Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ratel (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 18 May 2009 (→TMZ as a source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:35, 18 May 2009 by Ratel (talk | contribs) (→TMZ as a source)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class

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

Magic C‑class

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

Statue of Liberty Illusion and Flying Illusion

Both these sections need work to bring their style up to the usual standards. Furthermore, the Statue of Liberty section is taken word for word from this "Straight Dope" article:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mliberty.html

I rewrote the Statue of Liberty section and removed the Flying Illusion section, which I couldn't make heads or tails of. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Flying is added again, make sure to mention that John Gaughan is the creator of the piece --TStone 18:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty disappearance has no place here, primarily because no other illusion is mentioned. It seems that the author just wants to stir up something. It is common practice (unless you want to be a jerk) to keep secrets like this to yourself. A better way to do this is to list all of his illusions that's he's ever performed and the historical significance to them (e.g., original design, "classic illusion", etc.). Although I do find it offensive that the author would intentionally try to divulge magicians' secrets, I do support the Misplaced Pages in it's "free speech" stance. My problem is not so much with what's being put on the page, but the manner in which it is done. Perhaps the Statue of Liberty illusion should go on its own page, not under the DC biography.

It is far and away his most famous illusion in popular memory, I think, so there's some justification for it being there and not others -- but you are right; other tricks should be there too. Good people have disagreed for a long time on whether there is anything offensive or wrong about revealing magician's secrets; Misplaced Pages is biased toward having information rather than not, so there's no question the information belongs somewhere on Misplaced Pages, even if it is offensive to some. Moving the illusion to a separate page, clearly linked from the main page, is fine in principal though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The illusion itself certainly needs to be put under his bio (along with the other illusions he's done), but the exposure of it should probably go under the magic exposure category. It just seems out of place here. EETech 04:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Reverted

TStone just removed the Statue-of-Liberty explanation with the edit summary "w.Poundstones "original research" should be discussed on Poundstones page. See talk page". I reverted, let's discuss:

Calling it "Original research" is a red herring; we're allowed to report other published research, primary or not. Putting that aside, I'd ask that you move the information to a diffent page before removing it from here, so it doesn't go missing. I also don't think putting the information on the William Poundstone page makes much sense at all: his books decribe a lot of secrets, and the secrets aren't about him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And I noticed that you made sure of deleting Jim Steinmeyers name also. Okey, I'll correct it again - then let's talk a bit. --TStone 16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"original research" wasn't meant to be "red herring", it was just the shortest way I could think of in the edit summary --TStone 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

William Poundstone's "original research"

I cut the following as discussions about Poundstone's theories about Jim Steinmeyer's creation seem irrelevant on a page about Copperfield. Had the theories been correct, it would have been a theft of Mr. Steinmeyer's intellectual property and should be deleted. Now, I don't know what to do with it, so I place it here instead. Feel free to move it over to William Poundstone's page if deemed interesting:

He suggests that entire stage and seating area for the audience was atop a rotating platform. Once the curtains were closed, blocking the view, the platform was rotated—slowly enough to be imperceptible. When the curtains opened again, the audience was facing out to sea rather than toward the statue. Poundstone further elaborates that, once the stage rotated, the statue itself was mostly concealed behind a brightly-lit curtain tower. To further misdirect attention, there were two rings of lights: one, initially lit, around the statue, and another (dark and invisible at first) in the area the audience would end up facing. When the trick "happened," the statue's lights were doused and the others turned on. The radar blip highlighted in the television presentation was simply an animation.

Some claim that this explanation is unsatisfactory, maintaining that one end of the statue's pedestal base was visible to the live audience at all times. Furthermore, the size of the suggested platform would have to be quite large to support the curtain towers and guidewires as well as be moved in some silent fashion to not arouse suspicion in the live audience.

Just to be clear, I don't care about protecting "secrets" etc. Poundstones theory is still here, and who knows, it might actually work. But if it works, it would be a creation of Poundstone's, emulating the creation of Steinmeyer. But Copperfield performed the latter, not the former - therefore the cutted parts are irrelevant here, and should, if necessary, be moved to a page which deals with Poundstone's creations, innovations and theories. --TStone 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This trick is famous for having been performed by David Copperfield, so any and all discussion of the trick makes sense on this page. If the trick was created by Jim Steinmeyer, and you have a source for that, by all means that information should be included as well. We already have a discalimer that this is guesswork about how the trick might have been done. This business about William Poundstone infringing on Jim Steinmeyer's intellectual property seems quite strange to me. Reverse-engineering something to figure out how it works isn't intellectual property theft, so unless if Poundstone bought the trick and then violated some non-disclosure clause in publishing it, he hasn't infringed on any intellectual property rights. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean to be troublesome. But surely, if I want to read about Copperfield's work, I go to the Copperfield page. If I want to read about Poundstone's theories, I go there. If I want to read about Jim Steinmeyer's creations, I go there. And should it turn out that Copperfield has performed a Steinmeyer-creation, and that a third person has theories about Steinmeyer's work - I would expect to find links from the Copperfield-page to the relevant other pages. I would think it was obvious that it's odd to have one person's thoughts about another person's work, on a third person's page. --TStone 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'm curious about your wording "If the trick was..." Steinmeyer was listed in the end credits of the TV-show, it has never been doubted that it's Steinmeyers in any publication or media that I'm aware of, and it is considered a rock solid fact within the field... If you have some sources that claim that Steinmeyer isn't the creator of the piece, I would be most intrested in hearing them.--TStone 16:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, it's nothing like that. It just wasn't sourced in the article, is all, and I didn't research it myself. "If I want to read about Poundstone's theories, I go there. If I want to read about Jim Steinmeyer's creations, I go there." Most people haven't heard of Poundstone or Steinmeyer; if they want to learn about what they consider a David Copperfield trick, they will probably start here.

How about this: we create a Disappearing Statue of Liberty (magic trick) article, or similar, and move the description and information into there? Seems like the best answer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all, as long as Steinmeyer is clearly indicated as the creator, that the piece is unpublished and that the theories belong to Pondstone. I'm sorry if I'm sounding obnoxious, but the number of creators within this field are so very few, and the number of people who actively strives to separate the creators name from their creations are enormous.

I mean, reverse-engineering is not a problem. Take a popular tune from the radio, and reverse-engineer how the fingers have to be placed on the guitar to duplicate the work you've heard. No problem at all, on any level... Now try publishing what you've figured out, printed as a score, as a CD-recording, or as a video.. and avoid to mention the composer. And you will probably soon notice that it is quite a difference between reverse-engineering something, and to publish it as your own or in other way misrepresenting the creator of the work. This is the same thing. Strangely that topic seldom comes up, but it is the same thing --TStone 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But let's use the title given by it's originator. On Jim Steinmeyers page, he gives it the title Vanishing the Statue of Liberty. Should it turn out that fans and other tend to use other phrases, they should be redirected to the proper title --TStone 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks properly done, thanks! (Though it feels odd in my bones to see so much of Pondstones thoughts connected to Steinmeyers piece. Oh well...) --TStone 18:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page (in the Wrong Version, of course) to encourage people to discuss the American vs Jewish-American issue here and work out some sort of consensus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

article header: Jewish-American vs. American

this is the way i see it. African Americans or Latin Americans with articles on Misplaced Pages are not described as African American this or Latin American that. they are described as American for that is their nationality. the assertion by Abscissa that the "Jewish-American" term belongs there because "most Americans are Christian" is POV.

also as was described to me by Mel Ettis during an edit war on Michael Jackson being described as an "African American pop singer", the "Misplaced Pages standard nationality" is based on the country one was born in. NOT ethnic background. NOT religion. Copperfield was NOT born in Israel. he was born in New Jersey.

furthermore we should not make an exception for Jewish people because it's a "sensitive topic" (as Bunchofgrapes put it). as an African American myself i was once incensed that articles on blacks were not allowed to show them as "African American..." however my point of view was overruled by Mel Ettis and numerous other editors.

so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. no religion or ethnicity should go in the header. that's what the stubs at the bottom of the page are for. this applies to all articles on people, including American-born Jews. Drmagic 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is not POV that most Americans are Christian, but that isn't really relevant.

Your argument isn't quite clear and I'm not sure that you even make one, but I will try to extract something cogent here:

Other articles (like Michael Jackson) on Misplaced Pages do not mention race or ethnicity, therefore the David Copperfield article should not.

I think that it is important that Michael Jackson is identified as an African American. Notwithstanding, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Mel Etitis has expressed a point of view ...

This is a classic Appeal to authority, logically invalid and is not worth addressing.

The fact that Copperfield is Jewish is not relevant to what he does.

From what he said when his dad died, I'm not sure Copperfield himself would agree with this. But assuming it is true, it represents only a tiny fraction of the information in the article that is irrelevant to Copperfield's life and career, for example, being robbed.

If it is so extremely important to you that Copperfield not be identified as a Jew (somewhat ironic, since you feel it is important to identify yourself as African American) then I will concede the edit war by default. But why, then, even identify him as an American? I am not going to get into a rut about whether we should deny the Jewish background of famous American celebrities. - Abscissa 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two questions, really: should Copperfield be identified as Jewish, and where should it be done? Just because it is not in the lead sentence doen't mean the article denies his Jewish background. In fact, currently, the first sentence of the Biography section ("Copperfield was born in Metuchen, New Jersey, to Jewish immigrants from Russia") already does identify him as Jewish by birth, though leaving it up in the air whether he is an adherent to the religious aspects of Judaism. (Is he? Perhaps we could add something to the Biography section about that if there's a good source?) As for the utility of identifying him as "American", it is important for biographical article to describe where in the world someone is well-known, and in many cases listing a country of origin is a useful shorthand for that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll unprotect the article now; I'd encourage the addition of sourced content on his background or beliefs rather than squabbling over "American" vs "Jewish-American", please. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a really inappropriate edit war given recent events. Of course I am sure it was not motivated by Israel's actions, but considering their behaviour I am not going to get involved in a debate about whether someone should be identified as Jewish. There is also very little that is worth escalting into a massive fight, if only other people would realise the same... :-( - Abscissa 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue that has plagued and puzzled me ever since I began using Misplaced Pages. What is this obession with race and ethnicity? Misplaced Pages feels the need in almost every opening sentence of a person's article, to mention their ethnicity and religion. Why??? For example, Andy Garcia is described as a "Cuban-American actor." I would think that in an opening sentence you mention that he is an American actor, date of birth, etc. Why is there a perceived need to mention Cuba, with which he may be hardly connected at all? It can be mentioned in the body of the article, but why is it featured so prominently? If I lived in France, or Russia, or Thailand, or Israel, and I wanted to learn about Andy Garcia, I think it would be more accurate to decribe him as an "American actor". It is different if a person's ethnicity or national heritage plays an important role in his life or career, but WIKI does this almost all the time, and I was surprised that Bill Clinton was not identified as a "Baptist President of the United States." With David Coperfield, I do not understand the decision to mention his being Jewish in the first sentence. It can be mentioned in the article. David Copperfield is not particularly known for being Jewish; it is not a significant aspect of who he is, as far as I know. An encyclopedia may want to mention a person's religious, ethinic or national background; that is understandable. But WIKI has a positive obsession with these facts. I do not believe that they usually warrant the significance given to them here. For all I know these edits are made by partisans or fans of these people in the individual articles. Perhaps Jewish readers want to mention that Richard Feynman, Leonard Bernstein and Barbra Streisand are Jews. Perhaps Italian editiors want to claim Enrico Fermi and Mario Cuomo, and perhaps Hungarians want to lay a claim on George Pataki. I could understand mentioning someone's religion or race in a prominent position if it were relevant to the person's noteworthiness. John F. Kennedy, for example, was the first Catholic President of the US, and faced a large obstacle in his election campaign because of precisely this. He was also the first Irish-American elected President. So, mentioning his ethinicity and/or religion in the opening sentences is appropriate. Or Edward Burns, as being Irish-American as important to his career and films. Or Woody Allen. But in WIKI this is an almost universal practice, and I believe that it renders the articles less professional and authoritative. It is really high-schoolish in quality. Speech over. 66.108.105.21 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Abscissa, I see you've gone back to reinserting "Jewish" into the header after a 10 month cool down. I admire your willingness to let the edit war drop then, but I believe the arguments made against you are still valid. Current consensus on Misplaced Pages is that headers should include nationality but not ethnicity, including religion, unless it is particularly relevant to one's notability, say in the case of Jerry Falwell or Anne Frank. For that reason I have removed it, and will continue to do so if you insist upon reinserting it. Goodnightmush 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Niagra" Falls

Is The Magic of David Copperfield XII: The Niagra Falls Challenge the correct title, or should it be ... Niagara Falls ...? Either correct it or add "". — 193.203.81.129 12:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Age

How much research has been done to confirm David Copperfield was actually born in 1956? I know that couldn't be correct because I was born in 1954 and growing up David was several years older than me no doubt about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.149.20 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer info

Would anyone object to the Claudai Schiffer info being removed from the Personal Life section? Specifically, I'm referring to the following sentences

"Copperfield was engaged to the supermodel Claudia Schiffer, but the couple parted ways in 1999 after a six year relationship. There was speculation that Schiffer was not actually Copperfield's girlfriend, but was instead a contractor working for him. The popular German tabloid Bild published a fax from Copperfield's management to Schiffer, informing her of Copperfield's itinerary, where she should appear with Copperfield, and her fees. Copperfield labeled the fax a forgery. Richard Jeffries, the father of Schiffer's next boyfriend, art dealer Tim Jeffries, stirred up the controversy further when he publicly stated that Copperfield never had sexual relations with Schiffer. Copperfield's retort was that since Jeffries was never in their bedroom, he couldn't know. Schiffer also denied the accusations by Jeffries"

Under the policies for Biographies of Living Persons, it specifically states that Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Also, a bit further down, In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

After reading the Claudia Schiffer section over a couple of times, it really feels more of tabloid exploitation rather than encyclopedic material, since it really doesn't add any value to the David Copperfield's fame as an illusionist. Plus, it even stats that the source originated from a German TABLOID. It just feels that the Claudia bit of info is really out of place and I would like to remove it if nobody objects to it.

TheMagicOfDC 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the Personal Life section by removing most of the questionable sentences mentioned above, and moving the remaining mention of Claudia Schiffer and David's father into the bottom of the Boigraphy section. TheMagicOfDC 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Walking through a mirror

I don't remember which of his TV shows this trick was performed on, but how he did it was revealed by a bad camera angle. (The perils of live television.)

The trick.

A platform is onstage. It has an open framework on top with a wall on the front- with a rectangular hole in its middle, and is supported on legs, open underneath so the audience can see there's no hiding space below.

A large mirror is slid in from the side, behind the front wall. A piece of yellow paper is used to cover the hole in the wall. Copperfield mounts the platform and black curtains are dropped from the other three sides of the framework. After a bit of music, an arm punches through the paper, followed by the rest of Copperfield as he appears to struggle his way through the mirror. As he finishes coming through, he stands in front of the hole with his arms up to block the hole with his body as the crew comes out to take down the curtains.

The revealing goof.

As the crew takes down the curtains, one man on the left side of the platform can be seen reaching under the platform to grab and swing a lever. That makes it obvious how the trick was done. The mirror was slid into a pivoting frame and after the curtains were dropped, Copperfield moved the mirror out of the way just like opening a door. The rest is merely theatrics with the crewmember to pivot the mirror back.

The reveal could've been avoided by using a gas spring cylinder with a catch to hold the mirror back and a release button on the platform in front of the wall for Copperfield to step on.

Bad camera angles can really blow an act. Another one was a juggler who used his balls to play a large electronic keyboard, appearing several times on The Statler Brothers show. The last time he was on, a camera in the stage wing revealed a man playing a keyboard in time to the balls hitting the fake keyboard onstage. (I bet that was one PO'ed juggler! Until then I thought he was really playing a custom keyboard with the juggling balls.)

Warehouse raid

The warehouse raide is listed twice. Someone care to combine the text into one please? --Drmike 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it certain that the raid was in relation to a rape investigation? The reports I've read say that the nature of the case has not been disclosed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.181.4 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a lockdown on this article (WP:PPOL) (editing prohibited by newly registered users), esp. if this case gets really ugly.--Msr69er 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)--Msr69er 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the lockdown - someone has editted the article to say "David Copperfield is an illusionist...and sexual predator". I'm removing that. Alpha Five 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the false statement that 2 million dollars was seized. It was not as seen here. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2007/10/fbi-denies-taki.html Timothy Drake —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Blogs don't count. Find a proper source. ► RATEL ◄ 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As requested... news article where FBI clarifies money was not taken. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003965006_copperfield21m.html Timothy Drake —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Dollars

Can somebody please tell me how much "$US2 million ($2.25 million) in cash" is? Wow, how retarded is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.158.31 (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

i am a magician, so i know how most of his tricks are done. i looked at al of the links that tried to reveal his secrets and i realized that most of them were either partly wrong or %100 wrong so i removed them. i see no point in trying to lie to people and trying to ruin david copperfield. ask any magician, those secrets were incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.91.2 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

As a fan of the art of magic and illusion, I am familiar with how important the secrets of the illusions are. These Russian websites as just as damaging as what the Masked Magician TV specials have done for amateur magicians who do not have the budget or the means to develop new illusions to their routine if the MM revealed one of their tricks. Although the revealed method may be different than how the performer actually performs the illusion, it takes away from the magic of the audience watchign the show, and leaves them less wanting to pay to go see the shows in the future.

