Talk:Uri Geller/Archive 1

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  yes, your correct. - --Cyprus2k1 06:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the current version

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have taken the alternate page live 

message: 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)
thread_title:  illusionist 

message: 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)
thread_title: Charlatan

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could do with some serious editing 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:   Too long, too detailed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Elvis' House 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The removal seems fine with me. — TheKMantalk 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance in Japan 

message: 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)
replies: text: In fact, the article as it presently stands is biased towards Geller. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still NPOV?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tonight show 

message: 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)
thread_title:  He Speaks Greek? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, see my comment above. Jquarry 06:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Remove NPOV Tag

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gallium? (again) 

message: You recently reverted material that had been edited by myself and others (namely  and ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverts by Robert2957 - is Charity Work so notable? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Randi's Letters  ? 

message: 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)
thread_title: opening section

message: 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)
thread_title: litigation

message: 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)
thread_title: The Noel Edmonds video

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: scientific versus skeptical community

message: 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)
thread_title: Noel Edmonds section cleanup

message: ::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)
thread_title:  response 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article organization

message: 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)
thread_title: heyyou guys