Talk:Elevator levitation

Untitled

In summary... What?

My sentiments also. I think this article should be deleted.

I agree. I also think it's one thing to reveal magic secrets that are hundreds of years old (like cups and balls), but to reveal the secret of a modern magic effect that is still on sale by the original inventor is kind of walking a thin edge. At most, a link should be provided to the inventor's home page. Or just delete it, as you said.

And anyway it's poorly written. The layman has no idea what "clean" means.

DAMN YOU!

Think of the people that make a living from the things you decide to post on your site.

Several anon IPs have been recently deleting this article, claiming copyright violations[[1]] . I've looked into all the claims and think theyre all quite erroneous. Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from another source (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation. Magic trick methods are not copyrightable, and although they can be patented, a patent only prevents an unlicensed party from performing the trick, not describing its methods. For more information, please see Intellectual rights to magic methods. I think any further blanking of this article without a legitimant claim should be considered vandalism. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true - the covert choreography within a magic creation can not be patented, just as little as a musical tune can, unless it contain a new scientific discovery. And there's no point even mentioning the copyright laws because they are irrelevant in this context, as covert choreography is undefined there. By copyright you are neither prohibited nor allowed to take a creators realised expression of art within this particular field. --TStone 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

TStone has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight. Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick)--Muchosucko 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That might be so, but I'm also illustrating that all other's legal arguments are likewise without weight, and that you are attempting to confuse the issues. What in "Out of this World" could have been patented? And where in copyright is a magician's realised expressions of art mentioned at all? That seems like two rather simple questions for someone who so forcefully claim that all magic creations can be patented, and that you are allowed by copyright to take material from creators against their will. For someone who are almost an expert, it seems that you are using almost acrobatic skill to avoid those two simple questions. Could "Out of this World" have been patented? A simple yes or no works just fine --TStone 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

TStone has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight. Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick)--Muchosucko 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Muchosucko, I have no idea on what you are doing, but your appearance doesn't get better, I'm afraid. And it's a bit unpolite to talk about me as if I wasn't here. Or to reply in equal terms: Muchosucko has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight. Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick) --TStone 09:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why giving this clone it's own heading?

I don't get it? I merged this small variation into the original "Balducci levitation" where it should be. Why attempting to do research more difficult by reverting this little clone back to a separate page?

Had covert choreography been defined in the copyright laws, this creation would have been deemed an infringement, as it clearly builds on variations by other creators published in "Pallbearers review" soon after Balducci levitation were published there.

Check the sources yourself! Compare it with others variants if you want, and you'll see the lineage clearly. Let me know your opinions after you've checked. --TStone 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AON: I don't know whether you are a magician, but this is very different from the balducci.

If you still think it noteworthy after checking sources, then at least, add proper crediting so it doesn't contanin false information about its lineage. Also, you might want to check out Crass commercialism... --TStone 04:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the second external link goes to one of the biggest rip-off sites on the net. They stole a creation of a friend of mine in 2003, stipped his name from his creation AND described it wrong to really make sure to mess it up for everyone in all directions. Had to fight with their weird legal department for almost three months before they complied with my demands (which was "Put back Stefan's name on his creation or take it down" ). They went on for ever with irrelevant things about copyright laws, patents etc. And I asked them to quote the passage in their law books where it said that a creator didn't have the right to have his name attached to his work... finally they gave in. Strangely, they choosed to remove the piece rather then put Stefan's name back on it. Then the nuts repeated it again in 2004, when they stole a creation of another friend of mine. It took just two weeks that time, and once again they chose to remove it rather to put back the name. I can not for my life understand why it is so extremely important for everyone to misrepresent the origin of the works they want to steal...

Question: Is it necessary for the wiki to have external links to known rip-off sites? --TStone 07:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you supply a source that verifies the site or company is in dispute? I know you have personal knowledge, but can you find something public that others could look at? If I saw such a thing, that would probably be enough for me to concur that the site was "not credible". Elonka 11:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Offensive behaviour by user TStone

User TStone: Please stop destroying information from Wikipedia. There have been too many "offended magicians" (or impersonators) on these pages already. You can put "unverified" notices if you wish and add parenting. Nobody cares about "history" or "origins" for tricks, really. We want to know the details. The Elevator levitation page has been explicitely voted "keep" by everyone involved. 80.11.211.154 12:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but unfortunally, it is you who are responsible for offensive behaviour. No information has been destroyed, but moved to talk page of Balducci levitation - and from there, it should be possible to move relevant details (properly sourced) out on the Balducci page.

Your statement is nonsens. "We want to know the details"? Well, you are certainly making sure to make it more impossible to "know the details", by falsifying origins and history. And I'm quite sure that none of the people really involved in the origins were a part of this vote. Likewise, I assume that the "keep"-vote was to keep correct information - not false information.

Or do you have a personal stake in claiming that the material from Pallbearer's Review and The Chronicles should be misattributed to someone else? If you insist on having this derivative clone under a false title - then at least add verifications to the page to support that remarkable decision - unless you simply are a vandal who want the wikipedia to be yet another rip-off site, and not a reliable source of information. So, please, if you have knowledge on the matter that contradict established knowledge, you would do everyone a favour by adding that to the page.

Or try to be useful instead. If you've read the talk pages, you are already aware that some of the information here really comes from The Chronicles - so feel free to look up the proper names of the people and add to the page.

There are perhaps 15 small derivative versions in USA. About 8 in Europe. I have no idea about Asia, but it's certainly more than 10. Then there's a whole bunch that has appeared and faded away since the 70's. How do you suppose it will be possible to properly track history when each and one of all those derivative variations has got its own page?

I'll leave this page alone, and let you decide what is best and according to wiki-spirit.--TStone 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be an article on elevator 2 as well...

Method removed

I have removed the method from the article as it is unsourced. This is following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure. If the method can be properly sourced, then it can be re-added. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NB: The material was removed in this diff and contained the following information:

---

/==Method==

The Elevator Levitation uses a length of PVC pipe (alternatively: a block of wood) that the magician stands on with the heel of his foot and lifts himself into the air. The illusion is identical to a variation of the Balducci levitation as published in Pallbearer's Review in the 1970s. Balancing on the pipe and setting it in position requires considerable practice.

The gimmick, which the performer balances on, is initially attached to the performer's belt by a reel. When the performer is ready to perform the illusion, he triggers the gimmick to lower, and then, after he "returns to earth", the gimmick is reeled back up.

Another variation, suggested in The Chronicles in the late 1970s, is called "Elevator 2". In this version, the gimmick is metal, has mirrors on three sides, is spring-loaded, and folds up flat so it can be carried in pockets more easily. The mirrors make it possible for spectators to look under the feet of the magician while he levitates. The rest of the effect is virtually the same.

---

Editors are encouraged to restore the material when they find appropriate sources, or to restore the content if the original removal of the material was in error, and to correct any errors in the method described. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Secrets removed (again!)

As the method was unsourced, I have removed it in accordance with WP:OR and these guidelines. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The proper procedure in cases like this is to leave the questionable content in place (unless in a BLP) and add a "fact" tag to it. This alerts other editors to the need for proper citations and gives them a chance to provide reliable sources. Usually the info is allowed to remain 1 - 3 months after being tagged, to provide time to find the references and include them. Only in a BLP is it considered "urgent" to remove questionable content immediately; otherwise editors need a chance to provide refs. I'll take care of replacing the info and adding the tag; if you have any questions or concerns, I'll keep this page on my Watchlist and we can discuss them here; thanks! Doc Tropics 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I didn't initially realize that the entire article had been tagged for nearly 18 months, however it seems a bit disingenous to remove some parts but not others since there are no valid refs for any of the article. Also, the reasons given for removal didn't seem quite right; there's no indication that this is OR, just that it's unsourced, and Project guidelines never take precedence over general policy. But after looking at the article and this talkpage more, I have a larger concern:

Why does this page exist?

