Talk:Out of This World (card trick)

message: There is much discussion of this topic on some magician's BBS sites.  I happen to be someone who enjoys doing card tricks and one who enjoys watching them and sometimes even inventing them.  I do like the idea that an online resource can make some information about magic available to all who seek and also have some qualms about having the "how to" made readily available.
First, it seems odd to discuss the "how to" of a thing in a resource which is dedicated to the "what is" of things.  It seems sensible to offer a description of the trick as seen by the audience, perhaps some about it history, of which magic has a good five hundred plus years of published history, and maybe even a link to a place where one might obtain the methodology.  Such a separation of the "what" from the "how" would likely satisfy most readers and also the magic community.  Just as one does not expect to find a "how to" lesson in "c" language programming when looking up the language, or to find a lesson on how to pilot a 747 lesson when looking up the airplane, it seems surprising to find the how to of magic tricks discussed in these entries.
Second and on a more technical level magic tricks offer the audience an experience unlike the other performing arts in that the very sensation of magic is a perception dependent upon NOT knowing what it is that makes the trick work.  This has to do with a dimension of experience unlike what one enjoys in a play or movie, where one can freely associate with a character and invest oneself in the drama to explore the basic human experience.  The experience of magic is like groping in the dark as contrasted with looking in a room with the lights on.  From a cognitive standpoint there is an almost palpable, and most likely measurable difference in the inner experience due to such knowledge.  Current research in actual brain activity seems to be supporting the hypothesis that how we experience a thing depends upon what we know of the thing.  
I am not going to argue against stating that OOTW is a card trick or describing the basic effect or its invention by Paul Curry or even offering a link to a magic shop where one might purchase the manuscript.  I am asking that we consider how the discussion of "how to" does more than merely spoil a surprise but actually offers a perspective which removes the option of experiencing the performed piece as it was intended to be enjoyed.  By way of parallel construction, consider an entry on Shakespeare's play "Hamlet".  It would be a spoiler of sorts to say that Hamlet and his family all die by the end of the play.  It would be a completely different sort of spoiler to describe the play as a tragedy of denial where the young prince destroys his family before being willing to consider that his mother married his father for the kingdom all the while being in love with the King's brother, whom she finally convinces to kill his own brother.  In the former we are left with the option to experience the play as intended and explore the drama as it unfolds.  In the latter "spoiler" the work explained in a way that removes all mystery from the drama and leaves only the inevitable tragedy to frustrate the audience.  I ask that we leave the "decoding" or the "how to" of magic tricks off the "what is" Wikipedia entries so we can enjoy the works as intended and with them the feeling of mystery that they were designed to offer audiences.
*Note to moderators: I was not sure where these arguments belonged in this page and ask only that they be put into appropriate context in this discussion.   Thanks - Jonathan Townsend 
This is a marketed effect. Exposure doesn't belong here. You are causing harm to certain entertainers and their ability to make a living. Certain of the exposures here are infringing on commercial products.
:Yes, the exposure belongs here. See arguments on other talk pages.  — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
The arguments used to support the exposure of this commercial and copyrighted routine are illogical and duplicitous.  The author claims that "rather than stating the explicit method by which the trick is performed, only the basic principle behind its operation will be described".  This is patently false.  The 'basic principle' behind this trick would be : The trick is performed by using a pre-arranged deck".  The explicit method to the trick is revealed, the trick can be performed with this information.
If I am describing the amputation of a leg, the 'basic principle' is : "a leg is removed with a saw or other device, and the resulting wound repaired".  If I describe the 'basic principle' in terms of : "A no. 12 scalpel is used to make an incision 2 inches below the knee, the skin is then retracted..." etc etc", what I am describing is the explicit method to perform an amputation.
 
