Talk:S. W. Erdnase

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Magic Start‑class High‑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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

{{Magic}}[edit]

Navy.enthusiast (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken URL[edit]

The Todd Karr URL was broken at this hour.Navy.enthusiast (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked "Is This Erdnase?" to new web URL and corrected citation. Navy.enthusiast (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman?[edit]

Further evidence suggests that Millikan and Stratton hired Professor Hoffman to write the book based (partly) on notes they provided.

Besides being uncited, there’s no antecedent for “Hoffman.” Who is he? —crism (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Andrews not Erdnase? Bad References[edit]

Without reference, this article dismisses the most heavily researched effort into Erdnase's identity: The Man Who Was Erdnase by Barton Whaley. I just read the book and the case it makes is compelling, especially the eyewitness interviews from the 1940s. In particular, I think the argument that Andrews could not have written Expert at the Card Table because its prose is of a higher quality than a letter he dashed off to a newspaper is specious. Even still, this issue is discussed in Whaley's book. The "newer evidence" calling this book into question is not even hinted at.

Regardless, the references in this article are poor. One is personal research project (which derides Whaley but does not counter its arguments), another is a Genii Magazine forum discussion (with much derision for Whaley but no facts), and the last has been removed (broken link). The Wikipedia article contains no reference to the Whaley book--a major oversight given three paragraphs are devoted to it.

I would love to believe that the writer of Expert at the Card Table was not, in fact, a serial murderer. Thus this page is particularly frustrating.

Heroinhelperonline (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]