 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Does anybody out there think we ought mention that escapology is not a science? And that magicains hate being thought of as scientists because they have a higher calling, which is show business. This is a very nice article. Has it been conected to a sexual fetish page yet? You know straitjacket links here don't you? Two16 21:55 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
I dunno about the above, but I have a question about
Did he win the prize for this book, or a different one? It's ambiguous. Tokerboy
Chabon did indeed win the prize for this book. --TonyW 22:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flagging this article for cleanup - not for a lack of information or verve, just a whole lot of sloppy grammar/punctuation and what I think is an overly conversational tone for a reference article. --Hob 06:11, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
Also, the Techniques section seems to be essentially a how-to in terms of keeping people bound up. Pvodenski 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19-Oct-2007: The wording currently (under the Techniques section) is a balance, between techniques for binding and escaping, not just "keeping people bound" but both. I've written actual "how-to" articles (see: WikiHow), and such articles have many more details than the "Escapology" article techniques (which wouldn't qualify as "how-to" steps), so I think the perspective now is, correctly, an encyclopedic ("en-compassing") view of binding/escaping. Thanks to the other editors, who edited this article into the current balanced viewpoint. -Wikid77 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A careful reading of this article reveals that it's referencing is very harem-scarem......particularly some of the "Escapology in Ficion" bits......some need to be properly referenced. Other thoughts/opinions?? Buddpaul (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Escapology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you pardon my f*** french, this sections looks like bullsh*t to me. Can anyone with real illusionism / stage magic background have a check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.57.20 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
