Talk:Derren Brown/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Is the link appropriate

Is the [1] link appropriate? It seems just like an advert for a ebook to me.TallAlex

This article seems incredibly biased. It seems to accept the fact that he uses his 'skills' and incredible intelligence to perform his stunts. These stunts are obviously classic magic TRICKS, and as such he should be called a magician. His claims to use the power of the mind are simply misleading, and an article not touching that topic is lacking. This article should not be a promotion for Derren Brown, but should address the truth.

Yet what the 'truth' is, is debated. If the article were to be completely changed in order to fit the view that all he does is classic magic tricks, then the article would still be biased but in another fashion. It would probably be best for the article to currently remain as it is (with maybe some congratulatory adjectives removed), with a section for 'Criticisms', outlining the view shown above.

Also, I reordered the "Messiah" sections to the order the appeared on the program. Hugo Hadlow 20:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should probably note that the BBC page on this here gets it wrong - although it correctly notes that he started at chamber 3, the bullet was in chamber 1, not chamber 2. He only pulled the trigger 5 times in all, as any number of other sources point out... Evercat 01:40, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What did you think after he sat there after firing chamber 5? The smile on his face before he pulled the trigger on that chamber suggested he thought that 5 was the one with the bullet in it, then he just sat there for ages. I thought he'd bottled it. Of course this could all be part of the act, but it added to the tension none the less. Obviously if he had blown his brains out we wouldn't have been watching it, so that should have eased the tension, but it was still pretty scary. Mintguy 01:45, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, he took ages to pull himself together after that. I expected him to quit, actually. Thinking about it though, the "mistaken choice" was also a great way to create tension, with the idea that even he wasn't sure where the bullet was. I guess we'll never know if he really thought it was in chamber 5... I would be interested to know how many seconds in advance it was filmed. Evercat 01:59, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One thing - would it be fair use to lift the image straight out of Sky's page? Evercat 02:02, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think he's amazing in what he can do, but he may have gone too far with this stunt. It puts me in mind of that guy that's going to chop his legs off live on the Internet (has he done that yet). I expect Ch 4 will get a slap on the wrist from the IBA or ITC or whatever they're called these days. BTW I thought the Revels a la "The Deer Hunter" ad in the first break was a bit cheeky! Mintguy 02:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. :-) I dunno about the "ethical issues" - magicians have done dangerous things before, and there are lots of movies etc that can be copied by people. I'm not sure the fact that it was real as opposed to simulated makes much difference. I for one was confident he would live (even if he had to quit to do so) Evercat 02:06, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Speaking of "ethical issues" I was watching the new series of "Trick of the Mind" tonight and he appears to set someone up in a situation that will terrify them without obtaining their consent at all. Was it a fake set-up using an actor or are there major ethical issues involved in the stunt? LJade728 22:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there was an element of hypnosis used in that sequence, and whilst Brown didn't explicitly get their consent, they chose to play the arcade game. -TonyW 22:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hang on, I chose to play arcade games a lot as a kid, that doesn't mean I volunteered to be put into a horrific semi-waking nightmare. Hypnotising someone without their permission certainly is unethical. The fact he hasn't been sued shows that there is probably an element of the 'victim' being in on it. If you choose someone at random, you could pick someone with mental difficulties etc. The guy must've been in on it.Magic Pickle 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It was very (obviously) fake. I think this falls under the "showmanship" category derren refers to in the opening of the program. Derren has certainly faked it before. 01:18, Oct 5 2005
Ok, so where is the skill? Anyone can just hire an actor to pretend they are 'amazed' by what happened. What's the point in watching? Magic Pickle 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What's Derren's real name ?

Was Derren born "Darren"?

No, Derren was christened Derren. His full name is Derren Victor Brown.

So why was his stage name originally Darren as the article suggests? Magic Pickle 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Darren is a far more commom name. It is easy to misspell also.

Blanks do can kill

Minister Melvyn Nurse pointed a blank loaded gun on his temple while demonstrating to youth that "guns kill people." The shot shattered his skull. [2] [3]

TV-Actor Jon-Erik Hexum died similarly. [4]

Brandon Lee was killed by a prop bullet stuck in the barrel. [5]

Talamus 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

""There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk." [1] As demonstrated earlier in the programme, firing a blank cartridge at point-blank range can still be extremely dangerous or even fatal." Ok so we know blanks are dangerous - but the police said they knew no-one was at risk. therefore the whole thing was a trick, and not a 'stunt' where there was clear danger. I think this is the problem with Brown - he is claiming to use psychological techniques, when in fact he seems to be using 'tricks' which control the situation (if that makes sense) Magic Pickle

Russian roulette

I wonder if it would be worth mentioning how the suggesting of chamber one was (apparently) done. The following is from a Google cache of someones usenet post, but it corresponds with my memory and I think it's accurate:

If it fucks up it's not your fault.
Pick up the gun.
Take the gun under the table.
Can you see the numbers?
Ok. Move it around a bit.
Familiarise yourself with the numbers.
Make sure you can see them clearly.
I want you to choose one of these numbers.
You keep that number to yourself and have a look at them now and choose one now.
It doesn't matter which one it is you can change your mind as many times as you like.
Would you make that decision for me and you settle on a number.
Are you thinking of one now? Yeah.

Evercat 23:45, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Admittedly there's the possibility the whole thing was a sham. :-) Evercat 00:15, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seeing as the bullet, live or otherwise, was in chamber one tends to tie in with the use of the word 'one' a number of times in Brown's instructions, and he had chosen a guy who was nervous and probably more susceptible to such an auto-suggestion. --TonyW 16:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the place to include speculation as to how a magician's tricks are done. It's very easy to convince yourself that an apparent method is the 'only' way it could be done. Conan Doyle insisted the 'only' way Houdini could escape from handcuffs was to dematerialise his hands. The point of a good trick is that you can't work out how it's done. Wikipedia should contain confirmed facts, and not even reasoned arguments, let alone speculation. For what it's worth, I'm a friend of Derren, he asked me for advice when planning 'Russian Roulette' and no one has come close to the method in this discussion. More than that I'm not willing to say. --Scaramouche 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well you've apparently confirmed that it was indeed a hoax, if the "method" was other than the one he claimed (ie a real honest-to-god game of Russian roulette) Evercat 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The end point is entertainment by awe. That has been achieved immensly by Derren in this show. With much anticipation and applause..:) -Procrastinating@talk2me 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
OK so the end result is entertainment - fine. But surely then Derren has no unique selling point. Any performer can hire an actor and pretend to play Russian Roulette with them. Therefore why are we watching Derren - because we believe there is the possibility he is really playing Russian Roulette. If it is a hoax, and there was no danger, there is no point in watching Derren. When you see a magician you wonder how the trick is performed but you know it is a trick. With Derren he seems to imply his performances are more 'real' than magic - but he's basically dressing up unskilful hoaxes. Which is less than 'magic'! Why only Simon Singh has bothered to publicly point this out is beyond me. Magic Pickle 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Waking Dead" arcade game trick

I just removed the following:

Recently (June 2005) a clip from an episode of this series has been widely circulating the internet, most commonly on forums dedicated to online gaming. In the clip, Derren claims to create a video game he calls "Waking Dead" which is able to put people into a "catatonic trance". He accomplishes this by "carefully timed flashes". Derren explains that "roughly 1/3 of people who play it" (implying 1/3 of the entire population) is vulnerable to this effect. The absurdity of this claim appears to be lost on most viewers, since if the phenomenon were real then this effect would be well documented in medical journals, it would be used by the US Military to combat the insurgency in Iraq, it would be used by law enforcement, etc. The episode is thus quite obviously revealed as a staged hoax -- a technique well known to Derren.

Some of this may be worth inclusion, but it is currently uncited and written slightly POV. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Here is my reworded cited and hopefully POV-free version.

Recently (June 2005) a clip from an episode of this series has been widely circulating the internet, most commonly on forums dedicated to online gaming. In the clip, Derren claims to have created a video game he calls "Waking Dead" which "is able to put roughly 1/3 of the people who play it into a catatonic trance". In the episode he places the video game in a local pub, to lure a (supposedly unsuspecting) patron into playing the game. He then "kidnaps" the catatonic "victim" and places them in a real-life recreation of the video game, having him fire an air gun at "zombie" actors outfitted with explosive squibs.
As with Derren's infamous Russian Roulette staged hoax, this episode has raised considerable controversy. Mick Grierson (credited in the episode as "Zombie Game Designer") put up a website linking to various articles about the episode.
Works for me. I've added it to the article. func(talk) 6 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

This is VERY unlikely since some research into this phenomenal claim Photosensitive epilepsy suggest that only a few in 10,000 ever get this syndrome.(not a 1/3...) I don't wanne be negatively POV'ed about it ,should this be included? The Procrastinator 22:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --

I don't think this phenomenon *is* "photosensitive epilepsy" which would have caused the guy watching the game to have had an epileptic seizure, instead of dropping into a catatonic state like he seemed to do.

I tried to remove this line but it got put back in, I'm not all that familiar with editing wikipedia. Indigo 11:18, 12 April 2006 -- I just watched the segment, and I don't believe it for a second, but it leaves me wondering - what was the point of the whole thing? Was it an experiment in fooling the audience, or was it just a scam to get TV ratings like the Fox "Was Apollo Faked?" special? Jafafa Hots 12:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The effect in action seemed more like normal use of hypnosis. (See highway hypnosis) In the clip Mr. Brown clearly timed the screen flashes to those emotions of the player he wanted to enhance. Hypnosis is not a mass effect you can use against multiple persons -- so no fancy military applications or "pacify-Iraq" use. :)
However. I see no point discussing whether the claims of Mr. Brown are true or not. (Some people insist rising this question when illusions are in question.) Stage artist, magicians, and hypnotists are entertainers. Their job is to entertain, not to speak truth every time they open their mouths. Tricks must be staged, and staging may require a bit of truth bending. That is Ok.
So the point is simply to entertain -- like the Fox scams, except that Isn't Fox supposed to tell the truth? :D
At least Mr. Brown always tells us that his tricks are tricks and he is a normal human being. He has never claimed to posses any metaphysical powers á la Uri Geller, he is not telling us he can fly like David Blaine. His show does not even include David Copperfield style bad dance acts.
Entertainment, entertainment, entertainment... Talamus 10:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't claim to have metaphysical powers - he does claim to be able to read people via psychological techniques - and that's the controversy. A magician entertains us, but we know he is fooling us - the problem is when someone fools us and hides the fact. Magic Pickle 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Being able to read someone via "Psychological Techniques" is not difficult. For example, you can very often tell if someone is lying or telling the truth. You can see if someone is angry, depressed or whatever just by reading facial expressions (however hard the person tries to cover their emotions). This is what Derren Brown does. He is just better at it and knows how to implant thoughts into peoples' heads by subtle suggestion. Whether what he does is hoaxed or not, it makes everyone who watches him question the method i.e. "How did he do that?!", and I think that is the reaction every single magician, show hypnotist, conjurer, or entertainer wants isn't it? -- IanUK 10:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So via the 'psychological techniques' he can make a normally sensible person commit a serious crime? (The bank robbery) - hmmm.. 'Psychological suggestion' is a pretty unproven field, at best. I don't know how he does it, brilliant - but he doesn't do it through 'psychology' that's the nub of the controversy. Cheers. Magic Pickle 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the point of the preceding bit of the show where he took the 13 people and got rid of all but 4 to leave only the most suggestible people? He didn't claim to take just anybody off the street to do it, he specifically chose those he could manipulate the most (and even then he only had a 75% success rate

Other 'Mind' magicians

I've removed the following paragraphs:

Whilst Brown is certainly the most successful 'psychological magician' by the yardstick of media exposure and television appearances, he is by no means a pioneer leave alone an originator in this field. American psychologist turned entertainer 'Marc Salem' has appeared on both sides of the Atlantic, in the theatre as well as on television, with his project 'Mind Games', receiving a critical acclaim which if anything exceeds that accorded Brown. Moreover British-Dutch magician 'David Berglas' was a household name in the 1960s and early 1970s with his intense, interactive television shows which drew heavily on his training as a psychotherapist at London's renown Tavistock Institute. The cult British-based performance artist / conceptual artist aladin likewise has formal training as a psychotherapist which he used to devastating effect in confounding the queues and VIP Room guests at nightclub The Ministry of Sound in the early 1990s with feats of apparent mind-reading.
But Brown's astute use of the machinery of PR to cast him in the mould of a superstar have not unnaturally made it diffucult to see him objectively in the history of 'psychological entertainment'. None of this can detract from his current status as an exceptional magician however.

This may well be a good addition (if reworded to remove some POV) but I don't think that it's particularly appropriate here. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Other 'Mind' magicians

hi violet - i was interested in seeing your posting about derren brown. i think there needs to be a section putting derren into context - he is too important a figure NOT to have this. i have done an edit on text provided earlier by SHAZZAMM and have removed POV as you suggest. it looks fine now.

this is how it now looks:

Other 'Mind' magicians
Whilst Brown must be deemed a great success as a 'psychological magician' by the yardstick of media exposure and television appearances, he is not alone in pioneering or originating this form of entertainment. From the 1990s onwards American psychologist turned entertainer 'Marc Salem' has apeared with his project 'Mind Games' to critical acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic, in the theatre as well as on television. British-Dutch magician 'David Berglas' was a household name in the 1960s and early 1970s with his intense, interactive television shows which drew heavily on his training as a psychotherapist at London's Tavistock Institute. The cult British-based performance artist / conceptual artist aladin likewise has formal training as a psychotherapist which he used to apparently good effect in confounding the queues and VIP Room guests at nightclub The Ministry of Sound in the early 1990s with feats of apparent mind-reading.
But regardless of Brown's adroitness in using the machinery of PR, he has to be seen as a significant figure in the history of 'psychological entertainment' and as a quite exceptional magician.

regards lynrdandersen Lynrdandersen 11:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much Lynrdandersen! But SINCERELY - why are people so pedantic? Your editing has just made the section look lame by comparison with my words. 'Point of view' is important as magic is anyway subjective. But point taken - and I hope fans like myself are allowed to register that Derren is the greatest, but that there are OTHER great magicians around
Shazzamm Shazzamm 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm still not too sure that this needs inclusion - we don't have a comparison of Tony Blair with previous Prime Ministers. I think it's a worthy inclusion, but I think it should really appear elsewhere. I really don't see it as being "pedantic" either, and calling edits "lame" is not a particularly nice thing to do. violet/riga (t) 20:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
i take both your points onboard. 'Shazzamm' - i do sympathise; i did enjoy your language but in the interests of balance and to do justice to your quite tasty contribution it was better if we allowed the reader some space to form a view. 'Violetriga' - one of Wikipedia's strength is how quite exceptional research is accrued by readers/browsers and surely 'Mind Magicians' is the worthy kernel of a stub elsewhere. until such time as Shazzamm or others initiate a new article (presumably we will then have the mind magicians term in Derren's article!) however i think it fits in fine as a footnote of sorts. hmm?
Lynrdandersen 01:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds great. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised Banachek wasn't mentioned on the page in the Other 'Mind' magicians section. He might not be as famous as Derren, but he's an excellent mindreader, he tours a lot and can be seen consulting on the American TV show "Mindfreak" featuring Criss Angel, and may have developed at least a few of the techniques Derren has been seen using. Anyway, I agree that "Mind Magicians" or "Mentalism" deserves its own stub, and perhaps there some small discussion of the techniques (some of them are secret, some have been published) can begin there, away from any one magician's name.

MarkTAW MarkTAW 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


I watched an episode of his show, it sucked. All the tricks were obviously acted and you dont have to be a psychological illusionist to figure that out. The bad acting was just painful. Real magicians have to train their tricks, not just tell the actor what to say. Lapinmies 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, based on nothing more than your personal disbelief. He guarantees that 'at no point are actors or stooges used on this show'. If it ever turned out he lied, then his carreer would be down in the pothole so he is very unlikely to make such a statement if he wasn't sure that it was true. All his victims are induced through hypnotic suggestion, through his knowledge of psychology he is able to manipulate the subconcious of his targets by feeding them subliminal commands to do what he wants. Although most of his act is around 80% traditional magical trickery, the remaining 20% uses tried and tested psychological methods such as NLP (neuro-linguistic programming). (Unsigned comment)
The anonymous editor disproves their own point - Derren Brown can "guarantee" that "at no point are actors or stooges used on this show" with no risk at all. There is no refund to be demanded, and if it ever turned out he lied (which it seemingly did - linked in the article is the anti-endorsement of the 'game creator' for his zombie game episode) it wouldn't ruin his career at all, people would leap to defend him on the grounds that he *guaranteed* he doesn't use stooges. If you say something is true and you're famous, someone "revealing" it not to be true won't harm your career. The career of Uri Geller also proves this point, with a strong believer contingent remaining despite Randi's "revealing" evidence. Ironically, this is part of Derren's own material, that people will believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence or counterevidence. Perhaps material consisting of lies is justifiable on that basis. RavenBlackX 13:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You make some good points. Does it matter if he lies? Is it all part of the act? Perhaps. It tends to break down the contract between audience and magician. The audience don't know how the magician does his trick but knows he is tricking them - they admire his skill and trust that he is not lying when he says 'no camera tricks' 'no stooges' - because the reliance on that proves the entertainment is based on skill. The difference here is Brown claiming to have a skill (psychological techniques / behavioural psychology etc) which means he has a greater insight into how people behave - but does he?. He's claiming to have a skill the rest of us don't have. Ironic that this perhaps shares a place alongside the claims of 'real magic' that hoaxers have perpetuated for years! NLP, for example is regarded by some as a pseudoscience - it's not necessarily a proven technique.Magic Pickle 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Lapinmies, just because you think the show 'sucked', doesn't mean that it's fake. You say they were 'obviously' acted. How come? Why should I believe this to be anything but yet another viewpoint? -UK-Logician-2006 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it does not make people wonder how he did it. He should adjust his tricks so that people at home can get some other reaction than "Ah, actors". Real magicians always have some perceived randomness in their tricks, Derren does not. His tricks look like he does nothing but tells the actors what to do. Lapinmies 09:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Errr...Lapinmies, there _are_ other reactions than "Ah, actors". Just because you don't experience them, it doesn't mean they don't happen. You shouldn't assume things to be merely because that's the way you experience them. That seems incredibly small-minded and petty, IMHO. -UK-Logician-2006 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
In many cases he does use very obvious suggestion techniques to his subjects. This is certainly not evidence that suggests the show is faked --Beachy 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Magic Pickle is right, NLP is considered being a pseudo-science. It's used in psychotherapy but has not been scientifically tested. Also, practitionners of NLP don't favor scientific methods. I would believe Derren Brown if he rather said that he uses social psychology, instead. --jeepee2 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a section about the fact the Derren claims to use 'psychology' when actually he uses stooges and classic magic tricks...

There shouldn't be a problem with that. It could be named 'Criticisms'. It would be necessary, of course, to make sure anything written in such a section was strictly NPOV. -UK-Logician-2006 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Brown does not use stooges and at no point during the article is it claimed that he is anything other than a magician - so what's your beef? Mr Twain 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK so if he didn't use a stooge for the zombie video game hypnosis we are entering a whole minefield of ethical issues. Hypnotising someone without their permission, putting them in a terrifying situation without their permission, possible photo-epileptic seizure etc etc etc. I don't claim to know how Brown carries out his tricks, but there seems to be confusion in this discussion as to whether he is an illusionist, a hoaxer, or a psychologist. Maybe all three. But his usual schtick is to claim he can predict manipulate thru psychology. And the russian roulette and zombie game throw that into doubt Magic Pickle 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As he says in introductions, his show is a fusion of a variety of techniques. Yes, the ethical side is quite interesting. As for the Russian Roulette one, well that was easily done - he influenced the guy to choose a specific number after making sure that said person was very susceptible to such techniques. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the ethical element is so strong - that Brown would be at risk of legal action from his 'participants' if they did not give their permission- therefore we have to ask how much the 'participants' know. Besides it's debatable that someone can be hypnotised against their will. I think you may have fallen for Brown's schtick in believing he managed to 'influence' the roulette guy (with his amazing psychological techniques...!) As the police said - they knew there was no danger of Brown being shot - therefore he used a good old fashioned magic trick - it really didn't matter which chamber the guy chose. Magic Pickle 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Also what about the show where he turned people temporarily into serious criminals? There was no permission given for this to happen... hmm... The participant who did not turn into a criminal expressed how he felt he had strength of will and morality for not turning into a criminal. I wonder how the others would feel knowing they did give in. but then again- how much did they really know? Magic Pickle 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget folks, that the people who are hypnotised/enticed/seduced/duped or whatever MUST GIVE PERMISSION for their experience to be broadcast. If any of the people feel they have been violated or unfairly treated, they can simply not give permission for it to be shown on television.
We don't know how many refusals to broadcast Derren gets because they aren't shown and he's hardly likely to mention them. The people we do see commiting the armed robberies, being scared out of their wits in a room of zombies, or believe they are talking to the dead in a seance, are obviously good sports, are easy going, and realise they have had a practical joke played on them, and are happy for people to see and share their experience. If you ask me, there are no ethical issues involved. People who didn't like being tricked refuse to have their involvment broadcast, and those who don't like the techniques through religious or other reasons, can simply change the channel.
Whether it's acted, hoaxed or completely real, so what? It's entertainment and get's everyone talking about it. Mission accomplished. -- IanUK 10:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"If any of the people feel they have been violated or unfairly treated, they can simply not give permission for it to be shown on television" - so as long as you, the TV producer give people the opportunity to refuse to appear in the prog, it's OK to violate them and unfairly treat them in the course of the production? Buh?

One vital flaw in the point you are making - so you are hypnotised/enticed/seduced/duped etc without your knowledge, and you refuse for the footage to be shown. The fact remains you have been hypnotised/enticed/seduced/duped in the first place without your permission!. Surely there could be legal grounds to take action on this, especially in the case of hypnotism. I would say though that hypnotising someone against their will is impossible anyway, but supposing it isn't... are you seriously suggesting that there is no ethical (or legal) problem with hypnotising someone and then putting them in a very scary situation without their permission? What if the person selected had mental problems? I'm sure a lot of people would go beyond 'it's all OK I can refuse to sign off the permission sheet' to 'that was an extremely disturbing and unpleasant experience for me which I did not give permission for - I need to take further action'. But one word covers all this: stooge. The seance and armed robbery are a bit different because people volunteered. I could be wrong here and correct me if I am, but the zombie video game man was not told in advance he was involved at all? Like I said, stooge.Magic Pickle 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There could well be grounds for legal action, but that would appear to be in the hands of the participants themselves rather than us idly speculating on the internet. This all seems a bit like second-guessing jury verdicts - we're just in full possession of the facts. Thus far, Derren has yet to be sued and I'm sure that every legal and ethical scruple will have been examined, precisely to avoid this (although a legal case would probably enhance Brown's reputation rather than sully it!) Brown is a magician, and a good one at that. That he has created a 'meta myth' about his abilities is testament to his showmanship - hence his reportedly being 'comfortable' with people asking whether what he does is 'real' or not. His real psychological innovation is more in the way he manipulates his audience rather than his victims. Calling 'stooge' is just a cheap shot, and without proof to back it up is about as meaningful as saying that he really reads minds, man. Carpsio 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


"Derren Brown asked a leading figure at a psychic training school to go into another room and draw a number of simple pictures on any topic they wished." so. how many people were involded?

There was just one person. I've modified the article to say 's/he' instead of 'they' to reflect this. If anyone knows the gender of the person drawing the pictures (I'm not sure), then by all means change the word to show the person's gender. -UK-Logician-2006 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
She - fixed. violet/riga (t) 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Chess Exhibition

I'm suprised there is no mention of his exhibition of playing 9 chess games at once against some very good international players.

For the record, he finished with 5/9 points (winning overall), but if there is no article I won't say how it was "done". Paddyohale 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He explained how it was done at the end of the show, what is still up for debate is how he managed to predict the numbers before playing the games.


Surely this article needs an image of Derren Brown himself? It should not be that hard to find a fair use image. --Seth Turner 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

there has been a great full image of him that was removed ,I can't see the reason for it ,can you help ,or ask an admin to reopen the erased history logs ? --Procrastinating@talk2me 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The image was removed because the uploader failed to provide source information. When uploading images it is important to accurately provide their source and tag them correctly. The JPS 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, fair use doesnt require attribution (see Common misunderstandings), though it's generally a good idea to give it if you know the source. GeeJo (t)(c)  23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That link you provide seems to suggest that just because a source is provided doesn't mean it is fair use, not that fair use doesn't need a source. The JPS 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding POV

Is stating what is essentialy Browns own claims about his abilities the same as no POV?

This article reads like Mr. Browns personal PR info. I think at least mentioning some of his critics might approrpriate.

From my POV this article's POV is a very positive POV from mr.Brown's POV.

Details regarding 2005 show "Messiah"

The article reads: "Using a false name each time, he succeeded in convincing four of the five "experts" that he had powers, and they openly endorsed him as a true practitioner. The fifth expert, whilst impressed by Derren's performance, asked to meet him again before giving an endorsement."

Which four? Who failed to endorse him? Phiwum 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A more detailed breakdown of the programme is available here, and it suggests that it was the Cross-Cultural Minister at the second performance with Derren as the Christian preacher who would not endorse him without further proof. The other experts either directly endorse his abilities, or acknowledge them in such a way as to imply their clear endorsement.

Is he attractive?

A few people at my work think he's really sexy.... I just wondered if this was a common view among the ladies of wikipedia (and any guys of course!!)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Minglex 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Attractive? Yes, of course! But I'm pretty sure that has little to do with his appearance and more to do with his sucess and achievement. 16:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he is very sexy even though he is balding and a little short. ;-p

Blonde2max 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks- and sorry if i upset minglxe :) Blonde2max 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A section about his memory skills

Hello, I've noticed throughout a lot of his shows that he has an exceptional memory and his patience for memorising and learning things are outstanding. In particular, his use of memory in his gambling days (such as memorising cards). Also, did anyone see the show where he explained how he uses an imaginary mansion in his mind to remember things, and he has a card room with 52 individual objects that he puts a note on when they come up in a game of cards? Another show which excercised his memory skills was when he memorised the OS map of London. Is it worth creating a section about his memory skills? Gregh 16:23, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

Yes Minglex 20:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

if You mean his fucking amazing memory skills..than YES. :) --Procrastinating@talk2me 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who have seen his live show

Hey again. I saw his live show in 2005 and I thought it was excellent. I noticed that the section of the article regarding his show is very vague. Should it be expanded on with a detailed (or even vague) list of what he does/has done in his shows? Or at least a more extensive description of his tour. If my memory was sharp enough, I would write about the things he did during the show but the only thing I seem to remember is how awesome it was. What do people think? Gregh 16:26, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

great. do it man. be bold.--Procrastinating@talk2me 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
During the stage show DB specifically asks that its contents is not discussed in public forums. However, when the show's run has finished and his management have confirmed that the show will not be repeated, I think it would be a great inclusion here. RichardShakeshaft 08:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Some observers have commented, however, that most of Brown's act consists of standard magic tricks and that little psychology or suggestion is actually used."

Who is "some observers"? A person and their freiends? I'm going to comment that Brown's acts are done by God itself. I'm an "observer". Does that mean that the statement "Some observers have commented, however, that Brown's acts are done by God itself" should be in the article as well?

No plants/stooges

"It should be noted, however, that no actors or stooges are used in filming"

Anyone have a citation for this? Do we know this to be true, or only that he claims it? The procedure described in the article for picking subjects for his live show sounds random, if it's being described accurately, but that says nothing about his TV shows. Axlrosen 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

At the start of each TV show DB announces "This programme fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." I believe this has changed slightly from series to series, but there has been the actor/stooge declaration there for a while now!

  • The zombie arcade game issue is perhaps the most murky in terms of possible stooges. If the 'hypnotised' man was put into the zombie horror game without any foreknowledge whatsoever it opens up a can of ethical and legal problems. I don't think Channel 4 could have afforded to take the legal risk, even if they ignored the ethical problems. Magic Pickle 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Future productions?

Removed the following - there are no references and it all seems a bit suspect to me, can anyone reference this, or is it (as I suspect) a lot of nonsense:

In the near future, TV viewers should be able to see Derren in the West Wycombe Caves (once home of the notorious Hellfire Club) hosting another spectacular. At the moment the production is being held back by several elements. Several considered dangerous elements in fact such as Radium and Uranium. The production team are seeking permission to use these elements, and if this goes ahead will only use these materials under government supervision. Programme details are obviously under wraps, but the working title is "Schrödinger's Cats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Trick or Treat

Am i just imagining it, or do the trick/treat cards spell trick/treat depending on which way up theyre held? It looks to me like if held one way then it reads trick, but if turned 180 degrees it displays treat. Also the camera doesnt show the backs of the cards when the 'victim' chooses, just after when Derren turns the card.... Ian42 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah! i've just noticed this too. the 'r' of trick is clearly the upside-down 'a' of treat. very shifty! Krist69 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In one episode he does reveal that they are the same card by flipping them in the same orientation.

The are called "ambigrams". I thought Derren was quite open about showing them off - and he mentions several time that it is "an irrelevant choice" 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Mandeep Sehmi? Please cite. 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I think it should be added that Derren completely disagrees that NLP has any use at all, in fact he states in his latest book that he thinks the claims made for its uses are complete lies and that its a con. What does anyone else think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveegan06 (talkcontribs) 10:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP thoughts

I have Derren's book, Tricks Of The Mind and although he understates the publicised version of NLP; he does use the term a lot to reference his techniques and advises uses NLP systems, but only at their most basic level. For example, Brown dismisses eye reading as being an exact science (NLP suggests you can tell when a person is thinking of audio, emotional, vision etc by specific eye direction changes) but does admit that eye movement, regardless of direction, can be useful for detecting lies.

In Other words he thinks that the baseline principles of NLP are generally correct and useful but you cannot rely on isolated and perceived body language and use it as conclusive proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Estebanrey (talkcontribs) 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Although he says eye accessing cues have been tested and no evidence found in favour of the claims involving them, Derren still says that he may believe they can be used and the tests were potentially not able to be conducted to the most ideal conditions.
The way I understand NLP and its critics in particular, is that there's no proof that it's right or actually works. So it's questioned (mostly by scientists like psychologists) anyhow, not only by Derren Brown. The fact that you can't always be right doesn't only apply to NLP, but body language and all that stuff. It's all theory and nothing of it should be singled out: e.g. just eye movement. Also it's important to always look for the context of when and how or how long the movement or change of position of e.g. a leg occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Download" link

Heading: Something Wicked This Way Comes, link to 4oD / . As far as I can tell it's a (non-free) programme guide, not a download link, so I reworded it, but who are they and although the site looks nice is it a good wiki link? I mean I just now snagged this show off usenet, but I'm sure I can't tell you about that. Hakluyt bean 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- Isnt this link and the Virgin media on demand link a bit out of place for a wikipedia article? seems like advertising to me. Feudonym 05:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging Trick or Treat (TV series) into Derren Brown

I proposed this merger. The ToT article is not very detailed and the content on Derren Brown is easily more informative. I think Trick or Treat (TV series) should just be redirected to this page. Thoughts? Coolmark18 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it, myself. The ToT article is horrible, of course, but it's a different topic, and it is - I think - deserving of an entry of its own. The fact that it's so crappy right now means it should be fixed/expanded/rewritten, not merged. -- Schneelocke 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
All Derren Brown's programmes are based on this page. It isn't really on a differnt topic because it is a Derren Brown programme and there is little difference between this and other programmes. Coolmark18 10:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Then all the other ones deserve to be split off into their own articles as well. :) -- Schneelocke 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think if their had been enough content for seperate articles, it would have been spilt off already. Coolmark18 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I performed the merger and the info has been placed on Derren Brown. There was no need for a different page, like the other shows he has done - there are no seperate articles for those. Olz06

Looking at the separate article we are losing nothing with the merge. However, no-one should be dissuaded from creating a proper article about the series: perhaps develop it in user space first? The JPStalk to me 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've split the articles again as the section about it in Derren Brown was becoming quite large and more about the programme than his biography. The Trick or Treat (TV series) article discussed above was much smaller than the one now. The JPStalk to me 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Trick or Treat?

@TheJPS, Are you sure the Wigmore Hall thing was a Treat? Getting an accomplished pianist to forget the fact before a concert was more a Trick I would say. Certainly the Trick or Treat-ness of the stunt was never revealed to the audience, as far as I am aware. Ralphbk 09:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was articulated as a treat towards the end of the show when he was explaining that she would remember the excitement of that performance. The wording was something along the lines of "...and that is your treat." The JPStalk to me 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. On reviewing I see the actual card choice was shown - from DB's POV - at the end of the show. Ralphbk 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
For a moment, though, when she fluffed the notes at the beginning of the performance, I thought that it was going to be a very cruel trick. (I thought he'd given her false confidence so she'd be booed off.) The JPStalk to me 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article "The third episode showed a slight change from the previous format, as actor David Tennant became the first celebrity to choose a trick or treat. All other participants have been members of the public." I don't think this constitutes a "format" change, but in any respect, I think that a concert pianist could be considered a celebrity of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian Evangelism

Firstly: 'God' as a proper noun references single, specific entities. To say that the participants "declared a belief in God" is to say that they all declared belief in the same deity. Furthermore, the reference is deictic. It can be interpreted as a reference to the Christian god because of the details of our culture, or as a reference to the speaker's god of choice. Does Wikipedia have a god of choice? Secondly: We don't see a recording of the entire event. The participants make reference to attributes typically found with the Christian god, and the section is called 'Christian Evangelism'. It is reasonable to think that, at some point, it was made clear to the participants which god Derren was working for. Ilkali 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is reasonable to think that..." Doesn't that mean, by your own statement, that you've based the whole idea they are converted to Christianity on an assumption? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts, not what we "think" may be true. For all you or I know, Brown could have told them he was working for anyone. The statements the participants make aren't specific to a Christian God at all, they could have applied to any of dozens of religions. The term "'Christian Evangelism" doesn't have anything to with the price of eggs, it isn't actually used as a title anywhere in the show. Someone on Wikipedia just made it up as placeholder for the title of the article section. To be honest with you, I'm not really convinced you've seen the show or heard the commentary for it. I've noticed your edits and you've gone around to quite a few articles and inserted the phrase "the Christian god" (sic) into them for no particularly logical reason, so I'm assuming this is some kind of personal crusade for you to get people to start using that term. That's fine, everyone needs a hobby, but I think you can see how it would be annoying to people editing the articles who are specialists in those fields to find their work deleted or reedited by you because of some personal fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
""It is reasonable to think that..." Doesn't that mean, by your own statement, that you've based the whole idea they are converted to Christianity on an assumption?" It's an interpretation. Unfortunately it's pretty impossible to post on any topic without making them, so the issue should be how reasonable the interpretations are. "The term "Christian Evangelism" [...] isn't actually used as a title anywhere in the show". Ah, then this is an issue to be dealt with. A new title should be chosen, and an alternate wording should be used when describing the participants' declarations of conversion. "you've gone around to quite a few articles and inserted the phrase "the Christian god" (sic) into them for no particularly logical reason": I've already explained the reason - see my above comment. I'm not seeking out violations, I'm just correcting them when I find them. Ilkali 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon watching the programme again, I acknowledge that not all the participants were atheists. But I've changed "the vast majority of whom" to "almost all of whom" to more accurately reflect the wording used in the programme. Hopefully this isn't too controversial.
The really contentious line is "each participant declared a belief in God, or at least stated that its existence was possible - something many had previously refused to do".
1) If it's declared at the beginning that almost all are atheists, there is no need to say they had refused to declare belief in a god. And, in fact, this refusal is not depicted at any point in the programme. I removed the corresponding text.
2) As I explained above, 'God' does not have any concrete meaning. But by nature of the syntax, it must reference a single entity. What is that entity, if not the Christian god? Is the objection to this phrase oriented around its accuracy, or something else? If you wish to object to specifying Christianity (despite the unnamed god being attributed traditional Christian properties and the pastor himself being Christian), you should object equally to the title of the section: "Christian Evangelism".
3) It is not true that "each participant" did anything. Not all were shown being questioned at the end of the session. Most of them answered affirmatively to the question "Do you believe in God?" (or a variant), and one expressed a belief that there is "something", with the implication that this something is supernatural and intelligent.
Ilkali 02:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly remove the term Christian from the title, though it seems to refer to the pastor. As you well know, the problem is the term "Christian god", your use of which people have already complained about in multiple articles. Brown never asks them if they believe in a "Christian god" and while you may guess that is what he meant, it isn't shown. Honestly, I would very much doubt he would use that phrase, as it seems almost nonexistent in common day to day speaking. However, that's irrelevant; He does ask them about their beliefs in God, therefore the article says God. You've already been warned repeatedly by editors and administrators in Talk:Rock Band (video game) to quit inserting original research & speculation into articles. You had the same strange argument there; that even though the video game company used the term "phoneme" in their articles, press releases, and public statements you were convinced that they actually meant "phone", and that you knew better than them and would "correct" it repeatedly in the Wikipedia article. I don't know how to put it more clearly than they put it there: the term used was "God", not "Christian god", and stating otherwise is putting words into Brown's mouth and is speculation, which is by definition in Wikipedia original research and isn't allowed. Don't you think that your repeated reverts by multiple contributors here and in other articles on exactly the same point is a sign that you just can't assume or create words for other people, no mater how reasonable you personally think the assumption is? 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"He does ask them about their beliefs in God, therefore the article says God". And when the article uses the word 'God', what entity is it referencing? What is the meaning of 'God' in that context?
If you want to pick up the Rock Band argument (which, you may recall, lead to a mutually satisfactory change in the article), answer the query I posed there: If X entails Y, and an article verifies X, does it not verify Y? Otherwise it's irrelevant. Focus on my edits, not on your perception of my character.
Ilkali 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The "mutually satisfactory change in the article" (Talk:Rock Band (video game)) was that the quote was changed back to the correct term, "phoneme", and that you were told by an endless litany of users and an administrator to quit changing the article because it violated rules on original research & speculation. Your "A + B must = C" arguments were already painstakingly (and amazingly patiently) explained as mistaken by multiple people in that talk section, and they repeatedly quoted and explained to you the sections of the Wiki policies that cover this. If you want to revist the same arguments, then I suggest you reread the many, many responses written back to you in that and other articles. You are well aware of the policy in place and the policy has been pointed out and explained to you repeatedly by multiple contributors. If you have a problem with the logic behind the policy of verifiability then you need to go elsewhere on Wikipedia to try to change it, though I don't think you are going to get far, as it is one of the bedrocks of the whole Wiki. Don't come to another article and do exactly the same thing you were told repeatedly to stop doing in other articles and rehash the same arguments as to why you were right. 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If it doesn't pertain to this article, I'm not interested in your skewed analysis of the Rock Band disagreement. Spare me your rants. Again: "He does ask them about their beliefs in God, therefore the article says God". And when the article uses the word 'God', what entity is it referencing? What is the meaning of 'God' in that context?
Ilkali 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how many editors and administrators in how many articles have to revert you before you think that you may be wrong? Is it 50, or 100, or a thousand? Or is it never? If its never, then I think you would be happier spending your time posting in a blog or in a user forum, because Wikipedia is just not going to change its policy on original research and can't make up words and put them into other people or companies mouths, even if its sounds "right" or "logical" to you. Look over the history of your edits...over time they've just been repeatedly reverted by editors who realized you had just made them up. You can continually post anything you want to to Wikipedia, but again, over time, the five million Wikipedians who check the articles will do what they have been doing; finding your mistakes and correcting them. Even if you spend 24/7 protecting your pet theories it is no match against that many users. Your edits may stand for a few hours, or days, or even months before someone notices, but eventually they all seem to get wiped away. Looking over the talk forums I see dozens of users who have tried to point out Wikipedia's policies to you and why you can't use original research, and I don't see one person who has ever supported you on your pet theory that you can make assumptions and post them as facts. Is it logical to assume that everyone in the Wikipedia world is crazy except for you, or is it more logical to guess that you may be wrong? 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Great, another rant. All but two of my edits have been uncontroversial, and unreverted. One of the two was the Rock Band issue, which you don't understand because you've no grounding in phonology. The other is this one, which you refuse to discuss. If you're going to pour all your energy into defaming me rather than proving yourself right about the article, there's no point to continuing the discussion. Ilkali 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Really, only two of your edits have been controversial and have been reverted? You do know that your entire User contribution history and editor's responses to you are available for anyone to view, right? BTW, on a more humorous note, I see that while you were posting the above, someone reverted you on Derren Brown (again). That last edit lasted 12 minutes. Isn't Wikipedia awesome? Or maybe its a conspiracy. 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we discussing this now? Let's start with meanings. The meaning of 'the Christian god' is plain. What, in this particular context, is the meaning of 'God'?
Ilkali 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Belief in God = belief in a divine being. Also, God is capitalised. Majorly (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If a Catholic priest asks me if I "believe in God", and I say "yes", but I'm a Muslim or Sikh or Hindu, have I answered his question honestly? Is your meaning the only meaning it can take?
If so, it is, in terms of descriptive meaning, semantically identical to 'belief in a god'. Do you have any objection to this phrasing?
As for capitalisation: In English, common nouns don't capitalise. There is no compelling reason to make an exception for the word god. It capitalises when it's used as a proper noun, it doesn't when it's not.
Ilkali 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
When you refer to the Christian God, His name is capitalised (or so I've always seen). If a priest were to ask you such a question, it would be very honest of you to answer "yes" if you believed in a god of any religion, as he never specified. Majorly (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"When you refer to the Christian God, His name is capitalised (or so I've always seen)". When I use an expression like 'the Christian god', I'm not using his name. I'm using a common noun - one that denotes all gods - and restricting it with the modifier 'Christian'. The reason you've seen it capitalised that way so many times is that a lot of Christians feel obligated to glorify their god by flouting orthographic standards. Wikipedia has no such obligation.
You didn't answer my question. I'll restructure it: You seem to feel that 'God' makes an indefinite reference over the set of all possible gods, making 'belief in God' equivalent (in isolation) to 'belief in a god'. Is that accurate?
Ilkali 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is. Majorly (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My belief (which I feel I can strongly support, if necessary) is that the word 'God' has at least two other meanings: 1) It references the dominant god of the culture (for us Westerners, that's the Christian one), and 2) It references the speaker's god of choice. Using it as it's used in the article produces ambiguity. All we need to do is this: Decide what meaning the article should convey, and decide on an unambiguous wording to convey it. I think it's blatantly obvious (for reasons given above) that Derren is converting them to Christianity, but that's not a core part of the performance, so I don't object to it being left unspecified in the article. What matters is that atheists became theists. That's the meaning we want to convey, right? Ilkali 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since April 2007, Ilkali has changed the article to read "the Christian god" or some variation of that phrase 18 times (admittedly, this was a quick count; I may have missed a few times or over counted). The article is now locked under Full Protection because of all the reverts. I think this has gone on long enough and I'd like an official vote and consensus reached. Please vote now on whether we are going to use the current wording ('God") or change it to IIlkali's preference, "the Christian god", so that we can get back to editing. Please state your preference for "God" or "the Christian god" below. Quenn 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"God"- Quenn 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. "Most people already agree with me, so let's pretend to have a discussion but then stamp it out with a vote before he has a chance to argue his case". Three hours, 23 minutes. Is that the standard time for a discussion of this type? Ilkali 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at the date of your first post in this section; you've been arguing your point for this edit since April and have made ten separate comments here alone about it; way more than "Three hours, 23 minutes". You've had five months to convince people. I'll take your comment as one vote for "the Christian god". Quenn 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why bother protecting the page and opening the matter for discussion? You presumably never intended for it to go on long enough to resolve anything. What was the point? Ilkali 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with protecting the page. Ilkali, even if you lose this vote, you can continue to argue here for your edit. According to Wikipedia's guidelines consensus can change, and if it does so in the future your edit may become the one used. I think we can vote on the edit to use for now, get the page reopened, and anyone who wants to can continue to discuss the issue here, not in the article by constantly reverting. Quenn 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Since you were assuming authority, I guessed that you actually had some.
All you're establishing with this vote is an excuse not to talk about it, which turns this into a majority-rules situation. The majority isn't always right - especially not about difficult subjects like semantics. People don't become experts on language just by speaking it, just as people aren't qualified to vote on the plausibility of evolution just because they're organic creatures. Accepting either side's position just because of their numbers rather than because they've made reasonable arguments is astoundingly idiotic.
Ilkali 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not assuming any authority, I'm just trying to get the article reopened. As I pointed out above, I'm not trying to cut off future discussion on the subject. Also, I don' think trying to reach a consensus by vote is "astoundingly idiotic". Quenn 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was closed by an admin so that discussion could take place. You're attempting to override that. That seems to me like assuming authority.
"I don' think trying to reach a consensus by vote is "astoundingly idiotic"". Read what I said again. Make sure to examine every word separately and think extra hard about what they mean. Thanks. Ilkali 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you. What it means to me is that you are not going to ever accommodate your position on this subject or halt your constant reverting of the article, so we need to take a vote, establish a consensus, and move on to getting some real work done. Quenn 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Basically, "this guy's never going to agree with me, so there's no point to discussing it with him"? Nobody's asking you to be here. Nobody's stopping you from doing your "real work". Ilkali 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You are. You've stopped everyone from being able to edit the article by initiating a five month, slow motion edit/revert war against virtually every other user here that resulted in the article being locked down. Almost every major contributor to the article has reverted your edit; as far as I can see not one person has supported it. I think it is time to move on. I've been reverted or edited many times in this article; my response wasn't a personal jihad against every other user. In many cases I felt the edits were improvements, or I felt the consensus was against me so I moved on to my next contribution. Can you move on? Quenn 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"as far as I can see not one person has supported [your edit]". For two reasons. But you don't really care, do you?
It wasn't my preference that the article be locked. The ideal would've been if both sides - rather than just one - had been willing to discuss the issue, and if it had been resolved on the talk page without the warring or the locking. You and yours are more responsible for the locking than I am, because you made it necessary by refusing to talk the matter out. Even now, you refuse to discuss it. Ilkali 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote for "God". It's what was used in the show. Any other version reveals a non-NPOV bias. - Ralphbk 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
'God' is a deictic. Its meaning depends on the circumstances in which it was used. Derren using it in the show is not the same as Wikipedia using it in an article. The only way your argument would hold water is if we put it in quotes in the article. Ilkali 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ilkali, nobody cares if 'God' is a deictic or a bunch of bananas. This article is a simple documentation of a piece of entertainment. True, the entertainment has something more to say about the nature of God (or god, Christian or otherwise) and belief than the average TV trash, but this meaning can be quite easily understood by the viewer, without requiring any help from you and your agenda. Please respect the opinion of the majority here, leave the article alone, and go and try and find a more appropriate outlet for your monomania. - Ralphbk 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"Ilkali, nobody cares if 'God' is a deictic or a bunch of bananas". You made a claim that the word should be used as it is in the show. I explained why that claim is false. You don't care? Then you shouldn't be here.
"but this meaning can be quite easily understood by the viewer". Okay. What is the meaning? Ilkali 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is not the place for you to force your pedantic interpretation of the meaning of this show down people's throats. It is not necessary, it is not required, it is not wanted. Quite possibly your interpretation is the same as mine. Quite possibly your phrasing is exactly correct for what Derren Brown was doing. However, it is not the phrasing that was used in the show. That deals with the adjective. As for the capitalisation, the consensus here appears to be that the proper name for a monotheist deity was being used. Please try and live with that. - Ralphbk 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"The article is not the place for you to force your pedantic interpretation of the meaning of this show down people's throats". I'm not talking about the meaning of the show, I'm talking about the meaning of the words used to describe the show. Additionally, I was asking for what you think they mean.
The article's purpose is to make verifiable and informative statements about the subject matter. That demands that the descriptive meaning of its claims corresponds to reality as the sources describe it. There is no requirement for the article to use the same words as the show, and if doing so conflicts with the aforementioned goal, it should not be done.
"As for the capitalisation, the consensus here appears to be that the proper name for a monotheist deity was being used". This isn't subjective - it's not the kind of thing decided by consensus. The word either functions as a proper noun or doesn't, and there are simple, clear-cut diagnoses for finding out which. You don't know or understand those diagnoses because (presumably) you've no training in English grammar. If you had any integrity as an editor, you'd acknowledge that and disqualify yourself from the sub-issue. Ilkali 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(Argh, I know I shouldn't feed the troll but ...) And how are you proposing to make 'your' statements verifiable? Do you have a affidavit from Derren Brown which agrees with your interpretation? - Ralphbk 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained why I think it's obvious that Derren was converting to Christianity, but I've also already said that I don't think it's a crucial factor. As I said to Majorly, the meaning that needs to be conveyed is simply that some atheists became theists. 'Christian god' is preferable to 'God', but I'm not claiming it's the optimal wording. Also, what happened to assuming good faith? Ilkali 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, you could take that article heart yourself - especially the bit about how you should "look for ways to reach consensus". - Ralphbk 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. What should I be doing, other than dropping the issue or taking your side? Ilkali 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Take some time to reflect on what is really important in your life, and spend some time working on that instead. I know that's what I am going to do. :-) Ralphbk 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ilkali, read this article: Chehmann 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chehmann, have you read it? The article repeats what I said: That proper nouns capitalise and common nouns don't. Ilkali 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's blatantly obvious (for reasons given above) that Derren is converting them to Christianity, but that's not a core part of the performance, so I don't object to it being left unspecified in the article. Really? Becoming a Christian and developing or discovering theism are quite different. By your own admission, the show was attempting to get them to believe in what you call the "Christian god", therefore, the article should say "God". End of story. I also dislike "Christian god" since Christianity and Judaism share the same God in the Old Testament/Tanakh.Chehmann 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Becoming a Christian and developing or discovering theism are quite different". I agree. What's your point?
"By your own admission, the show was attempting to get them to believe in what you call the "Christian god", therefore, the article should say "God"". I don't see your reasoning. Is your claim that 'the Christian god' and 'God' have the same meaning? If so, you're in disagreement with Majorly.
"I also dislike "Christian god" since Christianity and Judaism share the same God in the Old Testament/Tanakh". To be precise, they share the same dogma. Since other material is asserted to be true about the Christian god, and not about the Judaic god, the cumulative dogmas are different and the two gods are distinguished. They are and were separate entities. Have you read the article you linked me to yet? Ilkali 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are so incessently annoying Ilkali that one feels compelled to argue. "Christian God" is correct, God is not being used as a common noun. Why is HE not, because Christianity is monotheistic. When describing various people called John, would you say the "short john" and "fat john"? No, you say "short John" and "long John". Just because there is a common noun for the class of being 'God', it does not mean we have to use 'god'. To say "Christian god", is effectively saying "short human" or "fat human". For the point of clarity 'Christian' is used to define what "God" as there are more than one monotheistic religions. Heck if you look at the wikipedia entry for God, it says that it should be capitalised.Worosei 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the common/proper noun distinction and you don't understand the orthographic conventions surrounding it. It doesn't seem like it's going to matter, though, so I'm not going to spend time on this. Ilkali 10:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I also vote for "God", not "the Christian god". I watched the show in question, and although the context and setup would imply that he was trying to convert them to Christianity, it struck me as odd and telling that he never mentioned the words "Jesus" or "Christ". Nor do I recall him mentioning to the subjects any attributes of God that would identify him with Christianity. The less clearly he tried to describe what the subjects were meant to believe in, the less likely they were to disagree with him... by saying "God" and not "the Christian god", Brown allows his subjects (and his viewers) the freedom to define the term according to their own conscience, which facilitates his illusion of "conversion". 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For your info, I've named and shamed this edit war as one of wikipedia's lamest. TrulyBlue 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

God help us all! NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Other skills (photographic memory...)

In his shows Derren Brown also claims to possess skills like a photographic memory or being able to keep track of a four-deck blackjack game. Does anyone have any information about that? Are this tricks to? Maybe staged for tv? As he says there are people who can realy do that (autism is named here) - shouldn't it go into the article if he really can do such things? --jonas, 6 May 2007

Card counting is a skill to be sure (although simply counting 10s is fairly trivial and enough to give you a slight edge and you don't need to be Rain Man to do it) but to magicians of the calibre of Derren Brown it's as mundane as the skill of riding a bicycle. Remember, Derren Brown started, and still has a wide repetoire, for close up card magic; and given that the show on which he did so well at Blackjack was at a "Casino Night" event and not at a real casino, there's always the chance that he was being a bit slippery and actually doing some card manipulation. Jooler 09:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one very much doubt that Derren Brown counted four decks of cards the way he said he did. That wouldn't be in easy in any sense of the word. I think he just used a hi-low count, or actually manipulated the cards (most likely, as he started out with close-up card magic). I am also sceptical of the photographic memory. I think it's just a clever way to present a book test (which is the cups and balls of mentalism). So, no, I don't think he can acctually do any of that stuff. PutBoy 11:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the 'Trick of the Mind' website, Derren says that he uses pictorial mnemonics to memorise a deck of cards (of a house's items representing the cards)Worosei 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All the memory performances he does are based on magic tricks, as expressed in one of his early interviews (i can't remember the link).....he has said on many occasions that some of his acts are mere trickery as 'working out what's real and what's not is the fun of it'. Simon Acreman 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the name of a song used in Inside Your Mind

Hey, does anyone know the name of the song that is playing at the start of the bit where Derren reads the minds of 3 pretty girls at a club? It's right after the bit where he walked in the dark through the maze, around minute 31:15 of the DVD. It goes something like "doo da doo..... girl" "doo da doo... girl (higher pitch)


This page is for discussing the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. AndrewJDTALK -- 11:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A helpful response might have been to point he questioner at WP:Reference Desk rather than berating someone for being curious. Jooler 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

US Version

It seems awfully peculiar that in the US Version of the show, which is supposed to take place in, I believe, Manhattan, almost all of the people that he works with appear to be British... Hmmm... No actors huh?SyBerWoLff 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The US version was advertised, if I recall correctly, as a mixture of new and old content (mostly from Trick of the Mind, which takes place mainly in Great Britain). While I haven't seen the American version, the old content is probably where you're seeing the British participants. Jhskulk 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly what it is. Some of the scenes are older ones set in Britain, others are newer and indeed shot in New York. While this doesn't in any way dispell the notion that actors may be involved, it doesn't prove that they are.Monkey Bounce 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bucha effect and the Waking Dead

How likely does it seem that the Bucha effect could have been used in the Waking Dead like I hinted in my edit?

Heck, I'll quote his blog post, just in case:

August 7, 2007
Bucha effect goes overground
Filed under: Announce — Mickster @ 6:45 am
Well, it was only a matter of time.
The ‘psychophysical effects’ referred to in this article are related to those which I’ve been exploring for a number of years in my artworks.
These devices have been on the backburner for years (see this wikipedia article for starters), and are already rumoured to be used in riot control.
Looking forward to a brighter future.
Comments are closed.

--Lakefall 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

I removed 27 February as his date of birth, as I could not find any reference for that date. If anyone can find a reliable source (and not just a Wikipedia mirror) please add it. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found one on his official site bio. Majorly (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't think to check his official site before you made changes? Stop meddling. It's because of people like you that this article has become so butchered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, take a chill pill! Please assume good faith especially as Majorly not only admitted to the mistake, but also fixed it. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


This article was unprotected, on request, but it is clear that disputes are about to begin once more, following the readdition of the problematic content. I have reprotected this page, with no set expiry time. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no readdition of problematic content. Ilkali 04:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I went to the talk page wondering what the dispute was about - maybe the seances, maybe the Russian roulette, and found that it's a candidate for WP:LAME with only one warrior. Secretlondon 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but it is still a dispute, so do you agree that protection is still the best course of action? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless the edit warrior stops readding it, I don't know what to suggest. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Since only one user is causing problems here, shouldn't we be looking at using Template:User_article_ban? - Ralphbk 09:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ralphbk, I couldn't agree with you more. That should have been done months ago before the article had to be locked down repeatedly. I don't think that some of the original visiting admins realized that it was just one person causing the problem. Since there is now a long list of people voting for the same edit on the talk page and still only one opposed, it is a lot more obvious to even causal editors what happened, and hopefully this problem can be quickly resolved by using your suggestion if it crops up again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

He publicly came out in September 2007 in an interview with The Independent newspaper: "I believe you should always come out; life is so much easier... It took me being in a relationship with a guy for a month before I told anyone I was thus inclined. If anything, I was disappointed to learn it wasn't much of a surprise. Possibly my penchant for interior decor had given the game away". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbod (talkcontribs) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I can find no record of this "story" at the Independent website. Cite your references, or I call bollocks. Ralphbk 07:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's true. He came out a couple of weeks ago in an article in that paper and it has been widely discussed online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not true just because you (anonymously) say it is. Quote a reference to The Independent article in question. Ralphbk 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, what makes it true is, as Davidbod has already cited, that it appeared in The Independent (Sun Sep 30, 2007), has been picked up and confirmed by numerous media outlets since then, and is a wide topic of discussion on the web. Since you can't be seem to be bothered to even google something before you call someone's contribution "bollocks", here's an actual photo of the original article. I'm afraid I can't get Derren Brown to come to your house and formally announce he's gay, which I'm guessing is what you are waiting for: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Davidbod failed to cite any particular Independent article, as do you. I've been back to The Independent's website and can't find any mention of "Derren Brown" since the BAFTAs on 21 May 2007. Your jpg might be any other photoshop fake. Personally I don't give a damn if Brown is gay or not, but I choose to care that this Wikipedia section contains properly cited facts rather than worthless hearsay and gossip. Ralphbk 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't call other people's contributions worthless hearsay and gossip and imply that an article has been faked because you can't be bothered to verify it to your satisfaction. Also, this is a talk page, not the article itself, so the discussion doesn't even have to have that level of verification. You can keep doubting the truth if you want to, but since thousands of people, including myself, read the article and its been widely disseminated, I think you are going to end up looking silly at best. I have no idea why you can't find the article, maybe you have a different Internet than everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If there actually is an article, post a link to it here. You are the one claiming that there is such an article, so the onus is on you to prove it. So far we have been offered a link to a dodgy jpeg from a site which is unrelated to The Independent newspaper. This is worthless. Provide the real link. Put up, or shut up. - Ralphbk 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we just both said we read the article and posted that facts about it on the talk page of the Derren Brown article. We are under no obligation to prove anything, even though I did politely post you a copy of the article I read. So far your response was to call this "bollocks", "worthless hearsay and gossip" and "dodgy", among other things. Since you've implied we're liars, its your problem to prove it. You thinking we're lying is your problem, not mine. You prove it. Its very easy, Go to the library (gasp, I know, not the Internet) and look up the article by day and date. Heck, just write The Independent if you're too lazy to get up. If we're wrong you can continue to call us liars, etc. If we're right, I think an apology is in order, as accusing people of making up stories is a serious accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You assume I'm in the UK. You assume wrong. Davidbod made an unsubstantiated claim, I said it was unsubstantiated, and it remains unsubstantiated. That's as far as we've got so far. - Ralphbk 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown did come out. The reason that nobody found it 'online' is that it was in a small artical which was in a glossy magasine which came free with the independent. The glossy magasines are not included in the search function of the independents website. Here is a hyperlink - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a referenced source at last. Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it? :-) Oddly, the paragraphs in that article seemed to have no connection with each other. Is it possible they are all quotations from Tricks of the Mind? - Ralphbk 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's to do with the way the original article was formatted (I think it was formatted as bullets or similar)- it was a picture of him and then - I guess you could call them musings - on various topics. When you see it reproduced in the form that it's reproduced there it doesn't capture the spirit of the original. They're not quotations from Tricks of the Mind.
Is this actually going in the article then? Ohgodiva (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

-- I have a photo of him with his boyfriend. I was eating a meal with a friend and noticed Derren with a young guy (and good looking might I add) so I snapped them at the counter paying for their meal and his boyfriend didn't look happy with me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked his younger brother, personal assistant, and a worker on his show have all been misidentified on the Internet as his "boyfriend"...I wouldn't start calling the tabloids for a big pay day anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[6] That's the latest I've heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The System

The statement: "In apparent contradiction to his claim that no system existed, Derren correctly selected the winning horse in the last race, meaning Khadishia kept her stake and received winnings totalling £13,000."... suggests that there was a random element to the ending. Given the system that he was teaching, it seems pretty clear that the producers placed a £4,000 bet on all five horses and counted on Derren Brown's slight-of-hand to make sure that when it came time to show the ticket, it would be the winner.

I think the comment should be deleted. Peace. Kidigus (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have edited to reflect this, but I didn't refer to any of the various possible methods by which he could have achieved the effect - it would be speculation on my part. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That would make sense - however - no reference, no edit on the page. Of course, there will probably not be a reference, I would hope the producers aren't that stupid. Also, I'll rewatch it, but he seemed geniunly worried during the race. This actually makes no sense, unless he could fake that. I'll also check to see if there's a chance that he did swap the ticket. However, I suspect editing will make that improbable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon909 (talkcontribs) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no real reference for any of The System's section since it's not described in any secondary sources - even the Telegraph reference is a preview that fails to reveal the basic workings of the show. My edit made reference to the ticket apparently changing, it's now been edited to say "Brown had correctly selected the winning horse", which is too strong a claim, IMO. I saw the show only once, and can't remember whether Khadishia checked the ticket before the race, or whether it was shown to camera. In any case, I'm sure that the time between the end of the race and "looking again" at the ticket would be enough to make a substitution. However, one can't rule out the use of suggestion, disappearing ink, telekinesis (OK, maybe that) or some other trick, so references to him having predicted the outcome are not justified. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the reference for the section is the programme itself, in which Brown does explain "the basic workings of the show"! However, I agree it is very difficult to talk of the ending with absolute neutrality. Nevertheless, I wonder if some "speculation" about Khadishia's win is justified? I mean: in the first half of the programme, Brown appears to predict winning horses; then he reveals that his "system" relies (in its operation) on betting on every horse in every race; then we understand (in Khadishia's psychology) that it is a belief system. Now, Brown reveals how he seemed to select winners; consequently, is it really speculation to refer to the same "system" when he manages produces a winner once more? If this is a step too far, then we're in the tricky position where we must accept the show's final twist is a insoluble mystery, rather than a soluble puzzle. Frustrating! (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Forgot to sign in before adding this this. New signature is: OliverStadon (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the current edit is spot on. Nice and neutral. Peace. Kidigus (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

At the moment, as a result of a half-hearted edit by an IP poster the article uses a mixture of British and International spelling (e.g. skeptic, practicing for U.S.; colour, programme for the U.K.) with a few straightforward errors ("conjuror") thrown in. This is deprecated in WP:ENGVAR and I propose to revert, once again, to the original state of the article, before the drive-by edits, with UK spelling throughout. This note is to solicit any other view before I do so, and to head off any further unexplained reverts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Katharineamy. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when did American English become 'International spelling'? I'm sure this will be news to people in New Zealand, Ireland, Australia and all the others that don't use American English. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably Old Moonraker just made a blunder there. It is, of course, American spelling versus what may be called standard, international, Commonwealth, English or (erroneously, I'd say) British spelling. If you see any more of it, just correct it. — Chameleon 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Small point, but I removed a "(sic)" insert from a passage taken from the Channel 4 website indicating that the spelling of the word, "fulfil" was incorrect, when it is in fact correct. It could also be argued that fulfill with 2 l's at the end would also be correct, however, since "fulfil" with one l is correct, the use of "(sic)" is highly inappropriate.

Personal life

Why is it a big deal that he was a homosexual or not and not a big deal the he has a weird shaped head? My point is Wikipedia is making this article look more like a gossip article than an authentic article.

--O0oSorousho0O (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh SHUT UP! This "who cares if he's gay?" deal pisses me off to no end! It IS a big deal! Most people DO care and ARE very curious if someone is gay, ESPECIALLY if it's a celebrity! Stop already with this hypocrite sanctimonious "who cares if he's gay!" --KpoT (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Buttons in a dish

Someone has edited the page posting an explanation of the "buttons in a dish" trick that Derren Brown performs. However there is no attempt at citation and it seems as though it is speculation and not known fact about the methods and innerworkings of the trick in question. I think it should be deleted or someone should add a footnote to identify where the information came from especially since Derren Brown has performed similar effects in his TV Series in which the method described would not work at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Methods/Criticism section

It would be great to expand the Methods section that I just created. It is just a stub at present. Also it could probably be moved up. It could cover examples of how Derren does some of his magic tricks, psychological illusions, and mentalism. He seems to use many ticks from stage hypnosis and psychology such as rapport, state elicitation and hypnotic suggestion. Also, what are some examples of mentalism? It seems that the criticism section as it currently stands could be merged into a section on Methods. I think this would make it easier to discuss the various perspectives. ----Action potential t c 11:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in favour overall of a 'methods' section, it should be done "tastefully", so to speak: for example, in explaining how Derren "influenced" Stephen Fry into selecting the king of diamonds in the trick "Smoke", it should be enough to say that a gimmicked deck is employed, that naturally encourages the participant to select from a set of only eight cards rather than the whole fifty-two. This is intentionally nebulous and still leaves a few questions open, like how Derren knew which one of the eight (still from mind reading, but it has been made easier, perhaps?), or how the deck achieves this (placement of the cards? Knowing that Stephen will look for a card near the middle?)
What I'll say is this: magic tricks consist of a method and a presentation. For tricks like Derren's, often the method is only a small part of the magic – the rest is presentation – so revealing the method undermines all the additional presentation that goes into it; so be careful what you put.Jamiemlaw (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
And everything should be sources. No original research/editorial comment. The JPStalk to me 11:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)