Talk:Table of death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic hat Table of death 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.

[edit] Re: methods

Because the publication of magic methods is controversial it is especially important that any attempt to do so should adhere strictly to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The addition to this article of a section describing a method did not cite its sources and was therefore not in accordance with WP:Attribution. Normally I would add an "unreferenced" tag and leave the text for a while to see if someone could add a source, however because this is a controversial issue that could easily lead to a war that will wreck the article totally I think policy should be applied strictly.

I have therefore applied the section of WP:Attribution that says: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Circusandmagicfan 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


The following has been moved here temporarily in line with WP:Attribution: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

"Because the performer is not seen by the audience and only his shadow is seen the audience cannot tell that he is really on a shelf behind the rack of spikes when they fall instead of under them. He then rolls on top of the backboard of the rack of spikes before the covering is dropped and to the audience it looks as the spikes have pass safely though him.[citation needed]"

If you can provide a full citation for a source that gives information here and which fits Wikipedia's criteria for reliability and independence then you might have a case for including this sort of thing. (For background information I am currently engaged in an argument with a load of magicians on another forum who are proposing a campaign of vandalism against Wikipedia - I want articles here to be on truly solid ground and I do not want to provide the vandals with ammunition for their campaign - I really want to get this right and do not want an article that I put time into to get obliterated).Circusandmagicfan 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

PS. Please also take a look at the latest entry on methods/exposure on the Project page

  • What is it with you magicians thinking you can hide these methods. Fact is Fact and wikipedia is about knowledge not protecting secrets that benefit a few. You know very well that I am exactly right as to how this works. Can you prove that I am wrong? If you can remove it. Tag it as unsourced , suggest it be deleted but quit erasing something that YOU know is absolutely true. Your are abusing the lack of proof claim. If articles were really edited to the letter most of them wouldn't exist. Do you want me to edit out every unsourced word in articles you wrote?? I don't think so. DannyDunn
  • Would you be happy if I posted the video or images from the FOX special detailing how the effect is done? Would that be enough proof? DannyDunn
  • First, I am not a magician - so don't leap to assumptions...What is it with you "exposure obsessives" thinking it's absolutely vital to have a method in an article about a magic trick?... ;)
  • Second, I believe that magicians do not have a right to control information apart from within the letter of the law on copyright and confidentiality. Too many people forget that IP law is effectively a set of exceptions to the greater principle that monopolies are undesireable because they are against the interests of society in general.
  • Third, I am not sure whether you are right about the method. It is similar to my recollection of the Fox special but not identical. But remember that Wikipedia policy is very much about being accurate and citing sources and is against speculation and personal theories. WP:Attribution makes clear that the onus is on those who want to retain content to give it firm sourcing.
  • Fourth, no I would be very unhappy if you went and edited everything out of my articles that does not yet have a source. However that content is not contentious - this is. It is the fact that we're dealing with contentious material that makes it especially important to ensure we are on absolutely solid ground. Therefore I would prefer to keep methods out of the article until there is a consensus on how to deal with it.
  • My preferred solution here would be to describe the method by describing the content of the Fox show. That is at least something that was in the public domain. I do, however, think there needs to be a proper citation for that (and note that things such as a link to YouTube footage would probably fall foul of Wikipedia copyright policy). I will leave your wording in for the time being and couch it in terms of a description of the show. I will also leave it tagged to give time for some proper attribution - but I will ensure that I revisit this and delete if inclusion is not clearly supported in a safe way. In particular, I suggest you should try to find the wording of the judgement in LA Superior Court BC190153, Robert J. Gurtler aka Andre Kole v. Nash Entertainment, Bruce Nash, Fox Broadcasting Co.. If that judgement clearly supports the publication of methods it might provide a legal basis to defend other Wikipedia content as well and, conversely, if it was a very limited or specific ruling it might contain something that effectively prohibits publication in circumstances other than those considered in the case.
Circusandmagicfan 08:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
  • Concur with Circusandmagicfan. It's not about whether or not a method can be published, it's about citing sources. If information is added to an article without a source, and it's challenged, it can be removed immediately. It doesn't matter if it's about magic, stock market techniques, or nuclear fission -- Wikipedia is only for summarizing information that has been already been published elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Attribution. --Elonka 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layman's Question=

This has nothing to do with the 'reveal' controversy, but: is this essentially the same trick Penn & Teller used as the 'kickoff' stunt for their "Refrigerator Tour"?