Talk:Uri Geller/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

pointless - uninteresting content

At the bottom of the "controversial performances" section, is :

in the television show Phenomenon on 31 October 2007, Criss Angel challenged Geller and contestant Jim Callahan to prove they had supernatural abilities.[56] Angel pulled two envelopes from his pocket and said, "I will give you a million dollars of my personal money right now if either one of you can tell me specific details of what’s in here right now."[56] After some shouting, Angel and Callahan then moved toward each other. Geller and the show's host, Tim Vincent, moved quickly to keep them apart. Shortly thereafter, the show cut to a commercial break.

On 21 November 2007, Criss Angel again offered Geller $1,000,000 on the finale of NBC's nationally televised Phenomenon.[57] Geller said, "although we were born one day apart, I was born on the twentieth December and you were on the nineteenth ... there are a lot of years between us ... forty years ago you were one year old when I came out with my spoon bending."[57] As Geller was speaking Angel said, "I told you that, correct" and then interrupted Geller to reveal the numbers nine-one-one.[57] Then Angel concluded, "If somebody could predict, tell us on nine-ten that 9/11 was going to happen, maybe that could have prevented it."

Does anyone else wonder how interesting these couple of paragraphs are? Personally, I find this really boring, I'm not sure if it really adds anything to the article.

I'm not really passionate about it, I'm happy for it to stay if others believe it's important, I just don't quite get the significance of this part of the article. Moondial (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only person who found those passages unencyclopedic. What they're trying to convey may somehow warrant inclusion in this article, but as they're written now it's impossible to ascertain what that is. They wouldn't even be appropriate as a synopsis for that particular episode of Phenomenon. I'm removing them.
-K10wnsta (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a little rambling and could be edited down, but "Geller was offered $1 million if he could guess the contents of an envelope on live television, and couldn't" seems worth mentioning. --McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that one sentence you put there makes a great deal more sense than those two rambling paragraphs. Of course, mentioning it like that, an argument could be made to include the JREF's $1,000,000 offer that's been on the table since 1964 that Uri (or John Edwards or any self-proclaimed 'psychic') hasn't bothered even attempting to claim. I dunno, if you think you can summarize what those two passages were implying in one or two concise statements, feel free to incorporate it in where they were removed.

Frankly, I don't think an encyclopedia should lend credence to such absurd claims that people make that they won't permit to be scientifically verified, even if it is what made them notable.
-K10wnsta (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Φύτρωσε...!

There is no mention in the article of Uri Geller's current show in Greece, Ο Διάδοχος του Uri Geller ("The Successor of Uri Geller"), which has already gained some infamy here; I don't watch it, but I've seen and heard enough about it through the various satirical television programmes. Apparently, in the last episode he asked viewers to bring potatoes before the television set, which would then sprout green shoots (the potatoes, not the TV). Reports have arrived of potatoes doing that very same thing, as well as potatoes out of which have grown roses and other flowers, and a tomato which transformed into a bowl of crisps (no potatoes in that house). Waltham, The Duke of 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Do not confuse with Uri Gil. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Amazing Randi! Magician! Skeptic! versus Psychic Performer Uri "I'm just a mystifier" Geller!

...only on Wikipedia!

I mean, come on. The article is hilarious, to say the very least.

It's, essentially, James Randi vs Uri Geller, in an epic battle of skeptic-meets-believer/practitioner. Name of the game: who can get more positive reviews in mainstream media reflected in the cite-notes. 24.23.73.72 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Who said that Uri is a believer or a practitioner? He's clearly a magician; if he is a psychic of has any paranormal powers (or even claims, at this point) has yet to be established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is, the article is constant petty back-and-forth between - let's say, purported - psychic performer, Uri Geller, and "expert" psychic debunker, James Randi.

It could be better. There are obviously strong opinions raging from both sides of the aisle. We should include them.

Currently, it seems any article of the paranormal nature requires an inclusion from Mr. James Randi. (Specifically, his expert opinion on how a given act of psychic-ese COULD have been performed by a magician.) I don't see why we're giving credence to such an arrogant and boorish man, in the first place, but I digress.

A quick glance of this talk page gives me several quotes from scientists - that is, members of the Scientific Community, which has not yet accepted such paranormal phenomena as fact - who've endorsed Uri Geller's claims. Why have these not been included in the article? If they are, I can't find them. 24.23.73.72 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence that those members of the "Scientific Community" are experts in either psychic phenomena, magicians, or frauds? No? Not expert opinion, then. Randi, at least, is an expert magician. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are some quotes here from ostensibly famous magicians. David Ben and Drew McAdam, among others. They're positively in favor of Uri Geller, and his claims. Surely they warrant inclusion.

On a side note: you're coming off as a bit hostile, even if you don't mean it. 24.23.73.72 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Ben and McAdam could be included, then, if they're recognized not only as famous magicians, but as experts in magic. Randi's recognized status includes both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Boorish and arrogant man" a personal opinion such as this has absolutely no encyclopedic value, Randi is certainly notable enough to have his own page, and much of his noteworthy actions are related to Uri Geller, "A little hostile" is the least one can say about some of the few comments in this section, say, is it you Uri Geller? Trying to get Randi out eh?;) Lastly, Randi is an Expert, not some "expert", nowhere here we are calling Uri Geller a possibly true "psychic", so cut the crap.84.48.123.106 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Randi is not "an expert" or even "some expert" from the stance that he has no scientific training. He is a stage magician who is notable for having an axe to grind and a flair for self promotion through skepticism. "Boorish and arrogant man" may have no encyclopedic value in your opinion, but it does describe "The Amazing Randi" very well (I didn't write the original comment). I feel a lot of the references to James Randi should be removed, or moved to James Randi's entry, as it detracts from the article considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.60.97 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Single child/twin

Born in Tel Aviv, Israel, to Hungarian Jewish parents, Geller was the only child of Itzhaak Geller (Gellér Izsák), a retired army sergeant major, and Manzy Freud (Freud Manci). It is claimed that Geller is a distant relative of Sigmund Freud on his mother's side. He has a twin called Adrian.

Which is it, single child or a twin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.34 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see that this is still in the article over a month after it was brought up. I've removed both, so it now says "Gellar is the son of....". Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a hoax

• After reviewing the references, I have come to the conclusion that although Mr. Geller's practices might be considered hoaxes, the article is not a hoax. This is why I removed the tag. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop this already

I have several times changed a sentence in the lead "For decade, Geller has used simple magic tricks to create effects of psychokinesis and telepathy" to "For decades, Geller has been accused of using simple magic tricks..." but people keep changing it back. Geller has never been conclusively proven to be a fraud. I'm saying this as a skeptic who thinks his supposed paranormal abilities are in fact simple magic tricks. I, however think Wikipedia should be an inpartial, objective source of information and shouldn't be used to present someone's view, no matter how logical and reasonable, as fact when there is no consensus. Only thing that would certainly prove Geller to be a fraud would be him admittting to cheating, which he, to my knowledge, has never done. We can say that Geller has been critisized for being a fraud and that his supposedly paranormal effects have been duplicated by stage magicians using trickery(in my view, many of them actually perform these things better than Mr. Geller himself). (Vehement (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

I'm afraid he has stated that he has used tricks when his powers failed him. Perhaps a more neutral statement would be appropriate, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see that statement by Geller cited. The videos of Geller's stunts now available on the net are very convincing in recording that Geller is a fraud. Kazuba (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. We can however cite sources that say he is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it say: «Uri Geller has tricked several thousands for over three (four?) decades, claiming to have paranormal powers». He has been exposed several times. How is that not objective? - Jetro (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it discards other claims that state differently ("The Geller Papers - Scientific Observations on the Paranormal Powers of Uri Geller" Publisher Charles Panati (1976, Boszon: Houghton Mifflin Company, 317 P., 20 Authors)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.95 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

A big problem with the article is that the first sentence doesn't mean anything, which hardly inspires confidence in the rest of the article. "Uri Geller (born 20 December 1946) is an Israeli paranormalist living in England; he is well known for his trademark television performances of spoon bending and other supposed physical effects." "Physical effect"? On what? Planets? His nerves? This is a reduced version of something that used to be much better - the article had a better intro a few months back which actually explained the difference between his long-running claim to psychic abilities and the sad reality of his magicianliness. I suggest we go back to one of them - I will take a look back and see which was best. At the moment, it's nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It should have the word "fake" in it, at least. Even the most impartial person knows this. Given that he has made millions from lying and treating the general public as fools, the article should reflect this. It doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.237.22 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

Born in Tel Aviv, Israel, to Hungarian Jewish parents

Born in Tel Aviv, Palestine, to Hungarian Jewish parents

Soozyd (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be British Mandate for Palestine, not Palestine. Apart from that, it looks okay. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead should probably also be updated... It currently says he's "Israeli-born"; I don't know what to replace that with. I also changed the residency for consistency with the birth place (but please revert me if I'm wrong about that). --NYKevin @882, i.e. 20:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've undone your residence change, as this should show his current residence, and there is no current place known as the British Mandate for Palestine. I've also taken the easy way out with regard to "Israeli-born", which was to remove it, as it's not true, and not particularly important. Anyone who thinks it's important and can find a true statement to put in its place should feel free :) - Nunh-huh 20:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)