Talk:David Blaine

I believe the "Magic Career" section to be heavily biased. Certainly others (David Copperfield) have been doing street magic on TV specials for years, and the section feels to be written by a biased fan, not a biographer.

Flydaddyfred 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think there is much of a bias to this article. It describes Davids Career and how it started. The only place I think where you might think it is bias is where it says that street magic is more popular now because of David Blaine. I don't think this is bias as it doesn't say that David Blaine was the only one who triggered this movement, it justs states that David was a part of this movement. I don't see the bias you see, so maybe you can tell me what you think is bias, and We can consider something to correct the nuetrality.

52G 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I made some somewhat minor edits which I think improve the neutrality of the article. I don't think it was all that bad before, but do think an improvement now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't really think it is biased either. Maybe like previously siad where it is saying street magic is a lot more popular because of him. But honestly that might be true. I don't think it is reading like it was written by a fan. I believe this is a good article about him with NPOV. --LocalBandAid02 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found a quote from NY Daily News' Eric Mink that corroborates the "revolutionized" statement. Specs212 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would it find not only extraordinary but actually almost depressing if this article were not considered biased and partisan by almost anyone (except perhaps Blaine's agent) who reads it it: where is the supposed intellectual and academic rigour here? All the press quotes used are positive: obviously the negative ones have been sidelined. There is no "criticism" section. Blaine is considered by many to be extremely irritating and egocentric (it may surprise the writers of the article to read this, but I doubt it: they are possibly in denial about it, but surely by selecting the positive articles on Blaine they must have had to witness - and then sideline - the negative ones). The fact that Blaine is a celebrity and that television companies contract him to make TV shows does not therefore mean that he is automatically loved throughout the world. On the contrary, many magicians often have a kind of insincere, oily demeanour - their glitzy-ness and desire to be loved by strangers perhaps being a reaction to childhood rejection. Subsequently many from this profession are simultaneously admired and ridiculed: David Copperfield and the like for their Vegas-style showbiz plastic-ness and outdated Liberace aesthetic, and the supposedly grungy Chris Angel and Blaine for their studied and slightly creepy "naturalness" (does anyone take Angel seriously as a musician?).

Blaine is essentially quite conservative: an old-fashioned showman. A snake-oil salesman, if you will. As a street magician, he's pretty damn good, though for some reason he dresses this up with a kind of pseudo-spirituality and creepy ersatz mystical-healer appearance (I would imagine that he increasingly believes in this constructed persona). Unfortunately, the fact that he pursues this not only detracts from his talent - it actually repels many people, because it's essentially bullshit.

For some reason, although many people know this, the article utterly fails to recognise it. The writer/s of the article have no excuse.

They're just not looking properly.

I thank you, and look forward to the article being corrected.

Why does the first paragraph state - "Theatre owner James Nederlander as well as The New York Times[2] have referred to Blaine as a modern day Houdini." - He's been referred to in much more unfavourable terms as well but those aren't represented.Muleattack (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The tricks he does are ones that usually require no skill, and so simple to do. Ones which require skill he bumbles thru them quite often seeing how he does it. Theres many far better street magicians, yet he got to be on tv, cause with editing they can over come his bad skill and also edit tape to make the tricks work. This article is very heavily biased in his favor, when nearly everyone could be as good a performer as him as no skill is required for his performances.--Simon19801 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Street Magic, has been called "the best TV magic special ever done and the biggest breakthrough in our lifetime"" This is just promotion and shouldnt even be in the first paragraph and who care what that one quote says? --Simon19801 (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

That the quote is from Penn Jillette gives it far more relevance. I've cleaned up the quote to accurately reflect what Jillette was saying and provide the needed context: He was speaking of the change in perspective as being a great evolution in the art form of televised magic, not about Blaine's magic in particular.

Much of that section probably shouldn't be where it is. Perhaps a single summary sentence in the lead and the rest moved down to the "Street Magic" section. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've searched on the internet and tried to get confirmation on what was written about his training being delayed by september 11th. The only references I see to it seem to be places like wikipedia where users can edit its content. Can anyone find a solid confirmation of this?

52G 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)52GReply

I don't know that it's on the internet at all, but he did talk about that in his book, Mysterious Stranger.

I can't get the notes (the tiny numbers) to work, does that happen to anyone else?Timan123 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

In London's Above the Below, it was the minority of the crowd who harassed Blaine. A minority is defined as "the smaller in number of two groups forming a whole."

BBC, Oct 19, 2003 The BBC reports that of the crowd of 10,000 on the last day, "there was little sign of the "Blaine-baiters" who have dogged the entertainer for the duration of his stunt, jeering, throwing eggs and cutting his water supply." On the other hand, they add "[Blaine's] stunt has attracted praise and contempt in equal measures." Is the BBC saying that half of the onlookers threw eggs? Is there any report that can substantiate that 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, even 10% of the onlookers were harassing Blaine?

It is my opinion that "raucous minority" correctly describes the situation. If you have a source that can proof otherwise, please provide it.

Thefool 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the funniest thing that happened during Blaine's 'Above the Below' was someone flying a remote controlled helicopter with a Big Mac (burger) suspended from it near to his cube.

Blaine has had a host of gorgeous girlfriends. He has dated Josie Maran, Daryl Hannah, Fiona Apple, Madonna, and has dated the German supermodel, Manon Von Gerkin.

Source

So?

He is now married to Alizee Guinochet and has had a daughter on January 27th 2011. Her name is Dessa, currently at 4 years of age.

I would make the case that Blaine should be categorized as a "Performance Artist", rather than "Stunt Performer". Slight distinction, perhaps, but I believe what Blaine does can only be classified as art.

Good point, but the critique above applies to more than just the categorization. David Blaine is a magician. This article, however, makes it sound like he actually, physically performed these stunts (this is what stunt performers do), when in reality he created an illusion that he performed these stunts (isn't this what magician's do?). The article should at least attempt to report the facts about his performances...right now it's predominantly filled entertainment fluff.--24.193.37.41 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

"This article, however, makes it sound like he actually, physically performed these stunts (this is what stunt performers do), when in reality he created an illusion that he performed these stunts" - Incorrect. There have been no illusions in any of his stunts; he *did* actually perform them. 70.131.159.88 03:18, 9 May 2006 (utc)

i disagree. i read this article a few days ago, and it didn't sit right with me. Really bugged me that the article said lately he's moved away from street magic to doing physical stunts. It's all magic, people. i don't remember where i read it (maybe the Straight Dope?), but the trick with the ice is that a hollow block of ice is actually quite warm inside. Ask any Inuit person who's built an igloo. The ice was covered with a sheet periodically for "refreezing," at which time Blaine would nip out for some rest and a bite to eat. i am now committed to finding this article! Sheesh. Where are Penn and Teller when you need them??

(a quick Google search later)

Ah - here we go. In a Salon.com article, Penn Gilette is quoted as saying "The air will completely insulate him just like he was an Eskimo in an ice igloo. The only hard part for Blaine will be standing still for 3 days. ...My technicians built the ice box for Blaine."

http://dir.salon.com/story/people/col/reit/2000/11/29/npwed/index.html

According to Guiness : "Record bosses said his ice challenge -- in which he was encased in ice for 60 hours, was little different from living in an igloo or an ice hotel."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/04/uk.blaine/index.html

Can someone with more Wikipedia experience than me please make appropriate adjustments to the main page so it reads more like an article about a magician and less like a magician's press release??

Apparently the article has not been edited to reflect Gilette's comments as you urged. I think the reason is that people want to believe in magic rather than in illusions. David Spector (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why was this page protected? I have been monitoring it for a few days. The only changes are on the underwater stunt where he literally just emerged and people are trying to get the details of his stunt correct and uploaded onto wikipedia as soon as possible. --24.3.147.203 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

And why do people keep repeating the time he remained submerged? It's listed twice now. Aesu 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

We were getting vandalism from users. Stuff like "Blaine is a pussy" ect. You probably haven't seen it since it has gotted edited out pretty fast. Smylere Snape 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aww, thanks for the information Smylere Snape. I'll patiently wait for an administrator to renable editing of this page Cheers. --Starionwolf 05:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quick question two people just edited the page. Chris83 and Thefool. Are they allowed to edit........if not then someone should revert edits???? 13:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• The temporary ban is on "new or unregistered users" only. Thefool 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why does people vandalism page that's stupid because any way Wikipedia will not let the page that way it's just wasted time from : JadouxXx

• • • • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.248.150 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favor of temporarily protecting pages from anonymous editing when it is appropriate, even if it slows the updating of article information by a day or two. It makes life easier for editors, as they don't have to keep deleting nonsense and vandalism. David Spector (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the Overview section, it claims he stood on a "100 foot pole for 35 hours", then in the Vertigo section, it says 80 feet. For the mathematically impaired, those are two different numbers.

According to ABC, it is 100 feet.

http://abc.go.com/primetime/specials/blaine/

Thefool 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

ABC lied or something; it is indeed 80 feet. 70.131.146.157 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This link says 105 feet tall.

Magic Directory

User:52G Yes, according to the magic directory it was 105 feet tall. I believe this to be the most credible source, but I could be wrong.

Thefool 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

His book says "nearly-ninety feet" --Kfrogers 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Slightly unrelated, but I believe the citation needed for Vertigo is unneeded anymore. The Magic Directory is already cited, and it provides all of these statistics. Therefore, I have removed the request for citation. User:52G

Is there a policy on Wikipedia including magic spoilers? Link explaining the levitation trick: http://www.geocities.com/jhnsnoot/blainelev1.html -- Tarquin

Or this one http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/7308/balducci.html . As to your question, well, wikipedia contains spoilers, and I don't think magic is a special. I'd put that article under Balducci levitation though, since putting it here would give Blaine too much credit -- User:GWO

I agree with your interpretation of the spoilers guideline. Thanks. -- Tarquin

I changed the bit about the Evening Standard story on Blaine's management company. I read this story and it sounded like a load of hogwash... all unattributed and all seemingly at odds with the fact that Blaine's stunt seems so far a complete success. Dare I call the "PMK" management company quoted in the article ... actually PMK/HBH Public Relations... on +1-310-289-6200 to see what they say......? As it stands what I wrote is probably accurate but unverified.

"London mayor Ken Livingstone criticised the stunt, saying it was disrespectful to IRA members who died in prison in the early 1980s whilst on hunger strike."

If we're talking about the same IRA that blew up Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Airey Neave then I for one would say they deserve all the disrespect they can get, and Livingstone's remarks are pretty disgraceful for an elected representative. Lee M 14:21, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

An interesting point of view, but no one I believe that we need to cover in the article. Readers may form their own opinion of Livingstone's comments. Martin 18:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In a bizarre footnote to the stunt, Blaine donated the underwear he had worn while in isolation to be auctioned by charity.

I looked at both the links you recommended. Nothing in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not seemed to apply, but I tried to take Wikipedia:How to write a great article to heart. I've made this as concise and clearly stated as I know how. Thanks! -Nydigovoth

Nydigovoth, what he did with his underwear is hardly relevant to an article about him. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a store of useless trivia like this. Angela 03:52, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, but I think it is relevant. He is seen as a person who does bizarre things, that is part of his reputation. This is yet another example of these sorts of things. This isn't a random fact, like what sort of toothpaste he prefers, it is an example of his behavior that gives him his reputation. -Nydigovoth

Hi again - I removed the addition about the underwear, not because of our above conversation, but because I'm not sure if it is a hoax or not. Maybe I'll research it more before restoring. -Nydigovoth

If true, this would be a valid addition to the article - it's not every day a celebrity auctions their underwear, let alone underwear they've worn continuously for 4x days. However, it does seem unlikely - we'd need a source. Martin 18:24, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I added the scientific case report of Blaine's recovery. His body mass loss (25 kilos) and decrease in body mass index (29 to 21.6) is documented accurately. He added a footnote to medical science, namely that his sense of hunger coincided with increased levels of the hormones orexin and resistin, which may have relevance for studies into appetite. JFW | T@lk 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity I recalculated the numbers and disagree with the later BMI of 21.6. Here's what I did: If 24.5 kg == 25 percent of his original body weight, then clearly his original weight was 98kg. In order to start with a BMI of 29.0 he must be 1.83829...cm tall. After losing the 24.5 kg he then has a BMI of 21.75. I realize this is not very far off but enough to bother me. Can someone explain or even better clearify the article? Bleistiftspitzer (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

There were a discussion about David Blaine and the controversy regarding his use af the TV-medium in a page about a creation by Mr. Ed Balducci. I cut it out, since I deemed it being irrelevant in that context. However, I saved the cutted part in the talk page: Talk:Balducci_levitation. So, feel free to move it from there and place it in the proper place here. --TStone 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

-There is no comment about the bizarre interview in the UK a few years back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeddPlj2D4E Certainly in England the "eye on the hand" protection thing is one of the first thoughts to pop into many UK heads... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.162.151 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

David Blaine has said that he is of Gypsy Ancestry

I think that this claim, as well as his ancestry on the page, needs a citation. --BWD ^(talk) 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was overlapping content concerning Blaine's $100,000 Challenge in the articles David Blaine, Mysterious Stranger, and $100,000 Challenge. Also, a lack of significant details, appropriate to each article. I have attempted to remedy this with due objectivity.

Also, the previous entry in the David Blaine article clearly implied that the $100,000 Challenge was the major motivation to buy the book, as in the case of Masquerade or A Treasure's Trove.

This is not the case. The Challenge was a bonus to this coffee-table-type autobiographical / historical / how-to / reference book.

Thefool 19:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

---

There is a references flag on the Mysterious Stranger section.

The book summary is derived from the book itself:

Copyright 2002 by David Blaine. Published 2002, in the United States and Canada, by Villard Books, a division of Random House, Inc. IBSN 0-375-50573-3. First Edition.

The treasure hunt summary is from the website of its creator:

David Blaine's $100,000 Challenge Solved — http://www.thefoolsparadise.com/db/index.htm

Would someone adept at adding references kindly add these references?

Thefool (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know at what pressure is the air he's using? I'm not sure I particularly follow the logic of the free divers' objection that they can't use pure 02, therefore he shouldn't be using compressed air. Unless it's at such high pressure as to significantly hyperoxygenate his blood -- and wouldn't that be dangerous, since clearly he's only at one bar himself? (Not that it has to make sense to be reportable, of course.) Alai 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you dont follow the logic of free diving, then you shouldnt be suggesting"therefore he shouldn't be using compressed'air'". Ask questions by all means, but dont lecture on something you partially or dont understand. Look and you shall see, see and you will learn.

He's not using pure O2. It's poisonous. It's probably a high concentration mix, but read the article "oxygen toxicity" and you'll see why it's definitely not O2, though it would make him the ultimate bad-ass. Madskile (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, pure O2 being poisonous is incorrect. Pure O2 at higher pressures than sea level can be dangerous, but normal pressure O2 is OK to a limit. I know becasue I have and will continue to breather pure 100% O2 on occasion. I am in the USAF and our oxygen systems use pure oxygen. Gremlin4128 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was watching the David Blaine special for when he was underwater for 7:08 supposedly and At just after 6 minutes he started having trouble and they got him out. Now it could not have been more than 6:20 that he was actually underwater. ABC actually took the timer off screen when he started having trouble and I believe that this was planned because they wanted to add more time on which they obviously did. Anyone agree and feel it should be changed on here? Day22 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The offical time, as being reported by the Associated Press, is 7:08. --Mhking 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I rewatched it: at 7:00 we saw bubbles, at 7:06 a diver went in and they removed the timer from the screen. It took 20 seconds after that for the divers to remove the ankle-cufs, before he was able to take his first breath. (So at 7:26 he took his first breath.)

The time 7:08 is given because that was the moment the male diver covered his mouth (to prevent him from breathing water), and I suppose that's when he was no longer holding his own breath. 71.199.123.24 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know if David Blaine has some sort of mental handicap? I was listening to him talk on the Drowned Alive special on TV tonight and something just didn't sound right. I checked other websites but they didn't say anything about it. I don't mean to assume that just because someone talks slowly or extremely deliberately that they have a mental handicap, that's not what I'm saying at all. I just thought maybe someone would know.

Did you see him after he emerged from the water after 7 days total and 7 minutes holding his breath until he passed out? If that is the case, I would assume that he was talking "slowly or extremely deliberately" due to those circumstances. If not, could you specify when in the program you saw him act in such a way? It could also be explained as an act to distract people for whatever trick he is trying to perform. Dario 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't be a jerk. It's a valid question. Whether he's doing street magic, entering a block of ice, being interviewed on television, or leaving a plexiglass box, Blaine has indeed always talked "slowly or extremely deliberately." I, unfortunately, don't have an answer. I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, but it may just be a speech impediment. 70.131.159.88 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I used to play little league with his little brother, and he'd come to games and throw the ball around and do tricks for us...he never seemed handicapped to me, but I did notice the weird speech thing when he did tricks. When he wasn't doing magic he sounded normal.

If you watch the TED talk he gave about holding his breath for 17 minutes, he seems MUCH slower than he use to be. Also, he inexplicably starts crying at the end of the talk. Something seems wrong for sure. Watching this talk and wondering what was wrong with guy is why I looked him up on Wikipedia. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.78.101 (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The following was removed -- it is actually true trivia, although it could be shortened somewhat.

"In the episode Super Best Friends, David Blaine seduces the residents of South Park with his magic tricks and convinces them to join his cult of "Blaintologists". The Blaintologists are not an officially recognized as a religion by the federal government and therefore not eligible for tax exempt status. To solve this problem, David Blaine suggests that the entire membership of the cult commit suicide in the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.To stop this, Jesus and his team of "Super Best Friends" which include Muhammed, Buddah, and Moses freeze the reflecting pool to prevent more blaintologists from drowning themselves."

--70.48.71.68 04:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I love South Park, but I agree with its removal. There is sufficient space devoted to idolizing South Park already. Thefool 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think a brief inclusion is warrented. Wikipedia is a place for collecting facts on a person. It does show the impact that David Blain has in popular culture. Just because in your personal opinion there is too much devoted to South Park already has no barring on whether this should be included. --70.48.71.68 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I included the first sentence under Trivia. Trivia is also the name of the category used in Patrick Duffy and Kathie Lee Gifford when referring to South Park. Thefool 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for summarizing my unessecarily lengthy original South Park addition. I'm glad this all worked out. Cheers. Pumpkin Pi 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it's worth noting in the reference that for his "stunt" on South Park, David Blaine planned to eat his own head. Thus, the new entry under Trivia would read:

In the episode Super Best Friends, David Blaine seduces the residents of South Park with his magic tricks, and his promised "stunt" of "eating his own head," convincing them to join his cult of "Blaintologists."

Looks good, unless anyone else says anything, slip in the new edit when the vandalism tag is gone. Pumpkin Pi 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This episode is also noteworthy because after it aired, Trey Parker and Matt Stone received death threats from some Muslims because of the inclusion of the image of the Prophet Muhammed. Because of this, this episode has been pulled from the South Park Studios website and the Season 5 DVD set. The "Blaintologist" compound is very similar to The Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.Jtyroler (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to Diving In Depth, the 7 days underwater is not a record. Khoo Siow Chiow on December 25, 2005 completed 220 hours (a little over 9 days). However, Blaine may have broken the record for saltwater. I'm not sure what the saline requirements are to be considered "saltwater".

That is true. His name is also spelled as "Khoo Swee Chiow" and he already has a Wikipedia article. His feat is covered here: [1], [2], [3]. His personal website is here: [4]. --70.48.71.68 15:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody fix this in the article. It still says "Blaine did nonetheless succeed in setting a record (as yet unrecognized by any record-keeping institution) for being fully submerged in water for more than seven days straight (170+ hours)." Simply taking that sentence out would be ok, but perhaps it should be edited, and contain a reference to Chiow.

I dunno about this one. Everything I can find relating to Chiow mentions "scuba"; this is not the same as what Blaine did 70.131.159.88 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is really great.  :^) It seems as if the facination with blaine will never end......

From the intro: "He made his name as a performer of close-up magic, usually working on the streets. Amongst magicians this is commonly known as street magic".

I would say it's the opposite. Close-up magic is commonly referred to by magicians, as well, close-up magic. Most people, in my experience, don't have knowledge of this term, whereas partially because of David Blaine's Street Magic specials, they are familiar with the term "street magic". In fact, the article on street magic doesn't equate close-up magic to street magic at all. Anyway, I'm going to change it to be more accurate. --C S (Talk) 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/09/david.blaine.ap/index.html

CNN reports that he's been released from the hospital following his latest stunt, and that he's agreed to allow doctors from Yale to examine him to quantify the human reaction to being immersed in water for so long.

Need to put this in the article but it's been locked down, can someone do this? Blainetologist 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

If any ip or new editor unable to edit this article suggests a reasonable wording for what they want added about this, I will gladly add it on their behalf. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about adding this after "It is expected that Blaine will suffer medical problems as a result of his stunt.[6]": Mr. Blaine has undergone multiple short hospital visits since the stunt and has entered an agreement with doctors from Yale to monitor him in order to study the human physiological reaction to prolonged sumbersion." Blainetologist 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is the reference for that. Did you copy and paste the "[6]" from another article? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the section regarding Blaine's "Drowned Alive" stunt, there is a note that Mark Harris commented that Blaine would have an unfair advantage. However, if you follow the citation for that comment, you will see that Harris said no such thing, merely that Blaine would have to remain calm, less he deplete his oxygen too quickly. This line should be edited or removed.24.147.136.231 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the Trivia section, the following sentence appears. 'During his appearance in Last Call with Carson Daly, he "pulled" his heart out and fainted'. Can the author of that sentence please change it so the meaning is clearer? I don't know what is meant. Ordinary Person 06:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I actually saw that episode, it's very literal. He reached into his chest pushing his hand through his skin and pulled out his heart. It was staged of course, but that's pretty much all you saw. --Pandertome 12:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"He claimed to have been scheduled to start training for this particular stunt on September 11th, 2001, by flying on American Airlines from Kennedy airport at noon to Los Angeles. As Blaine lived in New York City, he delayed his training." That doesn't make too much sense.

It makes sense if you read his book, Mysterious Stranger. All the flights from NYC were cancelled on 9/11/01 after the terrorist attacks, so he was unable to leave until a couple days later from Washington DC to begin his training. I agree that the statement could be worded better for those that have not read the book.

Good article in general, but I feel there are a couple of rather undisgised POV statements in the description of Blaine's feats:

"Blaine has been performing real magic for many years, since early childhood. His mother always believed in him and never put him down." What is meant by "real" magic? Do we have any evidence that his mother never put him down, and how is this relevant to the article?

"Below the Above in which five extraordinary people had life changing experiences whilst sleeping below Blaine's box ... while this low budget documentary told one version of the story, British media chose to only report the negative." Describing certain people as "extraordinary" is POV. Do we have any good evidence that their lives changed? Similarly, is there any good evidence that the British media reported only the "negative" aspects of the stunt? To what extent are these positive aspects verifiable?

Any thoughts? --JonAyling 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Disagreed - this is a horribly written and organised hagiography, though you're right to identify the above quotes as particular culprits. I'd also strongly reject the idea that Above the Below was embraced by anything like a majority of Brits. Media coverage here was almost universally derisive, as was near enough everyone I spoke to at the time, though obviously that's not something that can easily be sourced.

Also, why does the beginning of the article have him listed as being born in 1994?!68.244.49.110 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)RayReply

Scott D

--82.41.74.129 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article is hosed up as a result of multiple overlapping incidents of vandalism and hasn't been restored yet. It's too much for me to figure out now. But please restore the "Cancelled Stunts" and "Upcoming Stunt" sections. Joseph N Hall 09:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the article to this edit and incorporated virtually all of the subsequent changes, even sections that were removed due to POV issues. Tinlinkin 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have added sources needed to much of the article, but I really think it probably needs to be edited to a stub as it is obvious that much of what is on here will never be sourced. I think the problem is that there are too many "fans" editing on here. Too many blainiacs lol. --130.194.13.101 01:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)MikeReply

He was born in 1994? That would make him 12 years old. Someone needs to correct this!

why does it say his dad is a spanish puerto rican. looking at how black david is, id say his dad is more of a african puerto rican than a spanish one. his mother is supposed to be white. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.73.160 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

He doesn't look remotely african 47.54.220.12 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

He should have a mug shot at the top of the page, and a better bio, Right?

Kaaos 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep. We need some pics, and more information on his personal life Gautam ^Discuss 10:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

70.59.47.75 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC) He only held his breath for 7:08. He may have been pulled out at 7:33, but this was the time at which he stopped breathing on his own. He also blacked out during it, so the time is definately below the aforesaid amount.Reply

So what does he actually do, hypnosis or trickery? Does the position of the camera crew have something to do with the illusions ? More often than not, the camera is focussed on the pedestrian or in between the pedestrian and Blaine. Jay 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A couple parody videos exist from a TV show that have been circulated online entitled "David Blaine Street Magic" (visible here and the second part, here); in addition to being quite humorous they were largely popular and seem to be gaining a new popularity as of recently. If I knew the name of the show it was from, I could add it in the article. Anyone know? Zchris87v 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

replying: I added that section but it was deleted. As far as I know it may be just an internet video, but it seems too professional. NYyankees51 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If anyone looks at the article and look under height, it says that David Blaine is 0'6" which I know to be incorrect. I would change the height to whatever height David Blaine is, but I don't know the height. Does anyone who is reading this know David Blaine's height and can change the height?

Does he really have a psycho cult like in South Park? TCO (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

From reading this article it certainly seems like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.64.136.152 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

to float and prove its real?

I suspect that if David Blaine ever made the claim that he can really levitate, then James Randi would surely challenge him on it! But I've never seen a reference that would indicate him making such a claim. --Gordon (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since Blaine is a professional illusionist, it seems odd that everyone takes his endurance records at face value. Isn't more likely that he only appears to hold his breath for a record-setting amount of time than that he recently developed into the best breath-holder on the planet?--Jeff (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

THANKS! I was waiting for someone to say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.129.131 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It mentions that his heart rate dropped to 50 bpm as if this is significant. As the average resting pulse-rate is 60-100 bpm, 50 doesn't seem noteworthy. Halfabeet (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried to find a source to verify that he actually broke the Guinness World Record but couldn't find any (neither in the article nor anywhere else on the internet), so source please? Maajid (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

97.118.66.112 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) when David did drowned alive, the then current world record was 8:58, not 9:15 as mentioned in the article.Reply

Not that I particularly care about David Blaine or whatever, but for the sake of encyclopedic integrity, could someone look into the height of the pole for Vertigo? In the text of the article, it claims the pole to be 90 feet. However, in the caption for the image it has 100 feet. Someone please fix this. Pyrotics (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted from the "newer" Grand Canyon photo because the old view is a better close up image. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not David "enjoys" being ethnically/racially identified, Wikipedia does not use those identities as descriptors in lead sentances except under very limited circumstances where the article's subject is primarily notable for work or other activity regarding those identities. (For example, it would be acceptable to identify a priest's religion, or identify the ethnic background of someone whose notability is based on civil rights activities for people of her ethnicity.) WP:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:Mysterious-stranger-david-blaine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any idea how DB went from doing a sleep-deprivation stunt to this "Dive of Death?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.87.174 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What happened to the sleep-deprivation stunt? --Npnunda (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

For some reason, User:David_Shankbone insists on deleting all information on it. Despite my attempts to source it and rewrite it as "a formerly planned stunt", he demands it be removed as if it has no bearing whatsoever on Blaine's career. There are plenty of author articles that detail unpublished manuscripts, and plenty of musician articles that detail unreleased albums, so I don't see how this is any different. Maybe somebody else can attempt to reinstate the info, but I give up. TravelingCat (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

When will he amaze us by standing on a street corner for five minutes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.16.58 (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

the blockquote by Brigstocke appears excessive (even if amusing). If included at all, I would suggest we limit the content from this one columnist to either

" There's no apthay in this country - not when there's a moron in a box doing something moronic. We're out in force."

or

" I'll be honest folks, it was my hope that David Blaine would die in that box and we could leave him there as a warning to all numb-nutted wizard scum that we won't tolerate this nonsense here. … Go home David Blaine, spend the $5,000,000 you made well. If you want to beat your 44 day record, I can only suggest you attempt to double it underwater."^[1]

Are there any other opinions about this? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is a little long, although it does neatly encapsulate the prevailing feeling of the time, which was not particularly positive. It should be retained, but perhaps trimmed down. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Apparently I noticed that this quote was totally removed. The particular section also now look much less wiki-like and doesnt imply the local's opinion of the stunt. 145.120.19.202 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• A
  A
•  
  B
• C
  C
• C2
  C2

• I prefer B. It's clearer, the color is better, there are no sunglasses obscuring the face, better clothes. --David Shankbone 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Option "C" added

• I prefer C - It avoids both the obscurring of the sunglasses and the "mugshot" impression -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I think the "mug shot" style is the standard for the lead, though. Many times I have tried to upload fuller photos of people, from Woody Harrelson to Tobey Maguire to Mary Stuart Masterson somebody comes and crops it down to a mugshot. --David Shankbone 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

A "head shot" might be argued as a prefered type of image; a "mug shot" certainly not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I think B is the most appropriate for a lead photo. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

option C2 added

• Changing vote to C2 -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• It's not very focused, off-color, it looks like his hair is thinning on the top, and he's wearing a ratty t-shirt instead of the cool Louis Vuitton leather motorcycle jacket in B. It's also a very small size, making it not particularly useful outside of Wikipedia (which are the sorts of things we consider as an educational resource). But, okay. Since Specs works for Blaine, you'd think it wouldn't be a challenge to take a decent photo. --David Shankbone 07:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which cheese deleted my bit on Breaking the magician's code?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.89.39 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You need to provide better sources and not your interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Twatdangle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.83 (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

He never did a record, he uses a well know magic trick to hold the breath using a hidden hose connected to an oxigen tank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.165.14 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

How does the top goolge hit for git wizard return this page, when it's nowhere on it? 81.149.182.210 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It shows that the goolge indexing bots know a git when they see one. For more insight try Talk:The_Now_Show and Marcus Brigstocke, then go hunting through the history of wiki sanitizers doing brazil edits to the honour of the gw and his cupids. 81.158.14.146 (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's in the persondata, i.e.

ALTERNATIVE NAMES = Git Wizard

Um. Should it be? I suspect not. Fences&Windows 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's still the second hit for Git Wizard. Maybe if we talk about it enough it'll reach number one again? 81.97.60.29 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The term was coined for Blaine, and I suspect many British people only know of him at all because of it. So yes. 88.79.237.11 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Blaine is particularly derided in Britain, where he is viewed as an irritating self important idiot. Most of the hostility dates back to his dangling over the Thames in a plastic box for no apparent reason. The moral of this seems to be: if you're going to do this sort of thing, don't stray too far from your fanbase. The world is not America. --Ef80 (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

hi David

Iam one of your biggest fans and i would like to learn and master the art of magic. Any help please?

Regards Royston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royston thompson (talk • contribs) 09:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This should be mentioned somewhere as it was big news at the time in Britain and was referenced frequently with his character in the TV series Bo Selecta! which should also be mentioned. Just one link of many, this one states his appearance on TV as in the top 10 of embarrassing TV moments. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8239111/Top-10-most-embarrassing-TV-moments.html Muleattack (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is the page of David Blaine, not Mike Shinoda. Please move it back.--Auric (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article currently reads like a fan site. DB has many fans, particularly in the US, but there are many people who can't stand him and think he's a deluded crackpot. Reading the article history, it seems that anything critical of DB has been systematically removed by a number of editors. The description of the Above the Below stunt in London is particularly misleading - most of the people who bothered to turn up were extremely hostile and the UK media coverage was largely negative. --Ef80 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly his official website 'Bio' section links straight to this article.. Not really surprising it does not include any negative press information.. ツStacey (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As of today it still reads like a fan site...The important parts should be rewritten, while the complete list of his stunts has no place here. 92.88.247.128 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

No it wasn't; as the explanation from Belcher makes clear, he wasn't being struck by the arc at all (except for one brief accidental shock.) So I deleted the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.102.118 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article said that after his 72 hours of electricity stunt, he was transported to hospital where it was found that the electricity caused an irregular heartbeat.

I was sceptical about the cause, since such sleep deprivation seems to me to carry more of a risk for heartbeat regularity than the electricity. So I read the reference, and found no mention at all of a heartbeat irregularity!

