Talk:Sawing a woman in half

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic hat Sawing a woman in half 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.

Contents

[edit] Methods and exposure (was "How it works")

well how does it work?

  • Is it really appropriate to discuss how the illusion works on this site? Though the secret revealed here is not particularly astonishing, it doesn't really set a good precedent for any other illusions discusssed in Wikipedia. --Mattsnyder 07:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Good question. There's been a month-long discussion here you might be interested in, it seems to be the most popular place for these discussions:Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick). This article is also interesting: Magic_(illusion)#Secrecy. Also, there's a box on the bottom of many magic pages: Sawing_a_woman_in_half#See_also. Browse through those pages and look in the discussion link at the top of the page; you might find some more debates. And... after the secret is revealed, no magic trick is astonishing -- hence the spoiler warning. Welcome to Wiki.--Muchosucko 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I know many secrets of magic, and the tricks are still JUST AS ASTONISHING. Much of the trick is in presentation. So that might be a reason to keep the secret on Wikipedia.

  • Should we talk about the circular saw version of the illusion ?
  • What the heck? Expose old tricks, invent new tricks, learn new tricks, everybody improves.
  • I AM MAGIC.


I don't think detailed exposure of methods is necessary here - there's a lot that can be written about the history of this illusion and its variations without actual exposure. Also, while I don't like the idea of giving in to intimidation, it might spare us the repeated vandalism from magicians if we lose the exposure section. However, if the consensus is that we should still have some information about methods for the sake of completeness then I won't fight that. Perhaps the methods should be shifted to a separate entry on "secrets behind tricks"?
In any case, the current text and diagrams on methods are misleading. The main forms of this illusion use different methods.
Circusandmagicfan 16:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Following edits since my comment above, the "How It Works" section now seems legitimate within Wikipedia policies and within guidelines established for the Magic WikiProject. In short, those policies and guidelines say it is OK to have material on methods if it is appropriately supported by refrences to proper published sources. The material on Goldin's methods is sourced from publicly available patent files (and properly referenced) - in that respect it is hardly a case of "exposure" anyway as it is only re-publishing material that Goldin put into the public domain. It is also presented here in conjunction with mention of the history of disputes over exposure and on the significant role of sawing illusions in case law on such matters. The text doesn't go into the methods for versions other than the Goldin ones featured in the patent.
Circusandmagicfan 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
As a professional magician, I can say that the policies about exposure make me, and others who are qualified to contribute quality information about our field, very reluctant to participate. There are some extraordinary innovations to the sawing illusion -- unmentioned in the article -- that would greatly improve the quality of the article. Some of these innovations are unknown even to many professional magicians who are not well-read. I do not wish to contribute this information, however, because the methods have been published (in volumes distributed for magicians and serious students of magic) and I do not want some Wikipedia user to find that material and make it public because of this policy. In sum, the magic Wikiproject is shooting itself in the foot by discouraging the participation of those who have the most to offer.--NMarsh 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Following various comments I've re-titled this section in the hope that the new title gives a better indication of the content. Firstly, the new title reflects the fact that the text discusses the special place of sawing illusions in the history of exposure. Secondly, the previous title, "How it works" (specifically the word "it") suggested a single illusion, whereas the new title recognises that there are a number of different illusions.Circusandmagicfan 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Time for some new {{spoiler}} Template:Spoiler templates. :P ~ vladsinger
I thought magic spoiler warnings had bitten the dust as part of a general move against spoiler warnings across Wikipedia. But I don't have time to keep in touch with all the debates and talk pages so maybe I've missed something.17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

NMarsh: How can one describe a trick without citing a source (per policy), and how can one cite a source without exposing the method? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Damian: Thanks for following up. Citing a source is not, in my view, exposure. Allow me to give an example (one which is in line with the changes that I think are warranted to this article): many magicians vanish a coin, let us say that John X has a method of vanishing a coin while it is inside a spectator's hand. I don't need any technical information about John X's method to know that it is an improvement. The source I cite, if it is in the literature of serious magicians, may give John X's method. It also may not (there are many articles and books in our literature which include information about magic without providing technical information, magic journals frequently include descriptions of performances by notable magicians -- without revealing the secrets that belong to the performer (we do, indeed, keep secrets from each other)).
A propos of the sawing article: In the 1930's there was an ingenious illusion designer who created a version of the sawing that was decades before its time. Far more deceptive than anything seen before or -- in my view -- since. It was the kind of thing that, like the fictitious vanish in the spectator's hand, you can immediately recognize as a huge step forward without having any technical information. Only a very sketchy and difficult-to-decipher description was available until a fuller account appeared in a new edition of the designer's book annotated by a contemporary illusion designer. The new edition, which sold for $65 when it was available, is now out-of-print. If someone goes to the trouble of tracking down the out-of-print book to satisfy their own curiosity, well, I don't know that I would object (though I don't, of course, speak for all magicians). They may find the method there, they may not. In either case, they have put forward real effort to learn; and this is what, generally speaking, matters to the magic community. There is, however, a huge difference between that and someone plastering the method on a widely read internet site.
Thanks again for commenting. I hope that some kind of policy can be reached that would encourage those who know this subject best to want to contribute to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NMarsh (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is a better article than many others I have seen on Wikipedia...and I have no personal issue with this exposure (in part because the Goldin methods are no longer being performed and knowledge of the Goldin versions actually makes subsequent versions more deceptive).
Thanks for recognising the positive side of this - it was my hope that the approach I've tried to promote in this article could be an example of how Wikipedia articles can deal with methods in a balanced way. I tried to initiate a debate about policy on publishing of methods at the time when I was producing a new project page for the Magic Wikiproject back in March and April. Sadly I didn't get as much response as I'd hoped for but I do think it helped to achieve a position which has a degree of credibility. I don't know if you've seen the archive of the talk from that period but if you want to know how the current policy came about then it might help to take a look. You should find it at...
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic/Archive_1#Methods.2FExposure_-_New_proposals
...Before the current policy there was a profusion of editing in which people were adding methods to articles without citing any sources. Not only was that a source of irritation to those who don't want methods published but it was also introducing a lot of rubbish into Wiki because some of the methods people were putting in were their own speculation or were just plain wrong. The impression I get from periodically checking my watchlist is that there is now much less of that - which I hope is viewed as a good thing by people from different sides of the debate.
As for any ongoing debate about policy or ethics regarding publishing of methods, perhaps that is best taken to the Talk page for the Magic Wikiproject rather than being conducted on the talk page for a specific article. It is certainly something that has wider applicability than just this article on sawing.
Circusandmagicfan 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Criss Angel performance

There's a video of Criss Angel's "pulling a woman in half" trick at metacafe and commentary at Museum of Hoaxes (which in turn cites Snopes). I tried to add a citation to the article itself, but I don't understand Wikipedia's instructions for citations. I'll try to figure it out, but here's the information in case I can't. Bradd 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added the references to the article. I hope I did it correctly!

[edit] Citations

Added some of the missing citations. More are still needed. Sundaybrunch 07:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that people are adding citations. I think this article will eventually need a substantial re-jig but the work being done at the moment is an important foundation on which we can build. What I mean by re-jig is that it needs to better reflect that there are many "sawing" illusions but at the moment it starts off with a focus on box-based ones (even though it mentions other versions). Also, it needs to follow a clearer structure - I would suggest that it follow, to some extent, a chronological structure: ie. start with the origins and Selbit - move on to Goldin - then describe other verions as they appeared. I am prepared to put quite a bit of work into this but I first need to finish some stuff I'm doing on new stucture and guidelines for the Magic WikiProject. (I've already added a bit about the history of sawing in an article I wrote on Horace Goldin).
Circusandmagicfan 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Sounds good. I'll try to help as I can. Sundaybrunch 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The future

As I said I would, I've done a bit of work re-jigging the article. Hopefully the article structure is now a bit clearer - especially in terms of explaining that we are dealing with a group of illusions that differ significantly and not one single illusion.

Although I'd normally begin an illusion article with a description of the effect I think in this case that it's best to begin with the history section, because the context it provides is useful to understanding the rest (the "history" section is based on the old "origins" section).

I think the history is the part that needs most work - ideally it should continue on from Goldin and show when the other versions of the trick were created (and by whom). When I have time I might incorporate some of the stuff from the Goldin article about his various legal battles over sawing. I don't think the history text needs to contain detailed descriptions of the effect as that seems best covered by the separate section - the history text only needs to point out any significant features or developments. I've created an "effects and variations" section and added descriptions of different versions. I think there are now at least basic descriptions of all the main versions - but obviously if anyone else knows of other versions then they are welcome to add.

Some of the text from "famous performances" has been moved into the "effects and variations" section because that is really what it was about. I think famous performances should concentrate on specific incidents or shows. So the detailed description of the Selbit sawing belongs in the "effects and variations" section but it would be good to have something about his first performance and its impact in the "famous performances" section. Perhaps Richiardi's performances of the buzzsaw should be covered under "famous performances" too.

What do you people think?

Circusandmagicfan 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Good work, thanks. What I'd like to see is an actual picture of the effect. Czolgolz 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)