Talk:International Brotherhood of Magicians

This article was nominated for deletion on January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magic

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagicWikipedia:WikiProject MagicTemplate:WikiProject MagicMagic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fact check[edit]

Some of the recent info is outrageously wrong. IBM is a pretty established institution; it was NOT founded in 1992. I've seen references to famous old magicians 50 years ago performing at IBM conventions and so forth. This info should be corrected. --C S (Talk) 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference (book or article) with the information, and we'll get it updated, thanks. Elonka 20:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple enough to check that something's wrong: in [1] you can see that the Hollywood Ring 21 was chartered in 1938. As I said, IBM is an old organization. Well, anyway, I'm adding some citation needed tags to the relevant info, as I can't find the info in the provided external link to the IBM homepage and I don't have very much time researching this. --C S (Talk) 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for doubling the 9 instead of the 2. The IBM was established in 1922. I have fixed and cited. If there were things other than the year that you consider outrageously wrong, please list them. Dgcuff

Thanks a lot! Nice job on all the work. I was in a rush when I wrote the above, but it doesn't seem like the other info is wrong, so I have no complaints :-) It seems you have also been logged out when you made some of your edits. You might want to make sure to check the box that says "remember me" when you log in. --C S (Talk) 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look under the History section.....what does "latterly" mean? If someone doesn't offer a solid definition for that word, I'm going to change it. Buddpaul 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word "latterly". Buddpaul 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One difference I tried to introduce, but which subsequent revisions have removed, is the difference between the number of active rings and the number of rings in total. If this article merely repeats the total number of rings then this source is duplicating another, and of course that material should be removed from here. What is the best way to make the point that the claims of number of rings and number of members are exaggerated on the official IBM website? It may not be possible to suggest an alternate number without indulging in original research. DGCuff

Jep Hostetler[edit]

Can some Wiki-god take a good look at Jep Hostetler and explain to me why it redirects here instead of to a page for his name?? Buddpaul 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Jep Hostetler article. Before it was redirected, there really wasn't much there, just a single line saying that he used to be President of the IBM.[2]. As such, the admins really had two choices: Delete it, or redirect it. Redirecting seems to have been the kinder of the two options. If you feel that he's sufficient notable to meet Wikipedia's Guidelines for Inclusion (WP:BIO), the article can be easily enough re-established. Otherwise, it's probably best to just mention his name here at the IBM article. --El on ka 23:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rings article[edit]

By-the-by, I really 'DO NOT think Rings (local IBM clubs) should be merged here....let's leave it right where/how it is. Buddpaul 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft?[edit]

Some unnamed person decided to call the list of IBM Rings "listcruft"......I'm not going to be too sensitive about that......what do others think? I think a basic list adds to the article......although we also have Rings (IBM clubs) to fall back on.Bddmagic (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, Rings (local IBM clubs).Bddmagic (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to learn about IBM and found that the list of rings did not expand my knowledge in any way. The same can be said for the lengthy list of ex-presidents. Please build out the article with useful info -- it can stand on its own legs without being filled out with useless lists. Also, I see that Rings (local I.B.M. clubs) has recently been created, which essentially clones the useless list in this article. I propose that Rings (local I.B.M. clubs) be converted to a redirect to an appropriate section within this article. Redirect created. Lambtron (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims there are more than 300 rings. Does it make sense to list them all here? Lambtron (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have overhauled the article to improve its organisation, focus and clarity. Lengthly lists of non-notable past presidents and rings (with external links) have been removed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM, and remaining content has been cleaned up. Please forgive me if I've stepped on your hard work in the process -- no malice intended. Lambtron (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]