Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 7

Private vs. Career

That topic seems to be surfacing a lot this evening. Please review WP:BLP, and if this is going to be a continued issue or argument for the inclusion or exclusion of certain information, please take it up at WP:BLPN. Flowanda | Talk 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully appreciate the fact that his personal life will be included in an encyclopedia article. My only point in discerning the difference between David Copperfield, Illusionist & David Copperfield, Private citizen is that care needs to be taken to ensure that people know that this is still an encyclopedia and hasn't made the same (ironic) change that the ParisMatch magazine has made- It went from notable to a bottom feeder among gossip rags. Other stuff does exist and WILL inevitably be included. But, it should not be the weight of the article.--Emely1219 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding well sourced, neutrally written appropriate information to this article does not make Wikipedia or its editors "bottom feeders". Please take care with using the same broad brush. Flowanda | Talk 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The wiki guidelines for BLPs state: "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 addition proposed, along with many others, contravenes wiki's stated policy. Karelin7 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I never used the same broad brush. I said that care must be taken so that it doesn't happen.... in the (near) future. I just suggested that before it is added that it meets the standards that you just mentioned and that they don't overwhelm the article. Let's not "bite the newbies" :)I do have to say that after reading all of the history for this article, conservative editing are the absolute last words that come to mindEmely1219 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Muppetcentral.com

Is not a "reliable source." It is a fansite which accepts articles from fans. Collect (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP Enforcement

This article was brought to my attention by an agent of the subject. I reduced the size of a section that was in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. [1] Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow.► RATEL ◄ 03:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted your attempt to further increase coverage of the unsubstantiated rape allegations. [2] These allegation don't merit more than one or two sentences in this article. The article is about a person's life. It is not meant to be a collection of cherry picked, salacious accusations, and incidents. Rather than focusing only on adding negative information, editors should notice that the article is C quality, and work towards quality improvement by expanding coverage, converting bullet lists to prose. Wikipedia has many high quality biographies, such as Rachel Carson or Alan Turing, the style of which could be emulated here. Jehochman ^Talk 09:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FamousWhy.com link

I moved the David Copperfield bio at Famouswhy.com link to the talk page because it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS and the info is already sourced to a NYT article. If the site meets WP:EL, it might be a better addition to the External links section. Flowanda | Talk 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about TV Special section and IMDB sourcing

Hello, I noticed today that the page mentioned that Copperfield only won 1 Emmy, and it sourced a site that didn't even seem an official site for Emmy count, so I went to IMDB and looked all all of Copperfield's 20 TV specials to see how many Emmy nominations and wins each TV special achieved. I added all that info to the TV specials, and updated the Awards section on the page to reflect the actual number of Emmy nominations and wins.

My question is that...for each TV special's Emmy info, do I really need to add a REF to the IMDB page for that special? Or can I just add in my edit notes that I got all the info from IMDB.

Thank for any input. And for those of you who don't know me, I suppose I should declare my COI position...I maintain Copperfield's message board and I also run a fan site. The purpose of me posting these Emmy info is not to boast or anything, but to provide evidence as to the actual Emmys that Copperfield has been nomitaed for and won, so I hope this edit was not a COI. Thanks. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Investigation ends

Some comments on this:

1. The end of the investigation is not a "vindication" for DC, as someone posted on my Talk page. Note that investigations may be closed without charges if prosecutors determine there is no federal jurisdiction or that it would be impossible to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The U.S. attorney's office said that "Neither the investigation, nor its termination, should be perceived as a comment on guilt or innocence".
2. There is an ongoing civil case between DC and the accuser. WP must not intrude with pejorative comments or quotes that may be prejudicial. The Belleue incident is clouded in uncertainty at the moment, and unless the woman faces charges and is found guilty, she must be presumed innocent in this matter. Apparently, the local prosecutor in that jurisdiction has reviewed the evidence and declined to file any charges.
3. Lawyers for the accuser deny the validity of recent revelations, and say the end of the FBI investigation will give them access to evidence for their case. [3]

So please, keep a cool head when editing this section. ► RATEL ◄ 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting take. The Associated Press is a reliable source. You were the one who wanted "secret children" and other smears in the article - now that he is exonerated, it is right to make it known. Collect (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment bears no relation to my comment above. I have not contested AP's reliability. I have not opposed including text affirming that the investigation has ended. Please make comments on this Talk page that are not merely non sequiturs or straw man arguments. ► RATEL ◄ 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you object to the quote about the police saying the accuser has made false allegations against another person? Seems that if it is good enough for the AP, it is good enough for WP. And a heck of a lot better than the "secret children" bit. Collect (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you hear that everything printed in a RS is good enough for use in the encyclopedia? That really is an "interesting take". ► RATEL ◄ 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

STOP THIS OR TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This discussion is about specific edits, nothing else.

I suggest the subsection be edited to a more concise description. Something like (but better than): "In 2007, Copperfield was accused of sexual assault in a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who said Copperfield lured her to his private Bahamas island after meeting him backstage at a January 2007 performance. Copperfield denied the charges, calling the accusation "extortion for money". In January 2010, federal prosecutors closed the investigation without filing criminal charges against Copperfield, but a civil suit is still pending." I also suggest removing the CBSNews blog, People and Smoking Gun references as they are questionable POV/gossip and there is adequate WP:RS reporting. Flowanda | Talk 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And the AP statement about the accuser making false statements? Seems this bit about "rape" was in the article far too long already, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My only concern with the AP articles is that they are sometimes removed from the source site after a certain time. How about this Seattle Times article? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010776741_copperfield13m.html I'm not opposed to the false allegation inclusion, but I think we'd then have to include other details as well, such as there's no stated link between the alleged false statements and prosecutors closing the case. But, sigh, you're probably right. Any suggestions as to its addition? Flowanda | Talk 19:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just that "Federal prosecutors in Seattle have dropped their rape investigation of magician David Copperfield after learning the young model who claimed she was assaulted on his private island in the Bahamas two years ago is being investigated by Bellevue police for alleged prostitution and making a false statement." which is the exact material in the Seattle Times article. Seems pretty unarguable as an RS. Collect (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no connection between the end of the FBI investigation and the Bellevue affair. No statement has come from federal authorities linking the two events, and a reporters speculations, especially when they may impact on an ongoing litigation, cannot be allowed into the article. ► RATEL ◄ 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What the paper said as an exact quote is proper in a WP article. IIRC, you wanted to include tabloids and blogs in this article -- now that Copperfield is in the clear, we ought in all common decency make sure that the material is corrected. Lots of quotes available in the talk page archives to show how this article has progressed. So -- let us use the paragraph directly from the Seattle paper. No one can argue it is not RS on this. Unless one wishes to second-guess all reporters whose writing is edited and checked for facts (as is the practice on most major newspapers) Collect (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DC is not "in the clear" to use your phrase. The litigant now has extra evidence, released for her use by the FBI, to pursue her case against him. We must not and cannot include speculation as to the guilt or innocence of any party in this affair. DC has not been exonerated by the ending of the investigation, and the gossip about the female party has not resulted in any charges against her. Period. As an aside: Collect, every comment you make on this page refers back to past debates, showing that you have a score to settle with me because of positions I have taken in the past. Please cease editing this article if your purpose is to settle old grievances and not improve the encyclopedia. ► RATEL ◄ 06:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Federal prosecutors in Seattle have dropped their rape investigation of magician David Copperfield after learning the young model who claimed she was assaulted on his private island in the Bahamas two years ago is being investigated by Bellevue police for alleged prostitution and making a false statement. is what the RS says. As for your personal attacks on me -- kindly stop. I have made no improper edits to this article at all (or any other). "Please cease editing" is not a civil argument to make here. I have no "scores to settle" with anyone at all on WP. Collect (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That is one reporter's speculation. NOTHING to that effect was said by the authorities. In fact, the Feds have gone out of their way to say that no inferences should be drawn about guilt or innocence from their action. Re personal attacks: this is not the place to discuss your extensive history of stalking and wikiwarring all the pages I edit. Flowanda has asked you to stop personalising every comment, so stop it. ► RATEL ◄ 06:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page deals only with discussion about specific edits to this article. All other edits will be removed. The mudpits are thattaway.

No one's arguing reliable sourcing; the discussion is about what information should be included in this encyclopedic article. I try to look at the article as how it should look five or more years from now, which may be unrealistic, but this isn't Wikinews and new edits don't compensate for whatever perceived or real editing mistakes were made in the past. We're dealing with two WP:BLPs involved in an active conflict. Flowanda | Talk 08:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The accuser is unnamed. It is the fact that the accuser is herself accused by the police which is relevant and I do not think such a mention violates BLP as cited directly in a newspaper. Collect (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The other party's name is available on the internet; she is not anonymous. And for the nth time, please look up the term "sub judice" and try to grasp that we do not include prejudicial comments about such matters, especially when the comments are not underpinned by prosecution. ► RATEL ◄ 15:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The cite given does not give her name -- stuff on the Internet is not relevant to what WP can carry -- as the cite does not mention her name, we are abiding by WP rules and policies. As for prejudging anything the task is to make the article fully compliant with rules and policies, and the Seattle cite does that. And unless you assert you are a lawyer, the invocation of magic phrases is not proper on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it to a noticeboard. You simply are not able to grasp simple legal niceties. Wikipedia does not interfere in sub judice matters by carrying prejudicial, conclusionary or exculpatory comments (in DC's case) about current opposing litigants based on speculation from one source. That is prima facie defamation, plain and simple, of a known person, someone moreover whom the local Prosecutor's Office has investigated and refused to prosecute. We can revisit this at the appropriate time. For now, leave it as it is. ► RATEL ◄ 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite for the prosecutor declining any prosecution? The source cited above says the case was just referred to the prosecutor. BTW, WP operates under Florida law, might you provide a cite for your legal opinion that sub judice applies in this case? Collect (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit

"In 2007, Copperfield was accused of sexual assault in a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who said Copperfield lured her to his private Bahamas island after meeting him backstage at a January 2007 performance. Copperfield denied the charges, calling the accusation "extortion for money". In January 2010, federal prosecutors closed the investigation without filing criminal charges against Copperfield. In December 2009, Bellevue, Washington police reported the woman who accused Copperfield made false allegations of rape against a Washington-area businessman, although federal prosecutors did not say there was a connection between their decision to close the case and the Bellevue investigation. A federal civil suit against Copperfield is still pending." 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Above edit is Flowanda's. The problem with mentioning that she was accused of something is that the prosecutor declined to press felony charges, and the matter is now being reassessed as a misdemeanour, although no charges have been laid. I cannot understand why other editors cannot wait to see if any charges result or not, because unless she is charged with something, she cannot be assumed to be guilty of anything. One of the hallmarks of the encyclopaedia is to avoid recentism and "facts" emanating from breaking news sources. Let it settle, let's see where it goes. What's the hurry? None of us know the true state of affairs, or what really happened in the Bellevue case. I've read the details and the male party involved has told an extremely unlikely story, IMO. She could be getting framed. I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the future. Meantime, let's keep the section strictly encyclopedic. ► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The charge is likely "false statement" which is a misdemeanor. The city prosecutor has not said anything at all about pursuing those charges. Moreover, sticking to the RS reports is reasonable. Collect (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when does the encyclopedia have anything to do with "likely" charges, ffs? ► RATEL ◄ 01:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I made edits to the proposed edits using five tildes so others could feel free to edit. I'm not sure if that's the right way to do it, but I really don't need to be the only one making changes to proposed edits. Flowanda | Talk 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unfair to note the investigation is closed without noting also the recent accusations against the woman by the Bellevue police. This is an important aspect of the story and suppressing it is hardly neutral. Karelin7 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic to note suspicions of wrongdoing. We need charges, we need prosection, we need convictions. WP is not here to report off-the-cuff comments and speculations, especially in a fraught BLP situation like this, where the protagonists are at each others' throats in court. ► RATEL ◄ 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I readded the edits Ratel removed and struck through them so they can continue to be viewed and discussed while noting their deletion. Hope that's okay. I don't see this as an issue of fairness or speculation; the Bellevue investigation was a prominent part of several news reports about the closing of the investigation. Flowanda | Talk 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The "several news reports" are all echoes of one report, AFAIK. And that may have originated from a PR source like PRNewswire, for all we know. Strangely, several news sources report getting a copy of a police report on the Bellevue incident. One can only surmise how that happened. ► RATEL ◄ 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I favor restoration of the sentence about the accuser as being fully founded in the RS. And The Smoking Gun is independent of any "PR" as you assert. Their pages redact the woman;s name, and hence are again not even close to sub judice -- which you have not demonstrated as applicable under Florida law in the first place. "One can only surmise" has no place in discussions here. Collect (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So, do we first need to achieve consensus as to whether sourcing can meet WP:RS (i.e. news reporting from an independent, third-party news source with editorial oversight)? If so, we need more participation than from us usual suspects. I'll be happy to post a request at WP:RSN or elsewhere, but as this is a holiday weekend for some, response may be slim or slow. Flowanda | Talk 06:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Smoking gun is often not a reliable source - they exist to create scandal, and they are often full of rumors, innuendos, and hyperbole. I would treat that source with a lot of caution. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reality check #2. The police suspicions were referred to the local prosecutor weeks ago, and they declined to charge the woman with a felony. Misdemeanour charges have also not eventuated, and they would have eventuated by now if there were sufficient evidence. In other words, the authorities have not found that there is enough evidence to charge this woman with anything. Wikipedia does NOT mention that some policeman had suspicions about someone, ever, EVER. In DC's case, a Federal Grand Jury was convened to investigate him, so that was reported here. We only record charges and convictions in the normal run of events, because of BLP concerns. Note also that the woman was never arrested in connection with this contretemps. All we know is that some guy has said something to impugn her reliability concerning an assignation in a hotel. It's a "he sez-she sez" situation, and the only reason why the police have sided against her is because of something she said about what happened in the motel/hotel lobby (she was drunk, so no wonder she mis-remembered). We don't know this man's motivations. He made a 74-page statement to police, which is odd on the face of it, given the circumstances. That's waaay more than would normally be required in this sort of case. Now to make matters even more sensitive, this woman is currently engaged in a civil lawsuit against DC. This makes it doubly important that wikipedia keeps an arm's length from proceedings and does not become part of the drama by subtly siding with one or the other. Can other editors not see this? We have to maintain a high level of probity here. The encyclopedia is a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources, not misbegotten police reports that come to nothing. If we cannot get consensus not to report unfounded police suspicions, disseminated to newspapers by who-knows-whom (how on earth did the papers get copies of a police report? Is nobody else here suspicious or even awake?), then this must definitely go to a noticeboard and be thoroughly discussed. We cannot rely on Karelin7, who has said he is personally involved with DC and has a COI, or Collect, who opposes me on many pages in a reflexive and obsessive way (not a personal attack, just the simple truth), to determine the outcome of this. ► RATEL ◄ 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(responding to Ratel) That would be a good argument if the question were whether or not to add to an article coverage that someone had allegedly made false rape accusations. If the source is never identified, the person has not been investigated or charged, and so on, then obviously, no. We will not say about a BLP subject that she is accused of false rape claims. But what is proposed here is not to describe the woman in question, but to explain the circumstances surrounding Copperfield's rape investigation and why it was closed. Prosecutors have not explained why, but newspapers worldwide are reporting as a salient detail that the allegations lost credibility in light of new information. The standard for a case falling apart isn't that the victim is arrested and charged. If that were the standard we would uncritically cover nearly every "declined to prosecute" case. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty stark PLP problem to mention that a person has been accused and investigated for rape, then mention without explanation that the charges were dropped, when in reality the charges were dropped after allegations arose that the accuser had made similar accusations before after being stiffed by a sex client. The BLP subject is David Copperfield. Without that piece of information, a reader's reasonable take is that he quite possibly did it but there might have been insufficient evidence, the victim recanted, there was a private settlement, etc. It leaves the impression that he is not a good person. With that piece of information, one is still left with the stigma and nagging doubt that he may be a rapist, but it's also a lot easier to accept that he may be the victim here. Where lack of inclusion of something that is clearly true and sourced (that allegations surfaced about the accuser) results in a radically more damning portrait of the BLP subject on the subject of rape, it's pretty obvious that it needs to be included for BLP reasons. If the incident cannot be told fully without raising BLP concerns about another party then the whole thing needs to be excsied. We can't commit one BLP violation to spare another. Although the final wording of the section is a consensus matter, in the meanwhile I don't think the prior version should stand, so I'll likely edit it accordingly, to be the most BLP-friendly to both parties until there is consensus on a final wording. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was rife with problems. The US Attorney has never linked the closure of the investigation (nothing was "dropped") with the woman's actions in Bellevue. The only person to do that was one reporter. We won't do it here. The two incidents are, as far as we know, completely unrelated. BTW, her "sex client" seems to be a man who wined and dined her until she was quite drunk (prostitutes do not get drunk on the job), then got her into a hotel room. The allegations that she asked for money are entirely his. Nobody else has come forward to claim the woman is a prostitute. WP must not fall prey to a possible paid media campaign. I also replaced your removal of the fact that she has a civil lawsuit pending. ► RATEL ◄ 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to my strong BLP objections you have reverted and expanded it into a worse BLP violation.[4] As mentioned above, the entire section should be blanked until we come up with an agreed-to solution. If that can't work I think we need to go to WP:AN/I with this. I'll comment shortly on your specific points. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There were no blp vios in my edit. I used statements from the US attorney's office, and a known and much referenced fact (the civil lawsuit). You have hacked the section into a badly edited mess full of conclusionary statements, speculation, MOS errors and factual omissions. Please revert your edit to mine. Blanking a long-standing section is not going to wash. ► RATEL ◄ 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I say there are, you say no. So the default is yes, for BLP purposes. You need to clear this. Responding to your earlier comment, we can and we will link the dismissal of the case to the loss of credibility of the accusation if that is what the reliable sources do. "One reporter" equals one reliable source. But there are plenty of others. Googling briefly we have the London Telegraph,[5] BBC News[6] and plenty of smaller sources. [7][8][9] [10] It is abundantly clear that: (1) the woman filed another rape complaint, (2) the accused in the other case filed a police report and police have investigated for false claims, (3) The Seattle Times broke the story but others have confirmed this, and (4) a number of major sources consider it germane to mention the new case when covering the closing of the old one. All this speculation about paid media campaigns and the possibility this is a cover-up are not really pertinent. We can revisit that if it turns out to be true and covered by reliable sources. The US attorney's statements are not reliable, and as a routine position statement made about a matter in which it has an interest, they are not terribly credible. It looks like a cover-your-butt statement of the sort typically made by prosecutors who realize they don't have a case to make. Including that by way of impugning Copperfield (by hinting that the rape case has merit) is a big BLP problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Wikidemon's edit was fine. I would note this has been many times to BLP/N -- [11] with only one person arguing for Ratel's position, [12] with a strong personal attack on the person bringing it to BLP/N, and a claim made that the National Enquirer was a reliable source -- post made here [13] section "National Enquirer", [14] with only one editor supporting material contrary to BLP, [15] wherein the issue is rather conclusively handled, [16] and many more, involving dozens of people not currently on this page. Collect (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

As noted above, I have blanked the section for BLP concerns. That does not mean we shouldn't cover it, just that we cannot allow a BLP violation to stand pending agreement. Does anyone wish to start the ball rolling with a proposal as to how the section might read? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit was fine. Do us all a favor and take it to BLP/N, because that's where it's clearly headed. Make the wording very neutral, please. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case I would say a strong no for BLP reasons, as explained above. We should not give undue credibility to a seemingly discredited rape accusation. Failing to even mention that the accusation is undermined paints a one-sided picture that makes it look a lot worse on Wikipedia than it does in the press. There are a couple of other issues, some of which raise BLP concerns. Including a US attorney public statement casting doubt on a person they do not charge; uncritically mentioning a federal civil suit, and a heading that places the emphasis on the existence of an investigation and lawsuit, when the focus of the section is instead on claims that did not pan out. The matter is already at BLP/N and discussed here. It becomes an AN/I matter if there is edit warring to restore material objected to as a BLP vio. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been two requests at the BLP noticeboard with little to no response or edits, so I don't know where else to go. I asked Wikidemon for help, which I truly appreciate, but I can't continue to solicit individual editors because that will cause its own problems. Flowanda | Talk 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about we leave just a bare-bones version for now while we discuss, something that says that Copperfield was the subject of a sexual assault investigation beginning in 2007 that was closed in 2010 without any charges filed. We ought to leave off the civil suit for now or condense it to several words. While we're discussing, anyone who really needs to know can follow the links to the articles. Either we'll reach consensus or not regarding additional material, and if we take it slowly events will likely unfold in the real world that make some of this moot. It will be much easier to agree on wording after things settle down in the cases. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to a bare bones section for now. That's what we should do, until this all blows over, incl the civil suit. ► RATEL ◄ 23:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of accuser

Is peripheral at best. She is definitely BLP1E as far as notability is concerned, and she has not been found guilty. Iw was correct to indicate she has been charged, but adding her name is unneeded. Collect (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be reverting me for the sake of reverting me, again. Lacey Carroll is named in numerous RSes on this issue, and this event (FBI investigation and now court case) is a major event in DC's life, so notability is no concern at all. ► RATEL ◄ 16:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. This is a matter of BLP concerns - she has only been accused and not adjudged guilty of anything - which is precisely my consistent position through all of this. She is certainly not notable in any sense otherwise as far as WP is concerned. Collect (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look, you'll find I was also against mentioning her name initially, but now that she's been charged and has an ongoing lawsuit against DC, and has her name in the Press, there is no reason not to mention her. ► RATEL ◄ 17:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

She was named in two Seattle Times articles Ratel cited, so as long as we keep the info brief and factual, there shouldn't be a problem unless it does violate WP:BLP. I don't see WP:BLP1E an issue as long as we don't turn this into a section or description about Carroll. Flowanda | Talk 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I retain my staunch and consistent position that charges are not per se sufficient to justify using names for third parties. As was shown in the initial part where accusation alone against Copperfield ended up being found improper. Collect (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me correct you here: the investigation was concluded without charges being filed against DC. This is most definitely not the same as the accusation "being found improper". Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Roe went out of her way to stop people making the assumption you are making, but apparently you continue to ignore that. Odd. ► RATEL ◄ 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The prosecutors are involved parties here, of course they would say that. From the standpoint of a neutral observer, though, making false rape claims in one case strongly suggests that claims made under similar circumstances in a second case are likely to be false as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, where do I start with this? 1)"prosecutors are involved parties, of course they would say that" — so now you're saying that a Federal Grand Jury has taken sides against Copperfield? This is not a discussion forum for your theories and opinions on the case, so please, keep these thoughts to yourself, unless you can point to reports in RSes that support this view. 2) "making false rape claims in one case strongly suggests that claims made under similar circumstances in a second case are likely to be false as well" — This woman has never been shown to have made any false rape claims. Have you ever heard of the concept of the presumption of innocence? No? Then it's best not to insert you comments into discussions involving the law. ► RATEL ◄ 15:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You're completely wrong on all counts. To start, this is an encyclopedia and not a court of law, and the article in question is David Copperfield. We are talking about the state of knowledge in the world about Copperfield, not the outcome of a hypothetical criminal case against this particular woman. In her criminal case she will be entitled to a presumption of innocence, standards of due process and evidence, the right to be represented and face her accuser, and other things that simply don't apply either to Copperfield's legal rights or to the public's (and therefore our) understanding of Copperfield's life. We are informed, via the sources, that the rape investigation against Copperfield was dropped after his accuser was found to have made a subsequent false allegation of rape under comparable circumstances. She was found to have lied - not proven in a court of law to have done so. Those are entirely different things, only indirectly related. If she were notable, an article about her would have to tread very lightly because her case is not done. In an article about Copperfield, it's silly to argue that this does not discredit the allegations against him. The grand jury and the US attorneys are participants in an adversarial legal case against Copperfield - they are players in the case, not reliable sources as to the facts of the case. It's standard operating procedure for prosecutors, when dropping a case, to comment that this does not necessarily reflect the party's innocence. Also, please cut out the lectures of how to comment on talk pages. One does not need reliable sources to discuss the facts of life here, or the relevance of different facts that when sourced will go into the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! That is possibly the most asinine comment I've ever seen on a WP talk page. To summarise: this is not a court so we can safely infer that she's a liar and that the investigation against DC ended bec. a reporter implied this to be so (contrary to an official statement that said this should not be inferred). We are therefore "silly" not to make assumptions of guilt and we should disregard anything an Assistant U.S. Attorney says in favor of what one reporter's oft-echoed report assumed, because the US Attorneys are against DC anyway. This stance is seen as acknowledging "the facts of life". Sweet Jeebus, what a ridiculous set of statements! ► RATEL ◄ 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think it's worth talking further about it. It's obvious that you just don't get this very basic stuff. I would be willing to explain patiently, and I've tried, but it's a side point and as long as you're going to be so aggressively disrespectful about your not getting it, it's not worth the effort. You have my standing opinion on this: include the mention that the case was dropped after the details of this new event came to light, but in view of the BLP concerns and lack of relevancy to this article, don't include her name. If you wish to cogently and civilly argue otherwise I'm all ears. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two other concerns, in my opinion. First, mentioning her name is somewhat gratuitous because I don't think it adds anything to the reader's understanding of Copperfield. She could be anybody. Second, her name is not generally known and I doubt the public cares who she is. Putting her name in a Wikipedia article substantially increases her exposure on a scandalous, unencyclopedic subject. It is encyclopedic to say that David Copperfield was (falsely, apparently) accused of rape. It is not encyclopedic to say that non-notable person X falsely accused a non-notable person Y of rape.. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean to discourage variations on non-notable X accused notable person Y of rape. Indeed, it is sufficient to say Y was accused of rape, and the accuser was prosecuted for filing a false report and prostitution. X is replaced "the accuser". Jehochman ^Brrr 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Name removed as this appears to be a near unanimous consensus. Collect (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Flowanda and Jehochman did not agree. It is quite absurd to suppress her name now that it has been printed in the Seattle Times, Der Bild, TMZ, The Smoking Gun, ABC News, Seattle Post Intelligencer, CNN and more. ► RATEL ◄ 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty obvious BLP issue, we should not be mentioning her name. Period. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Over 500 shows per year, really?

The source is "The Seoul Times", but I don't think it's possible. The article even says 550. It's more than the number of days in a year! Do they count every trick as a separate show? Antimirov (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Some venues hold more than one show per day. Las Vegas, for example, has been known to have some performers stage shows twice or more on some nights. Cirque du Soleil runs 10 shows per week, for example. At the MGM Grand, Copperfield is listed as " 7:30 and 10 p.m. nightly; plus 4:30 p.m. Sat" which is 15 shows per week when he is there. Is 500 a year possible? Yep. Collect (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Opening Paragraph

Hello fellow editors. Again, I am a COI editor, with what I hope to be a proven track record of making neutral and factual posts with proper sourcing of information.

Just a heads up that I would like to make an edit to the opening paragraph of this article. I have always felt that the introductory paragraph for this article has been quite different from most other celebrity biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. A quick search for some well-known celebrities shows that those articles' introductory paragraph(s) is a summarization of what the celebrity is known for as well a quick highlight of his/her/their awards and achievements. Examples of such introductions can be seen on the articles for Barbara Streisand, Steven Speilberg, Mel Brooks, Justin Timberlake, Jack Nicholson, Rod Stewart and many others (too many to list). After seeing the content of those articles, I would like to edit the introductory paragraph of the David Copperfield article to be as follows:

David Copperfield (born David Seth Kotkin; September 16, 1956) is an Emmy Award-winning American illusionist, and was described by Forbes as the most commercially successful magician in history. Copperfield’s network specials have been nominated for 38 Emmy Awards and won a total of 21 Emmys. Best known for his combination of storytelling and illusion, Copperfield’s career of over 30 years has earned him 11 Guinness World Records, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a knighthood by the French government, and he was named a Living Legend by the US Library of Congress. Notable illusions created and performed by David Copperfield include vanishing the Statue of Liberty, walking through the Great Wall of China, escaping from a locked safe inside an imploding building, and flying through the air night after night in his Broadway show. Copperfield has sold over 40 million tickets and grossed over 3 billion dollars, which is more than any other solo entertainer in history, including Madonna, Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga. He currently performs over 500 shows a year, and spends his time off relaxing on his privately-owned chain of islands in the Bahamas - Musha Cay and the Islands of Copperfield Bay.

Everything will be properly sourced within the edit (although the edits are just a summarization of other factual statements that have been already sourced on other areas of the article). Hopefully the tone in the edit remains neutral enough for the Wikipedia community guidelines. I'm open for discussion regarding any of the above. TheMagicOfDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

celebritynetworth.com

Is not a "reliable source" for a BLP as nearly as I can determine. Collect (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

dead link

Reference number 64 is a dead link. --Jeevies (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting problem. I have tagged it with {{dead link}} template. Keith D (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)