Talk:Derren Brown/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criticism section

This should be deleted entirely as it stands. Although I'm sure there's many valid criticisms made of Brown, these aint them. The Simon Singh criticism is not referenced, and therefore needs to go immediately, especially given Wikipedia's policy on biographical articles. Even if a reference is included, it seems rather irrelevent - or at least a very mild critique - to say that most of a magician's tricks are "merely" magic. Well duh... I think the problem here is that people criticise him within different contexts. He disclaims any psychic powers, but doesn't explain how he fakes them (which is annoying). He says he uses psychology and suggestion as well as more traditional magic techniques, which annoys magicians, partly because it sometimes provides more than one possible explanation for his tricks. And lastly, he makes the usual magician stance of claiming that no actors are involved, which is fairly impossible to prove and, of course, has no legal (or moral?) standing. On the latter point though, surely almost all other magicians are more vulnerable to this point, as Brown regularly uses both willing celebrities and unknowing psychics/faith healers etc. who have little or negative reasons for complicity in an obvious illusion. (That paragraph is largely POV I know, but I do think it important to separate out these different criticisms.)

But primarily, surely the ethical questions should be listed - the BBC story included in the article could be quoted for a start, as well as the other ethical questions that have surely been raised about the more disturbing of his sequences. Also, the "Other mentalists" section is also entirely inappropriate, for all the reasons given in the talk archive. If someone cares enough about other "mentalists", then at the very least add them to the mentalist page, even if they don't get a page of their own... Sheesh.

Anyway, I'll wait a few days for any comments, but without any good arguments I'll delete the section(s), so others can reintroduce something far better.

Loxlie 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Perfectly reasonable. 86.17.247.135 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Simon Singh's criticism needs a reference, and indeed it is not a cutting attack. But I would suggest the point should stay, if only as a "Reactions to Brown include..." paragraph. You see as a once-upon-a-time magician, I sometimes find Brown frustrating to watch, but not for the reason you cite ("because [there is] more than one possible explanation for his tricks"). It's frustrating because you know *exactly* how it's done, and the vast majority of it is old-school magic tricks and pre-hypnotised subjects dressed up as "Jedi-like" psychological influence skills. He is a tremendous, tremendous performer, and the effects are staggering to the uninitiated and impressively slick to those in the know, but "psychological influence" doesn't form the meat of his tricks and is usually a red herring. This is a widely known fact in the magic community and is not speculation. Everything in "Something Wicked..." was being done by magicians at the turn of the last century, only Brown's show had embedded commands and subliminal messages laid over the top of it to suggest it was all being done by sly and cunning influence techniques. This was not the case, and I for one was a little disappointed. I think this reaction, not unique to myself, should be included.

I agree with using the BBC ethics complaints as more pertinent criticisms. I have never thought Brown has ever used actors, and disagree with the phrasing of the sentence "many are still sceptical" (this at least needs a citation). Overall I would suggest editing, rather than a total delete of the section. Jkao 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

' I think a large portion of the criticism section needs removal/rewriting. The reference to Brown's comments in his book make it appear like his tricks arnt 'real' (real being an actual illusion, persuasion, suggestion, hypnosis etc) but are done with actors / camera trickery, but this is something derren has ALWAYS strenuously denied.

I have deleted the section on "other mentalists". I dont see how that can warrant a place. You dont have a section on "other football clubs" on the Manchester United page.

