Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 1

Statue of Liberty Illusion and Flying Illusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverted

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

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

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

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

William Poundstone's "original research"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

article header: Jewish-American vs. American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mel Etitis has expressed a point of view ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abscissa, I see you've gone back to reinserting "Jewish" into the header after a 10 month cool down. I admire your willingness to let the edit war drop then, but I believe the arguments made against you are still valid. Current consensus on Wikipedia is that headers should include nationality but not ethnicity, including religion, unless it is particularly relevant to one's notability, say in the case of Jerry Falwell or Anne Frank. For that reason I have removed it, and will continue to do so if you insist upon reinserting it. Goodnightmush^Talk 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Niagra" Falls

Is The Magic of David Copperfield XII: The Niagra Falls Challenge the correct title, or should it be ... Niagara Falls ...? Either correct it or add "[sic]". — 193.203.81.129 12:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Age

How much research has been done to confirm David Copperfield was actually born in 1956? I know that couldn't be correct because I was born in 1954 and growing up David was several years older than me no doubt about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.149.20 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer info

Would anyone object to the Claudai Schiffer info being removed from the Personal Life section? Specifically, I'm referring to the following sentences

"Copperfield was engaged to the supermodel Claudia Schiffer, but the couple parted ways in 1999 after a six year relationship. There was speculation that Schiffer was not actually Copperfield's girlfriend, but was instead a contractor working for him. The popular German tabloid Bild published a fax from Copperfield's management to Schiffer, informing her of Copperfield's itinerary, where she should appear with Copperfield, and her fees.[citation needed] Copperfield labeled the fax a forgery. Richard Jeffries, the father of Schiffer's next boyfriend, art dealer Tim Jeffries, stirred up the controversy further when he publicly stated that Copperfield never had sexual relations with Schiffer.[7] Copperfield's retort was that since Jeffries was never in their bedroom, he couldn't know. Schiffer also denied the accusations by Jeffries"

Under the policies for Biographies of Living Persons, it specifically states that Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Also, a bit further down, In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

After reading the Claudia Schiffer section over a couple of times, it really feels more of tabloid exploitation rather than encyclopedic material, since it really doesn't add any value to the David Copperfield's fame as an illusionist. Plus, it even stats that the source originated from a German TABLOID. It just feels that the Claudia bit of info is really out of place and I would like to remove it if nobody objects to it.

TheMagicOfDC 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the Personal Life section by removing most of the questionable sentences mentioned above, and moving the remaining mention of Claudia Schiffer and David's father into the bottom of the Boigraphy section. TheMagicOfDC 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Walking through a mirror

I don't remember which of his TV shows this trick was performed on, but how he did it was revealed by a bad camera angle. (The perils of live television.)

The trick.

A platform is onstage. It has an open framework on top with a wall on the front- with a rectangular hole in its middle, and is supported on legs, open underneath so the audience can see there's no hiding space below.

A large mirror is slid in from the side, behind the front wall. A piece of yellow paper is used to cover the hole in the wall. Copperfield mounts the platform and black curtains are dropped from the other three sides of the framework. After a bit of music, an arm punches through the paper, followed by the rest of Copperfield as he appears to struggle his way through the mirror. As he finishes coming through, he stands in front of the hole with his arms up to block the hole with his body as the crew comes out to take down the curtains.

The revealing goof.

As the crew takes down the curtains, one man on the left side of the platform can be seen reaching under the platform to grab and swing a lever. That makes it obvious how the trick was done. The mirror was slid into a pivoting frame and after the curtains were dropped, Copperfield moved the mirror out of the way just like opening a door. The rest is merely theatrics with the crewmember to pivot the mirror back.

The reveal could've been avoided by using a gas spring cylinder with a catch to hold the mirror back and a release button on the platform in front of the wall for Copperfield to step on.

---

Bad camera angles can really blow an act. Another one was a juggler who used his balls to play a large electronic keyboard, appearing several times on The Statler Brothers show. The last time he was on, a camera in the stage wing revealed a man playing a keyboard in time to the balls hitting the fake keyboard onstage. (I bet that was one PO'ed juggler! Until then I thought he was really playing a custom keyboard with the juggling balls.)

Warehouse raid

The warehouse raide is listed twice. Someone care to combine the text into one please? --Drmike 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it certain that the raid was in relation to a rape investigation? The reports I've read say that the nature of the case has not been disclosed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.181.4 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a lockdown on this article (WP:PPOL) (editing prohibited by newly registered users), esp. if this case gets really ugly.--Msr69er 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)--Msr69er 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the lockdown - someone has editted the article to say "David Copperfield is an illusionist...and sexual predator". I'm removing that. Alpha Five 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the false statement that 2 million dollars was seized. It was not as seen here. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2007/10/fbi-denies-taki.html Timothy Drake —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Blogs don't count. Find a proper source. ► RATEL ◄ 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As requested... news article where FBI clarifies money was not taken. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003965006_copperfield21m.html Timothy Drake —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Dollars

Can somebody please tell me how much "$US2 million ($2.25 million) in cash" is? Wow, how retarded is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.158.31 (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

i am a magician, so i know how most of his tricks are done. i looked at al of the links that tried to reveal his secrets and i realized that most of them were either partly wrong or %100 wrong so i removed them. i see no point in trying to lie to people and trying to ruin david copperfield. ask any magician, those secrets were incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.91.2 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

As a fan of the art of magic and illusion, I am familiar with how important the secrets of the illusions are. These Russian websites as just as damaging as what the Masked Magician TV specials have done for amateur magicians who do not have the budget or the means to develop new illusions to their routine if the MM revealed one of their tricks. Although the revealed method may be different than how the performer actually performs the illusion, it takes away from the magic of the audience watchign the show, and leaves them less wanting to pay to go see the shows in the future.

As stated in the first sentence of Wikipedia's guidelines for Avoiding Harm, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'" Revealing Copperfield's secrets is harmful and damaging to his career. Whether or not he, as a multi-millionaire, will be financially affected at this point is beyond my concern, nor is it a factor in deciding whether these links should be included, but for the simple fact of protecting the art of magic, I think that all the links to revealing magic secrets should be removed at least from biographical pages of magicians and illusionists, including Copperfield. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TheMagicOfDC, your edit history shows that you only ever edit the David Copperfield page. I think that although you may have a point in removing the tricks, others, such as aspiring magicians, may be very interested in how they are performed, so I would support their re-insertion. ► RATEL ◄ 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I only edit the David Copperfield page under the TheMagicOfDC name...I edit a few others in topics I'm interested in, such as a lot of the Transformers articles, as well as a few Chinese articles about Taiwan. I am a huge Copperfield fan, and I try to keep an eye on this particular article, but I believe my edits here adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines in that they are neurtal in tone, and I only ever try to remove anything if I see something that is in question of violating one of those guidelines, or if the source is questionable (i.e., the rumor about David being gay and hired Claudia as a girlfriend was sourced to a German tabloid). Things like secrets to illusions are often (and usually are) copyrighted / trademarked info that magicians and illusions pay big bucks to learn and buy the performance rights to, and earn money by performing it to mystify and surprise the audience. I'm sure there are alot of people and aspiring magicians who would like to know how Copperfield performs his illusions, but is Wikipedia really the place to help reveal trade secrets? For example (...might be a bad example, but it's the only one that popped into my head at the moment), I love the Big Mac at McDonald's, and would love to make my own at home...so should the Wikipedia article on Big Macs provide the recipe on how to season the beef patty and how to make the Mac Sauce? 24.187.201.227 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the status quo; if somebody really wanted to know, they can go hunting through the edit history, ensuring they really do have to dig deep to locate the pointers to the answers they might be looking for. It's possible that the details behind any performances would also come under WP:NOT, in a similar way to railway timetables (excessive detail available elsewhere).

BTW, User:TheMagicOfDC, would you be in a position to acquire a GFDL-compatible, royalty free photograph to place on the article? The should be possible for any image where you yourself are the photographer or know the photographer/copyright holder and can get them to offer the image without restrictions. —Sladen (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Reference Link

just like to report that the CNN reference link under mugging (number 17) is no longer available. I will try to find another source.--Theoneintraining (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - fixed dead reference link, found new source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heritage background and protection

First, I do not have a preference for the outcome.

In the current version of the page[1], we have two cites for Mr. Copperfield's background, in the first and second paragraphs[2][3]. There is no mention of religion or country of origin/heritage. The sequence of letters a-m-e-r-i-c-a do not appear in either cite (except as American Academy of Dramatic Arts). The sequence of letters j-e-w does not appear in either cite. The sequence of letters r-u-s-s-i-a does not appear in either cite.

Per WP:VERIFY and particularly per WP:BLP, could this unsourced information either be sourced from somewhere (I haven't succeeded), or deleted (and stay that way). The only source that did state Russian was a Buzzle.com cite that is believed to have be circularly sourced from Wikipedia itself—and which has now been removed as a reference.

I'm tempted to nominate this article for semi-protection as all the repeated unsourced additions have been from IPs. Thoughts anyone? —Sladen (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

removed refs to Jewish and Israel, but added a lot of other sourced data. ► RATEL ◄ 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the decisive action.--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Grand Illusion

i think there should be some information on his current show, An Intimate Evening of Grand Illusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.156.197 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)