So I just removed that part of the sentence.

I thought I'd leave a note about it here since this topic is mostly documented by showbiz journalists, not scientists, so we have to be extra critical when importing info. Gronky (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Blaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060529051509/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/09/david.blaine.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/09/david.blaine.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080927041216/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gxsfhFmW71JZPr4OA8yqHI_v2GQwD93ALSU00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxsfhFmW71JZPr4OA8yqHI_v2GQwD93ALSU00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article appears to be written by publicists and fans. It lacks a neutral, encyclopedic tone and is too heavily focused on TV specials, achievements and praise. I'm not sure where to start, but the bulk of the article should be not repeating praise from the media verbatim, nor should the magician's claims about their tricks be discussed as though they are true (for example, "ArcAttack built a system of seven Tesla coils producing an electric discharge of at least one million volts continuously for the duration. These seven Tesla coils were directed at Blaine for the entirety of the endurance stunt, during which he neither ate food nor slept.") unless this can be verified by a reliable and independent source. I'm going to focus on removing unnecessary/unencyclopedic details for now. Even if something is well-sourced, that doesn't mean it belongs, for example this sentence is irrelevant, unencyclopedic and violates WP:NPOV: "CNN confirmed that "thousands of people braved the pouring rain Wednesday night to catch a glimpse of Blaine as workers cut away at the ice." or "On October 5, 2012, Blaine began performing a 72-hour endurance stunt called "Electrified: One Million Volts Always On" atop a 22-foot high pillar on Pier 54 in New York City, produced by Intel and Vice and livestreamed via YouTube." [emphasis mine] If anyone wants to help improve the article or has a better approach, please let me know. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Update: I made some progress, will return later. I decided to edit by section as I'm expecting some people are closely watching this page and that someone will find issue with some of my edits (some removed positive bias towards the individual); if that happens then hopefully we can focus on specific problem areas this way. I also added a POV-check (inline) tag somewhere, though I'm not sure if that's the correct use - the currently available instruction on cleanup tags is lacking to say the least. LibertyOrDeath (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Update 2: I just tried to improve the section "Electrified: One Million Volts Always On", but I think a couple things should be added, going on the assumption the details I left are even appropriate at all (which IMO they may not be). If we're going to quote scientists saying the stunt was perfectly safe in terms of electrical current, then for balance we should say that others claimed there was some risk from standing continuously for 72 hours with no sleep. This can be verified and I've located reliable sources. I believe we should somehow address the fact that "one million volts" was misleading (amps are what kill you, voltage isn't that relevant) or just not mention volts at all. If we're going to describe the event then we have to include it, but the way it is now we're serving more as a mouthpiece for marketers. Perhaps then we could say something like "advertisement for the stunt focused on one million volts..." but I'm not sure how to source that. LibertyOrDeath (talk • contribs) 11:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Update 3: I've now removed a considerable amount of the non-neutral content & trivia, fixed the tone, etc. but the article still has WP:NPOV problems. There is almost no criticism or alternative view points, even though David Blaine's stunts have been widely debated, by the public and other magicians/illusionists, and he receives questioning and accusations of lies/hoaxes with every stunt. For example: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] [13][14] Note: Some of those aren't a RS that could be used in the article, I'm just illustrating the extent of the analysis & criticism he receives. I kept some positively biased content if there was no other immediately apparent rationale for removing without discussion, and just rewrote it in more neutral language, but it still gives undue weight to his perceived achievements. The layout of the article does as well. I'm kind of worried I'll accidentally violate WP:BLP trying to add an alternate POV, so although I know it's unbalanced I'll bow to others for now.

I am also still unsure whether we should refer to the details of his stunts/tricks as fact. Since standard policy is to avoid expressions of doubt like "he claims..." and we must be especially careful with BLPs, I decided to keep it the way it was, even though (for example) he obviously did not stay in a block of solid ice for days in the way he claims. Other stunts are technically possible but it's unlikely they were done the way he claimed. When a RS just repeats marketing or fantastical claims he said in his stage persona, is it really correct for us to report it as fact also, without context or noting who the claim came from? If a magician said they did the "sawing in half" trick by literally sawing a real person and using "magic powers" to put them back together, surely we're not meant to repeat that nonsense as factual information just because the NYT did? I don't think that's what WP:OR and WP:NPOV are meant to accomplish, and I know this has already been extensively debated, but what is the consensus for how it applies to articles about illusionists?

I hope this (huge) comment will be helpful to someone who comes to improve the article after me. Since edit summaries have limited space I've tried to expand on some of my edits here and explain my intentions. Thank you if anyone takes the time to answer my questions. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

One final note: I wanted to clarify that in addition to outright criticism or questioning of his claims by scientists, magicians and others, he is also simply viewed in a negative or non-positive light by some members of the public, as evidenced by some of the links I provided. Therefore, in addition to adding counter scientific explanations of his stunts to balance the article, I believe that to conform to WP:NPOV we probably need to get rid of the remaining content which serves to advertise or idealize - stuff that can't really be fixed just by changing the tone, though I did my best - or include other views/critiques of him as a performer (i.e. outside of the scientific/medical issues regarding his stunts). LibertyOrDeath (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on David Blaine. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071107120559/http://davidblaine.com:80/library/index.php?id=58 to http://davidblaine.com/library/index.php?id=58
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110526050747/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/movie/contributor/1809150070/bio to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1809150070/bio
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100712223633/http://bigthink.com:80/ideas/20805 to http://bigthink.com/ideas/20805
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080605233047/http://www.cnn.com:80/US/9904/12/buried.alive.02/index.html?iref=newssearch to http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/12/buried.alive.02/index.html?iref=newssearch
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080605145138/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/news/article-6716826-details/Blaine+cage+attack/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-6716826-details/Blaine+cage+attack/article.do
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071231071441/http://davidblaine.com:80/library/index.php?id=30 to http://davidblaine.com/library/index.php?id=30
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/09/david.blaine.ap/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080927041216/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gxsfhFmW71JZPr4OA8yqHI_v2GQwD93ALSU00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxsfhFmW71JZPr4OA8yqHI_v2GQwD93ALSU00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Blaine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927041216/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxsfhFmW71JZPr4OA8yqHI_v2GQwD93ALSU00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxsfhFmW71JZPr4OA8yqHI_v2GQwD93ALSU00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Blaine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504212734/http://www.magicdirectory.com/blaine/biography.shtml to http://www.magicdirectory.com/blaine/biography.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130134636/http://www.magicdirectory.com/blaine/magic1.shtml to http://www.magicdirectory.com/blaine/magic1.shtml

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) 15:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Blaine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160809225749/http://lsc.org/blog/lsc_news/david-blaine-to-donate-tesla-coils/ to http://lsc.org/blog/lsc_news/david-blaine-to-donate-tesla-coils/

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) 23:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Davidblaine vertigo.jpg
• Db buried.jpg
• Dbatbday.jpg
• Dbfrozen.jpg
• Dbspherenight.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Magician David Blaine.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I question the inclusion of the "Sexual Assault Allegations" paragraphs in the "personal life" section. People in the public eye frequently have all sorts of allegations made about them; that doesn't mean they have any basis in fact. If he had been convicted of sexual assault, that would be relevant information; if he had been tried' and acquitted of sexual abuse charges, that would rate a mention. But as long as these are just allegations they basically amount to nothing more than hearsay, and are not relevant biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Allegations are often included in Wikipedia articles if they're noteworthy. This was reported on multiple times by multiple major media outlets during Me Too. The "hearsay" was enough for multiple police investigations. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure exactly how to properly cite YouTube, but in episode 1527 of the Joe Rogan podcast, David Blaine stated that the information that he only drank teaspoons of water per day during the Buried Alive stunt is false. He says in the podcast that it was actually a normal amount of water, and that he drank ~3 litres per day.

Here's a link directly to the timestamp from an excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4LraPdm5YI&t=278

And here's the full podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY3Zg37nIHo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.216.211 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

i've removed the sentence Heiko Gerber (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I love watching David Blaine perform. I love the skill of his sleight of hand, the amazement of his reading minds, and the thrill of his stunts.

But I have not heard David Blaine admit that any of his performances are illusions, unlike some other magicians, such as Penn and Teller, James Randi, and David Copperfield. And these stunts are reported as real here, in this article, with no qualification of any kind.

When a magician, someone who performs illusions for a living, does stunts, we expect to know whether these are done as magic (illusions) or for real. Harry Houdini used illusions for much of his work, such as escaping from locked boxes. However, he also physically trained to survive in cold water and to move his joints and muscles to escape from strait jackets. He was honest about the difference, at least when the events were over.

If David Blaine uses creative illusions in support of his stunts, WP should say so in this article. It is well known that some magicians lie (Susanna Clarke) about their actions, not just use physical misdirection, because lying helps to heighten the apparent authenticity of their illusions. In Blaine's case, the lying is just "the sin of omission".

I'll give a hypothetical example. In the "Frozen in Time" event, David Blaine was encased in ice for several days while wearing light clothing. I saw him on TV. At no time did he state that an illusion was part of this stunt. Yet he could have easily used illusions or deceptions, such as piping in warm air, or drinking a nutrient solution, to help him in the stunt, keeping the illusion a secret. If he did this, he would have feigned exhaustion and shivering afterward, and it would not be much work to heighten the apparent danger, as it was already exhausting to spend several days without eating or moving about. As a magician, I would expect him to develop and use such illusions, to keep them secret, and deceive a little. But Blaine is just silent about whether this stunt was an illusion, leaving us to assume it was real when it doesn't seem to make much sense for him to avoid using illusions in such situations.

Uri Geller, an illusionist, claimed that he could really bend spoons "psychically". Yet the WP article on him states in the introduction: "Geller uses conjuring tricks to simulate the effects of psychokinesis and telepathy." Geller himself maintained he used no tricks. He lied, and it furthered his career, especially whenever it was reported credulously.

In the case of David Blaine, we seem to have no reliable citations either way. But David Blaine is an excellent magician who can easily design a wide variety of illusions. He obviously must use illusions to make a playing card travel through a glass window, or to levitate, even if he doesn't say so. Some of the magic he does clearly uses standard published illusions (levitation example, card through window example).

Why should WP be complicit in casting David Blaine as a daredevil, to help build his career, if he himself does not state whether or not he uses illusions in his stunts? David Spector (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Blaine Headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

im going through a mentalist/illusionist phase at the moment. Going to see what I can do to work on this. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

what would David make with kleptocracy? 84.42.50.113 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Under the heading "Stunts and specials: Above the Below", the final sentence in the first paragraph states "The stunt lasted 44 days, during which Blaine drank 1.2 US gallons (4.5 litres) of water per day and did not eat" (emphasis added). I cannot find anything to corroborate that Blaine did not received any nutrition (for example, nutrients could have been added to his water). This should be stated more conditionally, rather than definitively, such as by saying "...during which Blaine drank 1.2 US gallons of water per day and allegedly did not eat".
Bricology (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply