Talk:Sawing a woman in half

Methods and exposure (was "How it works")
well how does it work?


 * Is it really appropriate to discuss how the illusion works on this site? Though the secret revealed here is not particularly astonishing, it doesn't really set a good precedent for any other illusions discusssed in Wikipedia. --Mattsnyder 07:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question. There's been a month-long discussion here you might be interested in, it seems to be the most popular place for these discussions:Talk:Out_of_This_World_%28card_trick%29. This article is also interesting: Magic_%28illusion%29. Also, there's a box on the bottom of many magic pages: Sawing_a_woman_in_half. Browse through those pages and look in the discussion link at the top of the page; you might find some more debates. And... after the secret is revealed, no magic trick is astonishing -- hence the spoiler warning. Welcome to Wiki.--Muchosucko 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I know many secrets of magic, and the tricks are still JUST AS ASTONISHING. Much of the trick is in presentation. So that might be a reason to keep the secret on Wikipedia.
 * Should we talk about the circular saw version of the illusion ?
 * What the heck? Expose old tricks, invent new tricks, learn new tricks, everybody improves.
 * I AM MAGIC.


 * I don't think detailed exposure of methods is necessary here - there's a lot that can be written about the history of this illusion and its variations without actual exposure. Also, while I don't like the idea of giving in to intimidation, it might spare us the repeated vandalism from magicians if we lose the exposure section. However, if the consensus is that we should still have some information about methods for the sake of completeness then I won't fight that. Perhaps the methods should be shifted to a separate entry on "secrets behind tricks"?
 * In any case, the current text and diagrams on methods are misleading. The main forms of this illusion use different methods.
 * Circusandmagicfan 16:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Following edits since my comment above, the "How It Works" section now seems legitimate within Wikipedia policies and within guidelines established for the Magic WikiProject. In short, those policies and guidelines say it is OK to have material on methods if it is appropriately supported by refrences to proper published sources. The material on Goldin's methods is sourced from publicly available patent files (and properly referenced) - in that respect it is hardly a case of "exposure" anyway as it is only re-publishing material that Goldin put into the public domain. It is also presented here in conjunction with mention of the history of disputes over exposure and on the significant role of sawing illusions in case law on such matters. The text doesn't go into the methods for versions other than the Goldin ones featured in the patent.
 * Circusandmagicfan 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * As a professional magician, I can say that the policies about exposure make me, and others who are qualified to contribute quality information about our field, very reluctant to participate. There are some extraordinary innovations to the sawing illusion -- unmentioned in the article -- that would greatly improve the quality of the article.  Some of these innovations are unknown even to many professional magicians who are not well-read.  I do not wish to contribute this information, however, because the methods have been published (in volumes distributed for magicians and serious students of magic) and I do not want some Wikipedia user to find that material and make it public because of this policy.  In sum, the magic Wikiproject is shooting itself in the foot by discouraging the participation of those who have the most to offer.--NMarsh 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Following various comments I've re-titled this section in the hope that the new title gives a better indication of the content. Firstly, the new title reflects the fact that the text discusses the special place of sawing illusions in the history of exposure. Secondly, the previous title, "How it works" (specifically the word "it") suggested a single illusion, whereas the new title recognises that there are a number of different illusions.Circusandmagicfan 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Time for some new  templates. :P ~ vladsinger


 * I thought magic spoiler warnings had bitten the dust as part of a general move against spoiler warnings across Wikipedia. But I don't have time to keep in touch with all the debates and talk pages so maybe I've missed something.17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

NMarsh: How can one describe a trick without citing a source (per policy), and how can one cite a source without exposing the method? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Damian: Thanks for following up. Citing a source is not, in my view, exposure.  Allow me to give an example (one which is in line with the changes that I think are warranted to this article): many magicians vanish a coin, let us say that John X has a method of vanishing a coin while it is inside a spectator's hand.  I don't need any technical information about John X's method to know that it is an improvement.  The source I cite, if it is in the literature of serious magicians, may give John X's method.  It also may not (there are many articles and books in our literature which include information about magic without providing technical information, magic journals frequently include descriptions of performances by notable magicians -- without revealing the secrets that belong to the performer (we do, indeed, keep secrets from each other)).


 * A propos of the sawing article: In the 1930's there was an ingenious illusion designer who created a version of the sawing that was decades before its time. Far more deceptive than anything seen before or -- in my view -- since.  It was the kind of thing that, like the fictitious vanish in the spectator's hand, you can immediately recognize as a huge step forward without having any technical information.  Only a very sketchy and difficult-to-decipher description was available until a fuller account appeared in a new edition of the designer's book annotated by a contemporary illusion designer.  The new edition, which sold for $65 when it was available, is now out-of-print.  If someone goes to the trouble of tracking down the out-of-print book to satisfy their own curiosity, well, I don't know that I would object (though I don't, of course, speak for all magicians).  They may find the method there, they may not.  In either case, they have put forward real effort to learn; and this is what, generally speaking, matters to the magic community.  There is, however, a huge difference between that and someone plastering the method on a widely read internet site.


 * Thanks again for commenting. I hope that some kind of policy can be reached that would encourage those who know this subject best to want to contribute to wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NMarsh (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this is a better article than many others I have seen on Wikipedia...and I have no personal issue with this exposure (in part because the Goldin methods are no longer being performed and knowledge of the Goldin versions actually makes subsequent versions more deceptive).


 * Thanks for recognising the positive side of this - it was my hope that the approach I've tried to promote in this article could be an example of how Wikipedia articles can deal with methods in a balanced way. I tried to initiate a debate about policy on publishing of methods at the time when I was producing a new project page for the Magic Wikiproject back in March and April. Sadly I didn't get as much response as I'd hoped for but I do think it helped to achieve a position which has a degree of credibility. I don't know if you've seen the archive of the talk from that period but if you want to know how the current policy came about then it might help to take a look. You should find it at...


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic/Archive_1


 * ...Before the current policy there was a profusion of editing in which people were adding methods to articles without citing any sources. Not only was that a source of irritation to those who don't want methods published but it was also introducing a lot of rubbish into Wiki because some of the methods people were putting in were their own speculation or were just plain wrong. The impression I get from periodically checking my watchlist is that there is now much less of that - which I hope is viewed as a good thing by people from different sides of the debate.
 * As for any ongoing debate about policy or ethics regarding publishing of methods, perhaps that is best taken to the Talk page for the Magic Wikiproject rather than being conducted on the talk page for a specific article. It is certainly something that has wider applicability than just this article on sawing.
 * Circusandmagicfan 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

-Exposure of magic tricks to the laymen is a vandalism against an art. It is like throw ink over the Monalisa or othe artistc expression. Is Wikipédia a place for vandalism? The freedom of expression is a cool thing. But the question is: What kind of freedom consists in destroy an artistic work? Vandalism exposing and destroying magical illusions is a dirty side of Wikipedia. (20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Judging by the tone of the previous post I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this. Publication of magic methods is not "vandalism against an art" - that's a ridiculous accusation. Magicians down through the ages have published their methods in many different ways, including books that were easily available to the public. If you need an explanation as to why this is OK then you should read Jim Steinmeyer's introduction to his book Hiding the Elephant in which he explains the reasons why he feels it is OK to mention methods in a historical work that will be read by non-magicians. If it's OK by one of the greatest illusion designers in the world then it's OK by me. Wikipedia has a carefully worked out policy on publishing of magic methods that is designed to make sure things don't get out of hand (see WikiProject_Magic).
 * Circusandmagicfan (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * - Jim Steinmeyer say his own oppinion, about other case, and a very different way. He don´t defend the Wikipedia vandalism against an art. You defend it... not Mr.Steinmeyer.
 * We are talking about mass exposure and vandalism made by Wikipedia. To compare it with a limited historical book is a very stupid argument. You can not see the difference by yourself? Exposurers everytime pick up different situations and different attitude to justify his own vandalism.


 * I live in Brazil, when Masked Magician cames to my town, I suit him. He was arrested by the police and deported. His lawyer in his defense mentioned the "Backstage Magic" performed by Lance Burton...   Valentino´s argument was ridiculous in the same way. Why exposurers do not assume their own vandalism? Why they hide his evilness and vandalism behind the name of other people?


 * Felipe Rossini - Belo Horizonte City - Brazil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.45.212 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you really want an argument then it goes like this. Freedom to learn and to access information are important rights that contribute to a free and equitable society, much like freedom of speech. That is one of the original motivating ideas that prompted the creation of Wikipedia. Those who want to learn about methods behind magic tricks have every right to do so. There is no law or principle of justice which says that anyone, magician or otherwise, has any power to decide who can develop an interest in magic. No one is forcing anyone else to learn about methods - if people want to learn they can look, if they really prefer to remain ignorant they can stop reading.
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a place for initial publication of magic methods. Policy requires that all material about methods should be based upon cited reliable sources. In other words, methods are not to be publsihed here unless they have already been published elsewhere. So if you really want to blame someone for the availability of information on methods then blame the magicians who publish it in the first place (although personally I believe it is perfectly reasonable for those magicians to publish such information).
 * The type of magicians who take an aggressively hostile approach to publication of magic methods are very worrying people in my view. These are the type of people who cruelly threw the great David Devant out of the Magic Circle, which he had helped to found and to which he donated his library. His only "crime" was to publish ideas he himself had originated and his reason for doing so was that it was his only way to avert poverty. This was a draconian acts and people who try to perpetuate the same attitudes today are no less draconian.
 * Circusandmagicfan (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

You wrong,

Expose professional secrets is an illegal atittude in many countries. It´s like to expose industrial secrets protected by law. The freedom of one ends when start the protected wrights of other. Why Wikipedia do not publish copiwrighted material? Because it is protected by law.

Vandals like you is very frustated people. You can not create anything... Then damage the creations of the others.

Vandals all the time justify their acts using the name of others. Why? Frustration... Only frustration and envy...

An exposured trick is a wiped out trick by greasy people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.38.76 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Magic tricks are methods, and methods are not subject to copyright in the United States. They may be subject to trade secret law, but that law tends to apply only to disclosures by people who are already under non-disclosure agreements with a magician. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Criss Angel performance
There's a video of Criss Angel's "pulling a woman in half" trick at metacafe and commentary at Museum of Hoaxes (which in turn cites Snopes). I tried to add a citation to the article itself, but I don't understand Wikipedia's instructions for citations. I'll try to figure it out, but here's the information in case I can't. Bradd 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added the references to the article. I hope I did it correctly!

The future
As I said I would, I've done a bit of work re-jigging the article. Hopefully the article structure is now a bit clearer - especially in terms of explaining that we are dealing with a group of illusions that differ significantly and not one single illusion.

Although I'd normally begin an illusion article with a description of the effect I think in this case that it's best to begin with the history section, because the context it provides is useful to understanding the rest (the "history" section is based on the old "origins" section).

I think the history is the part that needs most work - ideally it should continue on from Goldin and show when the other versions of the trick were created (and by whom). When I have time I might incorporate some of the stuff from the Goldin article about his various legal battles over sawing. I don't think the history text needs to contain detailed descriptions of the effect as that seems best covered by the separate section - the history text only needs to point out any significant features or developments. I've created an "effects and variations" section and added descriptions of different versions. I think there are now at least basic descriptions of all the main versions - but obviously if anyone else knows of other versions then they are welcome to add.

Some of the text from "famous performances" has been moved into the "effects and variations" section because that is really what it was about. I think famous performances should concentrate on specific incidents or shows. So the detailed description of the Selbit sawing belongs in the "effects and variations" section but it would be good to have something about his first performance and its impact in the "famous performances" section. Perhaps Richiardi's performances of the buzzsaw should be covered under "famous performances" too.

What do you people think?

Circusandmagicfan 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Good work, thanks. What I'd like to see is an actual picture of the effect. Bkatcher 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jan Glenrose
I've found a reference which seems to say Jan Glenrose was the partner of magician Fred Culpitt, who is notable as the first magician to appear on a regularly scheduled television show. Does anyone know if this is the same Jan Glenrose who performed in Selbit's December 1920 demonstration of the sawing illusion? Circusandmagicfan (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Paris Hilton Sawing
There were only three entries in the famous performances section. Should the Paris Hilton entry count as the fourth? I say no, it is one of hundreds of TV celebrity illusions. Bkatcher (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Absolutely nothing to distinguish this from almost any other celebrity sawing stunt (and Paris Hilton's celebrity is so fatuous she barely counts as anything special). Circusandmagicfan (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Accidental injuries
An article like this definitely needs a section (or at least a mention) of some/any incidents in which the trick went wrong and someone was accidentally injured or killed. It is not unreasonable to assume that it has happened at some point, so it makes sense to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have an incident in mind? I've never heard of accidents performing this trick. APL (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the trick usually involves dummy legs or having the assistant in another part of the box, it would seem an injury would be unlikely. I've been a fan of this illusion for thirty years and have never heard of a real injury. Bkatcher (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sawing a woman in half. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208101709/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/3/1994_3_34.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/3/1994_3_34.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627012456/http://www.magicmagazine.com/january05/january05extra.html to http://www.magicmagazine.com/january05/january05extra.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010183819/http://www.intervalmagic.com/houdinimuseum.org/articles/1981_11.01.html to http://www.intervalmagic.com/houdinimuseum.org/articles/1981_11.01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Changes to the “Death Saw” Section
Hi, I have a proposal for a change to this article. I can’t revise it myself, because I have a conflict of interest as a personal connection of David Copperfield’s. Could an independent editor please review this proposed change? Thank you.

My proposal is to remove the third paragraph from the Death Saw section, which currently reads as follows:

Reason: This entire paragraph is based on unsourced or false claims. The first sentence has no citation or source of any kind, and after doing my own search I could find no evidence (even unreliable) to support this assertion. WP: Verifiable. This appears to be unsupported promotional content. The characterization, interpretation and analysis of the sources in the rest of the paragraph is dependent on the assertions in this first sentence - otherwise, their inclusion and the analysis of them would be original research in violation of WP:NOR.

While this is sufficient in itself to remove the entire paragraph, for the sake of due diligence, I obtained PDFs of the two 1960 articles cited in the paragraph and neither one supports the assertion that these use the same “method and effect” as Copperfield's Death Saw illusion. So there is no reason for these sources or statements to appear in the “Death Saw” sub-section about Copperfield’s illusion. The first article (International Brotherhood of Magicians) does not contain the key element of “Death Saw” – the magician appearing to saw themselves in half. Instead, it describes a more traditional illusion in which a magician saws an assistant in half. The second source (Genii) is about an escape attempt, not an illusion. The escape artist evades a descending saw blade – the artist does not appear to cut themselves in half. I wish I could show you the article diagrams of these techniques as they’re pretty interesting (and determinative), but unfortunately there’s no way to upload them into Wikipedia. I can, however, provide excerpts of relevant passages from each article. International Brotherhood of Magicians (Vol. 45, Issue 3: 78-80):

Genii Magazine (Vol. 34, Issue 1: 36):

Thank you for your consideration of this request. MagicTech1902 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the paragraph. As you say, it's not fully sourced.
 * My only comment is that I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about the two allegedly similar effects. Perhaps it would be obvious if I could see the diagrams. If the effects use a similar design of gimmicked props I think the statement attributed to Jeff Davis would be valid, even if the performances are superficially different. Perhaps his exact meaning could be made more clear if a source for it could be found. ApLundell (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)