Talk:Derren Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Magic hat Derren Brown is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Talk page archives

Contents

[edit] Future Productions?

Removed the following - there are no references and it all seems a bit suspect to me, can anyone reference this, or is it (as I suspect) a lot of nonsense:

In the near future, TV viewers should be able to see Derren in the West Wycombe Caves (once home of the notorious Hellfire Club) hosting another spectacular. At the moment the production is being held back by several elements. Several considered dangerous elements in fact such as Radium and Uranium. The production team are seeking permission to use these elements, and if this goes ahead will only use these materials under government supervision. Programme details are obviously under wraps, but the working title is "Schrödinger's Cats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.208.88 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trick or Treat

Am i just imagining it, or do the trick/treat cards spell trick/treat depending on which way up theyre held? It looks to me like if held one way then it reads trick, but if turned 180 degrees it displays treat. Also the camera doesnt show the backs of the cards when the 'victim' chooses, just after when Derren turns the card.... Ian42 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah! i've just noticed this too. the 'r' of trick is clearly the upside-down 'a' of treat. very shifty! Krist69 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In one episode he does reveal that they are the same card by flipping them in the same orientation.


The are called "ambigrams". I thought Derren was quite open about showing them off - and he mentions several time that it is "an irrelevant choice" 213.86.122.5 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Mandeep Sehmi? Please cite. 86.17.247.135 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism section

This should be deleted entirely as it stands. Although I'm sure there's many valid criticisms made of Brown, these aint them. The Simon Singh criticism is not referenced, and therefore needs to go immediately, especially given Wikipedia's policy on biographical articles. Even if a reference is included, it seems rather irrelevent - or at least a very mild critique - to say that most of a magician's tricks are "merely" magic. Well duh... I think the problem here is that people criticise him within different contexts. He disclaims any psychic powers, but doesn't explain how he fakes them (which is annoying). He says he uses psychology and suggestion as well as more traditional magic techniques, which annoys magicians, partly because it sometimes provides more than one possible explanation for his tricks. And lastly, he makes the usual magician stance of claiming that no actors are involved, which is fairly impossible to prove and, of course, has no legal (or moral?) standing. On the latter point though, surely almost all other magicians are more vulnerable to this point, as Brown regularly uses both willing celebrities and unknowing psychics/faith healers etc. who have little or negative reasons for complicity in an obvious illusion. (That paragraph is largely POV I know, but I do think it important to separate out these different criticisms.)

But primarily, surely the ethical questions should be listed - the BBC story included in the article could be quoted for a start, as well as the other ethical questions that have surely been raised about the more disturbing of his sequences. Also, the "Other mentalists" section is also entirely inappropriate, for all the reasons given in the talk archive. If someone cares enough about other "mentalists", then at the very least add them to the mentalist page, even if they don't get a page of their own... Sheesh.

Anyway, I'll wait a few days for any comments, but without any good arguments I'll delete the section(s), so others can reintroduce something far better.

Loxlie 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconded. Perfectly reasonable. 86.17.247.135 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree that Simon Singh's criticism needs a reference, and indeed it is not a cutting attack. But I would suggest the point should stay, if only as a "Reactions to Brown include..." paragraph. You see as a once-upon-a-time magician, I sometimes find Brown frustrating to watch, but not for the reason you cite ("because [there is] more than one possible explanation for his tricks"). It's frustrating because you know *exactly* how it's done, and the vast majority of it is old-school magic tricks and pre-hypnotised subjects dressed up as "Jedi-like" psychological influence skills. He is a tremendous, tremendous performer, and the effects are staggering to the uninitiated and impressively slick to those in the know, but "psychological influence" doesn't form the meat of his tricks and is usually a red herring. This is a widely known fact in the magic community and is not speculation. Everything in "Something Wicked..." was being done by magicians at the turn of the last century, only Brown's show had embedded commands and subliminal messages laid over the top of it to suggest it was all being done by sly and cunning influence techniques. This was not the case, and I for one was a little disappointed. I think this reaction, not unique to myself, should be included.

I agree with using the BBC ethics complaints as more pertinent criticisms. I have never thought Brown has ever used actors, and disagree with the phrasing of the sentence "many are still sceptical" (this at least needs a citation). Overall I would suggest editing, rather than a total delete of the section. Jkao 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

' I think a large portion of the criticism section needs removal/rewriting. The reference to Brown's comments in his book make it appear like his tricks arnt 'real' (real being an actual illusion, persuasion, suggestion, hypnosis etc) but are done with actors / camera trickery, but this is something derren has ALWAYS strenuously denied.


I have deleted the section on "other mentalists". I dont see how that can warrant a place. You dont have a section on "other football clubs" on the Manchester United page.

