Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation

message: I've tried to improve the YB section which is completely unreferenced as a criticism anyway.  The JREF source explains fairly well that this 'test' was never going to be accepted as it was never supposed to be an initial test since the JREF had already severed ties with the YB group before the test was carried out. Someone else independently volunteered to go and do a test, but no evidence is presented that the YB group was informed either by the JREF or by the volunteer this would be an initial test accepted by the JREF. In any case, there were multiple flaws in the exectuion of the 'test' which the JREF also pointed out which meant even if it was an initial test, it was never going to be accepted as it would have violated any agreement (of which there was none). Of note, contrary to what the article claimed, there is no video of the incident simply a set of stills Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow Bamboo

message: I subscribe to this mailing list for magicians, and there was a post in today's list from Seth Raphael, saying that he has won the challenge by proving his computer was psychic in front of a large crowd in Boston MA.  He also provides a link  but I can't see the video, so I cannot see how valid this is. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Winner? 

message: It's an April Fool - http://affect.media.mit.edu/milliondollarchallenge/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.17.103 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: April Fool

message: I think the article should include some examples of the people who took the challenge rather than those who refused. Such as the upcoming test with Colin A. Ross, M.D. Feerzeey (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of these are in the section "Exploring psychic powers television show".  But there are more in his books, and perhaps I can add an example.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm working on a write-up to be added later today.  Bubba73 (talk), 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Derek Ogilvieaccepted the challenge and failed on a British television programme called 'Extraordinary People: The Million Dollar Psychic'. A good source on this is   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollisit (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: People who took part in the challenge

message: As an April Fool's prank on April 1, 2008 at the MIT Media Lab Seth Raphael and James Randi performed a demonstration of Seth Raphael's psychic abilities which was awarded the prize-is this true? I think that we need some aditional references. --Vojvodaeist 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is true, I read about it at the time.  Should be able to google it, but I have to leave in about 3 minutes.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand is foundation still running?--Vojvodaeist 09:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it just announced a new president yesterday.  Bubba73 (talk), 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Jsut more one think who is Seth Raphael?--Vojvodaeist 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  MIT Media Specialist.  Bubba73 (talk), 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aditional verification

message: I have a hobby of adding citations from the Google Books Popular Science scanned magazine archive into Wikipedia, and I have found an article from May 1932 about a similarly highly scientific testing of psychics that was done by a scientist who is now apparently unknown. I am trying to determine if this material should be worked into this one somehow or if it should be spun off as a separate article of its own.
Spirit Fakers... Trapped by Black Light - Popular Science, May 1932, Pages 18-19
Click here to read this article: http://books.google.com/books?id=1ScDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&source=gbs_toc_pages_r&cad=0_1#PPA18,M1
From the article:
:It was to investigate the methods of these "wonder" workers that Dr. Christopher Schroeder, noted German psychologist and naturalist, recently established one of the strangest laboratories in the world. In this "Institute of Metaphysical Research" mediums are invited to demonstrate their powers before an imposing array of scientific instruments. Usually Dr. Schroeder makes no attempt to conceal it. Only the boldest of fraudulent mediums are willing to exhibit their skill in this laboratory.
This seems very important as a historical context to the modern work that JREF has done. DMahalko (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific testing of psychics in 1932 

message: Why this article James Randi Educational Foundation is listed in "Category:Pseudoscience"? 
In that category should be listed only articles which are pseudocience, not articles about pseudoscience: "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)", see also Wikipedia:PSCI#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories. Doubting thomas (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove that :Category:Pseudoscience should not include "articles about pseudoscience" !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.86.63 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why in category Pseudoscience? 

