Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 3

Material from National Enquirer

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

[ redacted WP:BLP ]

Children

[ redacted WP:BLP ]

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

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

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

[ redacted WP:BLP ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karelin7 and COI

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

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

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

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

• To Karelin7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about "reliable source"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karelin7 COI Statement

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

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

TMZ as a source

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

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

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

Accuracy of TMZ.com -- they got Palin;s church wrong [1]. Fake video on TMZ.com [2]. Other opinions at [3] "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. [4] retraction for allegation of a crime. Lots of errata out there for TMZ.com -- after all it bills itself as "celebrity news and gossip". Collect (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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