If the author, or indeed Wikipedia, is concerned with controversy or potential copyright infringements - this entry should be edited and "The Secret" amended.
:There is such a thing as a patent. Yes, it involves revealing the method, but it also recognizes a process or a product as intellectual property (I think). You might want to check that out, if it worries you so much.  — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
::Magical routines are NOT copyrighted; only accounts of them are.  — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:47 (UTC) 
::: God forbid we move past what we can legally "get away with" and what is ethically/morally right for the art of magic and today's society. Stop hiding behind a loophole in IP law.--MacGyver07 2 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)
::::It is not a loophole. When copyright law was devised, magicians were already performing. The wording of various treaties were well-considered. This is was an intended effect. David Remahl 10:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A patent means that a method for doing something is made _public_. It is not restricted by copyright and may be dealt with freely. Implementing, selling or otherwise using the invention may violate the patent. Describing the method does not. David Remahl 10:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "how to" issues 

message: Copyright a magic trick? I think what you meant to say was "Patent right". Copyright protects published works - literary, scientific, and anything tangible, from being uncontrollably reproduced.
When you wish to protect a technique for your own personal use, so you can feed your family and pay the rent, you must file a _patent_ with the US. patent office.    A patent restricts the usage of an invention (i.e. a unique, unprecedented idea) to one person. 
There is a problem inherent with patenting magic tricks since you must publicize the information and make it freely accessible ( 35 U.S.C. Sect 10) Unless it's a national security issue (sect 181)-- and the patent must eventually expire in 14 or 20 years (sects 173, 156 - I think...). Second: since secrecy is essential to magic, the origins of any Magic tricks are hard to discover - making claims of inventor-ship difficult. Magic tricks often fall under the _novelty_ clause of patent law which denies patents to inventions which were "known or used by others in this country" (35 U.S.C. Sect 102). Trade secrets that are shared and used among an entire industry make it ineligible for protection under the law. Ultimately, the only protection you have against blabbermouths is via unofficial means (oaths of secrecy, appeals to ethics and morality, mafia retaliations etc.). You cannot claim any legal protection. 
Refer to U.S.C. consolidated laws here CONSOLIDATED PATENT LAWS - United States Code Title 35 - Patents. It's a very readable explanation of patent law. Also Wikipedia patent article is pretty clean explanation. P.S. I'm not a lawyer. And, I can't speak about a magic trick has been patented out side of the US. If anybody knows - I'd be interested in how that works. And - there just might be magic tricks that ARE patented (note the article's incorrect use of the word "copyright"). If anyone knows any please also let me know. Finally for the guy who claims this is patented: this trick may very well be patented: please cite the pat. number for me - I'm interested. Seriously, not being facetious 
Let me say this again. With force and clarity for those who missed it.  A patent protects others from using your invention. It does not keep it secret. Indeed, when you patent a magic trick, you must publicize the mechanics of how it works. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patens," past participle of "patere" which means "to be open". That is, you must "lay open" your invention. A visit to the U.S. Patent office shows how this works The patent for the Ipod user interface--Muchosucko 3 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
===Comments===
**So what is happening here then? A magic creation is an realised expression, just as a dance choreography. It can be documented, just as a musical piece. The traditional way of referring to the covert choreography in a creation is referred to as a magic method, but that term has nothing to do with the kind of "method" or "process" that copyright doesn't accept. You can't patent or copyright the action "turning 90 degrees while lifting the right arm", but you can copyright the choreographic sequence in which that action occurs. So, try to perform the actions in Curry's piece in a different order then, and you'll soon notice that this specific and unique sequence is inherently tied to Curry's creation. Paul Curry's creation is a documented, tangible and realised expression of him - still it is uncontrollably reproduced? If people are going to steal like this, do that then, but please don't claim that it is in accordance with the spirit of the copyright concept. Call it a theft, because that is what it is, and be done with it. The covert choreography in a magic creation is just not expliably defined in copyright yet, just as dance choreography and other things once wasn't. See bitlaw-page for examples that copyright still evolves --TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are trying to confusing the issue by throwing in irrelevant words. If I copyright a musical piece, someone can publish whatever they want about acoustics, how a piano works, the principle of pressing down the fingers on the keyboard etc. But they can not publish things unique to this particular composition; the sequence and order of the notes. The same with a dance choreography. It is misleading to claim that it is legal to take someones realised expression of art in this field - because the legality of it is still undefined. That will be changed with time, and is it a stretch to assume that it then will follow the spirit of how other forms of art is treated? Do you think that any copyright law ever will state "in this partcular form of art, a creator has no right to be attached to his realised expressions of art"?