Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 4

Consensus needed for any inclusion of disputed material

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

RFC on David Copperfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I just want to comment, that the repeated assertions about the alleged unreliability of tmz.com have no basis in fact or Wikipedia policy. TMZ does have reputation for reliability [1] [2], 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[3], but would probably add even MORE weight to the section. Perhaps there's way to add some positives and remove some negatives in order to keep the overall content legth the same, so as to not add anymore weight to the section, but at the same time restoring some neutrality? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

TMZ report on "targeting women" at shows

• Strong include This report [4] 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 [5] that also relate to the rape (alleged) charge. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DC's family

• Strong include This report [6] 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 [7] 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[8] 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 [9] ► 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 [10]. 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[11] a Newsweek article discussing the National Enquirer. There are various discussions of NE's questionable methods and questionable veracity as well as praise for their reputation for finding celebrity stories before anyone else. On page 4, the article states "Accuracy is certainly an issue. Ross says he treats the Enquirer as a tip sheet, one that's more reliable than an anonymous e-mail but by no means reliable enough to take as truth." We cannot use dubious sources in a BLP. Further, even if a particular story were well fact checked, the Enquirer's poor reputation makes it unable to meet wp:rs standards of credibility - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

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

Article Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this[12] was your first edit to this article, Ratel, then it doesn't seem to be the start of some great revival you sparked to a stagnant fan article. Flowanda | Talk 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel COI / Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Neutrality - random break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright then, let's posit this: "Copperfield has fathered two children with a Czech model."[13] ► RATEL ◄ 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Look, the guy has kids. Even his lawyers admit it [14]. The issue is about not disclosing the whereabouts of the children, if you've been paying attention. And since when is the World Wrestling Entertainment site automatically unreliable? WWE is quoted on the NYSE and is a large company [15] ► RATEL ◄ 03:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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