Talk:Uri Geller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.139.64.184 (talk) at 05:19, 5 March 2005 (→Uri Geller). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

... note from Dr. John F. Murray, psychologist: Uri invited me to his home in the summer of 2004 and bent a spoon and reproduced a drawing that I had made outside of his sight. It was all quite astounding. For 24 hours I was convinced he was genuine. Then I started to question, as any scientist would. Now I do not know because I am unable to know with certainty. I only know that this man is indeed very special and whatever he is doing is remarkable. Edgar Mitchell told me he is genuine. My impression is that Uri is a quite normal fellow with a normal family ... but that he has developed extraordinary abilities of human perception, and an understanding of human psychology that is off the charts! Does he have the ability to bend metal with his mind? I think most people look at this from the perspective of mind causing metal to bend. What about metal causing mind to bend? Something to ponder! We are talking about seeing things and projecting things from different perspectives. Einstein and Cezanne already told us about this. Whatever is happening, Uri is 100 years ahead of the rest of us. He's an elite performer. He has talents most of us have not developed yet, although I am unsure of the exact mechanism. It's total focus and trust in what he is doing, and I see that amongst elite atheltes I work with. He's just a winner. You can see my article on my visit to Uri's home in the summer of 2004 at: http://www.smarttennis.com/UriGeller.htm and my website is at http://www.JohnFMurray.com ...

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)

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)
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uri_Geller&oldid=10852749"