--TStone 08:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear: publish the trick's: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle - I agree to all that, but that isn't what is published here. What is published here is Paul Curry's covert choreography for his creation. That you try to call his choreography a lot of things it is not, does not make it so. Had it been a "process", "system" etc. - then it would have been possible to patent it. Please point out the things in Curry's choreography that you belive were possible to patent. If you don't succeed, then it is clearly wrong to use those words in this context --TStone 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to tutor you in the law. Most of your arguments are straw men that you set up to slay. You clearly misunderstand or pretend to misunderstand the law. I am sorry for that. You can re-read this section again.--Muchosucko 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to tutor me in anything. But you are using words that simply doesn't apply. By law you can patent things that are: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle. By applying those specific words on Paul Curry's realised expression of art, you clearly imply that it should have been possible to patent the creation. That is a rather interesting and provoking suggestion, which you are most welcome to expand on. Feel free to point out what, in Curry's creation, would have been possible to patent. I can not find a single thing, but since you are so certain, I would be most grateful to have it pointed out --TStone 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point the conversation has devolved into a terrible mishmash stew of words. I am sorry, I simply do not have the time (surprisingly) to work through the baby steps for you. I hope you can acheive some level of understanding of the law to quell your concern. Ignorance is not bliss. I know I come of as arrogant here, but I don't know what else I can do. I am so sorry. --Muchosucko 10:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that I'm ignorant, but I know that much of the law to know that I'm not covered or protected by it. And the terrible mishmash stew of words to use legal words like "process, method of operation, principle.." on things not defined by those words is hardly something I can be accused of. --TStone 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the comparison with dance choreography is more because that form of art once was in the same legal void as magic choreography, then the law was changed. Meaning, the law evolves, and comparison with how dance choreography became legally defined might provide insight in how the next evolution might turn out.--TStone 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making up legal cases as you go along. Please.--Muchosucko 10:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely don't understand what you mean. I'm not making legal cases, just describing a reality and making observations. Is it so unreasonable to assume that if magic ever gets defined by I.P Laws, it will probably follow the same spirit as in the other fields? Agreed, that is an assumtion, but fail to understand why that idea makes you upset. --TStone 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And once again you mistake the issue here. It has nothing to do with "secrets". Any creator within any artistic field wants his material to be known, and in this field too. Don't confuse a creator's wishes for the "secrets-hoarding" phase that most beginners go through.(A magic book in a library is usually written by a magic creator who want to have his material known, and quite often that book is stolen by a beginner who belives he has the right to decide that the material shouldn't become known) Anyone experienced in the field know that "secrets" are irrelevant. We are forced to secretcy because the lack of protection of our work, quite against our will. Because there is nothing that stop anyone from stripping my name from my work, misrepresenting the work itself, and republish my work under his own name. So, what remains, when that is how a creator's work is treated? "Secrets" are irrelevant to me. But having my name attached to my creations is essential. Now tell me, what is your suggestion? How can I ensure that my name doesn't get stripped from my creations? As soon as a good answer is found, I and most of my collegues would happily give away our creations to anyone who are interested.--TStone 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to reply to all the criticism raised to my points. But I give up. You win. I don't know what you've won, but you certainly deserve it.--Muchosucko 10:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :-) Point is that all talk about the law is irrelevant in this area. People should not talk about copyright, because that law does not exist here. Patents do not exist either. Had a magic effect been a "process", "method of operation" etc. then it would have been possible to patent it. It isn't possible to patent something like "Out of this World", therefore it can not be a "process", "method of operation" etc. To use words like that to justify taking other peoples creations is dishonest on more than one level. The field is open, and there is absolutely nothing at all that prevent anyone to take anything and do whatever with it. I can't stop it, and I don't even try... but to act as if it was honest, or justified, or permitted by "law".. that is just insulting. Just steal the stuff, if it makes you happy, and if anyone accuses you, you can just answer: "Yeah, I stole it, and there's nothing you can do about it." And you will be correct --TStone 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK whatever. --Muchosucko 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish that was true, but in this field it is not..yet.--TStone 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous claims about copyright

message: **So what is happening here then? A magic creation is an realised expression, just as a dance choreography. It can be documented, just as a musical piece. The traditional way of referring to the covert choreography in a creation is referred to as a magic method, but that term has nothing to do with the kind of "method" or "process" that copyright doesn't accept. You can't patent or copyright the action "turning 90 degrees while lifting the right arm", but you can copyright the choreographic sequence in which that action occurs. So, try to perform the actions in Curry's piece in a different order then, and you'll soon notice that this specific and unique sequence is inherently tied to Curry's creation. Paul Curry's creation is a documented, tangible and realised expression of him - still it is uncontrollably reproduced? If people are going to steal like this, do that then, but please don't claim that it is in accordance with the spirit of the copyright concept. Call it a theft, because that is what it is, and be done with it. The covert choreography in a magic creation is just not expliably defined in copyright yet, just as dance choreography and other things once wasn't. See bitlaw-page for examples that copyright still evolves --TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are trying to confusing the issue by throwing in irrelevant words. If I copyright a musical piece, someone can publish whatever they want about acoustics, how a piano works, the principle of pressing down the fingers on the keyboard etc. But they can not publish things unique to this particular composition; the sequence and order of the notes. The same with a dance choreography. It is misleading to claim that it is legal to take someones realised expression of art in this field - because the legality of it is still undefined. That will be changed with time, and is it a stretch to assume that it then will follow the spirit of how other forms of art is treated? Do you think that any copyright law ever will state "in this partcular form of art, a creator has no right to be attached to his realised expressions of art"?--TStone 08:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear: publish the trick's: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle - I agree to all that, but that isn't what is published here. What is published here is Paul Curry's covert choreography for his creation. That you try to call his choreography a lot of things it is not, does not make it so. Had it been a "process", "system" etc. - then it would have been possible to patent it. Please point out the things in Curry's choreography that you belive were possible to patent. If you don't succeed, then it is clearly wrong to use those words in this context --TStone 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to tutor you in the law. Most of your arguments are straw men that you set up to slay. You clearly misunderstand or pretend to misunderstand the law. I am sorry for that. You can re-read this section again.--Muchosucko 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to tutor me in anything. But you are using words that simply doesn't apply. By law you can patent things that are: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle. By applying those specific words on Paul Curry's realised expression of art, you clearly imply that it should have been possible to patent the creation. That is a rather interesting and provoking suggestion, which you are most welcome to expand on. Feel free to point out what, in Curry's creation, would have been possible to patent. I can not find a single thing, but since you are so certain, I would be most grateful to have it pointed out --TStone 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point the conversation has devolved into a terrible mishmash stew of words. I am sorry, I simply do not have the time (surprisingly) to work through the baby steps for you. I hope you can acheive some level of understanding of the law to quell your concern. Ignorance is not bliss. I know I come of as arrogant here, but I don't know what else I can do. I am so sorry. --Muchosucko 10:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that I'm ignorant, but I know that much of the law to know that I'm not covered or protected by it. And the terrible mishmash stew of words to use legal words like "process, method of operation, principle.." on things not defined by those words is hardly something I can be accused of. --TStone 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: **It is strange how good the ones who condones thefts are at reading the law texts. This has nothing to do with "secrets" - it has to do with a creator's right to his creation. When and if a creation end up in the Public Domain should be the creator's choice, not the one's who want to take it from him. The realised artistic expression of someone falls under copyright, not under patent. That covert choreography in a magic creation isn't defined in copyright, while dance choreography is, is a flaw in the law. It means just the theft of someones work in this field is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright, because it is undefined. Talking about copyright in this context, like that law had relevance, is currently misleading. There is no laws, just ordinary ethics. And by those ethics: Taking an creators' realised expression of art against that artists will is not something that should be condoned. I call it stealing, and so should you. "Secrets" or no "secrets" has nothing to do with it. Has Curry's family given you permission to publish his creation here, then it has no relevance what any secrets-hoarding amateur magician might think. Without permission of the Curry estate, then it's theft to publish it here.--TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the comparison with dance choreography is more because that form of art once was in the same legal void as magic choreography, then the law was changed. Meaning, the law evolves, and comparison with how dance choreography became legally defined might provide insight in how the next evolution might turn out.--TStone 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making up legal cases as you go along. Please.--Muchosucko 10:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely don't understand what you mean. I'm not making legal cases, just describing a reality and making observations. Is it so unreasonable to assume that if magic ever gets defined by I.P Laws, it will probably follow the same spirit as in the other fields? Agreed, that is an assumtion, but fail to understand why that idea makes you upset. --TStone 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And once again you mistake the issue here. It has nothing to do with "secrets". Any creator within any artistic field wants his material to be known, and in this field too. Don't confuse a creator's wishes for the "secrets-hoarding" phase that most beginners go through.(A magic book in a library is usually written by a magic creator who want to have his material known, and quite often that book is stolen by a beginner who belives he has the right to decide that the material shouldn't become known) Anyone experienced in the field know that "secrets" are irrelevant. We are forced to secretcy because the lack of protection of our work, quite against our will. Because there is nothing that stop anyone from stripping my name from my work, misrepresenting the work itself, and republish my work under his own name. So, what remains, when that is how a creator's work is treated? "Secrets" are irrelevant to me. But having my name attached to my creations is essential. Now tell me, what is your suggestion? How can I ensure that my name doesn't get stripped from my creations? As soon as a good answer is found, I and most of my collegues would happily give away our creations to anyone who are interested.--TStone 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to reply to all the criticism raised to my points. But I give up. You win. I don't know what you've won, but you certainly deserve it.--Muchosucko 10:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :-) Point is that all talk about the law is irrelevant in this area. People should not talk about copyright, because that law does not exist here. Patents do not exist either. Had a magic effect been a "process", "method of operation" etc. then it would have been possible to patent it. It isn't possible to patent something like "Out of this World", therefore it can not be a "process", "method of operation" etc. To use words like that to justify taking other peoples creations is dishonest on more than one level. The field is open, and there is absolutely nothing at all that prevent anyone to take anything and do whatever with it. I can't stop it, and I don't even try... but to act as if it was honest, or justified, or permitted by "law".. that is just insulting. Just steal the stuff, if it makes you happy, and if anyone accuses you, you can just answer: "Yeah, I stole it, and there's nothing you can do about it." And you will be correct --TStone 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK whatever. --Muchosucko 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments 2

