watching tv to take a fork/spoon and rub it with one thumb. So theres no big chance of manipulating the fork i took. So i started rubbing the fork with my thumb and got now a flat fork. Meaning the wave shape that the handle had had, is now nearly gone. It lays flat on the table now... Ok, that wasnt an expensive fork i used. And it was not a weak silver fork or an plastic one.

Repairing watches: They had a lot of not working watches in the studio and the audience brought some of their personal watches too. I own some pocket watches i have bought or got from my grandfathers. And at least 2 of them didnt work. So, in the middle of the show, i started to search these watches, found them, and, except of 1, they all are working now since 2-3 hours. The one that doesnt work, is a not mechanical one, where the battery is empty. So Uri Geller wont make a successfull career as a battery recharger.

Manipulating ppl to vote for 1 symbol: Ok, that is a nice one: This event was about that Uri Geller can manipulate ppl to vote for one symbol he chooses. That was a televoting. The symbols were a rectangle, a star, waves, a circle, a cross. Then he chooses one symbol, painted it, gave the envelope with the paper to the moderator of the show and tried to send the symbol to the audience and the tv watchers. So he had a very close look to the camera and tried to send the picture. I havent got any idea what it will be, but my mother called me and said, that she guessed, it will be the star.

And, 30 minutes later, when the televoting closes, it was the star which wins with around 37% of the votes.

Wow... Something that you have to know is that the moderator of that show is moderating a magazine called "Stern TV" on tv. "Stern" = star. And Uri Geller was in that magazine some month ago too.

So, all i wanna say is, that its not only him who is doing these tricks. It is too be done by the audience. Maybe someone wanna change this article and add this info too.

The five symbol trick is a very old one and can be explained by simple down to earth psychology: the waves and the cros are not very popular because people don't like the shapes (e.g. things sticking out or in case of the waves not very common). Usually the rectangle and the circle (which are more popular 'nice' symbols) are placed first and last. People tend not to choose the first and last items. And finally the star is placed in the middle and made slightly larger than the other symbols. (this is easier done in a non obvious way as e.g. the rectangle) I have not seen the show, but my 'psychic powers' tell me that this is is exactly what Geller did, or am I very wrong? Also note that only 37% did pick the star, there probably was some bla bla about it being way above the 'statistic' 20% chance (which is incorrect as I pointed out). 80.60.107.169 14:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article must be more centered. I deleted the text "one asked, for example, why, if Geller's talents were genuine, the Israeli government wasn't using him as a secret weapon to destroy crucial components in the weapons systems of the enemy countries encircling Israel? ". Obviously are different items. The text has come again. Was deleted too a known testimony of broken glass through telepaty. Better delete all the entry and mark him as a big liar. Simple.

A proposed new version (Uri Geller/temp)

ok. there are still things missing but its almost finished: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Uri_Geller/temp i think now it looks more NPOV, please comment, if there are not objections i will substitute(upgrade) the current main article - --Cyprus2k1 15:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance reveals much missing material. Strongly object to substitution in current state, more later.--Eloquence*

there is SOMEthings missing (in the "Controversy and criticism" but also in the "History" Sections), however "much" is a little exagerated (read it all)... - --Cyprus2k1 06:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I much prefer the new article. It seems much more NPOV to me. User:LionKimbro

---

My comments on the new version (I haven't made any changes, for there are already plenty of cooks to this broth):

• "staging" his abilities--POV.
• Change 70s to 1970s, wikify, and add a period.
• "Skeptics" needn't be capitalized.
• "Skeptics say it has been demonstrated"-pretty convoluted on a tangential point of stopped clocks; how about "skeptics note".
• "by simple movement"--the tincture of "it's so simple" POV; "simply by movement".
• "could not be independently verified"--POV of implied obfuscation; "has not been verified".
• The Michael Jackson tidbit is irrelevant, and smacks of tarnishment by association; the main point isn't what happened to Geller--his marriage, but rather that he associates with that other infamous so-and-so. Drop, or at least change the emphasis to the marriage.
• remove "also" and "other" from around "the underlying principle".
• "wich" misspelled.
• change "these objects" to "these other objects".
• Fix "He it".
• "repeatedly" is a characterization inviting POV.
• Can we really, inescapably see from the photo that he has "large, strong" hands? I can see from the photo that there's nothing wrong with his hands. Going further into characterizations without the testimony of a hand surgeon invites POV.
• "avoided" is a characterization inviting POV.
• Are we sure it's "for these reasons"? State both facts, avoid the tenuous causal link assertion. Then move the last clause about earlier testing nearer to later non-testing.
• "widely considered"? Widely skeptics? Widely scientists? Widely Uri followers? This is a specific allegation against researchers from Stanford that was published in Nature, and looks like a cheap swipe at substantial evidence from the other camp. Cite references and explain specifics, or drop this clause.
• litigated against "many" critics? Three? Say "some" or use no word.
• Drawing out into a separate sentence the clause-only-worthy aside that Geller had to pay damages looks like an ad hominem swipe--"see how the courts are punishing him, he must be bad." Was this frivolousness related to psychic issues, or to something else in the litigation? Specifics of the claim would help.
• "the 'Uri' range" should probably be "the 'Uri' line".

--Gary D 06:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

most of the flaws and POVs you mention are not actually from the new version but from the old version, since the Controversy and criticism section was based on the old (current) version). im currently quite busy, but i will try to make the modifications as i can, anybody is welcomed to help in the new version (as long keeping it NPOV) - --Cyprus2k1 08:13, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since you are busy, I went ahead and implemented my suggestions, along with some additional material. I'm pretty pleased with it. --Gary D 23:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After a cursory glance at the temp version it looks liek a lot of interesting stuff has been cut out rather than tempered for NPOV.

Cyprus2k1 did most of the restructuring, and he invites the reinsertion of anything good that was excised. I join him in this invitation.

What's wrong with stating the Michael Jackson was his best man? It was in all the newspapers at the time. If it was newsworthy then it's wikipedia-worthy.

My initial take from above:

• The Michael Jackson tidbit is irrelevant, and smacks of tarnishment by association; the main point isn't what happened to Geller--his marriage, but rather that he associates with that other infamous so-and-so. Drop, or at least change the emphasis to the marriage.

Indeed, Geller's website mentions Michael Jackson, so obviously there is a real and valid connection there. The issue is one of context and the problem is one of advocacy. There is little doubt the original form of the article was POV assault. Now, when all the stops are pulled out in advocacy, many different and subtle attack styles may be employed, and newsworthy facts can become POV through selective inclusion and arrangement. In this case, Jackson was the only celebrity mentioned in the article, he was dropped in out of nowhere, and his appearance in the sentence, "When Geller renewed his wedding vows in 2001, he chose Michael Jackson as his best man" oddly takes precendence over Geller's vow renewal, the event that would actually be pertinent--though itself tangential--to the article's focus. In other words, of all the newsworthy but tangential Geller tidbits to single out and use, why this one? In a complete paragraph about Geller and celebrity society, it would be a newsworthy detail. Given the article's slant and Jackson's current troubles, however, it smelled instead of ad hominem agenda.

I seem to remember Geller being caught out on Noel Edmunds programme some time ago, I'll have to dig out what happened.

Sounds good. And my focus--about that or any other piece of information--will remain, are we after exposition or exposé? Remember, if he's a fraud, the facts simply stated will themselves sink him. Gilding the lily through adversarial presentation will only weaken the otherwise sufficient facts with the distraction of bias.

Here is some video and analysis of him bending a spoon without mental powers http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/urispoon.htm the full video is at the bottom of the page. Mintguy (T) 10:11, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I watched the video and found it a pretty plausible analysis. (You see, I am actually reasonably skeptical about ol' Uri; however, my skepticism, if anything, only makes me more concerned about POV against him.) This reference is in fact already included in the external links section. --Gary D 10:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ohh and Exeter are not a "soccer club" they are a football club. Mintguy (T) 03:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Geller and Exeter both being in England, "football club" is fair enough. --Gary D 08:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More on the current version

Those most recent changes seem to have been NPOV to me -- they were charges made by critics, not by the poser. And besides, how is it POV to say that he started as a stage magician? I'm going to revert the reversion. RickK 06:16, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

i think that "As one critic once asked, Why, if Geller's talents are genuine, isn't the Israeli government using him as their secret weapon to destroy crucial components in the weapons systems of the many enemies that encircle Israel?" its POV (or at leas the way its written makes it sound like) , and also it shouldn´t be in the first paragraph , what i mean by this is that you dont just put in the first paragraph a rethoric (POV)question, imagine the holocaust article having in the first paragraph "Holocaust ,wich some critics ask , how could 4000 people die per seccond? , was used to describe a genocide in WWII...." does it look NPOV? - --Cyprus2k1 06:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

note: the above holocaust example was just a hipotethic example to make a comparassion - --Cyprus2k1 07:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It's almost impossible to write about Uri Geller without POV intruding in one form or another no matter how one tries to avoid it. Even if one scrupulously writes: "As critics say...etc.", with direct quotes, in order to keep from revealing one's own opinion it's possible for his supporters to then rejoin that it's POV to quote what the critics say. But it would be just as POV in favor of Uri Gellaski to only quote what he himself and his supporters say. And vice versa, of course.

I think it's germane to a discussion of Uri Geller to state the fact that he began his career as a young nightclub and stage magician. Just as it would be germane for supporters of Uri Geller to state that he had begun his career as an experimental psychologist at Oxford, say, if such had indeed been the case.

It is germane to a discussion of parapsychology to state that apparently one branch of the Pentagon brought in the author of that Biblican deciphering book to see if he could help them find Osama bin Laden. It's possible to disagree with them for doing so, of course, and as soon as the knowledge of this leaked out most of the rest of the Pentagon quickly disavowed the meeting, but even the most hardened skeptic should, in good faith, report that it actually happened.

So, I feel, it's germane to paraphrase a critic who did indeed ask why Uri Geller, with his apparent wondrous powers, was not helping in the defense of Israel rather than bending spoons on American television.66.1.40.242 22:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think more than the material itself, which is attributed, Cyprus may be objecting to the placement of this material in the first paragraph, where neurtral establishing facts normally go, a la, "Here is a guy and a reason why he must be a fraud, now let's tell you his name and some details about him..." --Gary D 22:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yes, your correct. - --Cyprus2k1 06:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• That's a fair enough critique, I suppose. I'm see if I can find a place where it would be more a propos.66.1.40.242 00:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

article substitution

i propose again to substitute the current article with the new one. please comment, and change or discuss something you might think its incorrect on the new article.. - --Cyprus2k1 14:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Where can we find this proposed substitution?Hayford Peirce 18:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • read above, Uri Geller/temp - --Cyprus2k1 21:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think the present article is fine as it is -- both viewpoints are presented in the beginning and throughout the article, as should be done in a balanced survey. Your rewrite is unbalanced in the sense that the first half is completely pro-Uri. Suppose I wrote a long article in which the first half began: "Uri Geller is a stage magician and fraudulent so-called psychic. He is unable to perform any of his simple tricks under controlled conditions or before knowledgeable magicians. Etc. etc. for 2000 words." Then I have a second section that says: "On the other hand, there are those who believe that Uri Geller is a genuine psychic. Etc. etc." Nope. Leave things the way they are.Hayford Peirce 16:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't say the first part of the new article is pro-Geller, it just isn't anti-Geller. Instead, it is truly biographical, talking about him as a person, and giving details and incidences of his life. It could only be said to be pro-Geller in the sense that anytime a biographer details a fellow human being and holds off from attacking him, one might presume the biographer is not antithetical to the subject. Significantly, there is nothing in the first part that defends or promotes the genuineness of Geller's alleged psychic abilities. Nothing like the phrase from the above example, "There are those who believe that Uri Geller is a genuine psychic," appears anywhere in the first part. In fact, there's nothing in the new article anywhere at all that suggests his powers are genuine. The closest the new article gets is repeating (as does the old article) Geller's account of how he gained his powers and some of his explanations/excuses, which sections are attributed. I submit that if Geller came out and publicly declared himself a fraud, the core of the biographic first part of the new article could remain essentially unchanged. Also, these aren't halves: we have no supportive words, 500 biographical words, and 1,150 critical words, and that latter count doesn't include the "see also" and "external links" sections, which are mostly critical as well. If Geller is a fraud, the objective facts will sink him; we needn't be in a hurry to sharpen our knives for immediate text attack, as in the current article. I suggest we put the new article in and see what the ebb and flow of mainline editing does to it. --Gary D 23:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One thing that definitely would need to be changed in the new version is the tense. There's no reason to write most of the article in the past tense. Geller is neither long dead nor have the criticisms against him been invalidated somehow. Some sentences have also become rather awkward.Eloquence* 09:09, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I took it into the past tense because apparently he is not doing the psychic thing anymore. He appears to have moved over into the "famous because he is famous" category, the sort of people you see on "Hollywood Squares," with no one quite knowing why they are there. Hence, the psychic performances as well as the criticism are all phrased in past tense. As to awkward sentences, those could be taken on a case-by-case basis. --Gary D 10:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uri Geller was on German national TV this January doing the spoon-bending thing. His homepage still promotes it quite prominently as well. Even if he wasn't, his critics are alive, they continue to sell their books about Geller, etc. Past tense is inappropriate.--Eloquence*

I have taken the alternate page live

Okay, so we didn't exactly get a groundswell of support for the alternate article version, but you didn't all say it should be killed, so I phrased it in present tense to answer one objection and put it online to see what editing occurred in response. If it just irks everyone completely, well, that's what the revert button is for. I urge, however, that we at least give it a chance. --Gary D 01:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

September 9th edit

Does anyone have a citation for the psi-claiming community opposing Geller? This edit, if it survives, will need substantiation and streamlining. --Gary D 06:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, it's very badly written, practically illiterate. It needs to be edited -- if no one else does it within a couple of days I'll give it a try. Hayford Peirce 17:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's the sort of thing someone might come up with off the top of their head as sounding logical but that is not actually true. I think the edit should be reverted if no support citation is offered or found. --Gary D 00:45, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

illusionist

Ok, i hate edit wars, so, im gonna revert the "IS a illusionist" thing back to what is was, those who oppose please discuss it here until there is some consensus, *Before* changing it again.

In my opinion, directly stating saying that "geller is an illusionist" is as POV as saying "geller is psychic"... , stating that "geller is a famous and CONTROVERSIAL ALLEGED psychic" looks much more neutral..

(btw, iam NOT a geller supporter (neither a geller critic))

---Cyprus2k1 09:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Appeal to Moriori

Moriori, I would appeal to you to reconsider the approach to your recent edit of "illusionist" in the first sentence. Reviewing the page's edit history, you will see this article has come through much wrangling to strike something of a delicate balance. This article has not been given an uncritical pass; to the contrary, there is no shortage of critical views included in, and critical edits made to, this page in the past. I am now concerned about upsetting the apple cart and touching off a new edit war after a nice period of peace. --Gary D 09:29, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. You appeal to me to not touch a page because of its delicate balance. You do NOT mention accuracy, but are in fact advocating censorship. Uri Geller is an illusionist in the true sense of the word. That is not POV, it is clearly demonstrated at Magic (illusion) where Wikipedia states Magic or conjuring is a feat of illusion that naïve observers would consider to arise from supernatural powers. The practitioners of this are called Magicians or Illusionists. Also, Uri Geller is rightly included in Wikpedia's List of magicians. I'm for harmony, but not for deliberate censorship. I'm reverting to eliminate the POV censorship.Moriori 21:16, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

saying that he "is a illusionist" implies that he´s psychic powers claim are necessarly fake ,which is probably true but still, its POV.

"controversial alleged psychic" doesnt necessarly implie he´s powers are real or fake. this is not a matter of censorship its a matter of neutrality.. please dont change it again until there is a consesus here... - --Cyprus2k1 22:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll put it down here so that I'll be sure you see it: *I am adamantly anti-Geller, considering him nothing more than an illusionist and a con-man. Why anyone would take him seriously as a "psychic" is more than I can understand. But I think that the article as it presently stands has just about the right balance. I myself would like to see the first sentence read: "Uri Geller is a low-skilled magician who has made a big living out of gulling the naive as a so-called psychic." But since that ain't never gonna happen, I think that all of us ought to be able to live with what's there right now. This issue was batted around for several months and I think it's reached a point where all of us can live with it. I don't think it can be written much better in order to give most of the basic facts that all of us agree on or be any more NPOV. You can say in the first line: "Geller is either an illusionist or a psychic, depending on your point of view," but to say one while excluding the other is obviously POV about such a controvertial figure. It is not censorship to change what you wrote -- it is called editing. I don't always like what other people have done to things I've written, but I've learned to live with it. As it says on the bottom of the page: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Hayford Peirce 18:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Hayford. Your strong negative personal position toward Geller, which I had suspected you held, lends special authority (and magnanimity) to your words above in favor of neutral treatment. This represents editors from a wide spectrum of viewpoints coming together shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of an article's quality. Thoughtful editing remains always welcome, but the POV bull has to stay out of this china shop. --Gary D 01:46, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Charlatan

Opening paragraph: "who claim he is both charlatan and con-man."... what's the difference? Aren't these in fact the same thing? --Dan Huby 13:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could do with some serious editing

History :

Basically, Geller's extensive career has been summed up in this one sentence. "At the peak of his career in the 1970s he worked as a full time professional, perfoming for television audiences worldwide". This does not provide any details on what made Uri Geller really a household name, his performances on the BBC and David Dimbleby's talk shows, where allegedly hundreds of homes across Britain experienced metal bend.

Uri Geller currently involves himself in a great deal of charity work, I believe this deserves a mention on here as well.

please dont remove links or try to make them broken ("geller.htm"->"gelle.htm"). also, you can make the changes yourself, just remeber that a Neutral Point Of View must be maitained. - --Cyprus2k1 08:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved description of Japanese appearance

This transcript probably shouldn't be included in the article at all, but rather than delete it I moved it close to the bottom of the article. Please go ahead and alter further. 2 Feb 06

Disputed tag

I have added a disputed tag to the article, due to concerns raised by the user, Earthacademy (talk • contribs). — TheKMan^talk 03:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

URI GELLER WEBMASTER

Rule one: if you don't understand a subject, go and study it. (Any moron, or intellectual bigot in this case, has an opinon, but those opinions are uttlerly worthless without empirical scientific study)

I work next to Uri Geller. HE IS THE GENUINE ARTICLE. He was and never has been a magician or illusionist.

He has GENUINE ABILITY.

Get used to it. You will be astounded too, when you discover this also for yourself, and will find yourself questioning any previous thought you had on the nature of humankind. It isn't pseudo or virtual science, its ACTUAL science. If you haven't met him and are just making opinions from sitting behind a laptop or watching television, again your views are not SCIENTIFIC, but purely ego based, and ultimately ignorant.

This information on WikiPedia serves only to deride Uri Geller from a ignoramus viewpoint. It is utterly biased and practically non factual.

