Talk:Double lift

Many magic secrets are closely guarded. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, only those with reliable and cited sources can be included 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 deliberately deceptive.

Deletion[edit]

I would recommend this thread for deletion, along with all other spoiler-related threads. It is wrong to reveal any magic effects; it kills the art form and should be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSXY (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: "security through obscurity" has been shown time and time again to be a bad idea. People who want to know how it's done will always find out, and those who don't are not liable to just stumble across something they don't want to know. The art of magic does not consist of hoarding "secrets" - instead the magician should concentrate on creating the effect that he wants in the audience, regardless of whether or not they know how it was done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.203.110 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, keeping the spectator from knowing the mechanics of a trick is an essential part of magic. A double lift by itself is not a trick per se, but is so common in modern card magic that exposing it is harmful to those who perform regularly. Just as the articles on Halo, and 'Pong' don't give the sourcecode, this article should merely say that this is a card slight invented by Richard Neve.--Glatner 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

- I agree with the poster above. I also would like to say that everyone who has posted the exposure clearly has no idea about the magic theories used. A double lift is NOT picking up three or four cards simultainously as explained in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.113.144 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I also agree too. Exposing any method relating to magic technique for free is absolutely wrong and unethical. This is the reason why magic is dying so quickly. It's not even an art anymore, it's a little hobby up to anybody's hands to grab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.43.18 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, you guys make me laugh. Of course this article not to be deleted. I understand that some people, like magicians, do have an interest in keeping their tricks secret. But that's obviously not what Wikipedia is about, is it. Thiemo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.49.215 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please understand. There are people out there who live by magic. Revealing the art will ruin many peoples livelihood, including mine. And sorry for the spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.56.68 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted because it serves no purpose; and because the only effect it's exsitance can have is negative. When a spectator stumbles upon a magical method it's just like your friend telling you the ending of a movie before you see it. It spoils the effect. There are plenty of things Wikipedia chooses NOT to expose, such as the formula for coka cola or the best way to manufacture crystal meth. Knowing how a double lift is done does not enhance the life of a layperson in the least. It only makes it harder to amaze them and robs them of the feeling of wonder it can be used to help create. If someone is going to spend the months or years it takes to be able to do this slight well, they will take the time to learn it from an appropriate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.36.252 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Coca-Cola formula (also OpenCola) and Methamphetamine#synthesis. We are a repository of all noteworthy knowledge, even things that some people would prefer we didn't share. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them, The Coke recipe is unverified and unsourced, and the meth article certainly does not provide one with sufficient information to execute. By the way, you might want to study up on rhetorical argumentation, as I'm not sure an encyclapidia is the proper forum for cute little quips and aphorisms that sound good but boast no real meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.36.252 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED End of discussion. 82.139.86.106 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]