Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
For example, Davod Copperfiled's "Flying" work with a complicated series of magnets placed about the stage and under his clothes.
Doesn't work, I'm afraid. And it is something that is difficult to defend if one prefer to edit under a true name.
It's more practical to do proper editing. For example, if Copperfield isn't the originator of the Flying illusion, then it is proper editing to remove such exposures from his entry, and move the existing text (unmodified) to the entry of the originator.
The entry of the originator should then be filled with correct biographical data.
Then, if the correct originator has not published his work - then the exposure probably is a theory by someone else (like William Poundstone), and then it is proper editing to move the core bits of that theory the the originator of the theory.
Or... if the true originator has not published his work, and there is no source given for the posted exposure, then the exposure should be considered "original research" and should be deleted according to Wikipedias own rules.
It's possible to make the existing exposures less "attractive" by doing proper and correct editing, which is rather easy to defend and motivate.
Don't add anything to the exposure, but move it to proper places and surround it with correct info about the people involved.. then it is more likely to stay.
After a while, the exposures can be made less accessible by modifying the language used. Parts can be splitted up into their own entries (which is also filled with biographical data) etc.
That is, still functional for people doing research, but less accessible for casual readers.
I myself follow the procedure:
A: Add a correct fact
B: Move something to a more proper place.
C: Delete or change something which is badly written, wrong or can be called "original research".
...once you are considered an expert in the area you are editing, it becomes easier to do more radical edits and have them stick.