EarthAcademy.org

Removing all references to criticism and controversy is not an option, but I think that the question how much space dedicated to criticism and controversy can be debated and has recently been debated for this article. Unfortunately there are no guidelines for the fraction dedicated to criticism and controversy, in spite of my repeated requests for this. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Ways_to_assess_a_proportionate_fraction_of_criticism_and_controversy Andries 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal experence falls under WP:NOR.Geni 15:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Earthacademy.org - your first comment being how you know him personally and how his 'powers' are 'real' shows us all just how interested you are in a genuine NPOV article. Joey 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FACTS ARE FACTS. and that's all that should be in a encyclopedia. Not endless bigoted drivel. The biggest difference between myself and anyone here; I actually went out to seek the FACTS. Not gossip, heresay, 2nd hand opinions, Chinese Whispers, or bigoted nonsense. To understand a subject; you have to study it. I think I'm the most neutral and scientific here. Its obvious this Wikipedia article was written through total bias towards the negative, so you are left with 10% objective truth, 90% subjective trash.

Where have all the empirical truth seekers gone? Have IQ's dropped recently? Why don't you get the Nazi party to do the write up for the Jewish community? Or the KKK to write Black History? The Republicans to do the Democrats. Am I talking to a wall here?

I think the worst thing is, at the end of the day, Uri is genuine, and so this is an amazing event for the scientific community, and yet, is surrounded by the idiotic and envious. Gallileo vs. the Church? X-Men vs. the norms? Dolphins vs. Tuna? isn't it?  :-)

Dear Mr 'Earthacademy'. If Uri Geller's powers are genuine, could you please explain to me what is going on in this video: http://www.darat.org/~dimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv

Could you also please explain why geller refuses to perform his magic tricks when he knows there is a professional magician in the audience? If you want a non-biased article on your fraudster friend, I think you should go back and read the article again. It is biased - it's bias is towards the facts and the evidence. I have no hesitation at all about calling Geller a fraud, because that is what he is. Aaarrrggh 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some idiot called "EarthAcademy" said this: "Any moron, or intellectual bigot in this case, has an opinon, but those opinions are uttlerly worthless...etc"

And then the same person said this: "I work next to Uri Geller. HE IS THE GENUINE ARTICLE."

The irony is so funny. 172.142.59.24 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Too long, too detailed

My biggest problem with this article is its length. Firstly, this confers on Geller a level of importance that his career really doesnt justify and secondly it just creates more contentious detail that is material for edit wars. Cant we just simplify this?

Examples:

1. I see no reason why a discussion on possible ways how spoon bending may be carried out needs to be included. It is sufficient to say that magicians and skeptics of Geller's performance have demonstrated more conventional methods of achieving the same effect and that they accuse him of using such techniques.

2.Similarly, I see no reason for the transcriptions of the Gerry Ryan radio show or the lengthy Japanese final appearance. If there is a point to be made by these transcriptions then it seems to be lost in the detail and would be better summarised. This would also make it easier to ensure that the section in question is NPOV.

3. In general I think it would be wiser - particularly in the Controversy section - to simply list Gellers claims and the counter claims by his critics rather than dive into detail. Also there should be external references to techniques such as cold reading, misdirection, suggestion etc rather than attempt a description here.

As it is the article presents too many opportunities for the "woowoos" (fortunately in this text I dont have to be NPOV!) to criticise and perpetuate an endless edit war.

In contrast to the unnecessary detail regarding his "authenticity", not enough has been said about Geller's cultural impact. Surely the tone of the article should not be whether Geller is a fraud or a psychic but the fact that many millions of people (particularly in the 70s &80s) knew who he was and had a strong opinion on just that question. Prustage 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

People, you cannot see the wood for the trees. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate and provide factual empirical TRUTHFUL data. Not gossip or sensationalism.

Uri's website receives thousands of hits per day. It's not just the 70's 80's Again another assumption, as are most things written about Mr.Geller. You only ever hear about the egoistic critics, who are in the minority. The majority think much differently- depending on which cultures you are in. Especially it is wrong to keep viewing things from a U.S/U.K. perspective. That's a tiny part of the planet. Don't forget about Russia, China and Japan. Who hold a much different and certainly more educated view on these subjects.

The problem is not whether Uri is genuine or not, the problem is the left-brained idiocy and intellectual bigotry that still holds strong today, as it has always throughout history. Have you people not considered for a second that Uri may actually be genuine, and what that would entail? It would mean you whole safety comfort zone would be wiped out in an instant. You would have to face questioning your whole reality, and existence, and how you view nature and science.

The real issue is people facing their fears of the universe, and then taking it out on people who are actually giving you pointers out of your trapped mindsets. You have been successfully programmed to think in a limited way. Its up to you to break out of that mold, and the face the rejection and mockery or the moronic masses. Look to the minority, not the majority.

If you want someone to write Uri's information base, let it be me, and remove this non-scientific drivel that is contained there No matter what your limited minds may think, I am not biased. I seek empirical truth.

Please note that referring to people as having 'limited minds' simply because they disagree with you could be construed as a personal insult, and thus be a violation of policy. Continued conversation on this topic should not include ad hominem attacks and should actually address substantive issues rather than inflated and unverifiable antecdotal reports. Joey 09:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Elvis' House

Mr. Geller recently bought one of Elvis' houses for quite a sum, anyone having more info 'bout this? --Shandris 09:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears he didn't actually get it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5043572.stm

Gallium?

Why is there a link to Gallium at the bottom of this article? --Black Butterfly 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Gallium melts at body temperature. It can potentially be used to create metal bending tricks. Although the article does not say that he actually does that, it's linked there as a possible method. 71.199.123.24 01:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'm still not sure why it was linked there tho as it was not mentioned in the article itself - if it could be put in then the link should be returned, otherwise not. It would be more appropriate for the spoon bending article tho. --Black Butterfly 12:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Performance in Japan

How is this at all relevant? How is it any more important that other performances in the states? This should be removed, but I can't do it since some guy will revert it within seconds if I do it myself.

That's what happens when an anonymous user removes large swathes of material without explaining in an edit summary or on the article's talk page his rationale for doing so. Which should suggest several remedies for your conundrum. - Nunh-huh 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal seems fine with me. — TheKMan^talk 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Still NPOV?

It really seems to me that the NPOV dispute was never solved. As a person just browsing through to find out who Uri Geller is, I really see that this is a very negatively-biased article. I don't have an opinion either way about Uri Geller or the validity of spoon-bending. Sure, anything's possible, but I don't really care. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth as an outside party... This really should be edited, though. I see that the debate has been going on for some time now, but it doesn't seem to me that the NPOV issue has been resolved. Vermi 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have news: the truth is bias. The holocaust article does not take a neutral view on whether it happened or not. Geller is treated remarkably well here considering the number of objective demonstrations of his fraud. If anything, this article is bias in favor of him through unreferenced statements like "there are still many people in the world who truly do believe he does have some form of psychic ability." I'd like to see these allegations referenced as highly as his criticism. Nazis either systematically murdered the jews or they didn't. Geller either has powers or he doesn't. The evidence points strongly one way, shouldn't the article? I am going to be bold and remove the NPOV warning.

Nbruschi 02:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't required in areas of widely-recognised historical fact. The holocaust article wasn't really a good choice for an example, since it is widely regarded as historical fact. While I agree with you that nonqualified generalisations should have references to back them up, I do not agree with your removal of the NPOV warning. As such, I am restoring it. Vermi 02:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the article as it presently stands is biased towards Geller. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem - Geller has no paranormal abilities. The reality is that he is simply a showman and the article reflects this clearly. Simply that some people wish to believe him is no reason to declare the article NPOV - are we to label the article on Earth NPOV because of the flat-earth society? --Oscar Bravo 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about including some information from Jonathan Margolis' book, Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, (Welcome Rain, September 1999, ISBN 1566490251)? It seems pretty balanced to me.

Tonight show

The props weren't "switched" (Randi told in the 1993 NOVA Episode: "I was asked to prevent any trickery. I told them to provide their own props and not to let Geller or his people anywhere near them"). What I've read elsewhere: they were secured against manipulation, the film cans were wiped dry (to eliminate condensation water) and glued to the table. I've seen another excerpt of this show where Geller "accidentally" bumps the table to see which of film cans moved.--Tilman 15:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He Speaks Greek?

In the history part is says "He is a vegan and speaks five languages, English, Hebrew, Hungarian, German and Greek."

What is the source of this? I am asking because I am Greek and Uri recently appeared on a Greek show and the only Greek words he did say was stuff like "thank you" and "hi" and everything else he said was in English. AcidArrow 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is a youtube link of the show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgV5P-PmUE . Ignore the voice-over which is translating what he says in Greek and you can clearly hear him speaking english throughout the entire show. Also at around 1:30 he asks the host to tell him how "bend" is in Greek and then uses that. Even if he did speak some Greek and just chose to speak English because he is more comfortable with that you'd think he'd know some basic words without asking the host. Therefore I am removing Greek from the list of languages. AcidArrow 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why still NPOV tag?

Uri Geller has been shown to be a fraud, so it's perfectly alright to view him in that light. No neutrality is violated, so the tag should be removed. Motormind 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. His inability to show his powers on The Tonnight Show (with very meek excuses) as well as the more recent video of him showing him bending a spoon with his hands is a clear indication he's a fraud and always has been. Throw 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's propaganda. Or, at least, incredibly biased. Not only against a man who (if he's an illusionist) chooses to insist his tricks are real, keeping with tradition, but against phenomena which has been neither proven nor disproven (though recently, the previous has begun to emerge scientifically). It's also riddled with personal comments and convictions. Frankly, it's badly written, and an abuse of the publicity Wikipedia gives. That is unbiased fact.

Are you seriously suggesting Geller has paranormal abilities? Come on... He's just a normal stage magician who has hit on the clever marketing idea of pretending that his tricks are real, rather than, as most stage magicians do, tacitly acknowledging that they're tricks but not revealing how they are done. BTW, please sign your posts :-) --Oscar Bravo 07:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Why is it that renowned stage magicians like the Pendragons and David Copperfield make no claims that they use "psychic powers" to perform amazing feats, and everyone accepts that. But as soon as some charlatan like Geller has the audacity to say such a thing, suddenly everyone stands slack-jawed and believes he divines the powers from Heaven. It's ridiculous. Jquarry 06:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Remove NPOV Tag

The idea that in the pursuit of a factual and objective article we are still entertaining the notion that Geller might be a genuine psychic is absurd. There are multiple instances of Geller being no more than a normal stage magician with better PR instincts and no verifiable instances of the performance of any supernatural acts. This entry is more generous than it ought to be, and certainly more than fair.sinisterdan 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, see my comment above. Jquarry 06:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Removed

If anyone can justify (or use the whiff of authority) to restore the tag, please do.sinisterdan 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gallium? (again)

Someone mentioned above they put a link to the metal gallium, since it literally melts in the palm of your hand (~303K) and could conceivably be used to make a spoon that would soften at a touch. Are you serious???? As soon as someone carries the thing, such as a stage hand, it'll melt right there. And make sure the stage lights aren't turned on too hot. Not to mention pure gallium would be prohibitively expensive. The idea is inventive, I'll give ya that. But I really don't think anyone would or could use such a bodgy technique. Jquarry 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok doing some research, Field's metal melts at 62°C and could be made into a spoon which might soften at body temp after some rubbing. Note that it's an alloy of bismuth, indium and tin (no gallium). But again, I think the metal would be too soft and not convincing as a "real" piece of cutlery. Jquarry 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverts by Robert2957 - is Charity Work so notable?

You recently reverted material that had been edited by myself and others (namely [2] and [3]). This material was removed because it was largely irrelevant fancruft - in particular, the so-called Charity Work section. I'm sure Mr. Geller occasionally donates something to charity but is it really so significant that each organisation needs a line in an encyclopedia? Furthermore, the only source of the alleged payments is Geller's own website - much better would be a press release from, say, the British Red Cross that listed Geller as an exceptional contributor. Do you have anything like that? Finally, the whole thing is a bit fishy; most people are quite discreet about charitable donations, why is Mr. Geller so keen to publicise his munificience?

Unless you can come up with some good reasons why this material is notable, I would ask you to remove it. --Oscar Bravo 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Oscar,

Thank you for your message. I am SO sorry about this dreadful mistake. I only reverted the page to restore the booklist which 86.129.26.168 had removed. I split it into books by and books about . This is all I intended to do. I had added "Gellerism Revealed" by Ben Harris to the booklist and I thought this should not be removed. The British Library received their copy from me since it is a Canadian book and they didn't have a copy. I might give it to a few other libraries. By all means re-edit my revert as you wish. And when Mr. Geller next does some notable charity work, or speaks Greek, please let me know. Yours sincerely, Robert2957 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise! easy mistake to make... I'm quite relieved you're not a Geller cult member, actually. Much better to split the books into books by and books about, by the way...--Oscar Bravo 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Randi's Letters  ?

If you type "leave you to your kismet" into the search engine on Geller's website you will find refernce to an extarordinary series of letters James Randi is supposed to have sent Geller. Does anyone know anything about this ? Did he really send these letters ? Thank you Robert2957 08:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

opening section

The opening section states categorically that Geller performed "magic tricks" rather than demonstrating genuine psychic powers. Many have claimed this, and they may well be right, but I think we should, in the interests of neutrality, leave it at something like "supposed paranormal powers" or the like.Davkal 13:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Sadly I must say that this Wikipedia article is VERY biased. I don't know very much about Mr Geller, and (like so many others) I decided to read up on the subject on Wikipedia. I have been visiting Wikipedia regularly for six months now, and have come to identify well written NPOV articles. This article is well written... but it is not NPOV. As someone who had no prior knowledge of the subject matter it made me a "clean" subject in order to identify bias. The overall tone of the article is quite slanted against Mr Geller's claims, and although there is a lot of cited evidence supporting these points of view I believe that sections describing and discussing his claimed psychic abilities would be most welcome. The article does not adequately describe what he even does, it seems to be fully concentrating on debunking him. If Uri Geller is a fraud then the article would STILL need some discussion about psychic performers and thier claims, as well as the fact that science has not been able to debunk all such performances. Such examples can be found in the book "Supernature" by Lyall Watson. This article is very informative, and the people (or person) who wrote it has done an excellent job on what is there, and with only a little more work this article would truly be a benefit to the Wikipedia community.

Yours Sincerely,

DCR

I completely agree with above appraisal. Here, for example, in the section dealing with testing it says:

"Geller's performances of drawing duplication and cutlery bending usually take place under informal conditions such as television interviews. He has not taken up Randi's challenge to undergo testing and has not in later years undergone scientific testing under controlled conditions, although during his early career he did allow some scientists to investigate his claims."

Now, this is written back-to-front. The important being that Geller has, in fact, undergone testing. It is of no consequence that he hasn't taken Randi's challenge (why should he, why should anyone, Randi is no scientist and not exactly Mr Neutral on these issues in general and Geller in particular). Nor is it particularly important that he hasn't undergone testing in the last year, or in Oct 1995, or in any other time-period where testing has NOT taken place. As noted, he has been tested and in a section to devoted to testing it is these tests, and their results, and a discussionof them that are important.Davkal 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The important being that Geller has, in fact, undergone testing. No. The important thing is that he has not undergone testing under proper controls. That he was offered the opportunity to take Randi's challenge and has chosen not to do so is a signficant detail, because Randi is his most prominent critic, not because he "has" to. I suggest you look up scientific controls, and research Geller's history on this point.

Randi is no scientist... Argumentum ad hominem. Randi doesn't conduct the tests. Independent testers do. Whether Randi is a scientist or not is completely irrelevant to his point of view. An idea or argument rises or falls based on the veridical worth of its merits, not upon the occupation of the person making it. And since Geller insists on tests without proper controls, then people like Randi are far more suited than scientists to detect deception, since they're trained to discern slight of hand, tricks of optics, behavioral cues, etc. Scientists are not. Highly educated, intelligent people, as Michael Shermer has pointed out, are good at coming with rationalizations to believe irrational things. I suggest you look up what an ad hominem argument is, and logical fallacies in general, before you make comments like this.

...and not exactly Mr Neutral on these issues in general and Geller in particular. Neutrality is also a moot point, since Randi's conclusions, like that of all other prominent skeptics, is based on whether the phenomena in question has undergone scientifc testing under controlled conditions, peer review, etc. In accusing him of not being neutral, you're essentially criticizing him for having formed a conclusion. If you want to refute a conclusion, then you do so by showing where the underlying facts or logic used to support it are wrong or flawed. An conclusion isn't refuted merely by virtue of someone having formed it, any more than by their occupation. Nightscream 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my points were. 1. In a section deveoted to testing, the times when Geller was tested are much more important than various dates when he wasn't - nobody is tested all the time. 2. Randi hates Geller and has made it a central focus of his career to try to expose Geller as a fraud by fair means and foul. Why should Geller have anything to do with Randi or his test - why should anyone. Why should we assume that someone with Randi's track record of dodgy experiments, half-truths and no-truths, would be fair as sole arbitrer of the test outcome - something that is written into the rules of his $1m scam. The argument is also not ad hominem because of these points and because, as Ray Hyman, I think, has pointed out, it would not decide the issue one way or the other if someone managed to dupe Randi out of a million. Science does not proceed through bets. And 3. in a section about testing the actual tests done by the actual testers are much more important than the fact that tests have not been done by one particular person/organisation, i.e, Randi. Nobody can be tested by everyone. All three points though only made sense in relation to the testing paragraph as it was and not as it is now. And finally, what on Earth is "veridical worth of its merits" is supposed to mean.

litigation

I've made substantial changes to the litigation section. The main changes are that the word "unsuccessful"" has been replaced with "with mixed success". The reason for this is that Geller has won some of the suits filed. He won the one in Japan against Randi and he won one in Hungary against a newspaper which printed some of Randi's other claims. Others have also been settled out of court which is not always seen as unsuccessful. I have also removed a lot of unnecessary padding from the Japan section, and have added the London suit (which elicited an apology from Kurtz) to the Prometheus section. I have also provided a number of links to an article (non-Geller, non-CSICOP/Randi) which covers the whole issue.Davkal 12:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Noel Edmonds video

I have changed the wording for the description of this vieeo since it doesn't show very much "clearly" at all. The analysis offered on the skeptical website also contains a number of inaccuracies including a total lack of knowledge about the function of the tendons on the back of human hands (they are at their most visible when the fingers are being lifted up, not when gripping pressure is applied downwards as in deliberate spoon bending). Hardly a smoking gun.Davkal 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

scientific versus skeptical community

I have changed a few claims in the article about Geller's main critic's coming from the "scientific community" to the "skeptical community". There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the only source for this info is Skepdic website and the article on Geller: a) is written by a philosopher; b) has it's only quotes from critics coming from 2 magicians and 1 scientist with no track record of scientific investigations of the paranormal; and c)the only mention of science in the source document actually suggests Geller has support from within the scientific community - this is Milbourne Christopher's quote. Secondly, It may be that many scientists are in fact critics of Geller, but it is not clear that those scientists are critics qua scientists. That is, what does a geologist, for example, automatically know about the possibility of psychic powers in their capacity as a geologist. I think the answer here is "nothing at all" and so it is, in my opinion, wrong to stress the fact that someone is a scientist when their being a scientist provides them with no more knowledge than a lay-person. Davkal 09:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A geologist is specially qualified to comment on the possibility of PSI. Not through his knowledge of geology obviously, but through his familiarity with the scientific method. Any geologist should be well aware of the need to control experiments carefully, avoid bias, account for errors and so on. Put it another way, if the shoe was on the other foot and a qualified scientist announced that Geller is for real, wouldn't that be more convincing than if it came from a journalist or TV presenter, for example? --Oscar Bravo 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They have, and it wasn't. Indeed, according to the Skeptic's Dictionary site's quote from Millbourne Christopher: ""Geller is at his ingenious best in laboratories where he is being observed by scientists who believe he has extraordinary ESP ability and think — without justification — that they have ruled out every possibility of fraud." This, I think, shows one of the double standards often used in the skeptical community: if scientists say they don't believe something then their status as scientists is treated as some sort of badge of infallibility for the type of reasons Oscar identifies above, but when they say they do believe something then they suddenly become bumbling fools and expert status passes to the magicians. Davkal 13:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is similar to a "creationist" discussion. There is no scientific evidence to support any of these claims. Geller, like all the other magicians/psychics/mediums/etc have a vested interest in making it appear that they have special powers. They do their best to only submit to "testing" by people who are looking for proof of mystical powers, and so do not test thoroughly. If you want to believe in something, you will find a way to ignore anything that contradicts your desired belief. If you look at Geller analytically, you will see him for what he is. If a scientist where to offer valid evidence, other scientists, as well as corporations, would be rushing in to join in the new discovery. If someone uses flawed testing/analysis, they will be ignored as irrelevant. Zeke pbuh 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

None of that (even if true, which is doubtful) has anything to do with the points made and which led to the revisions to the article. That is, the only source provided for criticism is not a scientific source, but a philosophical/skeptical one. In addition the only mention of the word "scientific" in that source is a negative one about scientists' (lack of) ability to examine such claims. It therefore does not support the claim that many in the "scientific community" regard Geller as a fraud and, if anything, it supports the opposite contention. As things stand there are a number of comletely unsupported claims in the article that need to amended. Again. Davkal 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

sources

I have removed the source, Skepdic, from the claim" Geller has numerous critics, including in the scientific community, who say he is a charlatan and a con-man." and restored the fact tag. The main reason for this is that the source simply doesn't back up the claim. That is, there is nothing there from the scientific community or anyone in it at all really, and the only comments about the scientific community suggests that Geller finds much supports there - it being left to magicians and philosophers (Carroll himself) to smell a rat here. There is possibly the implication in the source that Geller is a charlatan and/or a con-man but this is never stated and is hedged about with talk of some psychic feats like those Geller claims to do being done by magicians etc. In other words, Carroll simply does not come right out and say it and so it isn't a source for that claim either.

Re the source in general, Carroll says that Geller has lost all his lawsuits against his critics. This is false and I presume Carroll knows it. That is, Geller won his suit against Randi in Japan, he has won a suit in Hungary (I think it was Hungary), a lot have been settled out of court (which is not the same as lost at all), e.g, the one against Prometheus books, which was settled when Kurtz apologised to geller and changed the text of the book for future editions, so that can hardly be called lost. And, as Carroll also probably knows, almost none of the lawsuits Geller has been involved in have actually been about his psyhic powers, they have almost always been about defamative personal statements. Given that Carroll must know these things but has chosen to simply go along with the false "Randi" version of reality it is not really clear that this source can be trusted at all in this case.Davkal 14:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

These two together are certainly enough, particularly when the references section contains two other books by James Randi. Please don't remove the sentence again as noone seriously disputes that he has many critics. — e. ripley\^talk 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't say - many people claim X is a conman and a charlatan unless you have someone saying "x is a conman and a charlatan". And even if you get one, Randi say, who does say this, you can't simply extend that to many others, say, the scientific community, without some evidence. The Carroll article actually suggests that Geller is supported from within the scientific community. That is the point of Martin Gardner's quote, which is the only time science is mentioned. If what you want to say is that James Randi thinks he's a con-man then say it. The sources simply do not back up the points you make. If you think they do then let the relevant sections be cited. The ones where, for example, Feynman says "Geller is a charlatan" or some such thing.Davkal 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is evidence. No fewer than four people in those articles alone have discussed his being a fake. I will restore the sentence; please don't remove it again without a better reason. — e. ripley\^talk 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources simply don't support the contention here. I could write, "Geller has many supporters, including from within the scientific community, who feel his psychic powers are genuine" and attribute them to those sources with more justifcation. I also think that con-man and charlatan is overdoing it. Why not just setle for one since, as far as I can see, the sources use neither of those words. As requested, then, please offer some quotations here to back up your claims that you can find these things in the sources. It's all very well for you to keep saying that it's there, but when I look it (paranormally?) vanishes. Davkal 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also vast sections of the article which have no sources. All manner of claims and supposed explanations are offered in the "stage magic" section without a source in sight. If critics have, for example, noted that Geller often turns his back on the audience then don't keep their names a secret. Tell us who said it and where.Davkal 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"critics say" is not sufficient, especially when sources for all the criticism undoubtedly exist. Davkal is right. DGG 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several points re sources here. 1. If you want to say "numerous critics say geller is a "complete wanker"". Then you had better have at least one, if not two or three, crtics saying "Geller is a complete wanker". It is simply not enough to cite a few references that say "it is possible to acheive ejaculation through masturbation" which is what you currently have. 2.It it not enough that Geller used to be a nightclub performer to make the claim "originally a nightclub performer" appropriate. He also used to be many other things as well. Why choose one and not the other. That is why it was removed and replaced with paratrooper - neither is more correct so both have to go. When you understand the point you can remove "paratrooper". Davkal 02:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Current wording: "Geller has a number of high profile critics, most notably James Randi, who claim he has no genuine psychic abilities". Isn't "claim" an odd word here? Does that mean the default presumption should be that Geller does have psychic abilities? If I assert that I am from space, do you claim that I am not? And, is the burden of proof on you for that outlandish claim?

I would like to swap in a term like "assert". I think people who claim Gellar is magic should bear a higher burden of proof than I'm seeing here. — edgarde 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it means quite simply, that a number of critics claim that Geller has no psychic abilities. The advantage here is that: a) it is true; b) it's not libelous; and) we have sources for it. Davkal 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if these are known stage magic tricks, and are being presented as real magic, we need not clear a high bar in documenting that it is not real magic. I have some really cool card tricks I can use to convince some gullible people that I am from space — if I say it's really magic, is it actually libelous when you say it isn't? Is it still libelous when links can be provided saying that I'm a fake?

You're saying (among other things) we should not change this to "skeptics say he has no psychic abilities" because we will be sued? This seems unlikely. Are you sure there's a chance of this? If so, do you represent Gellar?

Jimbo Wales' joke "Believers in the existence of France claim that it is a country located in Western Europe..." may apply here. — edgarde 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying: no sources have been provided for the claims as they stood. Of course I think "skeptics say he has no psychic abilities" is Ok, because that's pretty much what I wrote - something there are sources for incidentally, that's why I wrote it that way. What there are no sources for, as yet, is: "numerous critics, including some in the scientific community, say Geller is a con-man and a charlatan." The point is not whether Geller is likely to sue, but what we have sources for plain and simple.Davkal 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For some uninteresting reason, this (along with other closely related articles in wikipedia) have been 'hijacked' by a small cabal of seemingly bitter old men who evidently have nothing to offer other than to vandalise, disrupt and attempt to twist articles to their own insignificant POV, further damaging the already strained reputation of Wikipedia.

A huge proportion of the 'sources' cited for the blatant attack material in this article are from dubious websites, (mainly hardline skeptic sites) which fail to provide any factual basis for the bad edits they accompany. And are NOT suitable nodes for encyclopedic information.

Furthermore, why has the POV tag been removed? as the article as it stands now is rabidly bias, POV and unbalanced.

10nn 08:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this sentence needs recasting

In an earlier telling of the story, Geller claimed he discovered his abilities when he was first able 
to tell how well his mother had done at cards which was followed by errant wrist-watches.

Can anyone tell me what this sentence means? garik 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is taken from [[4]] reference:

It is suggested that Uri’s first encounter with his powers was when a spoon melted in his hand aged
3-4. This differs from Uri and Puharich’s account from the early seventies that suggested Uri first
discovered his abilities when he found himself able to tell his mother how well she had done at
cards. This was followed by errant wrist watches and lastly, Puharich suggests, metal bending.
Uri’s own earliest accounts also seem to omit this early incident with the soup spoon. For example,
in an interview with "Psychic" magazine in June 1973 Uri said:

"Actually the first observable thing that ever happened to me wasn't cracking or bending an object,
it was moving the hands of a wristwatch. This happened by coincidence in school, when I was about
seven years old."

I added the sentence - it was meant to establish the doubt over the origin of Uri's "powers" - but on re-reading, it could probably use a good rephrasing. It made sense at the time :)

Feel free to recast if you desire. If no-one else does it in the meantime, I will try and find out a bit more about it and fix it up in the near future.

