Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation/Archive 1

message: Anyone object to this proposed merger? I'm not sure if this page or James Randi would be the better target article since the "awards" are more of a product of Randi rather than the JREF. -- Krash (Talk) 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <STRIKE> I agree with the merge.   The article is probably too small by itself.  </STRIKE>Bubba73 (talk), 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: oppose. Wikipedia works in exactly opposite way: smaller articles for separate topics are spawned off big ones. Both articles are large ahd still have a potential for expansion. On the other hand I did merge Uri award into Pigasus Award, because this is basically  one and the same topic. mikka (t) 03:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, because it's a Randi thing, not a JREF thing. I think mikka's merge to "Pigasus Award" was the best approach. I noticed that there was no explicit mention of either version of the award in James Randi — just unexplained links to the articles — so I added a sentence to the "Awards" section, plus a clarifying sentence to separate received and distributed Randi awards. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Uri award]], [[Pigasus (Randi)]]

message: The statement regarding grave physical danger gives the impression that this was at least one of the reasons for dismissing the application. As www.archive.org indicates, the FAQ was first published in February 2005. The application happened in 1999. So the article gives a false impression because ex post explanations aren't acceptable explanations at all. Could you provide a source that Randi/JREF had indeed mentioned this problem before 1999 ? --136.172.253.189 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what the Internet Archive Wayback Machine indicates is that it only has a copy of the FAQ (with that URL) as far back as February 2005. I seriously doubt the FAQ is only 19 months old. However, the point is valid. If we are making a statement that the Kolodzey Breatharianism application was rejected on the basis of self-harm, we need to show appropriately dated evidence. If no one else picks this up before I do, I'll try to tackle this when I resume updating the bare links in this article to proper citations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the source of JREFs reason for dismissing the application 

message: I've heard another objection to Randi's challenge that isn't mentioned in the article: The privacy of the applicant isn't protected, so only non-legitimate charlatans who want the publicity will try for the prize. Someone with a legitimate paranormal ability either wouldn't need a million dollars, or wouldn't think a million dollars is fair compensation for being publicly labeled "legitimate" by Randi's organization. If the agreement stated that the prize would be awarded quietly, and that the identity of the subject wouldn't be revealed, then somebody legitimate might be induced to apply. The winner would get the prize and return to his/her normal life playing poker or finding missing persons or whatever, and Randi would get an interesting and worthy phenomenon on which to run tests. -Amatulic 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When Randi first offered the prize (nearly 40 years ago, I think) it was $10,000.  They said that #10,000 was too small for them to bother with.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying this was my argument, it's one that I had heard. And after thinking about it, I can see its merit. Personally, if I actually had legitimate paranormal abilities, Randi would be welcome to test them provided he agrees that (a) my identity is kept private, and (b) that he write a check to a worthy cause, not to me, so no paper trail leads back to me. He would only have to agree to publish the test results. The notoriety simply wouldn't be worth $1 million to me. If you can't understand the mindset of money being irrelevant, then naturally you disagree with the objection. The challenge is constructed to attract charlatans, in which case the challenge will never be met. This is known as the fallacy of begging the question, where the proposition to be proved is implicitly assumed in one of the premises. -Amatulic 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Randi tells how it got started: "during a radio panel discussion back in 1964, I was challenged by a parapsychologitst to "put your money where your mouth is" and I offered to pay the sum of $10,000 to any person who demonstrates a paranormal power under satisfactory observatonal conditions."  Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have a problem with Randi's challenge with the publicity and money prize, you can take another one.  You can come here and prove your paranormal power to me and I will promise not to publicize your name and a guarantee that I will not pay you anything.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  This completely misses the point. If you have a problem with the argument I presented, then pick it apart instead of trying to shift away from it. There is a section on criticisms in the article. Above I presented an additional one for possible inclusion in the article. If you can't discuss its merits (or lack of them), why bother writing anything in this section? -Amatulic 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  What he says sounds like original research to me, and shouldn't be in the article unless sourced.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's something I heard, I can't supply a source. In that case, I agree it's original research and shouldn't be included. Consider the proposal retracted. -Amatulic 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this argument merits at least a little more deliberation. I don't think it's "begging the question" exactly but some people (not just potential psychics) do not seek publicity, or even actively avoid it. Perhaps Randi is exerting a stronger selection bias than he intends. I like his website, and I understand how he might get frustrated, irritated, angry, etc. at all the nutters and frauds out there. However, I do not like his supercilious, smarter-than-thou tone, a tone I see frequently used by people identifying themselves as skeptics, atheists, rationalists, etc. It's no better than a holier-than-thou tone from the other end of the spectrum, and is no more justified by the excuse that he's tired of dealing with frauds. This is the business he's chosen to be in. I'd think he'd try use a bit more charm, the same bait used by the individuals being debunked. Being right should not equal being a jerk - being wrong shouldn't be such a terrifying thing. Jawshoeaw 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible objection 

