Talk:Harry Houdini/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Huh?

>BRIAN]] • 2006-01-15 23:21

Also, "For example, Houdini's name plus Bessies' name and subtracting Houdini's favourite number is equal to eleven, (7+5-2=11)" doesn't count as logical. Ezradf 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Whitehead a Boxer?

Was Whitehead on the boxing team at McGill? If not the "boxer" reference should be removed. Cafe Nervosa 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is is considered relevant to this article to mention that Sidney Hollis Radner, the person holding the official seance each year, is a "Jewish Homosexual" ? This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.122.135 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

2001

in the section listing the references throughout the years, for the year 2001 there are several references taking place not in the year 2001, such as the naming of buster keaton, and the founding of a museum. someone should fix it. 76.22.61.43 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Help us out! the_undertow talk 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry?

I remember clearly reading somewhere that Houdini picked the name "Harry" in honor of Harry Kellar, who was a famous magician before him. Should we change this in the article?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • No, the most thourough biography of Houdini (Houdini!!! by Kenneth Silvers) says that it was a variant on Ehrie. It seems unlikely that at the young age Ehrich was when he first chose Harry Houdini as his name that he would have known Kellar, though they did become friends later. Ezradf 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Not so, He named himself after The Great French Magician Houdin, who was used by the french in the war in Africa. He added the I at the end because he believed it meant "like".Combatant (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved a soliciation for aid in proving Jaqueline Beaumont's claims here in order to preserve NPOV in this article.

Oprah Winfrey and Time Magazine have been contacted. Should these media entities not be interested - other mediums have shown great interest including the Publisher that employs this poor Journalist - Michael Wakefield.
Any comments, suggestions, assistance of proof or aid should be sent to Jacquie at brumby@swirvemail.com
All information courtesy of an interview with Jacqueline Beaumont - all rights to interview and informtion reserved.

The submitter added that all information from that interview is reserved, which is rather ambiguous. Does this mean that we can't use it for the Wikipedia? I removed it from the article, but put it back if you disagree. (Though IMO it doesn't fit into the existing article very well.) -- CYD

I agree with CYD: it doesn't fit. The paragraph submitted by Lir is nice and succinct, and should be sufficient, don't you think? Stormwriter

houdini plane ride

is it true that harry houdini was the first person to make a successful plane flight over the australian continent? my info says it was on 3/6/1910.

I don't know about the date, but it is true according to Houdini!!! by Kenneth Silverman, which also has pictures of the event.

Yes, it is true. It's also given extensive coverage in the new Secret Life of Houdini book by William Kalush. 66.9.173.242 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Houdini was invited by the Aerial League Of Australia, although some had claimed to have been the first to fly in Australia, there was doubts on the truth of these claims. He flew his plane, a Voisin Biplane with his name painted on its side on the morning of 31 March 1910 at Diggers Rest a small town north of the city of Melbourne. He crashed once before flying at a high of 30 metres around a 3 km course and landing safely. There is a plaque at the site commemorating that event, also a street around the towns largest park is named Houdini Rd. added by ETKwriter 2009

Ehrich Weiss/Erik Weisz

So, why does it say "Ehrich Weiss (born Weiss Erik in the native Hungarian)", as it using "Ehrich" in the English, and "Erik" in the Hungarian? Which is the correct spelling for Houdini's real name? nroose Talk 10:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a related question. He was born in Hungary with the name Erik Weisz. He moved to the USA and eventually became Harry Houdini. Was Ehrich Weiss ever his legal name, or did he ever use that name informally? I always understood that he remained Erik Weisz until he changed to Houdini, but that American journalists had trouble with the Hungarian name so they just put it into a more familar sounding German version, as they were wont to do in those days. Is this true? If so, we should remove almost all references to "Ehrich Weiss", but have a sentence saying that although he is sometimes referred to by that spelling, this was not his name. JackofOz 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Search Google for "Ehrich Weiss" versus "Erik Weisz", and you'll understand what is inaccurate about saying that he is "sometimes referred to" by the former spelling. The more common spelling in English (as this is the English Wikipedia) is by far Ehrich Weiss, and so we should use that spelling. And, yes, he did use that spelling, as can be seen by his own handwriting. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-16 10:00
Thank you for that very quick reply. So he did use Ehrich Weiss. Do we know when he switched from Erick Weisz, and whether he used Ehrich Weiss consistently thereafer?
In regards to Google, a count of hits merely records the versions that people have written in documents or on web pages, but does not tell you whether either of the alternatives is historically correct. You'll find thousands of hits for all manner of horrible spelling errors on a search engine, but that doesn't mean the words are spelled correctly, it just means the error is common. JackofOz 10:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If you find thousands of hits for a spelling error, you are almost assured to find that the proper spelling has many more thousands of hits. I've never even heard of his name being spelled the Hungarian way before now. The simple fact is that "Erik Weisz" is the Hungarian spelling, and "Ehrich Weiss" is the spelling in English, the language he used through the vast majority of his life, and the language of this encyclopedia. Also, it wasn't the newspapers that decided to rename him. It was the U.S. Immigration Office when his family came to the U.S. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-16 16:58
Ah ha !! We should state that fact (about the Immigration authorities renaming his family) in the article. But I dispute the language claims. It was not a question of "Ehrich Weiss" being the spelling in English, since there's no such thing as translating surnames into other languages. (We don't refer to Giuseppe Verdi as Giuseppe Green, or Joseph Green). Weisz seems to be a hungarianised spelling of what was originally a German surname, Weiss. But the origin of his surname is irrelevant, it was Weisz when he was born and Weisz when he landed at (presumably) Ellis Island. What the US Immigration authorities seem to have done is to re-spell Weisz into something that looked more familiar, and German names were more familiar to them than Hungarian names. Which would also explain why Erik became the German Ehrich, rather than the English Eric. JackofOz 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

His tomb says WEISS prominently. 'Weisz' would have been the Hungarian transliteration as sz is pronounced like English s and s like English sh, for example, Budapest is pronounced boo-duh-pesht. There is, as far as I know, no double s (ss) in Hungarian, so 'Weiss' would have looked strange there, though the family was of German origin.--86.91.42.242 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The myth of the name being changed by immigration is oft-repeated but false. INS Immigration officials were not in the business of handing out names; they merely checked them off a list. And at that time a person could use any name they wanted in the new country. Note too that the idea of one standardized spelling of a name is a recent invention. Family names were often spelled differently on various records or even within the same document. Spelling styles varied from decade to decade and a clerk or rabbi would merely record the name as he heard it. In Hungary at that time, societal influences would have dictated whether a Latin, Hungarian, Slovak, or Jewish-style first name was recorded which could also differ from what he was called in daily life. The passenger list for the Fresia entering NY in July of 1878 lists Erich Weiss. Questors 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Even pbs.org has the same two names used incorrectly. They say he was born as "Erich Weiss" then just a paragraph down they say the name bacame "Erich Weiss" from "Erich Weisz" when the spelling was changed in the US. <script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>.html Very poor quality control, and I suspect the error is the one that crept into our article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Guys, PLEASE! Everytime I look at this page I see a different spelling. Here are the facts. Houdini was born as Erik Weisz. I'm looking at a copy of his actual birth certificate reprinted in The Houdini Birth Certificate Committee Report (SAM 1972). The most reliable biography, Houdini!!! The Career of Ehrich Weiss by Ken Silverman says on page 8: "Born Erik Weisz in Budapest on March 24, 1974."

As to Ehrich -- I have no idea why people are dropping the first "h". There are dozens of examples of "Ehrich" in Houdini's own hand. To see one, check out page 178 in The Original Houdini Scrapbook by Gibson.

Born: Erik Weisz

Name adopted in America: Ehrich Weiss

Born 1974??????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Combatant (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

--Zencato (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Good. That's settled. Now for a further question. If he was born into the Weisz family in Hungary, how come we're saying:

  • His family name, Weiß, is German, meaning "White" in English ... Houdini's father was Mayer (Mayo) Samuel Weiss ... had six siblings: ... Nathan J. Weiss; Gottfried William Weiss; Theodore Weiss; [4] Leopold D. Weiss; and Gladys Carrie Weiss.?

Huh? Surely, regardless of its German origin as Weiss (or Weiß), all his family members had a surname spelled Weisz in Hungary. Or are we talking about the name they had after they left Hungary? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Folks - Houdini was born as "Erich Weisz" in Budapest - when his father, Rabbi Meyer immigrated to the U.S. the family name was changed to "Weiss". Also there is no name Ehrich in german language - and Erik is the nordic form of the name Erich (like Erich Honecker, for example) (: 78.50.50.190 (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

p.s. when little erich was born, he and his jewish family and all fellow hungarians were citizens of the austrian empire. - they all spoke german (in the family they spoke "jiddisch"). the birth certificate was in german. and his name was german, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.50.190 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

p.p.s. dieser unleidige ehrich.... take a look at the german wkipedia - erich. believe me guys this ehrich was a mistake (just like the weiss - he changed the last letter to z when the family immigrated, in the bc it was weisz). there has never been - is not - and hopefully will never be a name spelled ehrich. btw - eric is the english form of erik (erich) not the hungarian one or so. i´ll list the foreign forms for eric: 

   * dänisch: Erik
   * englisch: Eric, Aric, Erick, Erik, Aerick
   * estnisch: Eerik, Erik
   * finnisch: Erkki, Eero, Eerikki
   * französisch: Éric
   * deutsch: Erek, Erik, Erick, Erich, Eric
   * isländisch: Eiríkur
   * italienisch: Erico
   * japanisch: エリック (Erikku), エリク (Eriku)
   * katalanisch: Èric
   * koreanisch: 에릭 (Erik)
   * niederländisch: Erik
   * norwegisch: Erik (bokmaal), Eirik (nynorsk)
   * philippinisch: Ayic
   * polnisch: Eryk, Irek
   * portugiesisch: Erico
   * russisch: Эрик (Arik)
   * slowakisch: Erik
   * spanisch: Eric
   * schwedisch: Erik, Eric
   * tschechisch: Erik
   * ukrainisch: Ерiк
   * weißrussisch: Эрык (Eryk)

(german wiki) bye 78.50.50.190 (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are numerous examples in Houdini's own hand that he spelled his given name as Ehrich (check out page 178 in The Original Houdini Scrapbook by Gibson) and I think this is what Wiki should show. --Zencato (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Error?

to punch him in the abdomen in order to demonstrate but Houdini

In order to demonstrate what? Some words are probably missing here. Please fix. Paranoid 22:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

“Psychics” and other charlatons

NPOV? Scott197827

Can you elaborated on that please? What are you tring to say.--mexaguil 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Herman Mayer Weiss

As if his name is not enough trouble, the father is listed as "Herman Mayer Weiss" in the pbs.org article for the American Experience. How about if I lokk for him in the census and that way we can have a third opinion. It will be the father telling what he prefered to be called. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It must be a typo the name "Herman Mayer Weiss" only appears once in the article and it is the only reference in Google. I think there was just some shoddy editing by PBS in an otherwise fine article. Well, except for the "weiss" Weitz" problem mentioned above... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


His father's name was Mayer Samuel Weiss. Herman (sometimes called "Armin") was his half brother. That American Experience article has mixed the two. As much as I respect PBS, that American Experience article is a poor source for info. --Zencato (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would he escape this?

If someone wrapped him up with duct tape from the toes to his neck, would he be able to free himself? 201.23.64.2 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know (and I'm not sure if it's in the article), he actually challenged people to trap him in different ways. - some guy

"One of the...?"

Is it really neccessary to say that he was "one of the" most famous magicians or escapists of all time? Didn't he pioneer the genre to the fame it's at today? I just don't see why you don't just say THE most famous. - just some guy

Well, there are some people who can challenge you on that. ONE OF THE BEST is an opinion open for debate.- Random passer-byer

No, there's no debate. Who else could possibly be the "most famous magician or escapist of all time"? There's no other plausible contender. Tom NM (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A few corrections and additions

I made a few corrections and additions to the Houdini article, but I know these are topics of debate, so I thought I should give my sources.

The first is the correct spelling of Houdini's birth name. I've changed Erik Weiss it to Erik Weisz. I get this from The Houdini Birth Research Committee's Report (1972), which includes a photo copy of the actual birth certificate found in Hungary. As to the spelling of his name after the family came to the U.S., I don't know where that "Erich" spelling came from as there are numerous examples in Houdini's own hand of the "Ehrich" spelling.

I was also able to fill in the birth dates of Houdini's parents from "Houdini: Escape Into Legend" by Manny Weltman, which is THE best reference for all information on Houdini's early life. I'm using the birthdate that appears on Mayer Weiss' tombstone, even though Weltman notes his marriage certificate shows him to be of an age that would suggest he was born earlier. But let's go with the tombstone. (BTW, that same marriage certificate calls Mayer Weiss a "soapmaker", not "Rabbi", but we'll leave that alone for now.)

I've also corrected information on who exactly witnessed the dressing room assault in Montréal. No way was Bess an eyewitness as the article originally stated (maybe this came from the 1976 TV movie which put Bess in the room). Houdini withholding this incident from Bess is well documented. The two witnesses where Jacques Price and Sam Smilovitz (sometimes called Jack Price and Sam Smiley). Both gave accounts of the incident to insurance companies and their accounts generally agreed. A fantastic source on all this is The Man Who Killed Houdini by Don Bell, who tracked down both Smiley and Price, and also uncovered exactly who Whitehead was and what happened to him.

I've also fleshed out the section on Houdini's movies, adding the titles of his films. The original article incorrectly stated that the Houdini Picture Corporation made three films instead of two. I know some list The Soul of Bronze as a HPC Houdini film, but while Houdini appears to have copyrighted this title (hence it appears in some film encyclopedias), there's no evidence the film was ever made. Of course, I would love nothing more to be proven wrong and discover there is a "lost" Houdini film out there!

I also changed the title of the 1976 Paul Michael Glaser biopic from The Great Houdini to The Great Houdinis. This was the title on the movie as it first aired in 1976. For the 1977 repeat, the title was changed to The Great Houdini for some reason. If you need evidence, the novelization carries the original Great Houdinis title. Also on my website, Houdini Lives, I have a pic of the original TV Guide add.

And that's it for now. :) --Zencato 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Was he an Atheist?

I've heard him referred to as one before, but I don't know that its true. Is it? --Havermayer 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• No. In the Haldeman-Julius Monthly of October 1925 (one year before Houdini's death) Marcet Haldeman-Julius wrote: "Houdini himself, shrewd, clear-headed, refusing to accept any substitutes for truth is, I submit, of the very stuff of which agnostics are fashioned. But I do not presume to doubt his statement that he believes both in God and in a Hereafter."

No - Houdini was an active member of the Masonic fraternity (mbr of St. Cecile Lodge in New York City largely made up of men in show business) and had a Masonic memorial service performed at his death. One of the requisites for mbrship in the fraternity is to have a belief in a Supreme Being; an atheist cannot become a Mason, then or now. (i.e. a Mason may be Christian, jew or Moslem but NOT an atheist). An aside: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was also a Mason (Dr. Watson's character is a 'Mason' in the Sherlock Holmes series) GAE66 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Birthday

many publications list his birthday as April 6th ... ?


  • findagrave.com and famousbirthdays.com list his birthday as March 24 1874.


Houdini's birthday was March 24. However, he celebrated it on April 6. In a letter to his brother (reprinted in The Original Houdini Scrapbook, page 174), Houdini says April 6 is his "adopted birthday" as that is the day his mother always wrote to him. --Zencato (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spy?

There was a story today referring to a new biography of Houdini, claiming he was a spy who used his world-traveling magic acts as merely a cover for his spying operations (for Scotland Yard). The story can be found here. I wanted to add this to the page, but I didn't read the book, and these MSN and Yahoo news pages expire after a while, so I didn't. Perhaps someone can read the book and modify the page to include this new interesting claim.--PsychoticClown 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw a story linked off of Drudge, and looked up the book on Amazon. Here they are in citation template form:
  • McShane, Larry (2006-10-28). "Book Paints Escape-Artist Houdini As Spy". AP. Retrieved 2006-10-29.
  • Kalush, William (2006-10-31). The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero. Atria. pp. 608 pages. ISBN 0743272072. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Crockspot 16:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
But is this true, or conspiracy theory? Houdini did write fiction involving spying. Could his "diary" have been an imbellishment that he perceived as a possible future book or movie venture? We'll probably need to wait until SY comes out with the version of "the truth" that it wants us to know before we can add this... either way, I've got some reading to do this week! Anonymous 16:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I tend to view this as mentionable in the article as an allegation, but not as solid proven fact. I'm not a regular editor of this article, so I simply added the two refs above into the refs section of the article. You folks work it in as you see appropriate. Crockspot 18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


I think the book also implies that Houdini may have been murdered by these spiritualists that he was debunking. He also got a lot of tail and possibly went both ways. I want to pick this book up, sounds really interesting.

Yes it does - there is a long article here how one would add it in and keep things balanced. It might be worth either adding in a brief mention or waiting until there are rebuttals and fleshing it out a bit. (Emperor 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC))


Detailed footnotes for The Secret Life of Houdini can be found here: http://conjuringarts.org/houdini/index.shtml -- I deleted some text that claimed the book had no primary source material. The sections on the spying allegations and debunking spiritualists still needs some rewriting, though. 24.188.182.235 09:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

He has appeared as a fictional character in a range of media. Putting this in the "Legacy" section would start to bloat it and experience shows that it starts to make some editors nervous. I recently started: Nikola Tesla in popular culture and Mark Twain in popular culture and have proposed a Thomas Edison one. It strikes me that it would make sense to have one entitled: Harry Houdini in popular culture. I'll start digging around for examples and post them here (the immediate one that springs to mind is Necronauts) but I also wanted to open the floor for other people to add ideas too. (Emperor 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Examples:
Anymore? (Emperor 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
Updated list with some comics. (Emperor 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
In 1987 film Planes Trains and Automobiles a character complains that a punch to the stomach could have killed him, as it did Houdini. According to snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/houdini.asp Canuckle 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes we'd not want to include a huge list of people being punched in the guts like Houdini. My list there includes Houdini as a fictional character so we'd be wanting to look at more significant references to Houdini (also people performing any of his classic tricks would be long and largely trivial). (Emperor 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
  • In a epsiode of Cartoon series Ghostbusters the Ghostbusters have to deal with the ghost of Houdini -who keeps breaking out of their Ghost traps; an real Magic Cabinet and a evil magician who has stolen HOudini's secrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.98 (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Planes and Movies

The section under 'Magic' about planes and movies really doesn't fit the section and should moved. Perhaps to a new section?65.100.48.231 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Magic - Aviation - Movies should all be their own sections. They were originally, but the formatting vanished and they've all run together. It's confusing. I've recreated the sections. --Zencato (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Geoff Barker 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)== Redundancies ==

In the first paragraph under Birth and Emigration, I find it a bit redundant to include both

"(although he claims to have been born in Appleton, Wisconsin but his birth certificate was later found after his death)"

and

"From 1900 onwards Houdini claimed in interviews to have been born in Appleton, Wisconsin on April 6, 1874, but his Hungarian birth certificate was uncovered by researchers after his death."


Also, under the Magic section, I don't think we need

"In 1910, while on a tour of Australia, Houdini brought with him a primitive bi-plane with which he made the first controlled powered aeroplane flight in Australia, at Diggers Rest, Victoria."

and

"He also bought a plane and was the first person to fly in Australia."

I've tried to change both of these, but the article keeps getting reverted. 67.150.212.44 07:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like the changes stayed after all.67.150.212.44 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Along the same lines, does this sentence even make sense? "Houdini initially focused oral sex acts and at one point grew a penis on his forehead." It makes no sense in isolation and has nothing whatsoever to do with the text following it in the second paragraph under "Magic." Sounds like the result of someone's prank.

I think there is an incorrect spelling of the aeroplane Houdini flew, it should be "Voison" not "Vioson" Geoff Barker 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Geoff Barker

Siblings

Please be clear on Houdini's siblings; first some of his brothers are mentioned, then a sister, then a name which hasn't come up before (Willi?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.163.217.119 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Fictional references

Houdini was featured at least once as a character in the Dark Horse comic book, Spawn.

Should other fictional accounts be included?

69.218.8.5 23:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Tony 12/23/6

See the section above. (Emperor 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

The Secret Life of Houdini

I am just an amateur puzzler, magician and historian. Still, looking into this book briefly, (I am reading something else now) I have observed selective materials which indicate sloopy history, sensationalism, innuendo, fiction and a love of conspiracy. If it is in one place, most likely it is in others. Larry Sloman, one of the two authors, is best known for his collaborations with "shock jock" Howard Stern and David Blaine.User:Kazuba 8 Jan 2007

"K-Deini Is Real"?

Can somebody double-check the spelling on this or provide a citation? A Google search on this phrase yields exactly two results: this article, and a strange comment on a YouTube video. Capedia 03:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! The edit was made by 68.38.48.89. His only other edit is clearly vandalism. I say this vandalism as well. I've removed it. Sander123 08:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Fix

Someone with the IP address 213.106.232.34 has added a strange story that is obviously nothing other than vandalism. I've taken the liberty of reverting the page to remove this (I forgot to sign in. My IP in the history is 72.72.201.246). Popisfizzy 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Best source (IMO)

Hello all. I'm a Houdini collector, historian, a member of the Magic Castle, and I run a Houdini website (www.houdini-lives.com). I would strongly encourage the use of Kenneth Silverman's “Houdini!!! The Career of Enrich Weiss” as a primarily source for information and fact checking. Information on Houdini, even info contained in encyclopedias, can be wildly inaccurate, and myths about Houdini continually find their way into modern biographies. I really feel the Silverman book is the best, most accurate Houdini biography ever written. Silverman himself is a Pulitzer Prize winning biographer. The book is also meticulously soured in a second book, "Notes on Houdini!!!" I consider it my "Houdini Bible.” --Zencato 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! Great, that you're working on this. Sander123 08:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Movie career

I've contributed a section on Houdini's movie career, which I consider my specialty. I also think Houdini's brief but noteworthy aviation career deserves its own section, but I will leave this to others (or for myself on another rainy day). I also built up the Wiki article on Houdini’s Chinese Water Torture Cell. --Zencato 00:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Professonal rapist?

Under the 'Magic' subheading it reads, 'In 1892, Weiss became a professional rapist'; really?

European tour/full evening show info

I did a little more work in the Magic section. --Zencato 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cousin married to Moe Howard?

The wikipedia entry for Moe Howard contradicts this and claims it is true.

stephen_trentalange 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Messed up trying to undo vandalism

I've messed up trying to undo a long string of vandalism entry by entry. I don't know how to do a single undo back to the last clean entry (guess I need a lesson). Can someone please fix? Thanks. Sorry.

--Zencato 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Okay, I think I fixed it. --Zencato 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian

The entry describes Houdini as "Hungarian", but he left when he was four. Why is it not "Hungarian-American" or just "American"?

I agree. Houdini was an American, where he lived all but the first 4 years of his life and was a US citizen. Biographies should describe nationality by citizenship, especially in cases where the subject moved as s very young age. Entry changed to Hungarian-American pending consensus of whether he should be considered solely American of Hungarian descent, or Hungarian-American. Defer to the latter since he was born in Hungary. Piperdown 12:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


eeehm...he was an austro-hungarian. born in buapest ruled by the austrian emperor and hungarian king Franz-Josef (u know, k&k and stuff^^). what about: H.H. was an american magician of austro-hungary origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.50.190 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of "Debunking spiritualists" are unclear.

Regarding the second paragraph, was Conan-Doyal once H's friend? The paragraph seems to suggest so.

In the third paragraph, I can't tell what is goind on. Did Ford claim to have received a message from H and his mother? Did he claim to have the code that H gave to Bess? Was the "code" made public at some point? It is all very, very unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lporrel@yahoo.com (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Body to be exhumed

Read all about it: [4] - Throw 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Locked article

why is this article locked? i read the discussion and found no explanation why it is locked. παράδοξος reality is Wikipedia παράδοξος 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted the obvious, sorry παράδοξος 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to re-lock this article. Of all the articles I watch, this receives the most vandalism.--Zencato (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I second Zencato's motion. I've noticed the same high degree of vandalism. I monitor many of the political articles (e.g., torture and waterboarding) as well as a number of entries on contentious right and left wing blogs, and Harry Houdini gets hit with more juvenile vandalism than anything I've seen. Given that this isn't really a time sensitive article, and (when it's not in a vandalized state) is pretty mature and well done, from a quality control standpoint I think re-locking is a good idea. -- Quartermaster (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Secret Life

Some suggestions from reading the book Secret Life:

  • 1. The shift in birthdates from March to April can be explained by differences in the Julian and Gregorian calendar.
  • 2. His influence on pre-WWI aviation could be expanded into its own section.
  • 3. The suggestion that he was a spy or worked with US and English secret intelligence services should have its own section
  • 4. In Spiritualism: Add anecdote about how early on in his career he and his wife went too far pretending to have spiritual powers, exploited the emotions of a couple grieving for a lost child. His regret over this partly led to his opposition to false mediums.
  • 5. Also under Spiritualism, his appearance before Congress and also his interactions with the US President, Theodore Roosevelt, Czar Nicholas II, etc. Canuckle 19:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Candle

Could his wife had [i]really[/i] kept a candle lit for ten years? How big would this candle have to be? Fr0 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Did a little work

Hey gang. I did a little work on the page. First, I fleshed out that timeline with info on his career. I thought it was silly to have a timeline that was basically a summery of birth and immigration facts and then, bang, death. While I didn't cite my additions, these are all very well-known major events in Houdini's life and can be confirmed via any biography. Next, I added the info about the famous 1936 final Houdini Seance to the Legacy section. I'm wondering if this section shouldn't be rearranged chronologically by year? It's a bit of a mess right now. Last, I added a new section on Houdini's appearance and voice. Hope this is okay. I do find something like this of interest and value when the subject lived before sound film. I especially think the info on his voice recording is very interesting. --Zencato 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit more. I added a section on his aviation career and also on the Mirror challenge, which is possibly the most famous single escape of his career. --Zencato 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section - Wil Wheaton vs. Will Wheaton

Currently, an entry in the Legacy section states: 1985 - Will Wheaton played Houdini in Young Harry Houdini, a made for TV movie which aired on ABC as a "Disney Sunday Movie." The film also featured Jeffrey DeMunn as the adult Houdini. DeMunn first played Houdini in the film version of, Ragtime.[25]

Will Wheaton is a musician; Wil Wheaton is the actor who starred in the movie.

Mliguori333 11:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

his clavicle

I heard that his clavicle was not attached to his sternum, which allowed him to escape from straight-jackets. I believe this is actually a relatively common congenital condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkjazzer (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism....

I could be wrong but I have doubts about Houdini being

"a skeptic and investigator of Female Breasts"

Perhaps this should be looked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.98.58 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

death certificate ideosyncracies

Can someone verify the "appendix being on the left side" claim made in the Guardian article currently being cited as a source here? http://www.houdinitribute.com/img/deathcertif.jpg certainly doesn't show any such claim that I can discern, but maybe there's an "extended version" in one of the bios/conspiracy books. Even if it were true, it could have been situs inversus or situs ambiguus, although that will require a separate citation to include in the article. -- nae'blis 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement at Death

I've heard a rumor somewhere that Harry Houdini, before dying in the hospital, told his wife "If there is a way to contact you from the other side, I will find it."

Is this true?

71.171.126.104 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

heyy???

Harry houdini is cooooollll man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.189.1 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

.....no really intelligent

say that Houdini will be remembered more for his adventure in aviation and not as big escaper and magician seems to me such a stupid conclusion...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.99.243 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Houdini is the one who said that back in 1910 and I think it's made clear in the article that it's now an ironic statement. --Zencato (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Garrick vs. Majestic

Someone changed the location of the Detroit theater where Houdini gave his last performance from the Garrick to the Majestic. This is wrong. It was the Garrick, and I've changed it back (check page 511 in The Secret Life of Houdini by Kalush and Soloman if you want a hard source). I think what is happening is someone on eBay has been selling mock-up theater tickets for "Houdini's last performance" and on the tickets he's put Majestic. Either that person doesn't know the name of the actual theater, or choose Majestic for artistic purposes. But it was the Garrick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencato (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror Handcuff Challenge

I noticed that the guy apparently who made these handcuffs is shown on Wikipedia,as coming from Hertfordshire in England. I always thought Nathaniel Hart was from Birmingham. How can I find out who put Hertfordshire on the Wikipedia listings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.54.142 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it back to Birmingham. The Mirror account clearly states the maker was from Birmingham. --Zencato (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


The BBC broadcasted a radio special on infamous residents of Hertfordshire and had an entire segment on Nathaniel Hart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.158.223 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Time of Death

Under the category Death there is a contradiction. Houdini’s last performance claims "Houdini died of peritonitis from a ruptured appendix at 1:26 p.m. in Room 401 on October 31 (Halloween), 1926, at the age of 52". Houdini refused medical attention claims "He died at 4:35pm.[26]". What is correct? 193.213.31.248 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1:26pm is the time on the death certificate. --Zencato (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Peritonitis

Under the category "Death" should the first mention of peritonitis be hyperlinked to its article [[5]]? --Getthebikes (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)(G/T/B)

Article Cleanup, Please?

I found several inconsistencies and mistakes in this article, right from the get-go:

Harry was born in manzanillo, mexico in 1994 A copy of his birth certificate was found and published in The Houdini Birth Research Committee's Report (1972)...
...Houdini's father was Mayer (Mayo) Samuel Weiss (1829-1892). Weisz was a rabbi;...

There are also many redundancies, as well as contradictions throughout the entry.

March 28th, 2008

Looks like some concerted vandalism. I think I reverted things back to the earliest clean version. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Debunking spiritualists - still unclear

Like the commenter in section The last two paragraphs of "Debunking spiritualists" are unclear above, I find the last paragraph confusing.

  • The book The Secret Life of Houdini is mentioned with no explanation, so I added that it is a 2006 book by Kalush and Sloman.
  • The paragraph occurs before Houdini's death but describes events after, which confused me. I suggest it be moved to after his death. I added a confusing template.
  • Despite references to "in the book" the wording is still unclear as to what happened and more precisely when and which statements are from the book or from elsewhere. Some examples: which seance is meant; "the words she received from her deceased husband" - is this really what Bess wrote or a poor paraphrase; Houdini code is mentioned for the first time, what is it and was it in the seance and why should the reader see Arthur Ford; Houdini code was known months before the seance - dates would be helpful.

