Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

WP:UNDUE

The inclusion of every step of the FBI investigation in the "Rape and assault investigation" gives the section Undue weight to charges that have not been proven in court. This section needs to be summarized down to a few paragraphs. Wikipedia is an encyclpedia, not a police investiation documentary. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel the section gives the minimum info required to get a clear idea of what has transpired and what is being investigated. This investigation, should it result in charges and a trial, has the potential of ending Copperfield's career, so I absolutely do not think we are giving undue weight. In addtion, the info is all well cited from major sources. Copperfield cancelled tours because of the situation, so it is HUGE in his life. Anyone know when he last performed? ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• apologies to those I hit in mid-air during editing

This section did appear to disproportionately long; I've trimmed it down, avoiding duplication of information and renamed the sub-heading to be more general.

Ratel: you mentioned that my attempts at triming may have introduced errors, what were these errors? If you can list each one, then I (or yourself) can correct those individual issues.

Ratel again, in specific regard to adding addition {{cn}} tags, I would rather being extremely careful (this is an ongoing, alleged and unproven case). The wording is something that needs to be taken extremely carefully and in a way that is free of Weasel Words, as this is a Biography of a Living Person. Once again, thank you for edits; I would appreciate your assistance in locating any errors introduced as I suspect it is going to be much easier to keep a short-and-simple text accurate than it is to keep a longer one. (Omitting information is perfectly fine as the references are there should readers need more than a synopsis, and if the details aren't linked, then we shouldn't have them in the first place). —Sladen (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See section below. Your 2008 date addition was incorrect, for starters, and your refactoring of some of the comments to shorten the section was unnecessary too since I had already removed half of the section after comments by Pen of Doom. ► RATEL ◄ 01:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I think "edit war" may be a little strong—nine edits to a section vs. two edits (comprising one trim, with an adjustment).

I think your edits were very useful in bringing down the size to five paragraphs; hopefully the three-paragraph version that I (attempted) was shorter still, with the intention of being more encyclopedic in nature (avoiding current tense) and attempting to write in a style that will also remain historically accurate. if read in the future and regardless of any outcome from the incident.

You specifically have mentioned that the date "2008" is wrong; the incident occurred in July 2007. I believe this means that there are three possibilities for the year:

1. 2007
2. 2007–2008
3. 2008

If the investigate is current then it is one of the last two possibilities. Stating "2008" must be accurate (if the investigation is current) and "2007–2008" may be accurate. Would switching to "2007–2008" be an improvement?

Are there any further errors that may have been introduced? I would like to address those as well, so that the facts can be trimmed down to the bare minimum to provide a good synopsis. —Sladen (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FBI Investigation

This is my edit. Please poke holes in it here and we can decide on what errors, if any, exist rather than edit warring.

FBI investigation

David Copperfield is under investigation by a Seattle federal grand jury on allegations of rape, assault and attempting to bribe a witness. Copperfield’s accuser, a 21-year-old Seattle woman, alleges that she was raped and assaulted by Copperfield while alone with him on his private island in the Bahamas in late July, 2007. She also alleges that Copperfield threatened her, telling her she'd better keep quiet, before escorting her onto a plane.

The young woman took photos of the crime scene with her cell phone and did not bathe so as to retain DNA evidence. She went directly to a hospital on her return to Seattle and a rape kit was assembled. A federal source has confirmed that some of her clothing was taken into evidence.

Agents from Seattle's FBI office worked with the woman to put together a "sting" operation in which the woman e-mailed Copperfield, and arranged for her to fly to Las Vegas for a face-to-face meeting, during which Copperfield allegedly offered her a $2 million bribe if she'd drop her rape charge against him. The FBI then raided Copperfield's warehouse, during which the FBI allegedly seized a computer hard drive, a digital camera system and US$2 million in cash.

Other women are apparently claiming Copperfield uses his shows to target pretty women and try to pick them up

Copperfield later issued a statement through his attorney denying all allegations of misconduct. The investigation is ongoing.

---

Discussion

I'll try to provide a brief overview of how I believe this text could be improved; most of which I attempted to use as reasoning for the edits I tried.

1. The sub-heading is long and dramatic in nature. I tried to chose an accurate, but short and non-emotive title. (eg. Bahamas incident).
2. Ideally the text should not date; this can be solved by providing the year that the legal situation occurred (during 2008). And writing in the past tense.
3. The subject of the article should be referred to by their surname after the first mention in the article (just Copperfield) per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names.
4. To provide balance, it is important to provide Copperfield's statement on the incident in the first paragraph. The rest of the section than then be held by the user as being unproven.
5. Duplication; bribing a witness is what the "sting operation" and raid appears to be in relation (the only firm facts known and not alleged(?)). Introduce bribery first and remove initial duplicate of rape and threatening behaviour to second line so that this appear in connection with the women.
6. Factual statement; "A xyz-year-old women was" provides the details and removes the unnecessary and emotive "accuser"; in a historical context, at then end of the process the women will either have been raped, or deemed to have lied. We can cover either eventuality by sticking to what is known.
7. "young woman' is unnecessary, young is relative and the age has already been described accurately;
8. "crime scene" is emotive and biased. We do not have further details, beyond an implied location being somewhere on Copperfield's private island on the Bahamas. As detailed information is not covered of the locations taken in the photographs is not covered, there is no need to say anything further than simply "photographs were taken by xyz".
9. "photos" is an abbreviation and can be spelt out in full as "photographs".
10. The woman's actions upon returning to the US are more informative, this can be placed before the details of extra actions she may have taken. Her actions at the hospital and mention of "rape kit" would be better leading into details of photographs and showers.
11. Phrases such as "A federal source" goes against Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words; the sentence does not add much. A rape investigation will (generally) include what evidence is available, clothing and DNA being common ones.
12. The sentence introducing the sting operation is somewhat long-winded and can be trimmed down to just the facts "A sting operation was arranged" (details are [hopefully] in the linked sources for anyone requiring them).
13. How the women travelled (car, plane, train, bicycle), and how a meeting was engineered (email, phone, fax, several) is not as important as the meeting and the police raid that followed.
14. Impounded items. Only the $2US cash tied in with the meeting, the rest of the details are not directly linked the meeting and US$2m bribe being a possibility. They can be culled in the interests of brevity.
15. The location of the FBI operatives performing the sting and raid is less important than the location of the meeting (which isn't have important and could be dropped aswell).
16. "Other women" are weasel words again. In appropriate and unencyclopedic. Whilst I did not come up with a way to remove the words complicated, I did tag as the details of the women needing further clarifying.
17. "An investigation is ongoing" does not define a timeline and will date in the future, this can be avoided by stating a specific time period (a year/year range) when introducing the incident.

This is my thought process now, hopefully it is similar enough to my previous thought-process and edit that you may be able to understand the thinking behind most of the trimming. Further ideas did of course come to me after trying a similar set of edits and I did a further small follow-up. I hope this is useful. Note that this version differs from the version I initially copy-edited as we both saw the need to remove excess information such as "$50million dollar home".

—Sladen (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your stated aim of contracting this issue to the "bare minimum" is not an aim of the encyclopaedia, so what is your justification for that goal beyond undue weight, which no longer applies at just a few paras?

1. This is an investigation, not an incident. We can shorten it to FBI investigation if you like.
2. Change tense as required. I have not looked at that issue. Also add current event template.
3. As to all the other points you raise, most of which I agree with, I suggest you place your edit below so we can see what you mean. ► RATEL ◄ 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Yes, I agree and I think that FBI investigation would be an improvement over the current sub-heading title. Perhaps you could jump in and apply the change if you're happy with your suggestion.

Just a side a note about the {{current event}} template; this is designed to warn editors of concurrent edits and not designed for events that are merely "in-progress" or happening at a slower rate. There is help information in the template about how it is designed to be used. A related template that may interest you is {{inuse}}. The {{inuse}} template is best placed at the top of an article if one editor is intending to make a sequence of changes and wishes to warn other editors to backoff for a short while. Normally editors make one or two changes in a row before allowing other editors to respond. By using {{inuse}}, any misunderstanding about what is an "edit-war" and what is normal incremental improvement could be avoided.

In regard to your third query, the last version of this article/section that I edited[1] builds on most of the thoughts suggested above. One improvement that I note you have included, as of your latest revision, and which I would want to see remain incorporated, is to clarify what the bribe was requesting in return (dropping of charges).

I am hopeful that you would be willing to spend a similar level of time and energy in accurately setting out (and in a similar level of detail) any inaccuracies that you feel may have been introduced by this revision, as it stood. (Per the edit summary "[..] edit contains errors and [..] adding cn tags unnecessarily" the changes must have been reviewed by yourself on two separate occasions, before taking a balanced decision (on both occasions) that it was safer to revert than allow this new revision to stand).

My appreciations for your continued involvement and keeping in touch, —Sladen (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The other error is that you state he is under investigation for bribery, whereas he is under investigation on all ground mentioned. Other points: I think sentences like "Copperfield had issued a statement" are clumsy. Let's not get carried away with the pluperfect tense. And the inclusion of tags is lazy if you can find the details out yourself by looking at the sources, so do that rather than placing tags. We aren't here to critique each other, but to help make a better encyclopedia, not so?► RATEL ◄ 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. You requested some detailed feedback on your wording, something that I spent forty-five minutes providing. I would hope that if any contributor is reverting something on the basis of non-truth, that they will be prepared to expand (with specificity) why they believe it is untrue, particularly given the available references. Remember that WP:VERIFY wins over truth.

Tags are not lazy, they enabled me to copy-edit the available information without a large risk from introducing new material within the same edit.

As I understand it, Copperfield is

1. under investigation for bribery at the moment
2. and that the year is 2008.

So we're up to two "errors", neither of which ...are errors? I am keen to confirm this before I start (trying) to re-apply the changes (per your expressed agreement "As to all the other points you raise, most of which I agree with". I do not wish end up hitting further knee-jerk reverts, mistaken for edit-waring. As you said "[we are here] to help make a better encyclopedia".

I would appreciate if you could remove the {{current event}} yourself (or agree that you are happy for this to be done by another editors), on the basis that it does not match the guidelines for its use.

The reason that originally promoted heavy trimming of the section was that of undue weight (I hope the rest is merely good practice). When User:TheRedPenOfDoom raised the concern, the section covering the allegations was six (6) paragraphs. It is now five (5) paragraphs. I suspect that at five paragraphs, this still counts as being more than "just a few paras" and the concern than TheRedPenOfDoom raised is still a valid one.

I would like to try to try similar copyedits again (perhaps with an alternative phrasing for "Copperfield had issued a statement"). Are you happy with this? —Sladen (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. No, he is not under investigation for bribery ONLY as your phrasing implies, and the case started in 2007, not 2008. I'm finding you obtuse and difficult to collaborate with. I'll attempt one more edit of the section. I ask you not to "sprinkle" {[when}} tags throughout without making any attempt to ascertain the facts yourself from the sources. ► RATEL ◄ 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(The word only does not occur in either your edits, or mine). On Wikipedia if ones reverts with an edit summary taking discussion to the Talk: page, then it is assumed that one wishes to participate in discussion.

I think, that to suggest avoiding inline-clarification templates within sensitive article text is misguided.

It is faster (and less tiring) to keep the edits in the article history. I would much prefer to do this—but it does rely on not performing knee-jerk reverts, and certainly not ones with claimed flawed reasoning. I shall assume that such reverts will not happen in the future. Thank you, lets make a useful and to the point article together. —Sladen (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the end, your tweaks to my edit look fine. I'm sorry that you feel my objections were knee-jerk reactions and that I am not willing to participate in discussion (a point belied by my extensive writings on this page), but I assure you that the items I didn't like were definitely causing errors in understanding to readers. You didn't agree perhaps because it's difficult to see how your own work affects others. And thank you for doing some research on the passage instead of just using templates. The final version looks good.:) ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed a section in the FBI Investigation section because the source of the material came from the National Enquirer, which we all know is a tabloid, and tabloids are unreliable sources in nature. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable Sources, in the section for "Biographies of Living Persons", it clearly recommends editors to "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person" TheMagicOfDC (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Where do you find the National Enquirer listed as non-RS? ► RATEL ◄ 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please post a request on WP:RSN regarding whether or not National Enquirer is a reliable source in the context mentioned above. If the consensus there is that NE is reliable for this context, you can include appropriate material in the article. In the meantime, contentious material that is referenced by a source not yet shown to be reliable must be removed per WP:BLP. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus I've read is that the National Enquirer is not considered reliable. Whether it is or not it is a single source and this gives Weight concerns. This is a BLP in an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. Current events are not encyclopedic and should only be covered in the most basic neutral detail in line with BLP (if at all). Given the controversial nature of the allegations I believe extra care should be taken. If this is to be included at all it should say something along the lines of "allegations have been made, these have been denied and it is under investigation". To add contentious wording and detail would appear to violate both the spirit of BLP and Neutrality. Source quality is not the only consideration here. BLP is quite clear it the posting or restoring editors responsibilty to demonstrate compliance with ALL Wikipedian polices. The section should be removed from the article pending consensus. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel did post at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Enquirer, with clear consensus (except Ratel) that it is not a reliable source. The Enquirer is not a reliable source - even in a regular article, much less a BLP. Mishlai (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I am not sure where in our descriptions of what we consider reliable sources that it says personal web pages linked from Copperfield's web page are reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What could be more reliable on the issue of the subject's parents than the subject himself? Copperfield is involved with the rememberhy.com website. This is a different issue to reliable sources where a contentious question is involved. There are numerous BLP pages where the subject's own website/s are cited as reliable in the context. ► RATEL ◄ 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP#Reliable sources where it states : "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article " ► RATEL ◄ 02:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And the subject of this article is - Daniel Peres? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me help you here a little, because you are very confused. Daniel Peres (Editor in Chief, Details Magazine) wrote a piece about Hy that was used on that site. If you look at the subject's personal website http://www.dcopperfield.com/ you'll note that the graphics from the rememberhy.com site are an integral part of the home page of the http://www.dcopperfield.com/ site. Do I need to explain more, or are you catching up to us yet? ► RATEL ◄ 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing a Details article itself would be a perfectly acceptable Reliable source in most cases (sometimes editorials and suchlike would require individal evaluation). And David's own site is valid as you described above, but just because something is linked from a reliable source does not make that new site a reliable source, no matter how many graphic images are duplicated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What fact sourced from the remeberhy website are you disputing? Editors usually only object to the reliability of citations when something controversial is being claimed. What is being claimed here that you find controversial? ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} The phrase: "Copperfield's New York-born father Hyman Kotkin owned and operated a men's haberdashery in Metuchen, called Korby's" is backed by what appears to be a not reliable source and should be re-sourced or removed. Also the placement of the rememberly site as a reference any where in the article should be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Find something productive to do here; this is not helpful to WP. I can find at least one other confirmatory source for Ky Kotkin as a mens' clothing store owner. Can you? Have you tried to double check that fact? Or are you simply wasting my time here? ► RATEL ◄ 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:V-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm out of this. I've shown you that the rememberhy site has DC's full imprimatur (witness the graphic on his home page). If you have any further problems understanding this I hope other editors will help you out, because I've had it up to here. ► RATEL ◄ 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There wasnt much response at the RS Noticeboard, but the one that came in does not seem to support your position [2] -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Material from National Enquirer

This is the material printed in the Enquirer and not specifically refuted by Copperfield thus far. The material encompasses 1) extra details about the allegedly raped woman's account of the circumstances of the rape, as reported by her friend and 2) details about Copperfield's "secret" children. The material was reprinted in numerous sources, referencing the Enquirer. The Reliable Sources noticeboard seems to come down against the Enquirer as a reliable source, although most of the opinions seem to be based on the paper's format (tabloid) rather than a reputation for inventing stories. Certainly, the stuff on Copperfield's secret children, which contains a statement from the mother's lawyer, and features a property owned by Copperfield, and was not refuted by Copperfield (AFAIK), looks to be true. I put this material here for inclusion at a future date when more sources are available. ► RATEL ◄ 03:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[ redacted WP:BLP ]

Children

[ redacted WP:BLP ]

Comment My suggestion is that this material not be included in the article (and, in fact, be removed from the talk page as well) whatever the truth may be. The fact that Mr. Copperfield has not denied it doesn't mean much and the sources are all far from reliable. If, at some point, all this is verified, then we can add it in. But, in the meantime, I see no pressing encyclopedic reason to include this controversial information.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. My view in general is that content such as rape allegations (where there has not been a conviction) should always be considered from the view that a person is innocent until proven guilty in line with the spirit of BLP policy - considering "harm" in these cases. With regard to the Enquirer as a source it would seem to be a "celebrity" focused tabloid with a sensationalist stance. I don't believe that this in itself invalidates it as source but I personally would be reticent about accepting it as a valid source without significant independent corroboration. The other sources listed do not seem, in and of themselves, to be sufficiently reliable without corroboration and in the absence of that should probably be removed from here as well.

Having now looked at the article I also have WP:WEIGHT concerns regarding:

[ redacted WP:BLP ]

TMZ.com reported that other women have claimed that Copperfield uses his shows to target attractive women.[15][16]

I'd suggest that the bold text is considered for removal. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. You're saying that information about the fact that these events occurred be censored from wikipedia? Do you realise that the rape allegations are under grand jury investigation and this fact was printed in the Seattle Times, Fox News, Daily Mail, People Magazine, and many more? ► RATEL ◄ 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BLP and note especially the parts about it being necessary to remove poorly sourced contentious material entirely from BLP articles and talk pages? Collect (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Try grasping the fact that these details are extremely well sourced. Do some research on the issues before commenting. ► RATEL ◄ 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

TMZ.com? Not RS. National Enquirer? Not RS. "Exceedingly well-sourced"? Beyond dubious. Collect (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, in no way am I suggesting censorship! I'm simply pointing out that as it stands I'd think it sufficient to say "allegations have been made, they've been denied and they're under investigation" with citations and minimal detail. I think this is the neutral point of view (while they remain only allegations) in light of BLP policy which takes precedence over the fact the sources Ratel lists (Seattle Times, Fox News, Daily Mail, People Magazine) are verifiable and reliable. If a conviction is made I think that is entirely different. Do you disagree?Amicaveritas (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In looking at your sources (above) For the "FBI Investiagation" I see the National Enquirer (not reliable) - btw, even though you list the sources as ne1, ne2, etc... there's no accompanying link for them. For "Children" I see 1.) A New York Daily News Gossip colum (not reliable). 2.) A TV station website (reliable) which talks more about the FBI raid on his warehouse, and in passing referes to the tabliod reports of his alleged rapes (tabloid is not reliable). 3.) The same gossip column in the New York Daily News ( Not reliable) 4.) NORM, which is also a gossip column (not reliable) 5.) Showbizspy (not reliable) .

You state that there are reports in various reliable magazines, "People","Seattle Times", "Fox News" etc... post those instead of the gossip columns and the tabloids and you may well have a stronger case. At this point, that information cannot be put in, because it's not reliable. (I DID in fact remove it WP:BLP / WP:BOLD)
— Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think you did the right thing. Until the material is verified and backed up by reliable sources, we should exclude it from wikipedia. This is not an issue of censorship but rather one of sourcing. Sources are important in all wikipedia articles but crucial in a biographical article about a living person.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You removed the text above from the talk page only (redacted above). But it's still in the article Here! Was this your intention? If you are citing removal under BLP shouldn't you remove it from the article as well? It was the middle two sentences, as I previously indicated, I feel should definitely be removed.Amicaveritas (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is completely unacceptable as a source, especially for a BLP. Here's the nutshell statement on wp:rs "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

The Enquirer does not have that reputation. Much more reliable sources are required. Mishlai (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Karelin7 and COI

I have warned User:Karelin7 about a possible WP:COI for the following reasons:

1. His intimate knowledge of the lawsuit (Viva v Copperfield), details of which are not generally available;
2. His single purpose account profile (has only ever edited this article). ► RATEL ◄ 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And your real basis for asserting COI other than disagreeing with you is? Collect (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained why I see a possible COI. I do not appreciate your insinuation that I have other murky motives. ► RATEL ◄ 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• To Karelin7:

1. Please answer here as to your involvement in this article. Do you have a COI? If you do, you should not be editing it.
2. Regarding the plaintiffs' claims, we may document them as they are reliably reported. You cannot exclude their side of the story. ► RATEL ◄ 03:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the general policy of Wikipedia is to focus on discussing the content. As far as I can see Karelin7 has asserted no COI (which in anycase in and of itself does not prevent editing of article), however where COI exists extra care must be taken. There are many reasons for having knowledge and this again does not in my opinion automatically indicate a COI. I appreciate you are acting in good faith Ratel, but I'd suggest it would be more productive if we debate the issues and content here. I'd welcome your comments on my concerns above. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're suggesting we contract the Investigation section to a stub with something like "allegations have been made and were denied"? No. Why? That is censorship, in my book. I'm not sure of why you'd want to do that. ► RATEL ◄ 08:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the whole section. Just the initial paragraph detailing allegations of rape. They are only allegations. This is not a newspaper. Let the underlying sources "report" the detail, there is comment on both sides. I have listed my concerns above they are: BLP, Weight and Neutrality. I understand why you might consider this censorship, but I disagree. I view it as a neutral edit - this is a requirement under BLP. Having read one of your sources it contains:

"Mr. Copperfield's reputation precedes him as an impeccable gentleman," Chesnoff said.

"So we're obviously disturbed that those kind of allegations are being made, but we believe that that's a common event now, unfortunately, for celebrated people to be to be falsely accused," he said.

Once we start including detail it has to be balanced. To include both sides inflates something like this to be too large a section in the article which is undue weight. Allegations have to be investigated to discover whether there is any basis for them. I don't believe at this stage that this is notable, but if you believe it is then I'd suggest we go for brevity and neutrality. If he's charged or convicted I'd suggest that this is notable and would warrant greater weight. Your thoughts? Amicaveritas (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Let me give my view on this, since you've asked.

1. I am an inclusionist. I like more, not less. I love the fact that wikipedia is the go-to place on the net for people who want a summary of all the data available. Now we do only have a summary, of an extremely notable event in the subject's life. I've surrendered to the people who didn't want the intimate details in the National Enquirer published. But what's left comes from utterly reliable sources and since it only comes to a paragraph or two, thgere are no undue weight concerns. If the section were to be expanded to 5 or 6 paras, you may have a case on that score.
2. You quote DC's lawyer, Chesnoff, on what a great gentleman DC is, and how celebs are always being falsely accused. That is not a good argument to present, in this case. DC is known to act in a predatory manner towards women (the TMZ report is entirely accurate). This (very) young woman is not some sleazy whore, not some celebrity-mad paparazzi, not some fame-seeking or money-seeking nutcase, she's a perfectly decent youngster from a decent middle class family, who just happened to attend a DC magic show and was targeted by DC for her looks. He emailed her, inviting her to join him and a group of people on the island. When she got there she found herself alone with this Lothario. These emails exist. They are part of the evidence. I feel no urge to protect this fellow from the consequences of his alleged behaviour. "Impeccable gentleman" .. yeah right.
3. If you wish to insert Chesnoff's character references into the article, with citations, to "balance" the text, go ahead. One sentence should suffice and will not "inflate" the issue to undue proportions. ► RATEL ◄ 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really wish to insert them - I'm just pointing out there are two sides. Whatever our personal views and/or disgust are on preditory celebrities (and I have heard the rumours) I still urge caution where there are only allegations reported in the media and from only one or two sources. While I am personally in favour of inclusionism in general, my view with BLP is that this should only apply to historic events where a stable public view has formed i.e. something has been "established". In cases where allegations result in investigations - where charges have been made it should probably be included although care must be taken with a conviction. Where conviction is achieved I have no issues with inclusion. This is how I understand the policy on BLP and the spirit of BLP to apply. My preference in the absence of charges or conviction is brevity combined with clear concise neutrality. We are not reporting here - the sources are and the citations will still link to them and their full content. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• To Amicaveritas, in response to your message on my talk page, I suggest a RfC on whether or not this material be included on the page. It's been published in so many places that I cannot see the value in excluding it, but others may see it differently. ► RATEL ◄ 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, I accept it's published and that at least some of the sources to my mind are reliable - although some other editors seem to disagree. My point is that with BLP the including editors must show compliance with all wikipedian polices not just verfiability of sources. There are greater considerations with BLP. I'm for keeping it in, but not putting in a light that either favours the person making the the allegations nor the person defending them.Amicaveritas (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You (Ratel) assert "DC is known to act in a predatory manner towards women (the TMZ report is entirely accurate). " <Which implies that it is you who has special knowledge about Copperfield. Do you have any such special knowledge? On what basuis do yo make such a strong assertion? Do you have any COI of any sort? (note that an opponent of a person has a COI as much as a worker does) Collect (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from commenting on other editors, it could be viewed as a personal attack which is not permitted. Strong feeling does not warrant assuming bad faith. Ratel is an established editor. There is no basis for COI other than an opposing view. If you persist on this line it will not be productive. Let's discuss the content and applicable policies. I'm concerned that the article is citing single sources of debatable quality for contentious material. Does anyone agree or disagree with this (I note Ratel appears to). Amicaveritas (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Redacted after the declarative statement. Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

AmicaV, it may be useful if you list 1) the exact details you want suppressed and 2) the sources you find wanting. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 13:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Will do (don't have time now - but will shortly). I did above - but it was redacted! BTW - I don't want anything "suppressed", the detail is fine in the underlying source. I just would like to see a brief cautious neutral tone in line with BLP. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about "reliable source"

To Ratel, Americaveritas, and any/all other Wikipedia's editors and administators...

First of all, I would just like to say that I am thankful for all of your hard work in trying to maintain articles with factual and neutral information. In regards to the recent edits by the user Karelin7, I can say that I know who that person is, and that any information Karelin7 provides is extremely reliable. Howeve, I will not answer for this person and will let him/her decide how he/she would like to reply to your inquiries above.

That being said, let me ask this question...assume that someone does in fact has inside information on the subject being discussed in a BLP article, yet that information is NOT general public knowledge and can in fact show that what is currently written in the article is false, inaccurate, or incomplete...how can one go about adding that to the article while being fully within the Wikipedia guidelines and not be considered COI?

In addition, in the guidelines for BLP, it states, "biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Also, "as a continuously updated encyclopedia, Wikipedia naturally contains many thousands of articles about living persons, both widely and less widely known. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible."

My question is, to what point does a piece of information crosses the line to being something that causes harm to the subject, something that is considered defamatory information, and/or invasion of the subject's privacy? Are these solely up to 1 or 2 people's personal discretion? Or is there a board or panel that can review the content in question? With all due respect to Ratel, it just seems that he is calling the shots on what should and should not be allowed (I apologize if I am mistaken), which just does not seem...fair? Again, Ratel, I know you are a respected editor here, so I'm sure you have your reasons and guidelines to go by, but if Karelin7 actually has factual inside info on the specific topics, yet there are no other "reliable" sources with that information, is there anything that can be done to verfiy the authenticity? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the letter and spirit of the BLP policy. It is for these reasons I have raised the concerns I have above. If additional information is available it must be published to be included. This does not have to be online, but the source must be verifiable. I'm not clear if it has to be fully in the public domain - but it would raise concerns (I think) if it wasn't. Wikipedia is not for Original Research, it is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia - I'd personally question the inclusion of current events in a BL. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Americaveritas, I had no intentions of inferring that you were in any way unaware of any of the BLP policies. If my post made you feel that way I do apologize for the misunderstanding. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I didn't take it that way - i just wanted to make it clear that this is the basis of the points I have raised.Amicaveritas (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

COI does not preclude presenting valid argument or for that matter additional sources of information. It should be declared if it exists and the appropriate care can be taken to avoid bias. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm curious about...how to go about making a valid argument which no sources exist other than those that may be considered COI. From what I understand, unfortunately, it may be near impossible. TheMagicOfDC (talk)

COI sources are not barred. The object of articles can under certain circumstances edit them themselves. It is only if the content is deemed by consensus to be overly self-serving or unreliable it would be disallowed. Articles are not PR forums. I understand you run a fan site for Copperfield and also are in contact with him. While this represents a clear COI it does not (for example) necessarily disallow anything you publish on the fan site. I am sure editors will consider the possibility of bias when considering the information but that doesn't mean de facto exclusion. Another option includes issuing a press release. This is a perfectly legitimate source. It also does not prevent you from putting forward arguments for included or excluded content based on Wikipedian policies. It would be useful for you to invest some time reading them if you haven't done so already. However with your COI it would be prudent to avoid editing the article directly yourself.Amicaveritas (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You can post this for discussion on the Biographies of Living Notice Board. There is also potential for submitting a request to the Wikipedia:Oversight Oversight Committe but I believe this has to originate from the subject of the article. There is also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will defeinitely give these options a try. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In cases such as this I recommend that contentious material is removed from the article during discussion and is only restored on consensus as this is my interpretation of the correct action under BLP, regardless of additional non-public sources or verifiable public sources. It is the authoring or restoring editor's responsibility to demonstrate compliance will all Wikipedia policies including the spirit of BLP, not just to regurgitate the press. The line you describe is debatable and really is a matter of opinion, interpretation and consensus in the editorial community. Ratel is not calling the shots - his views as an editor should be considered along with the rest of ours, he just a bit more vocal on this subject perhaps. I may ask an admin to remove the content and protect the article temporarily while it is debated (anyone can request this or for that matter request mediation or dispute resolution). Amicaveritas (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question - "assume that someone does in fact has inside information on the subject being discussed in a BLP article, yet that information is NOT general public knowledge and can in fact show that what is currently written in the article is false, inaccurate, or incomplete...how can one go about adding that to the article while being fully within the Wikipedia guidelines and not be considered COI?" - you can't, period. Even if it's true, the information must first be published by reliable sources before being represented in wikipedia. Wikipedia does not break news, present new research, etc., so if you have insider information that you think the public needs to know about, this isn't the place to make that happen. Mishlai (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's true - but say for example it was published but not to the general public. I think that is valid. For example in the UK you can request information, held by the police on you, from the Criminal Records Bureau. This is a legitimate source - but it's not public domain. I agree Wikipedia does not break news per se - but this is just one example of a valid source that's not public. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Mishlai. So then according to you, there is no way to correct something that is incorrect, or add to something that is incomplete, on Wikipedia unless the desired modification is published by a reliable source elsewhere first? Let's take the "Viva Arts" lawsuit as an example, assuming that someone has an original contract or letter stating that David Copperfield had the right to cancel the tour without refunding the money (this is ALL ASSUMPTION to make an example; I'm not saying it's true, and I'm not saying if such a letter/contract actually exist). What would be considered a reliable source for that letter/contract for it to be mentioned in Wikipedia? Would lawyers be considered an official source?

I would argue that to demonstrate Wikipedia's extreme high standards in maintaining neutrality, it is only fair that when writing about lawsuits and anything potentially damaging about a living person, both sides of the claim (plaintiff AND defendent) should be submitted. Otherwise, it is clearly a one-sided editorial. When Wikipedia requires that whatever that is written needs to be published by a reliable source first and then referenced, Wikipedia is ASSUMING that there are reliable media sources that actually care about, and are willing, to publish both sides of the story, so that it is available as a referenced source on Wikipedia. This is a very unfair assumption because when it comes to celebrity news, it is well known that news outlets often prefer stories that are sensational compared to stories that are factual. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that IF detail is to included it should be balanced and reflect both sides. However I don't believe that the place for detail on these sort of incidents is in Wikipedia. To add full details expands the section - which it gives it undue Weight. I am in favour of neutral brevity that does not lend itself to unfair assumptions. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am perhaps not the best person to answer your question, but here is my opinion/understanding on the matter:

Verifiability is what matters. It is no good for you to be able to access police files on yourself and cite them if a reader cannot get access to the same files to verify that the source actually supports what was written. Self-published sources are also generally not appropriate, so you couldn't just scan the document and upload it and cite that, because we would have to trust your word that the documents were legitimate. I'm in no way accusing you of being dishonest, it's just that such a thing wouldn't meet the standards of wp:rs, and particularly not for a wp:blp. If you could, for example, get a (reputable) newspaper to cover the story in a way that allowed the article itself and not the original letter to be sourced, then that would possibly/probably meet standards for inclusion assuming that the matter wasn't being given undue weight or otherwise violating policy. If no newspapers are willing to cover the matter, then I think most would argue that it isn't notable enough to belong in the entry of an encyclopedia, since the standards of notability for news are somewhat looser than the standards for getting an encyclopedia entry on something. I'm unsure about something like having an attorney make the document available to the public from their website - it would be shakier because it was a primary source (the police document) and because there isn't reputable fact-checking and editorial review, etc. but I wouldn't say for sure that it couldn't be included either. The case for notability and appropriate weight would also be weaker in such a case. The one thing I am sure of is that information that is not publicly available can't be used.

COI would possibly come into play if you're making an effort to get information related to you published and then making an effort to get it in the wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't make the cut, just that the edits would be subjected to greater scrutiny and that you would be wise to make the case on the talk page and rely on another editor who does not have a COI to agree and make the edit. I haven't read very much of the specific details of this case, so my answer may be lacking some context - I'm really speaking in generalities here. Mishlai (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• TheMagicOfDC, the answer to that is simple. When the lawsuit is decided, the details will doubtless be published and at that stage wikipedia can be updated. If DC has the right to cancel the contract and keep the money, he'll win the case, and that fact will be known publicly. ► RATEL ◄ 00:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Most settlements are never disclosed. In fact, most settlements stipulate than neither party disclose anything about them. Collect (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's only if the case settles out of court. ► RATEL ◄ 00:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Ratel. But based on what you're saying, if a lawsuit takes years to come to an end, the mention of the lawsuit's claims in a Wikipedia article would have to remain undisputed for years until the judgement or settlement are disclosed, meanwhile causing possible damage to the article's subject? And if the results are not disclosed, then there's just nothing that can be done and the tidbits about the lawsuit will just have to remain one-sided? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is that wikipedia isn't taking responsibility for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is not news, and is not going to present any more information than is already in the public domain and available from reliable sources. I don't believe that news sources consider it damaging to report that someone is being sued (when they are) because the filing of a suit doesn't mean anything by itself. The outcome obviously can't be reported until it happens, although the attorney of the person being sued often makes a statement rejecting the claims of the plaintiff that is reported as well. Mishlai (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Karelin7 COI Statement

Hi, this is Karelin7. In fact, I am an interested party. My attention was initially piqued when I saw information on David's wikipedia page that provided a veritable map to the home where his children live with their mother. Although I am a novice at wikipedia--a newbie--that struck me as a flagrantly dangerous thing to post. It could readily incite intrusions from paparazzi to kidnappers. Although I have not checked extensively, I have not noticed detailed locations of other homes where the families of celebrities live. After that got my attention, I read the rest of the page with interest. I am trying to put aside any natural bias. It does seem that the two-sides-to-every-story rule is being ignored. A lengthy story about the allegations of assault and rape, for example, noted only that, in substance, "Copperfield categorically denied the charges." I read Ratel's assertion that he is an "inclusionist." I am recommending that the other side of the story be included, and that is what I am attempting to do--ensure that the page contains both sides of the stories. While I have access to material that is available to the public, I am now refraining from citing it, such as official court documents, to try to hew closely to wiki guidelines. Even where I have information that plainly disproves some of the stories--the story about Michael Jackson and David having a "row" over money being a prime example--I am waiting until the information finds it way to publication. While we're on the subject of sources, I am troubled by the tendency to cite tabloid sources on David's page. My understanding is that this is a clear violation of wiki policy, and at least one wiki editor has questioned, if not objected, to their use. Still, they are cited again and again--I take them off, they go back on. I cannot imagine a legitimate encyclopedia relying on The National Enquirer, or TMZ.com. While tabloid sources are often the first to cover celebrity news, it is well known that much of that coverage is wildly unreliable. In conclusion, for now, my agenda, as it were, is to be sure that David's page is balanced: that both sides of the story are presented, that reliable sources are used exclusively, that wiki guidelines are followed, and that information that is blatantly dangerous, and which could lead to unlawful invasions of personal, physical privacy, is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelin7 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The only info we had on DC's "secret" children and mother of these children was info published in Nevada's biggest newspaper to the effect that they lived at a country club in a house owned by DC's company. This is a "veritable map"? Nonsense. I still think that that info (a secret family) is worthy of inclusion here, BTW. Now you keep insisting that TMZ is tabloid and not a usable source from a wikipedia POV, but I do not agree, and nor do many other editors. Please continue the conversation on this topic in the correct section below. ► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

TMZ as a source

Please present evidence that the TMZ.com is not a RS. The RS noticeboard has not judged it to be unreliable. It's a case by case thing. And in this case, they have actual documents pertaining to the report. That's an unusual situation. They even have a lawyer's letter to ex-Copperfield employees warning them not to speak out. TMZ would never publish this stuff if they knew it to be false — the lawsuit potential would be huge. I await comments before restoring the material. Wikipedia is not censored. ► RATEL ◄ 00:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for TMZ.com categorizes TMZ as a celebrity gossip site, and states that "the site is more widely regarded as tabloid journal." Wouldn't gossip + tabloid = unreliable? Or, at least, not truly reliable? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm too busy now but I'll do more research at the relevant noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of TMZ.com -- they got Palin;s church wrong [3]. Fake video on TMZ.com [4]. Other opinions at [5] "And here's where things might get most serious. A source close to Levin says he and TMZ are in the middle of two separate investigations. The first is being executed by Kroll, the "risk management" company whose security services unit is known to be a shadow-y ballbuster. Kroll's fee is supposedly being bankrolled by the very celebrities Levin covers, who've felt they've been wronged by the TMZ kingpin. (Or simply unable to sway the way he covers them?) Kroll is said to be looking into the finances of Harvey and Warner Bros., though we've as yet been unable to identify the celebrities who are supposedly paying for their services. And speaking of finances, we're also told federal authorities have their eye on TMZ. In this scenario, the FBI is looking into allegations of Levin & Co. paying off court officials and legal authorities for access to court records and police reports that are either under seal or wouldn't normally be made available to the public so quickly. Officially, TMZ says it doesn't pay sources for information, but a certain O.J. Simpson witness says otherwise. The FBI, though, is more concerned with sealed documents being illegally leaked to TMZ, and police department sources tipping off the site in exchange for bribes. Levin didn't respond to a request for comment. A FBI spokesperson could not (or would not) confirm nor deny there was an open investigation. On-lookers, however, have grown increasingly suspicious about TMZ's endless access to records, and its ability to get its hands on them before anyone else. Scrappy reporters, or deep pockets?" Clearly there are significant issues here. Collect (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A weasely, insinuation-laden blog entry from a competing site? Is that the best denouncement of TMZ you can find? Pffft. I'll look at the various wp noticeboards and take my lead from that. ► RATEL ◄ 02:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep -- HuffingtonPost made a "weaselly, insinuation-laden blog entry" -- right. So far it does not appear anyone on the RSN board says it is actually RS as a rule. I guess you can wait for more opinions there. [6] retraction for allegation of a crime. Lots of errata out there for TMZ.com -- after all it bills itself as "celebrity news and gossip". Collect (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Go tell that to the editors of the various pages on Mel Gibson, where TMZ's reports are liberally used. That's just one example on WP. If it can be used there, then it can be used here too. ► RATEL ◄ 02:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean beans when it comes to getting consensus here on sources. There are many very poorly sourced articles on WP. That has no bearing on anything. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. If TMZ is used in several well-traversed BLP pages on WP as a reliable source for unflattering info, it will be so used here as well. ► RATEL ◄ 03:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair comment to note that TMZ is being "used" as reliable source. From this article New York Times it is stated that "The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media". I think it clear it's celebrity gossip site, therefore there are concerns regarding [WP:NPV] including [WP:Weight], so care and caution must be used when citing with regard to [WP:BLP] (and I think all BL should be revisted in this respect) but I don’t think it can be argued that it is an unreliable source per se.Amicaveritas (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ratel's suggestion that I discuss TMZ's suitability as a source for wikipedia articles, a starting point would be the wikipedia entry for tmz.com, which states, "While positioning itself as an independent celebrity news site, the site is more widely regarded as a tabloid journal, though unique for its corporate backing." A random sampling of articles from tmz.com includes "Britney's Latest Vadge of Honor," with a subsequently-deleted photograph of Spears's vagina. Another TMZ article is titled "Madonna and The Purple Penetrator." It contains a subsequently-deleted photograph of Madonna apparently holding a purple vibrator in a see-through plastic bag. ("Her Madgesty was snapped outside a London hotel with a see through plastic bag containing mommy's little helper, the Purple Penetrator." And tmz.com, as of this writing, features a photograph of a clothed derriere under the caption "Whose Backside?" and then the text, "Can you guess who the butt belongs to? Name Dat Butt!"

The question, I suppose, is, first, how open to tabloid sources and gossip sites wikipedia wishes to be? My understanding is that the site aspires to the same stature as Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, or any encyclopedia that would be deemed a reputable source by, say, an accredited university, or a legitimate news organization. Thus, wikipedia currently disallows citation to tabloids as unreliable sources. Another factor with regard to tmz is its now admitted practice of paying sources for stories, , which is common with tabloids, but frowned on, to put it mildly, by reputable news organizations. Karelin7 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know that you and DC do not like TMZ, and with good cause. However, TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. And the word "tabloid" has no meaning in the context of a website. The site deals in news about celebs. Big deal. This does not mean ipso facto all its material is junk. TMZ is a BLP source in many places on WP. ► RATEL ◄ 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a tabloid and not suitable for a BLP - I will remove it on sight if added to the article. I will ask for additional eyes from the BLP board and we will go over this article line by line. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, please go immediately to all the pages concerning Mel Gibson and remove the TMZ citations. Thanks, pal. And also Britney Spears. Lots more to come :) Oh, and can the speculation about my feelings re DC. That's immaterial. ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, please do not make comments about other editors. While you may feel this is justified - it is not and it is against Wikipedia policy. It will also only serve to inflame the situation and detract from discussion on content which is where the focus should be. Posting to BLP board is a good move for discussion; if you question the source this should be raised in the reliable sources forum.Amicaveritas (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I've not had time to go through Mel's profile. If there is an issue with a source I don't believe that citing its use in another article particularly guarantees its quality, there may need to be edits to Gibson's profile also, although I accept that it demonstrates some other editors consider it reliable. Regardless of the quality and veracity, I still have an issue with single sources being cited for contentious material WP:WEIGHT (link is for benefit of less experienced editors). Does anyone else share this view? Amicaveritas (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I agreed on BLPN, we need a bunch of respectable sources referring to this story, and now we have 'em. ► RATEL ◄ 08:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No we don't - you cannot shoe-horn in the TMZ report by finding something that says "TMZ is reporting and here is a link to it". --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If a story is widely reported in the press and media, it may be included in wp, no matter how "poor" the original source is judged (and anyway many editors consider TMZ a RS, BTW, just check the RS noticeboard). Got it? So even if the source is some guy on the street, if enough mainstream media (ie RS) report it, and it's notable, it gets in. It's not up to us as editors to stand as guardians of the reputations of people. This info is OUT THERE, all over the place, in primary and secondary places. We are a tertiary source. Please try to remember that wikipedia is not censored. If you cannot grasp all that, ask for help somewhere else.► RATEL ◄ 08:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to potentially damaging claims in a BLP, WP is censored. The shoeghorn methodology is disruptive and potentially damaging to WP itself. Meanwhile, on the basis of consensus, you ain;t got consensus on your side here. Collect (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On 8 Nov 2007 TMZ.com featured an article titled "Copperfield to Promoters: This Was YOUR Fault, Not Mine!" The article, which can be found at http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/08/copperfield-to-promoters-this-was-your-fault-not-mine/ (last visited May 18, 2009), details David's position about the breach of contract lawsuit that is discussed in detail, albeit often inaccurately, on his wiki page. The current discussion tends to suggest that the plaintiffs' position is correct, and that he canceled the tour because he did not want to face questions from the press about the pending investigation. This TMZ article details David's position, and quotes an email from the plaintiffs that states, "According to our agreement, I am aware that [Copperfield] has the right to cancel the entire contracted tour including the Southeast Asia (SEA) tour leg ...." Ibid.

I have not cited the TMZ article though I have tried to balance that portion of David's page by trying to add his side of the matter. I remain steadfast in my belief that TMZ is an inappropriate source for wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, the fact that this article, which so clearly presents David's side and quotes from the plaintiffs' own admissions--which, as you may know, is an exception to the hearsay rule--is another example of what has impelled me to take a strong interest in the page. The past reportage strikes me as one-sided. Often, sources that contained David's side of the matter were used only to explain the other side's position. Readily accessible sources such as this TMZ page were overlooked or ignored. I am not advocating citing TMZ, but if one believes that it is a credible source, shouldn't it be used, where possible, to present both points of view? Karelin7 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say on balance it should be accepted that TMZ is a reliable source. However that because of its nature: WP:NPV, WP:UNDUE and other WP:BLP considerations may mean that consensus dictates the exclusion of perfectly cited, reliable material on other grounds. I'd also say that representing both points of view would, in this case, be likely to inflate the section further. I'd also argue it's too large currently as to give WP:undue concerns and that's without expanding it further! By all means cite sources representing both points of view, but the wiki content should be brief, neutral and factual (it may factual at present but I don't believe it is brief or neutral enough). It is however not the place for opinion or comment. Amicaveritas (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reservations about TMZ. I'm not particularly familiar with it, but I just visited the site and read through a few pages of articles, and I have get a pretty strong impression that it's a fairly sensational gossip rag. The stories aren't outlandish, and I think most of them at least have some basis in fact - it's a step up from the Enquirer for sure - but I still think that material from TMZ could fairly be called "poorly sourced" and the BLP language on poorly sourced contentious material is very strong. Time Warner ownership doesn't mean anything imo. A large media company might buy the Enquirer, but that won't make it a fact-based publication. The editor insisting that they fact check does inspire some confidence, but I don't think it reads particularly credibly. If I saw articles with that kind of writing (and those sorts of photos) in a reputable celebrity mag like People, I would be appalled at their declining standards. I come away with the impression that juicy headlines are of more importance to TMZ than meticulous accuracy. BLP requires the latter. The fact that other articles have used TMZ as a source does give me some pause, but does not automatically mean that TMZ is a reliable source. The contentiousness of the material also raises the source quality standards. I wouldn't object to an uncontentious TMZ description of one of Copperfield's performances, for example. Mishlai (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needed for any inclusion of disputed material

If anyone wishes to include maaterial which is disputed in any way here (including sourcing), please obtain a clear consensus first. This is pursuant to BLP and to specific admin actions taken. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC on David Copperfield

Finished — Consensus was not to include reports of Copperfield's children or the TMZ report on his targeting of women. ► RATEL ◄ 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the inclusion of content relating to Copperfield's behaviour as regards targeting women, and his secret family. Comments needed. —Ratel (via posting script) 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The disputed content can be seen here (and to a lesser extent here).

I ask people with a clear conflict of interest (DC's lawyers, personal friends and fanclub managers) to stand aside in this debate please. ► RATEL ◄ 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Including contentious material in a BLP requires extraordinary care. As the sources sought to be used are not generally considered RS per multiple discussions now on BLP/N and RS/N etc. this is likely enough to be "forum shopping" as anything else. And since the consensus here has been overwhelmingly not to include this material, this RfC also appears inadequately stated. Note further that WP policy is that anyone may participate in the RfC. Collect (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect moves to pre-empt debate and set the tone; nobody is surprised. ► RATEL ◄ 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, please - I'll not raise this again: do not comment on the editor, focus on the content. As you would not wish to be the subject of what could be construed a personal attack I'm sure no one else does either. You have valid points for discussion, so do other editors - just because your views are diametrically opposed does not give either of you the right to make personal comments. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to comment, that the repeated assertions about the alleged unreliability of tmz.com have no basis in fact or Wikipedia policy. TMZ does have reputation for reliability [7] [8], and there is no part of our policies that excludes sources because they cover celebrity news. Additionally, the assertion that " As the sources sought to be used are not generally considered RS per multiple discussions now on BLP/N and RS/N etc. " is simply a falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say on balance it should be accepted that TMZ is a reliable source. However that because of its nature: WP:NPV, WP:UNDUE and other WP:BLP considerations may mean that consensus dictates the exclusion of perfectly cited, reliable material on other grounds. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe that COI-affected editors should be able to participate here if they declare their affiliation. Their opinions should be listened to. Whether their votes will affect the result should be determined in the light of WP:COI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Amicaveritas (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard required for source with regard to BLP is higher than for other cases. I've have already posted on the RS noticeboard my views on this. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is also not the only consideration. My view is that the entire Personal section of the article is devoted almost entirely to "reports" covering legal cases and the current edit is slanted to the negative. This is contravention of WP:NPV and WP:BLP, specifically there is a weight concern here. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Americaveritas here. There have been articles found from the same sources which can be sourced to make edits so that a neutral stand can be achieved[9], but would probably add even MORE weight to the section. Perhaps there's way to add some positives and remove some negatives in order to keep the overall content legth the same, so as to not add anymore weight to the section, but at the same time restoring some neutrality? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that current cases are suitable material for encyclopedic biographies, but if consensus is to include them it must be with brevity and neutrality. I am not an inclusionist in this respect, the references should not go into detail; detail – opinion and both sides belong in the underlying source. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment (ec) According to policy, biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy and editors must ask themselves whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. In this case, the material is speculative, not particularly relevant to an encyclopedic article on a magician, and impunges on the subject's privacy. Coupled with the fact that the sources are not of the highest quality, I see no reason to include any of this material in the article. Wikipedia does not suffer when it excludes sensationalist material. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with regard to the specific content above - there is still the rest of the section to be debated.Amicaveritas (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

TMZ report on "targeting women" at shows

• Strong include This report [10] was echoed all over the media. It is a well-researched report complete with PDFs of lawyer's letters and printed handouts given to employees. It's a real exposé, in the classic sense. If the report were bogus, DC would have sued TMZ loooong ago. Excluding it is simply censorship, plain and simple. ► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this clearly demonstrates the source is biased. It uses language like "threatening letter" when the letter is simply a standard legal reminder of contractual obligations. I don't believe that a single source is enough to include this as it is clearly highly contentious. Additional sources referencing the first source are also not sufficient in my view. Amicaveritas (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed we aren't some shitty gossip rag.--Cameron Scott (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not even worth discussing. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I think this solid-looking report should be re-included (it was on the page for many months) is because there seems to be a history of similar events [11] that also relate to the rape (alleged) charge. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DC's family

• Strong include This report [12] was carried in Las Vegas's biggest daily, the Las Vegas Review Journal, and elsewhere. The whole of Vegas knows about it (I lived there, so I should know). We don't have to provide all the details given in the report, but the fact that he has children is now well known and should be part of the encyclopedia. ► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If the whole of Vegas knows about it as you claim, then it's really not a secret anymore, so the continued use of the phrase "secret family" seems like an intent to add slant to the story. In any case, while LVRJ and other web sites do mention this story, they do reference the original story from National Enquirer which clearly shows a request from the parties involved to respect their privacy. Perhaps a certain degree of censorship here to help protect their privacy, or at least, not adding to the invasion of their privacy, should be considered. This is not something that would be removed to slant the article in a more positive or negative way for the subject, it's just simply to respect their privacy. I would ask any editors who are considering to add this "secret family" info back into the article to please take this into consideration. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So he's allowed to have a family and we are not allowed to add that fact to the encyclopedia because he would prefer people not to know about it? Is that your position? ► RATEL ◄ 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal concerns with regard to this are Neutrality and Privacy. If those were addressed I'd not be opposed to inclusion. Amicaveritas (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, AmicaV. We could exclude the unnecessary locational details and the woman's name. That should address those issues. ► RATEL ◄ 07:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me; but I question use of the word "secret" in this context, seems titilating rather than neutral. I also think that the whole "personal" sections belongs as part of a basic biography section and any included material should be in the same detail / weight as other included content. Any other thoughts on this? Amicaveritas (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At best, with the sources provided we would put "Copperfield has two children" - that's all the sources presented support. We most certainly would not use the emotive "secret family" because it's clearly not a secret and is a weasel phrase indeed to cast the subject in a certain negative light like he has something to hide (a common theme of Ratal's edits and suggestions). --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on! Let's not tarnish a decent debate on content - where we appear to getting consensus - with more personal comments! Amicaveritas (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel, it was the WOMAN who requested privacy, not David. I was saying that we should respect the MOTHER'S request for privacy for her and her children. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm for privacy concerns to be considered as per policy. This is not arbitrary grounds for complete exclusion. I think basic family details are of biographical note and should be included. On the other hand anything that might lead to their location or privacy being compromised should be excluded. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with all said so far by AmicaV and the TheMagicOfDC seems to be reasonable on this issue. ► RATEL ◄ 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This stuff about the children has no place on wikipedia. The quoted source [13] says 'according to National Enquirer' and quotes national enquirer quoting the alleged mother's lawyer. Hence, the only source for this information is National Enquirer which is not a reliable source. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I think when the mother's lawyer makes a statement confirming the relationship, you are safe in assuming it is reliable. In addtion, one of the editors on this very page, a personal friend of Copperfield's, has inadvertently confirmed the relationship. I think you can talk about excluding data sourced from the Enquirer when exceptional claims are made (as Jimbo(?) says, exceptional claims require exceptional sources), but this is a pretty run-of-the-mill item. ► RATEL ◄

Surely it's reasonable to say he has "2 children by a Czech model" and leave it at that (providing it's cited). It doesn't seem to be disputed or be particularly contentious. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what's funny, Amica? The fact that he has two kids with model Petlickova has long been part of the German wikipedia page. Seems the Germans do not have our timidity on this issue. ► RATEL ◄ 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I note the cite link is broken on the German page. I don't really speak german - but the impression I got is that the german article is more neutral and career focussed - perhaps a geman speaker could confirm or deny this? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this link[14] That's a Google-translation of the page. ► RATEL ◄ 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants to read the original Enquirer report, here it is at the Internet Archive [15] ► RATEL ◄ 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly German WP the same RS concerns has not. They the National Enquirer cite, while we the same allow do not. Collect (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

...Yoda? :) After reading the Google translation of the German page, I agree with Americaveritas that the German version does in fact seem a lot more neutral and career-focused, assuming the translation engine is doing a good job. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent again) I seem to be in a minority here but here goes:

1. The entire section in the Vegas newspaper article is attributed to National Enquirer. Unless some independent mainstream source is found, this does not qualify as a reliable source.
2. If NE quotes something from a 'mother's lawyer, both the statement as well as the fact that the lawyer made the statement at all is not reliably sourced.
3. A BLP should be written conservatively. Basing the paternity of children on the basis of a single NE report is the antithesis of conservative.
4. Given all this, I fail to see how this poorly sourced information is relevant enough to be included in the article. David Copperfield is notable as a magician, not as a 'secret parent'. Scurrilous gossip should have no place in wikipedia.

--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't see how you think you are in a minority, but anyway:

1. If you claim the NE is not a reliable source please cite the RS thread where this has consensus. I'd be happy to accept caution is required when citing from it for BLP regardless, but not de facto exclusion without consensus.
2. Agreed. But as far as I can see this statement has NOT been denied by Copperfield and therefore, to my mind, is NOT contentious.
3. Agreed. See my comment regarding the German version above. Family is of biographical interest. We have consensus to drop "secret". The rest is simply fact (your point on source notwithstanding).

Amicaveritas (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. From WP:BLP, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. I don't think we need to cite the RS noticeboard to note that NE is not at the high-quality end of the market and that BLPs require better sources than other articles. All I'm seeing here is a story that is attributed solely as "according to National Enquirer". If the Vegas paper does not trust the source or cannot independently verify information such as The Enquirer reported that property records show the home is owned by David Kotkin LLC I doubt if it is reliable (reputation for fact checking??) or that the story is credible enough to be included in the article. My suggestion is that unless an independent reliable source is found for this material, it be deleted from the article as well as the talk page. I also fail to see the relevance and necessity of including dubious stories about children in an article about a magician. Are we seriously concerned that someone will say "wikipedia is unreliable because they didn't include the 'secret children' story that was reported by National Enquirer"? I should hope not. Let's just wait for the Post or the New York Times to report the story. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that if the source is unreliable it should be excluded. I don't know the National Enquirer - so I don't think it's unreasonable to request evidence of it being unreliable. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC) : Having read the RS noticeboard and revisted the BLP policy - I actuallt have to agree it should be removed unless it can be cited from a reliable source. The consensus seems clear that the NE is not reliable and should not be used and certainly not as an only source for Biographies of the Living. If an editor wishes to determine otherwise the balance of proof to prove reliability lies with them - not the other way round. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still more concerned about the weight given to all the legal cases. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder to what extent all this exaggerated concern over a clearly true story is connected to the legal threats being thrown about by lawyers for these people, eg [16]. Is wikipedia that easy to intimidate? Seems to be. ► RATEL ◄ 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Absent a clear consensus for putting it in, BLP says it stays out. Collect (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Enquirer is a tabloid, which is the very opposite of a reliable source. In the U.S., where people are long accustomed to seeing National Enquirer front pages in line at the supermarkets, The Enquirer is widely mocked. You can read here[17] a Newsweek article discussing the National Enquirer. There are various discussions of NE's questionable methods and questionable veracity as well as praise for their reputation for finding celebrity stories before anyone else. On page 4, the article states "Accuracy is certainly an issue. Ross says he treats the Enquirer as a tip sheet, one that's more reliable than an anonymous e-mail but by no means reliable enough to take as truth." We cannot use dubious sources in a BLP. Further, even if a particular story were well fact checked, the Enquirer's poor reputation makes it unable to meet wp:rs standards of credibility - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

If you were to ask me to cite an example of source that isn't an SPS but very obviously isn't reliable, The National Enquirer would be the first thing to fall out of my mouth, possibly because it's easier to say than Weekly World News. Mishlai (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

Based on recent discussions and disputes about the inclusion of certain content, am I the only one that's finding the continued edits of the article to be moving further and further from neutrality? New edits continue to reference questionable sources being discussed. New edits and edit undos also reflect biased tones that continues to highlight the concerns people have regarding the weight given to lawsuits (there are 2 now instead of 1) and gossip (a editor repeatedly attempts to restore that the secret entrance to Copperifle's warehouse is through a "sex shop" based on a Hugh Jackman quote from the website Handbag.com). It's giving the feeling that there is desire to focus more on the sensational gossip-style news rather than considering what's actually encyclopedic-worthy content. There are a couple of Wikipedia editors who I think would have a great career working for TMZ :) TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that you run Copperfield's fansite, I'll answer the charges that you are clearly aiming at me:

1. The Jackman quote is accurate and the sourcing is fine. It is not "gossip", it's a direct quote. You are more than welcome to find another source that names it a "lingerie" shop and change the page. Ok? Please AGF me when all I am doing is accurately using sources, unlike you.
2. Why don't you spend your time adding positive info to the page instead of bemoaning the fact that I have uncovered properly sourced info that does not always paint your hero in the best light? I assure you I shall not try to delete any positive, well sourced data. Go for it!

Until I came along and started editing the page, which was virtually static and had been for ages, it was little more than a third-rate hagiography. Wikipedia is not censored, and the data I am adding is allowable. The lawsuits are notable and dealt with briefly. The data is not "sensationalistic". ► RATEL ◄ 05:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I never questioned whether the quote was accurate, I just don't see in anyway how it's reliable. When you're trying to spread private and secret info, such as a secret entrance, I would certainly think that you need to have AT LEAST 1 RS and not rely on the first and only source, which is just a quote from someone who claims to have knowledge of it. David's warehouse is not a publically-accessible location, so there would not be any widely published details about where it is or how to get there. The only publicized info about the warehouse are photos from within. So that is why there has not been any references available to the location or the entrance to the warehouse.

I know I have a clear COI on this matter, so I leave it for others to discuss and decide whether a single quote from a very questionable source is useable as RS, and whether the content belongs on the page. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a source . It mentions that the warehouse is "a badly stocked 50’s era lingerie store." I can use this, right? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if we get to see pictures :) Collect (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see too! I just know about it but I've never been inside the building :) TheMagicOfDC (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to article neutrality, I agree with the editor who noted that the spate of entries about Copperfield's lawsuits, and the tone of the entries, could reasonably construed as slanted against Copperfield. However, in the past several days we've come a long way from the page presenting Copperfield in a light that suggests he did some magic once, but now is noted chiefly for lawsuits. The recent addition of the section on the Fireman's Fund lawsuit, in my view, is of questionable importance; unless the page were devoted to a history of Copperfield's lawsuits, I think it could be argued that the Fireman's Fund entry is suitable for deletion. However, I have revised it to remove the tone that implied, in my view, that Copperfield is a crank who fantasized the Russian mafia kidnapped his equipment, and who based a lawsuit on said fantasies--and lost. It is also significant that Copperfield has been the victor in a number of lawsuits, none of which are mentioned on his page. I will begin a review of wiki pages of other celebrities who have been involved in various lawsuits to try to determine whether their pages contain as much detail about litigation as does Copperfield's. Karelin7 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield is involved in Magic? what gave you that idea? certainly not this page which covers all of that in about two paragraphs! --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the articles listed at WP:GOOD -- under the arts section, there's several lists of celebrities and entertainers that provide some models to follow. I have also seen several references made to the Madonna (entertainer) article as a good arts bio. Flowanda | Talk 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, my point exactly; the page looks like Copperfield is a professional litigant. Compare, for example, the following:

Bill Cosby's wikipedia page: Although there are headings "Personal Life" and "Views on Morality," Cosby's page contains NO MENTION of the fact that he was under investigation by the Montgomery County, PA District Attorney for sexual assault; and that his accuser sued him, and that Cosby settled the lawsuit. There were attention-grabbing headlines like "Bill Cosby Settles Lawsuit: Woman Had Accused Cosby of Drugging and Sexually Abusing Her" and "Cosby Investigated by Montgomery County PA District Attorney, but no prosecution". Cosby has had at least one other lawsuit of this nature brought against him as well. But his page contains nothing whatsoever about these lawsuits.

Copperfield's page, by contrast, contains not only the lawsuit against his insurance carrier, but the lawsuit by the person from whom he bought his island.

Rod Stewart's page is another example. Harrah's sued Stewart for breach of contract and claimed he kept the $2 million Harrah's paid him for the canceled shows. Stewart was sued by a foreign tour promoter in another, but similar lawsuit, and accused of keeping $2.1 million.

Rod Stewart's page contains no mention of these lawsuits.

Oscar De La Hoya's page, while it does contain an entry about the infamous lawsuit involving the doctored photos of him, contains absolutely no mention of the lawsuit against him and his company in which he was accused of stealing the idea for "The Contender."

Copperfield's page has so much on it about lawsuits I created a separate heading for that subject and placed the info there today.

I also added a new heading for Copperfield's Guinness Book Records, and listed them--strangely, they were never listed on his page.

If I look at Cosby's page, or Stewart's, or De La Hoya's, I am immediately immersed in detail about their respective careers. I see an overview of the development, their early years, their breakthroughs, and the entire trajectory of their careers to date. There is no doubt that Cosby is a comedian/actor/producer; Stewart is a musician; De La Hoya is a boxer.

Copperfield, who has been in the business for nearly forty years, had a page that handled his career is a couple of sentences, then detailed the time he was mugged, the allegations of rape and sexual assault, the breach of contract lawsuit, etc., in far more detail than was spent on his career.

I am asking for a consensus here. My suggestion is that the mugging be removed, the Fireman's Fund lawsuit be removed, and the lawsuit about his purchase of the island be removed. I will not remove them without support from editors who agree with the suggestion. However, they seem trivial and oddly injected into the page, as if they were being made to fit. And in light of the other celebrity pages mentioned above--and I'm scratching the surface, I have not finished researching other celeb pages--shouldn't Copperfield be afforded the same kind of treatment? Karelin7 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, disagree entirely. You are a personal friend/employee of Copperfield's and your attempt to sanitise this page based on other partial and inadequate biographies on wikipedia will fail. I suggest you study the page on Michael Jackson to see that lawsuits and details of sexual improprieties and charges are covered fully in wikipedia. There are other similar pages. Please note that the page currently does not cover things I think it should cover, such as Copperfield's alleged attempt to force a woman into sex in his limousine, as recounted by his ex-chauffeur, and the TMZ report on his predatory attitude to "scorpions" (attractive young women). These reports should be referenced in the FBI lawsuit section, even if only like this: "Tabloid media reports have carried allegations of other improprieties concerning women(cite)(cite)." We also need a sentence: "Copperfield is alleged to have a family in Las Vegas(cite)". ► RATEL ◄ 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is much in the article that is in violation of WP:UNDUE and it needs to be severly pruned. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

UNDUE applies mainly to viewpoints, not facts. If a verifiable and sourced statement is given undue weight, it can be shortened, not excluded. And since most of the negative details about Copperfield have already been excluded (on specious grounds, like questioning the reliability of TMZ) or pared back to a sentence or two, I don't see how you could go further without actually censoring wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 02:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is "censorship" to you? As for making aspersions on the good faith of editors -- please do not. The NAtional Enquirer etc. were deemed "not reliable sources" by an overwhelming set of opinions. Which means that they can not be used here. And I further submit that you do not have consensus for inserting the deleted material -- which is required by WP:BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If this[18] was your first edit to this article, Ratel, then it doesn't seem to be the start of some great revival you sparked to a stagnant fan article. Flowanda | Talk 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel COI / Neutrality

I don't know why you are making a PA on me here. My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Karelin7, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion. ► RATEL ◄ 08:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On reflection I think we need to agree that Moses is an unreliable source, unless you happen to have a copy of the tablets... Amicaveritas (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Yes, that's the conclusion I came to as well, many years ago, hence my atheism. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP is not intended as a repository of salicious material. It is not the National Enquirer. And if any editor feels that it is our task to push salacious material in biographies, that editor is wrong. Collect (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Given your comment above, Ratel I believe there is a Conflict of Interest in your edits to any Biographies of the Living. I'd suggest it is potentially inappropriate for you to edit any biography directly and you should declare your COI before doing so. Any editor with a COI should gain consensus on a talk page rather than edit the article directly. BLP must be written conservatively and neutrally; WP is not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper it is an encyclopedia. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Amica. We all have motivations for researching and editing certain pages, whether it be because we are fans, or we have political leanings, or we dislike someone, or we have a special interest in someone or some subject ... the list goes on. People freely admit to editing because of political motivations, which is of course a form of COI, but instead it is welcomed. I suggest you study the page WP:COI and find out what a real COI is. On this page the only people with COIs are the ones working for Copperfield and/or running his fansite. These people, who by rights should be extremely circumspect about the edits they do to the page, are in fact now dictating the tone of the page and making extensive edits to the page, even to the extent of including ticket prices for visits to his resort(!), all without a peep from the so-called "editors" monitoring what's going on here. The only person who has done any research here on Copperfield is ME! The rest of you are either Copperfield's gophers, or Copperfield fanboyz, or net-nannies brought here by Collect's tattle-taling on the noticeboards (and whose chief contribution to the debate has been to finger wag and head shake). It's pretty discouraging; it makes me feel that wp has been co-opted to an extent wherever celebs with deep pockets are in frame. And while I agree with Policy about tabloids in that you should not directly quote them, I see no problem with saying something vague about the "mistreatment of females" allegations, and about the concealed family, since the report was clearly accurate, based on his lawyer's responses to the Enquirer and other websites (see link above where his lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to a blog site that published the info, saying that this is info Copperfield was keen to suppress). As for mistreatment of females, it is clear that there is a pattern here. We have a former employee willing to testify in court that DC tried to force himself on a woman in his limo, and another young woman, just 21yrs old, who went to one of his shows with her parents and was allegedly deceived into going alone with him to his resort, after being recruited though CD's sleazy "system" as exposed in the TMZ, and then allegedly raped and beaten. Other women have come forward and said they were also roped into Copperfield's life this way (I need to find the reports, been too busy this last week). So a passing mention of these allegations, which were widely reported after publication in the Enquirer and TMZ, needs to go onto the page. Otherwise we have the situation where everyone who reads widely knows about the allegations and reports, but there is no mention on wikipedia in any way at all. Ask yourself this question: if someone wrote and independent and well-researched biography of this man, would they include these reports and allegations? Of course they would! That is the acid test, for me. If negative info is so frowned upon, we should simply hand BLP pages over to the subjects to edit themselves. Tell them to say what they want the world to know. It's free advertising, or you can send a check to Jimbo if you appreciate the service. ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you act in good faith, but I beg to differ. The first line states: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." - please explain to me how Neutrality features with regard to your statement of motive; I admire your honesty but I'd suggest that it really is a clear COI. Investigative journalism would better suit your motivation I think, not encyclopedic research. Your COI is just diametrically opposed to the fansites and I agree they should be equally circumspect in editing. Allegations are just that - allegations. IMHO (and I believe in my interpretation of wiki policy) these have no place in Biographies of the Living; regardless of our personal feeling should they be proven to be true. The emphasis here is on "should they be proven to be true", our courts thankfully operate on innocence until guilt is proven - not trial by media driven opinion. Amicaveritas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstand. A good encyclopedia page is the result of many minds. I represent the negative viewpoint (for the moment), but I do not, repeat do not, want the page to be purely an attack piece on the subject. Notice how I encourage people to insert positive info above. If positive things exist, by all means, insert the info and citations! My AIM therefore is not to slant the information in any direction, or to make the page reflect a POV. Rather, my aim is to have ALL AVAILABLE RELEVANT DATA displayed, so that readers may weigh the good and the bad and get a complete picture of the subject's life, warts and all. It's a bit disappointing that I have to spell this out to you. If you truly AGFed me, you wouldn't need to be told this explicitly. And you already know that I am an inclusionist and I've urged people to add positive info, so I really do not see why you are taking this tack, unless perhaps you are forgetful or deliberately obtuse. As for " allegations", where there is sufficient smoke, there is usually fire, and thefact that these allegations are repeatedly made is newsworthy and encyclopedic, even if you exclude the gory details. BTW, the TMZ report is not an allegation, it's fact. If it were lies, the litigious Mr Copperfield would have sued them sooner than you could say "Abracadabra!" ► RATEL ◄ 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And I find your claim that you are the only person here who has done any research to be extraordinarily ill-stated. As for your PA on me -- and assumption of innocence on your part -- that is simply incroyable. Feel free to write to Jim if you want. Collect (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Flowanda list some links below that might be useful... Amicaveritas (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, your blatant disrespect for other editors is appalling. As I told you on my talk page and elsewhere, your ongoing attempts to dismiss editors with labels -- and now name calling -- is unproductive. And now alarmingly destructive. I suspect one reason the article is pretty much in the same sad shape as it was when you first started editing it was because of the same reason now -- instead of working to add neutral and well-reported (i.e. not just well blogged or well gossiped around the web) information about this person, we are here arguing with you about a dead issue that you just won't let go of. If you want that information in the article, Ratel, FIND A SOURCE THAT CLEARLY MEETS WP:RS. Until then, can we move on? Flowanda | Talk 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore your unhelpful PAs and baiting, and respond to your claim that this is a dead issue: TMZ has NOT been shown to be non-RS. See the noticeboard discussion of TMZ. The only thing keeping the report of Copperfield's targeting of women off the page is the "consensus" here, a consensus created between admitted fanboyz, admitted DC friend/employees, a personal enemy of mine (who wikilawyers against all my edits), and a bunch of hand-wringing wikibureaucrats. This is not a dead issue, just a blocked issue. ► RATEL ◄ 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No one gets to decide who gets to participate and matter in consensus building, and nobody matters more than anyone else, no matter what they call themselves or others. Consensus here says the sources don't cut it, so please find sources that do and stop trying to disparage other editors. Flowanda | Talk 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen, Flow, I'm not disparaging other editors but just calling it like I see it. A fanboy is a fanboy, etc. This issue will never be closed. Consensus changes over time. I await other editors arriving here who will support the re-insertion of the TMZ link to the page, and I have no doubt that will happen eventually. If I find other sources for the children data, I shall insert, you can be sure. ► RATEL ◄ 05:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Neutrality - random break 1

I have moved the section on the federal investigation under lawsuits and note, again, that the treatment of Copperfield's page on wikipedia is somewhat anomalous. As noted, Bill Cosby was investigated for allegations apparently similar to the allegations that have been reported in the press about the investigation of Copperfield. And Cosby was sued by the victim and settled. Nowhere is that reported on Cosby's wiki page. Michael Jackson's page, which has been cited to support the slanted reportage afforded Copperfield, is not a great analogy as Michael Jackson, over the past decade, has been identified largely as an alleged pedophile through a spate of lawsuits, interviews, and criminal prosecutions.

I respect Ratel for declaring his bias against celebrities and his mission ("I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer.") However, in my view, that constitutes a conflict that warrants extreme caution when editing a BLP, particularly in light of wiki's stringent standards for BLPs. For some reason, Copperfield has been singled out for disparagement by emphasizing lawsuits and investigations--while, as I noted several days ago, Rod Stewart, as one example, has been sued twice (and successfully at least once) for allegedly breaching contracts to perform and keeping millions of dollars. The same allegations in the pending Viva Art lawsuit against Copperfield. Yet nowhere is that listed on Rod Stewart's page. Why is it newsworthy for Copperfield but not for Stewart? Or for Cosby?

Additionally, Ratel sounds like an intelligent, articulate person. Surely he does not believe everything that is reported about celebrities in the media, let alone the tabloids. There is a rush, an urgency, to include unsubstantiated and salacious gossip from tabloid sources about Copperfield. I understand that wikipedia's standard is whether something can be verified as having been reported, not whether it is factually true; however, wikipedia's standards for BLPs do not countenance reportage that constitutes a reckless disregard for whether or not an entry is true. Nor would wikipedia's standards seem to permit the placing of innocent people at risk, as was done by iterating the National Enquirer piece that about the corporation through Copperfield purchased a home for his children and their mother, and the location of that property. People can trace the location by searching public records for the corporation and its holdings; people familiar with Las Vegas, as Ratel well knows as a Las Vegas resident, can readily infer the home's location. The proof of the pudding is the spate of intrusions that occurred after the National Enquirer piece came out, which led the author of the piece to apologize to Copperfield, and led to legitimate papers declining to reprint the article--a chief reason it has not been republished. In conclusion for now, until recently, Copperfield's considerable achievements were all but absent from his wikipedia page, which was thick with tabloid-style stuff and negatively-slanted reportage. I'm suggesting that we all use good judgment, common sense, and adhere to wiki standards. Karelin7 (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The deficiencies of the Cosby and Rod Stewart pages do not mean the same deficiencies in coverage are warranted here. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
2. I have not given "emphasis" to lawsuits. I simply mentioned them. I could have expanded each one into several paragraphs, in which case you'd have a point.
3. There is no "rush" to include salacious details about your client. These reports have been out there for several years. They were only added to the page, or suggested for addition to the page, in the last few weeks/months.
4. The exact location of your client's children has never been mentioned on these pages, except in the vaguest of terms relating to an unnamed golf course community. So this is a straw man argument. Nobody could be bothered to search company records to find where the home is. If someone is prepared to go that far, then they would find this data anyway via other means (for example, the report is carried by the Las Vegas Review Journal and is still available in the internet). We all note too that even though this info was published and distributed everywhere over 1.5 years ago, no harm came to the children. The addresses of many celebs are public knowledge without harm accruing to their children. May I suggest your concern over this disclosure is more related to the importance of maintaining your ageing client's "eligible bachelor" image than with anything to do with the safety of children?
5. We have no knowledge of an apology to Copperfield by the Enquirer journalist who revealed the approximate childrens' location. This, if it happened, is only something Copperfield and his lawyer would know.

Now let me ask you a question, Karelin7. Would you object to a sentence that mentions that DC has two children by a Czech model, an important biographical detail, using a source that does not mention the location or ownership details as given in the Enquirer? ► RATEL ◄ 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add here for discussion the sentence and the reliable source you want to add to the main article. Flowanda | Talk 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let Karelin7 answer, Flowanda. This is a general question on principle regarding this issue, not a specific edit (yet). ► RATEL ◄ 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Flowanda has the right idea. The article talk page is supposed to be used for improving the content of the article and not for discussing editors motivations. The best way to get this conversation back on track is to have specific content ideas and their sources provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, let's posit this: "Copperfield has fathered two children with a Czech model."[19] ► RATEL ◄ 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I will immediately stomp all over my previous comment. You present that as a source and expect anyone to take you seriously? Come now. Even WP:AGF has its limits. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, the guy has kids. Even his lawyers admit it [20]. The issue is about not disclosing the whereabouts of the children, if you've been paying attention. And since when is the World Wrestling Entertainment site automatically unreliable? WWE is quoted on the NYSE and is a large company [21] ► RATEL ◄ 03:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are digging your hole deeper and deeper and deeper. Please, come back to a point where we might have some speck of ground to stand on where we could assume you are acting in good faith. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comments add nothing to the discussion. I'll ignore them from now on. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever all this is about has got to stop. This article concerns a real, live, breathing person; respecting that is what WP:BLP is completely about. Karelin7, you need to review WP:POINT before adding anything to the main article, no matter how well the source can be defended. Ratel, seriously, you know your source is not remotely WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I do? How so? As I said, the WWE site fronts a major company. It's not a blog. You are all missing a key point here: Copperfield and his minions are not denying the existence of the children. They are only eager to hide the location of the family. This new source does not include the location details. ► RATEL ◄ 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dredging up the last possible specks of good faith: reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until it gets mentioned in the WSJ then. lol. ► RATEL ◄ 04:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And I have once again moved it back - rape allegations are clearly to do with his personal life not his business or professional life. Let's be clear about this, Ratal got out of control with his behaviour but we are *not* and will not whitewash an article - it's pretty clear the constant movement of that section is to hide it. It is also pretty clear that a couple of our editors have a COI, they've been up and upfront about it and it's not been a problem. *however* if they persist in trying to bend an article so it's a whitewash then I'll start moving to have them topic-banned. We are not here to produce a "pro" article anymore than we are here to produce a "anti" article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Undue weight. If it's to be included it's fine where it is. If you want it under personal it needs to be one line in total. I'm unhappy enough about including allegations in a biography of any living person; I suggest checking Encyclopedia Britannica’s entry on Copperfield. This is not about producing a "pro article" it is about producing an encyclopedic article it MUST be conservative (from both sides), Neutral and properly weighted. An openning section entitled "personal life" where over 50% is dedicated to an accusation is a clear violation of many polices. Please do not move it again without consensus. Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have literally pull all of that straight out of your arse - WP:UNDUE places no constraits on placement or length - it relates to the decription of an incident within the context of the article and the subject's life - the lenght is determined by our subjective judgement. Placement is also a matter of style - if we agree it should be in - and it seems it should be, your bizzare logic that it can be longer in length if hidden in the article is complete and utter bunk. The paragraph is either acceptable and therefore can be placed in the article at the top in the right section or it's not and it needs to be written. So what is it? Is it acceptable or does it need to be re-written? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you retract your personal attack and move it back. I refer you to "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The letter, spirit and purpose of NPV and weight is quite clear. If you insist on flagrant disregard for BLP and wikipolicy there will be consequences. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also add you are acting completely alone without the consensus. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

you completely miss my point - you are claiming that it cannot go in the personal life section due to "neutrality" - our policies say *nothing* of the sort. Either the content is fit and proper and can be placed in any section (expect for the lede where it would be undue) or it's not fit and proper and should be removed. This whacko idea that a paragraph magically becomes neuetral if placed half way down the page but biased if placed at the top is completely without basis in policy - it's the same paragraph. So I'll ask my question again - is the paragraph fit and proper or is it not? If it's not fit and proper, why are you not changing it or editing it or removing it? Your position is confused, your logic is weak, your arguement without merit. I dismiss you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't miss your point; I just disagree. The placement of editorial within certain headings and depending on the other contents of that section undue weight can be given to content depending on its location. This is neither a weak argument nor an unfounded one. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to refrain from personal attacks - consider this a formal warning. You also cannot just dismiss the argument (but feel free to disagree) and your edit warring on the topic has been reported (if this was inadvertent please undo the change yourself and wait for consensus). Amicaveritas (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your specific point on suitability of the paragraph: My view is that there is far too much detail from something that is simply an allegation (no matter how distasteful the allegation). However when it is included in the section regarding legal cases it does not carry the same impact as it does included in full with the first section of the article; this most certainly influences the neutrality of the article. In the absence of a consensus to reduce it, I still maintain its proper place is in the Lawsuits and FBI Section where it has happily resided for quite sometime. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Times sources

Expanding the rest of the article might also help balance the controversial sections. Here are several links to NYTimes articles that may be helpful in providing details and sourcing: brief info on college and career, magic underground: [22] [23] [24] 85 info on CBS special, 79 review (not free), 1996 profile, 1996 review with some stats on Broadway show and controversy, review and celeb reactions, info on museum collection, more 96 reviews/profile,

Are these helpful? Flowanda | Talk 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2006 robbery

I've added a citation to a 2006 article from the Palm Beach Post, which should be sufficient for now to verify information about the 2006 mugging. The CNN link no longer works, and the forum link has been removed. Flowanda | Talk 04:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The CNN reference has been replaced with an AP article on USAToday. Flowanda | Talk 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Content Order and Weight

Hi, first of all, I know, COI, blah blah blah. I'm not making any edits, I just have a question/suggestion that I'm curious about what the consensus may be. I have been browsing Wikipedia articles of some other celebrities, specifically focusing on famous magicians, and what I have noticed is that pretty much ALL of them focuses on the artists' career first. Makes sense...they are all celebrities, so the encyclopedic article focuses and talks about what they are famously known for. None of the ones I saw has dedicated sections on lawsuits and/or investigations, even if those celebrities were known to have been involved in them.

Having said all that, I'm not proposing that we REMOVE anything from the Copperfield article, but just re-order the conten so that it's more in line with other celebrity pages. For example, combine "Personal Live" and "Career and Businss Interests" in a single section called "Biography." The sub-sections for "Robbery" and "FBI Investigation" would still remain in the "Biography" section but do not need sub-headings to bring undue weight on the subject matter. On the Michael Jackson page, the story of his alleged child molestation charges doesn't even have a section dedicated to it, and I'm sure that news is more well-known than David's alleged rape charges.

As it stands right now, I think the Copperfield page is somewhat biased in that it continues to bring negative content to the top of the page, when it really should be neutral biographical information that. At least that's how the other celebrity pages I've seen are structured. For reference, these are the celebrity pages I reviewed: Madonna_(entertainer), Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Kathy_Griffin, and these are the magician pages I reviewed: The Pendragons, Penn & Teller, Penn Jillette, Teller, Harry Houdini, Robert Houdin, David Roth, Siegfried & Roy, Slydini, Chung Ling Soo, Jim Steinmeyer, Cyril, Thurston, Dai Vernon, Masked Magician, David Blaine, Eugene Burger, Lance Burton, Cardini, Rudy Coby - Labman, Paul Daniels, Simon Drake, Michael Finney, |Ching Ling Foo, Michael Ammar, Chris Angel, Herbert Becker, Blackstone Jr, Uri Geller, Doug Henning, Kevin James, Amazing Jonathan, Andre Kole, Amazing Kreskin, Max Maven, and Jeff McBride. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Michael Jackson page, the story of his alleged child molestation charges doesn't even have a section dedicated to it, - em.. yes it does and it's own sub-article. However I have no problem with merging sections to follow a chronological biographical style. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, sorry, I wasn't clear in my original post. I am aware of the section you refrenced, but the child abuse story is grouped together with his marriage, so what I meant was that there's no singular section that just focuses on the child abuse. Apologies for the miscommunication. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well as I've said, I have no objection to such a restructing here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with restructuring the order on his page as well. As it is, it does look more like it is focusing on News audience rather than an encyclopedic one. I arrived at this page looking for Information about David Copperfield. His controversies had no interest to me. If i were to look for a celebrity's recent legal trouble, Wikipedia is not the place I would look. I do think it has a place in the article, but not the top. Thats neither chronologically accurate nor encyclopedicly valuable. --Emely1219 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree - substantially on my firm belief that BLP concerns are of the highest importance, and placing a lawsuit at the top of the pile is not the right way to do things. Collect (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Content order suggestions

I'm not really looking at the content or weight, just trying to suggest a logical sequence to the information for an encyclopedic article. A news article would likely be organized with the most timely/current/well-known/currently important info first, which this kind of is right now. Flowanda | Talk 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Early life and career (includes info from first part of Personal life up to Schiffer info and first section of Biz & Career up to subsections)
• Television specials and appearances
• Business interests (subsections plus an intro on Copperfield as businessperson)
• Earnings
• Controversies (includes lawsuits, robberies, etc.)
• Achievements
• World records
• Personal life (Schiffer info plus charitable activities)

18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

He's still under investigation by a federal grand jury. That's pretty damned notable, and should have some prominence. Grand Juries do not investigate charges that are clearly without any merit. ► RATEL ◄ 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then post the info on Wikinews or other websites dealing with current news; we're discussing the creation and maintenance of a stable encyclopedic article. And as of now, none of the current sourced information you're referring to has been removed or recommended to be removed in the above suggested organization. Flowanda | Talk 06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameron's message and my (Karelin7) response

I received a message from Cameron suggesting that I want to bury the info about the federal investigation, and that section has been moved near the top of the article. But, as others have noted, the format for BLPs that wikipedia tends to follow starts with early years, then career (which is the reason one is usually seeking info about them), achievements, and then a heading "Personal Life." This is the case even when there is a significant controversy associated with the person. Examples:

1. Kobe Bryant:

1 Early years 1.1 High school 2 NBA career 2.1 1996 NBA Draft 2.2 First three seasons (1996–99) 2.3 Championship years (1999–2002) 2.4 Post-Championship years (2002–04) 2.5 After Shaquille O'Neal's departure (2004–07) 2.6 MVP year (2007–2008) 2.7 2008–09 season 3 International career 4 Player profile 5 Personal life 5.1 Sexual assault allegation 6 Endorsements 7 NBA career statistics 7.1 Regular season 7.2 Playoffs 8 Accomplishments and records 9 See also 10 Notes 11 External links

2. Bill Cosby

No mention of the criminal investigation for sexual abuse or the civil suit for same.

3. James Brown

1 Early life 2 Career 2.1 1955: The Famous Flames 2.2 Early and mid-1960s 2.3 Late 1960s 2.4 1970s and the J.B.'s 2.5 Late 1970s and early 1980s 2.6 Late 1980s to the 2000s 3 James Brown Revue 3.1 Concert introduction 3.2 Concert repertoire and format 3.3 Cape routine 3.4 Brown as band leader 4 Social activism 4.1 Civil unrest and self-empowerment 4.2 Fannie Brown 5 Personal life 5.1 Marriages and children 5.1.1 Brown-Hynie marriage controversy 5.1.2 Paternity of James Brown II 5.2 Legal issues 6 Death and the aftermath 6.1 Death 6.2 Memorial services 6.3 Last will and testament 6.4 Burial at temporary site 7 Honors, awards and dedications 8 Discography 8.1 Notable albums 8.2 Notable singles 8.3 Complete singles reissue 9 Filmography 10 See also 11 References 12 External links

Rob Lowe

1 Biography 1.1 Early life 1.2 Early film and television career 1.3 Recent television work 1.4 Sex tape controversy 2 Personal life 2.1 Nanny lawsuit cases 3 Filmography 4 References 5 External links

Roman Polanski

1 Early life 2 Early short films in Poland and Knife in the Water (1962) 3 British films made in collaboration with Gérard Brach during the mid-1960s 3.1 Repulsion (1965) 3.2 Cul-de-Sac (1966) 3.3 The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) 4 Relationship with Sharon Tate, Rosemary's Baby (1968), and the Manson murders 5 Films of the 1970s 5.1 Macbeth (1971) 5.2 What? (1972) 5.3 Chinatown (1974) 5.4 The Tenant (1976) 6 Sex crime allegations 6.1 Charges and guilty plea 6.2 Imprisonment and flight 6.3 Later developments in the case 7 Vanity Fair libel case 8 Later film career 8.1 Tess (1979) 8.2 Pirates (1986), Frantic (1988), and relationship with Emmanuelle Seigner 9 Recent work and honours 9.1 Current projects 10 Style and themes 11 Filmography 11.1 Actor 11.2 Writer 12 Notes 13 References 14 External links

Colin Farrell

1 Early life 2 Career 3 Personal life 3.1 Sex tape 3.2 Alleged proposition for sex 3.3 Dessarae Bradford's accusations 3.4 Celebrity status 4 Selected filmography 5 Awards 6 References 7 External links

Bill Clinton

1 Early life 2 Education 3 Early political career 3.1 Leader of McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign in Texas 3.2 Governor of Arkansas 3.3 Democratic presidential primaries of 1988 3.4 Democratic presidential primaries of 1992 3.5 Presidential election 4 Presidency, 1993–2001 4.1 First term, 1993–1997 4.1.1 Legislative agenda 4.1.2 Travelgate controversy 4.1.3 Death penalty 4.2 Second term, 1997–2001 4.2.1 Lewinsky scandal 4.2.1.1 Impeachment and trial in the Senate 4.2.2 Digital Millennium Copyright Act 4.2.3 Military and foreign events 4.2.4 Whitewater controversy 4.3 Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden 4.4 Law license suspension 4.5 Troopergate 4.6 Pardons and campaign finance 4.7 Legislation and programs 4.8 Judicial appointments 4.8.1 Supreme Court 4.8.2 Other courts 5 Public approval 6 Public image 6.1 Popularity among African-Americans 6.2 Sexual misconduct allegations 7 Security incidents 8 Post-presidential career 8.1 Public speaking and campaigning 8.2 William J. Clinton Presidential Center 8.3 Published work 8.4 William Clinton Foundation 8.5 Relations with George H. W. Bush 8.6 Environment 8.7 Personal health 8.8 2008 election involvement 9 Honors and accolades 10 Electoral history 11 Gallery 12 References 13 Further reading 13.1 Primary sources 13.2 Popular books 13.3 Academic studies 14 External links

Now, look at the current (27 May 2009, 14.55) format of Copperfield's page after Cameron's revision:

1 Personal life 1.1 2006 Robbery 1.2 FBI Investigation 2 Career and business interests 2.1 International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts 2.2 Musha Cay and the Islands of Copperfield Bay 2.3 "Magic Underground" restaurant 3 Lawsuits 4 Earnings 5 Charitable activities 5.1 Project Magic 6 Achievements and awards 6.1 Guinness World Records 7 Television specials 8 Filmography 9 See also 10 References 11 External links

And the allegations against Copperfield are (a) nearly two years old; (b) have never resulted in arrest, indictment, or civil lawsuit; (c) are not part of any apparent pattern of criminality.

With all due respect, I am trying to afford Copperfield the same treatment provided other celebrities, including those who have been accused of, charged with, or convicted of criminal offenses or scandalous behavior. The facts strongly suggest that Copperfield is being unfairly singled out for anomalous treatment. With Ratel, he has candidly stated his motives, at least in part. With other editors the thinking is less clear. But the continued effort to make a mere accusation the centerpiece of Copperfield's page raises questions. I would like to hear suggestions about how to resolve this staying within wiki guidelines. Karelin7 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Karelin7 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're good. What are your hourly rates? ► RATEL ◄ 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can prove this accusation, Ratel, please remove it. Flowanda | Talk 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can prove it. This user has an intimate knowledge of Copperfield's life, knows the unpublished minutiae of Copperfield's lawsuits, claims to know him intimately, speaks fluent legalese, and openly acknowledges his COI. I just wonder what the going rate is for this sort of work. It's a valid question. I wonder if I can earn some money doing the same sort of work. ► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you are saying this editor is being paid specifically to edit or influence Wikipedia articles? This you need to prove with more than your personal observations and your interpretations of personal or professional COI statements. You are making accusations of serious COI violations. Flowanda | Talk 07:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Flow, Ratel raised legitimate concerns regarding Karelin7 to which Karelin7 replied. This falls short of a confrimation of paid interest in my view. Ratel has voiced motives which raised other COI / Neutrality issues. I don't see any COI violations in opinions being posted to a talk page by any editor. Can I suggest that the fact there are opposing views is clear and all refrain from commenting on the editors – instead focusing on improving (from an encyclopedic viewpoint not a black or whitewash viewpoint).Amicaveritas (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that happening as long as editors can attack others with total impunity. Nowhere in the links does it indicate that Karelyn7 is a paid employee, a meatpuppet or even a lawyer. Suggestions on how to solve this issue is welcome, but ignoring attacks and accusations does not seem to work. Flowanda | Talk 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Content organization

Why exactly do you prefer that version? Is you "preference" consistent with Wikipedia's policies on concensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emely1219 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As there is/was no consensus one way or the other as to these recent edits concerning organization, let's stop the edits on the main article until the discussion about content order is decided. Flowanda | Talk 01:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of all these SPAs with COIs running the show here. Cameron Scott and I think the version we like reads more logically. The SPAs appear to be on a mission to sanitize the page and re-order placement to camouflage notable events. Bzzzt! Stop. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an alternative possibility. Collect (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be coy. What do you mean? Flowanda | Talk 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess I'm with the SPAs and the sockpuppets and the fanboys and the handwringing wikibureaucrats since I agree with the present edits and the ongoing discussion that is trying to address Wikipedia policy instead of condemning editors because they choose to "tell it like it is" about their identity or biases. So, crawl through my talk page again, Ratel, and figure out a new way to try to shut me up based on who you think I am or what failure my edits represent that prevent me from having a voice and a vote on this page. Until then, I will continue to focus on the edits, no matter who makes them, or how material -- or immaterial -- the motives are. Flowanda | Talk 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with your position on this. Collect (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with your position on this. Although I don't see any sock issues here and I do not want to see an article whitewash either. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Flawanda, I see you have difficult avoiding PAs. Side with the socks and gophers, go ahead. Know the person by the company he keeps. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Report me for making a Personal Attack, Ratel. You've made enough insinuations, so let's get this over with. Now. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You should move that comment to my Talk page. You have no idea what an article Talk page is for, clearly. ► RATEL ◄ 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider the matter settled then. That is what talk pages are for -- discussing edits, not editors. If you have issues with specific editors, Ratel, please post your concerns on their their talk pages or file a formal complaint on an appropriate noticeboard. Flowanda | Talk 06:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note i've reported the starter of this section as a sockpuppet (or might be a meatpupper). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7. This article needs a lot of work, so staying focused on the edits will help keep the stress level down. Flowanda | Talk 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbes sources

• Short first-person commentary (based on an interview) in Forbes dealing with revealing secrets:[25]. Not sure where it fits in now, but hasn't there been some conflict about this subject?
• Info about Copperfield's islands.[26]
• Trivia, but fun[27]
• Background on collecting, but probably not useful here as a reference[28]
• A couple of sentences about his #19 place earnings (article from 1998): "19 David Copperfield $49.5 million Here's one magic show that demonstrates no signs of slipping in popularity polls. Once again Copperfield proves that you can control costs in entertainment. His three trucks, modestly priced production and in-house management team paid largely in fees is a cash cow for the illusionist."[29]
• Article about Criss Angel, but references Genii mag as a trade pub[30]

Flowanda | Talk 03:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Picture?

Hi, I don't fully understand the rules for posting a picture on a BLP page, like the rights to use a specific picture. Am I right in understanding we can't use press release/publicity photos? If so, what about personal photos I've taken? I have some much more recent pictures of Copperfield I can offer to use instead of the current one used on the page, which was from at least 15 years ago, but I want to make sure I stay within the guidelines. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can use photos you took yourself. Upload to the Commons area: [31] ► RATEL ◄ 05:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ratel. I have uploaded a more recent photo and replaced it in the mail article. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you also update the caption? Otherwise the photo is of Copperfield in an undershirt in 2008, and still says it's of him after a show in 2006, presenting the impression that he wandered around after shows in his undershirt. --GRuban (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, the caption is correct, I took that photo after the show in Atlantic City in 2006. Where do you see 2008? And the clothing you see him wearing in that photo is what he wears on stage when he performs...it has been his stage wardrobe for almost the past 10 years. That's one of the reasons I updated the photo, because the other one was so outdated :) TheMagicOfDC (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it in the image summary. I don't know how I typed in the incorrect year there, but I have fixed it to say 2006. Thanks for pointing it out, GRuban! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the wardrobe, and removed the date from the other pic; that is the date on the source, but sometimes image sharing sites will present the upload date as the photograph date. I still think it's useful to have both, though. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro expansion

I think the article intro needs to be a more comprehensive description of Copperfield's career. As it is now, it's just about the commercial side, which has been easier to document, but ultimately should be a summary that covers the highlights in a couple of short paragraphs that are detailed later in the article. I really don't know much about Copperfield, but from reading some of the profiles in the above sources I posted, the points that stick out to me are the lavish stage shows (and how much he tours), how he impacted the magician trade (both good and bad), his career path (young age, TV specials, over-the-top illusions, Las Vegas), some of his most notable illusions (Statue of Liberty) and awards, his business ventures and significant controversies. Any thoughts? Flowanda | Talk 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The same "big illusions" were done in the 1800s <g>. Collect (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Copperfield is not known for those, unless you can source his time travel. Flowanda | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL, or, Just the facts, Ma'am.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I intended...I'm talking about a current summary based on what reputable source profiles say are significant...both Forbes and NYT articles included such descriptions, and I'm sure there are others. I'd like to come up with something more comprehensive than something based on stats, but I'm not looking to create anything that's not currently sourced. Flowanda | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added excellent source Ratel found that could be useful: "Magic man -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY:2823:". www.timesunion.com. Retrieved 2009-06-07.

Americanchronicle.com and TMZ.com (again) sources removed

Content and cites sourced to TMZ.com and americanchronicle.com were removed as not meeting WP:RS. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Chronicle and [32] for the bare essentials on this non-notable site that does not meet WP:RS. And trying -- yet again -- to readd TMZ.com as a reference clearly violates the consensus achieved on this talk page that this website is not a source that can meet the strict guidelines of WP:BLP for this article. Flowanda | Talk 08:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ may give an editor leads as to things to research but it is not a reliable source for BLPs, even more so for negative content in BLPs, whatever consensus may bring. Moreover, TMZ text cited to support neutral text on en.Wikipedia may have negative or unflattering content: Citing such text to lead readers to that kind of content is also a violation of BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing per WP:RS

I'm not going to edit war with you, but if you continue to introduce content sourced to websites that do not meet WP:RS -- the two sources you've used clearly cannot support the claims made -- I will revert them. Please see WP:3RR and WP:BLP concerning the removal of poorly sourced content. Flowanda | Talk 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact that Copperfield had an accident and was in a wheelchair? That's in the Oprah transcript. What problems do you have with that? ► RATEL ◄ 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

COPPERFIELD: No, I got hurt actually once in rehearsal. I was--I was in a tank of water and I took in--I tore some ligaments in my legs and I took some water in. And it was in a rehearsal, and I was in a wheelchair for a couple weeks. But finally I did it on the show. It was many, many years ago. And I got back on the horse and I did it again. My parents were in the audience and they kept shooting shots of my parents, and they won an Emmy Award that year for their performance. [33]

Seems straightforward to me. ► RATEL ◄ 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Then source the information strictly per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Flowanda | Talk 12:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is magictelevision.org named non-RS? ► RATEL ◄ 13:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "blacklist of unreliable sources" and anything which does not appear there is assumed to be reliable. Sources have to be shown to have reputations for accuracy and fact checking, particularly in articles about living people. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's a .org site devoted to magic and carrying a clearly genuine copy of an Oprah transcript, and I'm using it as a source for what I would have thought is a non-sensitive issue. Overreaction? ► RATEL ◄ 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are using it to make a claim not directly supported by it -- it is an anecdote, and as such you should not translate it and present it as a "fact" -- and you have to find the transcript on Oprah's site in any case. This is not only per RS but per copyright rules. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)To Ratel: Clue: Oprah's official transcripts on her own site would be reliable sources for what Copperfield said on her show, but I suspect this is more an "anecdote" than a matter of "fact" at best. In general, anecdotes are not taken as anything more than stories told by a person. The use of magictv is not only not RS, it also is being used to support a claim that the anecdote is specifically true. Did you know people on talk shows sometimes tell tales? Collect (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please stop with the nonsense and carping. I have excellent sources and more in reserve. Item replaced. ► RATEL ◄ 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours, you have entered into yet another edit war over the use of unsuitable sources, reinserted both the reverted content and source, along with additional unsuitable sources, used a flimsy excuse to try to reinsert the same TMZ website links that were decided by consensus to not be used in the article, ignored warnings that a removed website did not meet WP:RS standards and very likely contained COPYVIO content and reinserted it again without regard for the potential harm it could do to Wikipedia or indicating you had checked it for any copyvio, displayed a disruptive willingness to disregard or feign ignorance of policy and community when challenged, argued with three editors who independently disagreed with both the content and sources you continue to readd, displayed a significant ignorance or unsupported interpretation of BLP and RS policies, especially disturbing for an editor who has 6000+ edits, and dismissed as "nonsense" and "carping" the efforts of community members who continue to discuss and achieve consensus in the midst of the combative and unproductive environments you create. When you were unblocked for similar behavior less than a month ago, you said of BLP "Yes, I know it well, and it's very conservative because of the legal implications. I realise that. And I realise that in the Copperfield case I simply don't have the consensus or sources to act."[34] This latest episode provides clear examples that your behavior, edits, disrespect and defiance of policy and community have not been addressed, and the concerns expressed by editors involved in your block are still valid. Flowanda | Talk 05:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of Ratel's "excellent sources":

• [35] Pay to view, so I -- like most readers -- can't verify the information or read the entire article.
• [36] User-generated review site and a webpage that contains what looks like content copied from another site. No source. No idea of its accuracy or how it was edited. No editorial oversight. No indication of expertise, authority or even who owns or runs the website.
• [37] A non-notable self published book via IUniverse on an Google book page.
• [38] A about.com website -- which doesn't meet WP:RS -- article that does nothing but quote a press release. Flowanda | Talk 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 'wanda, you could have put the effort you've just expended on having a go at me into improving the article. If you think the sources are weak, find better ones. They are there of you know how to look for them. ► RATEL ◄ 05:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't had very good luck in finding them.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you even try to find some sources, like [39] or [40] or [41] ? ► RATEL ◄ 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect in all your intended insults and attempts to disrupt and distract. And very close to 3RR. Flowanda | Talk 06:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"As Far As I Know" doesn't cut it, and I'm not going to do your work to adequately source the trivial information or gossip that you want to add. Flowanda | Talk 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Flowanda, I'm going to put you in my ignore bin with Collect if this continues. If you think anything I have added to the page is incorrect or did not happen, come out and say it, or else stop these pointless attacks. ► RATEL ◄ 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) No one here has "attacked" you. A cup of tea is likely called for. Collect (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

General question about reference formats

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I noticed that in the list of references, some provide quotes from the source and some do not...what determines when to or not to include quotes from the source? I understand if the source is not easily accessible, so you would include a quote for people to see the source of the reference, but what determines when to include quotes or not to a URL link? Again, this is just a general referencing format question, so I apologize if I'm asking in the wrong place TheMagicOfDC (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are only supposed to use a quote rarely, if the source is likely to be challenged, but some people use it liberally, and don't seem to get it changed by others much. I have noticed that some editors on this page, especially Karelin7, are using badly formed and non-standard ways of citing sources. May I ask them please to review WP:CITE#HOW and perhaps use one of the helpful citation tools found here. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Wikipedians go around fixing formats -- there is no need to berate any edotor, as "perfecton is not required" on WP to begin with. Mote. Collect (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't point out there speling errers on talk pages, either. :) Flowanda | Talk 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My spillchucker works gud enuf <g>. The "sic patrol" is one of my peeves, by the way. Collect (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide RS that your spillchucker works gud enuf! :P TheMagicOfDC (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to go through the list of references and remove all of the duplicate sources (i.e. there are several references to the Forbes article "Houdini in the Desert") by giving the reference a name, then referencing the same source in the repeat instances. Before I do, does anyone have any objections to me doing this? I don't think it's really a COI as I'm not changing anything in the article...just doing some clean up. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone started without me...he/she's doing pretty much what I had in mind, so I guess I'll jump in to help in the next couple of days. My goal is to just use 1 source for multiple references instead of posting mutiple instances of the same source. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WOW Thanks Ratel! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Schiffer — Paris Match lawsuit

[alleged BLP violation redacted by admin Gwen Gale] Anyone care to do the legwork? ► RATEL ◄ 07:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WP is not a tabloid. Collect (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Put another way, that could be taken as a stealthy smear, WP:UNDUE. Following WP:BLP, it's not on to further carry on a smear by reporting that the celebrity won a lawsuit over a smear. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between smearing someone and reporting the actual facts of his life. Not sure everyone here understands the difference. Proposed edit:

[alleged BLP violation redacted by admin Gwen Gale]

Start ... ► RATEL ◄ 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And lacking any consensus for more of the stuff you wish to add? Collect (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations can't be posted on talk pages either. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken this up with Gwen Gale on her talk page. I believe this is not a BLP violation, and I'm going to get other (uninvolved) opinions. ► RATEL ◄ 11:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP/N? It appears that too many agree with Gwen Gale about this being a BLP violation for that route to avail. Collect (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to keep this on the relevant talk page (ie here). Gwen Gale makes a basic error in claiming this is a BLP vio. Her latest tack is to state (on my talk page) that Paris Match is a "tabloid" (actually it's a weekly magazine in print since 1948) and therefore not usable. But Paris Match is not used as a source for anything. The simple fact is that Copperfield and Schiffer launched a huge lawsuit against one of the most well known magazines in the world that happens also to be one of France's most successful and influential magazines. This fact (the lawsuit) was reported in many reliable sources. Now you cannot suppress this, or should not be able to suppress this, unless her misinterpretation of BLP holds sway. Just as the gay rumours concerning Tom Cruise are well covered in their own section on his page, so this needs to be covered. ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see -- if he did not sue, then the rumour can be in the BLP because it then must be true, and if he does sue, then the rumour can be in the BLP? I do not see the logic there. And quite frankly WP does "suppress" material which is contentious in BLPs. That is policy, and if you wish to change that policy, I suggest you try on the WP talk page for the policy. Collect (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer you this once because you uncharacteristically ask an interesting question.

if he did not sue, then the rumour claim can be in the BLP because it then must be true If a person does not litigate against claims published in widely-read and well-known sources, then it may get into a BLP if the source can pass RS (although some editors will try to stop it on weight and npov grounds).

if he does sue, then the rumour claim can be in the BLP Yes. Whether you like it or not, it's an event in the life of a person and sometimes a very significant financial event. If the litigation is reported widely in RSes, what possible reason can there be to suppress it? It's not wikipedia's policy to sanitise lives, removing well sourced events in a misguided attempt at censorship. If the claim/s are false, then the lawsuits will be successful and this is also reported (as it is in this case). Tom Cruise (actor) is just one example of how this situation is correctly handled. ► RATEL ◄ 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is policy per WP:BLP that contentious material requires a positive consensus for inclusion. Last I looked, you have no concensus for inclusion of the tabloid fodder. Which should suffice to stop this conversation. Collect (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer this too, since you raise it repeatedly on this page. Consensus is a fragile thing. As I've stated before, the people forming the current consensus on this page are either heavily COI-ed in favor of the subject, or people who have no real interest in the topic, but who are interested instead in hobbling me in one way or another because of past interactions I've had with them. In this situation, consensus for including almost anything that is not hagiographic is very hard to find. However, let's imagine what would happen should the subject be charged and convicted of the crime for which he is currently under investigation. I suggest to you that if that should happen, thousands of not-so-gentle eyes will scan this page and consensus would be very different, very quickly. So even if I cannot get consensus with this bunch, I want all issues raised on this talk page for the possible attention of future editors. This includes the publication by Paris Match of claims that the Schiffer-Copperfield relationship was a sham, and the ensuing well-covered lawsuit. ► RATEL ◄ 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL Collect (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section

I'm not unbiased but it seems to me that there is a real effort to include anything that smacks of the salacious, and the sensational, regardless of whether it meets the standards for BLPs. Also, the "let's imagine what would happen should [Copperfield] be charged and convicted of the crime for which he is currently under investigation" sounds like wishful thinking, particularly given Ratel's admitted thirst for reporting celebrity scandals, regardless of whether the facts can be substantiated. Note, too, that we have no information now from government sources confirming that (a) the investigation is continuing; (b) establishing exactly which crimes, if any, are being investigated. For some reason there is a real urge to load the page with as much disparaging information as possible. This is not in keeping with the standards of neutrality that wiki requires, particularly for BLPs. What's the deal? Karelin7 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact that a celebrity doesn't sue every tabloid or media source that publishes defamatory material shouldn't be considered an admission that the material is true. To do so is naive. Louis Nizer, one of the greatest American lawyers of the last century, noted, "Although libel laws do not distinguish between a minor hurt and a serious one, I have always felt that it was good discretion not to launch a suit for every lie uttered. The highest estate which a lawyer can reach is not to be a brilliant technician but to be a wise adviser. Not every grievance should result in a lawsuit. In a crowded competitive world, people will step on each other's toes literally and figuratively. But we ought not to rush into court every time we have been jostled or an angry cussword has been spoken. Legal warfare is expensive and harrowing. It should be resorted only when there is real damage, not merely high sensitivity to a slur. The exception, of course, is when an important principle is involved . . . ." Ratel, who averages eleven hours a day editing wikipedia, is to be applauded for his dedication. But it is easy to lose sight of personal biases that can lead one to violate wikipedia's rules. Nevertheless, this is an interesting exchange and does test standards and principles and it's interesting to follow. Karelin7 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with shortening the section. I think the subsection headings should be removed, and the FBI investigation shortened to the first two and the last sentence and the 2006 shortened as well. The Schiffer section could be expanded a bit as it was a six-year high-profile relationship and include a phrase about the lawsuit and results. And from my recent personal bias against wordiness, I request fewer comments like the second paragragh above. Most of it is unrelated to this article, and includes what could be considered a "bless your heart" about another editor. Long story short, just the edits, m'am. :) Flowanda | Talk 17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see our paid editors are out in force - I'm busy but I am keeping an eye out for attempts to return this article to the virtual blowjob it was in the pass. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? If so, let's take it to ANI because I will not take this kind of unsupported accusation or even "guilt by association". Karelin7 is following the COI policy of posting on the talk page, so CAN WE PLEASE ALL STICK TO THE EDITS AND NOT THE EDITORS? Flowanda | Talk 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And stop using offensive and insulting terms in your comments and edit summaries. They are as much of a tool of distraction as attacking other editors. Flowanda | Talk 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So let's get it out in the open - Karelin7 - please disclosure the nature of your relationship with DC and his businesses. Do you work for him? Employed by one of his businesses? You've *hint* at the COI but I've never seen it clearly established what is it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter? He's COI; he's posting his concerns here. He made requests. I made suggestions that I think are in line with policy. There needs to be more discussion instead of distraction. Are we going to spend another 100,000 words hurling insults and accusations instead of dealing with these edits?

If you think the above comments have no merit BASED ON WIKIPEDIA POLICY, then say so, but if you have a problem with this editor making any kind of contribution anywhere, even if he follows COI, then take it up at WP:COIN and let them deal with that issue separately. Otherwise, please stick to the edits being discussed...that is what this talk page is for.

And no, I have absolutely no conflict of interest related to this editor, subject, article, other editors, and no animosity or POV issues with any other editor. I am frustrated that we spend all the time here talking about other editors instead of the edits. I assert that if we deal with the concerns expressed by this editor (whether it's yes, no, whatever), then he will stop bringing them up.

BLP isn't a bunch of fun fact reading for a rainy day; it is policy and deserves to be addressed and followed. And there are enough editors here who can make sure it's followed in this case, even in light of a COI editor who just won't stop following the rules.

So, there's a request and my suggestions for edits. Are there others? Flowanda | Talk 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Expanding TV Specials and adding Live Tours?

As I was reading the entire article over, it just feels like the focus of the page is about everything David does when he's not an illusionist rather than about David AS an illusionist, which is what he is known for. Take Madonna's page for example, it goes into great detail about her discography, and even individual pages created for each album she released. Supposed I were to expand on the Television Specials section, and actually list out all of the illusions performed in each TV special, as well as add another "Live Tour" section, which lists out all of the live tours David has performed worldwide, and list the illusions performed in each tour, would that be considered undue weight; or cause imbalanced neutrality, any COI concerns, or anything negative?

As far as references are concerened, the illusions performed on the TV specials are evidenced by the actual TV shows, and the only source I'm aware of that lists all the illusions for all the shows is my own Copprefield fan site , so that may be a COI concern, although I provide screen caps to each illusion, which backs up my listings. So they ARE accurate info, but I don't know if I'm allowed to list my own fan site as RS.

And regarding the illusions performed on tour, again, I have a listing on my site that's been gathered from close to hundreds of fans reporting to me what they saw when they went to a Copperfield show. I don't know of any sources out there that provides a list of Copperfield's illusions. At the same time, I don't think these count as "breaking news" as anyone who goes to a show will know the info. Any advice? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see descriptions of notable illusions, tours and appearances, and I've found a number of RS reviews that could be used to source them. I'd also like to ditch the existing bulleted list since there's a separate article already. As to your website, I suggest that you post the edits and links here, plus ask for some neutral assistance from WP:COIN and WP:RSN. Flowanda | Talk 20:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Flowanda. So are you suggesting that I post the proposed content of the illusions and tour info here on the talk page? Can you also please clarify a bit more on what you meant by "there's a separate article already"? Thank you in advance. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MagicOfDC, I think you are doing an excellent job of adding cited material to the page that concentrates on DC's career. Keep it up. I'm more interested in making sure the controversies are mentioned so that the page does not become a mere promotional hagiography, but I appreciated your efforts and support them. I'm a bit quiet at the moment since I have a case of swine flu (confirmed)... not nice. ► RATEL ◄ 07:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel, thanks very much for your support. I'm aware of my own COI here so I've been very careful in adding neutral and factual content, and not make this article a promotional article...that's why I don't mention anything about David's show reviews, provide current tour dates and locations, or how/where to purchase souvenirs and memorabelias. I'm very sorry to hear that you are sick with the swine flu virus. Please take care of yourself and I hope you feel better soon. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: The David Copperfield vs Paris Match lawsuit

May we mention the $30M lawsuit David Copperfield instituted against Paris Match about the "sham relationship" allegations with Claudia Schiffer? ► RATEL ◄ 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Ratel

Proposed edit

In 1997, Copperfield and Schiffer sued Paris Match for US$30 million after the magazine claimed their relationship was a stunt, that Schiffer was paid for pretending to be Copperfield's fiancée and that she didn't even like him. In 1999, they won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match, although Copperfield's publicist confirmed that Schiffer had a contract to appear in the audience at Copperfield's show in Berlin where they met.

Note: This edit has numerous other sources; such as:

Chicago Sun-Times

International Herald Tribune

Entertainment Weekly

The Guardian

The Observer

Magic Times

People Mag

People Mag 2

Spokesman Review

Buffalo News

San Jose Mercury News

Indian Express

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Contra Costa Times 1

Contra Costa Times 2

Las Vegas Sun

Modesto Bee

Fox (fact is mentioned)

---

I feel the edit is balanced, neutral, notable and well sourced. It is not a "smear" since there was good basis for the magazine article (a contract for Schiifer's appearance in the audience did exist). It is notable because it was a large (in dollars) lawsuit that was widely reported. And the sourcing is so wide that it cannot be questioned. The edit is only 2 sentences, so there is no undue weight. And it is npov because no slant is given to the wording, for or against. ► RATEL ◄ 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

• Oppose For the umpteenth time, WP is not a tabloid, and saying you wish to add negative stuff to BLPs is a case of this by definition: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. [42] " They won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match in January when they sued the magazine for $30 million for claiming their relationship was a sham. " Where a publication has issued an official retraction, it is improper to give further life to the retracted material on WP. [43] "The court determined the "contract" was indeed a fake, and ordered the publication to pay Schiffer damages (an exact dollar figure was not released) and issue a retraction. " Yet here you wish WP to print whatty has been retracted -- seems that this is improper, indeed, even for your position on BLPs. As for Paris MAtch -- [http://www.parismatch.com/Services/Recherche.html?cx=001648560128572425128%3A7yb0npgsndk&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=david+copperfield&sa=#495[ the article can not be found in their own archives, which rather suggests that they did, indeed, retract it. Is a claim "neutral" when the publisher has retracted it? Nope. Is adding dirt on celebrities just becasue you "like" doing so proper? Nope. Is using WP to push material already proven False in a court of law proper? Nope. Is using an RfC to make claims that this edits is proper, proper? Try again. This is nothing more than a continued attack on the BLP rules and policies of WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Putting your continuing PAs against me to one side, you persist in misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to re-fight court battles or decide right from wrong but (on biographical pages) to record the notable events in a person's life. As a tertiary source with a myriad of secondary sources, these events are eligible for mention in the subject's life story (which is why you will find interviewers asking Copperfield about these events in interviews linked above). And I only suggest that a brief summary of what Paris Match published be stated, so as to make sense of the event. In fact there are many more details I have omitted from my proposed edit. It really is the barest minimum of data, to apprise readers of the events surrounding the litigation. And FYI the material was not all proven false in a court of law, only the assertion that the relationship was an ongoing commercial relationship. Copperfield's side had to accede to the charge that the supposed "discovery" of Schiffer in the audience was actually a carefully prepared illusion. They had contracts to hand to prove that. What they couldn't prove was that there were other contracts covering the rest of the appearances of Schiffer with Copperfield, so they were ruled against. Strangely enough, the relationship between Copperfield and Schiffer ended shortly after this whole episode became public. ► RATEL ◄ 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that WP is not a tabloid and does not keep posting smears which have been retracted is a personal attack? I would hope not! The furtherance of a libel on the basis that it was published and then retracted is a clear violation of BLP. WP:LIBEL is a policy: "For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." ArbCom has ruled "Publishing of false information in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and presents liability concerns both for the editor making the false statement and the project. Reasonable effort by users is expected to avoid or mitigate publishing of false information." [44]

Material which has been officially retracted is not valid for a cite, even if the original smear was picked up by other papers. In fact, the purpose of a retraction is to prevent people from thinking the article was correct. Smears are perforce not fact. Collect (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Flowanda

• Agree Per my comments above, I agree the info should be included, but the length and detail need to be balanced with the rest of the section. Ratel's proposed edit is written neutrally and sourced (although I'd rather see the NYD and independent gossipy briefs changed to more straight forward news articles), but it's out of whack with the rest of the section. There are plenty of solid sources that discuss the relationship and other aspects of his personal life (including observations about trying to keep it private and incorporating personal stories into his shows), so it shouldn't be too difficult to do. Since we err on the side of caution concerning BLPs, I think the proposed edit should stay on the talk page and incorporated into a more complete depiction of the relationship (as reported by RS). However, I think there needs to be some commitments as to contribution and deadlines, so there's no sense of stalling to keep the info out.

:And I have to say, just because there's a retraction and an out-of-court settlement doesn't mean that the Information is Now Stricken and Must Not Be Mentioned. The proposed edits are not about the "smears" themselves, but about the lawsuit and its results. Flowanda | Talk 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood--I thought Collect meant the entire case shouldn't be included because of the retraction...all the more reason to replace the Independent gossipy brief with a news article that provides more neutral reporting. Flowanda | Talk 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests I ask that we try to stick to discussing only the edits and details that should go into the article, not background or other details about the case that are not going to be included. And I ask that we do not comment on past history with other editors or other editors' history or COI (actual or perceived), but that those with COI disclose that info. There's plenty of info on this and other pages for editors to review. Flowanda | Talk 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by TheMagicOfDC (COI Editor)

• Oppose From the source where it said Copperfield's publicist confirmed a contract, the exact quote was "Copperfield's publicist said he and Schiffer had contracts to do the 1993 show, but 'there is no contract that states Claudia is there as some sort of consort.'" So, the publicist only confirmed that there was a contract for Schiffer to particiate in that show, nothing more.

Also, take into account the following 2 points:

1. It's very common for shows (any show) to pay for guest appearances
2. It's very common for magicians and illusionist to have their guests sign contractual agreements to not reveal illusion secrets.

Based on the above, this is what all it appears to be - Copperfield paid Schiffer to make a guest appearance on one of his shows, which is where they met for the first time, and she was contractually obligated to assist Copperfield on stage and not reveal any of the secrets.

I personally feel that by using the phrase "although Copperfield's publicist confirmed that Schiffer had a contract to appear..." in Ratel's proposed edit, it feels as if he is suggesting the contract was for more than just an professional agreement for Schiffer to be part of the show, which there is no evidence of.TheMagicOfDC (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to do original research when considering an edit, MoDC. It doesn't matter what it "appears to be" to us. Our views on the truth or otherwise of the case are immaterial (and we'll never know the full truth anyway). Instead, you have to ask yourself these questions when considering if something should go into the encyclopedia:

Did it actually happen (the lawsuit) according to reliable sources? Answer: yes.

Was it a notable event in the subject's life? Answer: yes (which is why it is so widely covered and why DC is questioned about it in interviews).

Is it being presented neutrally? Answer: yes (to the best of my ability; you are welcome to propose alternate wordings that still include all the salient facts)

Is it given appropriate weight? Answer: yes, although Flowanda makes a good point about including it in a fuller edit about the whole relationship, with which I concur. ► RATEL ◄ 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the input from Ratel and Flowanda, and combined Ratel's proposed edit from above, made some minor changes, and combined it with the 1-lline mention of Copperfield and Schiffer's relationship from the main article, and propose the following:

Copperfield was engaged to supermodel Claudia Schiffer for six years. They had met in 1993 at a Berlin celebrity gala where Schiffer had been contracted to appear and participate in a mind reading act. In 1997, Copperfield and Schiffer sued Paris Match for US$30 million after the magazine claimed their relationship was a stunt, that Schiffer was paid for pretending to be Copperfield's fiancée and that she didn't even like him. In 1999, a French court ruled that the story was indeed false and defamatory and awarded Schiffer an undisclosed amount and a retraction from Paris Match. However, due to incompatible work schedule, Copperfield and Schiffer grew apart and separated amicably in that same year, after a six-year relationship. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

MoDC, that's good, but the last sentence assumes we know that the relationship was real, IOW it's OR. In fact, we don't know anything. Rather say that they parted after 6 years, giving divergent work schedules as the reason. This is more neutrally phrased. You also need to say, somehow, that their original meeting was made to look like a surprise, with Schiffer being "discovered" in the audience, apparently by chance. The way you have written it, it seems as if she was on the billing for the show. She wasn't. It was a subterfuge. That's partly what caused Paris Match to print the article. And don't use emphatic phrases like "the story was indeed false and defamatory" when the source does not say that. ► RATEL ◄ 01:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel, I'll try to work on another edit. In the meantime, the People.com source I referenced did state that the court "...declared the story false and defamatory..." I quoted that passage in my references. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Second thought, I think I'll stay out of this for now...I think my COI is getting in the way. But overall, I still remain opposed to adding info about the Paris Match lawsuit onto the page because I still don't see the relevance of it as part of Copperfield's professional career. I agree with Karelin's comment below that if we were to look up Copperfield on Britannica, there would probably not be mention of inconsequential info like this. However, if there is consensus to actually post the info, then I'll try to add to it with RS and neutrality, but I just feel I shouldn't contribute to it at this moment. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannica comparison

Just because I've seen a few mentions in this talk page of looking up Copperfield on Britannica for comparison, I did just that. Based on Britannica's website, its entry for David Copperfield contained nothing but highlights and milestones on his career. It makes no mention whatsoever on any lawsuits, rumors, or personal relationships, and focuses only on Copperfield's professional career. Based on the content of the current Copperfield page on Wikipedia, it definitely much more like a tabloid than the Briannica article. It's probably a copyright violation for me to quote the article here, but if anybody wants to confirm, you can sign up for a free trial membership at Britannica and see Copperfield's entry at this URL: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/711015/David-Copperfield TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for numerous entries if you compare the pages on WP to those on EB. For instance, try the Tom Cruise page. EB tends to be short and bland in its biographies. Now that EB is open to editing by readers, that will slowly change. Finally, comparing WP to EB (or any other source) is not a relevant argument for inclusion or exclusion of material. BTW, I thought you said you were going to keep out of this discussion now? ► RATEL ◄ 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

...I was planning on keeping out of this entire discussion about Paris Match. I started a new section to talk about the comparison with the Britannica article, and you were the one who moved it back into this section. I guess you assumed I meant the post the Britannica comparison as a continuation of this section? I wasn't planning on using the comarison for purposes of inclusion or exclusion. I simply saw that there were a few mentions by multiple editors on this talk page that suggested a comparison with the Britannica article should be made, and that's all I did. I started a new section because the comparison wasn't meant to be applied to any specific discussion topic, that's all. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Karelin7 (COI Editor)

In my view the proposed article, which contains a story nearly a decade old, is intended to taint Copperfield. Claudia Schiffer sued Paris Match too. No mention of the lawsuit on her wikipedia page. Same lawsuit, same allegations, same outcome. Relevant to Copperfield but not to Schiffer? Why? Joan Rivers's page contains no mention of the falling out with Johnny Carson (covered on Carson's wiki page), nor any mention of the settlement of a $50 million lawsuit with Ben Stein. Cyndi Lauper's current wiki page contains no mention of the well-publicized lawsuit recently filed against her by a European tour promoter for breach of contract. Bill Cosby's page, incredibly, CONTAINS NO MENTION OF THE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT lawsuit or paternity lawsuits, even though it has a section on his moral views. Bill O'Reilly's wiki page contains no separate section for the fairly massive sexual harassment lawsuit he was involved in. It is incorporated with other controversy and fits within the tenor of the article. Even wikipedia pages for dead celebrities generally contain less scandal-ridden info than that on Copperfield's page. Walt Disney's page contains no mention of the controversy whether he was anti-Semitic, although that controversy can be found elsewhere on wikipedia. Errol Flynn's wikipedia page contains no mention of his prosecution for statutory rape. If the consensus is to include the story, the entire Litigation section should be shortened or deleted. Does anyone think that if they opened the Brittanica and looked up the entry on Copperfield they would find the insurance company lawsuit, the private island lawsuit, etc? If mentioned in an encyclopedia, litigation should bear some relevance to the person's career. The wikipedia page on Carol Burnett, for example, notes that she won her defamation lawsuit against the Enquirer, and lost her lawsuit against Family Guy. Both lawsuits seem directly relevant to Burnett's life and career. That Copperfield sued his insurance company; that he was sued by the guy he bought the island from, etc., are non sequiturs. Compare, again, Walt Disney's page--which contains no mention of the controversial allegations, and Bill Cosby's page, which also contains no mention of CLEARLY RELEVANT lawsuits and a criminal investigation, with Copperfield's page. Disney and Cosby are beloved figures whose pages focus on their accomplishments, and seem to be entirely in keeping with a standard encyclopedic entry. Copperfield's page, as its history shows, read like a scandal sheet from a grocery store tabloid. I commend Ratel for opening this issue to discussion before posting it. That's my two cents for now. Karelin7 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the many deficiencies on other pages within wikipedia. Those pages will get my attention in due course. As for the relevance of those comparisons, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And there are no rules about whether info in wikipedia BLPs needs to "bear some relevance to the person's career". That's a rule you made up, so please stop doing that. ► RATEL ◄ 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, the notion of limiting entries about litigation to litigation that's relevant to a person's career is in keeping with the BLP guidelines.Karelin7 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by Cirt

I am not entirely sure how much weight this should be given, but judging from the amount of WP:RS sources that have covered it, it should be mentioned in the article in some capacity, yes. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Ratel (talk · contribs) asked me for advice on this, and I suggested he start an RfC [45] and [46]. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC anyone?!?!?

Hello all! I can't help myself but to get involved in this debate. I am an anthropology student and I am currently doing research for a paper on social aspects of wikipedia, an environment that uses "consensus" as a form of governing.

I have thoroughly read the ENTIRE talk history for this page. I have also read the talk pages of other editors where this argument has spilled over. I can't help but to notice that despite the constant "threat" of getting other "neutral" editors involved (The threatening editor obviously believes that his POV will inevitably prevail, of course) there has only been one new editor that has gotten involved. (cirt) His suggestion is to start an RFC. I looked this up and it's a RequestForComment. hmmm. Haven't you all threatened this already? why hasn't it been done yet? And if it hasn't been done yet, Why not? When I was a child and fighting with my sister I always threatened to "go tell mom" but I never did because I knew I was in as much trouble as she was if I did tell. Where did cirt come from? (I am not implying anything, just wondering!!..... wiki appears to be infected with a rampant pandemic of paranoia!!) This article has only had the input of the same few editors:

TheMagicOfDC

Cameron Scott

Flowanda

Karelin7

Ratel

Gwen Gale

Collect

In my opinion, BLP should be adhered to on the strictest of terms. That being said, I also believe that all should be allowed to have an input on what the consensus is, as long as the COI is stated. Just because they have some interest in the case should not preclude them from participating in what the page says, Especially considering that there is a REAL LIVE PERSON that we are actually talking about. Thats like saying that a defendant or the family of a defendant have no right to participate in the defense of that defendant. ( and, I have a feeling that one of you will decidedly point out that this is not a trail. And that this man will not be suffering any punishment and therefore has nothing to defend himself against. And I am quite sure that another of you will also point out that he will suffer damages from having every negative aspect of his life, regardless of how well known they already are, being re-published, yet again.) The fact of the matter is that Wikipdia is an enclyclopedia ( see the page about what wiki is and what it isn't. no I will not wikify this for you, after all this arguing, everyone should know what it says by now) This is an article about David Copperfield the Illusionist. While other things do exist, and may be relevant to an article about David Copperfield, illusionist (as opposed to David Copperfield, private citizen) My suggestion is that someone follows up on the claim that they wish to attract the attention of more editors. Has anyone bothered to take a look at the edit stats for this page? (keep in mind, I am not picking on any one editor in particular) Here's the top 3:

Ratel has a wopping 228 edit to this page.

Karelin7 has 122

TheMagicOfDC has 80.

considering that The magic of DC has been editing for the longest of the 3, and both Karelin7 & MagicOfDC have admitted some type of COI..... the number of edits are quite disproportionate. Ratel, is it possible that your inerests in this page might go beyond that of a 100% nuetral, unintersted party whose only goal is to improve the article and advance the goal of the wiki project? My suggestion is that this page is opened up to new editors on a grand scale. I don't now how to do it but let's put in a Request For comment. I do not feel that wikipedia's core principals are being followed. This page should be a nuetral consensus of contributions. Not a consensus of two oposed parties finally agreeing on what they will give in to and what they will not. Please stop bickering about who should put what and try discussing How to best put what.

Ratel: I've officially gone native ;) You can safely assume that I've donned the proper attire and am now "dancing around the fire" with the rest of you ;) I hope you fell better soon!!! I can't controll my urge to correct you. It's Influenza type A, N1H1 [47] (all in good fun :P)