Talk:Dagger head box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic hat Dagger head box is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Many magic secrets are closely guarded. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, only those with reliable and cited sources can be include in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it will be removed from the main article. Any "secret" revealed on this talk page may not be accurate; it may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception.


[edit] Methodology

The method given is a pure guess and has no references. No reference either is given to its inventor, U.F. Grant, nor any permission to use it, apparently. I suggest deletion of the method section --65.94.145.212 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No references for the method. I have seen this secret revealed on a TV show. I am not sure the name of it, but it features a black-masked man. If someone knows the name of this show, I would be happy to use it as a reference.
The inventor's name is not stated. If you are sure of the name of the inventor, please feel free to add it to the article. I strongly support constructive editing. As you carefully pointed out above, please hunt down a reference and add it too. Not knowing who invented it is not a reason to delete the section.
Do not have inventor's peremission. Your stated opinion that the inventor's permission is needed shows your underlying motivation for this request, so I do not believe you will actually do either of the above suggestions. Instead I believe you were hoping no one would respond and you would have a weak justification in a revert war by saying, "No one responded." Not having the inventor's permission is not a reason to delete the section. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Believe what you will. As an editor, I would like to see accurate information in an article. As a professional magician, however, I would actually prefer the erroneous method to stand as is. However, if someone accidentally stuck a sword into their friend's head after trying to build such a contraption, I might have some compunction. Not much, admittedly. And since when did seeing something on TV authorize anyone to write an encyclopedia entry on it? --Kosmoshiva (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
By your apparent reasoning no video documentary could ever be used as a reference. Who cares what format the information is documented in? How is video any less "truthful" than a webpage? A book? My poiht is that I have seen this information elsewhere and it matches what this article claims. I am open to the possibility that it may be a hoax. I am not a magician but that is not the minimum criteria needed in order to edit WP. I have done some searches and the masked performer I saw on those shows was Valentino, so he would be considered the source. If anyone has an alternate method of performing the trick that contradicts this version then the article may have more than one method.
Let us not forget the thread started with a request to delete the method, not replace it, nor make it more accurate, with no justification other than "the inventor didn't give his permission." I question the motivation of the original comment. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 16:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My apparent reasoning involves time-based memory factors, erroneous at the best of times, otherwise illusions wouldn't be possible at all. If you have the video in a saved format, go ahead and quote Valentino. :) Yes, other methods are extant. This particular field of information (listing magicians' methods) is slightly different than other encyclopedia entries as it requires us to be diligent since, clearly, subterfuge and some misunderstanding of physics must be going on for the illusion to work, yes? Don't forget, Valentino got paid.--Kosmoshiva (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Method removed

I have removed the method from the article as it is unsourced. This is following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure. If the method can be properly sourced, then it can be re-added. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NB: The material was removed in this diff and contained the following information:

/==A possible method==

Two mirrors are placed at a 45 degree angle, pointing in a v shape towards the audience, and the tip of the v faces them. These mirrors are adjusted by catches on top of the box when the doors are closed. The first plunge (by the sword) is important as the sword obscures the "crack" between the two mirrors. The box is also larger than it appears, so when the magician inserts the daggers, they go in front and behind the assistant's head, which is behind the mirrors. In this way, when the doors are opened, the audience see an empty space with a sword and several daggers. The "space" is really the reflection by the mirrors.

Editors are encouraged to restore the material when they find appropriate sources, or to restore the content if the original removal of the material was in error, and to correct any errors in the method described. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)