-84.223.120.228 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Grave Desecration

I come from Brooklyn and remember as a child, his tomb being vandalised more than once. I cannot find article about it.Combatant (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I also remember that the Amazing Randi had a copy of the Bust that set atop his grave and that the American Society of Magicians will reach out to him everytime it was vadalized to replace it with his as a mold. Can anybody find old information about this?Combatant (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-lock article?

Of all the articles I watch on wiki this one receives the most vandalism. I thought is was a good idea when it was locked a while back. Maybe the powers-that-be should consider re-locking it? --Zencato (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Zencato's motion. I've noticed the same high degree of vandalism. I monitor many of the political articles (e.g., torture and waterboarding) as well as a number of entries on contentious right and left wing blogs, and Harry Houdini gets hit with more juvenile vandalism than anything I've seen. Given that this isn't really a time sensitive article, and (when it's not in a vandalized state) is pretty mature and well done, from a quality control standpoint I think re-locking is a good idea. -- Quartermaster (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just put in a request for protection for this article (following yet another revert due to vandalism). Why this article? I'm mystified. -- Quartermaster (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be locked, as Houdini had many detractors in life, on his death it can be free for all to vandalise such an ilustrious artist.Combatant (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Silverman

FYI, One of Houdini's biographers won both a Pulitzer prize and a Bancroft prize, and deserves an article on his own and a hot link in this article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Done 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

American Museum of Magicand other magic museums

I've created this article. It includes a section on other magic museums, of which some of you are knowledgeable. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Source?

Who put in the line that he could regurgitate keys on command? Also, I would much appreciate a reference and source, I need it for a project. That would be much appreciated!! Thanks!! Bardanskirata (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


It is believed that in her mouth was the key to unlock the special handcuff. If she could hide a six inch key in her mouth that is some trick 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.85 (talk)

Birth date?

in the box under Houdini's picture it says he was born in 1868, but in the article it says he was born in 1874 (and aged 52 when he died). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.147.184 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. --Zencato (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John Gaughan

Could somebody who's allowed to edit the page please add a link to his article under the 'Artifacts' section? --Kgaughan (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

During the mirror challenge, it states that since the people don't remove the handcuffs, he takes a pen knife out of his pocket and tears it up. I assume this means that he reached into his pocket, while still in the handcuffs, and ripped it up, while still in the handcuffs. Is that what actually happend? Because it seems like it would be difficult to get into a pocket, and rip up a coat while locked into 'the mirror'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.211.37 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what happened. They say he held the knife in his teeth and shredded the coat. There's even an illustration of this in the Mirror account. Maybe I should add the teeth part to the description? --Zencato (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it. Also corrected the name of the Mirror representative using Silverman as source. The rep is not called by name in the original sourced newspaper account. --Zencato (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Proposed exhumation

The last sentence of proposed exhumation section contains no subject, and therefore makes no sense. Who opposed the exhumation?

69.212.80.78 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Found the ref and fixed it, it's the family. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Secret Life Book

This article contains too many references to "the secret life of houdini." It reads like an advertising ploy on the part of the authors. The in text citations should changed to end text citations to maintain the neutrality of this article.

69.212.80.78 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Article states Bess put out candle in 1936 - Under Legacy a storm on top of hotel put it out. What what's the true (cited) story?

Stone Temple Pilots

STP reunion in 2008 is reported as nothing to do with Houdini. Need update (removal).

Hard times

In a documentary Houdini fell on hard times and tried to sell his tricks. There's nothing of this in the article, should there be? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

A recent reference on exhumation state of play is here[6]. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the post on the refdesk:

Not exhumed as of 2008-03-04 according to:
Costella, Annmarie (2008-03-04). "Houdini exhumation to test for poison". NYDailyNews.com. Retrieved 2008-07-05. they have yet to file court papers to have Houdini's body exhumed.
-- Jeandré, 2008-07-05t18:26z

physical abilities

wasn't he something of an athlete? Should we mention his abilities?

Tense and Style of Legacy section

Right now the Legacy section has inconsistent tenses -- switching mostly between past and present tense -- it should all be in past tense, and would probably be even better written as prose instead of as a list. I will try to get back here in the next week when I have time and do it, but if any enterprising soul reads this and has the time and the drive and gets to it before I do, that would be great. Brainmouse (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exhumation points

in the area of the article on Houdini regarding the proposed exhumation I see where facts became arye. George Hardeen is Theo Hardeen's grandson thereby making George Houdini's grandnephew by blood not marriage. George is not related to him through his wife, but his brother. The family disputing it from occurring was his wife's not his. Facts otherwise appear accurate in that area, other than families getting crossed.Looking4knowledge (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Buried alive

I see no mention of his attempt at being buried alive, one of his tricks that almost killed him and which he never attempted again. 78.86.230.62 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to find a reference, then Be Bold and add add the information. Brainmouse (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I added Buried Alive to the "Notable Escapes" section (all three versions that Houdini performed). --Zencato (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, Zen...My reference would have been a TV show on magic that was aired here in the UK (where I learned of the fact) so would probably have not been any use. If I had enough information and knowledge about Houdini myself, I would have added the information without any worries :-) 78.86.230.62 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Occult Committee?

There is no source for this new "Occult Committee" section, and even if sourced, it's connection to Houdini seems tangential at best. --Zencato (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Houdini

Harry Houdini the great magition he preformed his first trapeze act at nine years old he was called "The Prince of the Air" so join in find out the great edventure this immigrant did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HARRY HOUDINI!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.8.158 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

harry houdini is the bomb digity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.58.127 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was the photograph of Houdini's grave marker deleted from this article?

I am curious as to why the photograph of Houdini's grave marker was deleted from this article. This was a good photograph that appeared alongside the photo of his gravesite. Apparently, someone wanted the photo to be deleted, but I don't know why this action was carried out. Does anyone know why the photo of Houdini's grave marker was deleted? This deletion was the result of somebody's opinion, and opinions can boomerang.

His wife clearly stated she did not want any photos to be released after Harry's and Bess's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.61.103 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Grim game.jpg

The image File:Grim game.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of section on Death and deletion of photos of Houdini's gravesite

The section on Death has been deleted and the two photos of Houdini's gravesite have also been deleted. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that ANYONE can make a destructive edit to an article. There is NO reason why the gravesite photos should have been deleted from the article. As far as I'm concerned, this deletion constitutes vandalism.

Somebody said that Houdini's wife didn't want images of her husband's burial site to be published. That is a ridiculous reason for deleting the photos. Nobody controls the press, and nobody has the right to block publication of quality photographs that are not obscene or defamatory.

The photographs of Houdini's burial site should be reinstated into the article, and the person who deleted the pictures should be blocked from making future edits.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Water Torture Cell photo upload?

There is an excellent photo of Houdini performing his Chinese Water Torture Cell in the Library of Congress. I beleive we can use photos from their collection (the top photo of Houdini in chains come from the LOC). Can someone please upload it? Sorry, I don't know how. We can then add the picture to the "Notable esacpes" section, and we can also use it on the Wiki page about the Water Torture Cell. We get double use. :)

It's #3 pic located here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/varstg:@FIELD(NUMBER(3c12434+3g03290+hs013))

Thanks. --Zencato (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a try myself. Uploaded pic and added to article. But I'm sure I didn't do it all right (permissions and such). Can someone check my work? Thanks. --Zencato (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dempsey, Houdini, Leonard

Does anyone know more about this picture?

Heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey mock punching Harry Houdini, who is held back back by lightweight boxing champion Benny Leonard.

I'm guessing early 1920s publicity event, but no further idea as to what, where or why. It's part of a series including pictures of the same men with Commissioner Daly, Jack Kearns, Billy Gibson. Any information more than welcome! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

www.houdini-lives.com

Can someone in authority here at Wikipedia please review my website (http://www.houdini-lives.com) and consider it for inclusion in the External Links? The site was deleted because it was deemed an "Amazon/Ebay affiliate site." While, yes, I do include Amazon links on my site (as do almost all the other sites in the links), I have absolutely NOTHING to do with Ebay and, as a rule, only report on auction news after the auction has closed. I also report on ALL auctions -- online and otherwise -- that feature Houdini memorabilia, props, and posters. My site's mission statement is clearly stated on the Home page:

There are many terrific websites devoted to Harry Houdini, but I have yet to find a source for what’s happening in the world of Houdini TODAY. That’s why I created HOUDINI LIVES. Here I track all the latest book and DVD releases, auction news, and general whatnot related to our favorite MASTER MYSTIFIER. I hope you enjoy.-John Cox

I do think this site is a unique source for Houdini information and a valuable link (and I think many Houdini collectors and experts who frequent the site would agree). I would also encourage you to look at my own contributions to this article to see the level of my commitment to providing accurate up-to-date information on Houdini.

I added my site when I saw it was no longer in the links. But then I saw that it had been delated by a mod, so I re-delated and decided to plead my case here. I hope if you throughly review the site you will recognize it as a very valuable and unique information source and decide in my favor. Thank you. --Zencato (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The link wasn't deleted by a mod, just by another editor.
The Amazon and eBay links seem less prominent than I remembered, but ultimately this site seems to be a personal blog of Houdini-related news items. WP:ELNO #12 discourages linking to "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, not to toot my own horn, but I think I can make a case that I am a "recognized authority" on Houdini. I am a member of the Magic Castle as a "Houdini Historian", I have written several articles about Houdini for magic magazines and The Houdini Historical Center newsletter, and I've appeared as an on screen authority in two Houdini documentaries. Also, if you look in several recently published Houdini books (including the major biography The Secret Life of Houdini), you will find my name listed in the acknowledgments and credited on photos. I'd also bet that any other "recognized authority" on Houdini -- Patrick Culliton, Kevin Connelly, Stephan Sparks, Joe Fox -- would vouch for me and my site as a valuable resource. I know for a fact many Houdini buffs visit my site daily because it is the ONLY site that keeps them informed of current Houdini news. Good enough for them, but not the casual Wiki user seeking info on Houdini?
Mine is also the only Houdini site that updates regularly. Some of those other sites listed haven't updated in years, and aside from the MSNBC link, ALL of them are fan created sites. (BTW, I do think this list is very weak. It is missing several important online resources -- including the Library of Congress' fantastic Houdini page. I would encourage you to review the links on my own site. I'd also be happy to rebuild this list).
And, again, please look back over the history of this page. I wrote the entire Movie Career, Notable Escapes, Artifacts, Proposed exhumation, Appearance and Voice, and Pioneer Aviator sections, and most of the Magic Career section. I also created the two bibliographies, and regularly edit the page. I've made a real commitment to being a provider of Houdini info online, and at the moment I am the only "recognized authority" who does so. --Zencato (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's another idea. To meet Wiki's qualifications, I will create an "About Me" section on my site laying out my Houdini history, etc. I will include a bibliography of my writings and appearances in major works, and I'll also collect testimonials about my site from notable Houdini experts and magicians (I might even be able to score some famous names). It's actually a pretty cool idea. I should have done something like this from the start.
I will also volunteer to rebuild the external links list with some truly excellent online Houdini resources (as I said above, this list as it stands is not terribly valuable). Of course, my site will need to be included (but in alphabetical order). Sound good? :) --Zencato (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review my new ABOUT ME page on my website (http://www.houdini-lives.com/Houdini_Lives/About_Me.html). I believe this shows I do meet the "recognized authority" criteria and my website should be re-listed in the External Links. Thanks. --Zencato (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

houdini-lives.com has been re-added. Using a secure browser, when I view that site I cannot see anything useful. I can click myspace, facebook and twitter, and there is an advert for a book. Is the content at "Click for latest news" because I don't see anything helpful there either. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Masonic connection?

There are various webpages here and there, claiming that Houdini was a Mason, and with the release of Dan Brown's new novel this week, this speculation is probably going to increase. In order to head off a flurry of anon edits, does anyone have a reliable source with information on Houdini's purported link to Freemasonry? --Elonka 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Houdini was a Mason, yes. He was also a member of the Sons of Rabbis, The Society of American Magicians, The Magic Circle in London, and probably two dozen other organizations. While it's interesting that Houdini was a Mason, I don't think it's all that relevant to who he was and doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. --Zencato (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He was NOT born Ehrich Weiss??

According to the site below, he was born Erik Weisz and it was Americanized to Ehrich Weiss. I'd change it, but I'm not sure what his real relatives' names were. Can anyone confirm this and get the real names of all his relatives listed in the article as well? http://www.stampsofdistinction.com/2008/07/10-facts-you-didnt-know-about-houdini.html

Damaband (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the long discussions at /Archive 1 (search for the name on that page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually Damaband is right: Houdini's birth name was Erik Weisz (see Hungarian wikipedia). When the family immigrated to the USA the spelling was changed. Check out the Encyclopædia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/272947/Harry-Houdini--Winniwuk (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Buried Alive" Section Appears in Duplicate

In Houdini's article, the BURIED ALIVE section appears twice. I don't know how this happened, but the error should be corrected.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


The BURIED ALIVE section is not repeated. It might of been your computer stuffing up or something...


Thank you for the suggestion. There were other duplicates as well. I fixed them. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Name at birth

Please comment on whether this article should say Houdini was born as Erik Weisz or as Ehrich Weiss. If we can reach some consensus, future unwarranted changes can be reverted with a link to this discussion. Some paraphrased comments from earlier are:

Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this issue cannot be discussed as his birth name (!) can only be either Erik Weisz oder Ehrich Weiss. One is right, one is wrong. Just as your own birth name allows only one option. He was definitely registered as "Erik Weisz" after his birth (see all major biographies, for example Houdini!!! by Silverman.), later, however, he spelled his name "Ehrich Weiss". Just as Patrik Brunty decided to be Patrick Brontë. It's as simple as that. No need to argue.--Winniwuk (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Executioner's Song and Harry Houdini

== I was reading The Executioner's Song by Norman Mailer and noticed in Chapter 19 a reference to Houdini, alluding that Harry Houdini(as Weiss) is an ancestor of Gary Gilmore, the subject of the book. This is a work of "fiction based on fact", but this reference doesn't seem to refer to anything else in the book, so seems to be from the fact part. Since this is an older book, I was wondering if this has been investigated 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Whitehead?

For those who have access to the original source material, I'm curious as to what happened to Whitehead afterwards. I found a source here [7] that talks about it and says that nobody blamed Whitehead, he became a minister afterwards and vanished into obscurity, etc, but it's interesting trivia and I'm wondering if those who work on the sources on this article might be able to add it in context. Thanks. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thomaszocher, 24 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add to the Legacy portion of this article, the following:

2010 The new HBO series Boardwalk Empire makes several references to and features an appearance of Hardeen (Houdini's brother) as performed by actor (Remy Auberjonois)as an Atlantic City Boardwalk attraction circa 1920/1921.

This information can be verified and added to by simply searching Houdini's brother Boardwalk Empire. Thank you!

Thomaszocher (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Future event in present tense?

I would edit the line, but I guess it's locked for editing.

"The show closed in New York on March 27, 2011, and then was to be displayed in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Madison, Wisconsin. Art & Antiques Magazine Winter 2010–11 issue reported on this exhibition."

Sure, I guess it will probably become true in a few days, but still... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.185.52 (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Death

"A little known fact about Houdini,was that he could live without his head for up to 10 minutes."

I deleted that from the death section for what I'd hope are obvious reasons, I'm gathering that this is some sort of joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.35.246 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Lots of silly things are added to articles and it is best to simply undo them without comment (click "history" at the top of the article to see changes, and if you can readily work it out with "diff", click "undo" next to the change). Commenting on nonsense just encourages its author. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


I think it would be nice to allow the picture of Bess grave to be beside houdini on wiki at least if they weren't allowed to be berried together at least wiki should allow them to be together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.1.236 (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Last Houdidin asst Dorothy Young died on his birthday

How ironic...or is it coincidental? Dorothy Young--the last surviving Houdini assistant--just died. She was 103 : http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5inDI-IOwdqiL9why6rg6fc4hN5Eg?docId=6344486 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/dorothy-young-harry-houdinis-last-surviving-stage-assistant-and-nj-arts-patron-dies-at-103/2011/03/23/ABbqiiKB_story.html . 69.140.66.37 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

She actually died on March 20, 2011. Not on Houdini's birthday. Zencato (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Chris Lowe, 24 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add an additional publication: "On Deception", published 1906. The book is currently available from Amazon, with a new foreword by Derren Brown: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deception-Derren-Brown/dp/1843916134

That's actually not a new book. It's just The Right Way To Do Wrong with a new title. Zencato (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request Change to Article

Under Legacy 2011: Band "Foster the People" release a single titled "Houdini" on their EP, "Foster the People-EP" 70.70.213.90 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section

Houdini is also mentioned many times in the book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon. He is protagonist Josef Kavalier's idol.

- Peach (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Also, in the Jim Butcher series The Dresden Files the protagonist, introduced in the 2000 novel Storm Front Harry Dresden is named after Harry Houdini and a number of other stage magicians. The characters full name is Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden.

Grotonomus (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Benchmade knife company made a multitool in 2010 called the Houdini pro Rescue Cutter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.201.137 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


In the original 1995 production of EFX at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada, the ghost of Houdini, played by Michael Crawford(Phantom of the Opera), appears to his widow, Bess, during a seance. Kristy (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request Change

{{edit semi-protected}}


Please Add Section:

Houdini the Master Mason

Harry Houdini[1] was initiated in St. Cecile Lodge No. 568, N.Y., July 17, 1923, Passed to the degree of Fellowcraft July 31, and Raised to Master Mason August 21. In 1924 he entered the Consistory. Houdini gave back to the Masonic fraternity of which he was so proud, including giving a benefit performance for the Valley of New York which filled the 4,000 seat Scottish Rite Cathedral and raised thousands of dollars. In October 1926, just weeks prior to his untimely death on that Halloween, he became a Shriner in Mecca Temple.

Under "Death" section please change

"Houdini's funeral was held on November 4, 1926, in New York, with more than 2,000 mourners in attendance"

to

"Houdini's funeral was held on November 4, 1926, in New York,[43] at the Elks Clubhouse in New York. Services were conducted by Rabbi Tintner who joined in the Elks "Hour of Remembrance," a tribute was delivered by Rabbi Bernard Drachman and eulogies by Loney Haskell of the Jewish Theatrical Guild and Henry Chesterfield of the National Vaudeville Artists, followed by a service by the Society of American Magicians, and concluded, as by tradition of the fraternity, with Masonic Rites. [2]"

Do you have sources for the changes? Existing references #1 and #2 do not cover the information you want added. Monty845 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The first section, at least, is a copyright violation/plagiarism of [8]. Furthermore, I'm not inclined to rewrite and use that as a reference, because, as a self-published website, it doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. If there are actual, reliable sources that verify this, then please make a new edit request.

Legacy

"1953: Houdini, a mostly fictionalized biopic of Houdini's life, was made. This movie ... has contributed, in part, to several misconceptions about Houdini's life. For example, it portrays the cause of Houdini's death to be the magician's failure to escape from the Chinese Water Torture Cell. (Curtis's Houdini agrees to seek medical attention "when the tour is over.")"...

Having just watched this movie (ok this is original research :-), I can say that the above statement is wrong. The film doesn't actually show his death (he is rescued alive and gasping/talking from the torture chamber), the film ends at this point. He didn't drown. If we are to assume he died of anything aren't we to assume the died from the appendicitis he was showing symptoms of, and was shown to aggravate or perhaps rupture just before this last scene? --Tony Wills (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting point. I've never really looked at it that way (I didn't write the entry, btw). I think the take away in the movie is that he IS dying and speaking his last words, but, yeah. --Zencato (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Replica of the Mirror Handcuffs

The following is the result of text added in April and recently updated: "A full sized replica of the Mirror Handcuffs, as well as a replica of the Bramah style key for it, is on display to the pubic at the Houdini Museum in Scranton, PA. The only pubic display of this style cuff anywhere in the world." That is unsourced and describes a replica: perhaps it should be removed unless someone can provide a reference, and explain how it helps this article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The text above and as it is in the article says "pubic" twice instead of "public." I was going to fix it, but the article is locked due to vandalism. - The Black Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling. Our apologies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"the dressing room"

After taking statements from Price and Smilovitz, Houdini's insurance company concluded that the death was due to the dressing-room incident and paid double indemnity.

what dressing room? 77.177.135.1 (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed exhumation

The "Proposed exhumation" section is fascinating and well referenced; what I question is whether we need it in a section unto itself. I do not question notability - but it just seems the section was designed as a smear of the Kalush-Sloman biography.

I don't excuse their behaviour, nor do I object to the section as-is. I only object to it being a section unto itself. If there were more to it, I'd say leave it in its own section.

I propose moving it to the very end of the "Death" section. Djathinkimacowboy 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Exhumation edit

My recent edit to the exhumation subsection was recently reverted. I have undone that revision, but another editor reverted it, saying something about "Wikipedia's voice". That sounds really reasonable. Not.

Why did I edit that way? Here:

"NEW YORK, March 23 -- Determined to right a historic wrong, a group that included authors, lawyers and a forensic pathologist called a news conference Friday to unveil a bold campaign to exhume a dead book. No, wait. To exhume a dead body. Well, that's what they said, anyway. But the more they talked about exhuming the body, the more it seemed like the point was reviving the sluggish sales of a nearly moribund book. Specifically, The Secret Life of Harry Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero, by William Kulash [sic] and Larry Sloman. Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..." -from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html. Retrieved March 24, 2007.

That is hostile to the biography, to the authors, and it clearly calls the book a door-stop, though the haec verba term used in the article as you see is "door-stopper"...which is the term we use in my family to mean "door-stop".

So, no, the edit stating the article is hostile to the book and the authors (as already cited with the citation of the article itself) and none of this is original research. As to "the voice of Wikipedia", well, aren't we all that voice?

Let's actually read citations before we go round accusing editors.

You're not dragging me into an edit war. Discussion should happen here, but I am calling for an RfC. Djathinkimacowboy 09:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr.K., either comment here if something is bothering you, or at least be more careful in your reversions. Djathinkimacowboy 09:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

== Harry Houdini == As to the revert you made at the article: "Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..." from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html. Retrieved March 24, 2007. Why don't you actually read the cited materials before accusing an editor of "original research" and "uncited comments"? It's all in the article. The language is hostile. My edits were already cited with the original citation, no point in citing every word I add when it's verifiable. I have undone your revert. Djathinkimacowboy 08:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I did read it. But it is still original research on your part. Commenting as you did: in a hostile article (in which they refer to the Superhero biography as "a door-stop" is your own commentary. It is therefore your own original thought. The very definition of original research. Please do not edit war to add original research to the article. I see you have already been reverted by another editor. So that should be a good indicator that others don't agree with you, so please don't make this personal. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
As to your question: As to "the voice of Wikipedia", well, aren't we all that voice? Definitely not. We are not that voice. As editors our duty is to not invent. But simply to record what reliable sources say. And there is no reliable source which carries your commentary above. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Then read it again....I do not wish to bandy semantics with you, but you are simply mistaken about this.

That article does call the biography a "door-stop", only using the term "door-stopper" and you know that.

As to your quote of my edit, I did indeed say "hostile", which the article is. You are now obfuscating a fact by saying I made that up - the article made it up, not I. Can you be a bit more fair in your unwarranted evaluation of my edit?

And I have already said I am not going to edit war, I have no intention to do so and never have. The fact that someone else hopped in minutes after you tells me nothing.

Please do not remove the rfc request! Djathinkimacowboy 09:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use visual gimmicks like italics and do not presume to tell me to read articles again. Instead please read our policy of WP:OR again. I will not argue any longer with you because you are simply mistaken. Also please do no instruct me using exclamation marks to not remove the RFC if you have no justification or indication whatsoever for thinking that I would. This is simply rude. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Please practice what you preach, then. Rude! You are in no position to call me rude. And I asked that the tag not be removed...did I ask you specifically?

Furthermore, please do not instruct me about the best way to clarify a long post. I did that for ease of reading. Does that bother you for some other reason? Djathinkimacowboy 09:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were replying to me when you mentioned Please do not remove the rfc request!. Therefore you were addressing yourself directly at me. But saying this to anyone is rude on your part and a violation of WP:AGF. So please assume good faith for everyone before you discuss matters here. Anyway I will disengage from directly replying to you because I don't think it would be particularly fruitful. Let's wait for others now that the RFC is on. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your statement above is quite telling. You ask for something from other editors which you are unwilling to give. And I was not directing myself at you with the request not to remove the tag. If you thought so, then I am sorry for it. Djathinkimacowboy 10:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not raise an RfC for a minor issue like this. I believe we are discussing this edit which added the underlined text in:

    The Washington Post added to the furor by stating in a hostile article (in which they refer to the Superhero biography as "a door-stop") that the press conference was not orchestrated by the family of Houdini.

    The "hostile article" might be obviously true, but nevertheless such text should never be used in an article—to do so is known as expressing an opinion in Wikipedia's voice (that term is commonly used in various noticeboards; see WP:NPOV). An article can say that a certain source claimed X, but an article never states X unless X is an uncontroversial statement of fact. To say that a certain article is hostile is clearly an opinion. If it is the opinion of an editor, it does not belong in the article. For example, why is the opinion stated? An answer might be "in order to counteract the reliable source"—that is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not tell me how to edit on Wikipedia, and do not obfuscate this further. If a citation is verified as obviously hostile - which this reference clearly is - then what you say makes no sense. Or are you saying I need to find another citation that says the article was "hostile"? - even sillier. Do you read the rules very closely? Anyone has the right to an rfc. You make it seem as if you'd like to strip this right from me. Djathinkimacowboy 09:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously agree with the reasonable comments of Johnuniq. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Yes, that is pretty clear. I'd like some fresh eyes on this, if you don't mind.... Djathinkimacowboy 10:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Johnuniq's comment. Calling the article hostile is a classic case of wp:original research. I would definitely also replace the phrase "added to the furor by stating that" with the dry "stated that". (What made me come here.) - DVdm (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Good catch, thank you. I had not seen it. I replaced it as you suggested. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
At least I can rest easy: it was not I who wrote "added to the furor"...that was there already. It was that which gave me the boldness to edit further. And I thank DVdm for helping. Djathinkimacowboy 12:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote the "Impartial tone" sec. from point of view:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone..."

Let me state that I read clearly in the article that it was hostile - a dispute with the authors and their book on Houdini. I did not state anything else, not even what I just stated here. I simply stated what I saw throughout the article; it is clear to anyone who reads the article. It was hostile, as I read it, because Kalush and Sloman generated a phony exhumation story for publicity.

More importantly, the article was hostile to the book. It calls the book a "door-stopper" (a/k/a a "door-stop") and I really can't imagine why you all deny that the article states that. Are you reading the same article I'm reading?

So I was not and am not saying either reference source is anything other than what I verified. That is the Wikipedia standard too: verifiability, or verification. Does that help justify the reason for my original edit? I don't want to be accused of edit warring again.... Djathinkimacowboy 12:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "It was that which gave me the boldness to edit further": that's understandable. So look at it as another subtle lesson in wp:neutrality. - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What, DVdm? What is that? You mention a star I have awarded you...for what reason? And exactly which "subtle" neutrality "lesson" am I to learn from the line you just posted? Do not mistake me, I am asking genuine questions because I'm confused by your post. It doesn't seem helpful. Djathinkimacowboy 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The lesson to be learned is from this entire section here. And the reason I mentioned the star: look at it as a little exercise. No feedback required when you complete it, nor when you don't complete it. Feel free to ignore it. - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DVdm, I've learnt a lot all right - still do not know where you're coming from regarding all this. I feel I am in the right, but I follow procedure and I'm certainly not edit warring. According to some editors here, I have no rights at all. Furthermore, I doubt whether you're being particularly helpful at this point. The issue is: a source that serves as a backbone for a section should be described accurately when necessary. Doing that is not an exercize in point of view, is what I am arguing. Djathinkimacowboy 04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a little uneasy here. While I avoiding the language is probably a good thing, I think we should perhaps be a little cool about worrying about this sort of item. Not because WP:OTHERWORSESTUFFEXITS, but because it is that other worse stuff that the "rules" are meant for. Had the term "negative" rather than "hostile" been used, then I would have real difficulty calling this OR. A little note on language, while "door stop" may imply that that is all a book is good for, it is also used simply as a description of size, which in the context of "holiday reading" may even be considered a positive description. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
Rich, being a slightly biased fan of the biography, it is no door-stop as to its size! Deliberately misreading any writing seems a bit unconstructive....I do not accuse you, but it seems that is what is being done. Djathinkimacowboy 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't be uneasy Rich. Even the adjective "negative" is original research not only because it is unattributed but also, as you so rightly say, the term "door-stop" may even be a positive comment. We cannot know therefore if this review is "positive" or "negative", let alone "hostile", with any degree of certainty. This is the kind of commentary WP:OR tries to suppress and this is why we shouldn't engage in this practice. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So you see, there is an insistence that I find a separate source to back up what is obvious about a primary source! Silly, man. Djathinkimacowboy 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think even "negative" would be suitable. The article is negative, but editors should not provide editorial commentary to oppose a source. If the source warrants mention (WP:DUE), mention it with attribution ("X said Y"). For the source in question (highly reliable for this sort of usage), we may wonder why the article was so negative. A possible answer is that the reliable source made an assessment of the situation and concluded that the situation was so silly that serious commentary was inappropriate, and readers should be told clearly about the nonsense. If that passes WP:DUE, an editor should not add a disclaimer by effectively saying "here is the claim, but the reader can discount it because the source is biased". Another way of looking at it is to consider a normal publication: suppose I were to write an article under my name in some reliable source—I could say that the article was negative or hostile because it would be clear that those words were my opinion. At Wikipedia, there is no such author to hold the opinion, so editorial commentary is not suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That is all babbling. Johnuniq admits the article is negative. That in itself is a consensus that it is negative, or reads as negative - and I said over and over, I am not trying to nail one source over another. Djathinkimacowboy 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

* My arguments have been made - and all I see is strange, niggling arguments and veiled insults. Certainly I appreciate the new editors who have joined the discussion, and added positive ideas. No decision will be reached, obviously, and I have no desire to engage any longer over one stupid word, which I thought might help illuminate the section. Clearly, I thought wrongly. Djathinkimacowboy 04:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, there's a consensus that the article is negative, but there's no hint of a consensus that we can mention its negativity — produce a reliable source saying that the article is negative, then convince us that that fact is sufficiently wp:notable, and then you're in business. That is the way it goes, and, seriously, someone who has been editing here since a decade should know that. - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DVdm. The argument isn't so much that the commentary is negative or not, but that you want to mention it. You want to highlight the fact that the commentary is negative so that you can negate its impact and also use it as implied criticism of the source. Therefore you are constructing an artificial synthesis to influence the understanding of the section by the reader. If this commentary was analysed by someone else, other than you, reliable enough to be included in this article, then that would present no problem. But in the absence of external commentary we cannot substitute our made-in-Wikipedia home-made version, especially so that we can assail the credibility of a reliable source by adding criticism even implicitly. If what this source claims is so bad or unusual there should be no problem finding another source which criticises this source, without us having to do the criticism by ourselves and in the process engage in original research and synthesis. Negativity is also not a bad thing on its own. It may even be necessary is some cases. Because it can conceivably be in this case that, even if negative, the criticism provided by the reliable source may be perfectly valid and justified. Highlighting its negativity therefore, could be viewed as POV which aims at negating its perfectly valid criticism. Reporting on the negativity of the source we implicitly tell the reader that negativity is a bad thing and therefore we like only positive things to be told about this event. We cannot take sides like this in an argument. We are here to report facts, not paint them with implicit criticism on our own. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I feel the rudeness and pettiness knows no bounds here. Frankly I am disappointed with the unfriendly, unhelpful tenor. Yes, I know, you want a source that says, blah blah. DVdm, now that you've got your dig in you may wish to leave this behind...as I already have. Djathinkimacowboy 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K., I really did not want to see another 1,000-word essay about why you are so correct and I am so incorrect. Djathinkimacowboy 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You asked for comments. You got comments. Try to learn from the comments. Otherwise, if you think that these comments breathe boundless rudeness and pettiness, then perhaps Wikipedia is not your place. Blogging might be a good alternative. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the same to you. Never have I regretted awarding a star before, but now.... Djathinkimacowboy 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to all editors. I have reflected - based on all your comments and mine - I was rude and petulant. Complaining about the very things I've been doing! I'm sorry. I will not do this kind of thing again, you have my word. I hope you will all take note, and accept. Djathinkimacowboy 07:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Newer edits, unrelated to rfc

Hope no one will protest to my removal of some frankly silly minutiae and grammatical corrections from the article. We don't need to know every time Houdini's name was mentioned or every time he inspired someone.

I also removed the cumbersome explanations about Google's patents. There is such a thing as notability. Djathinkimacowboy 13:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good (though I haven't looked in detail). The (polite) term deciding whether stuff belongs in an article is significance - we reserve notability primarily for articleworthiness. Obvious example, John Doe is marginally notable. His article may reasonably mention his children, although they are not notable (in their own right), they are significant. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
Fine, whatev, man. Semantics. At least I can appreciate your understanding. Djathinkimacowboy 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, nothing to do with anyone's kids. Look, I removed one-liners that said things like, "X wrote a song about Houdini" and "X mentioned Houdini once upon a time". I can't add a single word, but that garbage is allowed? It seems to me no one is reviewing this article as a whole except me. When I mentioned the source in "Exhumation" it is because that is the backbone of the entire section. It is fair to describe a source correctly, no? (You've all said "no" already anyway.) Djathinkimacowboy 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My above heartfelt apology extends to you here, Rich Farmbrough. Djathinkimacowboy 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Houdini reported as first flight in australia by some sources

Extended content

He was not the only man attempting to make history in Australia. In 1909, Colin De Fries attempted to fly a Wright Brothers plane at Victoria Park Racecourse in Sydney. In March 1910, at the same time as Houdini, two other men Fred Custance in Adelaide and Raplh Banks at Diggers Rest in Victoria, were also attempting to fly. Banks had a Wright Brothers craft and Custance had a Bleriot monoplane. Houdini was accustomed to competition and was ruthless in eliminating it. The fact that others were attempting to fly motivated him and fired his determination to be first in the air.

— Australia's centenary of flight, Recreational Aviation Australia - December 2009 / January 2010, pp28-29

.....Despite the heavy schedule, by March 18th all was prepared for the escapologist to become an aviator.... ....That day he arrived at Diggers Rest shortly before 5 a.m. It was a perfect almost windless day. Shortly before 8 a.m., Houdini in front of several witnesses, including competitor Raplh Banks and some newspaper reporters, took the Voisin from its tent. ...He was aloft for one minute... ....On the second attempt he covered almost three kilometers... The flight was witnessed by many people who later signed a declaration stating that Harry Houdini had flown a Voisin aeroplane reaching a maximum height of 100 feet. From that moment, Houdini described himself to friends, audiences and in letter as Australia's first aviator. The signed declaration was necessary for that morning newspapers had reported that Fred Custance in South Australia had flown his Bleriot monoplane the day before. According to the papers, Custance had flown for two to three miles at an altitude of 12 to 15 feet. Some papers stated unequivocally that this was Australia's first flight. However, Fred Custance was not Harry Houdini, showman, magician, escapologist and self promoter. Houdini's charisma, determination and fame ensured that Custance remained a footnote in the aviation story, whilst Harry Houdini was acclaimed throughout the country as Australia's first aviator. Soon the flights at Diggers Rest became a popular attraction. Crowds flocked to see them and convoys of new motor cars, driving at a speedy 32 kilometers per hour, made their way from Melbourne.

— Australia's centenary of flight, Recreational Aviation Australia - December 2009 / January 2010, pp29-30

On March 20th, 120 people including a spring cart full of young men from Melbourne, gathered to watch Houdini fly. The crowd was warned to stay beneath the trees for their own safety, but some daring young men on horseback strayed into the line of flight.... ...In April 1910, the Aerial League of Australia presented Harry Houdini with an inscribed plate to commemorate his historic feats. The inscription read, "To H Houdini, for the first Aerial flight in Australia March 16 1910." The date was a full two days before Houdini became airbourne. However, it was also a day before a certian Fred Custance had flown in South Australia. Finally Houdini was officially recognised as Australia's first flyer, it was etched in gold plate in official history.

— Australia's centenary of flight, Recreational Aviation Australia - December 2009 / January 2010, p30

References:

Progress of Aeronautics, Town and Country Journal April 27th 1910 The Australasian, March 18th 1910 Houdini Flies The Argus, March 19th 1910 The Daily Telegraph May 3rd 1910

— Australia's centenary of flight, Recreational Aviation Australia - December 2009 / January 2010, p30

Some of the text is available from online sources, I haven't looked to find all of it, haven't looked for the papers, but it's obviously very significant and needs to be included in the article which presents Harry as Australia's first aviator. I have the full text in the publication in front of me, if anyone needs more.

-(Indonesian: Penyulap, Lit. Magician) Penyulap talk 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The summary provided in the article is rather small compared to the original, and has already been summarized, so I'm not seeing it as a copy vio, removed weasles. Penyulap talk 09:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have again reverted. The copyvio from http://leann-richards.suite101.com/australias-first-aviator-a294142 is clear (that URL is on the blacklist and cannot be entered normally). Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant, except it had nothing to do with the URL, as mentioned, the full text, of which only part I've seen elsewhere on the web, came from a magazine. MOOT. As I figure the original newspaper reports would be better as they have lovely pictures and everything. By now of course they'd be so totally out of copyright, being so darn old. No ? So we could have the piccies and everything to spruce up the article. But for now he'll just have to parade as the first aviator in Australia a little longer till I get to it. Penyulap talk 12:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
What blacklist would you explain that to me please. Penyulap talk 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
So from the discussions we've had on our talkpages, I take it your position is if a person creates a blacklisted site, and then copies information from wikipedia onto their site, we must delete the original information from wiki ? or if they copy material, such as material I have suggested for inclusion into the article, properly referenced and cited, that valid material becomes invalid ? Penyulap talk 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In this edit a few paragraphs were added to the article. One of those is shown on the right in the table below. The text on the left is from the blacklisted link mentioned above.

suite101 article
He was not the only man attempting to make history. In 1909, a man named Colin De Fries attempted to fly a Wright Brothers plane in Sydney. In March 1910, at the same time as Houdini, two other men, Fred Custance in Adelaide and Ralph Banks at Diggers Rest in Victoria, were attempting to fly. Banks had a Wright Brothers craft and Custance had a Bleriot monoplane. He was not the only man attempting to make history in Australia. In 1909, Colin De Fries attempted to fly a Wright Brothers plane at Victoria Park Racecourse in Sydney. In March 1910, at the same time as Houdini, two other men Fred Custance in Adelaide and Raplh Banks at Diggers Rest in Victoria, were also attempting to fly. Banks had a Wright Brothers craft and Custance had a Bleriot monoplane.

That is clearly a copyvio. Are you suggesting that the text added to Wikipedia in that edit (23 December 2011) was on Wikipedia first, and was then copied to the external site? As I explained at your talk, it is common for several sites to have similar text—it can be hard to determine which holds the original. At any rate, it seems clear that the text added to Wikipedia was copied from somewhere. Are you saying it wasn't? Are you aware that copying text into Wikipedia is not permitted: even if attributed, we do not insert significant amounts of text from other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation is copying someone's work. Copying is where there is an original from which a duplicate is made. You found a copy. Great, well done, that's what you have found, a copy, on a site that copies things. Here is the question if they are copying things, where do you think they get it from ? well the answer to that is from an original. If there is no original, you can't be copying someone else's work, it would be original work. Are you following me so far ? Penyulap talk 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I considered uploading a picture of the magazine using my webcam, but upon enquiring about the copyright for that image, I found the following comment echoed my own position, it may be of interest to you as well.

... There is not and never will be a requirement that a citation to a printed source include a weblink. If the text appears in a reliable source, that's all that's needed..... The fact that similar information is on a blacklisted site is, as somebody else already pointed out, completely irrelevant.

— --Orange Mike, Talk 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, if you can't find the magazine yourself, and ask nicely I'd be happy to upload it somewhere off-wiki for you. Penyulap talk 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a major misunderstanding of the ethics and legal implications concerned with copying material into articles. In brief: do not copy material into articles because it is not ethical and it is a copyvio. Where the material was copied from is totally irrelevant (unless you are claiming the material had a license allowing reuse, in which case there should be a footnote in the article stating that it contains material taken from the source—not just a reference). Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Guys, you are talking past each other. Penyulap, you have to paraphrase from that site, not just copy. The writer in question is not just quoting or swiping from other sites, she's summarizing and combining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoAdamite (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The aviation section has been badly mangled by all this. Zencato (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Aviation section should be reverted

I'm a little shocked to see what has happened to the Aviation section and very surprised Wiki is allowing these changes to stand. Five paragraphs on competitor claims that they were first to fly in Australia? The fact is the historical record shows Houdini as the first. One paragraph at best should note other claims. Certainly the new heading of "Falsely reported as pioneer" is misleading and shows bias.

Now, know that there is a regional pissing match in Australia over this -- which region has the claim in the first flight and sell first flight merchandise, etc. I believe that is why this was added. This was a well written and sourced section of the Houdini story. Now it has been made a mess by partisans in this fight. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/dogfight-for-claim-to-nations-first-powered-flight/story-e6frg95x-1225806755847

Here are the facts on Houdni's flight, including competitor claims: http://www.wildabouthoudini.com/2010/03/how-100-years-ago-houdini-showed.html

I believe this section should be reverted back to what it was before all this started. (Zencato (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

I have rewritten this section, eliminating the bias and making it about Houdini and his aviation career. Five paragraphs devoted to Colin Defries was not appropriate nor of value in an article about Houdini. The heading "Falsely reported as pioneer" was clearly bias. I've included Defries claim and the first flight controversy. But I believe it now has the proper perspective. For this I've largely sourced the book, Houdini!!! The Career of Ehrich Weiss by Ken Silverman, which I believe to be the most accurate biography of Houdini. My own personal qualifications as Houdini historian can be found here. (http://www.wildabouthoudini.com/p/about-me.html) I really feel this section had gone off the rails. I believe it is now much improved. Know that there is a regional controversy in Australia over which town can claim "first flight" statue. I think we should beware of people coming in here and altering this section for partisan reasons. --Zencato (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting that you mention a regional bias, I was thinking the same thing myself actually. However, I think Houdini did travel a fair bit, so which country would you say the topic of pioneer aviator, as you call it, is most related to ?
How would you improve the title of the section ?
There does indeed seem to be some confusion at least in the minds of some commentators, such as Mr Creedy, but I think it's deliberate, as part of his stylizing that story to get a headline, for example he claims "NSW is attempting to trump Victoria" it's personification trying to invent a contest, I don't think he's much of a source for anything, and certainly not suitable as a source for the claims made in the article.
There would be considerable bias to suggest there is any contest or confusion in the article based upon Mr Creedy's remarks, as such claims would FAIL WP:NOTABLE because if you read that article with close scrutiny, it's not one group of historians against another group of historians, nor is it one group from one state against another group from another state. It's pretty much everyone against one poor bloke who has the task of drumming up support for his local town, trying to make that town notable in the eyes of tourists, to get tourist dollars, and the only thing that happened in that town was a failed attempt by Houdini to be the first person to take to the air in Australia according to sources that we have, I don't know myself, I wasn't there. The paragraphs provided are short, but I'd like to listen to any suggestions you have to shorten them still further, however keep in mind we have to say just what it is that Harry Houdini IS noteworthy for, and need to do it in an accurate way, not misrepresenting his achievement in the way you've done here.
The one guy whose job it is to make that town a tourist attraction is already getting more than enough assistance and bias out of the newspaper you source. He doesn't need more assistance from Wikipedia along similar lines.
The second ref, from wildabouthoudini.com is such an epic fail I wouldn't bother using it for anything, except that Houdini slept under his plane and the claim a competitors flight was a 'myth' (yes I am being sarcastically humorous in this last bit) but if you are unsure about whether or not they are good reliable sources, I'll be happy to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard for you, to get a more detailed explanation. Penyulap talk 07:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into it with you. I rewrote that section using reliable sources, notably Ken Silverman's seminal biography, Houdini!!! The Career of Ehrich Weiss. I also included Colin Defries claim and the controversy, because I think this is part of the story. But I think it's ridiculous to have five paragraphs devoted to the career and accomplishments of Colin Defries in an article about Harry Houdini. That is for the Defries page. The headline "Falsely reported as pioneer" is also inflammatory and bias. But I'm not going to go back and fourth with this. Anyone can see for themselves that the aviation section is wildly unbalanced and just flat out weird in its fixation on Defries. I will leave it to some other Wiki editor to decide which version should stand. Here is my version which you reverted:
Pioneer Aviator
In 1909, Houdini became fascinated with aviation. He purchased a French Voisin biplane for $5000 and hired a full-time mechanic, Antonio Brassac. Houdini painted his name in bold block letters on the Voisin's sidepanels and tail. After crashing once, he made his first successful flight on November 26 in Hamburg, Germany. The following year (1910), Houdini toured Australia. He brought along his Voisin biplane and made what was reported to be the first controlled flight over Australia on March 18, 1910 at Diggers Rest, Victoria (near Melton), north of Melbourne. The Aerial League of Australia certified his accomplishment and awarded him a trophy for his flight.[1] However, others claimed to flown before Houdini, most notably Colin Defries, who claimed he flew a Wright Model A aircraft about 115 yards at Sydney's Victoria Racecourse on December 9, 1909. The controversy over which region can celebrate Australia's first flight continues to this day.[2]
After his Australia tour (which included several more flight exhibitions at Rosehill racetrack near Sydney), Houdini put the Voisin into storage in England. Although he announced he would use it to fly from city to city during his next tour -- and even promised to leap from it handcuffed -- Houdini never flew again.[3]
I've done what I can. It's up to Wiki now. --Zencato (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to investigate the issue in detail now, but the text restored by Penyulap ("undid...for an alphabet soup of problems") is clearly inappropriate as this article is not the place to discuss who made the first powered flight in Australia. The heading "Falsely reported as pioneer" is also inappropriate—something neutral should be devised as there is no need for a heading to provide instruction to the reader. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in this, Johnuniq. If anyone should want to investigate this, here's a page with original photos, original newspapers clippings, film, and the actual certificate of Houdini's flight signed by the timekeepers and other witnesses: http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/houdini_bio.html This page also has a poster for the Sydney flights at Rosehill, which was also erased from the record by Penyulap's edit, which states incorrectly that Houdini only flew 3 times in Melbourne.
And here's a photo of the trophy he received from the Ariel Legue of Australia for making the first flight: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_5Z3Zpfj0M/TNrSuXlC_RI/AAAAAAAAABE/ELyZ1FVUqyU/s1600/droppedImage_4.jpg
The fact that at the time Houdini was recognized as having made the first controlled flight in Australia and awarded this honor should not be erased from his history because of a rival claim made 20+ years later after he was dead. Nor should we ignore that there is a controversy. That's why I included a nod to Defries in my paragraph with a link so people could investigate it further if they like. I think with this I achieved a balance. --Zencato (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with John. The amount of information about who made the first flight in Australia is excessive, distracts from the flow of the article and does not belong in this biography. Also the section heading needs an NPOV adjustment. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it seems we are ALL in unanimous agreement about the title, but nobody wants to suggest something better. Thanks for stating an opinion, Johnuniq, even though you 'don't want to investigate the issue in detail now', I look forward to any further suggestions you may have at some point in the future.
Zencato, you've said "I'm not going to get into it with you." if that is the case, could you please at least read the article, you may wish to reconsider your statements, for example "Five paragraphs devoted to Colin Defries was not appropriate nor of value in an article about Houdini." and "But I think it's ridiculous to have five paragraphs devoted to the career and accomplishments of Colin Defries in an article about Harry Houdini."
If you take the time to read the article you may find it doesn't have (and I don't think it ever has had) 5 paragraphs about Colin Defries, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
When you say "because of a rival claim made 20+ years later after he was dead." again, I'm not sure you've read the article. Are you aware that it wasn't 20 years later, but on the same day that Houdini took to the air, that a major newspaper was publishing news of a 'rival' taking to the air the day before ? There is a significant difference, and again, reading the article will help here.
I do like the part where you've written "After his Australia tour (which included several more flight exhibitions at Rosehill racetrack near Sydney), Houdini put the Voisin into storage in England. Although he announced he would use it to fly from city to city during his next tour -- and even promised to leap from it handcuffed -- Houdini never flew again"
I think that's a good improvement to add to the article, even though I can't find a full view of the book, I do take your word for it. Certainly it should be included in the article.
Dr.K., on the subject of Houdini as an aviator, do you think we should simply remove all claims that he was the first in Australia, or remove all claims that he wasn't the first in Australia, or any claims that he was an aviator at all ? Possibly we can remove all references to any newspaper reports and just use, as our only source, the guy who is getting paid to put Diggers rest onto the tourist map ? I don't mind helping, but I think if we start asking about we may find we can't actually do any of that as it's quite against policy, (shrug). Somehow I think we can stay on course with policy if we fairly cover what Houdini is notable for and why. I guess the guy could cook, but wasn't known for that. If he's a famous aviator on stamps in that country, it's possibly something notable that can be documented. If there are articles about his aviation in newspapers I figure why don't we put them in. It's not our place to decide if he was or was not the first. That is not wikis job. We should simply put it all into the article, both for and against, and make fair summaries of the sources. Look, if someone wants to ask at the RS noticeboard if the guy whose paid job it is to promote the town is a reliable source then I'm all for it, in the meantime I'd suggest he is not notable and Wikipedia shouldn't be his personal newspaper or advertising outlet. If you can find other sources I'm all for it, and let me tell you I am not fussy at all. If it looks even the least bit decent I'm happy. Now is there anything which I haven't already included ? keep in mind I found and included references that state he was the first to take to the sky in Australia. If the combination of all the sources that we do have isn't in harmony with the text of the article I think we should change it. I do think however, if people are going to make drastic changes they should do it for the right reasons, rather than making false assumptions about the text in the article, and completely forgetting to check references. Reading helps here people, and research! research! research! Penyulap talk 06:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So are we letting this mess stand as is? --Zencato (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm still trying to think of ways to improve it, are you still trying to think of ways to improve it ? Let's not just give up ! There is ALWAYS room for improvement. Penyulap ☏ 13:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, seeing as you simply revert everything I do, and that you've already said my Houdini blog is "is such an epic fail I wouldn't bother using it for anything", I really don't feel all that inclined to help out on this Wiki page as I have done for years (and this page badly needs help). I leave it in your hands. --Zencato (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Harry Houdini Aviation Pioneer". ctie.monash.edu.au. Retrieved March 15, 2012.
  2. ^ "Dogfight for claim to nation's first powered flight". theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  3. ^ Silverman, pp. 137–154
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Houdini/Archive_1&oldid=1136787324"