Simon Singh's criticism; I read the source (a newspaper article) and it's a rather scattergun attack, looks like he had a thesis (or a brief) and then proceeded to try to make everything conform, which it appears not to, as he in fact admits. His abiding criticism appears to be that Derren Brown's shows are filed under science; however, when he points out that C4 now put the shows in the entertainment category, he's still not happy :/ The only residual point unaffected by contradiction seems to be that Derren Brown is an entertainer who doesn't give away all his secrets. Which strikes me as rather lame. I would point out that if (as Singh contends) Derren Brown is not a mentalist but a plain old magician, yet has somehow managed to persuade his audience that he is a mentalist/psychological illusionist... is that magic? Or psychology? I'd ask Simon Singh, but he seems to be in the pay of one point of view. I'd note that he is at a loss to explain some of the tricks (the "I can tell what childhood memory you're thinking of" variety except to insinuate that they must be set up. For which he lays claim to no proof. I like Singh btw, but he is a bit of a hack... Hakluyt bean 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I read what you say here, and then I went and read Singh's criticsm expecting that I knew what he'd said but that he hadn't made it clear enough. It turns out I think I did know what he'd said, and he'd made it perfectly clear. While it's true that Brown states what devices are used in the show, he does it at the same time as offering scientific explanations. It suggests that there are two separate aspects: a psychic bit which we're told is fake, and a science bit which we naturally assume isn't covered by the fakery caveat. Brown has pretended to step through the fourth wall to tell us what's really going on, but actually he's still lying. It's a similar problem to the presentation of science in MacGyver. --ToobMug 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


I have seen a lecture given by Simon Singh about some maths and non-maths type stuff. He brought up his criticism of Derren Brown, the main issue with Derren was that people may be being mislead about how much of his work, if any, is down to psychological techniques and that people will therefore believe in false psychology. He gave stories of how he has talked to psychology professors who's students have asked to study Derren Brown style techniques for dissertations, only to be told that they are not really conducted using psychology. Basically his main criticism was that it was implied or stated that psychological techniques were used when infact tricks were purely conjouring, and this could lead the viewers to have a misbelief in the possibilities of psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk • contribs)

Please get a wikipedia username and sign your comments. Nodekeeper 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to add that Derren Brown explicitly teaches methods that he considers to be NLP in his book "Pure Effect", I don't have a page # or a link, but it's in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.10.10 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NLP

I think it should be added that Derren completely disagrees that NLP has any use at all, in fact he states in his latest book that he thinks the claims made for its uses are complete lies and that its a con. What does anyone else think?


[edit] NLP thoughts

I have Derren's book, Tricks Of The Mind and although he understates the publicised version of NLP; he does use the term a lot to reference his techniques and advises uses NLP systems, but only at their most basic level. For example, Brown dismisses eye reading as being an exact science (NLP suggests you can tell when a person is thinking of audio, emotional, vision etc by specific eye direction changes) but does admit that eye movement, regardless of direction, can be useful for detecting lies.

In Other words he thinks that the baseline principles of NLP are generally correct and useful but you cannot rely on isolated and perceived body language and use it as conclusive proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Estebanrey (talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Although he says eye accessing cues have been tested and no evidence found in favour of the claims involving them, Derren still says that he may believe they can be used and the tests were potentially not able to be conducted to the most ideal conditions.

[edit] "Download" link

Heading: Something Wicked This Way Comes, link to 4oD / http://library.digiguide.com/lib/episode/570354 . As far as I can tell it's a (non-free) programme guide, not a download link, so I reworded it, but who are they and although the site looks nice is it a good wiki link? I mean I just now snagged this show off usenet, but I'm sure I can't tell you about that. Hakluyt bean 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- Isnt this link and the Virgin media on demand link a bit out of place for a wikipedia article? seems like advertising to me. Feudonym 05:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Trick or Treat (TV series) into Derren Brown

I proposed this merger. The ToT article is not very detailed and the content on Derren Brown is easily more informative. I think Trick or Treat (TV series) should just be redirected to this page. Thoughts? Coolmark18 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it, myself. The ToT article is horrible, of course, but it's a different topic, and it is - I think - deserving of an entry of its own. The fact that it's so crappy right now means it should be fixed/expanded/rewritten, not merged. -- Schneelocke 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
All Derren Brown's programmes are based on this page. It isn't really on a differnt topic because it is a Derren Brown programme and there is little difference between this and other programmes. Coolmark18 10:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Then all the other ones deserve to be split off into their own articles as well. :) -- Schneelocke 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think if their had been enough content for seperate articles, it would have been spilt off already. Coolmark18 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I performed the merger and the info has been placed on Derren Brown. There was no need for a different page, like the other shows he has done - there are no seperate articles for those. Olz06

Looking at the separate article we are losing nothing with the merge. However, no-one should be dissuaded from creating a proper article about the series: perhaps develop it in user space first? The JPStalk to me 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've split the articles again as the section about it in Derren Brown was becoming quite large and more about the programme than his biography. The Trick or Treat (TV series) article discussed above was much smaller than the one now. The JPStalk to me 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trick or Treat???

@TheJPS, Are you sure the Wigmore Hall thing was a Treat? Getting an accomplished pianist to forget the fact before a concert was more a Trick I would say. Certainly the Trick or Treat-ness of the stunt was never revealed to the audience, as far as I am aware. Ralphbk 09:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was articulated as a treat towards the end of the show when he was explaining that she would remember the excitement of that performance. The wording was something along the lines of "...and that is your treat." The JPStalk to me 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. On reviewing I see the actual card choice was shown - from DB's POV - at the end of the show. Ralphbk 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
For a moment, though, when she fluffed the notes at the beginning of the performance, I thought that it was going to be a very cruel trick. (I thought he'd given her false confidence so she'd be booed off.) The JPStalk to me 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article "The third episode showed a slight change from the previous format, as actor David Tennant became the first celebrity to choose a trick or treat. All other participants have been members of the public." I don't think this constitutes a "format" change, but in any respect, I think that a concert pianist could be considered a celebrity of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.215.79 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Evangelism

Firstly: 'God' as a proper noun references single, specific entities. To say that the participants "declared a belief in God" is to say that they all declared belief in the same deity. Furthermore, the reference is deictic. It can be interpreted as a reference to the Christian god because of the details of our culture, or as a reference to the speaker's god of choice. Does Wikipedia have a god of choice? Secondly: We don't see a recording of the entire event. The participants make reference to attributes typically found with the Christian god, and the section is called 'Christian Evangelism'. It is reasonable to think that, at some point, it was made clear to the participants which god Derren was working for. Ilkali 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is reasonable to think that..." Doesn't that mean, by your own statement, that you've based the whole idea they are converted to Christianity on an assumption? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts, not what we "think" may be true. For all you or I know, Brown could have told them he was working for anyone. The statements the participants make aren't specific to a Christian God at all, they could have applied to any of dozens of religions. The term "'Christian Evangelism" doesn't have anything to with the price of eggs, it isn't actually used as a title anywhere in the show. Someone on Wikipedia just made it up as placeholder for the title of the article section. To be honest with you, I'm not really convinced you've seen the show or heard the commentary for it. I've noticed your edits and you've gone around to quite a few articles and inserted the phrase "the Christian god" (sic) into them for no particularly logical reason, so I'm assuming this is some kind of personal crusade for you to get people to start using that term. That's fine, everyone needs a hobby, but I think you can see how it would be annoying to people editing the articles who are specialists in those fields to find their work deleted or reedited by you because of some personal fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.73 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
""It is reasonable to think that..." Doesn't that mean, by your own statement, that you've based the whole idea they are converted to Christianity on an assumption?" It's an interpretation. Unfortunately it's pretty impossible to post on any topic without making them, so the issue should be how reasonable the interpretations are. "The term "Christian Evangelism" [...] isn't actually used as a title anywhere in the show". Ah, then this is an issue to be dealt with. A new title should be chosen, and an alternate wording should be used when describing the participants' declarations of conversion. "you've gone around to quite a few articles and inserted the phrase "the Christian god" (sic) into them for no particularly logical reason": I've already explained the reason - see my above comment. I'm not seeking out violations, I'm just correcting them when I find them. Ilkali 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon watching the programme again, I acknowledge that not all the participants were atheists. But I've changed "the vast majority of whom" to "almost all of whom" to more accurately reflect the wording used in the programme. Hopefully this isn't too controversial.
The really contentious line is "each participant declared a belief in God, or at least stated that its existence was possible - something many had previously refused to do".
1) If it's declared at the beginning that almost all are atheists, there is no need to say they had refused to declare belief in a god. And, in fact, this refusal is not depicted at any point in the programme. I removed the corresponding text.
2) As I explained above, 'God' does not have any concrete meaning. But by nature of the syntax, it must reference a single entity. What is that entity, if not the Christian god? Is the objection to this phrase oriented around its accuracy, or something else? If you wish to object to specifying Christianity (despite the unnamed god being attributed traditional Christian properties and the pastor himself being Christian), you should object equally to the title of the section: "Christian Evangelism".
3) It is not true that "each participant" did anything. Not all were shown being questioned at the end of the session. Most of them answered affirmatively to the question "Do you believe in God?" (or a variant), and one expressed a belief that there is "something", with the implication that this something is supernatural and intelligent.
Ilkali 02:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly remove the term Christian from the title, though it seems to refer to the pastor. As you well know, the problem is the term "Christian god", your use of which people have already complained about in multiple articles. Brown never asks them if they believe in a "Christian god" and while you may guess that is what he meant, it isn't shown. Honestly, I would very much doubt he would use that phrase, as it seems almost nonexistent in common day to day speaking. However, that's irrelevant; He does ask them about their beliefs in God, therefore the article says God. You've already been warned repeatedly by editors and administrators in Talk:Rock Band (video game) to quit inserting original research & speculation into articles. You had the same strange argument there; that even though the video game company used the term "phoneme" in their articles, press releases, and public statements you were convinced that they actually meant "phone", and that you knew better than them and would "correct" it repeatedly in the Wikipedia article. I don't know how to put it more clearly than they put it there: the term used was "God", not "Christian god", and stating otherwise is putting words into Brown's mouth and is speculation, which is by definition in Wikipedia original research and isn't allowed. Don't you think that your repeated reverts by multiple contributors here and in other articles on exactly the same point is a sign that you just can't assume or create words for other people, no mater how reasonable you personally think the assumption is? 72.82.56.153 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"He does ask them about their beliefs in God, therefore the article says God". And when the article uses the word 'God', what entity is it referencing? What is the meaning of 'God' in that context?
If you want to pick up the Rock Band argument (which, you may recall, lead to a mutually satisfactory change in the article), answer the query I posed there: If X entails Y, and an article verifies X, does it not verify Y? Otherwise it's irrelevant. Focus on my edits, not on your perception of my character.
Ilkali 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The "mutually satisfactory change in the article" (Talk:Rock Band (video game)) was that the quote was changed back to the correct term, "phoneme", and that you were told by an endless litany of users and an administrator to quit changing the article because it violated rules on original research & speculation. Your "A + B must = C" arguments were already painstakingly (and amazingly patiently) explained as mistaken by multiple people in that talk section, and they repeatedly quoted and explained to you the sections of the Wiki policies that cover this. If you want to revist the same arguments, then I suggest you reread the many, many responses written back to you in that and other articles. You are well aware of the policy in place and the policy has been pointed out and explained to you repeatedly by multiple contributors. If you have a problem with the logic behind the policy of verifiability then you need to go elsewhere on Wikipedia to try to change it, though I don't think you are going to get far, as it is one of the bedrocks of the whole Wiki. Don't come to another article and do exactly the same thing you were told repeatedly to stop doing in other articles and rehash the same arguments as to why you were right. 72.82.56.153 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If it doesn't pertain to this article, I'm not interested in your skewed analysis of the Rock Band disagreement. Spare me your rants. Again: "He does ask them about their beliefs in God, therefore the article says God". And when the article uses the word 'God', what entity is it referencing? What is the meaning of 'God' in that context?
Ilkali 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how many editors and administrators in how many articles have to revert you before you think that you may be wrong? Is it 50, or 100, or a thousand? Or is it never? If its never, then I think you would be happier spending your time posting in a blog or in a user forum, because Wikipedia is just not going to change its policy on original research and verifiability...you can't make up words and put them into other people or companies mouths, even if its sounds "right" or "logical" to you. Look over the history of your edits...over time they've just been repeatedly reverted by editors who realized you had just made them up. You can continually post anything you want to to Wikipedia, but again, over time, the five million Wikipedians who check the articles will do what they have been doing; finding your mistakes and correcting them. Even if you spend 24/7 protecting your pet theories it is no match against that many users. Your edits may stand for a few hours, or days, or even months before someone notices, but eventually they all seem to get wiped away. Looking over the talk forums I see dozens of users who have tried to point out Wikipedia's policies to you and why you can't use original research, and I don't see one person who has ever supported you on your pet theory that you can make assumptions and post them as facts. Is it logical to assume that everyone in the Wikipedia world is crazy except for you, or is it more logical to guess that you may be wrong? 72.82.56.153 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Great, another rant. All but two of my edits have been uncontroversial, and unreverted. One of the two was the Rock Band issue, which you don't understand because you've no grounding in phonology. The other is this one, which you refuse to discuss. If you're going to pour all your energy into defaming me rather than proving yourself right about the article, there's no point to continuing the discussion. Ilkali 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Really, only two of your edits have been controversial and have been reverted? You do know that your entire User contribution history and editor's responses to you are available for anyone to view, right? BTW, on a more humorous note, I see that while you were posting the above, someone reverted you on Derren Brown (again). That last edit lasted 12 minutes. Isn't Wikipedia awesome? Or maybe its a conspiracy. 72.82.56.153 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we discussing this now? Let's start with meanings. The meaning of 'the Christian god' is plain. What, in this particular context, is the meaning of 'God'?
Ilkali 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Belief in God = belief in a divine being. Also, God is capitalised. Majorly (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If a Catholic priest asks me if I "believe in God", and I say "yes", but I'm a Muslim or Sikh or Hindu, have I answered his question honestly? Is your meaning the only meaning it can take?
If so, it is, in terms of descriptive meaning, semantically identical to 'belief in a god'. Do you have any objection to this phrasing?
As for capitalisation: In English, common nouns don't capitalise. There is no compelling reason to make an exception for the word god. It capitalises when it's used as a proper noun, it doesn't when it's not.
Ilkali 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
When you refer to the Christian God, His name is capitalised (or so I've always seen). If a priest were to ask you such a question, it would be very honest of you to answer "yes" if you believed in a god of any religion, as he never specified. Majorly (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"When you refer to the Christian God, His name is capitalised (or so I've always seen)". When I use an expression like 'the Christian god', I'm not using his name. I'm using a common noun - one that denotes all gods - and restricting it with the modifier 'Christian'. The reason you've seen it capitalised that way so many times is that a lot of Christians feel obligated to glorify their god by flouting orthographic standards. Wikipedia has no such obligation.
You didn't answer my question. I'll restructure it: You seem to feel that 'God' makes an indefinite reference over the set of all possible gods, making 'belief in God' equivalent (in isolation) to 'belief in a god'. Is that accurate?
Ilkali 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is. Majorly (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My belief (which I feel I can strongly support, if necessary) is that the word 'God' has at least two other meanings: 1) It references the dominant god of the culture (for us Westerners, that's the Christian one), and 2) It references the speaker's god of choice. Using it as it's used in the article produces ambiguity. All we need to do is this: Decide what meaning the article should convey, and decide on an unambiguous wording to convey it. I think it's blatantly obvious (for reasons given above) that Derren is converting them to Christianity, but that's not a core part of the performance, so I don't object to it being left unspecified in the article. What matters is that atheists became theists. That's the meaning we want to convey, right? Ilkali 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since April 2007, Ilkali has changed the article to read "the Christian god" or some variation of that phrase 18 times (admittedly, this was a quick count; I may have missed a few times or over counted). The article is now locked under Full Protection because of all the reverts. I think this has gone on long enough and I'd like an official vote and consensus reached. Please vote now on whether we are going to use the current wording ('God") or change it to IIlkali's preference, "the Christian god", so that we can get back to editing. Please state your preference for "God" or "the Christian god" below. Quenn 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"God"- Quenn 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. "Most people already agree with me, so let's pretend to have a discussion but then stamp it out with a vote before he has a chance to argue his case". Three hours, 23 minutes. Is that the standard time for a discussion of this type? Ilkali 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at the date of your first post in this section; you've been arguing your point for this edit since April and have made ten separate comments here alone about it; way more than "Three hours, 23 minutes". You've had five months to convince people. I'll take your comment as one vote for "the Christian god". Quenn 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why bother protecting the page and opening the matter for discussion? You presumably never intended for it to go on long enough to resolve anything. What was the point? Ilkali 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with protecting the page. Ilkali, even if you lose this vote, you can continue to argue here for your edit. According to Wikipedia's guidelines consensus can change, and if it does so in the future your edit may become the one used. I think we can vote on the edit to use for now, get the page reopened, and anyone who wants to can continue to discuss the issue here, not in the article by constantly reverting. Quenn 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Since you were assuming authority, I guessed that you actually had some.
All you're establishing with this vote is an excuse not to talk about it, which turns this into a majority-rules situation. The majority isn't always right - especially not about difficult subjects like semantics. People don't become experts on language just by speaking it, just as people aren't qualified to vote on the plausibility of evolution just because they're organic creatures. Accepting either side's position just because of their numbers rather than because they've made reasonable arguments is astoundingly idiotic.
Ilkali 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not assuming any authority, I'm just trying to get the article reopened. As I pointed out above, I'm not trying to cut off future discussion on the subject. Also, I don' think trying to reach a consensus by vote is "astoundingly idiotic". Quenn 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was closed by an admin so that discussion could take place. You're attempting to override that. That seems to me like assuming authority.
"I don' think trying to reach a consensus by vote is "astoundingly idiotic"". Read what I said again. Make sure to examine every word separately and think extra hard about what they mean. Thanks. Ilkali 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you. What it means to me is that you are not going to ever accommodate your position on this subject or halt your constant reverting of the article, so we need to take a vote, establish a consensus, and move on to getting some real work done. Quenn 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Basically, "this guy's never going to agree with me, so there's no point to discussing it with him"? Nobody's asking you to be here. Nobody's stopping you from doing your "real work". Ilkali 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You are. You've stopped everyone from being able to edit the article by initiating a five month, slow motion edit/revert war against virtually every other user here that resulted in the article being locked down. Almost every major contributor to the article has reverted your edit; as far as I can see not one person has supported it. I think it is time to move on. I've been reverted or edited many times in this article; my response wasn't a personal jihad against every other user. In many cases I felt the edits were improvements, or I felt the consensus was against me so I moved on to my next contribution. Can you move on? Quenn 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"as far as I can see not one person has supported [your edit]". For two reasons. But you don't really care, do you?
It wasn't my preference that the article be locked. The ideal would've been if both sides - rather than just one - had been willing to discuss the issue, and if it had been resolved on the talk page without the warring or the locking. You and yours are more responsible for the locking than I am, because you made it necessary by refusing to talk the matter out. Even now, you refuse to discuss it. Ilkali 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote for "God". It's what was used in the show. Any other version reveals a non-NPOV bias. - Ralphbk 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
'God' is a deictic. Its meaning depends on the circumstances in which it was used. Derren using it in the show is not the same as Wikipedia using it in an article. The only way your argument would hold water is if we put it in quotes in the article. Ilkali 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ilkali, nobody cares if 'God' is a deictic or a bunch of bananas. This article is a simple documentation of a piece of entertainment. True, the entertainment has something more to say about the nature of God (or god, Christian or otherwise) and belief than the average TV trash, but this meaning can be quite easily understood by the viewer, without requiring any help from you and your agenda. Please respect the opinion of the majority here, leave the article alone, and go and try and find a more appropriate outlet for your monomania. - Ralphbk 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"Ilkali, nobody cares if 'God' is a deictic or a bunch of bananas". You made a claim that the word should be used as it is in the show. I explained why that claim is false. You don't care? Then you shouldn't be here.
"but this meaning can be quite easily understood by the viewer". Okay. What is the meaning? Ilkali 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is not the place for you to force your pedantic interpretation of the meaning of this show down people's throats. It is not necessary, it is not required, it is not wanted. Quite possibly your interpretation is the same as mine. Quite possibly your phrasing is exactly correct for what Derren Brown was doing. However, it is not the phrasing that was used in the show. That deals with the adjective. As for the capitalisation, the consensus here appears to be that the proper name for a monotheist deity was being used. Please try and live with that. - Ralphbk 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"The article is not the place for you to force your pedantic interpretation of the meaning of this show down people's throats". I'm not talking about the meaning of the show, I'm talking about the meaning of the words used to describe the show. Additionally, I was asking for what you think they mean.
The article's purpose is to make verifiable and informative statements about the subject matter. That demands that the descriptive meaning of its claims corresponds to reality as the sources describe it. There is no requirement for the article to use the same words as the show, and if doing so conflicts with the aforementioned goal, it should not be done.
"As for the capitalisation, the consensus here appears to be that the proper name for a monotheist deity was being used". This isn't subjective - it's not the kind of thing decided by consensus. The word either functions as a proper noun or doesn't, and there are simple, clear-cut diagnoses for finding out which. You don't know or understand those diagnoses because (presumably) you've no training in English grammar. If you had any integrity as an editor, you'd acknowledge that and disqualify yourself from the sub-issue. Ilkali 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(Argh, I know I shouldn't feed the troll but ...) And how are you proposing to make 'your' statements verifiable? Do you have a affidavit from Derren Brown which agrees with your interpretation? - Ralphbk 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained why I think it's obvious that Derren was converting to Christianity, but I've also already said that I don't think it's a crucial factor. As I said to Majorly, the meaning that needs to be conveyed is simply that some atheists became theists. 'Christian god' is preferable to 'God', but I'm not claiming it's the optimal wording. Also, what happened to assuming good faith? Ilkali 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, you could take that article heart yourself - especially the bit about how you should "look for ways to reach consensus". - Ralphbk 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. What should I be doing, other than dropping the issue or taking your side? Ilkali 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Take some time to reflect on what is really important in your life, and spend some time working on that instead. I know that's what I am going to do. :-) Ralphbk 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ilkali, read this article: http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/capitalization.htm Chehmann 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chehmann, have you read it? The article repeats what I said: That proper nouns capitalise and common nouns don't. Ilkali 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's blatantly obvious (for reasons given above) that Derren is converting them to Christianity, but that's not a core part of the performance, so I don't object to it being left unspecified in the article. Really? Becoming a Christian and developing or discovering theism are quite different. By your own admission, the show was attempting to get them to believe in what you call the "Christian god", therefore, the article should say "God". End of story. I also dislike "Christian god" since Christianity and Judaism share the same God in the Old Testament/Tanakh.Chehmann 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Becoming a Christian and developing or discovering theism are quite different". I agree. What's your point?
"By your own admission, the show was attempting to get them to believe in what you call the "Christian god", therefore, the article should say "God"". I don't see your reasoning. Is your claim that 'the Christian god' and 'God' have the same meaning? If so, you're in disagreement with Majorly.
"I also dislike "Christian god" since Christianity and Judaism share the same God in the Old Testament/Tanakh". To be precise, they share the same dogma. Since other material is asserted to be true about the Christian god, and not about the Judaic god, the cumulative dogmas are different and the two gods are distinguished. They are and were separate entities. Have you read the article you linked me to yet? Ilkali 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are so incessently annoying Ilkali that one feels compelled to argue. "Christian God" is correct, God is not being used as a common noun. Why is HE not, because Christianity is monotheistic. When describing various people called John, would you say the "short john" and "fat john"? No, you say "short John" and "long John". Just because there is a common noun for the class of being 'God', it does not mean we have to use 'god'. To say "Christian god", is effectively saying "short human" or "fat human". For the point of clarity 'Christian' is used to define what "God" as there are more than one monotheistic religions. Heck if you look at the wikipedia entry for God, it says that it should be capitalised.Worosei 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the common/proper noun distinction and you don't understand the orthographic conventions surrounding it. It doesn't seem like it's going to matter, though, so I'm not going to spend time on this. Ilkali 10:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I also vote for "God", not "the Christian god". I watched the show in question, and although the context and setup would imply that he was trying to convert them to Christianity, it struck me as odd and telling that he never mentioned the words "Jesus" or "Christ". Nor do I recall him mentioning to the subjects any attributes of God that would identify him with Christianity. The less clearly he tried to describe what the subjects were meant to believe in, the less likely they were to disagree with him... by saying "God" and not "the Christian god", Brown allows his subjects (and his viewers) the freedom to define the term according to their own conscience, which facilitates his illusion of "conversion". 72.8.87.207 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For your info, I've named and shamed this edit war as one of wikipedia's lamest. TrulyBlue 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other skills (photographic memory...)

In his shows Derren Brown also claims to possess skills like a photographic memory or being able to keep track of a four-deck blackjack game. Does anyone have any information about that? Are this tricks to? Maybe staged for tv? As he says there are people who can realy do that (autism is named here) - shouldn't it go into the article if he really can do such things? --jonas, 6 May 2007

Card counting is a skill to be sure (although simply counting 10s is fairly trivial and enough to give you a slight edge and you don't need to be Rain Man to do it) but to magicians of the calibre of Derren Brown it's as mundane as the skill of riding a bicycle. Remember, Derren Brown started, and still has a wide repetoire, for close up card magic; and given that the show on which he did so well at Blackjack was at a "Casino Night" event and not at a real casino, there's always the chance that he was being a bit slippery and actually doing some card manipulation. Jooler 09:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one very much doubt that Derren Brown counted four decks of cards the way he said he did. That wouldn't be in easy in any sense of the word. I think he just used a hi-low count, or actually manipulated the cards (most likely, as he started out with close-up card magic). I am also sceptical of the photographic memory. I think it's just a clever way to present a book test (which is the cups and balls of mentalism). So, no, I don't think he can acctually do any of that stuff. PutBoy 11:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the 'Trick of the Mind' website, Derren says that he uses pictorial mnemonics to memorise a deck of cards (of a house's items representing the cards)Worosei 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All the memory performances he does are based on magic tricks, as expressed in one of his early interviews (i can't remember the link).....he has said on many occasions that some of his acts are mere trickery as 'working out what's real and what's not is the fun of it'. Simon Acreman 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for the name of a song used in Inside Your Mind

Hey, does anyone know the name of the song that is playing at the start of the bit where Derren reads the minds of 3 pretty girls at a club? It's right after the bit where he walked in the dark through the maze, around minute 31:15 of the DVD. It goes something like "doo da doo..... girl" "doo da doo... girl (higher pitch)

Cheers

This page is for discussing the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. AndrewJDTALK -- 11:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A helpful response might have been to point he questioner at WP:Reference Desk rather than berating someone for being curious. Jooler 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Version

It seems awfully peculiar that in the US Version of the show, which is supposed to take place in, I believe, Manhattan, almost all of the people that he works with appear to be British... Hmmm... No actors huh?SyBerWoLff 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The US version was advertised, if I recall correctly, as a mixture of new and old content (mostly from Trick of the Mind, which takes place mainly in Great Britain). While I haven't seen the American version, the old content is probably where you're seeing the British participants. Jhskulk 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly what it is. Some of the scenes are older ones set in Britain, others are newer and indeed shot in New York. While this doesn't in any way dispell the notion that actors may be involved, it doesn't prove that they are.Monkey Bounce 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bucha effect and the Waking Dead

How likely does it seem that the Bucha effect could have been used in the Waking Dead like I hinted in my edit?

Heck, I'll quote his blog post, just in case:

August 7, 2007
Bucha effect goes overground
Filed under: Announce — Mickster @ 6:45 am

Well, it was only a matter of time.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3450394&page=1

The ‘psychophysical effects’ referred to in this article are related to those which I’ve been exploring for a number of years in my artworks.

These devices have been on the backburner for years (see this wikipedia article for starters), and are already rumoured to be used in riot control.

Looking forward to a brighter future.

Comments are closed.

--Lakefall 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of birth

I removed 27 February as his date of birth, as I could not find any reference for that date. If anyone can find a reliable source (and not just a Wikipedia mirror) please add it. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found one on his official site bio. Majorly (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't think to check his official site before you made changes? Stop meddling. It's because of people like you that this article has become so butchered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.33.81 (talk) 22:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, take a chill pill! Please assume good faith especially as Majorly not only admitted to the mistake, but also fixed it. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reprotection

This article was unprotected, on request, but it is clear that disputes are about to begin once more, following the readdition of the problematic content. I have reprotected this page, with no set expiry time. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no readdition of problematic content. Ilkali 04:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I went to the talk page wondering what the dispute was about - maybe the seances, maybe the Russian roulette, and found that it's a candidate for WP:LAME with only one warrior. Secretlondon 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but it is still a dispute, so do you agree that protection is still the best course of action? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless the edit warrior stops readding it, I don't know what to suggest. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Since only one user is causing problems here, shouldn't we be looking at using Template:User_article_ban? - Ralphbk 09:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ralphbk, I couldn't agree with you more. That should have been done months ago before the article had to be locked down repeatedly. I don't think that some of the original visiting admins realized that it was just one person causing the problem. Since there is now a long list of people voting for the same edit on the talk page and still only one opposed, it is a lot more obvious to even causal editors what happened, and hopefully this problem can be quickly resolved by using your suggestion if it crops up again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

He publicly came out in September 2007 in an interview with The Independent newspaper: "I believe you should always come out; life is so much easier... It took me being in a relationship with a guy for a month before I told anyone I was thus inclined. If anything, I was disappointed to learn it wasn't much of a surprise. Possibly my penchant for interior decor had given the game away". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbod (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I can find no record of this "story" at the Independent website. Cite your references, or I call bollocks. Ralphbk 07:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's true. He came out a couple of weeks ago in an article in that paper and it has been widely discussed online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.28 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not true just because you (anonymously) say it is. Quote a reference to The Independent article in question. Ralphbk 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, what makes it true is, as Davidbod has already cited, that it appeared in The Independent (Sun Sep 30, 2007), has been picked up and confirmed by numerous media outlets since then, and is a wide topic of discussion on the web. Since you can't be seem to be bothered to even google something before you call someone's contribution "bollocks", here's an actual photo of the original article. I'm afraid I can't get Derren Brown to come to your house and formally announce he's gay, which I'm guessing is what you are waiting for: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/SpasmTheCat/article.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.158.66 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Davidbod failed to cite any particular Independent article, as do you. I've been back to The Independent's website and can't find any mention of "Derren Brown" since the BAFTAs on 21 May 2007. Your jpg might be any other photoshop fake. Personally I don't give a damn if Brown is gay or not, but I choose to care that this Wikipedia section contains properly cited facts rather than worthless hearsay and gossip. Ralphbk 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't call other people's contributions worthless hearsay and gossip and imply that an article has been faked because you can't be bothered to verify it to your satisfaction. Also, this is a talk page, not the article itself, so the discussion doesn't even have to have that level of verification. You can keep doubting the truth if you want to, but since thousands of people, including myself, read the article and its been widely disseminated, I think you are going to end up looking silly at best. I have no idea why you can't find the article, maybe you have a different Internet than everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If there actually is an article, post a link to it here. You are the one claiming that there is such an article, so the onus is on you to prove it. So far we have been offered a link to a dodgy jpeg from a site which is unrelated to The Independent newspaper. This is worthless. Provide the real link. Put up, or shut up. - Ralphbk 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we just both said we read the article and posted that facts about it on the talk page of the Derren Brown article. We are under no obligation to prove anything, even though I did politely post you a copy of the article I read. So far your response was to call this "bollocks", "worthless hearsay and gossip" and "dodgy", among other things. Since you've implied we're liars, its your problem to prove it. You thinking we're lying is your problem, not mine. You prove it. Its very easy, Go to the library (gasp, I know, not the Internet) and look up the article by day and date. Heck, just write The Independent if you're too lazy to get up. If we're wrong you can continue to call us liars, etc. If we're right, I think an apology is in order, as accusing people of making up stories is a serious accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You assume I'm in the UK. You assume wrong. Davidbod made an unsubstantiated claim, I said it was unsubstantiated, and it remains unsubstantiated. That's as far as we've got so far. - Ralphbk 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown did come out. The reason that nobody found it 'online' is that it was in a small artical which was in a glossy magasine which came free with the independent. The glossy magasines are not included in the search function of the independents website. Here is a hyperlink - http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:UKNB:IISC&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=11C05F663AB6DE58&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=10483A8B96F4BD6C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.9.170 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a referenced source at last. Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it? :-) Oddly, the paragraphs in that article seemed to have no connection with each other. Is it possible they are all quotations from Tricks of the Mind? - Ralphbk 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's to do with the way the original article was formatted (I think it was formatted as bullets or similar)- it was a picture of him and then - I guess you could call them musings - on various topics. When you see it reproduced in the form that it's reproduced there it doesn't capture the spirit of the original. They're not quotations from Tricks of the Mind.
Is this actually going in the article then? Ohgodiva (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

-- I have a photo of him with his boyfriend. I was eating a meal with a friend and noticed Derren with a young guy (and good looking might I add) so I snapped them at the counter paying for their meal and his boyfriend didn't look happy with me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.92.62 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked his younger brother, personal assistant, and a worker on his show have all been misidentified on the Internet as his "boyfriend"...I wouldn't start calling the tabloids for a big pay day anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.18 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] That's the latest I've heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.223.2 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The System

The statement: "In apparent contradiction to his claim that no system existed, Derren correctly selected the winning horse in the last race, meaning Khadishia kept her stake and received winnings totalling £13,000."... suggests that there was a random element to the ending. Given the system that he was teaching, it seems pretty clear that the producers placed a £4,000 bet on all five horses and counted on Derren Brown's slight-of-hand to make sure that when it came time to show the ticket, it would be the winner.

I think the comment should be deleted. Peace. Kidigus (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have edited to reflect this, but I didn't refer to any of the various possible methods by which he could have achieved the effect - it would be speculation on my part. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That would make sense - however - no reference, no edit on the page. Of course, there will probably not be a reference, I would hope the producers aren't that stupid. Also, I'll rewatch it, but he seemed geniunly worried during the race. This actually makes no sense, unless he could fake that. I'll also check to see if there's a chance that he did swap the ticket. However, I suspect editing will make that improbable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon909 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no real reference for any of The System's section since it's not described in any secondary sources - even the Telegraph reference is a preview that fails to reveal the basic workings of the show. My edit made reference to the ticket apparently changing, it's now been edited to say "Brown had correctly selected the winning horse", which is too strong a claim, IMO. I saw the show only once, and can't remember whether Khadishia checked the ticket before the race, or whether it was shown to camera. In any case, I'm sure that the time between the end of the race and "looking again" at the ticket would be enough to make a substitution. However, one can't rule out the use of suggestion, disappearing ink, telekinesis (OK, maybe that) or some other trick, so references to him having predicted the outcome are not justified. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the reference for the section is the programme itself, in which Brown does explain "the basic workings of the show"! However, I agree it is very difficult to talk of the ending with absolute neutrality. Nevertheless, I wonder if some "speculation" about Khadishia's win is justified? I mean: in the first half of the programme, Brown appears to predict winning horses; then he reveals that his "system" relies (in its operation) on betting on every horse in every race; then we understand (in Khadishia's psychology) that it is a belief system. Now, Brown reveals how he seemed to select winners; consequently, is it really speculation to refer to the same "system" when he manages produces a winner once more? If this is a step too far, then we're in the tricky position where we must accept the show's final twist is a insoluble mystery, rather than a soluble puzzle. Frustrating! 82.33.200.97 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Forgot to sign in before adding this this. New signature is: OliverStadon (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the current edit is spot on. Nice and neutral. Peace. Kidigus (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stooges

Derren says he doesnt not use stooges, and is always honest about his dishonesty. But in one of the shows he clearly does (Seems that way to me). It is on the show which he does in an old theatre selecting members by throwing around a stuffed monkey. One trick he does is hammering a nail into his nose. However, then member of the audience he picks is not selected at random, like all the others. Why is this?86.41.121.203 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The scene can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3QT6EP6Tw. It seems to me that using the stuffed toy selection technique would have interrupted the flow - some thought has certainly been given to the presentation of this part of the act. Compared to some of his other performance pieces, this seems to me one of the least likely to require a stooge. Derren's stance on stooges is described in his book Trick of the Mind, and this is cited in the article. A point he makes, which the article doesn't currently cite is that he "can't imagine what it would cost to silence such people after the event". 78.25.220.49 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)