Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:36, 25 May 2009

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Magic C‑class

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

Template:Archive box collapsible

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. Misplaced Pages 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

This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this section may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this section or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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.

1. "Copperfield raid related to Bahamas incident".
2. ^ "Grand jury investigates Copperfield allegations". Seattle Times. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
3. ^ "$2M up magician David Copperfield's sleeve?". NY Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-22.
4. "New Charges Swirl Around Copperfield". CBS News. Retrieved 2008-09-22.
5. "Copperfield Secret Document -- How to Pick Up Chicks". TMZ.com. Retrieved 2008-09-22.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 " 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" {

(The word only does not occur in either your edits, or mine). On Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 -- 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)

Children

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:

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

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} 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Oversight Oversight Committe but I believe this has to originate from the subject of the article. There is also Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? Would lawyers be considered an official source?

I would argue that to demonstrate Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages requires that whatever that is written needs to be published by a reliable source first and then referenced, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages is not censored. ► RATEL ◄ 00:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages 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 . Fake video on TMZ.com . Other opinions at "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. 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 including , so care and caution must be used when citing with regard to (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 Misplaced Pages 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 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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Misplaced Pages policy. TMZ does have reputation for reliability , 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, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 that also relate to the rape (alleged) charge. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DC's family

• Strong include This report 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 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 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 ► 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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 of the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion. ► RATEL ◄ 08:36, 25 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: 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)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=tmz.com&oldid=290117322 (last visited May 18, 2009).
2. http://ko.tmz.com/2008/02/19/britneys-latest-vadge-of-honor/ (last visited May 18, 2009)
3. http://www.www.tmz.com/2007/09/11/madonna-and-the-purple-penetrator/ (last visited May 18, 2009)
4. www.tmz.com posted May 17, 2009 (last visited May 18, 2009)
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=tmz.com&oldid=290117322
6. http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/08/copperfield-to-promoters-this-was-your-fault-not-mine/
7. http://blogs.lasvegasmagazine.com/VegasLuxeLife/fbi-raids-david-copperfields-magic-warehouse-4/
8. See, e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/entertainment/main2164408.shtml
9. http://www.krnv.com/global/story.asp?S=3741997
10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4008853.stm
11. http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/torts-damages/5528368-1.html

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of actors and filmmakers
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Magic articles
• Unknown-importance Magic articles
• WikiProject Magic articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment