Talk:Teller (magician)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Latin Teacher?

I've heard a couple places that before becoming a full-time magician, Teller was a Latin teacher. If this is true, should it be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.12.24.71 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's true. I was one of his students. Should I add it, or would that be considered original research? I could find a written reference to back it up, if needed. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it worth noting?

It is worth noting that Teller did indeed speak on camera during the "Tantric Sex" Episode in season 2 of Bullshit!? His mouth was visibly obscured by a Vagina puppet, but his jaw is clearly moving in time with the puppet's "Speech". Churba 13:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish ancestery

Teller has Jewish ancestery [1] and the Category talk page reached the consensus that such people are included in the category (though Teller is personally an atheist). Makgraf 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaks?

There are like, 20 bullet points in this section - some (like the first) refer to several tv shows or incidents. These are probably detailed and multiplicitous enough to rewrite in paragraph form, are they not? TheHYPO 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why does this have such a complicated name? What's wrong with calling the article Raymond Teller? Penn Jillette doesn't have a complex article name. how do you turn this on 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The info about his single name, and his alleged single-name US passport ... is there any evidence to support this claim? A link to a comedic website is hardly an encyclopedic reference. It sure smells like BS to me. Teller is probably suitably amused that Wikipedia would fall for this hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Teller does look like a Raymond. Everybody Love's Raymond! I finally had the opportunity to find a video on youtbue of Teller speaking. He...um....Raymond sounds like he is originally from Brooklyn or the Bronx! Although, he is from Philly, great town Ray! As far as his personal life concerns...because someone has asked above, that's bullshit. Who cares?!

best known

i removed the following unsupported language and inserted a comma in the first sentence. put it back when you can back it up: " best known as" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.232.13 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Daily Show Appearance

I remember watching this, and when Craig said "Teller, say something!" Teller just muttered (a bleeped) "Shit." If it really was "Fuck you, Craig" we would've still heard the "...you, Craig," but I distinctly remember only the short beep. I don't remember the hand, but I suppose it is possible he did use it, but I do recall it was a very quick exchange. 98.125.51.30 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Reference Teller Having "one of the few US passports that has been issued with a single name"

I work for a U.S. passport issuing authority. Despite what Teller thinks, having passport issued with a single name is not at all uncommon, especially for naturalized Americans from Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.127.130 (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening comment

With partner Jillette, he voiced himself in the 1999 The Simpsons episode "Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder". - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I heard that it wasn't really Teller's voice in that episode, although he is indeed credited. Supposedly this was said by Teller himself, but I don't have a source. Anybody know for certain? - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IMDB both contradicts you and supports you on that one. See the Trivia section here[2]. It looks like Teller probably did a voice on that Simpsons episode, just not the voice for his own character. -- HiEv 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Check this youtube video from about 3:50 for Teller talking(!) about his voice on the The Simpsons episode in question. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Any word on his private life? There's nothing reported anywhere.(This unsigned post was added on 23rd May 2006 from 12.47.15.38 )

How can somebody be a talented atheist? Adambisset 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The same way one can be a talented German, or a talented Catholic.

What possible reason is there to refer to Teller as a "Jewish-American magician"? Wikismile 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

Would it not be appropriate to have some more references to his personal life? I'm under the impression, for example, that he has been in a long term relationship for some time. 4.236.0.10 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always heard that he has been in a long-term relationship, although the tellers always flip-flop on the gender of his other-half. His personal life section is waaaay too scant, but he stays out of the public eye.98.225.230.65 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fictional mute character?

Here's an idea: Could Teller be added to Category:Fictional mute characters? I haven't dug through the entire history to see if it's ever been attempted and rejected. He's not really a mute person since he speaks in real life, but on stage and screen is overwhelmingly mute, and his stage and screen persona is his portrayal of a fictional character. Yea or nay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.192 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

His stage persona is probably equivalent to that of Harpo Marx. His stage silence is a good foil to the highly loquacious Penn Jillette. I think it fits. --TS 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What?

He's dead?


Problem Of Referencing : Currently 'Joseph Teller' when searched on points here to Teller. There is a notable author, Joseph Teller, who writes Suspence/Thriller novels as well (see : http://www.eharlequin.com/author.html?authorid=1766) which a disambiguation might be needed for so that the different authors are not confused. I don't know if the Thriller author has a separate wikipedia entry as yet. (I also share the Teller name but am unrelated to either. [(User:jteller|jteller)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.41.92 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

50

It is hard to believe the 50 figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is cited, that is how it works, things have citations, your belief is entirely irrelevant, as is mine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Teller and his father are both called Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Teller is the son of Edward Teller ?

According to physicist Luboš Motl's "the reference frame" blog, Teller is the son of controversial physicist Edward Teller. See: Edward Teller: 100th birthday.

It is understandable why Teller would want to play this down, but facts are facts (if Wikipedia can verify them). -- 71.162.87.83 (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The Tellers only had two children, Paul and Wendy. Teller the magician is, if this biography is to be believed, of Russian and Cuban descent and only later in life learned he was Jewish; Edward and Mici Teller were both native Hungarians and fled Europe on account of their Jewishness. It doesn't match up. Anyway, I think Motl just got it from Wikipedia, which was vandalized with that information for two days. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Later Note : Teller's father was Joseph Teller, a Painter and Cartoonist, not a Physicist. A Book including his cartoons were published a few years ago by Teller, "When I'm dead all This will be Yours!." ISBN 0-922233-22-5

Also there might be a desire to add a Disambiguation for the name Joseph Teller that links here, as there is also a Joseph Teller who is an ex-Criminal Defense Attorney turned crime adventure novelist (has at least 5 books in print), a Joseph Teller thats a well known Southwestern Ceramics Artist and a different Joseph Teller thats involved in indie roleplaying game designs on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.85 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright lawsuit against Bakardy?

Apparently Teller filled a lawsuit over another magician copying one of his tricks. This should probably get mentioned in the article. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources:

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Craig Owens (entertainer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes

Atheism is not a religion, its a lack of one, so I updated it to say "None" in "Religion" and that links to Atheism. Saying his religion is "Atheism" is a contradiction. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 22:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been reverted for some unknown reason, so I've taken the liberty of changing it back. - Jgamekeeper (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It does seem contradictory but in such cases I've taken the religion field in infoboxes to mean a general set of ideas about religion/god/etc. and not necessarily something more "concrete" such as, for example, what country/state a person is born in. So while "none" may seem more correct to you two, it seems misleading to me. It's not that he doesn't even think about religion/god/etc. It's that he's thought about it and identifies as atheist. Dismas|(talk) 06:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: (Re: Your reversion of |religion=None (Atheism)) I read that thread originally. I see no consensus. This is why I compromised with "None (Atheism)". It resolves the ambiguity between "no religion" and "something, just not what some people define as a religion". I think the parameter might better be something like "Belief system", but I think most people understand that it's not meant to be rigorously interpreted (by whatever standard). His atheism is featured prominently in the prose and sourced – it's reasonable to put it in the Infobox. |religion= is currently the only solution. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC). Edited —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is bald a hairstyle? Is being a vegetarian a favourite meat? Atheism is not a religion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were keeping it "Religion = none" or removing the Religion entry, with "Religion = Atheist", "Religion = None (Atheist)" etc. a close third.
"Bald" is not a hair color, "off" is not a television channel, and "vacuum" is not a kind of gas. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: As I said, and you seem to agree, there is no consensus in that long thread. Reasonable arguments can be made, depending on the meaning of "religion", how rigorous a definition we're supposed to use with it, what readers think it means, and how rigorous they expect the contents to be.
According to religion, "36% are not religious, including 13% who are atheists". So, how do we differentiate atheists from the 23% who are non-religious and non-atheist? It certainly makes sense to interpret |religion=none as non-religious. What value do we use for atheists, then?
The subject identifies as atheist, and it's prominent (implying importance) in the lede. The Infobox should summarize important info from the article. If not |religion=, where should it go? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for your edit, and no consensus to change the page the way you want to. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's because this page has only 91 watchers. If we both go out and canvass, we'll get the same arguments again. Meanwhile, we still don't have a solution to represent the data accurately. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think that suggesting we canvass is a good idea at all. Religion = none is just fine, he does not have one, this is freaking pointless. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Teller identifying as an atheist, nobody here has the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It is the claim that atheism is a religion that everyone is objecting to.
Regarding representing the data accurately, "Atheist", while correct, is incomplete. Yes, Teller rejects all theistic religions. But he also rejects all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs (See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list). Atheism just skims the surface of Teller's unbelief. "Religion = none" represents the data accurately.
Regarding consensus, there is no consensus for Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" here, there is no consensus for Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on any other page on Wikipedia, there was no consensus for Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" at WP:MOS, and any WP:RFC anyone posts anywhere on Wikipedia will, without a doubt, result in a finding of "no consensus."
Nor will anyone ever get consensus for adding "Hair Color = Bald", "Television Channel = Off" "Wind speed = Total Vacuum" "Birth Date = Banana", or any other entry that cause a significant number of readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date..." Even if Lady Gaga decides to list Banana as her birth date, we will cover that in the main article, where there is room for nuance and explanation, not in the infobox, where we put concise summaries of non-disputed material. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

  1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
  2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up the last time here on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We already have a discussion going with you at Talk:Penn & Teller, why not continue the discussion there? That said, "Religion: None (atheist)" isn't saying that atheism is a religion. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion concerns this edit and this revert. Neither happened on Talk:Penn & Teller. Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, They need to be discussed on the talk page of the article where they happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that you are doing those removals in many articles, and you didn't respond to my assertion on Talk:Penn & Teller that the removals don't have to be made. I saw that as sharing my views, but now of a sudden you are doing it again, and still have not responded. --Distelfinck (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph?

Where is the source? The wayback gives no mention of Joseph or Josef. (Nor of Raymond).
[Edit] I found a source for Raymond: His lawsuit against a dutch magician פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Its probably a mistake because of the book (by "Teller") about his father, with a picture of Teller and his father,
and the book cover has (take a look for yourself)
When I'm dead all *this* will be yours
Joe Teller
Actually the father's signature under the father's picture.
Just to clarify: An Ashkenazi Jew, which he no doubt is (I mean descendant of, please lets not argue on the point of him being "Jewish" or not when he was born) don't call their kids by their own names. If his grandfather or uncle was not alive when he was born (and if he went through Cuba all chances are his grandfathers and uncles were either persecuted horrifically by the Germans during the holocaust or by the Russian communists during and between both wars) his father would give him a (Jewish) name in order to remember that man. Most Jewish men in the US have a "Jewish" name given at circumcision, and used only at Jewish ceremonials, and a different English name used officially, and in common life.
I have a friend who's surname is Berkowitz. They live in Israel and use the Jewish name, so decided to enjoy the official "English" name. Their kid's passports have: Berkowitz Berkowitz - as in what's your name? Berkowitz. Berkowitz what? Berkowitz Berkowitz. And 'Just' - as in what's your name? Berkowitz. Berkowitz what? Just Berkowitz. and then one young man whos name is Charles Danger Berkowitz. As in: My middle name is danger. (you can look him up, he's a scientist today)
So bottom line: Raymond is probably correct (if someone can show the source) but Josef or Joseph is extremely doubtful. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, there's a source for the J. - a show by Penn and Teller called "The death of Raymond J. Teller". So Judah (Yehuda), Jacob (Yaacov), Jonah, or Jonathan? (the last two are less common) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a citation for "The death of Raymond J. Teller"?
From [ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/penn-teller-lawsuit-reveal-secrets-youtube-312296 ]"
"The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in federal court in Nevada, where Penn & Teller live and perform. Teller sues as "Teller, an individual" in the lawsuit and doesn't give his full name, though records attached to the complaint break some of the mystery by showing the action was brought by Raymond Teller."
Sources that mention "Raymond Joseph Teller", none of them convincing:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/penn-and-teller-star-raymond-teller-sues-magician-over-rights-to-magic-trick-7648105.html
http://video.tvguide.com/Penn+Fraser+Jillette+and+Raymond+Joseph+Teller/BS+Penn++Teller/2466360
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/teller-penn-teller-fame-suing-alleged-magic-trick-180913886.html
htSPAMtp://www.examSPAMiner.com/article/top-10-things-you-might-not-know-about-teller (Triggers Wikipedia's spam filter: do not cite)
I strongly suspect that this is just an echo chamber - everyone using that middle name because everyone else does. I still have not seen a reliable source for the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
And in the PnT BS Hair episode they say "We share many things in common. We're both circumcised. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

His middle name was indeed Joseph, before he got his name legally changed to the mononym. (original research (I knew him before then) but could get a reference if it were really important). 98.14.15.215 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-noteable speaking

During the "Penn and Teller" magic act, Teller typically does not speak; it's part of the act. On a few very rare occasions, he has spoken during the act, and I suppose that the Wikipedia obsession with minutiae makes it inevitable that every such instance has to me mentioned here, even though it's not necessarily noteworthy. But outside the context of the act, he speaks, and it's not noteworthy. Listing every case where he appeared on a talk show is a complete waste of Wikipedia space. It's not noteworthy in any way. Maybe the fact that he speaks outside the act could be summarized in a single sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B002:6421:F5B7:B0E3:38FA:6CEE (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

More Speaking

There was another History Channel or Discovery Channel special on magic where Teller spoke. He wasn't backlit and was clearly shown while describing a magic trick (card trick I think). I just assumed since he was being interviewed for a documentary, was not performing, and was sans Penn Jillette, that he went along and told the documentarian what he wanted to know.

Unfortunately, I don't have the name of this special. It's not the documentary listed because, like I said, he was shown, and it even stated his name "Teller" underneath him.--Tim Thomason 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure if I’m writing this in the correct spot as I’ve never written in the talk area before but did want to add that I saw Penn&Teller in Las Vegas at the RIO hotel, after the show both Penn and Teller came out to the entrance area to sign autographs and take pictures, I actually had a full conversation with Teller, he took photos with everyone and spoke with each person he was so nice and personable. I wanted to add this in the main article but couldn’t come up with the correct phrasing so if someone else would like to do it on my behalf that would be fine. I truly apologize if I am not meant to be writing this here. If anyone feels it is necessary to delete this I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CB70:3B70:64FB:815B:B065:8A05 (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Named what?

"...and they became a three-person act with Chrisemer called Asparagus Valley Cultural Society"...

So, they called Chrisemer "Asparagus Valley Cultural Society", but what did they call the act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Voice

Given things like TELLER SPEAKS I think the time has come to nuke the huge list of examples of Teller speaking and simply say that he is only silent when he is working as part of the Penn & Teller magic act. In fact, I cannot find a single example of him refusing to speak when the larger, louder Gillette isn't there to speak for him. What say you? 02:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:702F:16ED:FF7F:4066 (talk)

Teller birth name removal attempts

Below is some text that could be copied-and-pasted to the user talk page of anyone who tries to remove Teller's birth name from this article. Do the copy from edit mode so as to preserve the wikilinks (but don't include my signature in the copy).

NOTE: There have been periodic attempts to remove Teller's birth name from Teller (magician) and Penn & Teller. Unless you can provide reliable published sources that show that "Teller" was Teller's name at birth, these edits will be regarded as disruptive and could result in blocks of the associated IP addresses and Wikipedia accounts. No Wikipedia article states or implies that "Raymond Joseph Teller" is Teller's name now, legal or otherwise. If you wish to discuss this with other Wikipedia editors, please do so at the talk page for Teller's article, which is here. Thank you.

‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see this until after I made my most recent edits (apologies for that), but it looks like the Manual of Style/Biography has changed over the last decade. It currently states "In some cases, a subject may have changed their full name at some point after birth. In these cases, the birth name may be given in the lead as well, if relevant." Bolding mine.
"Relevant" with no further context is pretty subjective, so I applied the context from the section on gender identity, which currently states "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page".
Gender identity is not the issue here, but notability seems like sensible context for the term "relevant" in the general rule about name changes.
Teller has been going by "Teller" socially and professionally since at least 1975, by all accounts that I've seen. He is identified as "Teller" in early reviews of the Asparagus Valley Cultural Society. https://twitter.com/pennjillette/status/1597731975124901888/photo/1
A New Yorker article from 1989 states that he was already using "Teller" in the Othmar Schoeck days. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/05/15/a-couple-of-eccentric-guys
The only document I've seen with his birth name on it is a yearbook picture (purportedly from 1974), which was obviously taken in the context of his teaching position and not related to his magic career in any way.
He was never publicly notable under his birth name. In the sentence that used to display the name, the two sources currently cited (which were there before my edit) don't even state what his birth name was, only that he legally changed it to Teller.
I have seen no evidence to justify his birth name being "relevant" by any definition. ‑‑Thereisnojoyinmudville 03:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Relevancy is subjective by definition. Who are you to decide whether it's relevant or not? 50.34.60.76 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
"It's subjective" doesn't mean you're automatically right either. You and I are equally qualified and equally unqualified. That's why this is a discussion page.
By all means, provide sources which support the position that his birth name is relevant. I've provided multiple which support the position that it isn't.
Here's yet another one. https://www.phillymag.com/news/2009/04/29/exit-interview-teller/
"It’s just irritating. When I was at Central, we all called each other by our last names. I became Teller to all my friends. So when I went into show business 35 years ago, I simply legalized that."
He's been legally Teller since the start of his public career. ‑‑Thereisnojoyinmudville 06:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, MOS:GENDERID does not apply here. Including birth names for transgender people is not something we can assume is "neutral" by default specifically because of deadnaming, which is a common form of harassment. The same doesn't apply by default to any case of someone known under a name other than their birth name (e.g. Cher).
If Teller has expressed privacy concerns about having his full name online I support removing it here. If he hasn't, there seems to be no reason to assume that this is a privacy issue (unless I'm missing something). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand that MOS:GENDERID does not apply. I was only using the notability prerequisite as possible context for the term "relevant" in the general name change policy.
I acknowledge that we're unlikely to progress past a stalemate while Wikipedia's own rules are still vague and unconsolidated on this. Perhaps a functional compromise for now would be to keep the birthname in the lead, but also include the following text somewhere in the article:
In episode 909 of the podcast Penn's Sunday School (published May 7th 2023), Penn Jillette referred to Teller's birth name as his deadname. He also made reference to the occasional "interviewer or person who has read Wikipedia, [who] will go to the first name as an attempt at familiarity. [...] It fails."
This would at least serve to clarify that Teller's deadname is a deadname, not an innocuous fun fact, since there's evidently some confusion on that front. I'm guessing a secondhand report of strangers bothering him about it doesn't constitute a privacy concern that would warrant full omission of the name, but the clarity at least seems warranted since Wikipedia is being specifically cited as a source where people find, and subsequently misuse, his deadname.
I am not trying to start an edit war, apologies if I'm coming off that way. I am trying to be respectful to Teller, within the parameters of Wikipedia's policies. Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
...Just to clarify, Dylnuge, I am not referring to you when I say "there's evidently some confusion." I don't know if Teller or anyone close to him had ever publicly referred to his birth name as explicitly a deadname until two days ago. I was referring to the "not an innocuous fun fact" part of my own sentence, since people have been bringing it up in interviews for years despite the fact that it bothers him.
(That's not me reading into things, he called it irritating.)
Your point about deadnaming being a common form of harassment against trans people is solid. Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
That he doesn't now want to be referred to by his birth name doesn't mean we shouldn't mention his birth name. I really don't know where you get this idea. As you said, it's not a GENDERID thing; and Penn's comment isn't relevant at all. That it "irritates" him isn't relevant either. There's a big difference between the denial of essential identity that GENDERID is protecting against, and the styling of one's name that Teller has chosen. One is "don't assault my very being by using an identity I have chosen to walk away from"; the other is "I really prefer to use my stage name." --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
That he doesn't now want to be referred to by his birth name
"Now" is misleading. He's been Teller for decades.
"When I was at Central" almost certainly refers to Central High School, which would mean he started using the name socially as a teenager.
Legally it's more hazy, since the copyright on Shadows declares "Teller" a pseudonym for his birth name. I just want to acknowledge that before somebody else brings it up, because I had in fact not seen it when I made my earlier comment about the yearbook.
I would still argue the copyright can be found and understood just as easily without prior knowledge of his birth name, and does not constitute a work being "published under" the name since it is always presented publicly by Teller as Teller, and so does not add encyclopedic relevance to the birth name. The full title listed in the copyright database is "Shadows / by Teller." I found it in said database by searching "Teller" in the name field, and "Shadows" in the title field.
The copyright was registered in 1983, and lists the date of creation as 1976. Off the top of my head this could either mean he didn't finalize a legal name change until sometime during or after 1983 (this is often a complicated, time-consuming, and expensive process), or that the "pseudonym" note was included to clarify historical drafts/correspondence/etc.
"I really prefer to use my stage name."
"Stage name" is also misleading. If you want to call it a "preferred name" up to the unknown exact moment that he legally changed it, I could see the argument for that, but it's not a stage name any more than "Penn Jillette" is. It's his name.
the denial of essential identity / using an identity I have chosen to walk away from
That's a huge assumption to make about every single person who does not specifically and publicly identify as transgender or nonbinary. All people have the capacity for a complex relationship with their own name, past name(s), and identity.
Certainly transphobia plays a huge role in this experience for transgender/nonbinary people, but the entire experience itself is not unique to us.
I really don't know where you get this idea.
I see now that Wikipedia's own definition of "deadnames" and "deadnaming" is exclusive to transgender and nonbinary people. That is not a universally accepted limitation, though I understand the reasoning. I apologize for any confusion based on the way I've been using the terms.
What I mean by "deadname" is: A name that one has deliberately stopped using to identify oneself, and actively wishes to not be identified with by others, for personal reasons. There will always be obvious exceptions such as filing taxes under a legal deadname, maintaining safety around people who would not accept the new name, etc. Distinct from a former or usually-omitted name that a person has no strong feelings about, such as (in most but not all cases) a maiden name or current middle name.
What I mean by "deadnaming" is: Using a person's deadname against their wishes, in a context where this is not necessary to credit them for past work, identify them as the perpetrator of a crime, or otherwise clear up genuine confusion about who the person is.
Deliberately deadnaming a known or assumed transgender/nonbinary person is obviously a form of harassment with a lot of transphobia behind it, in terms of both motivation and impact. I'm well aware of this from firsthand experience.
Deliberately deadnaming a known or assumed cisgender person is still harassment, just without the element of (direct) transphobia.
However: None of that is my justification for my initial edit. It's obviously part of my motive, but I was following Wikipedia's policies as I understood them in the moment. I still think Teller's birth name is irrelevant by Wikipedia's own standards, but there's clearly a lot more room for interpretation than I initially thought.
Which is why I am instead suggesting the compromise of including the birth name until/unless the policies change in a way that makes it more explicitly irrelevant, while also including a clarifying citation. I initially suggested the Penn's Sunday School example because it's the most recent, and includes the most explicit terminology, but Teller's own words on the subject should also be included.
It seems the continued "relevance" of Teller's birth name at this point is a self-perpetuating issue largely created by interviewers and article writers who think it's relevant because they've seen it in other interviews and articles. Penn Jillette has now pointed directly to Wikipedia as part of that feedback loop. A clarification would at least give people the opportunity to evaluate the full situation before deciding whether or not to include the name in their work after finding it here.
Consider the following, and help whittle it down to the most relevant details? I know I'm bad at getting to the point.
In a 2009 interview with Philadelphia Magazine, when asked if his birth name was a sensitive issue, Teller stated "It's just irritating. When I was at Central, we all called each other by our last names. I became Teller to all my friends. So when I went into show business 35 years ago, I simply legalized that." He further expressed that the interviewer should not include his birth name in the article. The interviewer appended a note to the finished article stating that his editor insisted on mentioning the name.
In episode 909 of the podcast Penn's Sunday School (published May 7th 2023), Penn Jillette referred to Teller's birth name as his deadname. He also made reference to the occasional "interviewer or person who has read Wikipedia, [who] will go to the first name as an attempt at familiarity. [...] It fails."
First source: https://www.phillymag.com/news/2009/04/29/exit-interview-teller/
Second source: https://www.stitcher.com/show/penns-sunday-school/episode/ok-so-if-you-want-somebody-good-302943388
Some of the details already present in the article could probably be omitted if we do this, to keep the name issue from taking up a disproportionate amount of space. Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Semantics of the term deadname aside ([22], [23]), I support removing the name from the article as a BLP privacy consideration. Teller's birth name is neither essential information for the article nor is the exclusion of it a neutrality issue (e.g. it's not something like a crime or controversy where the subject's desire to have it removed holds no weight). Just because it's known doesn't mean we need to mention it here. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm sorry for going about this the wrong way. I'm a bit new to active wiki editing and I'm sure I breached some etiquette. Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
What "privacy violation"? Does he try to hide it? Or would he rather just be referred to by it? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
From above, "He further expressed that the interviewer should not include his birth name in the article" implies to me an interest in not having the name published. I said privacy consideration, and stand by that phrasing. If it had any material impact on the article it'd be different but as is, I don't believe that excluding the birth name of an individual never notable under that name harms the encyclopedic value of the article. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jpgordon @Thereisnojoyinmudville It doesn't seem like this discussion is ongoing (and it stems off a comment from 2014, so I suspect few people are going to notice it), nor is there a clear consensus to keep or remove the name. How do y'all feel about an RfC (or lighter proposal) to get wider input for a consensus here? Proposed neutral wording on a question: "Should Teller (magician) include Teller's birth name in the article?" Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm on board with an RfC or something like it. Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dylnuge apologies I forgot to tag you Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Thereisnojoyinmudville, @Jpgordon, and @50.34.60.76: I have opened an RfC on this below to attempt to gain wider consensus. This is intended as a notification to all editors involved the recent discussion, with no specific selection bias based on the opinions expressed (or not expressed) above. Also, this is my first time opening an RfC, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Use of Teller's Birth Name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result = Full name should remain - FlightTime (open channel) 22:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

{{rfc}} Per the above discussion, I am opening an RfC to gather consensus on the topic of including Teller's full birth name in this article. Note the current version of the article (at the time of RfC opening) includes the full birth name of Teller.

Should Teller (magician) include the full birth name of Teller in the article?

Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • No, Teller's full name should be removed from the article as an extension of WP:BLPPRIVACY. Teller has expressed a preference that his full name not be mentioned in published articles (e.g. [24]) and exclusively uses his current legal name of Teller. There is no evidence that Teller was ever notable under his full birth name, so his birth name is not required to provide essential information about the subject, nor do I see any neutrality issues that would be introduced by excluding it. This is not a gender identity issue but I see no reason not to extend the same courtesy of privacy to cisgendered persons who are not notable under their birth names and request they be omitted. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. MOS:DEADNAME is specifically about TG/NB people, and is not generalizable, or it would not be written specifcally about TG/NB people, and have been subject to months and months of recurrent debate about the particular socio-pyschological rationales that apply uniquely to that LGBT+ segement. Teller's full name is a matter of frequent enough public record to include it encyclopedically, even if WP does not "refer" to Teller by that name otherwise. People do not have a generalizable right to completely obscure their origins.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. There are no WP:BLPPRIVACY issues. There's protection of his schtick, and that's about it. We won't call him anything but Teller, but there's no reason to conceal something as obviously available as his birth name. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. There is no evidence that Teller has a desire that Wikipedia should not display his name (and even if he did as, as stated above People do not have a generalizable right to completely obscure their origins), and it's relevant as a commonly asked question about a notable figure. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes because privacy on Wikipedia is a matter of protection as opposed to preference. If there is no threat of harm or injury to the individual for providing information that is already freely available to the public, then it frankly doesn't matter what they would prefer. I'm sure there are a lot of weird articles on here about a lot of embarrassing things that people would prefer the world did not know about, but c'est la vie... Huggums537 (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) I do want to add to my comment that if the name was not already freely available to the public, then I would have voted no because I am for protecting privacy when it is possible, but if it is already "out in the wild", then there isn't much hope for that anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes It seems that they simply prefer their name to not be mentioned, rather than it being an actual concern - whether over gender identity or something similar. Their real name is mentioned enough publically to be included within the article. Deauthorized. (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes — it should be included along with his middle name, which is in the source you linked to. His full birth name has been widely reported throughout the years from 1986, Raymond Joseph Teller to 2023, Raymond Joseph Teller.— Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes How is this any different from Cher or Madonna - or for that matter Whistler or countless other artists known mainly by a single name. Wikipedia is a matter of protection as opposed to preference per Huggums537 and there is no indication that this is inherently 'private' info. Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Seems almost unnecessary to include another yes because everyone has already given good reasons. This doesn't seem like a privacy concern given that the information is widely available. I'll also mention that his full name at birth is inherently a notable and relevant piece of information. When a celebrity goes by a mononym, that in itself creates curiosity about their birth name and makes that name worth mentioning if there aren't reasonable privacy concerns. Pillowcrow (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the information accurate? Then it belongs here. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teller_(magician)/Archive_1&oldid=1180831602"