Talk:Exposure (magic)

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Magic Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagicWikipedia:WikiProject MagicTemplate:WikiProject MagicMagic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Another Problem[edit]

Most wikipedia.org entries seem to exist in a vacuum, by which I mean not only that there are no legitimate references, but that the entry is not even aware of its own context. This "exposure" writeup serves as such an excellent specimen of hopelessness that we can use it in several contexts. For example, the most notorious and disgusting example of magical exposures is wikipedia itself. If you will search for entries on various magical effects, gimmicks and props you will generally find short entries, obviously written by mentally-challenged teenagers, which are rarely longer than three sentences, and have no purpose other than to expose the "secret," or what the addled teenager supposes is the secret. Look around and you will find a dozen examples. By the way, I am not trying to suppress my identity, the wikipedia server, if there is such a thing, is so hopelessly overloaded that I generally find it impossible to log in. [Rory Coker]

Is there a template for "This article has too many templates?" --Ben Applegate 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite needed[edit]

This entry reads as if written by a semiliterate teenager whose only knowledge of the topic comes from surfing the web. It needs to be brought up to some reasonable standard of english usage and professional familarity with the subject. Cokerwr 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real secrets of magic will always be safe and well.Kazuba (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Apparent' exposures[edit]

This entry is NOT written in the english language. It needs to be revised by someone who is literate and also knowledgeable magically.

I've added verbiage about 'apparent' exposures, tricks where the magician appears to be repeating a previous trick but really isn't. I can't remember my Amateur Magician's Handbook well enough anymore -- isn't there a technical term for this? Eaglizard 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The usual term for an effect with a fake explanation is "sucker effect"--TStone 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Penn and Teller should not be used in pro-exposure context, as they do fake-exposures, or expose material they have invented for that single purpose. There are no similatities, and they would be both hurt and insulted by being in the same sentence as the Masked Magician

Proposal re. magic methods[edit]

See the proposal: Policy for magic methods --TStone 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

It says it is frowned upon by most people, but I am an exception. I don't even want to go to a magic show unless it is definite that I will learn the tricks! 'FL a RN' (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's true either, at least with the general public, there will be many on both sides of the argument. I've clarified so that it is clear that it is meant that it is within the industry that this view is so universally held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.179.67 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced view of links[edit]

Wikipedia should present balanced views. In the past this page has been subject to vanadalism of links to sites advocating exposure. There are benefits of exposure and non exposure as stated in the article and therefore the balance of the links should reflect this. There's no reason for example why a "webring of sites against exposure" should take precedence over a site explaining the benefits of exposure.

Intellectual Property[edit]

Somebody should check whether a scientific principle can be patented. Actually--you probably don't need to bother. I'm pretty sure it can't be. However the trick might still be patentable by combining the principle with something else. Of course, that would prevent other people from reproducing it but not from revealing how it is done. The very process of filing for a patent would require a disclosure to the public. Either way, I think the chances of winning an IP suit to protect a magic trick is slim to none. You might have a chance on trade secret--but only against a certain group of people, and certainly not against somebody who had figured the trick out on their own. -- Anonymous

In the United States, bald scientific principles (e.g., magnetism) cannot be patented. Particular implementations of a scientific principle (e.g., hard disk that use magnetism to encode information) can be patented. See the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure, section 2106(IV)(A), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106.htm#sect2106. David Copperfield has some of his devices patented.

Other intellectual property protection might be available under copyright or trade secret law. As noted above, trade secret protection would not protect against someone who independently figured out a trick (as opposed to learning it in confidence from the creator, and later breaking that confidence by disclosing the method of the trick). Copyright protection would most likely be difficult to assert, since it protects from people copying the trick, not explaining it. Moreover, copyrights do not protect against independent creation.

Thus, I agree with the original anonymous commentor that this section should be removed. 38.112.155.5 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

There is no discussion of the tags so I am removing them. FGT2 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally immature style[edit]

Someone earlier here wrote, "This entry reads as if written by a semiliterate teenager whose only knowledge of the topic comes from surfing the web. It needs to be brought up to some reasonable standard of english usage and professional familarity with the subject." ......I fully agree....I dropped in the refimprove template....but it needs a'lot of work. There was just something janky about the "Footnotes" and how they were referenced........the very first ref essentially jumps straight to nothing more than a fancy blog.......doesn't pass muster. Buddpaul (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit notes[edit]

General rewrite for readability, tone and neutrality.
Removal of duplicate statements.
WP:BOLD removal of long section on Randi's exposure of Uri Geller's psychic tricks on the basis that OFF TOPIC.
Removal of irrelevant examples of apparent exposures.

--Haruth (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.....good work!! I removed some of the "insider" stuff in the intro paragraph. I'm a devoted magician and exposure doesn't have to be carried out by an "insider" (whatever that means)....it can be carried out by a kid who just purchased the ball and vase at a magic shop yesterday. This article is important (in my opinion) and is coming together nicely.Buddpaul (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention[edit]

I see this article request an expert's attention. Being a former professional sleight of hand artist, I will be happy to help, if someone could be so kind to explain exactly what you need an experts advice on. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exposure (magic). 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/20100924152701/http://sleightly.com/blog/2010/03/24/exposure-essays-retrospective/ to http://sleightly.com/blog/2010/03/24/exposure-essays-retrospective/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]