message: I'm removing the paragraph with all the details about being incorporated in Delaware while being located in Florida.  Being incorporated in Delaware is very common for corporations and so it isn't notable at all.
We certainly don't need a long paragraph about it. For historical purposes here's the paragraph:
On November 7, 1997 The JREF officially registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations as a foreign nonprofit corporation and was granted a certificate of authority to operate within the state.[3] As a legal entity, the Foundation is referred to as a nonprofit Delaware domestic corporation and in Florida where it has its principal office, it is called a nonprofit foreign corporation (the term describes either out-of-state or out-of-the-country corporations operating in Florida). While the JREF's Delaware corporate entity address is 980 air miles north of its principal office in Fort Lauderdale,[4] the Foundation is still bound by Florida's corporate laws as if it were a domestic Florida corporation (Florida Statute 607.1505).[5] However, being a foreign corporation in Florida means that the State of Florida cannot legally regulate the organization or internal affairs of the JREF and the Foundation is able to take advantage of Delaware's more protective corporate laws.[6][7] The full legal name of the Foundation is "The James Randi Educational Foundation, Inc."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History about being incorporated in Deleware not needed 

message: Connie Sonne, a dowser from Denmark, will be attempting to win the million dollars:
* Streaming video link
Brangifer (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she failed the test. Not a single one of the three cards she chose was right.   Brangifer (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?! Shocking!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.254.221 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Million dollar challenge being tested right now 

message: How many attempts have been made to win the prize? The JREF FAQ states 650 in 1964-82 and 360 in 1997-2007. Is there a list of names somewhere? Hexmaster (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenges taken?

message: There is part missing called controversy. Particularly where Rupert Sheldrake is calling James Randi a liar.
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html
Rupert Sheldrake calls Randi a liar and explains why:  49:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4tops (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Has his accusation been reported in any reliable sources? If lots of newspapers had reported significantly on it it might be worth including, but Sheldrake saying something on his own website is not very notable. If we included all such accusations things would get ridiculous. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy 

message: I applied to the jref 1 million dollar challenge after james randi had asked me, then when I did, I noticed my copyrights were in other peoples names, and now jref deny ever having heard of me, all mail was done through netscape mail in 2003 and some other from 2005/6, I have all copys(including source to verify it all.)
I think it would help the article greatly if people knew that jref are fraudulent foundation. If Steven J. Anderson doesn't like this in the talk section and keeps removing it i will move it into the main article and include "ALL E-MAILS" to verify jref's dealings with me, and this is as relevant to this discussion article as all the other articles in it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try this approach. Your claims are nothing but unsupported anecdotes, and they have no place here or in the article. If you have a reliable source that backs up these claims, then by all means, share that source here. Otherwise, please refrain from using this talk page as your own personal forum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. Thank you. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: No more unsourced claims please. See the verifiability policy: you cannot add your claims about your own experiences to any article. This is not the place to complain about an organization. I strongly recommend to other editors that this section be removed if any further unverified claims are made here since this is not a forum to make allegations. Your emails are not a source: see reliable sources for what is accepted here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: No. Personal emails are not compliant with the verifiability policy. We do not call people liars here – there is no suggestion of that, and it is not relevant. The fact is the Internet is a very big place and there are a lot of emails and other material that people could present in order to add text to an article. In order to maintain an encyclopedic approach, the policy no original research prevents the chaos of people adding their own research. In short, if there is no reliable source, the material must not be added. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Uh, no, you don't seem to be getting it, fella. Your private e-mail correspondence with the JREF is not a reliable source, even if it says what you claim it does; and you're not going to flood this talk page or the article with that stuff. Wikipedia has a policy called undue weight and another called verifiability that make that clear. In a nutshell, an encyclopedia article on an organization cannot include every petty squabble someone has had with that organization, particularly if the squabble is so insignificant that it's never been mentioned by any reliable source. Additionally, your e-mails fail the verifiability test because, as unpublished, private correspondence, it's impossible for another editor to visit a library or an archive or look on the internet to determine that they actually say what you claim they do. I won't delete this again because it looks like you're finally, finally saying something relevant to the subject of how the article should read. Nevertheless, it's obvious that the material you'd like to include utterly fails Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for several reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It's pretty clear that you still haven't read Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources based on your statements above. Please do so. At the very least, please stop posting the same thing on this talk page over and over without bothering to read the relevant policies that several people have now pointed out to you. You are simply using this space as your own personal soapbox for unsupported, negative claims about this organization, and that is not acceptable. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add this. Are you allowed to have a say about it? Yes, but not here. Please go to blogspot and follow the instructions for starting a blog. Once you've done that, you can yammer on idiotically to your heart's delight without interference from anyone. However this is an encyclopedia, not a no-holds-barred forum for all and sundry to air their complaints. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I have a better idea for you, 121.209.4.183: go to the media. If you really have super powers and JREF rejected your candidacy and then denied having done so, this will be the scoop of the millennium. Dan ☺ 10:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  fraud 