Simon Singh's criticism; I read the source (a newspaper article) and it's a rather scattergun attack, looks like he had a thesis (or a brief) and then proceeded to try to make everything conform, which it appears not to, as he in fact admits. His abiding criticism appears to be that Derren Brown's shows are filed under science; however, when he points out that C4 now put the shows in the entertainment category, he's still not happy :/ The only residual point unaffected by contradiction seems to be that Derren Brown is an entertainer who doesn't give away all his secrets. Which strikes me as rather lame. I would point out that if (as Singh contends) Derren Brown is not a mentalist but a plain old magician, yet has somehow managed to persuade his audience that he is a mentalist/psychological illusionist... is that magic? Or psychology? I'd ask Simon Singh, but he seems to be in the pay of one point of view. I'd note that he is at a loss to explain some of the tricks (the "I can tell what childhood memory you're thinking of" variety except to insinuate that they must be set up. For which he lays claim to no proof. I like Singh btw, but he is a bit of a hack... Hakluyt bean 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I read what you say here, and then I went and read Singh's criticsm expecting that I knew what he'd said but that he hadn't made it clear enough. It turns out I think I did know what he'd said, and he'd made it perfectly clear. While it's true that Brown states what devices are used in the show, he does it at the same time as offering scientific explanations. It suggests that there are two separate aspects: a psychic bit which we're told is fake, and a science bit which we naturally assume isn't covered by the fakery caveat. Brown has pretended to step through the fourth wall to tell us what's really going on, but actually he's still lying. It's a similar problem to the presentation of science in MacGyver. --ToobMug 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a lecture given by Simon Singh about some maths and non-maths type stuff. He brought up his criticism of Derren Brown, the main issue with Derren was that people may be being mislead about how much of his work, if any, is down to psychological techniques and that people will therefore believe in false psychology. He gave stories of how he has talked to psychology professors who's students have asked to study Derren Brown style techniques for dissertations, only to be told that they are not really conducted using psychology. Basically his main criticism was that it was implied or stated that psychological techniques were used when infact tricks were purely conjouring, and this could lead the viewers to have a misbelief in the possibilities of psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk • contribs)

Please get a wikipedia username and sign your comments. Nodekeeper 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Derren Brown explicitly teaches methods that he considers to be NLP in his book "Pure Effect", I don't have a page # or a link, but it's in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.10.10 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've provisionally removed the tag questioning "neutrality" here. The current version of this section looks okay to me; there's a criticism and a reply, if not to Singh directly, at least a generic response to criticism of that kind. Sources are cited for both. Dependent Variable (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo

The current photo is enough to scare small children, can we get a better one? Get someone to take one, or ask permission to use a copyrighted shot? Any volunteers for the former/candidates for the latter? —what a crazy random happenstance 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we could use a different photograph. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article previously used this image, to which Brown apparently "released all rights" to. I'm not sure why it changed. The current photo, with its slightly odd photoshopping from "leaning in for a fan photo" to "standing straight in front of a wall" certainly isn't ideal. --McGeddon (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support older photo per above. Also need better categorization on commons. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With no objection, I've restored the old image, and added a new person category to commons with the old image included. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture seems to have disappeared. Where did it go? PatrickAnimi(talk) 10:26, 20 September 2010

It was deleted as a copyright violation.[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we get another one, then? There was talk above of a copyright-free image, but that seems to have dissipated into the ether, too. PatrickAnimi(talk) 10:26, 20 September 2010

The supposed copyright-free image was the image that was deleted as a copyvio. I've already restored the free image that started this discussion. It will have to do for now. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone add a missing citation?

Hi There is a citation needed here in the Neuro Linguistic Prgramming section of the article:

"After ignoring their request, he later received the new certificate for NLP in his mailbox, unsolicited.[citation needed]"

I'm not expert enough to add it :-(

This information can be verified in Derren's book:

Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind, Transworld Publishers, 2006, ISBN9781905026388 Specifically

Part Four: Hypnosis and Suggestibility, Section Neuro Linguistic Programming, Sub section, The eyes have it (some of the time)

Anyone more expert than I could add this. :-)

Gjsims (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I added this inside reference tags this is a (not entirely clear) explanation on how to do this. Hopefully it's the right format in the correct place. Also this was the last missing citation so the intrusive banner across the top could be moved.Brainfood (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Password to magicians only area

I see this issue has been discussed before and there was some debate about Wikipedia not being censored. However, I believe that argument to be a red-herring, as the information fails more fundamental policy three times over. One, this information is not given in the cite provided, failing verifiability. Two, this information can only be verified by trying the password out, which is (borderline} original research. Three, someone obtained this password from another source and confirmed it to be correct, undeniable original research.

Simply put, unless this password can be cited from a reliable source that states "here is the password", it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If the password is publicly known, as has been argued previously, then there should be no problem finding such a source.

I also removed other stuff about the link being hard to find after his site was redesigned. Pretty much trivia, personal opinion, and again original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To address AussieLegend's argument; Content has to be verifiable, not necessarily cited. This is verifiable so it isn't OR.

Does this mean that if I knew your password, and cited the Wikipedia login page, that would be verifiable information?

How about if I knew a really good way to make cats talk? The reader can try it out and see it works themselves, so it's verifiable and not OR. Right?

Wikipedia does not publish original information that is not published elsewhere by a reliable source. Where has this password been previously published? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being in the citation does not automatically make something OR. The introduction to WP:V states "To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed." Before that though, the opening sentence says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The claim that the site was redesigned in 2009 is not so easy to confirm, although a check of archive.org might reveal that it was. Regardless, that part can go. However, the validity of the the rest is easily verifiable:

• "the magician-exclusive area has been made harder to find," - Bit of a borderline but a visit to the site does confirm that it's not easy to find.
• "but is still accessible." - Well yes it is. This was discussed in November.
• "The clue to the password, which is "tenkai", tells you that the word itself begins with T and is a type of palming trick." - The source most certainly does say that it's a palming trick that starts with "T". The password itself is easily verified by entering the password. Verifying a claim is not OR. If it was, Wikipedia would have no content.

Since everything is verifiable, the claim meets WP:V. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please address my questions above. Just because the reader can "verify" something does not mean it is not obtained through original research. You may not publish on Wikipedia original content not previously published elsewhere. If I have a method of teaching cats to talk, I may not use Wikipedia to publish this fact in the first instance. Even if the reader can immediately find a cat and verify my method. If you have a method of accessing a secure area, you may not use Wikipedia to publish this fact in the first instance. Even if the reader can immediately go to the secure area and verify your method.

A password to a secure area is clearly not "published information" unless someone (and preferably a reliable source someone) has published it. As OR policy states from the very start; "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." So who has published this password?

"has been made harder to find" remains uncited opinion. It also suggests that the purpose of moving it was to make it harder to find. This cannot be shown to be true and certainly isn't citable as fact. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since AussieLegend hasn't responded with a source for this password, demonstrating that it is not original research, I'm removing it for now. Feel free to re-add when a cited. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to add that in addition to the lack of a citation for the magicians only password, no other reasonable encyclopedia would publish such information. It shows bad taste and providing it damages the credibility of wikipedia. In truth, the password isn't exactly difficult for somebody to find out for themselves using Google searches, so there really is no reason for it to be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.218.39 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you should be careful of what you delete. The content that you deleted is cited and the source supports the claim.[2] Removing it as OR is inappropriate. I'm sorry for not responding earlier but I've been fairly busy, both here and in the real world. @Escape Orbit, I thought I already had effectively answered your questions. Regardless of how content is obtained, Wikipedia:Verifiability states that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and this content is easily verifiable, again as already stated. I didn't answer your question on cats because, to be blunt, it's not a very good example at all. If you could do something as significant as teaching cats (or any animal) to talk, it would no doubt be reported by several reliable sources so adding it to Wikipedia wouldn't be a problem. You're correct that you wouldn't be allowed to publish it to Wikipedia in the first instance, but it's so significant an achievement that I have no doubt that you wouldn't publish it here in the first instance, any more than I would publish the fact that I had mastered cold fusion here before trips to the patent and lawyer's offices. Finding a talking cat wouldn't verify your method, it would only verify that a cat could or couldn't talk and again, I doubt you would tell anyone how to teach a cat to talk before you made sure you were going to make a billlion dollars from it. As for the password being to a secure area, it is not a true password. A password is secret but the site gives clues to this password in the obvious hope that people will find it so they can buy merchandise offered by the site. It's more analogous to a guessing competition. As 79.75.218.39 points out, it's not hard to find the password, but you don't need to leave Wikipedia because the answer is right here, easily found simply by looking at Category:Card tricks.

@79.75.218.39 - Wikipedia is not censored. There is no bad taste in providing a link to a site that wants people to visit it so it can sell products. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'm sorry if you didn't like my example. I was hoping to illustrate the folly of your argument by demonstrating how it could be just as easily applied to a ridiculous case. Verifiability does not excuse original research. Both policies apply, it's not either or.

But I thought I'd simplified matters by straight out asking "So who has published this password?" You haven't answered this. As for your analysis of what is an "obvious hope", or what makes a password 'true', can you not see what makes this your personal original research? In your opinion, it is an obvious hope. In your opinion, a password isn't true if a clue is offered. In your opinion, it's more like a guessing completion. In your opinion, the password is easy to find. My reply is; I don't care, that does not matter. It does not matter what may, or may not, be obvious, a true password, or a game. (I would question your conclusions, but my personal take on matters is just as irrelevant as yours). It does not matter how easy it is to find the answer. "Finding the answer" is just another way of saying "research". The fact is this word, whether it is a password, a guessing game answer, or just a sales gimmick, is not published elsewhere in this context, therefore Wikipedia should not be the first to publish it. Please read the previous sentence twice over before replying. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume that AussieLegend doesn't have a reply to my question, so I can remove this original research? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to remove. There hasn't been for a while so I'm not sure what you're going on about. The only content in the article is cited and directly supported by the citation. The content that you wish to remove hasn't been in the article for a week.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you'd reverted it all the way back. Happy to see this resolved and apologise for banging on about it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, that the password can be easily found when searching through Wikipedia, so there is no point in deleting it from that article. Besides, there are a lot of people, that want to learn magic and are good in it, but they don't know the names of certain techniques. Magic should be public. 178.40.61.226 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

TV and stage shows

Created the article List of Derren Brown shows, series and specials which nicely summarises his work, but unsure whether it should somehow be put within main article, or the descriptions of shows moved into it as this section is now far too long and needs a good tidy up.--Cen2s2s (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP

Since my edit summary didn't show up for some reason - the IP address added a period to Milton H. Erickson's middle name, thus correctly linking it to its article. In other news, I wish there were a better way to detect an edit - I took both to Photoshop and made a semi-tranparent layer to find it. :D FlyingToaster 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the revert. I assumed benign vandalism and should have looked closer. Don't see why Wikipedia can't highlight space-edits though. Ralphbk (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it tried a box around all diffs for a while, but changed it back. Not sure where that sort of thing gets discussed. You can edit Special:MyPage/monobook.css to give whatever style you like to the "diffchange" sections; I've edited mine to use a pale red background. --McGeddon (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentalist

I dont know if this word has the same conitations outside of the UK but this article is about a British showman. Can we not think of a different word which means the same thing? To me saying someone is a renowned mentalist congers up ideas of stabbings not psychology.--Prophesy (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what eels have to do with it but this word has been used to describe the practitioners of this profession for hundreds of years. Maybe football hooligans just need to come up with a new slur? If you can let the mentalists be, I'll stay away from your spotted dick. Deal? Xot (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Derren use the word himself? If he intentionally avoids it, and describes his work using an equivalent term, we should follow suit. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although there is little doubt that a large part of what he does is by modern definitions "mentalism", as far as I can tell, he prefers to be called an illusionist based on his website, his BBC News interview of June 24, 2008 and the lengthy interview he gave for Richard Dawkins' "Enemies of Reason". In a New York Times interview from March 26, 2005 he is described as a "psychological illusionist". In other interviews he's been called a magician. He typically describes what he does as a combination of "magic, suggestion, misdirection, psychology, and showmanship". I can't find a single instance where he calls himself a mentalist or allows himself to be called one (nor does he contradict that description, he simply isn't there to refute it), although the sales copy and back cover of "The Derren Brown Lecture by International Magic" DVD does describe some of his work as mentalism. Mentalism can carry some psychic connotations I don't doubt he wishes to avoid (along with some rather unsavory British slang). Xot (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Andy Nyman, Brown's co-writer and director describes himself on his website as a teacher of mentalism. Indeed there's a quote attributed to Brown in a Flash object on that site "Andy Nyman is my favourite Mentalist in the World" - this is pretty clear evidence that both consider mentalist to be the term for what they do. Pbhj (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Derren Brown also refers to mentalists/mentalisms in a Magic Week interview from 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.108.36 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC) At the time of writing, Derren Brown's Twitter page has a background image with the words 'more mentalism at: derrenbrownart.com/blog' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.108.36 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

References

In references, description of link says UTUBE. Youtube is Youtube not Utube. Utube.com videos are different to Youtube.com videos. Lazy times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.48.119 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just fixed this, thanks for pointing it out. It made me laugh too, which is really quite lame... Jozal (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom of crowds

Just in case its needed for future updates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.80.251 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Event

This series of four shows is darrens newest adventure. In the first show he predicted the lottery numbers and told us how he did it taking averages from 24 peoples guesses. Many believe he cheated and tricks were used however its up to you.

It was broadcasted on the 11th september 2009 on channel 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.54.84 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery work and his art?

I am shocked that there's no reference to his excellent work as an artist. http://derrenbrownart.com/index.php Someone willing to work this in as appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.55.227 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Enigma spoilers

"The show includes hypnosis, where Derren attempts to hypnotise the entire audience." The article then says " At the end of the show Derren pleads with audience members...not to reveal the shows secrets and surprises to others so as to avoid spoiling the fun." Surely putting it on Wikipedia is the biggest spoiler ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickAnimi (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! It's a huge spoiler. But what's your point? RaseaC (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't say. I keep trying to delete it, but somehow it always comes back. Either something's going wrong or someone is being stupid and bringing it back, I don't know.

It keeps being put back because there's no reason to remove it. Please refrain from continually reverting the same material, doing so may lead to a ban. Thanks. RaseaC (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that it's a massive spoiler (something you said yourself) count as a reason to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickAnimi (talk • contribs) 12:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No. As an encyclopedia we're expected to cover subjects in detail, and therefore omitting facts has to be properly justified, not just because it may affect someone's enjoyment of a TV programme. By the same logic we would have to re-write the (literally) thousands upon thousands of film articles, and that's just the beginning! See WP:SPOILER for more info. RaseaC (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, problem sorted.--PatrickAnimi (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Password to magicians only area on public wiki page - request for removal

Can the password for the magicians only area be removed from the wiki page? It's there to stop the general public accessing the area. The area is for magicians only, who will know the answer to the password. Providing the password to the general public provides non magicians access to an area they shouldn't be accessing.

The webpage that has been directly linked to is also only available on Derren's site via a button saying "magicians only" which is bypassed by offering the direct link.

I'm new to wiki, so do not know all the policies, but surely providing passwords on an article is breaking some kind of privacy policies?

Grateful for some help and direction on this one. Slingb (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in my last edit summary, and on your talkpage, Wikipedia is not censored. Since the page is publicly available to any magician, and there are no restrictions on who may be a magician, I don't see any reason for removing the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A password is private, and only known to those who should be accessing the area. Therefore there is no need to be providing it in an article. The only people it is being provided to are the ones who should not be accessing the area. The ones who can access the area (magicians) should already know the answer. There are no restrictions on who can be a magician, the question is designed to test whether the user entering is a magician of significant level. Providing the answer on a page fails the whole process? Slingb (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As wiki's own articles on passwords states: "The password should be kept secret from those not allowed access." So unless Wiki can state that all its readers are magicians, then it should be removed Slingb (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A password is not considered to be private when it is known to a large group of people and this password is merely a marketing ploy. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A password is always considered private, that's the very point of it existing. If it were a marketing ploy then the item would be shouted about on his official site, http://derrenbrown.co.uk/dbstore/derren-brown-merchandise/ The wiki article even states that its been moved on his site to be hidden further from the general public, which also indicates that it's only to be accessed by the correct people Slingb (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

If the password were only given out to genuine magicians then it would be private but the password has been chosen so any of the hundreds of thousands/millions of magicians should be able to work it out so it's not private. The air of secrecy, and its supposed availability only to magicians is a common marketing ploy. Restricting an item to a certain group, making it harder to obtain makes an item more desirable and that's what's being done here. It's not really hidden on his site, it's available from an easily accessible page. You just have to work out who he's talking about. Since it's supposedly only available to mahgicians, it's a good guess that the name has something to do with a magician named Eugene. Do a google search and the password is yours.[4] This is really a non-issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we remove this convo? I've emailed the site admins and they say they are dealing with it. Slingb (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained to you on your talk page, we don't remove content once a discussion is over. It's left on the talk page and will be archived eventually. WP:REDACT says you should not edit your comments after they've been replied to. To do so is extremely poor etiquette. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Article length

I thought this article was a tad long, especially going into detailed summaries of all of his works. There should be better use of summary style IMO, in particular for his TV specials. Richard001 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Skeptic

Fails to say what Derren Brown is a skeptic of, so labels him vaguely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.6 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. See the definition at sceptic.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Derren-Brown-And-The-Unreal-Hustle.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Derren-Brown-And-The-Unreal-Hustle.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Portraits

I think we need to add a bit about him as a proper portrait artist as he is no longer only doing caricatures (e.g. his current work in progress of Mr Sheen) . --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Lord Sugar

How is the following mention of Lord Sugar relevant to the article?

The Experiments won a BAFTA for Best Entertainment Programme at the 2012 awards in May 2012. Derren sat behind Lord Sugar in the audience.

Palpalpalpal (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Something Wicked This Way Comes

The title may be the same words as those used in Macbeth, but there's no evidence at all that it's a quote. Much, much more likely to be a reference to the Ray Bradbury story of the same name which deals with a fun fair stage show.

The "direct quote" claim should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.245.228.100 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Much more likely to be a reference to the Bradbury novel. I've changed it, but a cite is still needed to verify that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Darren Brown

To me it's quite obvious that his birth name is Darren Brown. As this is an encyclopedia shouldn't we have the correct information. At least prove that his birth name is Derren Brown. BaldBoris 12:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It may seem probable that his birthname is "Darren" if a source records him performing as "Darren V Brown" at university, but we'd need a reliable source to make that explicit claim. The current article doesn't seem to have any incorrect information - it's not saying that his birthname was definitely "Derren", just that a man known as Derren Brown exists and was born at some point. --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we could use a proper source for "In 1992, he started performing stage hypnosis shows at the University of Bristol under the stage name Darren V. Brown." - the given sources are tv.com merely listing "Darren V Brown" as an "also known as" with no mention of a university performance or it being a stage name, and a TV listings website blog which does not appear to be a reliable source and may (since it post-dates the Darren V Brown sentence being added to the article) simply be a blogger cribbing from Wikipedia for a cranked-out "ten facts about a subject!" post. --McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like the onthebox blog was just a crib of the Daily Mirror ten facts that the article uses as a source elsewhere. Good work on improving the sources, BaldBoris. I think we might still need one for "Victor" being his birth middle name, though - all we seem to have is that he used "Darren Victor Brown" as a stage name, not that it is his actual middle name. --McGeddon (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is a WP:BLP article, I've dropped the claim that "Victor" is his middle name, until a clear source turns up. --McGeddon (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fear and faith?

Why the hell did you delete the new section I created, "Fear and Faith"? I'm sorry but sometimes I feel some of the wiki writers are irremediably stupid, that's why I quit! without any regret... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.31.221 (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As was quite clearly stated in the edit summary, the section was nothing more than a simple announcement of an upcoming program and as such, breached WP:NOTTVGUIDE.[5] Wikpedia is an encyclopaedia, not a television guide. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IQ?

Doe's anyone know Darren's IQ? If so, please write it into the article.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.198.46 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I was thinking about forking the Television, shows and DVD sections into a new article, something like List of works by Derren Brown. They dominate the article, and detract from actually talking about Brown himself. Any objections/suggestions? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the fork, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category removal

I note that several categories were removed yesterday with the edit summary, "per WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID".[6] Neither WP:SPAM or WP:LINKSTOAVOID refer to categories. removed categories included Category:Alumni of the University of Bristol, Category:Laurence Olivier Award winners, Category:People educated at Whitgift School and Category:People from Purley, London. The article says that Brown attended the University of Bristol and Whitgift School, he is from Purley and is a Laurence Olivier Award winner, so all of these cats seem legitimate. The cats were restored,[7] but they were again removed by the original editor, again with the summary "per WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID". The editor removing these cats needs to provide a justifiable reason for removing them before they are removed again. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

real name?

what's his real name? darren? 2.98.148.209 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This came up last year and we couldn't find any sources that stated his birth name - only that he performed as "Darren V Brown" while at university. --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

neuro-linguistic programming

Smk65536 has an issue with this article discussing claims that Brown uses neuro-linguistic programming, on the grounds that it is "psuedo-science". This content should remain because;

• Some people have claimed he uses NLP, some still do.
• Brown considers the claims notable enough to directly addressed them and to deny them.
• This is well sourced in the article.

Whether NLP is "psudedo-science" or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the claims and Brown's response to them. This is not in anyway giving NLP any credence, the article offers no opinion on it either way. If anything, Brown's denial suggests he discounts it as much as anyone else. But that is for the reader to decide, the article shouldn't be leading them one way or another. That it is "psudedo-science" matters not a jot, and is not a reason for removing all mention of it. Wikipedia does not censor discussion of subjects to only being about topics that are acceptable science.

Smk65536 own personal opinion of NLP is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here for editors to offer their own opinions and either remove, or modify, discussion of subjects that they disagree with. So adding POV disparaging adjectives to NLP is equally not appropriate. The neuro-linguistic programming discusses its pros and cons neutrally, so there is no reason for this article to be taking a position on it.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not reading the article correctly, the article asserts NLP can be used, and this takes a position on it. What I did was to state more clearly that NLP is a psuedo-science, to balance the article out. If that is an opinion, then are you saying that the NLP article is a big op ed piece too? 06:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smk65536 (talk • contribs)

No, I am saying that the NLP article is the place to define what it is, not here. Could you indicate where exactly the article asserts that NLP can be used? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"uses NLP" indicates this. Compare this to "uses his clairvoyant powers". Smk65536 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, "Several authors have claimed that Brown uses NLP" could use a better source. It's currently sourced to an editorial in the Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management apparently summarising this paper (which has one sentence about Brown - "Derren Brown succeeded in cueing a leading creative team (director and copywriter) to produce a campaign that he had already previously created through a series of low attention stimuli." - and does not at first glance appear to mention NLP at all) to say that NLP is "used, to some effect, by the popular UK illusionist Derren Brown". This is not "several authors", and seems rather a weak source. Does Brown's book which we're using as a source for the rebuttal say who he's rebutting? --McGeddon (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• On Brown's website he says "I have never claimed to use NLP to achieve my ‘tricks’. On the contrary, I have written very critically about it in Tricks of the Mind.
• "It turns out he doesn’t think much of NLP." - from this interview
• Interview with founder of NLP talks of it "influencing" Brown.
• "Illusionist Derren Brown is also said to use elements of NLP" from same article.
• There are simply too many mentions of NLP in relation to Brown to list here. Google offers thousand like this, or this or here. It is a very common belief that Brown uses it.

What's probably best is that the article focusses more on Brown's rejection of NLP, rather than worrying who says he uses it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mention in Dr Who?

In the 50th Dr special "Day of the Doctor" the members of UNIT mention explaining away something the Dr does as "Derren Brown" and it's implied they've used him as cover for alien activity in the past. Would this be appropriate to add to a "pop culture" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLEPhoto (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't usually like to do this since I'm still quite new and don't really have much authority here, but it doesn't seem like anyone else is going to answer your question.

I found this link about "In popular culture" sections. It says this:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?

3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?

For #1, Derren Brown did tweet about it (I'm not quite sure how to link to just one tweet but the page is here - scroll down to 27 Nov).

For #2, a quick Google search along the lines of "Derren Brown Doctor Who" leads to several relevant articles including:

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/day-doctor-50-loved-didnt.html
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/nov/23/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-episode-10-things-we-learned
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/nov/23/doctor-who-day-fiftieth-anniversary

Personally, I think you should go ahead and add it. Would anyone else like to weigh in?

And on a related point, if a "pop culture"-style section is going to be made, would there be anything else anyone would like to add? Just one quick mention in a Doctor Who episode might make the section seem a bit sparse. Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As it stands I think this qualifies as trivia. It's a passing joke reference in a TV fiction. Not that significant to either the life or career of Brown. If we were to add this then we may as well start a list of other joke references to Brown, which would all be trivia. You'll note that the essay you linked to explains that "In Popular Culture" sections should be about the article subject's impact on popular culture. It is not just an excuse to list meaningless trivia about when and where they have been mentioned elsewhere. So if you want to add this, it would be great if you started out the section on that basis. What has Brown's impact been on popular culture? Is he often mentioned in relation to magic/the unexplained? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the relevant threshold being "IMPACT on popular culture," I'll note that someone else added his brief appearance in the third season opener of "Sherlock" in basically the same capacity his name was used in the Dr. Who episode, which is to explain an impossible trick or occurrence. If this also is happening in other BBC shows then clearly it's a cultural impact issue. JamesG5 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Did Derren Brown actually appear in Dr Who? As I understand it he didn't, where he actually did appear in Sherlock, so it's not the same at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, he didn't appear in Dr. Who. But that's not my point, I wasn't saying the mention there plus the Sherlock cameo would be enough. I'm saying if he becomes the "go to" name for any BBC show any time they need to explain something bizarre then that would show relevant impact on pop culture. I am in the US, so I get limited exposure to BBC programming, I posted that as a "is this happening?" query.  :-) JamesG5 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Although potentially trivial, Derren Brown's appearance (and yes, an appearance, not just a mention) on 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Deal or No Deal was deemed significant enough to be documented on the 8 Out of 10 Cats page. I don't know how much of a part Derren Brown played in Sherlock, but it could potentially be something to mention if we are making a proper "Impact on Popular Culture" section. (The best video of Derren Brown's appearance I could find was this video, unless you want to watch it on 4oD - if I remember correctly, it's right at the start. He also appeared in the advert for the episode, although I can't seem to find a video of that at all.) Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mentioned briefly in the Dr. who 50th anniversary special, The Day of the Doctor, as a cover for the blatant flying of a police box over London. Mulkern, Patrick (24 November 2013). "A Day in the life of Doctor Who: A 50th anniversary review". Radio Times. Retrieved 17 January 2014." (with reference tags around the citation) - This text was removed by AussieLegend from the "Other Appearances" section on the grounds that "A "mention" is not an "appearance"." The way I see it, the section title could be changed ("Impact on Popular Culture" or something along those lines), or the content could remain removed. But it's a fairly large impact (sure, it's just a minor reference, but it was from a massively important episode broadcast live in 94 countries), and it's sourced, so I would personally recommend that it stayed. Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A mere mention is non-notable trivia. Perhaps a filmography table would be more appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way but just wanted to apologies for not checking this page before accepting that edit, I should have done. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Auto-users only can edit?

If I read this right, Brown's page is auto-protected since 2013? Can we please get this removed?Sgerbic (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has pending changes protection due to multiple BLP violations. Anyone can edit the page but edits by IPs or registered accounts who are not autoconfirmed need to be approved by a reviewer. I don't see any reason why this should be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason that we don't apply pending changes to all articles. The burden of proof is on those asserting PC should be used, because the default for a page is "anyone can edit". But moving away from hypotheticals, in the past year I count 3 cases of obvious vandalism, 8 edits by a single user attempting to add gossip into the article, 3 or 4 more unconstructive and possibly poor-intentioned changes and one quick self-revert. I don't know what the standard level of vandalism needed to justify PC is, or whether the silver lock deters any vandals from making poor edits, but IMO roughly one problem edit a month doesn't merit protection. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Darren or Derren?

There seems to be some disagreement on this. I've found a reference quoting him as saying his name is Derren, and will put it in article. The companycheck.co.uk site cited (I've deleted it) doesn't seem to support any name; Companies House doesn't list him for VAUDEVILLE PRODUCTIONS LTD. Maybe a better source (for either form) can be found; but I haven't found anything useful supporting Darren except as a stage name. Pol098 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Derren Brown. 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/20101121152932/http://derrenbrown.co.uk/devilspicturebook2/store.php to http://derrenbrown.co.uk/devilspicturebook2/store.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006124409/http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/10/events-3/ to http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/10/events-3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127172730/http://parrotzoo.com/the-sanctuary/our-patron to http://parrotzoo.com/the-sanctuary/our-patron

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)