As stated in the first sentence of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for Avoiding Harm, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'" Revealing Copperfield's secrets is harmful and damaging to his career. Whether or not he, as a multi-millionaire, will be financially affected at this point is beyond my concern, nor is it a factor in deciding whether these links should be included, but for the simple fact of protecting the art of magic, I think that all the links to revealing magic secrets should be removed at least from biographical pages of magicians and illusionists, including Copperfield. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TheMagicOfDC, your edit history shows that you only ever edit the David Copperfield page. I think that although you may have a point in removing the tricks, others, such as aspiring magicians, may be very interested in how they are performed, so I would support their re-insertion. ► RATEL ◄ 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I only edit the David Copperfield page under the TheMagicOfDC name...I edit a few others in topics I'm interested in, such as a lot of the Transformers articles, as well as a few Chinese articles about Taiwan. I am a huge Copperfield fan, and I try to keep an eye on this particular article, but I believe my edits here adhere to the Misplaced Pages guidelines in that they are neurtal in tone, and I only ever try to remove anything if I see something that is in question of violating one of those guidelines, or if the source is questionable (i.e., the rumor about David being gay and hired Claudia as a girlfriend was sourced to a German tabloid). Things like secrets to illusions are often (and usually are) copyrighted / trademarked info that magicians and illusions pay big bucks to learn and buy the performance rights to, and earn money by performing it to mystify and surprise the audience. I'm sure there are alot of people and aspiring magicians who would like to know how Copperfield performs his illusions, but is Misplaced Pages really the place to help reveal trade secrets? For example (...might be a bad example, but it's the only one that popped into my head at the moment), I love the Big Mac at McDonald's, and would love to make my own at home...so should the Misplaced Pages article on Big Macs provide the recipe on how to season the beef patty and how to make the Mac Sauce? 24.187.201.227 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the status quo; if somebody really wanted to know, they can go hunting through the edit history, ensuring they really do have to dig deep to locate the pointers to the answers they might be looking for. It's possible that the details behind any performances would also come under WP:NOT, in a similar way to railway timetables (excessive detail available elsewhere).

BTW, User:TheMagicOfDC, would you be in a position to acquire a GFDL-compatible, royalty free photograph to place on the article? The should be possible for any image where you yourself are the photographer or know the photographer/copyright holder and can get them to offer the image without restrictions. —Sladen (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Reference Link

just like to report that the CNN reference link under mugging (number 17) is no longer available. I will try to find another source.--Theoneintraining (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - fixed dead reference link, found new source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heritage background and protection

First, I do not have a preference for the outcome.

In the current version of the page, we have two cites for Mr. Copperfield's background, in the first and second paragraphs . There is no mention of religion or country of origin/heritage. The sequence of letters a-m-e-r-i-c-a do not appear in either cite (except as American Academy of Dramatic Arts). The sequence of letters j-e-w does not appear in either cite. The sequence of letters r-u-s-s-i-a does not appear in either cite.

Per WP:VERIFY and particularly per WP:BLP, could this unsourced information either be sourced from somewhere (I haven't succeeded), or deleted (and stay that way). The only source that did state Russian was a Buzzle.com cite that is believed to have be circularly sourced from Misplaced Pages itself—and which has now been removed as a reference.

I'm tempted to nominate this article for semi-protection as all the repeated unsourced additions have been from IPs. Thoughts anyone? —Sladen (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

removed refs to Jewish and Israel, but added a lot of other sourced data. ► RATEL ◄ 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the decisive action.--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

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

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

apologies to those I hit in mid-air during editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007
2007–2008
2008

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

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

FBI Investigation

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

FBI investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, Copperfield is

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. No, he is not under investigation for bribery ONLY as your phrasing implies, and the case started in 2007, not 2008. I'm finding you obtuse and difficult to collaborate with. I'll attempt one more edit of the section. I ask you not to "sprinkle" {

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Illusion

i think there should be some information on his current show, An Intimate Evening of Grand Illusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.156.197 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Material from National Enquirer

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

Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karelin7 and COI

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

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

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

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

To Karelin7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about "reliable source"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TMZ as a source

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

Categories: