Talk:David Copperfield's flying illusion

Old comments

Flying methodology removed - too many inaccuracies! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.128.24 (talk • contribs) .

---

Almost word for word rip: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.15.57 (talk • contribs) .

That site seems to be gone, and so is the cache entry. With it gone, there is now really no way to tell if that other site got the article from Wikipedia, or the other way around. --iMeowbot~Meow 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a 4.5 minute video

Please watch the video. Focus on the 2:50 time mark. It is clear that he never passes though the hoops. The hoops are drawn close to him, but his assistants are clearly rotating the hoops around and beneith him so that he never completely passes from one side of a hoop to the other side of that same hoop. In both hoop stunts. It is a clever gesture with the two hoops passing simultaneously, but if you watch with a critical eye, you will recognize that he never passes through the solid hoops. More specifically: the arc of a hoop never passes OVER him. -- 75.26.4.46 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to specify that kind of detail in a reference in the article. Simply removing the tag without doing that is not okay. Can you make up a proper citation, please? (To be clear: the original program that the clip came from needs to be identified, and it needs to be noted that your observations apply to that performance. That covers accuracy concerns in case the technique changes later. --iMeowbot~Meow 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the video linked shows the hoops pass over and around Copperfield. After that, a set of rotating hoops surrounds Copperfield. This explaination is bunk and completely refuted by watching the video. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, guys, but flying is impossible. Copperfield is an ILLUSIONIST, not a witch. His skill is in performing illusions, making something LOOK LIKE it is what it isn't. In reality, he is not flying, he is hanging on wires mounted to a special belt he wears. He is not passing through solid hoops, it's just an illusion that he is. That is his skill.

Yes, we all know that it's an illusion. Copperfield isn't a witch and he's not some genius inventor that's invented an anti-gravity device either. We're just finding a satisfactory explanation of his trick, like solving a puzzle.Fang Teng 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first off, YES the rings are passed over David, if the rings were not, then people immedately would know he's being held up by wires. I know this because I have witnessed this trick performed live. Also anyone that has watched the actuall broadcast of The Magic of David Copperfield XIV: Flying and NOT David Copperfield: 15 Years Of Magic, you will see that before David performs the trick, he invites the gallery to inspect the box and the rings that will be used. They are solid, so the theory that the rings were not solid or the box is not solid are false. Now the clincher comes with the following special The Magic of David Copperfield XV: Fires of Passion where David performs a varation of "Flying" as his entrance. The rings are set on FIRE this time. If this device is the one that makes the trick possible, the wires would have been melted by the sheer heat of the fire from the rings. And YES the rings are passed OVER David again. I will say there is some device holding David up to perform "Flying", but this device CAN NOT be the one or david would have fallen to the floor several times during the trick. Dickclarkfan1 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon is correct. The hoops never pass completely over Copperfield. Perhaps there's some confusion here about what "passing completely over" means (and this confusion is caused intentionally of course), but think about it this way. If I'm dangling by a string and laying horizontal, and someone starts passing a hoop over the top half of my body until the top of it is stopped by the string, the person can continue by pushing the bottom part of the hoop up and over my feet and rotating the top part below me and then pull the hoop off my feet. This movement is designed to avoid a vertical wire holding me up. At 2:40, when the two assistants each come out with a hoop, if you watch the left hoop carefully (don't bother looking at the other hoop), that's exactly what happens. The right hoop is even sillier: it's drawn a bit over his feet and then drawn back out and slid under him while rotating. It's easy to see what's going on when each hoop is watched carefully, but the combination looks much more impressive. The second set of hoops is trickier, but obviously he repositioned himself using a different set of wires. If you consider the movement of the hoops, there is a horizontal set of wires that can be avoided by the hoops. In a way, this is not so different than the standard floating illusion with the hoop done by most stage magicians. --C S (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that at no point does any of the hoops actually pass completely over Copperfield. It's hard to see that, especially in the second case, but that's the point: illusions involve things that trick your senses, making it hard to see what is going on even when you watch carefully.--Srleffler (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction to the above...I mistakenly said a different (horizontal) set of wires was needed, but closer inspection shows that's not the case. But that just adds to your point about "trick your senses" :-) --C S (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for Revision

First sorry for not posting more when I made that change. I pressed my return button too soon. I wanted to keep the magic spoiler, and the US Patent number which is evidence, and remove things like 'Thankfully' that is not NPOV and refferences to the wiki proccess, which are unencyclopedic. --Just nigel 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Removals

Just a note to those considering editing: Please leave the description intact as it provides a clear and useful synopsis of how the trick is accomplished. Additionally, it is clearly marked with the correct spoiler tag so as to maintain Wikipedia standards.
Sincerely, Samuraid 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the recent repeated removals of content? --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Certain individuals do not like the method of magic illusions being published. One justification they attempt to use is that "the trick is patented," and therefore no one is allowed to reveal the method. It is a fallacy; only the apparatus used to make the trick work is patented. Disappearing method sections to magic tricks are almost always about this issue but with varying justifications. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why reveal it?

A few questions to those who have posted the Method - why? Who are you trying to 'inform' by doing this? What does this achieve? If it achieves a legitimate purpose, is this purpose outweighed by a countervailing desire to preserve the integrity of the illusion or commercial viability of magic as part of show-business? Do the editors/contributors enjoy exposing magic to curious people? Are these contributors magicians themselves? Would these editors, if they are working magicians themselves, object to having the inner workings of their own repertoire posted to Wikipedia in the name of 'informing' their potential audience?

As you can probably deduce, I am opposed to the 'Method' section as I find it unnecessary. If you want to tell uninformed people of what 'Flying' is, just state the facts: it's an illusion that was in the Copperfield show. That's it. Maybe link to a video clip of the performance. No need to tell people how it's done; they didn't ask for the method. Thoughts anyone? (I anticipate that my post is made in vain, yet there is some small hope...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the recipe for Coca Cola on the Coca Cola article or anything like that on other articles... besides, I don't see the relevance of this detail in the explantion of a trick. This isn't HowStuffWorks.com NotSigned,Don'tCare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy! I want to know how it is done. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And you want Wikipedia to break THE rule of magic just because? The solution is out on the web, but there's no need for an encyclopedia to be presenting it. Erik Blomqvist (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a magician and have not agreed to this "rule of magic" you are referring to. Wikipedia is an excellent reference (for some uses) and I see no reason to omit information because some people have, in the past, found it profitable to keep information secret. To be clear, I have no problem with people making a living. However, if making one's living is so entirely dependent on keeping secrets then maybe the viability of that profession needs to be reevaluated. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is not part of Wikipedia. Every business or profession has trade secrets. Your argument is specious. FreedominThought (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Trade secrets are not the same as copyright or patents. The only thing preventing a trade secret from getting out would be a prior non-disclosure agreement with the entity that revealed it. After the secret is out, then anyone is free to continue describing it, assuming they use their own words to do so. Of course every profession has secrets, but if a profession is so dependent on them that it cannot survive without them then I question it's viability.

Specious would better describe this as-yet-undefined "rule of magic" that I am supposed to obey. I am not being misleading. What part of what I have said is speculation? All my facts are verifiable. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of noncited method

The method cited on the article is noncited. In line with Wkikprojectmagic: Rapid Action, i removed it. Editors should replace it when they can cite it conclusively.--Iclavdivs (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was cited, from the patent mentioned. Please do not remove cited material from Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Gwernol 13:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The patent it was cited from is not owned by Copperfield, but Gaughan, unless you have a source and you can prove that this is the apparatus used by DC (I.E. he or someone who can speak for him saying so) it is just speculation, and should not be on wikipedia. I am removing the method, again, until it can be conclusively proven to be the correct method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iclavdivs (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Magic guidelines (even if accepted by Wikipedia as a whole) do not mandate the removal; however the question of whether David uses that method or another is open. If a WP:RS speculates that David uses that method, we should quote it. However, meanwhile, there's no reason to delete it, as tagging would be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of method section

2009

I removed the method section for the following reasons.
1. The only source cited for this section is a U.S. patent
2. The U.S. patent is considered a primary source. Wikipedia clearly states that

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." [[2]]

There is no citation for any secondary source (ex newspaper) that cited the patent as part of David Copperfield's Illusion. Nor is there any primary source that connects that patent to David Copperfield in any way. Wikipedia also says:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." [[3]]

3. Without the patent being used as a source, the method section was left completely unsourced. I did not leave a tag requesting proper citation because of the nature of the section itself. The method section claimed to reveal a "trade secret" without any reliable sources. If the alleged secret is to be revealed, there is a higher standard that must be met. It MUST be acurately sourced to a reliable secondary source. Without this citation, this entire section constitutes "original research."

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."[[4]]

The Method section was an unpublished and unsourced opinion of one person that is speculative in nature. This qualifies it as "original research" and should be omitted from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.46.194 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also remove a statement claiming this Illusion was created by John Gaughan. Once the patnet was removed, there was no longer any link between John Gaughan and David Copperfield's Flying Illusion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emely1219 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring some of this material, in slightly altered form. Wikipedia's rules do not forbid referencing primary sources, they forbid interpretation and analysis of such sources. It is perfectly OK to cite what a primary source says.--Srleffler (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By restoring the patent, wouldn't you be interpreting the patent as the method for Copperfield's flying illusion? Like one of the editors said above, there are no other RS that associates the patent with Copperfield, so leaving it on the Wikipedia article would make Wikipedia the source of revelation, no? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I introduced the patent as describing how a trick of this type can be performed. It turned out afterward, though, that it was easy to locate sources that associated Copperfield with Gaughan. I re-added the specific statement that this trick was developed by Gaughan, supported by two web references. There were more sources that I didn't cite, some of which made it clear that Gaughan had patented the trick.--Srleffler (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best if a sentence could be added in the likes of "This patent has been referenced as the method to which Copperfield performed his Flying illusion" and then providing references to RS. This will eliminate any questions of whether Wikipedia is breaking any policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.99.72 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be better. I don't have a reliable source that says that this particular patent covers how Copperfield does this trick. It's clear from the sources that are available, though, that Gaughan developed this particular trick, and it's clear that the patent covers how a flying illusion of this type can be produced. That is sufficient, in the absence of a better source.--Srleffler (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If no reliable source has ever drawn a parallel between the Copperfield performance and the patent, Wikipedia shouldn't either. --McGeddon (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article said that this patent explains how Copperfield does the trick, it would be synthesis. The article doesn't say that, though. It gives an example of how such a trick can be performed, with a reliable source (the patent) to back it up. That is not synthesis.

In the absence of a sourced explanation of how the trick is performed, a sourced explanation of flying illusions of the same type, created by the same person, is certainly relevant. --Srleffler (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a published source that unambiguously says the Copperfield trick is explained by patent #5354238, and removed the now-inappropriate synthesis tag.--Srleffler (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source to keep a watch for:

• Loshin, Jacob (2009 not yet published). "Secrets revealed: how magicians protect intellectual property without law". In Christine A. Corcos (ed.). Law and Magic: A Collection of Essays. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. ISBN 978-1-59460-355-6. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

We can't cite it yet, because the book is not yet published. A working draft available on the Social Science Research Network contains the footnote

...see, e.g., John Gaughan, Levitation Apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 5,354,238, Oct. 11, 1994 (patenting a levitation illusion designed by John Gaughan but famously performed by David Copperfield). Gaughan reportedly filed the patent against Copperfield’s wishes.

--Srleffler (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Now published:

• Loshin, Jacob (2010). "Secrets revealed: Protecting magicians' intellectual property without law". In Christine A. Corcos (ed.). Law and Magic: A Collection of Essays. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-59460-355-6. ...see, e.g., John Gaughan, Levitation Apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 5,354,238, Oct. 11, 1994 (patenting a levitation illusion designed by John Gaughan but famously performed by David Copperfield). Gaughan reportedly filed the patent against Copperfield's wishes.

The book to be printed, above mentioned, receives its information from where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.248.145 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the book has been published. You'll have to consult the book if you want to know what its sources are. --Srleffler (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

2012

I think that not only the above mentioned sources are not enough for associating Gaughan's device with Copperfield's flying illusion, but also that apparently none of them talks about the hoops and the acrylic glass box, so it's pointless to write about wires if we cannot find sources about how he shows not being suspended by them. I'm removing the method section. --Newblackwhite (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Restoring. Under the circumstances, Newblackwhite has to demonstrate either that the book is not reliable (which seems unlikely, coming from a respectable publisher) or that the book doesn't contain the information included. Normally, the burden of proof is on the editor including information, but there is a prima facia case here, and WikiProject Magic's tendency to attempt to remove methods even if sourced means it should remain unless the source is discredited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could be possible to claim that what the book says is not reliable, since it is a speculation an not piece of information from Mr. Copperfield (and I have seen sources speculating about antigravity jacket from NASA, big swimming pool and similar nonsense), but that was not my point. Does the book only talk about the wires, or does it also talk about how the hoops and the acrylic glass box do not come in contact with the wires? I don't know, I haven't read the book, but according to what is written in the article, it seems that the first option is true. Of course, anyone who has read the book can contraddict this and say that the book does talk about it, but so far none did it. And if the book doesn't talk about how Copperfield passes the hoops test and the box test, we must remove this part, but without it the method section would become something like this: "Copperfield does this and that to prove that there are no wires. The secret is that that there are wires, as source X says". Weird, isn't it? If the situation comes at that point, removing any mention of wires would be inevitable. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, your new "Effect" section is completely without source, and should not be there. (The old "effect" section may also not have any sources, but it's more difficult to tell.) I also don't see any benefit to your change to the first sentence of the lead to avoid using the title of the article, but that's a relatively minor point. Finally, do you want to explain the relevance of any of the articles in the "See also" section? I don't see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My "new" effect section, which is actually the old incipit with few more lines, uses the video of the illusion, broadcast on television in 1992, as a source. In the "External links" section, there is even a link to a youtube video (I didn't add it, it was already there). Of course, you can argue that youtube videos may be against wikipedia policies, and I can't help that, since I cannot change those stupid copyright laws that won't allow a 20 years old video to be in public domain. Still, even if the video is removed from the page, I think that the tv special (which many people recorded on a VHS when it was aired) is a valid source, the same way a copyrighted book is used as a reference here. The "source" template should be moved to the method section, since the book doesn't seem to talk about hoops and box, and the connection between John Gaughan's device and Copperfield's illusion is a mere speculation on the author's part.

As for the incipit, I thought that "The Flying Illusion is an illusion performed by David Copperfield in several magic shows, in which he flies on stage for several minutes surrounded by audience members" sounded more like an encyclopedia entry than "David Copperfield performs a flying levitation trick created by John Gaughan, which is notable for its graceful motion and unencumbered appearance", but I agree that's a minor point.

IMHO the "see also" section helps the reader by indicating relating articles about other notable Copperfield's illusion which have an entry on wikipedia.--Newblackwhite (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to all of today's comments, without yet reviewing changes to the article:

Newblackwhite, the book discussed above is only needed to support one point: that the mechanism patented by Gaughan is the basis of the trick performed by Copperfield. The book and the other reference given more than adequately support that point. If you want to talk about whether the book is a reliable source, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, so that you understand what we mean by that term. It has more to do with the quality of the publisher than anything about the book itself.

The patent explains how the mechanism works in great detail. I don't know if it mentions the hoops or the box, but your argument that the discussion of the wires should be removed if the material on the hoops or box is is completely specious. Reading your argument, one has to wonder whether you are arguing in bad faith, with the unacceptable intent to censor this article. I hope that is not the case. Censorship is not tolerated on Wikipedia.

A video is a perfectly good source, and should be cited as such if it is being used as a reference. Analysis of what you see in a video is not permitted (See WP:SYNTHESIS), but anything that can be simply observed in the video can be mentioned in the article. The fact that the hoops never pass completely over Copperfield, but rather stop at the location of the wires is visible in the video, and can be mentioned.

Arthur: I don't understand your objection to "See also" links pointing to other Copperfield tricks. It seems to me that other notable tricks performed by the same magician are sufficiently relevant. --Srleffler (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I disagree with you about the videos; as reasonable persons could differ as to whether the "hoops never pass completely over Copperfield" is relevant or accurate.

As for the "See also", referencing other tricks performed by Mr. Copperfield seems inappropriate. Perhaps those attributed to Mr. Copperfield (whether or not accurately) might be appropriate, but I think a navbox might be even better. It should be pointed out, though, that actor navboxes are frowned upon; I'm not sure about magician navboxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)