message: The external link to The Amaz!ng Meeting 4 points to a squatter page.  Two posible solutions would be to point to the real The Amaz!ng Meeting 4 page or point to the page that lists all The Amaz!ng Meetings.  If an active maintainer would like to take a look I will avoid making the decision.
166.70.7.109 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the latter, a page about The Amaz!ng Meeting series, which includes summaries of 1-4, as well as separate pages for TAM 1 and 4. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad external link to TAM4

message: About the announcement of the challenge on April 1st.  I don't know if that is factually true, but note that Randi's annual Pigasus Award (aka the Uri's) are held on April 1st. The date is definitely chosen deliberately.
I certainly find it plausible that Randi deliberately chose April 1st to launch his challenge. Though I would like to see a reliable cite for the  date.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry Mudd (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 October 2006  (UTC)
: Harry, if you're going to use the word "I" in your posts, you really need to sign the dang things. (You should be doing this anyway.) As for the Challenge announcement, I removed the paragraph because it was hopelessly speculative. Yes, we need a source if we want to cite the date, but we need sources even more for the material that 195.93.21.7 wrote, with words like "some critics have noted" and "it has been suggested". There's a reason why they call these things weasel words — namely, they allow editors to weasel out of specific, verifiable statements. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 1st 

message: I think the section  The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge should have a subsection about objections, separate from the descriptive comments.  -George100 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to the Million Dollar Challenge

message: I've removed the following paragraph entirely because it makes no sense:
:Other reasons given as to why potential applicants may doubt Randi's honesty and integrity include the fact that he once claimed that parapsychologist Eldon Byrd was a child molester (Byrd was actually arrested for possessing with intent to distribute obscene material involving children).  In a subsequent libel trial a jury found Randi guilty but awarded Byrd $0 in damages, apparently to keep him from filing an appeal. .
This is POV and unverifiable - why would anyone think that potential applicants would "doubt Randi's honesty" because of this incident? According to the source given (among others), he had a relationship with a 12-year-old.  The story of the court case should probably be included in this or the James Randi article, but in the proper context. -George100 12:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Randi, speaking off the top of his head, got the facts a little wrong.  Byrd was not a convicted child molester - he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge (therefore he wasn't actually convicted).  And I don't see how that has anything to do with Randi's honesty.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is discussed in more detail at Talk:James Randi#Byrd v. Randi. I was planning to fetch a copy of the relevant Baltimore Sun article to clear this up, on my trip to the Library of Congress a few weeks ago, but I'd stupidly forgot to include the article date in my notes, so I couldn't track it down then. I'm hoping to try again sometime in the next 2-3 weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you go to the Miami Herald's webpage and search for James Randi in 1993 you can get a copy of the article.  But you have to pay for it of course. DarthJesus 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eldon Byrd case

message: I removed this paragraph fron "Judging the results": * The required 100% success rate in the open test
: Some critics point out the harsh 100% success rate needed to pass the open test.   They argue that a 100% success rate is hard to get even with scientifically proven tests, and that it is an unrealistic expectation of the participant.
For one thing, this is not part of judging the results.  This is a pleminary test given to e.g. dowsers to show that their method of dowsing works when they know where the target is.  100% is not required for the actual test.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed paragraph from judging the results 

message: Well, I think the headline says it all. This article is supposed to be about the Foundation itself and while the Challenge is a big part of it, I think this article should only mention the bare facts - a sketch, if you will, - about the challenge and include a link to a new article going into further detail. I mean, the secion on the Challenge has FOUR subheadings of its own! Definitely needs to be cleaned up.
--- Wellesradio, 12 March 07
: Sounds reasonable (I don't intend to do it), but there are other "Million Dollar Challenge"s out there, too. Here's a Google. 5Q5 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. There is enough material for its own article. Arbustoo 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to rememberthat it (and the JREF and James Randi) all had seperate articles at one time a couple years ago.  (I may be wrong about that though.)  They all got merged into one article.  Then the JREF and Pigasus articles got split out again.  That is the way I remember it, I may be wrong.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you split the $1,000,000 prize and "similar offers", that doesn't leave much for JREF.  I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, just something to consider.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Million Dollar Challenge Should Be Its Own Article 

message: :Image:Faithhealers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Faithhealers.gif

message: I am just curious if anyone thinks it is worth noting that Christopher Hitchens recently outed himself as one of the sponsors/underwriters of the $1,000,000. I'd always just assumed it was Johnny Carson, though I suppose he still could have been part of it.BathTub 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that should be in the article, with a source (I haven't heard it elsewhere).  I had guessed that it was Penn Gillette.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  P&T would be good guesses as well. Yeah I will have to dig up the interview to give the exact source, I have it saved, it was one of the multitude of interviews Christopher has done promoting God Is Not Great over the last few weeks.BathTub 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Hitchens and $1,000,000 Challenge 

message: :Image:Thetruthuri.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Thetruthuri.jpg

message: I added this new section today. Since it is major new material for the article, I'm mentioning it here. 5Q5 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: "History of the foundation"