-- Qarnos 09:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uri Geller caught cheating on Live TV

Someone deleted that part, does anyone want to interfere? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uri_Geller&diff=99729441&oldid=99590458 Someone also had the clip removed from Youtube, but just Google "Uri Geller caught" as it's too late and the clip was uploaded to many places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.7.65 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, at the moment there's no need to rely on websites such as youtube to hold the "incriminating" footage, as brought up by the second link to the website of the Keshet TV network: http://www.keshet-tv.com/geller/lobbyvideo.aspx?MediaID=11531&CatID=1957&Level3=1969 (firefox incompatible link) The video is legally held there for everyone to watch and even tho it's a bit blurry, in minute 04:07 it is clearly visible that uri geller moves a foreign object from his right hand to his left hand's thumb. For anyone who insists on going frame by frame like I did, I suggest downloading the video from the Keshet website. Is there any objection that I'll rewrite and supplement the information which was deleted as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uri_Geller&diff=99729441&oldid=99590458 ? Phantomentality 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The clip is on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WmG4G6sdGoQ). At exactly 50 seconds in, the view switches from a overhead shot of the compass to a wide shot of Geller and the others on stage. At that moment he is in the process of very casually moving his right hand from his forehead to his left thumb. He appears to hold his left thumb with the fingertips of his right hand for a second or two before animatedly shouting to the audience. Given the context that this man is claiming to have supernatural powers, it is an extremely suspicious manoeuver...

Geller fans are dismissing the incident claiming that we can't clearly see a magnet. Obviously, you will be disappointed if you expect to see a big red horseshoe magnet (like in the road-runner cartoons). Whatever it is, it is extremely small and discreet and you can't really see anything thereafter since there is no clear shot of his hand after that (and he keeps the thumb well-hidden). I suspect it is one of the tiny magnets used to hold on those flashing-LED brooches that are all the rage at the moment. They are only a few millimetres in diameter and are extremely powerful. One of these can easily deflect a sensitive compass, which after all is designed to detect the Earth's magnetic field!--Oscar Bravo 08:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Noel Edmonds section cleanup

I placed the cleanup tag there because the section starts off talking about Geller causing shelves to fall off walls, then continues by mentioning that he can be seen "bending the spoon", and then concludes with Geller insisting that he caused the "shelves" to fall psychically. It looks like two different acts were adverdantly mixed into this passage. Is this passage talking about shelves, or spoons? Nightscream 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there enough evidence to prove Geller is a fraud?

I'm aware with Wikipedia policy that things should be kept neutral, but when it's obvious Geller is using simple magic tricks why should his paranormal claims still have any weight? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Throw (talk • contribs).

There is no solid evidence that Geller is a fraud or usses tdisonest taskctis to produce is aparonamal effects. if you do have some proof then please cite it here, but dont think that wikpieda can be used to push a septickial agenda. Smith Jones 14:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the article before butting in with accusations of agendas. See [5]. AvB ÷ talk 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

fine maybe AGENDA was s torng word but i did read the article and that was only one ciident. a true sketpciw ould note that tey only caught him like that a few tiumes and that is no proof that he is definitely alwasys cheating. also he did give en explainaton to the keshet magazine. though i do agre with you that agenda was a strong word my mistake i shoul dhave said "viewpoint" or "opinion" because thats what it si. i still think that tehre is no reoom for wikipedia to make a completely statement that geller is DEFINITELY af raud that they can only provide evidence that shows that and also give the evidence that shows that his poweres are reeal. that is what i think. Smith Jones 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you take back one of your strong words. Actually the article gives two examples where fraud has been established (see the link I gave above). That means Throw's question is not some kind of disruption, just a serious question posed in good faith other editors may want to answer. Your knee-jerk response does not answer the question or otherwise help anybody build an encyclopedia. Please also note that even if such confrontational language were OK to use against a clueless newbie who is, indeed, pushing an agenda, it still doesn't do at all to use it against editors in good standing like Throw. Please stop this, it's obnoxious. Please assume good faith. Think of other, positive explanations that might explain behavior you so easily condemn. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Throw, am I right in thinking you responded to the article's lead section? As somehow implied by SJ, the lead declared Geller a total fraud whereas we only have two published incidents. I've just reworded the lead to reflect this. AvB ÷ talk 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether Uri Geller is a fraud or not depends on what is meant by fraud. He bills himself as an entertainer and he claims to have no insight into how his purported psychokinetic abilities work. He doesn't guarantee that he will be able to bend any given object, and has on occasion backed out of demonstrations when he realized he was being set up. When he does fail, all he has to do is claim interference from some unknown source. Remember, if he doesn't know how his "powers" work, then he can never know what will stop them from working. Proving "beyond reasonable doubt" (a common legal standard) that he is legally defrauding people would probably be disastrous. However, public opinion is not a court of law. Based on Geller's unwillingness to participate in any demonstration that he does not completely control, one can infer that perhaps he is cheating. He could shut his detractors up for good if he could perform some feat that was unambiguously paranormal. Publicly putting a 90 degree bend in a randomly-selected structural steel I-beam girder fresh from the foundry would probably do it. Joel Blanchette 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Whait Joel Blanchettes uri geller has never clamed to be albe to summon his poweres at will. they come to him and sometimes they dont so any "scientific" test would be imposbile to conduc t since his powers could not erespond or react at the request of humans. this doesnot prove that he has powers but it ALSO dsoes not prove that he does not have powers or that he is a fruad so i think that we soudl hesitate to label to him with skepical insults such as "psuedoscienctici" of "hoaxman" or even "fraud'" since notnhing fo this statmenrts hav ebeen done by an indeipendent or nonbiased source. alll we can do is list evidence for both sides and let the reader makes his Or HEr own justmgent. Smith Jones 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call him a fraud or a hoaxman. I said that he claims to have no insight into his powers. There is no "evidence for both sides" here. Geller is unable to do anything that cannot easily be explained and duplicated by an amateur magician. His own claims that while his feats could be done by trickery, that isn't how he does it hardly help his case. He refuses to be tested by any means, and refuses to accept any challenges. The few "scientific" experiments that he has been involved with are almost 30 years old and have been lambasted by most of the scientific community, including parapsychologists. So we're left with his own claims and his own tightly controlled demonstrations. Oh yeah, and the word of such luminaries as Mick Jagger, Elton John, and Michael Jackson.

On the side of the skeptic, and I am unabashedly one, it isn't necessary to prove that he can't do what he claims. Skepticism isn't about proving others wrong, it is expecting (and yes, sometimes loudly demanding) that they provide evidence of their claims. A real skeptic accepts nothing merely on faith. We really aren't just cantankerous contrarians. When it comes to paranormal claims, the evidence has to be very strong. If Uri Geller's powers are what he claims, it would turn our physical model of the universe on its head, because the laws of our universe as we currently understand them do not allow for them. He claims to deform solid metal objects without exerting any known type of force on them. I am willing to accept Geller's claims, if he can provide solid evidence to support them. Until then, the default position of the skeptic is, well, to be skeptical!

Joel Blanchette 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NO!!!

I undERSTAND hwat u are saiyng but the rpboelm is that the tests suggestde by spepdics ARE NOT designed in such a way to test Uri gellar's abiliteis. the randi challegne forces him to control the powers in order to achieve a certain efect even though gellar himself has NUMEROUSLY claimed ON TV AND ON HIS LITERATURE to be only POSSESSED BY TH e power which is a spirit force that overtakes his body and alllows him ot exert certain feeats uchas telepathy of psychokenesis. his powers can ONLY BE tested using brain frequency evaluators suc as a MRI scan or a scientific appartus desigend to measure brain activity that can be worked theorhg the television so that tapes o g eller can be remviewed to see his his abilities deriving from the instances that you have given above. IF such as test was doning, then it would prove CONCLUSIVELY that gellar's powers are real and that the instances that he mistaked were not irrelelvent. Gellar WILL submi t o sech a test but it will have to be done USING REAL SCIENFITIC METHODS and not the tings that the skeptics come up with because this would be the only fair and logical way to test Mr. Gellere's Parnomal abilities. This information can be bclearly found on Uri gellr's age as well as on periodicals within the scientific comumunity. not only that Geller's abilities hae been proven mathematically numerous times and tjhis FACTUAL VERFICATION SHOUILD Be added into the article. cine the rlues perm. Smith Jones 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since he says that he doesn't know how his abilities work, Geller couldn't possibly know that an MRI would "prove" they exist, because the MRI could only (at best) show how they work. Has Geller ever claimed that an MRI could prove their existence? If not, then you are the one proposing an inappropriate test. I don't know what you mean by "proven mathematically" because that makes no sense. I've looked as Uri Geller's web page, and nothing can be clearly found on it. Kindly provide the exact URL that contains this supposed evidence on his website. And "periodicals within the scientific community"? A classic example of weasel words. Which periodicals do you refer to? If possible, please provide the year, month, edition, volume, number, title of article, or anything else that could assist others in locating them. I'm not going to do all the legwork for you, but if you tell me what I'm looking for I will look into it the next time I head to the library.

Joel Blanchette 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

100% PROOF OF URI GELLER'S PARANORMAL POWERS

ALL of it can be found on his website if YOU WOULD GO THERE AND READ IT. HERE a universlly-accredited scientist gives evidence on Uri GEller's powers. you have to click on the link. Also the movie what the bleep do we know aslo shows the his powers can only be nothing but real! quantum physicsts have done countles research on this. My statemnet "PROVEN MATHEMTIATCALLY" refers to the numerous mathematicsal proofs done by respected scientists it even shows here thate gellar has been able to duplicate his effect watch the video if you dont belive me. here is fruther proof of his abilities, where mind-energy researchers do an MRI test can that show how and if they exist and prove that uri gellers exerts a spiritual field that can do effects similar to that of mentalism. I have the periodoicals with me and i can scan them to the computer if you want to see them just tell me okay. information is avialabe that proofs these powers but skeptics do not want to see them and try to have them susppressed. Did you now that randi tried to urui geller shut down all the time? Its true. this information MUST be mentioned as SOON as we can verify it on the net. Smith Jones 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue is finally settled. / edgarde 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have the periodicals in question, post the relevant information here so that anybody here can look them up for themselves. Scanning and posting/emailing them (I assume they are copyrighted materials) would also violate intellectual propery laws in most countries.

I have found no reference to MRIs or mathematical proofs in any of the links you provided. I don't care about videos of Geller bending spoons. His biography consists mostly of some inane, pointless theology regarding his name and a bunch of quotes from scientists and magicians, none of which is proof of anything. Some scientists are baffled by Uri Geller. So what? Of course, it's kind of hard to find anything when all I'm told is that ther are "numerous mathematicsal proofs done by respected scientists". All of the respected scientists that I know have names. Since these proofs are so numerous, it shouldn't be difficult for you to name one and to tell me what they've apparently proven mathematically in regards to Uri Geller's supposed abilities. I don't follow what you're saying about the MRIs, because what you seem to be describing can't be done with an MRI.

As for James Randi trying to "shut down" Geller, I will make the same request that Randi frequently does: Please provide a specific example. Geller has sued Randi (unsuccessfully) a number of times. Randi has not sued Geller. Who is trying to shut who down? Joel Blanchette 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

my response

if you read my response i would show you the porof here that james randi has tried before shutting down to uri geller. constant times randi has here used his cult of skepticism to try and DESTROY mr. geller for absolutely no reason. he would have no excuse for doing this UNLESS he knew of gellers' powers and was trying to remove them from publicity. even when geller makes no paranormal claims such as like hin his new show randi has tried to get israeli magicians to remove him from the braodcaste. this is completely wanton and nonsensical and shold be reflected int his article using the sources that i have provided from the mind-energy researchers on the world.

in resposne to your allegation that you have "found no reference to MRIs or mathematical proofs in any of the links provided" look here where an ordinary res earcher like you or I me did normal obeservational processes to discover the truth about uri geller's abilities [that they are real]. here also a noted animal rights activist interviews uri geller and shows beyond a (reasonable) dout in uri geller's abilities.

I AM NOT saying that it has DEFINITELY been proven that uri gellers powers are real, but merely try to indicating that this articel should give EQUAL wait to the possibility in his abilities that are real, since theere are so many peopelwho are believing in his powers ranging from the respected scientific organizations such as The Israeli Association for Research and Enlightment and their head Dr. Stepehn a Schwartz. THE EVIDFENCE IS THERE PEOPLE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK FOR IT. WIKIPEDIA MUST PRESENT THE FAIR AND BLAANCED REPORT OF MR. GELLER'S LIFE AND ABILITIES AND ALL OF MY POSTS SO FAR HAVE SHOWN THAT THIS IS A DEFINITE POSSIBLITY. Smith Jones 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My expansion of Hanlon's razor might cheer you up a bit: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by skepticism. Never attribute to skepticism what can be adequately explained by stupidity. AvB ÷ talk 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about? Smith Jones 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Randi's attitude towards Geller, of course. AvB ÷ talk 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

so you think that randi is stupid. Smith Jones 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be Hanlon's razor. You wrote that Randi tried to "DESTROY mr. geller for absolutely no reason" - I would say he had a reason for doing what he did, and the reason has a name: skepticism. AvB ÷ talk 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I did read your reply, Smith Jones. So the proof that James Randi has tried to "destroy" Uri Geller is... a blog? So the only reason Randi would criticize Uri Geller is because he knew that Geller had real psychic powers? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, he finds Geller's claims to be specious? Or that he really thinks that Geller is a liar and a swindler? There are plenty of reasons why he, or anybody else, might criticize Geller, and you overstep yourself in attributing motives to others.

I cannot find such a thing as the "Israeli Association for Research and Enlightenment" on Google. If you mean the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virgina Beach, VA, USA, they're hardly considered reputable by the scientific community. They aren't even really considered scientists.

You still haven't answered my simple request. You claim to have publications that contain proof of Geller's abilities. I am asking for the third, and last time, for the names of these publications. I've been assuming good faith until now, but my patience has limits. If you don't, or won't, provide them, I will have to assume that they either don't exist, or that they don't contain what you claim. You also didn't provide anything substantive regarding your claims that MRI scans could demonstrate Geller's powers, or that anything he does has been "mathematically proven." As a matter of fact, the links you provided did not mention mathematics or MRIs. Joel Blanchette 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

here ios my listing of sciece pieces by people that proof gellers parnaomral abilites

HERE is a analysing of comon skeptical artuments inuding those made by mr. randi. if you use the search funct. you can find the specificsection that remferences mr. geller. I will copy-and-pase the excepts here:

' "I tested Uri Geller myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific

laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key."'

Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering,

Technical University of Vienna, Austria)

"Through intense concentration, Uri was able to bend a 3/8" cold rolled steel bar under controlled conditions, as he rubbed the top of it with his forefinger. I was sitting very close to him during this experiment. On another occasion, a radish seed sprouted and grew 1/2" as he held it in his hand. I watched this very closely as well. "

Jean Millay PhD. (Saybrook Institute U.S.A.)

"Uri Geller was tested in my laboratory at UCLA. During the experiments in Kirlian photography and after hundreds of trials, he produced three extraordinary photographs in which flashes of energy were clearly visible. What wonderfully welcome sights they were! I have also tested Uri's watch-fixing and metal-bending abilities. He has demonstrated

these to me under controlled scientific conditions, in a most convincing manner".

Dr. Thelma Moss (Professor of psychology at UCLA)

'"Uri Geller, as a psychic genius, has been able to demonstrate the repeatability of controlled scientific psychic experiments. Thereby he has proved the reality of psychic phenomena (such as telekinesis, clairvoyance and telepathy)."'

Professor P. Plum, MD (Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, University of

Copenhagen, chairman of the Danish Medical Research Council -

Denmark)

'"I have personally witnessed and experienced on two occasions the metal bending abilities of Uri Geller. These experiments were conducted under rigorous laboratory conditions. In these two experiments the thick steel rod I was holding and observing carefully bent, and continued to bend, in my own hand. One rod bent to 90 degrees during a period of

approximately six minutes while I was holding it. The other steel rod bent after Uri Geller stroked it and continued bending on a glass table without anyone touching it. The steel rods were provided by myself. I consider the Geller effect to be a phenomena which should be studied seriously by science. "

"A scientist would have to be either massively ignorant or a confirmed bigot to deny the evidence that the human mind can make connection with space, time and matter in ways which have nothing to do with the ordinary senses. Further, he cannot deny that these connections are compatible with current thinking in physics, and may in the future

become accepted as a part of an extended science in which the description 'paranormal' no longer applies, and can be replaced by 'normal'."

Dr. Kit Pedler, (Head of the Electron Microscopy department, University

of London:)

THESE ARE SERIOUS OPINIONS HELD by MANY respectmembers of the science world and if you don't adding them into the article then it will be a serious violation of NPOV. Smith Jones 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's such a serious NPOV violation, then YOU add your so-called proof of Mr. Geller's abilities. Why should I do it for you? You seem to think that "skepticism" is some kind of conspiracy to hide "the truth", but I have no axe to grind about Geller. I don't personally care and don't know whether Uri Geller has the abilities he claims.

Anyway, your quotes are midly amusing, at best. Two of them are from individuals (Drs. Mallay and Moss) that are not generally accorded the title of "scientist." None of them are properly sourced. I'm pretty sure you just copied them from Geller's web site, which makes no effort to provide the origin of these quotes. Without proper authentication, these quotes are worthless as proof of anything. Even with that authentication, they are of dubious value. It's not scientists' opinions (no matter how "strong") that matter, it's their conclusions that are important. These are not at all the same thing. But this is all irrelevant, because you have real proof, and it's all in those mysterious "periodicals" you have, right? Joel Blanchette 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

response

I did NOT coppy them ferom Mr. Geller's website okay??? I copied them from the webpage i linked to that showed common scientists oppinon of mr. geller's work. i hav e never said that they prove that uri geller has parnormal abilities, but that they show that SCIENTISTS and respected academics BELEIVE in My. Geller's powers. if you knew anything about the way wikipedia works, it is not TRUTH that matters but VERIIFIABLITY!!! as is shown here! these scientists show support that they believe in uri geller's powers ans as such they should be at least mentione das proof that some people in the science world believe in mr. geller's apowers.

the main reason that i am no adding them myself because ius people like you will just revert them because of your anti-geller motives. you SAY b that you nodnt cant about mr. geller but that is not evidenced by the fact that you repeatedly attempt to stifle any proposes of the claim that sthere are people who believe in gellr's powers. Smith Jones 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN

ONce again and it will add the things back but only tohave them REMOVED by bigots and vandsals. Smith Jones 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, people might respect you more if you'd source your claims, make some effort to capitalise corrrectly, and didn't misquote sources - you gave Hoffman a quote by Millay, for instance. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can claim anything, Smith Jones. I can say I'm the Emperor of the United States, that doesn't make it so. If you're going to go to bat for Geller - or for anyone else for that matter - you're going to need to clearly show your sources. Also, it isn't necessary to create a new topic for an ongoing discussion just to heighten your reply. Using proper spelling and grammar would be nice, too. - Throw 15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. And I'm afraid the one source you did use is not a reliable source. For fairly obvious reasons. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you need to review Wikipedia policy on citing sources. This for example:

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source.

The quotes on Winston Wu's purported rebuttal of skeptical arguments cannot originate with him. Dr. Kit Pedler, for example, died in 1981, twenty years before Wu wrote his article. You should also refer to the Wikipedia policy article on reliable sources, in particular this. I am most concerned about the attributability and age of quotes. Can you verify that these people existed, and that they actually said these things? To whom did they make these statements, in what medium, and in what context? Considering that some of these individuals never studied the paranormal professionally, it is critical to know the circumstances these quotes arose from. Can you also confirm that this is their most recent opinion? It is dishonest to cherry-pick a past quote from an individual that has since changed their position. Basically, if you want to use those quotes, you are going to have to do some research.

Calling your fellow Wikipedians "bigots and vandals" can easily be viewed as a personal attack, which will only cause you grief. I'm not even remotely offended by such comments, and if you think of me in those terms then that really is unfortunate, but others might be, and resorting to insults is counter-productive. Please strive to assume good faith, and be civil. I assume the removal of your quotes wasn't anything personal (though I can't speak for anybody but myself). They were poorly sourced, and were not accurate as presented. When it comes to the biographies of living persons, anything in the article, whether positive or negative, is necessarily held to a very high standard. Questionable content about living persons should be deleted immediately, according to Wikipedia's policies.

Please try to check your passion about the subject at the door, source the quotes you want to include properly, evaluate their suitability critically, and ensure they are accurately transcribed. Sure, that involves some effort on your part, but if your edits are still being summarily deleted after that, then I can tell you that you will have at least one supporter. I may not agree with your views, but you have as much right to post content within Wikipedia's guidelines as anybody. I suspect you'll find others have the same view. Besides, being a real skeptic, I have to consider that you could be right, and I wouldn't ask for you to provide evidence if I didn't want to see it. Joel Blanchette 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

okay thenthat was my mistake i didnt do research to tihs since i assumed that teh peopl that i qouted that were still alive today. i apologize for what i said and i will goback to do more research to make sure taht the thing that is is ture before i adding the thing back to the geller article. Smith Jones 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I initially assumed that these quotes were the real deal. Most of them appear on Geller's website, which is why I thought that was your source. I was pretty surprised at how questionable many of the quotes were. There must be current researchers with opinions favoring Geller's claims, considering his fame and all. Well, good luck on sourcing some good quotes (and I'm not being sarcastic, either). Joel Blanchette 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article organization

It could be better IMO. The entire article is under one section, "Biography", that jumps from one subject to another with little coherence. Gazpacho 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The opening section is now a joke. Even if Geller had been caught chaeting 75 thousand times it would not mean he had no psychic powers. In any event, where are the sources for this garbage. I have reverted to an NPOV version. Davkal 04:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that there was competition to make this the worst article on Wiki. The whole thing is just one spurious piece of nonsense after another interspersed with unsourced hearsay. Lets go back to the article as it was a few months ago and start again.Davkal 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Gazpacho 10:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever's been working on the article recently. Before changing it back (and still to some extent) it simply read like a hatchet job. Almost every source for the article is from a sceptical website/publication. Almost every book about Geller listed is a sceptical hit-piece by one of his critics. There are numerous unsourced critical claims in the article. There are paragraphs and paragraphs dealing with what Geller's critics say. The start of the section about disagreement about measuring success is a good example. Two paragraphs are used to list just about every time Geller has supposedly failed to produce psychic effects. Where is the balancing list of the (alleged) succesful performances, e.g, a detailed summary of all the tests at SRI or something (that gets a few lines and is then immediately qualified by more critical claims). Where are the balancing comments by scientists who have supported Geller's abilities. I'm not saying we should present Geller as a genuine psychic, but what's currently there looks like someone has gone to Randi's website, or Skepdic, and taken what is there and rewritten it slightly. And that's never going to make for a very balanced NPOV article. Davkal 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the first sentence says: "Geller [...] has drawn both fame and criticism with his claims to have psychic powers." How about, fame, support and criticism. Or how about just poviding a neutral introductory few lines befiore moving straight in with Randi's thoughts. In fact, the article at present could well be titled: "Randi's thoughts on Uri Geller".Davkal 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why "support" is needed there, fame seems like a pretty positive thing to attribute to someone. Gazpacho 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro now ends with the claim "have accused him of using his demonstrations outside of the entertainment business to defraud people." I can't see how the source provided supports this claim. Firstly, Gardner is not mentioned, and secondly, there doesn't seem to be any accusation of Geller defrauding anyone.Davkal 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro now ends: "These critics, who include James Randi and Martin Gardner, have accused him of using his demonstrations fraudulently outside of the entertainment business". Confused, and if not, wrong! It simply doesn't mean anything, and what it might conceivably mean is: a) wrong; and b) unsupported by the sources provided.Davkal 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Randi has actually made the claim above (Gardner may have, I can't say either way). Clearly he doesn't believe that Geller has psychic powers, but he has noted many times that even if Geller were to be caught cheating during every demonstration he performs, it doesn't prove that he doesn't have psychic powers. His official position is that it is not incumbent upon him to prove that Geller is a fake, but rather Geller needs to prove his purported psychic abilities. Keep in mind when quoting James Randi that there are a great many "quotes" attributed to him that are either misattributions or fabrications. As he is a living person, it is incumbent upon the editor using the quote to verify that it is authentic. This goes for quotes from any living person, but especially those who are controversial or who tend to be heavily criticized. Using a false quote can be seen as defamatory, which is irresponsible, and exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to possible legal action. When in doubt, err on the side of caution and don't use the quote. Joel Blanchette 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was rereading the article and the criticisms listed above, and I have a few comments. As it stands, it seems a rather poor Wikipedia article, though not necessarily because it's a "hatchet job". There's no way around the fact that every claim made by Uri Geller is heavily criticized. NPOV requires that information be presented factually, in an unbiased manner, and be properly sourced and attributed. It also requires that no view should be given undue weight. If the majority view of the scientific and magic communities is that Geller's abilities are not paranormal, but rather just sleight of hand, then that needs to be clear in the article and expanded upon with specific examples and such. If there's a poll published somewhere that shows what percentage of the general public in some given area believes in Uri Geller's abilities, that should probably be mentioned, but not really expanded upon. James Randi's views on Uri Geller deserve some prominence. They are easily referenced and he has relevant expertise (as an acclaimed professional magician/illusionist) to make his claims notable. I use Randi only as an example that I am personally familiar with. Geller surely has both critics and supporters that are well known and relevant. It's not a Wikipedia rule or recommendation, but my own rule of thumb is to try to avoid editing articles about which I am passionate. It's easier to avoid unintended bias that way.

Ironically, considering how many prominent, outspoken critics Uri Geller has, the biggest problem with the article is the section on criticism. It is poorly written and lacks sources. The "citation needed" tag should not be used in biographies of living persons. Inaccurate or misleading information about a living person can have legal repercussions. If it's not sourced and attributed, it doesn't belong in the article. If I have the time soon, I might try to rewrite that section with accurate, verifiable information in a more neutral tone. Joel Blanchette 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, do you have any objection to the sentence, other than wishing it weren't so? And out of curiosity, which of the sources did you check? Gazpacho 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my objections are:

1. It is not clear what "using his demonstrations fraudulently outside of the entertainment business" means. What are they accusing him of? I don't understand what he is alleged to have done.

2. I can't find evdience of those words in the sources that are cited. In other words, the claim in the article seems to be much stronger than the sources. I checked the Randi source, and unless Randi says it in Gardner's book then Randi and Gardner don't both say it.

Can you provide the relevant section(s) from the sources verbatim here because I think the paraphrasing is wrong. They seem to be accusing Geller of serious wrongdoing and maybe even criminal activity and I simply don't believe that either Randi or Gardner has done this. As far as I understand it, their complaint has always been that Geller has merely fooled a lot of people into thinking he had psychic powers when he is probably just a magician.Davkal 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Geller v. Randi, appellate order: "Since Geller's rise to prominence in the early 1970's, Randi has set about exposing various Geller feats as the fraudulent tricks of a confidence man."[6]

Gardner: "In my view, which is the view of most psychologists, the classic psi experiments are more simply and plausibly explained in terms of unconscious experimenter bias, unconscious sensory cuing, fraud on the part of subjects eager to prove their psychic powers, and, on rare occasions ... , deliberate fraud on the part of respected investigators. ... Geller and the spoon-bending children are indeed frauds ... It is because the conjuring techniques for fraudulently bending metal are now well known, and because the metal invariably refuses to twist whenever the controls are commensurate with the wildness of the claim.

Randi and Gardner are both magicians. They do not care if someone wants to do magic tricks on television to entertain people. What they object to is someone (Geller) claiming that they are not magic tricks, taking up the mantle of science based on experiments long since discredited, and offering their "services" for 6 figures. Gazpacho 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see the point about 6 figures in the quotes. But anyway, why not just end the sentence "...have accused Geller of fooling people with fraudulent demonstrations involving no genuine psychic abilities." Davkal 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

heyyou guys

HEY! i just finished adidng a seciton about uri gellers' books [written by him] and it want sonwderin if anyone could agive me a link to ahte page that gives how to make the section properly> Smith Jones 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)