Talk:Balducci levitation

message: This should Definatley be mereged, it is very short and almost a stub and could eaisly be a section the the Balducci Leviation Article
I'd prefer Wikipedia not to be used for exposure of magic.
Someone really interested in magic has other ways of finding out information like this.
What are your thoughts?
-- MGM 23:52, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
Freedom of information rules...go spin MGM!
i agree with MGM. tricks as good as this should not be on wikipedia.
:What about vague wording of articles (such as how this one appears to be written) that explain the basic mechanism behind the trick but don't give enough information for the reader to actually work it for themself without a fair amount of experimentation? teucer
I agree with MGM that this doesn't need to be here. A description of the trick as it appears and admission that the trick is, in fact, a trick is fine, but actually explaining the mechanism does no one any good. Appeals to some all-encompassing principle of "freedom of information" do not apply. The information IS freely available, but it doesn't have to be available here.
-- Britomart
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.
As someone who worked out Balducci's trick all by myself, I don't see it as such a big deal. There is a spoiler message, so I don't know what else can be done. Wikipedia should not censor itself with regard to verifiable information, stated in a neutral way. func(talk) 1 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
:Agreed, Make sure there's a spoiler message. One must appeal to the ethical/moral standards that protect trade secrets in the magic industry. However, wikipedia is open source, and secrets will devolve to the morality of the lowest common denominator. I suppose you can try to prevent this stuff from happening, but I think that type of censorship works agains the spirit of open-source.--Muchosucko 3 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
It carries a spoiler warning, so I don't really see what the problem is. I don't think it would discredit the magicians who perform it (or rob them of audiences) as it just being sleight of hand ... er ... foot ... does not dimish from the trick being interesting to view. Wikipedia should not be censored -- from experience, it is the first place people turn to when they urgently need information. Also, I agree with Muchosucko, censoring this article would go against what open-source is supposed to be.
The Reverse Balducci levitation stub should be merged with this, however -- it's essentially the same trick, only performed with a different foot. --Sul V 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old stuff

message: I do not see much of a problem with the description here, as it is very close to being in sync with the industry standard in how this kind of information should be published. However, I also belive that to be by accident, rather than by design. I've put together a proposal for Policy for magic methods. Take a look :-) --TStone 17:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the controversy surrounding David Blaine's usage of the TV-medium has no place on a page that are dedicated to Mr. Balducci's creation. Those comments should be moved over to David Blaine's page.--TStone 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal re. magic methods 

message: I cut the following from the description:
Magician David Blaine performs this trick. On television, his act, which features reactions of the audience, is intercut with shots of him levitating with hidden mechanical assistance. This allows him to appear to have both feet quite a few inches above the ground in certain shots, something impossible with the Balducci levitation. The controversy among magicians about Blaine's television specials focuses on this, as some consider it to violate one of the rules of the television performance of magic: that the at-home television audience sees exactly what a live audience would see.
Talk about Blaine and his ethics in TV should be moved to David Blaine and filed under the correct TV-show. I have not kept track of his shows, since he seemed a bit un-inspiring when I met him at FISM2000 in Portugal --TStone 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I also posted a notice at Talk:David_Blaine that there is material for inclusion to be found here. --TStone 14:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blaine 

message: I think the merge proposal is a good idea.  Move the information at Elevator levitation into Balducci levitation.  It can be added in a section entitled "Variations", and "Elevator levitation" can be redirected to Balducci levitation.  Or should it be the other way around?  Elonka 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the latter. The derivative work should (if there's not significant reason not to) be folded into the original work. There's a little problem with the latest edit here though. It's a bit easier if it is in this order:
*The title of the work and its originator. (i.e. the title given by it's creator)
*(some kind of intro, if needed. Example: "Made famous by TV-star "El Hatto" ).
*Effect (how the creation is percieved by the spectator)
*Method (A short summary of the covert choreography)
*Credits (The historic lineage. Where and when it was published. Comparisons with earlier work that might been important. Details on what makes the creation noteable enough to merit a place in history, Etc.
*Known variations (This part is not needed.Just added here, as there were so many not noteable versions already posted. If it's not relevant to the credits, then there's little reason to mention it at all, as it gives noteability rather than describing it).
*External Links.
As the piece here reads now, an added description about what (in the method) that differs from its predecessors, that should be placed in "credits", will now be placed in "origin", which is before the spoiler tag - making the purpose of that tag somewhat vague.
(A short note about the customs within the field. If a piece is described without any indication about the originators name, then it means that the author of the text claim ownership of the piece - that he is the creator. This custom has a very long tradition, and that is why it is considered more a theft to remove the originator's name than to publish the piece without permission) --TStone 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This is a horrible example of how it shouldn't look. First of all, it's completely unsourced, then it has been given a false title, as it is a butchered version of Paul Harris "Sooperman". I've merged it before, but someone reverted it, without even providing a single reason why it should be filed under a false name, or why no references was added. This should not be a place for falsifying history. To avoid further reverts, I'm moving it here instead--TStone 10:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butchered "Sooperman" moved here 

message: There are a lot of unsourced material in this piece. Add relevant pieces (with sources) to the proper places in the Balducci page--TStone 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "elevator" routine (needs sourcing) 

message: you should not mention the way the method is done. blaine just used that method to impress people watching at home. because someone has let this secret out magicians, like me, have gotten a bad name. if you know a secret keep your mouths shut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.191.53.148 (talk • contribs) .
:Sorry, but it's no longer a secret. Removing the explanation from Wikipedia can't help that. —Keenan Pepper 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  balducci 

message: The secret to the Balducci levitation is a trade secret often retaught to others through commercial means or gatherings of magicians. Although it may already be well exposed online, Wikipedia should not need to be another avenue for exposure. This article removes worth from the weeks that many spend perfecting the illusion for performances which may often times be a source of revenue for the practiced performer. Wikipedia may be an open collection of information, and it may also be against censorship, but as mentioned before, a fine line must be drawn. Wikipedia should not be part of the problem and devalue the Balducci Levitation technique. This article should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.203.54.95 (talk • contribs) .
::Why don't you worry about your local bookstore selling "Magic for Dummies"?  Don't be a douchenozzle.  Anyone who pays to learn this trick is a dumbass and anyone who charges to teach it is..... well... BRILLIANT!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but legally magic tricks cannot be considered trade secrets nor can they be copyrighted. Therefore there is no legal means to prevent the publication of this information. This article will not be removed and attempts to delete sections of it or remove it entirely will fail. Thanks, Gwernol 13:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest argument for deletion