From what I can see this is much too small a sub-topic to justify its own article and possibly exists only as self-promotion for the magician that claims credit for it. I'd like to suggest that the small amount of info this article contains be merged back into Balducci levitation, which is where it seems to have come from. Doc Tropics 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the restoration, Doc. Sorry I haven't been able to comment till now; was a bit busy. The guidelines for removing/keeping secrets were agreed on the project page a long time before I got involved with the project. As I understand it, the stance taken is a compromise between magicians who do not want secrets readily available (I freely admit that I am one of these) and editors who believe that Wikipedia should be as complete as possible. In a nutshell: rather than tagging secrets for citations, remove them. The reasoning is that Wikipedia should not be seen as the primary source, but if it is referencing another source, then it is not Wikipedia that is exposing the secret. This is also in line with WP:OR.

I am happy to go along with that stance; I would rather not have the secrets on there at all (referenced or otherwise), but I will go along with the compromise guidelines. If references are provided, then the method may remain on the article; otherwise it should be removed. I'll leave them on there for now, as I don't want to start an edit war (and besides, healthy discussions can be fun!) and when I get a minute or two, I'll invite others from the Project to come and join in the debate, as you suggested on my talk page.

As for the point about the merger: Yes, I agree it is a good idea. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actaully, incorrect or unsourced material can be deleted immediately. There is no requirement to tag it and leave it there for a month or two. If I think something is wrong and should be removed, if it doesn't have a source, I can delete it. While generally, people will often add a fact tag and ask for a citation, that is not always the case nor is it always desirable---it depends on the subject and the actual content. BLP is an obvious case where information is required to be removed immediately. Original research is one of the core policies on WP and held just as sacrosant as BLP. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Magic methods are likely to be challenged. There are people who deliberately post incorrect methods, there are people who hypothesize without really knowing the correct method, and there are people who decry the correct method as false/incorrect. As these are "secrets" finding reliable sources for some is difficult and most methods do constitute original research. Thus, in order to avoid original research and the various controversies surrounding the issue, the Magic Project came up with their guideline on the subject... which in light of the subject, makes sense to me. (Of course, I helped shaped the compromise.) Basically, the compromise is that if the material doesn't have a reliable source, then it shouldn't be on the article, because it would then be Original Research. The project agreed that if material is removed, then it should be moved to the talk pages where people can try to find a source (as TenofALLtrades did above.) If there is a reliable source, then it can be on the main article. If a person wants to speculate on the "secret" or needs help finding a source, then that can go on the Talk pages. The article talk pages are expliticly intended to have a lower threshold for inclusion and for reliability. Still, the template was created to remind people that they cannot rely upon any unsourced secret. (NOTE: my only involvement in the Magic Project was when I helped mediate this dispute last year.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks to both of you for responding! You both brought up several points and I have only a few minutes right now, so I can't answer everything immediately. Maybe it's best to focus on our initial point of agreement which could lead to some productive changes. There doesn't seem to be much question that this article is so short it might reasonably be merged back into the main. I've never initiated an "official" merger discussion before, so I need to look up details of how to post it, but that seems like a good place to start. In the event of a merge I'm fairly certain that the unsourced material would be removed anyway, so I don't have an issue with reverting myself and restoring the last version by Stephen. Thanks again, and I'll follow up on this fairly soon. Doc Tropics 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On the question of the removal (or otherwise) of secrets in magic-related articles, there are specific guidelines that have been established for some time (see WP:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure). These guidelines are essentially re-statements of passages from Wikipedia's general policies and have been in place for two years, so it seems they are stable and have pretty good consensus.

On the question of the future of this article, I'll comment below.

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Circusandmgaicfan

For Wikipedia, it's more of a sourcing issue. If there's a reliable source that explains an illusion (as, for example, there is for Houdini vanishing an elephant), the info probably should go in the article. On the other hand, for, say, Blaney's ladder levitation, which is in current production and use, there doesn't seem to be a published source. (Although, if you want to understand it, find the video of the illusion on the Johnny Carson show. The mechanism is fairly obvious when you can look at the video as many times as you want. Things were easier to get away with before everyone had slow motion.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is extremely brief, and contains no useful references (I removed 2 that didn't qualify, then spent an hour searching for RS but found none). Under the circumstances, it seems like a good idea to simply merge this into Balducci levitation as a line-item in the "Variations" section of that article. Thanks for your consideration and participation, Doc Tropics 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that merging this is a good idea. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Given the similarities, it is better to have a single article on the Balducci levitation and variations.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
• Agree --John Nagle (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree 202.124.88.73 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.