message: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41742269#41742269
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY745NxZwsY
It happens that both are from Serbia. :)
So why doesn't JR call these guys into his competition?
89.216.196.129 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how the prize works. The claimant has to apply to the JREF - if you reckon those people really have supernatural powers, by all means contact them and urge them to apply. In any case, this isn't the forum for this discussion.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  some publicized  cases 

message: Unless I'm misinterpreting the diff, this edit removed all of the material about a dowsing test. What was the reason for this? The edit summary reads "Merged material pertinent to history; removed redundancies and unsourced material per WP:V/WP:NOR; removed dated wording like "has announced" per WP:DATED; etc." The material was perfectly well cited, so I don't understand the rationale for removing it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material 

message: What do you think of the idea of moving the text on the Million Dollar Challenge to its own separate article?  A few arguments for: It takes up a lot of the JREF article so would make the article cleaner and more focused; it would make information on the Million Dollar Challenge easier to find (it currently does not "google" well); it would make a Challenge criticism section easier to add, where adding it to the JREF page might make the page way too skewed on Challenge material. Some arguments against: would it look like an "advertisement" for the challenge if on its own page?  Would it divorce too much focus from the JREF page?  Rjmail (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for Million Dollar Challenge 

message: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/comment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobilehttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/comment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobile  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.198.176 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the situation on JREF? 

message: Could someone please double check the rollback I just did here? It was a completely unsourced piece of text that seemed like original research to me. But I clicked quickly from my watchlist after looking at the diff, and then realized I have a potential conflict of interest here. Trying to stay strictly within the rules. Krelnik (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to have been an unsourced addition editorializing aspects of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. Rollback was appropriate. The editor had included a URL pointing to a blog about the topic, but the sourcing was unclear and not WP:RS for that content. Nmillerche (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Similar soapboxing has recently been added and removed at James Randi. It is fine to remove stuff like that, but do not use rollback as that is strictly for WP:VAND. An undo with edit summary "unsourced commentary" is good for that kind of text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I'll be more careful in the future. Krelnik (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please verify my rollback 

message: Please delete the photo of the building and the reference to  "former headquarters". The JREF has not been in that building for three years. Its mention is irrelevant and Randi would like it removed.
I'd do it but I have a conflict.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrefstaff (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete photo of building 

message: A sentence was added a few months ago withing a block of edits by User:Crustypie in a block of edits on June 8 - "In 2012, Randi's JREF salary was reported as $243,750, and Grothe's was reported as $95,000." The source is JREF's organizational tax return from 2012. While it fleshes out a statement included earlier and sourced to SF Weekly, in the past, primary sources info taken from public documents were flat out prohibited. However, it seems that the rules on WP:PRIMARY have changed somewhat, and primary sources are not in themselves prohibited. However, this still could very likely be in violation of WP:BLP.
I'd like to get some second opinions before removing it, or have an someone who's clearer on policy remove it, if in fact it violates these rules or is otherwise deemed irrelevant. The article is getting attention at the moment because of a recent shakeup at JREF, and I'd rather not have it turn into an edit war. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC
:Here from the RFC notification bot. It is WP:PRIMARY but not WP:BLPPRIMARY imo as it is talking about the organization and is not directly stating Randi's income (as he has income from other sources such as books and speaking fees etc). Its borderline, and certainly subject to editorial judgement, but I do not think there is a policy mandating removal. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW an interesting addition can be found by comparing his compensation from the JREF over the years.  For the years I've seen quoted (2011-2013), it appears to equal 15% of the previous years total revenue. Rjmail (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable? 

message: So many unknowns are happening now with the JREF, I think we need to take another look at this page. What's going on with the fellows? Do they even exist? Who is president? Who is running the challenge? It appears that there will still be a TAM (at least this year) but moving forward what is happening.  Obviously this page should reflect the history of the organization, I'm hoping for opinions of how to handle the current situation. Sgerbic (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  JREF general changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Randi Educational Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141204161145/http://www.randi.org/jr/carson.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/carson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The last time this page has been updated seems to be prior to 2015. Randi passed away in October of 2020 so the fate/status of this organization needs to be updated Narwhil (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates