Jump to content

Talk:Matt the Knife

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth month

[edit]

Does anyone know Matt's birth month? I'd heard that it was July but then someone else told me June. BP102 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why are there two birth years, one says 1981, and the other says 1979, so which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.190.74 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Con-man?

[edit]

It says that Matt

...worked as a con artist, card cheat and pickpocket who famously bilked dozens of casinos, corporations and even at least one Mafia family out of untold sums.

yet there is no citation to confirm this. Should that claim be removed until there are at least 2 or 3 reliable sources backing up that claim?


________________________ > Well I can't give a proper citation but I did see him get interviewed about it on CNN a couple of years back and he worked on the Rhode Island Forensic Science Partnership in the early 2000's on fraud and he talked about his life alot in that (I was there for one of the talks that he gave with the head of the Rhode Island crime lab and he was answering people's questions about it in the audience).


I added several citations for this SamKamin (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Guinness world records

[edit]

Cassiere's number of Guinness world records is highly likely to change in the future (if it has not already), and needs a date associated with it. I added 2006 assuming the following references backed this fact up. If this is not the case, a new date (2009 if appropriate) needs to be added and a new reference cited that states this fact. Relevant policy is at WP:ASOF --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I adjusted it to "has broken" so that way the date doesn't have to keep being changed - only the number of records if future articles or books say otherwise (this will mean that corrections have to be made less frequently). SamKamin (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


My name is Mike i went to high school with matt at Smithfield high school in smithfield RI. He was a best friend of my best friends brother. I can assure you in the maybe 10 to 12 years i knew Matt he never ws involved in any of those kinds o activities. He always was performing magic no doubt but the mafia con man stuff is ridiculous. It's disheartening to see his succes is built off such petty stories and lies. I remember him being great at magic and blowing my mind with it sometimes but Mafia? Con man? don't think so.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.246.151 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference ot above comment....Its mike again the above oment was supposed to be under the header of CONMAN.. just wnted to clear that up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.246.151 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of content by IP account

[edit]

I note Cassiere's article was reverted almost to an old version, with one added citation. I've reverted that back, apart from the extra citation. Also removed was the mention in the lead of his name; a perfectly well-cited fact. When reinserting the removed information, please ensure you cite reliable sources per WP:BLP. Also, please try to ensure you do not remove referenced encyclopedic content when doing so. Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Revision of content and addition of sources

[edit]

This article was VERY weak. So I checked out some of the old versions, updated the content a bit and then added a bunch of sources. Hopefully this will correct the problems that seemed ripe on this page.

Also, people keep putting a last name in and then others take it down. But that was a false spelling that he used to use as a pseudonym (for people like Guinness and for reporters - it dates back to when he was in college... if not before). This is why his posters sell at higher prices to magic and ephemera collectors when they have the REAL spelling signed on them (simply because it's so rare to see). But it doesn't matter now anyway because he's since had his name legally changed to Matt The Knife (the T is actually capitalized) and, from what I've heard, doesn't use the former name whatsoever. SamKamin (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real article???

[edit]

Most of the links are broken or are publicity blurbs. There does not seem to be any evidence to almost anything claimed within the article rather than what seems to be outside sources referencing the Wikipedia article itself. Someone closer to the subject matter might want to thoroughly fact check this article. 13:12 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Every reference is bogus that takes you to the home page of some newspaper or magazine. On the internet no legitimate info is found except self-promotion. Is this guy for real or just some 2-bit wanna be magician who performs at birthday parties who knows how to promote himself? Notability? Meishern (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. References no good. Added cleanup tag and wonder whether this page is valid at allWotnot (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what are you talking about?not all of the links are solid but the article references still are.just google the stuff!i spent all of 5 minutes and was able to find some of it.maybe you guys should put a little effort in before posting next time.here are a few i found in about with about a 5 minute investment of time
http://citypaper.net/articles/2007/01/18/just-do-it
http://citypaper.net/articles/2007/10/25/halloween-etc
http://www.thesouthendnews.com/a-e/matt-the-knife-entertains-students-with-trickery-off-color-humor-1.894453
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/arts_and_media/stunts_and_special_effects/fastest_underwater_handcuff_escape.aspx#/
next time just dont be so lazy
Fair enough, he does exist. I think the references need a good sort out, though. The trouble is that the writer and article titles have both been given as links. In most cases the people links are non-existent, and the article links just go to the homepage of the publication. Some don't go anywhere (number 8, for instance). This gives the impression that all the links are bogus, although apparently they aren't.


Every link is bogus. I clicked on each one and either got a dead page or a homepage of a newspaper. I don't own those books, so can't check them. If you say its on the internet, go get those references and put them there yourself. Don't be lazy. All these misleading/bogus references will be removed unless the links start working: # 1,2,3,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,19,22 removed. Meishern (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meishern, you do understand that the very intention of Wikipedia is to place the sum of global knowledge in to one place, don't you? Having textural references listed that you don't own is the precise point of the service (allowing those that DO have the references the ability to site a source so YOU, as the reader, may seek out further inquiry and thereby allow a further study of the subject). After all, just because you don't own something doesn't make it not so... by that logic, it'd be like saying, "Well I don't own a bible... therefore Christianity doesn't exist." Not every source can or even SHOULD be an online article as those tend to be much less difficult to fake than any non-online reference. And while I agree with one of the earlier comments that the sources need to be cleaned up and listed only as article and book sources (where applicable of course) rather than have links, this in no way means them to be faulty or illegitimate. In case and point, should you just read slightly above and you'll note that someone has already gone and posted SEVERAL links that you're looking for right within this very discussion section itself. Frankly, I don't understand your frustration beyond how the sources are linked. (talk)
TruthLocating, you just wrote a bunch of nonsense. This an encyclopedia that has to be referenced. Why not write down that Matt the Knife can swallow 1000 swords but as reference list the homepage of New York Times. That wont work. This is why a lot of reporters get into trouble when instead of research they just quote Wikipedia articles that aren't referenced like this one. In this article the vast majority of references are bogus. You cant reference a homepage of an online newspaper. You must reference the page that has the article. You get it? I clicked on every single link. Maybe you should do the same and tell me if even just ONE link has anything to do with Matt the Knife. I am not disputing that Matt can do the things he claims. But unless he can provide SOURCES, it is not valid information. Let me even make it more simple for you. If I was writing a dissertation and wanted to use Matt the Knife as an example, I would not be able to use Wikipedia references because they are INVALID. You get it?
Lets look at reference #1 from Bill Bradley website. Bill Bradley, a former basketball player and an x-politician has nothing about Matt the Knife on his website nor anywhere else on the internet. There isn't one mention anywhere on the internet that Matt was interviewed by Bradley, and if it was true I think there would be, NO? So whose word do we have to take that its true and really happened? So look stop your nonsense. Either get some references, or I will rewrite this article properly referenced under the watchful eyes of Wikipedia admins. Meishern (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know man...if this guy is bullshit then it seems like some big media things are pretty committed to the lie-haha. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBhWagCUBcg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.233.71 (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cleared up all those random author reference pages and added a few external links.But more important, I found a bunch of links to most of the references online and changed those out(like to the Daily Planet video,a bunch of the articles,and even the Jeopardy! archive that shows the question about him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.233.71 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! We getting there. Its still a crappy article content wise, but at least there is a move on the references. Meishern (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


WHAT is THIS PROMO PAGE doing HERE - in an ENCYCLOPEDIA?!?!?

It's already been said - multiple times, in multiple ways - this is not someone who meets any criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia - and this page is nothing more than (bad) self-promotion.

So - why is it still 'debated' whether-or-not to just remove it?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt the Knife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_the_Knife&oldid=1203922100"