Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 17 March 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Houdini article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Magic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magic on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Biography This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hungary High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Harry Houdini

As to the revert you made at the article: "Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..." from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html. Retrieved March 24, 2007. Why don't you actually read the cited materials before accusing an editor of "original research" and "uncited comments"? It's all in the article. The language is hostile. My edits were already cited with the original citation, no point in citing every word I add when it's verifiable. I have undone your revert. Djathinkimacowboy 08:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)}}

I did read it. But it is still original research on your part. Commenting as you did: in a hostile article (in which they refer to the Superhero biography as "a door-stop" is your own commentary. It is therefore your own original thought. The very definition of original research. Please do not edit war to add original research to the article. I see you have already been reverted by another editor. So that should be a good indicator that others don't agree with you, so please don't make this personal. Dr.K.  09:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As to your question: As to "the voice of Misplaced Pages", well, aren't we all that voice? Definitely not. We are not that voice. As editors our duty is to not invent. But simply to record what reliable sources say. And there is no reliable source which carries your commentary above. Dr.K.  09:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then read it again....I do not wish to bandy semantics with you, but you are simply mistaken about this.

That article does call the biography a "door-stop", only using the term "door-stopper" and you know that.

As to your quote of my edit, I did indeed say "hostile", which the article is. You are now obfuscating a fact by saying I made that up - the article made it up, not I. Can you be a bit more fair in your unwarranted evaluation of my edit?

And I have already said I am not going to edit war, I have no intention to do so and never have. The fact that someone else hopped in minutes after you tells me nothing.

Please do not remove the rfc request! Djathinkimacowboy 09:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use visual gimmicks like italics and do not presume to tell me to read articles again. Instead please read our policy of WP:OR again. I will not argue any longer with you because you are simply mistaken. Also please do no instruct me using exclamation marks to not remove the RFC if you have no justification or indication whatsoever for thinking that I would. This is simply rude. Dr.K.  09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please practice what you preach, then. Rude! You are in no position to call me rude. And I asked that the tag not be removed...did I ask you specifically?

Furthermore, please do not instruct me about the best way to clarify a long post. I did that for ease of reading. Does that bother you for some other reason? Djathinkimacowboy 09:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were replying to me when you mentioned Please do not remove the rfc request!. Therefore you were addressing yourself directly at me. But saying this to anyone is rude on your part and a violation of WP:AGF. So please assume good faith for everyone before you discuss matters here. Anyway I will disengage from directly replying to you because I don't think it would be particularly fruitful. Let's wait for others now that the RFC is on. Dr.K.  10:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your statement above is quite telling. You ask for something from other editors which you are unwilling to give. And I was not directing myself at you with the request not to remove the tag. If you thought so, then I am sorry for it. Djathinkimacowboy 10:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not raise an RfC for a minor issue like this. I believe we are discussing this edit which added the underlined text in:

  The Washington Post added to the furor by stating in a hostile article (in which they refer to the Superhero biography as "a door-stop") that the press conference was not orchestrated by the family of Houdini.

  The "hostile article" might be obviously true, but nevertheless such text should never be used in an article—to do so is known as expressing an opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice (that term is commonly used in various noticeboards; see WP:NPOV). An article can say that a certain source claimed X, but an article never states X unless X is an uncontroversial statement of fact. To say that a certain article is hostile is clearly an opinion. If it is the opinion of an editor, it does not belong in the article. For example, why is the opinion stated? An answer might be "in order to counteract the reliable source"—that is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not tell me how to edit on Misplaced Pages, and do not obfuscate this further. If a citation is verified as obviously hostile - which this reference clearly is - then what you say makes no sense. Or are you saying I need to find another citation that says the article was "hostile"? - even sillier. Do you read the rules very closely? Anyone has the right to an rfc. You make it seem as if you'd like to strip this right from me. Djathinkimacowboy 09:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously agree with the reasonable comments of Johnuniq. Dr.K.  10:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that is pretty clear. I'd like some fresh eyes on this, if you don't mind.... Djathinkimacowboy 10:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq's comment. Calling the article hostile is a classic case of wp:original research. I would definitely also replace the phrase "added to the furor by stating that" with the dry "stated that". (What made me come here.) - DVdm (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good catch, thank you. I had not seen it. I replaced it as you suggested. Dr.K.  12:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

At least I can rest easy: it was not I who wrote "added to the furor"...that was there already. It was that which gave me the boldness to edit further. And I thank DVdm for helping. Djathinkimacowboy 12:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote the "Impartial tone" sec. from point of view:

"Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone..."

Let me state that I read clearly in the article that it was hostile - a dispute with the authors and their book on Houdini. I did not state anything else, not even what I just stated here. I simply stated what I saw throughout the article; it is clear to anyone who reads the article. It was hostile, as I read it, because Kalush and Sloman generated a phony exhumation story for publicity.

More importantly, the article was hostile to the book. It calls the book a "door-stopper" (a/k/a a "door-stop") and I really can't imagine why you all deny that the article states that. Are you reading the same article I'm reading?

So I was not and am not saying either reference source is anything other than what I verified. That is the Misplaced Pages standard too: verifiability, or verification. Does that help justify the reason for my original edit? I don't want to be accused of edit warring again.... Djathinkimacowboy 12:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "It was that which gave me the boldness to edit further": that's understandable. So look at it as another subtle lesson in wp:neutrality. - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What, DVdm? What is that? You mention a star I have awarded you...for what reason? And exactly which "subtle" neutrality "lesson" am I to learn from the line you just posted? Do not mistake me, I am asking genuine questions because I'm confused by your post. It doesn't seem helpful. Djathinkimacowboy 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The lesson to be learned is from this entire section here. And the reason I mentioned the star: look at it as a little exercise. No feedback required when you complete it, nor when you don't complete it. Feel free to ignore it. - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DVdm, I've learnt a lot all right - still do not know where you're coming from regarding all this. I feel I am in the right, but I follow procedure and I'm certainly not edit warring. According to some editors here, I have no rights at all. Furthermore, I doubt whether you're being particularly helpful at this point. The issue is: a source that serves as a backbone for a section should be described accurately when necessary. Doing that is not an exercize in point of view, is what I am arguing. Djathinkimacowboy 04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a little uneasy here. While I avoiding the language is probably a good thing, I think we should perhaps be a little cool about worrying about this sort of item. Not because WP:OTHERWORSESTUFFEXITS, but because it is that other worse stuff that the "rules" are meant for. Had the term "negative" rather than "hostile" been used, then I would have real difficulty calling this OR. A little note on language, while "door stop" may imply that that is all a book is good for, it is also used simply as a description of size, which in the context of "holiday reading" may even be considered a positive description. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Rich, being a slightly biased fan of the biography, it is no door-stop as to its size! Deliberately misreading any writing seems a bit unconstructive....I do not accuse you, but it seems that is what is being done. Djathinkimacowboy 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be uneasy Rich. Even the adjective "negative" is original research not only because it is unattributed but also, as you so rightly say, the term "door-stop" may even be a positive comment. We cannot know therefore if this review is "positive" or "negative", let alone "hostile", with any degree of certainty. This is the kind of commentary WP:OR tries to suppress and this is why we shouldn't engage in this practice. Dr.K.  19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So you see, there is an insistence that I find a separate source to back up what is obvious about a primary source! Silly, man. Djathinkimacowboy 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think even "negative" would be suitable. The article is negative, but editors should not provide editorial commentary to oppose a source. If the source warrants mention (WP:DUE), mention it with attribution ("X said Y"). For the source in question (highly reliable for this sort of usage), we may wonder why the article was so negative. A possible answer is that the reliable source made an assessment of the situation and concluded that the situation was so silly that serious commentary was inappropriate, and readers should be told clearly about the nonsense. If that passes WP:DUE, an editor should not add a disclaimer by effectively saying "here is the claim, but the reader can discount it because the source is biased". Another way of looking at it is to consider a normal publication: suppose I were to write an article under my name in some reliable source—I could say that the article was negative or hostile because it would be clear that those words were my opinion. At Misplaced Pages, there is no such author to hold the opinion, so editorial commentary is not suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That is all babbling. Johnuniq admits the article is negative. That in itself is a consensus that it is negative, or reads as negative - and I said over and over, I am not trying to nail one source over another. Djathinkimacowboy 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

* My arguments have been made - and all I see is strange, niggling arguments and veiled insults. Certainly I appreciate the new editors who have joined the discussion, and added positive ideas. No decision will be reached, obviously, and I have no desire to engage any longer over one stupid word, which I thought might help illuminate the section. Clearly, I thought wrongly. Djathinkimacowboy 04:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there's a consensus that the article is negative, but there's no hint of a consensus that we can mention its negativity — produce a reliable source saying that the article is negative, then convince us that that fact is sufficiently wp:notable, and then you're in business. That is the way it goes, and, seriously, someone who has been editing here since a decade should know that. - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm. The argument isn't so much that the commentary is negative or not, but that you want to mention it. You want to highlight the fact that the commentary is negative so that you can negate its impact and also use it as implied criticism of the source. Therefore you are constructing an artificial synthesis to influence the understanding of the section by the reader. If this commentary was analysed by someone else, other than you, reliable enough to be included in this article, then that would present no problem. But in the absence of external commentary we cannot substitute our made-in-Misplaced Pages home-made version, especially so that we can assail the credibility of a reliable source by adding criticism even implicitly. If what this source claims is so bad or unusual there should be no problem finding another source which criticises this source, without us having to do the criticism by ourselves and in the process engage in original research and synthesis. Negativity is also not a bad thing on its own. It may even be necessary is some cases. Because it can conceivably be in this case that, even if negative, the criticism provided by the reliable source may be perfectly valid and justified. Highlighting its negativity therefore, could be viewed as POV which aims at negating its perfectly valid criticism. Reporting on the negativity of the source we implicitly tell the reader that negativity is a bad thing and therefore we like only positive things to be told about this event. We cannot take sides like this in an argument. We are here to report facts, not paint them with implicit criticism on our own. Dr.K.  15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I feel the rudeness and pettiness knows no bounds here. Frankly I am disappointed with the unfriendly, unhelpful tenor. Yes, I know, you want a source that says, blah blah. DVdm, now that you've got your dig in you may wish to leave this behind...as I already have. Djathinkimacowboy 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K., I really did not want to see another 1,000-word essay about why you are so correct and I am so incorrect. Djathinkimacowboy 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked for comments. You got comments. Try to learn from the comments. Otherwise, if you think that these comments breathe boundless rudeness and pettiness, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not your place. Blogging might be a good alternative. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the same to you. Never have I regretted awarding a star before, but now.... Djathinkimacowboy 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to all editors. I have reflected - based on all your comments and mine - I was rude and petulant. Complaining about the very things I've been doing! I'm sorry. I will not do this kind of thing again, you have my word. I hope you will all take note, and accept. Djathinkimacowboy 07:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Newer edits, unrelated to rfc

Hope no one will protest to my removal of some frankly silly minutiae and grammatical corrections from the article. We don't need to know every time Houdini's name was mentioned or every time he inspired someone.

I also removed the cumbersome explanations about Google's patents. There is such a thing as notability. Djathinkimacowboy 13:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good (though I haven't looked in detail). The (polite) term deciding whether stuff belongs in an article is significance - we reserve notability primarily for articleworthiness. Obvious example, John Doe is marginally notable. His article may reasonably mention his children, although they are not notable (in their own right), they are significant. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Fine, whatev, man. Semantics. At least I can appreciate your understanding. Djathinkimacowboy 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, nothing to do with anyone's kids. Look, I removed one-liners that said things like, "X wrote a song about Houdini" and "X mentioned Houdini once upon a time". I can't add a single word, but that garbage is allowed? It seems to me no one is reviewing this article as a whole except me. When I mentioned the source in "Exhumation" it is because that is the backbone of the entire section. It is fair to describe a source correctly, no? (You've all said "no" already anyway.) Djathinkimacowboy 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My above heartfelt apology extends to you here, Rich Farmbrough. Djathinkimacowboy 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Houdini reported as first flight in australia by some sources

Some of the text is available from online sources, I haven't looked to find all of it, haven't looked for the papers, but it's obviously very significant and needs to be included in the article which presents Harry as Australia's first aviator. I have the full text in the publication in front of me, if anyone needs more.

-(Template:Lang-id, Lit. Magician) Penyulap _talk 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The summary provided in the article is rather small compared to the original, and has already been summarized, so I'm not seeing it as a copy vio, removed weasles. Penyulap _talk 09:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have again reverted. The copyvio from http://leann-richards.suite101.com/australias-first-aviator-a294142 is clear (that URL is on the blacklist and cannot be entered normally). Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, except it had nothing to do with the URL, as mentioned, the full text, of which only part I've seen elsewhere on the web, came from a magazine. MOOT. As I figure the original newspaper reports would be better as they have lovely pictures and everything. By now of course they'd be so totally out of copyright, being so darn old. No ? So we could have the piccies and everything to spruce up the article. But for now he'll just have to parade as the first aviator in Australia a little longer till I get to it. Penyulap _talk 12:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What blacklist would you explain that to me please. Penyulap _talk 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So from the discussions we've had on our talkpages, I take it your position is if a person creates a blacklisted site, and then copies information from wikipedia onto their site, we must delete the original information from wiki ? or if they copy material, such as material I have suggested for inclusion into the article, properly referenced and cited, that valid material becomes invalid ? Penyulap _talk 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In this edit a few paragraphs were added to the article. One of those is shown on the right in the table below. The text on the left is from the blacklisted link mentioned above.

That is clearly a copyvio. Are you suggesting that the text added to Misplaced Pages in that edit (23 December 2011) was on Misplaced Pages first, and was then copied to the external site? As I explained at your talk, it is common for several sites to have similar text—it can be hard to determine which holds the original. At any rate, it seems clear that the text added to Misplaced Pages was copied from somewhere. Are you saying it wasn't? Are you aware that copying text into Misplaced Pages is not permitted: even if attributed, we do not insert significant amounts of text from other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation is copying someone's work. Copying is where there is an original from which a duplicate is made. You found a copy. Great, well done, that's what you have found, a copy, on a site that copies things. Here is the question if they are copying things, where do you think they get it from ? well the answer to that is from an original. If there is no original, you can't be copying someone else's work, it would be original work. Are you following me so far ? Penyulap _talk 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered uploading a picture of the magazine using my webcam, but upon enquiring about the copyright for that image, I found the following comment echoed my own position, it may be of interest to you as well.

... There is not and never will be a requirement that a citation to a printed source include a weblink. If the text appears in a reliable source, that's all that's needed..... The fact that similar information is on a blacklisted site is, as somebody else already pointed out, completely irrelevant.

— --Orange Mike, Talk 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if you can't find the magazine yourself, and ask nicely I'd be happy to upload it somewhere off-wiki for you. Penyulap _talk 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a major misunderstanding of the ethics and legal implications concerned with copying material into articles. In brief: do not copy material into articles because it is not ethical and it is a copyvio. Where the material was copied from is totally irrelevant (unless you are claiming the material had a license allowing reuse, in which case there should be a footnote in the article stating that it contains material taken from the source—not just a reference). Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you are talking past each other. Penyulap, you have to paraphrase from that site, not just copy. The writer in question is not just quoting or swiping from other sites, she's summarizing and combining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoAdamite (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The aviation section has been badly mangled by all this. Zencato (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Aviation section should be reverted

I'm a little shocked to see what has happened to the Aviation section and very surprised Wiki is allowing these changes to stand. Five paragraphs on competitor claims that they were first to fly in Australia? The fact is the historical record shows Houdini as the first. One paragraph at best should note other claims. Certainly the new heading of "Falsely reported as pioneer" is misleading and shows bias.

Now, know that there is a regional pissing match in Australia over this -- which region has the claim in the first flight and sell first flight merchandise, etc. I believe that is why this was added. This was a well written and sourced section of the Houdini story. Now it has been made a mess by partisans in this fight. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/dogfight-for-claim-to-nations-first-powered-flight/story-e6frg95x-1225806755847

Here are the facts on Houdni's flight, including competitor claims: http://www.wildabouthoudini.com/2010/03/how-100-years-ago-houdini-showed.html

I believe this section should be reverted back to what it was before all this started. (Zencato (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

I have rewritten this section, eliminating the bias and making it about Houdini and his aviation career. Five paragraphs devoted to Colin Defries was not appropriate nor of value in an article about Houdini. The heading "Falsely reported as pioneer" was clearly bias. I've included Defries claim and the first flight controversy. But I believe it now has the proper perspective. For this I've largely sourced the book, Houdini!!! The Career of Ehrich Weiss by Ken Silverman, which I believe to be the most accurate biography of Houdini. My own personal qualifications as Houdini historian can be found here. (http://www.wildabouthoudini.com/p/about-me.html) I really feel this section had gone off the rails. I believe it is now much improved. Know that there is a regional controversy in Australia over which town can claim "first flight" statue. I think we should beware of people coming in here and altering this section for partisan reasons. --Zencato (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention a regional bias, I was thinking the same thing myself actually. However, I think Houdini did travel a fair bit, so which country would you say the topic of pioneer aviator, as you call it, is most related to ?

How would you improve the title of the section ?

There does indeed seem to be some confusion at least in the minds of some commentators, such as Mr Creedy, but I think it's deliberate, as part of his stylizing that story to get a headline, for example he claims "NSW is attempting to trump Victoria" it's personification trying to invent a contest, I don't think he's much of a source for anything, and certainly not suitable as a source for the claims made in the article.

There would be considerable bias to suggest there is any contest or confusion in the article based upon Mr Creedy's remarks, as such claims would FAIL WP:NOTABLE because if you read that article with close scrutiny, it's not one group of historians against another group of historians, nor is it one group from one state against another group from another state. It's pretty much everyone against one poor bloke who has the task of drumming up support for his local town, trying to make that town notable in the eyes of tourists, to get tourist dollars, and the only thing that happened in that town was a failed attempt by Houdini to be the first person to take to the air in Australia according to sources that we have, I don't know myself, I wasn't there. The paragraphs provided are short, but I'd like to listen to any suggestions you have to shorten them still further, however keep in mind we have to say just what it is that Harry Houdini IS noteworthy for, and need to do it in an accurate way, not misrepresenting his achievement in the way you've done here.

The one guy whose job it is to make that town a tourist attraction is already getting more than enough assistance and bias out of the newspaper you source. He doesn't need more assistance from Misplaced Pages along similar lines.

The second ref, from wildabouthoudini.com is such an epic fail I wouldn't bother using it for anything, except that Houdini slept under his plane and the claim a competitors flight was a 'myth' (yes I am being sarcastically humorous in this last bit) but if you are unsure about whether or not they are good reliable sources, I'll be happy to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard for you, to get a more detailed explanation. Penyulap _talk 07:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it with you. I rewrote that section using reliable sources, notably Ken Silverman's seminal biography, Houdini!!! The Career of Ehrich Weiss. I also included Colin Defries claim and the controversy, because I think this is part of the story. But I think it's ridiculous to have five paragraphs devoted to the career and accomplishments of Colin Defries in an article about Harry Houdini. That is for the Defries page. The headline "Falsely reported as pioneer" is also inflammatory and bias. But I'm not going to go back and fourth with this. Anyone can see for themselves that the aviation section is wildly unbalanced and just flat out weird in its fixation on Defries. I will leave it to some other Wiki editor to decide which version should stand. Here is my version which you reverted:

Pioneer Aviator

In 1909, Houdini became fascinated with aviation. He purchased a French Voisin biplane for $5000 and hired a full-time mechanic, Antonio Brassac. Houdini painted his name in bold block letters on the Voisin's sidepanels and tail. After crashing once, he made his first successful flight on November 26 in Hamburg, Germany. The following year (1910), Houdini toured Australia. He brought along his Voisin biplane and made what was reported to be the first controlled flight over Australia on March 18, 1910 at Diggers Rest, Victoria (near Melton), north of Melbourne. The Aerial League of Australia certified his accomplishment and awarded him a trophy for his flight. However, others claimed to flown before Houdini, most notably Colin Defries, who claimed he flew a Wright Model A aircraft about 115 yards at Sydney's Victoria Racecourse on December 9, 1909. The controversy over which region can celebrate Australia's first flight continues to this day.

After his Australia tour (which included several even more flight exhibitions at Rosehill racetrack near Sydney), Houdini put the Voisin into storage in England. Although he announced he would use it to fly from city to city during his next tour -- and even promised to leap from it handcuffed -- Houdini never flew again.

I've done what I can. It's up to Wiki now. --Zencato (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to investigate the issue in detail now, but the text restored by Penyulap ("undid...for an alphabet soup of problems") is clearly inappropriate as this article is not the place to discuss who made the first powered flight in Australia. The heading "Falsely reported as pioneer" is also inappropriate—something neutral should be devised as there is no need for a heading to provide instruction to the reader. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest in this, Johnuniq. If anyone should want to investigate this, here's a page with original photos, original newspapers clippings, film, and the actual certificate of Houdini's flight signed by the timekeepers and other witnesses: http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/houdini_bio.html

And here's a photo of the trophy he received from the Ariel Legue of Australia for making the first flight: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_5Z3Zpfj0M/TNrSuXlC_RI/AAAAAAAAABE/ELyZ1FVUqyU/s1600/droppedImage_4.jpg

The fact that at the time Houdini was recognized as having made the first controlled flight in Australia and awarded this honor should not be erased from his history because of a rival claim made 20+ years later after he was dead. Nor should we ignore that there is a controversy. That's why I included a nod to Defries in my paragraph with a link so people could investigate it further if they like. I think with this I achieved a balance. --Zencato (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Theo doing Milk can escape up until 1940s?

I reverted the change of 1940s to 1920s for Theo continuing this act, as it doesn't quite make sense if Harry didn't die til 1926. I don't actually know, maybe someone who has access to the cited sources can check. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A photo on this page suggests you're correct. Amazing that he did it in his late 60s. Materialscientist (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "Harry Houdini Aviation Pioneer". ctie.monash.edu.au. Retrieved March 15, 2012.
2. "Dogfight for claim to nation's first powered flight". theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
3. Silverman, pp. 137–154

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Magic articles
• High-importance Magic articles
• WikiProject Magic articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class aerospace biography articles
• Aerospace biography task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• C-Class Hungary articles
• High-importance Hungary articles
• All WikiProject Hungary pages