Talk:Zig Zag Girl

Many magic secrets are closely guarded. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, only those with reliable and cited sources can be included in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it will be removed from the main article. Any "secret" revealed on this talk page may not be accurate; it may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberately deceptive.

Archived text[edit]

This is the text from the original article: [1]. I redirected and merged into this one. I place the text here for archiving.

The Zig Zag illusion (originally Zig Zag Girl) is a famous and well-known stage grand illusion.

In this illusion, a person is placed inside a cabinet divided into three boxes, with their head, both hands, and a foot visible. Metal sheet blades are inserted in the two gaps between the boxes, and the middle box is then moved to one side, creating the effect of the person having been sliced into three independantly movable pieces. To reinforce this impression, their face and left hand are visible in the top box, their right hand (often waving a silk or flag) in the middle box, and their left foot in the bottom box. The boxes are then reassembled and the person revealed unharmed.

Because of the manner in which the illusion is achieved, it is generally performed with a female assistant, and there are limitations on her height and weight. Some of these issues are overcome in Modern Art, an illusion created by Jim Steinmeyer.

The method of this trick was exposed by the Masked Magician, Valentino, as part of Fox TV series called Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed. --Muchosucko 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Method is original research[edit]

The edit history for when the method was added (back in July 2005) has the summary: "My best guess at how it's done." It has remained essentially the same since then. This is completely unacceptable. Unless solid citations are found I will remove it, as there is no way it can be salvaged without using weasel words or finding a source that supports it. No real encyclopedia would accept entries based on someone's "best guess". Perhaps I'll go and edit an article on molecular biology to reflect my "best guess" of how DNA cloning is undertaken? Greeney (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the article a bit more closely, because it isn't original research - Above the 'method' section, there's a statement which reads "The method of this trick was exposed by the Masked Magician, Valentino, as part of a Fox TV series called "Breaking the Magicians' Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed"." As TV shows can be used as reliable sources according to WP:RS, there's a solid reference which shows that the method described in this article is accurate. All that's needed is for the reference to be added to the article, which I'll go and do as soon as I've finished this comment... JS3C (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Method section says “The method of this trick was explained... by... a...TV series called "Breaking the Magicians' Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed" and only cites the TV program itself. It article does not cite a reference that connects the method of the trick created by Harbin to the method explained in the TV show. The TV show did not state that the method used was that of Harbin’s. The article suggests that the method used in the TV show is the Harbin method. Regardless of whether it is or not, it should be made clear there is no citation. As it stands, the connection between the method shown in the TV show and that of the creator is speculation. StickyGimble (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "method" section does not actually state how the trick is done!203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page before blanking[edit]

Proposed Edit:

Remove section titled "The Method." There are sources in the professional literature which give an accurate account of the method. No such sources are cited here. Instead, a television show is cited. This is contrary to best practices for any credible encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NMarsh (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go here before blanking again. There's been a lot of talk about this. Please respect that. Talk:Sawing_a_woman_in_half --Muchosucko 21:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate reason for this information to be on wikipedia. Those who need this information, have it or know where to access it in its complete and accurate form.

The explanation offered is inaccurate and incomplete.

There is a longstanding process for the distribution of this information which requires some form of active, real interest to be demonstrated by the student. Here, there is no such requirement.

May I ask the person who arrogantly persists in re-posting this after deletion: What is the value of this information being available publicly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.188.116 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic is a performing art. When done at its highest level, it puts you in a place where you know -- intellectually -- that there is some kind of "trick" to it. BUT, where you are convinced -- on a visceral, emotional level -- that what you are experiencing is NOT possible...

No other performing art offers that experience. That experience only exists when every rational explanation is eliminated. That experience only exists when there is a secret.

The truth is that the secrets of magic are both simple and complex. There is something very simple that makes the trick "work" -- but there are thousands of tiny details that work together to create the illusion. Without those details, all that's left is a stupid puzzle.

These cheap peepshows -- the masked magician specials, wikipedia articles etc...reduce something beautiful and extraordinary to something cheap and ordinary...they are condescending to the audience (listen to the voiceover on the masked magician video), they are deflating, crude, and ugly..

Bob Harbin was a master, and Zig-Zag Girl was one of his masterpieces...it has been dishonored by generations of thoughtless and mediocre performances..it became too popular for its own good...but, what you are doing is just as ugly and just as destructive...it is the equivalent of throwing red paint all over the mona lisa...

magicians don't get the durability that visual artists get...our work -- which has been sweated over for hours and hours -- doesn't last but in memories......these peepshows sully those memories and destroy art

please stop reposting this crap!--68.56.188.116 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Nathan Marsh[reply]

To make clear the reasons for the past edits (I just got a message from someone about having removed content without stating the reason). The page as stands contains inaccurate information. The accurate information was never intended for public consumption and has no legitimate purpose being made public. 68.56.188.116 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Nathan Marsh[reply]

If there is information you consider inaccurate, by all means correct it. Not having insider information as to how the trick works I cannot determine what is accurate and what is not. I won't accept just removing it and leaving everyone guessing as to what you found inaccurate.

As for "not intended for public consumption", the consensus among WP editors that follow magic articles appears to be that it is relevant information, regardless of whether the creator agrees. If one wants something a secret, they should keep the secret safe.

I want to know how the trick works and I believe that to be enough to make it "legitimate". If I do not want to know, then I can choose not to read the article or just the Method section. Without intending to sound confrontational, "who are you to decide what I can know and can't know?" Please feel free to weigh in on the subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic but make sure to read the archives first. Many of the arguments against have already been addressed. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this information, there are legitimate ways -- read: ways that would have met with the approval of the creator, who isn't around to defend his work -- that ANYONE who wants this information can have it.

I have no right to decide what you can or cannot know. But I do have every right to protest HOW you come to that knowledge. This information has always been available for those willing to put some work into finding it.

"If one wants something a secret, they should keep the secret safe."

The creator has protected the secrecy of the work as best he could while balancing the need for secrecy with the desire to make the material available to those who are going to respect it.

Thus, the information has been made available to those willing to expend some effort. This is an imperfect compromise; but one that works reasonably well.

Taking that information (or an inaccurate version thereof -- which functionally undermines the purpose of the secrecy in the same way as accurate information)and placing it where it can be found without sacrificing real time, energy, or money intentionally disrupts a well-crafted system designed to allow information to flow to those who have more than just a casual, prurient interest.

Deleted for the inaccuracy and irresponsibility of the included material. 68.56.188.116 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Nathan Marsh[reply]

Furthermore, there are serious issues with citations that undermine Wikipedia's fundamental credibility and are not consistent with the standards set by traditional encyclopedias.

This is part of the contemporary illusion "cannon"; there are numerous trade publications that give real information about this piece. But the citation is to an uploaded clip of a television show? A medium that caters to entertainment rather than education. And this specific show, which is about sensationalist entertainment, has a track record of inventing fanciful secrets for the material presented.

So someone watches TV and writes an article based on what they have seen? Is that what Britannica does?

The claim is made that the image is of Harbin performing zig zag for the very first time. Where is the citation? Harbin had a long, successful career and there is no indication of where the sense that this image is of the first ever performance comes from. It appears to be a still from a television performance, and I STRONGLY doubt that Harbin premiered a piece on television.

If you are insistent that this kind of information must be easily available, why not spend the time taking it from a credible source? I have been very skeptical of the notion of a publicly edited encyclopedia (part of me thinks it is a cool idea, part of me is concerned that something that can be edited by anyone has a brand of legitimacy), and the flimsy research underlying this article and the insistence on turning an encyclopedia into a peep show has only increased my skepticism.68.56.188.116 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Nathan Marsh[reply]

I can't seem to find any discussion about this topic that resolves things one way or the other. The reason not to give away magic secrets are numerous:
- It is not considered ethical behavior. It is damaging to the craft of magic to divulge secrets that are known by "insiders" because it devalues the craft and kills the impetus to perform. For example, divulging the secret to the zig-zag makes it that much more likely that we won't see it performed in the future, something I can't believe any magic fan would want.
- Regardless of the actual legal implications of various copyright/patent/trademark restrictions, it is immoral to divulge secrets to inventions created by others. Simply put, the secret to this illusion is not ours to give away.
- No other general-knowledge encyclopedia gives away magic secrets. By not following a principle followed in other encyclopedias, a core principle of Wikipedia is being violated. --Mattsnyder 21:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Matt, it's a better idea to read and post your thoughts here: Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick). More people will see it and you will have a better discussion. I am probably the only person looking at this page now. Most of the points you raise have already been raised and addressed at that page - if not, you should put it there, not here - We need to centralize and organize our discussion. There may be a resolution reached soon. With enough interest, the WikiProject on magic might establish some offical guidlines Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic#Disagreeing. --Muchosucko 21:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Muchosucko, I've read through all of the discussions and I've found nothing conclusive on them except on the "Disagreeing" page which said "exposure should be limited to only the most basic magic effects." The zig-zag is certainly not one of the most basic effects in magic. One of the most popular, certainly, but that hardly qualifies it for "basic" status. So after reading all of that, I still conclude it is wrong to divulge magic secrets on this page, and the secret should be removed. As reluctant as I am to continue this discussion on this page, I guess I can only ask this: why would anyone want to divulge these secrets? What is the point? It has always been considered immoral to divulge magic secrets...how has Wikipedia changed that?--Mattsnyder 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Matt, No one will change the fact that you consider divulging magic secrets immoral. No one wants to. But the consensus on the talk page I linked seems to be that it is moral. You can add your vote there. As of now, the most experienced editors with the most contributions to thier credits: User:Bovlb, User:Finlay_McWalter, User:Willmcw, User:TenOfAllTrades, User:MacGyverMagic have not raised objections. Partly because opposition began about a month ago with deep vandalism, of which you may have been a part. People disregarded the discussions editors carefully worked out in talk pages and indiscriminately blanked articles: It gave a very bad first impression to the magician's argument. Most of this opposition came from many new accounts, inexperienced Wiki users, and possible sockpuppets, further diminishing the weight of their arguments. There is still not enough attention from either side to go ahead with policy creation Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy, mostly because the number of reveals and the number of Magic articles is still very very small and inconsequential. Again, posting here is probably not a good idea, I may transplant this page so that more people can consider what we've discussed Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick).--Muchosucko 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's true that the exposure shouldn't be there in this case - because it's described as just being "my best guess as to how it's done" on the History page, and is thus original research.

Certainly it does not appear to line up with the posted photograph (there is no apparant "contortion space" around the central pillar)

-- Hyphz

It's my best guess. And it's a pretty good one, if I might add. You pointed out the posted photograph as proof that my solution was questionable. I'm glad you did, because I inspected that picture once again, and it convinced me that I got the solution right on. So thanks for that. I'll give you one more hint and tell you that your reaction is exactly what Harbin would've wanted. It's a great trick, I admit.--Muchosucko 23:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough. Perhaps for my (and other's?) benefit, you could add a touched-up version of the photo to indicate where the true boundaries of the box are? (Eg, is the spectating woman's hand actually TOUCHING the cabinet?) The reason why I'm cautious about this is that there's a book by Derren Brown where he basically comments that an incorrect exposure can be even worse than a correct one. It has the same "devaluing" effect that the magic vandals complain about so much, and at the same time it isn't useful to any magician genuinely interested in the trick because it's wrong. Moreover, any attempts by the magician to prove the exposure wrong (for instance, by displaying the appropriate parts of the trick) are easily rejected which breaks down the whole "I am decieving you but you'll let me because it's fun" social contract and replaces it with a kind of numb cynicism. I'm not saying you are wrong, or even that you should remove what you've posted, just that posting "best guesses" might not be the best idea as a general rule. -- Hyphz, 15:02 GMT 29 Jul 2005

Now that you've prompted me again, I'm doubly sure this is exactly how its done. You should also look at the video link. Read my explanation closely (I don't think you did) then watch the video like 10 times, then read my explanation closely 5 times. Another hint: notice the when the camera cuts to another camera in the video: you'll rarely see the back of the box because it shows the blades only taking up a small portion of the vertical space. Look at the blades he inserts, he does them very carefully. Watch the video closely. Again, Harbin has fooled you good.]]--Muchosucko 16:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harbin trick further explaination.JPG

Proposal re. magic methods[edit]

See the proposal: Policy for magic methods --TStone 16:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Links[edit]

The video links in the article are currently (temporarily?) broken. Jgm 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Harbin zigzag.jpg[edit]

Image:Harbin zigzag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret[edit]

Please remove the secret from this article. Why are you so obsessed with putting it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7E08:EB00:8159:46D8:154D:4EA7 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on deleting it (as well as in the article Mismade Girl? This has been discussed here before.Bkatcher (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it has been discussed, it's against our code to reveal these secrets. Please remove them. This info is being forwarded to others who will not like what is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7E08:EB00:5150:4BB2:6C6D:21AF (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to disseminate knowledge. If you don't like it, don't read it. Though why do I feel like I'm about to be turned into a frog? Bkatcher (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not bound by the "code" or rules of any outside group or trade organization. That specifically includes magicians.

Basically, it's not Wikipedia's job to keep your secrets if they're already publicly available in libraries. It's actually Wikipedia's job to do the opposite! APL (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will now be a boycott of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7E08:EB00:8D7C:7EC8:842:73DD (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]