Jump to content

Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

New York Times sources

Expanding the rest of the article might also help balance the controversial sections. Here are several links to NYTimes articles that may be helpful in providing details and sourcing: brief info on college and career, magic underground: [1] [2] [3] 85 info on CBS special, 79 review (not free), 1996 profile, 1996 review with some stats on Broadway show and controversy, review and celeb reactions, info on museum collection, more 96 reviews/profile,

Are these helpful? Flowanda | Talk 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2006 robbery

I've added a citation to a 2006 article from the Palm Beach Post, which should be sufficient for now to verify information about the 2006 mugging. The CNN link no longer works, and the forum link has been removed. Flowanda | Talk 04:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The CNN reference has been replaced with an AP article on USAToday. Flowanda | Talk 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Content Order and Weight

Hi, first of all, I know, COI, blah blah blah. I'm not making any edits, I just have a question/suggestion that I'm curious about what the consensus may be. I have been browsing Wikipedia articles of some other celebrities, specifically focusing on famous magicians, and what I have noticed is that pretty much ALL of them focuses on the artists' career first. Makes sense...they are all celebrities, so the encyclopedic article focuses and talks about what they are famously known for. None of the ones I saw has dedicated sections on lawsuits and/or investigations, even if those celebrities were known to have been involved in them.

Having said all that, I'm not proposing that we REMOVE anything from the Copperfield article, but just re-order the conten so that it's more in line with other celebrity pages. For example, combine "Personal Live" and "Career and Businss Interests" in a single section called "Biography." The sub-sections for "Robbery" and "FBI Investigation" would still remain in the "Biography" section but do not need sub-headings to bring undue weight on the subject matter. On the Michael Jackson page, the story of his alleged child molestation charges doesn't even have a section dedicated to it, and I'm sure that news is more well-known than David's alleged rape charges.

As it stands right now, I think the Copperfield page is somewhat biased in that it continues to bring negative content to the top of the page, when it really should be neutral biographical information that. At least that's how the other celebrity pages I've seen are structured. For reference, these are the celebrity pages I reviewed: Madonna_(entertainer), Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Kathy_Griffin, and these are the magician pages I reviewed: The Pendragons, Penn & Teller, Penn Jillette, Teller, Harry Houdini, Robert Houdin, David Roth, Siegfried & Roy, Slydini, Chung Ling Soo, Jim Steinmeyer, Cyril, Thurston, Dai Vernon, Masked Magician, David Blaine, Eugene Burger, Lance Burton, Cardini, Rudy Coby - Labman, Paul Daniels, Simon Drake, Michael Finney, |Ching Ling Foo, Michael Ammar, Chris Angel, Herbert Becker, Blackstone Jr, Uri Geller, Doug Henning, Kevin James, Amazing Jonathan, Andre Kole, Amazing Kreskin, Max Maven, and Jeff McBride. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


On the Michael Jackson page, the story of his alleged child molestation charges doesn't even have a section dedicated to it, - em.. yes it does and it's own sub-article. However I have no problem with merging sections to follow a chronological biographical style. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, sorry, I wasn't clear in my original post. I am aware of the section you refrenced, but the child abuse story is grouped together with his marriage, so what I meant was that there's no singular section that just focuses on the child abuse. Apologies for the miscommunication. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well as I've said, I have no objection to such a restructing here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with restructuring the order on his page as well. As it is, it does look more like it is focusing on News audience rather than an encyclopedic one. I arrived at this page looking for Information about David Copperfield. His controversies had no interest to me. If i were to look for a celebrity's recent legal trouble, Wikipedia is not the place I would look. I do think it has a place in the article, but not the top. Thats neither chronologically accurate nor encyclopedicly valuable. --Emely1219 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree - substantially on my firm belief that BLP concerns are of the highest importance, and placing a lawsuit at the top of the pile is not the right way to do things. Collect (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Content order suggestions

I'm not really looking at the content or weight, just trying to suggest a logical sequence to the information for an encyclopedic article. A news article would likely be organized with the most timely/current/well-known/currently important info first, which this kind of is right now. Flowanda | Talk 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Early life and career (includes info from first part of Personal life up to Schiffer info and first section of Biz & Career up to subsections)
  • Television specials and appearances
  • Business interests (subsections plus an intro on Copperfield as businessperson)
  • Earnings
  • Controversies (includes lawsuits, robberies, etc.)
  • Achievements
  • World records
  • Personal life (Schiffer info plus charitable activities)

18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

He's still under investigation by a federal grand jury. That's pretty damned notable, and should have some prominence. Grand Juries do not investigate charges that are clearly without any merit. ► RATEL ◄ 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Then post the info on Wikinews or other websites dealing with current news; we're discussing the creation and maintenance of a stable encyclopedic article. And as of now, none of the current sourced information you're referring to has been removed or recommended to be removed in the above suggested organization. Flowanda | Talk 06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameron's message and my (Karelin7) response

I received a message from Cameron suggesting that I want to bury the info about the federal investigation, and that section has been moved near the top of the article. But, as others have noted, the format for BLPs that wikipedia tends to follow starts with early years, then career (which is the reason one is usually seeking info about them), achievements, and then a heading "Personal Life." This is the case even when there is a significant controversy associated with the person. Examples:

1. Kobe Bryant:

1 Early years 1.1 High school 2 NBA career 2.1 1996 NBA Draft 2.2 First three seasons (1996–99) 2.3 Championship years (1999–2002) 2.4 Post-Championship years (2002–04) 2.5 After Shaquille O'Neal's departure (2004–07) 2.6 MVP year (2007–2008) 2.7 2008–09 season 3 International career 4 Player profile 5 Personal life 5.1 Sexual assault allegation 6 Endorsements 7 NBA career statistics 7.1 Regular season 7.2 Playoffs 8 Accomplishments and records 9 See also 10 Notes 11 External links

2. Bill Cosby

No mention of the criminal investigation for sexual abuse or the civil suit for same.

3. James Brown

1 Early life 2 Career 2.1 1955: The Famous Flames 2.2 Early and mid-1960s 2.3 Late 1960s 2.4 1970s and the J.B.'s 2.5 Late 1970s and early 1980s 2.6 Late 1980s to the 2000s 3 James Brown Revue 3.1 Concert introduction 3.2 Concert repertoire and format 3.3 Cape routine 3.4 Brown as band leader 4 Social activism 4.1 Civil unrest and self-empowerment 4.2 Fannie Brown 5 Personal life 5.1 Marriages and children 5.1.1 Brown-Hynie marriage controversy 5.1.2 Paternity of James Brown II 5.2 Legal issues 6 Death and the aftermath 6.1 Death 6.2 Memorial services 6.3 Last will and testament 6.4 Burial at temporary site 7 Honors, awards and dedications 8 Discography 8.1 Notable albums 8.2 Notable singles 8.3 Complete singles reissue 9 Filmography 10 See also 11 References 12 External links


Rob Lowe

1 Biography 1.1 Early life 1.2 Early film and television career 1.3 Recent television work 1.4 Sex tape controversy 2 Personal life 2.1 Nanny lawsuit cases 3 Filmography 4 References 5 External links


Roman Polanski

1 Early life 2 Early short films in Poland and Knife in the Water (1962) 3 British films made in collaboration with Gérard Brach during the mid-1960s 3.1 Repulsion (1965) 3.2 Cul-de-Sac (1966) 3.3 The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) 4 Relationship with Sharon Tate, Rosemary's Baby (1968), and the Manson murders 5 Films of the 1970s 5.1 Macbeth (1971) 5.2 What? (1972) 5.3 Chinatown (1974) 5.4 The Tenant (1976) 6 Sex crime allegations 6.1 Charges and guilty plea 6.2 Imprisonment and flight 6.3 Later developments in the case 7 Vanity Fair libel case 8 Later film career 8.1 Tess (1979) 8.2 Pirates (1986), Frantic (1988), and relationship with Emmanuelle Seigner 9 Recent work and honours 9.1 Current projects 10 Style and themes 11 Filmography 11.1 Actor 11.2 Writer 12 Notes 13 References 14 External links


Colin Farrell

1 Early life 2 Career 3 Personal life 3.1 Sex tape 3.2 Alleged proposition for sex 3.3 Dessarae Bradford's accusations 3.4 Celebrity status 4 Selected filmography 5 Awards 6 References 7 External links


Bill Clinton

1 Early life 2 Education 3 Early political career 3.1 Leader of McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign in Texas 3.2 Governor of Arkansas 3.3 Democratic presidential primaries of 1988 3.4 Democratic presidential primaries of 1992 3.5 Presidential election 4 Presidency, 1993–2001 4.1 First term, 1993–1997 4.1.1 Legislative agenda 4.1.2 Travelgate controversy 4.1.3 Death penalty 4.2 Second term, 1997–2001 4.2.1 Lewinsky scandal 4.2.1.1 Impeachment and trial in the Senate 4.2.2 Digital Millennium Copyright Act 4.2.3 Military and foreign events 4.2.4 Whitewater controversy 4.3 Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden 4.4 Law license suspension 4.5 Troopergate 4.6 Pardons and campaign finance 4.7 Legislation and programs 4.8 Judicial appointments 4.8.1 Supreme Court 4.8.2 Other courts 5 Public approval 6 Public image 6.1 Popularity among African-Americans 6.2 Sexual misconduct allegations 7 Security incidents 8 Post-presidential career 8.1 Public speaking and campaigning 8.2 William J. Clinton Presidential Center 8.3 Published work 8.4 William Clinton Foundation 8.5 Relations with George H. W. Bush 8.6 Environment 8.7 Personal health 8.8 2008 election involvement 9 Honors and accolades 10 Electoral history 11 Gallery 12 References 13 Further reading 13.1 Primary sources 13.2 Popular books 13.3 Academic studies 14 External links


Now, look at the current (27 May 2009, 14.55) format of Copperfield's page after Cameron's revision:

1 Personal life 1.1 2006 Robbery 1.2 FBI Investigation 2 Career and business interests 2.1 International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts 2.2 Musha Cay and the Islands of Copperfield Bay 2.3 "Magic Underground" restaurant 3 Lawsuits 4 Earnings 5 Charitable activities 5.1 Project Magic 6 Achievements and awards 6.1 Guinness World Records 7 Television specials 8 Filmography 9 See also 10 References 11 External links


And the allegations against Copperfield are (a) nearly two years old; (b) have never resulted in arrest, indictment, or civil lawsuit; (c) are not part of any apparent pattern of criminality.

With all due respect, I am trying to afford Copperfield the same treatment provided other celebrities, including those who have been accused of, charged with, or convicted of criminal offenses or scandalous behavior. The facts strongly suggest that Copperfield is being unfairly singled out for anomalous treatment. With Ratel, he has candidly stated his motives, at least in part. With other editors the thinking is less clear. But the continued effort to make a mere accusation the centerpiece of Copperfield's page raises questions. I would like to hear suggestions about how to resolve this staying within wiki guidelines. Karelin7 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Karelin7 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're good. What are your hourly rates? ► RATEL ◄ 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless you can prove this accusation, Ratel, please remove it. Flowanda | Talk 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course I can prove it. This user has an intimate knowledge of Copperfield's life, knows the unpublished minutiae of Copperfield's lawsuits, claims to know him intimately, speaks fluent legalese, and openly acknowledges his COI. I just wonder what the going rate is for this sort of work. It's a valid question. I wonder if I can earn some money doing the same sort of work. ► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, you are saying this editor is being paid specifically to edit or influence Wikipedia articles? This you need to prove with more than your personal observations and your interpretations of personal or professional COI statements. You are making accusations of serious COI violations. Flowanda | Talk 07:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Flow, Ratel raised legitimate concerns regarding Karelin7 to which Karelin7 replied. This falls short of a confrimation of paid interest in my view. Ratel has voiced motives which raised other COI / Neutrality issues. I don't see any COI violations in opinions being posted to a talk page by any editor. Can I suggest that the fact there are opposing views is clear and all refrain from commenting on the editors – instead focusing on improving (from an encyclopedic viewpoint not a black or whitewash viewpoint).Amicaveritas (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that happening as long as editors can attack others with total impunity. Nowhere in the links does it indicate that Karelyn7 is a paid employee, a meatpuppet or even a lawyer. Suggestions on how to solve this issue is welcome, but ignoring attacks and accusations does not seem to work. Flowanda | Talk 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Content organization

Why exactly do you prefer that version? Is you "preference" consistent with Wikipedia's policies on concensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emely1219 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As there is/was no consensus one way or the other as to these recent edits concerning organization, let's stop the edits on the main article until the discussion about content order is decided. Flowanda | Talk 01:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sick of all these SPAs with COIs running the show here. Cameron Scott and I think the version we like reads more logically. The SPAs appear to be on a mission to sanitize the page and re-order placement to camouflage notable events. Bzzzt! Stop. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an alternative possibility. Collect (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't be coy. What do you mean? Flowanda | Talk 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I guess I'm with the SPAs and the sockpuppets and the fanboys and the handwringing wikibureaucrats since I agree with the present edits and the ongoing discussion that is trying to address Wikipedia policy instead of condemning editors because they choose to "tell it like it is" about their identity or biases. So, crawl through my talk page again, Ratel, and figure out a new way to try to shut me up based on who you think I am or what failure my edits represent that prevent me from having a voice and a vote on this page. Until then, I will continue to focus on the edits, no matter who makes them, or how material -- or immaterial -- the motives are. Flowanda | Talk 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
And I agree with your position on this. Collect (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
And I agree with your position on this. Although I don't see any sock issues here and I do not want to see an article whitewash either. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Flawanda, I see you have difficult avoiding PAs. Side with the socks and gophers, go ahead. Know the person by the company he keeps. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Report me for making a Personal Attack, Ratel. You've made enough insinuations, so let's get this over with. Now. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You should move that comment to my Talk page. You have no idea what an article Talk page is for, clearly. ► RATEL ◄ 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider the matter settled then. That is what talk pages are for -- discussing edits, not editors. If you have issues with specific editors, Ratel, please post your concerns on their their talk pages or file a formal complaint on an appropriate noticeboard. Flowanda | Talk 06:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note i've reported the starter of this section as a sockpuppet (or might be a meatpupper). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7. This article needs a lot of work, so staying focused on the edits will help keep the stress level down. Flowanda | Talk 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbes sources

  • Short first-person commentary (based on an interview) in Forbes dealing with revealing secrets:[4]. Not sure where it fits in now, but hasn't there been some conflict about this subject?
  • Info about Copperfield's islands.[5]
  • Trivia, but fun[6]
  • Background on collecting, but probably not useful here as a reference[7]
  • A couple of sentences about his #19 place earnings (article from 1998): "19 David Copperfield $49.5 million Here's one magic show that demonstrates no signs of slipping in popularity polls. Once again Copperfield proves that you can control costs in entertainment. His three trucks, modestly priced production and in-house management team paid largely in fees is a cash cow for the illusionist."[8]
  • Article about Criss Angel, but references Genii mag as a trade pub[9]

Flowanda | Talk 03:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Picture?

Hi, I don't fully understand the rules for posting a picture on a BLP page, like the rights to use a specific picture. Am I right in understanding we can't use press release/publicity photos? If so, what about personal photos I've taken? I have some much more recent pictures of Copperfield I can offer to use instead of the current one used on the page, which was from at least 15 years ago, but I want to make sure I stay within the guidelines. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can use photos you took yourself. Upload to the Commons area: [10] ► RATEL ◄ 05:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ratel. I have uploaded a more recent photo and replaced it in the mail article. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you also update the caption? Otherwise the photo is of Copperfield in an undershirt in 2008, and still says it's of him after a show in 2006, presenting the impression that he wandered around after shows in his undershirt. --GRuban (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, the caption is correct, I took that photo after the show in Atlantic City in 2006. Where do you see 2008? And the clothing you see him wearing in that photo is what he wears on stage when he performs...it has been his stage wardrobe for almost the past 10 years. That's one of the reasons I updated the photo, because the other one was so outdated :) TheMagicOfDC (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it in the image summary. I don't know how I typed in the incorrect year there, but I have fixed it to say 2006. Thanks for pointing it out, GRuban! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll take your word on the wardrobe, and removed the date from the other pic; that is the date on the source, but sometimes image sharing sites will present the upload date as the photograph date. I still think it's useful to have both, though. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro expansion

I think the article intro needs to be a more comprehensive description of Copperfield's career. As it is now, it's just about the commercial side, which has been easier to document, but ultimately should be a summary that covers the highlights in a couple of short paragraphs that are detailed later in the article. I really don't know much about Copperfield, but from reading some of the profiles in the above sources I posted, the points that stick out to me are the lavish stage shows (and how much he tours), how he impacted the magician trade (both good and bad), his career path (young age, TV specials, over-the-top illusions, Las Vegas), some of his most notable illusions (Statue of Liberty) and awards, his business ventures and significant controversies. Any thoughts? Flowanda | Talk 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The same "big illusions" were done in the 1800s <g>. Collect (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Copperfield is not known for those, unless you can source his time travel. Flowanda | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL, or, Just the facts, Ma'am.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I intended...I'm talking about a current summary based on what reputable source profiles say are significant...both Forbes and NYT articles included such descriptions, and I'm sure there are others. I'd like to come up with something more comprehensive than something based on stats, but I'm not looking to create anything that's not currently sourced. Flowanda | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Added excellent source Ratel found that could be useful: "Magic man -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY:2823:". www.timesunion.com. Retrieved 2009-06-07.

Americanchronicle.com and TMZ.com (again) sources removed

Content and cites sourced to TMZ.com and americanchronicle.com were removed as not meeting WP:RS. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Chronicle and [11] for the bare essentials on this non-notable site that does not meet WP:RS. And trying -- yet again -- to readd TMZ.com as a reference clearly violates the consensus achieved on this talk page that this website is not a source that can meet the strict guidelines of WP:BLP for this article. Flowanda | Talk 08:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ may give an editor leads as to things to research but it is not a reliable source for BLPs, even more so for negative content in BLPs, whatever consensus may bring. Moreover, TMZ text cited to support neutral text on en.Wikipedia may have negative or unflattering content: Citing such text to lead readers to that kind of content is also a violation of BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing per WP:RS

I'm not going to edit war with you, but if you continue to introduce content sourced to websites that do not meet WP:RS -- the two sources you've used clearly cannot support the claims made -- I will revert them. Please see WP:3RR and WP:BLP concerning the removal of poorly sourced content. Flowanda | Talk 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact that Copperfield had an accident and was in a wheelchair? That's in the Oprah transcript. What problems do you have with that? ► RATEL ◄ 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

COPPERFIELD: No, I got hurt actually once in rehearsal. I was--I was in a tank of water and I took in--I tore some ligaments in my legs and I took some water in. And it was in a rehearsal, and I was in a wheelchair for a couple weeks. But finally I did it on the show. It was many, many years ago. And I got back on the horse and I did it again. My parents were in the audience and they kept shooting shots of my parents, and they won an Emmy Award that year for their performance. [12]

Seems straightforward to me. ► RATEL ◄ 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Then source the information strictly per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Flowanda | Talk 12:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Where is magictelevision.org named non-RS? ► RATEL ◄ 13:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no "blacklist of unreliable sources" and anything which does not appear there is assumed to be reliable. Sources have to be shown to have reputations for accuracy and fact checking, particularly in articles about living people. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it's a .org site devoted to magic and carrying a clearly genuine copy of an Oprah transcript, and I'm using it as a source for what I would have thought is a non-sensitive issue. Overreaction? ► RATEL ◄ 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You are using it to make a claim not directly supported by it -- it is an anecdote, and as such you should not translate it and present it as a "fact" -- and you have to find the transcript on Oprah's site in any case. This is not only per RS but per copyright rules. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)To Ratel: Clue: Oprah's official transcripts on her own site would be reliable sources for what Copperfield said on her show, but I suspect this is more an "anecdote" than a matter of "fact" at best. In general, anecdotes are not taken as anything more than stories told by a person. The use of magictv is not only not RS, it also is being used to support a claim that the anecdote is specifically true. Did you know people on talk shows sometimes tell tales? Collect (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours, you have entered into yet another edit war over the use of unsuitable sources, reinserted both the reverted content and source, along with additional unsuitable sources, used a flimsy excuse to try to reinsert the same TMZ website links that were decided by consensus to not be used in the article, ignored warnings that a removed website did not meet WP:RS standards and very likely contained COPYVIO content and reinserted it again without regard for the potential harm it could do to Wikipedia or indicating you had checked it for any copyvio, displayed a disruptive willingness to disregard or feign ignorance of policy and community when challenged, argued with three editors who independently disagreed with both the content and sources you continue to readd, displayed a significant ignorance or unsupported interpretation of BLP and RS policies, especially disturbing for an editor who has 6000+ edits, and dismissed as "nonsense" and "carping" the efforts of community members who continue to discuss and achieve consensus in the midst of the combative and unproductive environments you create. When you were unblocked for similar behavior less than a month ago, you said of BLP "Yes, I know it well, and it's very conservative because of the legal implications. I realise that. And I realise that in the Copperfield case I simply don't have the consensus or sources to act."[13] This latest episode provides clear examples that your behavior, edits, disrespect and defiance of policy and community have not been addressed, and the concerns expressed by editors involved in your block are still valid. Flowanda | Talk 05:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of Ratel's "excellent sources":
  • [14] Pay to view, so I -- like most readers -- can't verify the information or read the entire article.
  • [15] User-generated review site and a webpage that contains what looks like content copied from another site. No source. No idea of its accuracy or how it was edited. No editorial oversight. No indication of expertise, authority or even who owns or runs the website.
  • [16] A non-notable self published book via IUniverse on an Google book page.
  • [17] A about.com website -- which doesn't meet WP:RS -- article that does nothing but quote a press release. Flowanda | Talk 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, 'wanda, you could have put the effort you've just expended on having a go at me into improving the article. If you think the sources are weak, find better ones. They are there of you know how to look for them. ► RATEL ◄ 05:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You haven't had very good luck in finding them.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you even try to find some sources, like [18] or [19] or [20] ? ► RATEL ◄ 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect in all your intended insults and attempts to disrupt and distract. And very close to 3RR. Flowanda | Talk 06:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"As Far As I Know" doesn't cut it, and I'm not going to do your work to adequately source the trivial information or gossip that you want to add. Flowanda | Talk 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Flowanda, I'm going to put you in my ignore bin with Collect if this continues. If you think anything I have added to the page is incorrect or did not happen, come out and say it, or else stop these pointless attacks. ► RATEL ◄ 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) No one here has "attacked" you. A cup of tea is likely called for. Collect (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

General question about reference formats

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I noticed that in the list of references, some provide quotes from the source and some do not...what determines when to or not to include quotes from the source? I understand if the source is not easily accessible, so you would include a quote for people to see the source of the reference, but what determines when to include quotes or not to a URL link? Again, this is just a general referencing format question, so I apologize if I'm asking in the wrong place TheMagicOfDC (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are only supposed to use a quote rarely, if the source is likely to be challenged, but some people use it liberally, and don't seem to get it changed by others much. I have noticed that some editors on this page, especially Karelin7, are using badly formed and non-standard ways of citing sources. May I ask them please to review WP:CITE#HOW and perhaps use one of the helpful citation tools found here. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Other Wikipedians go around fixing formats -- there is no need to berate any edotor, as "perfecton is not required" on WP to begin with. Mote. Collect (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't point out there speling errers on talk pages, either. :) Flowanda | Talk 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
My spillchucker works gud enuf <g>. The "sic patrol" is one of my peeves, by the way. Collect (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Please provide RS that your spillchucker works gud enuf! :P TheMagicOfDC (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to go through the list of references and remove all of the duplicate sources (i.e. there are several references to the Forbes article "Houdini in the Desert") by giving the reference a name, then referencing the same source in the repeat instances. Before I do, does anyone have any objections to me doing this? I don't think it's really a COI as I'm not changing anything in the article...just doing some clean up. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone started without me...he/she's doing pretty much what I had in mind, so I guess I'll jump in to help in the next couple of days. My goal is to just use 1 source for multiple references instead of posting mutiple instances of the same source. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
WOW Thanks Ratel! TheMagicOfDC (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Schiffer — Paris Match lawsuit

[alleged BLP violation redacted by admin Gwen Gale] Anyone care to do the legwork? ► RATEL ◄ 07:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WP is not a tabloid. Collect (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Put another way, that could be taken as a stealthy smear, WP:UNDUE. Following WP:BLP, it's not on to further carry on a smear by reporting that the celebrity won a lawsuit over a smear. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between smearing someone and reporting the actual facts of his life. Not sure everyone here understands the difference. Proposed edit:

[alleged BLP violation redacted by admin Gwen Gale]

Start ... ► RATEL ◄ 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And lacking any consensus for more of the stuff you wish to add? Collect (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
BLP violations can't be posted on talk pages either. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
BLP/N? It appears that too many agree with Gwen Gale about this being a BLP violation for that route to avail. Collect (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to keep this on the relevant talk page (ie here). Gwen Gale makes a basic error in claiming this is a BLP vio. Her latest tack is to state (on my talk page) that Paris Match is a "tabloid" (actually it's a weekly magazine in print since 1948) and therefore not usable. But Paris Match is not used as a source for anything. The simple fact is that Copperfield and Schiffer launched a huge lawsuit against one of the most well known magazines in the world that happens also to be one of France's most successful and influential magazines. This fact (the lawsuit) was reported in many reliable sources. Now you cannot suppress this, or should not be able to suppress this, unless her misinterpretation of BLP holds sway. Just as the gay rumours concerning Tom Cruise are well covered in their own section on his page, so this needs to be covered. ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's see -- if he did not sue, then the rumour can be in the BLP because it then must be true, and if he does sue, then the rumour can be in the BLP? I do not see the logic there. And quite frankly WP does "suppress" material which is contentious in BLPs. That is policy, and if you wish to change that policy, I suggest you try on the WP talk page for the policy. Collect (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll answer you this once because you uncharacteristically ask an interesting question.
if he did not sue, then the rumour claim can be in the BLP because it then must be true If a person does not litigate against claims published in widely-read and well-known sources, then it may get into a BLP if the source can pass RS (although some editors will try to stop it on weight and npov grounds).
if he does sue, then the rumour claim can be in the BLP Yes. Whether you like it or not, it's an event in the life of a person and sometimes a very significant financial event. If the litigation is reported widely in RSes, what possible reason can there be to suppress it? It's not wikipedia's policy to sanitise lives, removing well sourced events in a misguided attempt at censorship. If the claim/s are false, then the lawsuits will be successful and this is also reported (as it is in this case). Tom Cruise (actor) is just one example of how this situation is correctly handled. ► RATEL ◄ 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It is policy per WP:BLP that contentious material requires a positive consensus for inclusion. Last I looked, you have no concensus for inclusion of the tabloid fodder. Which should suffice to stop this conversation. Collect (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll answer this too, since you raise it repeatedly on this page. Consensus is a fragile thing. As I've stated before, the people forming the current consensus on this page are either heavily COI-ed in favor of the subject, or people who have no real interest in the topic, but who are interested instead in hobbling me in one way or another because of past interactions I've had with them. In this situation, consensus for including almost anything that is not hagiographic is very hard to find. However, let's imagine what would happen should the subject be charged and convicted of the crime for which he is currently under investigation. I suggest to you that if that should happen, thousands of not-so-gentle eyes will scan this page and consensus would be very different, very quickly. So even if I cannot get consensus with this bunch, I want all issues raised on this talk page for the possible attention of future editors. This includes the publication by Paris Match of claims that the Schiffer-Copperfield relationship was a sham, and the ensuing well-covered lawsuit. ► RATEL ◄ 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:CRYSTAL Collect (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section

I'm not unbiased but it seems to me that there is a real effort to include anything that smacks of the salacious, and the sensational, regardless of whether it meets the standards for BLPs. Also, the "let's imagine what would happen should [Copperfield] be charged and convicted of the crime for which he is currently under investigation" sounds like wishful thinking, particularly given Ratel's admitted thirst for reporting celebrity scandals, regardless of whether the facts can be substantiated. Note, too, that we have no information now from government sources confirming that (a) the investigation is continuing; (b) establishing exactly which crimes, if any, are being investigated. For some reason there is a real urge to load the page with as much disparaging information as possible. This is not in keeping with the standards of neutrality that wiki requires, particularly for BLPs. What's the deal? Karelin7 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact that a celebrity doesn't sue every tabloid or media source that publishes defamatory material shouldn't be considered an admission that the material is true. To do so is naive. Louis Nizer, one of the greatest American lawyers of the last century, noted, "Although libel laws do not distinguish between a minor hurt and a serious one, I have always felt that it was good discretion not to launch a suit for every lie uttered. The highest estate which a lawyer can reach is not to be a brilliant technician but to be a wise adviser. Not every grievance should result in a lawsuit. In a crowded competitive world, people will step on each other's toes literally and figuratively. But we ought not to rush into court every time we have been jostled or an angry cussword has been spoken. Legal warfare is expensive and harrowing. It should be resorted only when there is real damage, not merely high sensitivity to a slur. The exception, of course, is when an important principle is involved . . . ." [1] Ratel, who averages eleven hours a day editing wikipedia, is to be applauded for his dedication. But it is easy to lose sight of personal biases that can lead one to violate wikipedia's rules. Nevertheless, this is an interesting exchange and does test standards and principles and it's interesting to follow. Karelin7 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with shortening the section. I think the subsection headings should be removed, and the FBI investigation shortened to the first two and the last sentence and the 2006 shortened as well. The Schiffer section could be expanded a bit as it was a six-year high-profile relationship and include a phrase about the lawsuit and results. And from my recent personal bias against wordiness, I request fewer comments like the second paragragh above. Most of it is unrelated to this article, and includes what could be considered a "bless your heart" about another editor. Long story short, just the edits, m'am. :) Flowanda | Talk 17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see our paid editors are out in force - I'm busy but I am keeping an eye out for attempts to return this article to the virtual blowjob it was in the pass. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? If so, let's take it to ANI because I will not take this kind of unsupported accusation or even "guilt by association". Karelin7 is following the COI policy of posting on the talk page, so CAN WE PLEASE ALL STICK TO THE EDITS AND NOT THE EDITORS? Flowanda | Talk 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And stop using offensive and insulting terms in your comments and edit summaries. They are as much of a tool of distraction as attacking other editors. Flowanda | Talk 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
So let's get it out in the open - Karelin7 - please disclosure the nature of your relationship with DC and his businesses. Do you work for him? Employed by one of his businesses? You've *hint* at the COI but I've never seen it clearly established what is it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does it matter? He's COI; he's posting his concerns here. He made requests. I made suggestions that I think are in line with policy. There needs to be more discussion instead of distraction. Are we going to spend another 100,000 words hurling insults and accusations instead of dealing with these edits?
If you think the above comments have no merit BASED ON WIKIPEDIA POLICY, then say so, but if you have a problem with this editor making any kind of contribution anywhere, even if he follows COI, then take it up at WP:COIN and let them deal with that issue separately. Otherwise, please stick to the edits being discussed...that is what this talk page is for.
And no, I have absolutely no conflict of interest related to this editor, subject, article, other editors, and no animosity or POV issues with any other editor. I am frustrated that we spend all the time here talking about other editors instead of the edits. I assert that if we deal with the concerns expressed by this editor (whether it's yes, no, whatever), then he will stop bringing them up.
BLP isn't a bunch of fun fact reading for a rainy day; it is policy and deserves to be addressed and followed. And there are enough editors here who can make sure it's followed in this case, even in light of a COI editor who just won't stop following the rules.
So, there's a request and my suggestions for edits. Are there others? Flowanda | Talk 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Louis Nizer, Reflections Without Mirrors 138-39 (1978).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Copperfield_(illusionist)/Archive_5&oldid=337926445"