message: **No - you try to patent a dance choreography instead. If you believe that you can succeed, then you can tell magicians to patent their works. You are trying to confuse the issue. Patent is for scientific discoveries, manufacturing methods, new principles - not for realised expressions of an artistic work.--TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that was true, but in this field it is not..yet.--TStone 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments 3

message: When it comes to revelation of magic methods, I suggest that Wikipedia adapt the standards that are used by the respected publishers of magic technical litterature around the world. Those are the people who on a regular basis has to decide what is ethical to reveal, and have evolved a set of rules that are quite clear and simple to follow.
I'm a publisher of magic litterature myself, and I can contact Hermetic Press, L & L Publishing, Kaufman and Company and then put together some kind of guideline for the Wikipedia that are in agreement with the industry standard. If this is interesting, where should I post it? --TStone 14:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you think we should take advice on what to include from people who have a vested financial interest in us not revealing information?  We're not that stupid. -- Middenface 15:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've never met you, so I can't comment on the last remark. But what would Hermetic Press gain from preventing you from describing information published by Kaufman and Company? These companies are not opposed to the publishing of magic methods. As long as it is done in a proper fashion. I've put together a proposal here:Policy for magic methods --TStone 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry standard and praxis 

message: The article King levitation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King levitation.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  related deletion discussion 

message: The discussion on whether or not any copyright violation has occurred is all well and dandy, but the article itself does not actually explain the trick, rendering this entire discussion, as well as the vandals' and anti-vandals' energies, useless (where this particular trick is concerned, anyway). It describes that you have a deck that is half black and half red, so if you deal cards from the top you get black cards first and then red cards. All this makes perfect sense but the spectator gets to choose which pile the cards go onto. So either the spectator needs to be manipulated to choose just black cards in the first half, or the deck needs to be manipulated to suit the choices of the spectator, neither of which is explained in the article.
I went through the history of this article to see if an older version explained this so I could edit the article to explain the trick better, but after 15 minutes of clicking and clicking and more clicking, I decided to just look at the oldest versions. I found that the current explanation is the first one offered, and all of the edits made are either grammar/spelling fixes or vandalism reverts. Can anyone please explain the trick in here so I can edit, or edit the page themselves? Thanks in advance... --Toon 22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could check the references.  Oh wait, there aren't any!  Why are people fighting so hard to protect a page that doesn't even have any verifiable references?  WP:NOR  Kleg 22:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you feel it needs references, why don't you include any? It's just as much your responsibility as it is other people's. If I knew where to look for references I might try to find them, so I could improve the quality of this article. Sarcasm isn't improving anything in this case, or for that matter, in any case. Furthermore, I hope you realize that what you're saying means that it's okay to commit vandalism to a page if it doesn't include verifiable references. --Toon 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So how *does* the trick work? 

message: THIS CARD TRICK, DEVELOPED BY MY FATHER, MUST NOT BE SPOILED LIKE THIS ON THE INTERNET, AND CAN BE PURCHASED FROM A GOOD BOOKSHOP. PLEASE DO NOT WRECK IT. MANY THANKS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.161.193 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, but why must I buy it? If dad did an exceptional job describing the method (i.e. a good author) I might consider it, but this article reads pretty well. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... must not be spoiled... 

message: I have removed the method from the article as it is unsourced.  This is following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure.  If the method can be properly sourced, then it can be re-added. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method removed 

message: The source of the Winston Churchill link may well be the book Magician's Magic By Paul Curry, Julio Granda and Martin Gardner ().  Chapter 13, The Mind Reels, describes an occasion where a magician named Harry Green showed the trick to Churchill during World War 2.  There is a section of the text on Google Books at . Back in the 1980s, Paul Daniels performed the trick on BBC television with Vera Lynn and repeated the story of the link with Winston Churchill.  
Also, there are quite a few videos relating to Out of This World on YouTube, but I am saying nothing about how it is done. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Winston Churchill

message: Should the article give the method? There was a lot of debate about this, but nowadays it is not difficult for anyone with access to the Internet to find out the method behind the trick.  Wikipedia should reflect this, although there may well be future attempts at removing the method from the article. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, today has seen a rash of edits removing the method from the article. Anyone with access to YouTube can find videos explaining the secret, eg  and .  That's the way it is, although there is a more modern version of the effect, described at , known as "New World."  There have also been numerous books describing Paul Curry's method. It is understandable that some people can get annoyed when they see magic trick secrets revealed, but the genie is already out of the bottle for the Paul Curry version. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  For some time consensus has been that WP:NOTCENSORED applies to magic tricks. If there is a reliable, published source (Youtube probably doesn't count) then the method should be summarized and referenced. APL (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How it's done (again)