Talk:Criss Angel challenges Uri Geller and Jim Callahan over paranormal claims
News?
editThe real "news" in this story, unstated in this uncorrectable "archive article", is that The TV performer Criss Angel failed to pay Uri Geller the 1 million dollars he claimed to be willing to pay when Uri Geller correctly stated each and every mark on Criss Angel's hidden paper. If you watch the event on any of the available documents of that scene, such as on YouTube, if you pay close attention you will notice that every detail of Criss Angel's hidden message were stated by Geller in the few seconds before Angel cut him off. Geller said "9", then "1" and then "1". Angel immediately cut him off and the performed his claim that Geller failed the test. This is interesting "news" to some. Stvjns ☺☻ 09:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the news in this? Am I missing it? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this is a little who cares. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know what precisely constitutes news (I mean almost all tv celebrity junk doesn't interest me but I think many people consider it to be news). Given that some major news outlets considered this to be news, I think I'd be ok with calling this news. If these sorts of issues do keep coming up we may need to make some sort of guideline about what is news. JoshuaZ 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be waiting for the wikiquote collection of quotations from pop-culture fans who think the evil cabal of wikinews are crazy deletionists bent on killing popular culture. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just do not see where the news is here...prove me wrong. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, how are defining "News"- if for example we define it as something like new information on current events, then this is news (but then so is every detail of the show). News strikes me as very hard to define. If we used the definition of something like "new information that people care about" than almost anything anyone writes is news by definition. Maybe "New information about current events that people want to read"? This last is more restrictive and is somewhat vague but may work better. In any event, this article is more news than the recent Doritos promotional we had for example. JoshuaZ 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just fail to see anything here that is worth the time and day...I see nothing here that would make further news...I see nothing that can come of this and I see nothing other than a promotion...If I had noticed the DOritos article I probably would have said the same thing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I see how a lot of things aren't worth the time of day, but if for example someone wrote an article on whatever Britney/Madonna/Aguilera/tart-de-jour got involved in, I wouldn't begrudge them the writing of it. And again, this has been covered by other news sources (included in the article for example) and by a number of prominent magicians have commented on this such as w:James Randi- see the current top item at Randi's website. This may be borderline but it looks ok. JoshuaZ 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just fail to see anything here that is worth the time and day...I see nothing here that would make further news...I see nothing that can come of this and I see nothing other than a promotion...If I had noticed the DOritos article I probably would have said the same thing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, how are defining "News"- if for example we define it as something like new information on current events, then this is news (but then so is every detail of the show). News strikes me as very hard to define. If we used the definition of something like "new information that people care about" than almost anything anyone writes is news by definition. Maybe "New information about current events that people want to read"? This last is more restrictive and is somewhat vague but may work better. In any event, this article is more news than the recent Doritos promotional we had for example. JoshuaZ 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just do not see where the news is here...prove me wrong. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be waiting for the wikiquote collection of quotations from pop-culture fans who think the evil cabal of wikinews are crazy deletionists bent on killing popular culture. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know what precisely constitutes news (I mean almost all tv celebrity junk doesn't interest me but I think many people consider it to be news). Given that some major news outlets considered this to be news, I think I'd be ok with calling this news. If these sorts of issues do keep coming up we may need to make some sort of guideline about what is news. JoshuaZ 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a note, our 4th all time most read article is Portia de Rossi talks about Ellen DeGeneres, sexuality. (According to that new list of most read articles on Wikinews, forget what the link is.) Things that aren't critical "sell". -- Zanimum 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is news, which is why news article are referenced. I think you can ask "why does this matter" to just about every news article and find someone who doesn't think it matters. C56C 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wikinews doesn't have a notability guidelin! This article is interesting to me, because its much more news worthy to have an international celebrity called out than a fat baby (IMO).
Regardless, this article has been abandoned. No edits to content have been made since November 4.--SVTCobra 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Nevermind. My apologies. --SVTCobra 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am not keen on this story, personally, it is hard to argue with it, given some of the Meat Loaf and Lordi stories. It is news which in this case happens to be about entertainment and popular TV and such. I kinda wish we could have had it sooner or not at all. --SVTCobra 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If that is a quote by James Randi, why does he talk about himself in third person, and in a detached manner?