Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 2

WP:UNDUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 2007
2. 2007–2008
3. 2008

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

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

FBI Investigation

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

FBI investigation

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

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

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

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

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

---

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, Copperfield is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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