Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Statue of Liberty Illusion and Flying Illusion 2 Reverted 3 William Poundstone's "original research" 4 Protected 5 article header: Jewish-American vs. American

[edit] Statue of Liberty Illusion and Flying Illusion

Both these sections need work to bring their style up to the usual standards. Furthermore, the Statue of Liberty section is taken word for word from this "Straight Dope" article:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mliberty.html

I rewrote the Statue of Liberty section and removed the Flying Illusion section, which I couldn't make heads or tails of. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Flying is added again, make sure to mention that John Gaughan is the creator of the piece --TStone 18:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty disappearance has no place here, primarily because no other illusion is mentioned. It seems that the author just wants to stir up something. It is common practice (unless you want to be a jerk) to keep secrets like this to yourself. A better way to do this is to list all of his illusions that's he's ever performed and the historical significance to them (e.g., original design, "classic illusion", etc.). Although I do find it offensive that the author would intentionally try to divulge magicians' secrets, I do support the Wikipedia in it's "free speech" stance. My problem is not so much with what's being put on the page, but the manner in which it is done. Perhaps the Statue of Liberty illusion should go on its own page, not under the DC biography.

It is far and away his most famous illusion in popular memory, I think, so there's some justification for it being there and not others -- but you are right; other tricks should be there too. Good people have disagreed for a long time on whether there is anything offensive or wrong about revealing magician's secrets; Wikipedia is biased toward having information rather than not, so there's no question the information belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, even if it is offensive to some. Moving the illusion to a separate page, clearly linked from the main page, is fine in principal though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The illusion itself certainly needs to be put under his bio (along with the other illusions he's done), but the exposure of it should probably go under the magic exposure category. It just seems out of place here. EETech 04:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

[edit] Reverted

TStone just removed the Statue-of-Liberty explanation with the edit summary "w.Poundstones "original research" should be discussed on Poundstones page. See talk page". I reverted, let's discuss:

Calling it "Original research" is a red herring; we're allowed to report other published research, primary or not. Putting that aside, I'd ask that you move the information to a diffent page before removing it from here, so it doesn't go missing. I also don't think putting the information on the William Poundstone page makes much sense at all: his books decribe a lot of secrets, and the secrets aren't about him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And I noticed that you made sure of deleting Jim Steinmeyers name also. Okey, I'll correct it again - then let's talk a bit. --TStone 16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"original research" wasn't meant to be "red herring", it was just the shortest way I could think of in the edit summary --TStone 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Poundstone's "original research"

I cut the following as discussions about Poundstone's theories about Jim Steinmeyer's creation seem irrelevant on a page about Copperfield. Had the theories been correct, it would have been a theft of Mr. Steinmeyer's intellectual property and should be deleted. Now, I don't know what to do with it, so I place it here instead. Feel free to move it over to William Poundstone's page if deemed interesting:

He suggests that entire stage and seating area for the audience was atop a rotating platform. Once the curtains were closed, blocking the view, the platform was rotated—slowly enough to be imperceptible. When the curtains opened again, the audience was facing out to sea rather than toward the statue. Poundstone further elaborates that, once the stage rotated, the statue itself was mostly concealed behind a brightly-lit curtain tower. To further misdirect attention, there were two rings of lights: one, initially lit, around the statue, and another (dark and invisible at first) in the area the audience would end up facing. When the trick "happened," the statue's lights were doused and the others turned on. The radar blip highlighted in the television presentation was simply an animation.

Some claim that this explanation is unsatisfactory, maintaining that one end of the statue's pedestal base was visible to the live audience at all times. Furthermore, the size of the suggested platform would have to be quite large to support the curtain towers and guidewires as well as be moved in some silent fashion to not arouse suspicion in the live audience.

Just to be clear, I don't care about protecting "secrets" etc. Poundstones theory is still here, and who knows, it might actually work. But if it works, it would be a creation of Poundstone's, emulating the creation of Steinmeyer. But Copperfield performed the latter, not the former - therefore the cutted parts are irrelevant here, and should, if necessary, be moved to a page which deals with Poundstone's creations, innovations and theories. --TStone 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This trick is famous for having been performed by David Copperfield, so any and all discussion of the trick makes sense on this page. If the trick was created by Jim Steinmeyer, and you have a source for that, by all means that information should be included as well. We already have a discalimer that this is guesswork about how the trick might have been done. This business about William Poundstone infringing on Jim Steinmeyer's intellectual property seems quite strange to me. Reverse-engineering something to figure out how it works isn't intellectual property theft, so unless if Poundstone bought the trick and then violated some non-disclosure clause in publishing it, he hasn't infringed on any intellectual property rights. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean to be troublesome. But surely, if I want to read about Copperfield's work, I go to the Copperfield page. If I want to read about Poundstone's theories, I go there. If I want to read about Jim Steinmeyer's creations, I go there. And should it turn out that Copperfield has performed a Steinmeyer-creation, and that a third person has theories about Steinmeyer's work - I would expect to find links from the Copperfield-page to the relevant other pages. I would think it was obvious that it's odd to have one person's thoughts about another person's work, on a third person's page. --TStone 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'm curious about your wording "If the trick was..." Steinmeyer was listed in the end credits of the TV-show, it has never been doubted that it's Steinmeyers in any publication or media that I'm aware of, and it is considered a rock solid fact within the field... If you have some sources that claim that Steinmeyer isn't the creator of the piece, I would be most intrested in hearing them.--TStone 16:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, it's nothing like that. It just wasn't sourced in the article, is all, and I didn't research it myself. "If I want to read about Poundstone's theories, I go there. If I want to read about Jim Steinmeyer's creations, I go there." Most people haven't heard of Poundstone or Steinmeyer; if they want to learn about what they consider a David Copperfield trick, they will probably start here.

How about this: we create a Disappearing Statue of Liberty (magic trick) article, or similar, and move the description and information into there? Seems like the best answer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all, as long as Steinmeyer is clearly indicated as the creator, that the piece is unpublished and that the theories belong to Pondstone. I'm sorry if I'm sounding obnoxious, but the number of creators within this field are so very few, and the number of people who actively strives to separate the creators name from their creations are enormous.

I mean, reverse-engineering is not a problem. Take a popular tune from the radio, and reverse-engineer how the fingers have to be placed on the guitar to duplicate the work you've heard. No problem at all, on any level... Now try publishing what you've figured out, printed as a score, as a CD-recording, or as a video.. and avoid to mention the composer. And you will probably soon notice that it is quite a difference between reverse-engineering something, and to publish it as your own or in other way misrepresenting the creator of the work. This is the same thing. Strangely that topic seldom comes up, but it is the same thing --TStone 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But let's use the title given by it's originator. On Jim Steinmeyers page, he gives it the title Vanishing the Statue of Liberty. Should it turn out that fans and other tend to use other phrases, they should be redirected to the proper title --TStone 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks properly done, thanks! (Though it feels odd in my bones to see so much of Pondstones thoughts connected to Steinmeyers piece. Oh well...) --TStone 18:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected the page (in the Wrong Version, of course) to encourage people to discuss the American vs Jewish-American issue here and work out some sort of consensus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article header: Jewish-American vs. American

this is the way i see it. African Americans or Latin Americans with articles on Wikipedia are not described as African American this or Latin American that. they are described as American for that is their nationality. the assertion by Abscissa that the "Jewish-American" term belongs there because "most Americans are Christian" is POV.

also as was described to me by Mel Ettis during an edit war on Michael Jackson being described as an "African American pop singer", the "Wikipedia standard nationality" is based on the country one was born in. NOT ethnic background. NOT religion. Copperfield was NOT born in Israel. he was born in New Jersey.

furthermore we should not make an exception for Jewish people because it's a "sensitive topic" (as Bunchofgrapes put it). as an African American myself i was once incensed that articles on blacks were not allowed to show them as "African American..." however my point of view was overruled by Mel Ettis and numerous other editors.

so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. no religion or ethnicity should go in the header. that's what the stubs at the bottom of the page are for. this applies to all articles on people, including American-born Jews. Drmagic 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is not POV that most Americans are Christian, but that isn't really relevant.

Your argument isn't quite clear and I'm not sure that you even make one, but I will try to extract something cogent here:

Other articles (like Michael Jackson) on Wikipedia do not mention race or ethnicity, therefore the David Copperfield article should not.

I think that it is important that Michael Jackson is identified as an African American. Notwithstanding, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Mel Etitis has expressed a point of view ...

This is a classic Appeal to authority, logically invalid and is not worth addressing.

The fact that Copperfield is Jewish is not relevant to what he does.

From what he said when his dad died, I'm not sure Copperfield himself would agree with this. But assuming it is true, it represents only a tiny fraction of the information in the article that is irrelevant to Copperfield's life and career, for example, being robbed.

If it is so extremely important to you that Copperfield not be identified as a Jew (somewhat ironic, since you feel it is important to identify yourself as African American) then I will concede the edit war by default. But why, then, even identify him as an American? I am not going to get into a rut about whether we should deny the Jewish background of famous American celebrities. - Abscissa 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two questions, really: should Copperfield be identified as Jewish, and where should it be done? Just because it is not in the lead sentence doen't mean the article denies his Jewish background. In fact, currently, the first sentence of the Biography section ("Copperfield was born in Metuchen, New Jersey, to Jewish immigrants from Russia") already does identify him as Jewish by birth, though leaving it up in the air whether he is an adherent to the religious aspects of Judaism. (Is he? Perhaps we could add something to the Biography section about that if there's a good source?) As for the utility of identifying him as "American", it is important for biographical article to describe where in the world someone is well-known, and in many cases listing a country of origin is a useful shorthand for that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll unprotect the article now; I'd encourage the addition of sourced content on his background or beliefs rather than squabbling over "American" vs "Jewish-American", please. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a really inappropriate edit war given recent events. Of course I am sure it was not motivated by Israel's actions, but considering their behaviour I am not going to get involved in a debate about whether someone should be identified as Jewish. There is also very little that is worth escalting into a massive fight, if only other people would realise the same... :-( - Abscissa 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue that has plagued and puzzled me ever since I began using Wikipedia. What is this obession with race and ethnicity? Wikipedia feels the need in almost every opening sentence of a person's article, to mention their ethnicity and religion. Why??? For example, Andy Garcia is described as a "Cuban-American actor." I would think that in an opening sentence you mention that he is an American actor, date of birth, etc. Why is there a perceived need to mention Cuba, with which he may be hardly connected at all? It can be mentioned in the body of the article, but why is it featured so prominently? If I lived in France, or Russia, or Thailand, or Israel, and I wanted to learn about Andy Garcia, I think it would be more accurate to decribe him as an "American actor". It is different if a person's ethnicity or national heritage plays an important role in his life or career, but WIKI does this almost all the time, and I was surprised that Bill Clinton was not identified as a "Baptist President of the United States." With David Coperfield, I do not understand the decision to mention his being Jewish in the first sentence. It can be mentioned in the article. David Copperfield is not particularly known for being Jewish; it is not a significant aspect of who he is, as far as I know. An encyclopedia may want to mention a person's religious, ethinic or national background; that is understandable. But WIKI has a positive obsession with these facts. I do not believe that they usually warrant the significance given to them here. For all I know these edits are made by partisans or fans of these people in the individual articles. Perhaps Jewish readers want to mention that Richard Feynman, Leonard Bernstein and Barbra Streisand are Jews. Perhaps Italian editiors want to claim Enrico Fermi and Mario Cuomo, and perhaps Hungarians want to lay a claim on George Pataki. I could understand mentioning someone's religion or race in a prominent position if it were relevant to the person's noteworthiness. John F. Kennedy, for example, was the first Catholic President of the US, and faced a large obstacle in his election campaign because of precisely this. He was also the first Irish-American elected President. So, mentioning his ethinicity and/or religion in the opening sentences is appropriate. Or Edward Burns, as being Irish-American as important to his career and films. Or Woody Allen. But in WIKI this is an almost universal practice, and I believe that it renders the articles less professional and authoritative. It is really high-schoolish in quality. Speech over. 66.108.105.21 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth