Talk:King levitation

Original discussion
cool. :-) needs to be cleaned up a little, though. - Omegatron 17:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this just advertising? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnw188 (talk • contribs).


 * this still needs cleaning up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfhhgfxdh (talk • contribs).


 * NO!! WHY would you BUY an effect if the method is revealed to you?!?!Magician&amp;Programmer 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Magician&Programmer

This is copyrighted
This is a copyrighted effect and should be removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilovemagic (talk • contribs).


 * Copyright does not cover magician tricks. Not to mention that the copyvio of the page you are refering to, is a DVD. There is NO violation of copyright in this case. Wikipedia does NOT have a copy of the DVD posted, it has just the description of how the trick is done. Which does NOT pose any copyright infidgement at all. Project2501a 09:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a marketed commercial effect which shouldn't be exposed in this manner. Exposure doesn't belong here. You are causing harm to certain entertainers and their ability to make a living. Certain of the exposures here are infringing on commercial products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.60.152.14 (talk • contribs).


 * Yes, the exposure belongs here. The audience might appreciate the magic more if they know how to do it, AND they might get so interested in magic that they'll want to attend more magic shows.   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)


 * That is a load of nonsense. You are exposing for the sake of exposing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.60.152.14 (talk • contribs).


 * Not exactly the strongest argument in the world, folks. Where would encyclopediae be today, or journalism, or universities, if it were not for the exposition of the secrets of the world?   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)


 * This is not the same as teaching about things, this is akin to giving away the TRADE SECRET formula of a big company.


 * This effect is private Intellectual Property that is currently for sale, and should not be given away for free.


 * This page should contain a link to where you can purchase this PRODUCT online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.114.124.5 (talk • contribs).


 * I did that but I got multiple messages saying I shouldn't try to sell stuff?!Magician&Programmer


 * --Magician&Programmer Entirely agreed. Its stealing.


 * --Magician&Programmercough cough revealing this is hurting peoples paychecks ALOT


 * Plain and simple: Cat's out of the bag. wikipedia is not hosting a copy of the dvd. Non-disclosure agreements (trade secrets) are not part of copyright law. Wikipedia does not endorce commersial links. end of story. Keep this up and you'll get all your ips banned. thanks for editing, have a nice day. Project2501a 2 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)


 * I agree. Trade secrets are not afforded legal protection, and patents are not secret, so if a trade secret gets out, too bad. Wikipedia also has no obligation to post a commercial link to any related products. I am an outsider to this discussion coming from the RfC page. - Gauge 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * --Magician&Programmer So that makes it right to hurt the people who made the effect???


 * --Magician&ProgrammerSo why can't we put back in and tie it this time. WHY DO YOU CARE IF THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T FIND OUT HOW??? It doesn't hurt you, but it hurts me! And it hurts the creator of the effect!


 * I agree with the above(Rickyrab). When that one magician came out and did the TV shows about how many of the magic tricks and illusions were performed, he caught much slack and (supposedly) received many threats from magicians. He said he did this to push magicians to come up with new things and ideas that were unique to the audience. I believe it did have an impact on the magic community to do just that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.151.192.121 (talk • contribs).


 * --Magician&ProgrammerBUT the king rising is still a very new thing ;). People come up with many new effects every day, that doesn't mean you should tell people how to do tricks for free! Not everyone can wait 5 years to make up enough new tricks to preform because everyone already knows the other ones!


 * (this is a load of bullshit magic is a unique art because of the mystery. without mystery, it's just a play. That's not magic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halvermac (talk • contribs).


 * --Magician&ProgrammerNO! Trust me I know, why would you want to see a magic trick that you know how works?! And theres nothing wrong with getting interested in magic, but that doesn't mean hurt magicians by revealing something they were selling!


 * Whether it is legally right, does not affect how morally and ethically wrong this is. Wikipedia should be about making the world a better place, and hurting creators of the very magic effects you are exposing does not help ANYONE, especially the art of magic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.114.124.5 (talk • contribs).

Erroneous claims about copyright
Copyright a magic trick? I think what you meant to say was "Patent right". Copyright protects published works - literary, scientific, and anything tangible, from being uncontrollably reproduced. When you wish to protect a technique for your own personal use, so you can feed your family and pay the rent, you must file a _patent_ with the US. patent office. A patent restricts the usage of an invention (i.e. a unique, unprecedented idea) to one person.

There is a problem inherent with patenting magic tricks since you must publicize the information and make it freely accessible (35 U.S.C. Sect 10) Unless it's a national security issue (sect 181)-- and the patent must eventually expire in 14 or 20 years (sects 173, 156 - I think...). Second: since secrecy is essential to magic, the origins of any Magic tricks are hard to discover - making claims of inventor-ship difficult. Magic tricks often fall under the _novelty_ clause (35 U.S.C. Sect 102) of patent law which denies patents to inventions which were "known or used by others in this country." Trade secrets that are shared and used among an entire industry make it ineligible for protection under the law. Ultimately, the only protection you have against blabbermouths is via unofficial means (oaths of secrecy, appeals to ethics and morality, mafia retaliations etc.). You cannot claim any legal protection.

Refer to U.S.C. consolidated laws here CONSOLIDATED PATENT LAWS - United States Code Title 35 - Patents. It's a very readable explanation of patent law. Also Wikipedia patent article is pretty clean explanation. P.S. I'm not a lawyer. And, I can't speak about a magic trick has been patented out side of the US. If anybody knows - I'd be interested in how that works. And - there just might be magic tricks that ARE patented (note the article's incorrect use of the word "copyright"). If anyone knows any please also let me know. Finally for the guy who claims this is patented: this trick may very well be patented: please cite the pat. number for me - I'm interested. Seriously, not being facetious

''Let me say this again. With force and clarity for those who missed it. A patent protects others from using your invention. It does not keep it secret. Indeed, when you patent a magic trick, you must publicize the mechanics of how it works. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patens," past participle of "patere" which means "to be open". That is, you must "lay open" your invention. A visit to the U.S. Patent office shows how this works The patent for the Ipod user interface--Muchosucko 3 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)


 * Uhh... no he means copyright. While the method itself cannot be copyrighted, the name can. I suggest you remove this as i am reporting it to the proper authorities.Birdy2011


 * --Magician&ProgrammerFinally!


 * --Magician&ProgrammerEXECPT that this is a newer effect and we DO know the creator ;).


 * --Magician&ProgrammerAnd of course that makes it right to hurt people even though its not helping you the least bit, right???

Request for comment
Please take a look at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). Bovlb 2005-07-04 18:20:53 (UTC)


 * To expand on Bovlb's remark above, these arguments have already been presented with great length and detail at the linked page. If I may be so bold, I might suggest that those who feel that that discussion missed somthing...add it there, just so we can have the whole thing in one place.  It will save a great deal of unnecessary duplication of effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem
There is a problem with the secret. The secret provided is for a completely different levitaion. I kept trying to put in the proper secret but someone kept reverting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Musicdude622 (talk • contribs).


 * That was I. Please tell me why the old one doesn't work and why your's is better. You have only three edits to your credit on a heavily vandalized article. I think the burden is on you.--Muchosucko 09:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * --Magician&ProgrammerThe method that is being added for no reason whatsoever and doing nothing but hurting the creator and performer is the right one

Merging with the original
King Rising has no historical value, as it is just another small variation on the Balducci levitation, so I've removed the text here, and filed it under "Known variations" on the Balducci page. See Talk page over there before reverting anything --TStone 15:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * how does he do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.150.124 (talk • contribs).


 * King Rising was not created as a variation on the Balducci; it was created as unique levitation. Zero Gravity is a "small variation;" it uses the exact same body movements as the Balducci, but a gimmick is used to improve the appearance of the levitation. King Rising on the other hand is considerably different from the Balducci levitation. The angles of this illusion are different, the position of the body is different, & the principle that makes the illusion deceptive is different (it uses the same principle as the Sooperman levitation). King Rising is a levitation based on several existing levitation methods. Though it is related to the Balducci, it is only because they are both impromptu levitation illusions, not because they are the same illusion.Verdad 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * --Magician&ProgrammerAlthought some people consider it a variation it was not created that way, it is a new levitation.

Copyright Material
The king rising levitation is copyrighted material. I believe it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reanimationk (talk • contribs).


 * -You cannot copyright a magic trick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.111.21.114 (talk • contribs).


 * --Magician&ProgrammerIf you couldn't, than no one would make money off of new magic tricks.... People make BIG money o of new magic tricks.... Look at ellusionist.com!

Morality?
I know there's nothing illegal about posting the secret, but does that really mean it should be done? To me it doesn't seem any more moral than "file sharing." In both cases, someone has invented or produced something and markets it, but then it is simply distributed freely over the internet. Can someone please explain to me why this is moral, and also why the spoiler belongs in an encyclopedia? I just don't think it belongs here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.3.152.225 (talk • contribs).


 * [Magician&Programmer|Magician&Programmer]Yes, why hurt someone greatly (the creator of the effect) and hurt all the performers as well, while not helping anyone?!?! DO YOU GET MONEY TO PUT THE METHOD THERE? That would be illegal! And if you don't, then why should you care?....

Encyclopedias provide facts
...and shouldn`t be subject to censoring due to wimsy and wonder. If you don`t want to learn something, then don`t read it; you have no right to say it can`t go on the wiki because you don`t want people to know it or you don`t want to know it yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.227.45.20 (talk • contribs).


 * -Although you cannot copyright a magic trick, and although I believe in freedom of information, logically, revealing magical secrets does more harm overall than good. Wiki should have useful, helpful information. If you think about it logically, the more people that know how magic tricks work, the less excitement in the world. I believe this should be removed. -heyhiho


 * --Magician&ProgrammerWe're not talking about people who don't want to learn it, we're talking about people who do and do so without paying, hurting the seller and the performer because the seller doesn't get money and the performer can't perform the trick because everyone who DOESN'T do magic knows how it works anyway!

You have to pay for this trick
You can't just expose a trick like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poggymoose (talk • contribs).


 * Magic tricks cannot be copyrighted, therefore there is no legal reason why this cannot be described here. Gwernol 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * once again, you may not be able to copyright the method, but the name is. This has been reported and i have been informed that serious action will be taken to have this removed.Birdy2011


 * --Magician&ProgrammerWho cares about the copyright this is hurting people financially!

Copyrighted Effect
I have removed the method and placed a copyright violation tag on this article. As many of you have said, you cannot copyright a method. While this is true, you CAN copyright a name. In this case, that is the particular issue.--Birdy2011 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit has been reverted. If you have issues, resolve them through consensus, not by deletion. --Ckatz chat spy  20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ummm... can you do that? I temporarily deleted the method pending copyright investigation. I properly edited everything needed and placed the proper tag. Was it looked into? If not then please revert to my tagged edit. If so, please respond with the details found and the conclusion arrived at.
 * Thanks,
 * --Birdy2011 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a name can be copyrighted, I think it can be trademarked, and Wikipedia has many articles on trademarked items, e.g. iPod, Microsoft, Tom Clancy, etc. because these uses are all fair use, and I would also like to say that it is a fact that Wikipedia is only a collection of information that is publicly available, so if you have a problem then go to the primary source, instead of attacking a secondary or, in the case of Wikipedia, tertiary source. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * --Magician&Programmer
 * Creative work can be copyrighted, and it would be illegal to copy creative work in a way that causes the seller to loose money. THIS IS BEING SOLD BY THE CREATOR! WHY THE HECK would anyone at all buy it then if it wasn't illegal for one person to buy it and tell everyone else?!
 * NO ONE COULD MAKE A LIVING OFF OF SELLING MAGIC. Thats why I delete copyrighted methods.


 * Don't get me wrong, although I HATE when people post how to do the balducci all over the internet, I don't delete it even though I could sometimes. But this is going way to far.


 * (Reply to some of this mangled section) You cannot copyright a name (only trademeark). You cannot copyright an idea (only patent, or trade secret).  "Magician&Programmer" and/or the anons editing this article are speaking nonsense, in addition to editing the talk pages in way which makes it difficult to determine who said what.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Magic
--Magician&ProgrammerSOME of you have no idea what a magician does. When you say "People will be more interested in seeing magic". That is NOT NEARLY TRUE! Why would you want to see an effect you know how works??? Look at what I wrote on the wikipedia page itself. It takes money from the creator of the effect!!!!

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE???
People hurt buy exposing this:
 * Hobbyist Magician
 * Pro Magician
 * Creator of effect (he sells it of course!!!)

People helped by this:
 * Mean people who have fun hurting people even though they gain nothing

SO why should you care if this is not here? REALLY? Magician&amp;Programmer 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Magician&Programmer

Is there anything wrong
Is there anything wrong with adding a link to were you can purchase the effect? I got a message saying so. Magician&Programmer

Improving readability of this talk page
I have begun editing this talk page. I intend to get the discussion in chronological order, with proper nesting of replies. As I go, I will follow proper procedure to identify the posters of each piece of text if they did not provide a signature.

I am interested in copyright discussions but am not really fan of magic (or illusion). Please bear with me and feel free to criticize as needed. &mdash; Wguynes 20:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm finished with my last cleanup edit. Hopefully everyone can see who is saying what now. Please nest your comments with colons and sign with the quadruple tildes so we can all keep it clear who is saying what. &mdash; Wguynes 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Contact Corey King
Does anyone know Corey King's email or a way to contact him? I think he has at-least the right to discuss this.Magician&amp;Programmer 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Magician&Programmer


 * If he wants to comment here, he's welcome to. However, any attempt by him to edit the article, other than to remove untrue information about him, should be quickly reverted.  At the bottom of each displayed page is the contact address for legal claims.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I do not know the contact information you request.
 * Your shopping for justifications for removal is getting tiresome.


 * Copyright law does not apply. Creative work applies to the work only, not the idea. e.g. his DVD or books describing the trick are copyrighted. Mr. King's creative works are not available on Wikipedia and I would be first in line to remove them if they were. Repeatedly calling the trick itself the creative work sounds good in english (we all love to think of magicians as "creative"), but has no foundation in law. The legal term itself has a different meaning.
 * Patent law does not apply. Patents require full, public disclosure of the concept, something magicians/illusionists are [understandably] not interested in. Even if one does manage to patent a trick, anyone else is free to describe it openly. Perform it for profit? I do not know.
 * Trademark law does not apply. Trademarks are not secrets and generally prevent competition from trying to confuse the consumer with brand names. Mr. King is being fully recognized as the "inventor" here and no one is attempting to make a profit by claiming to be the originator of the idea.
 * Trade secrets do not apply. Trade secrets are just that, secrets. The only people legally bound to keep trade secrets are people who are in a binding contract with the owner of the trade secret. I did not sign any such non-disclosure contract.
 * Ethics. Magicians/illusionists have developed a code-of-conduct among their profession. Those outside their profession are not bound by this code. While I agree that it is of questionable ethics to reveal the methods, I prefer to err on the side of caution . Secrets, in general, are bad, unless there is a compelling reason for their existence. "I/we demand the right to make money" is less than compelling.


 * In short, if a performer has part of their performance that needs to remain secret, then they must keep the secret. Mr. King knowingly revealed the secret the moment his DVD (or book or whatever) was released; assuming he actually has done so which I believe you have claimed previously. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that there is a "recent" Supreme court decision which made it clear that license agreements in regard printed material (i.e., the book) only apply to people who sign the agreement; that there cannot be an "implied license" in copyright law. (This was in regard an attempt to restrict distribution of a hair care product to hair care professionals by a license printed on the label.  They obtained agreements from all US distributees, but not a foreign one, and it was reimported and used contrary to the "license".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)


 * I now understand that you are right that it is not illegal, but heres my argument


 * Why I think its wrong to give away the method:
 * It hurts the person who originally made the effect, less people will buy it because soon it will become as comon knowledge as pulling off your thumb or the balducci. Last year, no one seemed to know the balducci, now, I can hardly preform it because of people who saw it on the internet. I remember the day I saw a "how to do the balducci" video right in the middle of the yahoo news thing on the main page. (Why, I don't know, its not like anyone could preform it after that. Why try to teach non-magicians tricks...) Right then I knew I'd never really be able to preform it half as much.
 * It doesn't help anyone to have the way it works here because the only people who would would need to know how are magicians, and no real magician would stoop so low to take an effect with out paying.
 * The more effects that are exposed on the interenet, the less magicians can perform good shows.
 * Magician&amp;Programmer 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Magician&Programmer


 * Again, I do not feel that "it prevents us from being successful," is a compelling reason to keep a secret. The free (libre) sharing of information is important to me; moreso than your profession. If a substantial portion of the readers share your feelings then they will not read the article. I want them to have that option which you advocate taking away. I am not a magician and wanted to know. Let each of them choose as well.


 * I agree with you that revealing the methods affects magicians by narrowing the field of potential, successful magicians. The successful are going to be the ones who can invent their own tricks and keep them secret. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The succsesful are going to be the ones who make their own tricks?! I understand what your saying, but your idea is flawed. Why? Because most every magician starts at an early age. I started when I was 5, if I had to invent all the tricks I did because everyone knew them, I wouldn't be doing magic. Why? Because when I was 5, that wasn't a very appealing idea to me. I wanted to do tricks that looked good and I could show people. I didn't want to spend years inventing tricks and new methods of handling cards/coins/sponge-balls to make my first routine. If I did that, I still wouldn't be done. And I would of quickly lost motivation.


 * Can you please just answer this: What good does it to to tell non magicians? If you give me a good answer I'll shut up, but I know your not going to, because there simply isn't one. Everyone *thinks* they want to know how a trick works, except a few smart ones who notice that it won't be entertaining if they know. I am very pleased when someone notices that I don't do magic to fool people, but that I do it to entertain them while in return having fun myself. Its very fun to preform magic for such reasonable people :). Magician&amp;Programmer 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Magician&Programmer


 * What if a non-magician thinks he knows how it's done and wants to see? I go to magic shows when I hear about them (admittedly infrequently). I go because I see it as a challenge to figure out how a trick is done. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. It's nice to know when I get it right. But I also go because it's entertaining. If the performer is good, then the trick doesn't matter. Penn and Teller did a performance with John Cleese and Rosie O'Donnell with Teller in a water tank (it's on YouTube if you search for it). Now, I can describe most of the elements of how they do it (I think). But that doesn't ruin the performance! In fact, I'm watching it again right now. The performance is the key part of the, well, performance. If you have a good trick but a poor performance, you have a poor act. If you have a poor trick but a good performance, you'll have a decent act. The second part of this is that, often, the secret won't actually do anything. A lot of the time, if the illusion requires a good sleight, the fact that they can do the sleight in a way that's unnoticeable if you're not watching is impressive in and of itself. This is true of, for instance, this rubber band trick that I've seen people do. (I'm not sure how to describe it, but I have a couple videos of it from a TLC show on magic, and I went through the videos frame by frame and couldn't figure out how it's done. I only learned later. That's skill.) EvanED 06:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point entirely, but this isn't stage magic. You don't find a street magician, he finds you.
 * You think its fair to make yourself content that you know how a trick works while helping destroy it? Oh yes, YOU don't tell anyone, but what about the other people who will?
 * If 1 person finds out a trick, at my school, and its something everyone thinks is amazing and has seen me do, they will yell it while running down the hallways. I'm not joking nor am I exaggerating, I've seen it happen. Not with my trick, but anothers. I hate this and don't know what there problem is.
 * wikipedia is just another way to find out how a trick works. Trust me, those people who tell everyone, DO SEARCH THE INTERNET.


 * Your case is different, anyway, because you don't see magic often. And when you see it its professionals on stage. People at my school see magic everyday, and its not professionals showing them it. Its me and another 13 year old magician. And I don't know how old you are, but if your writing on wikipedia you must be able to imagine what teenagers do when they figure out how a trick works. They don't just feel happy that they know and have that be it, no, no way, finding outs just the beginning.


 * There are tricks that you simply CAN'T figure out just by watching them, oh, and just so you know, I got over liking magic because I try to figure it out when I was 9, but I still understand what you mean (not meant as an insult).


 * I'm just standing up for what I believe in.

Magician&amp;Programmer 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Magician&Programmer
 * Which is cool. More power to you! Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are NPOV. I might suggest you try the "unsourced" route. As long as nobody buys that DVD you are talking about just to prove you wrong, that's fine. It is my opinion that if a magician publishes his own secrets, he has no one but himself to blame. Just be glad that most of the magic articles don't have proper explanations. I'd rather learn them somewhere else, too.


 * -- trlkly 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Corey King. I invented this effect in 2001. Yes, it is really me - you can email me at closeupcorey@yahoo.com for any needed verification.

Wow, I had no idea this was all going on, although I did know that my effect was exposed on here. Some people were asking for my thoughts on the subject.

Well, obviously I am not happy about it. I'm not happy about any magic being revealed on here, but of course this one hits particularly close to home for me. Some people don't realize that we, as magicians, make a living off of our magic and in some cases, like this one for me, make a living off of effects that we invent and market.

My effect being revealed on here really does no benefit to anyone. There are lots of magicians performing my effect in their shows. There are lots of magicians that have paid for the secret, and in turn, the rights to perform this illusion. By blatantly and openly posting the method on this site, it is hurting everyone involved.

Most people will just say "You're just mad because you aren't making money any more!". Of course this comes into play, but it is by far not the only reason why it sucks to have this exposed on here. Let me ask you this.. wouldn't you be irritated if it was your effect that was being posted on a public website that literally millions of people come to every day? I'd go out on a limb and say yes to that one.

It just irritates me because it is doing NOONE benefit to have this on here - it is only hurting everyone involved, myself and every other magician out there that is performing this. Hope you guys are enjoying it. -Corey King, Inventor of the King Levitation

Removed uncorroborated method
The method given was entirely uncorroborated, and therefore removed, in accordance with pretty much every wikipedia guideline.--Iclavdivs (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The method is verifiable, based on the availability of a DVD explaining how to do it. I am formatting a reference accordingly. --Ckatz chat spy  06:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can cite it to the DVD without transgressing the license agreement either present on the DVD or in the email sent by the producer, then do so. But if it still isn't cited by the end of tomorrow (Friday June 20th 2008) I'm going to remove it. "[Citation Needed]" isn't good enough.--Iclavdivs (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that a citation is needed. However, no-one needs permission from the "license agreement on the DVD" or an "email sent by the producer" to cite a work. As long as the citation meets Wikipedia's citation guidelines it is acceptable and provides verifiability. Thanks, Gwernol 19:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This paragraph isn't cited to a DVD, placing a link to an advertisement for the sale of a DVD in the references section of the page is not the same as citing.--Iclavdivs (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, I'm afraid. This is exactly the same as citing a book - that's not an advertisement for the book, its telling the user that the book is the place they can verify the information. Please stop removing this validly cited information. Thanks, Gwernol 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you would prefer a different format for the citation, then by all means suggest one&mdash;or just go ahead and make the change. As far as I can tell from the discussion here, there's no disagreement that the DVD linked does indeed describe the method used for this particular illusion and is therefore a reasonable source for the article's content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from PatrickSheck, 23 June 2010
Do not reveal methods for magical illusions for anyone to see.

PatrickSheck (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Don't read the page if you don't want to know how it's done. Spigot Map  17:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)