Talk:Statue of Liberty vanishing trick

message: "Vanish" is not a transitive verb. In other words, you can't "vanish" something. Is this inept phrase the official name for the illusion? If not, this article needs to be renamed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a transitive verb in the magic profession, as applied to a class of illusions, and this is usage of fairly long-standing. If you don't like it, take it to the International Brotherhood of Magicians, but don't whine about it here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it's rather cumbersome, but it's a word that has established (and ancient) association with conjuring.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: change?

message: As the speculative method was unsourced, I have removed it in accordance with WP:OR and these guidelines. Stephen! Coming... 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation removed 

message: The article really needs a description of how the trick appeared to the audience, before it explains how it worked. As it stands, it doesn't flow well for someone who is not familiar with the trick (or who doesn't remember it well after all these years).--Srleffler (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describe the event first 

message: In this talk page consensus was found not to include the info on the method (see above), but an anonymus user included it again recently. I reverted his edit, but Arthur Rubin reverted my revert saying "The source being unofficial is irrelevant; the question is, it it reliable. I consider it close". I disagree, so I ask here: can we consider reliable such a source? Can we present as undisputed fact what is just a speculation? Is it correct to say in the incipit that the illusion is unpublished, and then have a "Method" section? Shouldn't we wait for a new consensus before bringing back something that was decided to be removed? Why allow nonsense like the ring of lights being lit in the open water, and ignore facts like the presence of trees in the audience area? Is an encyclopedia the place where to put explanations to magic tricks by living professionists?
We are all volunteers, but I thin that if everyone starts to interest more about the illusion than the method, than the page could be really improve (at the moment, it is in a very bad state).
I'm not going to take further action before reading what other people think. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no consensus "above".  The question is still whether the source is reliable, not whether it is correct.  You have not addressed the question.  I'm restoring the method section, per apparent consensus to include.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually, the question is as to whether Poundstone is reliable, not "the Straight Dope".  There, I have little opinion.  Does he, personally, qualify as an expert?  And does his book qualify as his expert opinion?  I'm not sure, but the the material should remain in place until established.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method: again