Jump to content

Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Fountain of Youth

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The parties should bring the issue to WP:RSN if they wish to continue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article should talk about the fact that Copperfield declared to have found a Fountain of Youth in 2006. What follows was my version before it was removed by TheRedPenOfDoom and John for reason I stll don't understand (The RedPenOfDoom wrote "seems trivial and some type of agenda behind this", while John said it was doubious and poorly referenced).

In August 2006, Copperfield claimed he had found a true Fountain of Youth in Musha Cay. "I've discovered a true phenomenon," he told Reuters. "You can take dead leaves, they come in contact with the water, they become full of life again. … Bugs or insects that are near death, come in contact with the water, they'll fly away. It's an amazing thing, very, very exciting." Copperfield said that he hired scientists to conduct an examination of the "legendary" water, but as of now, the fountain remains off limits to outside visitors.<ref>http://www.howtobuyaprivateisland.com/musha-cay-david-copperfield.html</ref> According to Copperfield, he found it by connecting lines between "magical places" on the Earth, and noticing that those four lines intersect at Musha Cay. He also aked astronauts what was the most beautiful spot, the most beautiful water, and they all agreed this specific spot in the Atlantic Ocean, and they all agreed it was Musha Cay.<ref>http://www.vegasdeluxe.com/blogs/luxe-life/2009/aug/20/david-copperfield-begins-record-run-mgm-and-faces-/</ref>

Here there are about 103,000 pages that talk about the fact, and that's just to stick to English sources (the news has also been covered by several foreign media; for example here and here is on Corriere della Sera, the greatest Italian newspaper, while here and here is on la Repubblica, the second greatest Italian newspaper). I want to know which source do you guys think it's the best, but we just can't hide this verified and interesting information from Wikipedia. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • With decent sourcing this would be trivia. Without decent sourcing, it cannot be included on a BLP article. If the best English-language sources the OP can find are www.howtobuyaprivateisland.com and www.vegasdeluxe.com, then we definitely cannot use it. If there are better sources, we can talk about it. --John (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand: a famous and renowned man claims to have found the Fountain of Youth, says to the world that he hired scientist to study the phenomenon, but we cannot report it in the man's biography because it would be..."trivia"? That's nonsense.

And why can't we keep www.vegasdeluxe.com, if it contains a verbatim interview to Mr. Copperfield himself? Also, the reliability of the latter can be sustained by the fact that Copperfield is well-known for using almost the same wording in different interviews, and in this one we have the same wording of one Italian source. We can even use those sources, since Corriere della Sera and la Repubblica are notorious and reliable sources. English sources are better here? Yes, but that doesn't mean foreign source are forbidden, especially when there are several of them. I don't know which source English and American people consider trusted, but you can help me by finding the most authoritative source here --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That someone is making a promotional stunt to hype their rental destination property is niether noteworthy nor news worthy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"someone is making a promotional stunt": prove it. In Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I read "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The sources here say that Copperfield declared to have found a Fountain of Youth, and that the declaration has been reported by media all around the world. Whatever our opinion on the matter is, it shouldn't influence our job, which is report facts as stated by sources, and leave opinions to the reader. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you dont see "My new resort has the Fountain of Youth!!!!!" as a self promotional claim, i really question your ability to edit at all. Feel free to take your disagreement to the NPOV notice board. [1] -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I trust Copperfield, since his almost fourty-years carreer has gained him a fame as a respected and renowned man, and he has declared several times that it's not a self proclamed claim, but what I or you think doesn't matter here. You are free not to believe him and think he's a liar, but this shouldn't influence our neutral point of view. We should stick to sources. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can personally trust him all you want. But at Wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We have nothing other than a source reporting that a man stating his resort has the fountain of life, a pretty damn exceptional claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I don't want the article to say he actually found the Fountain of Youth. I want the article to say that he claimed to have found it and none knows if this is true or not. Do we have proof that he found it? No. Do we have proof that he claimed to have found it? Yes, hundreds of thousands (if not milions) of sources. You can personally distrust him all you want. But, Wikipedia is not censored, so we cannot hide a claim that spread around the world just because some of us think it's a promotional stunt. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. By including such a self promotional quote in the article, Wikipedia is either 1) Colluding to promote extravigant claims about the resort 2) attempting to showcase the subject as a big fat liar or 3) participating in a "Ha ha ha, look how st00pid this guy is who thinks he has the fountain of life". None of which are appropriate or encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, it is ok to write that he wants to put a woman's face on Mt. Rushmore, straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa and even vanish the moon, but not that he said to journalist of all countries in the world that he found a water that brings life to dead leaves or almost dead insect, and hired scientists to conduct an examination. Seems unlogic to me. And you forgot 4) Report a claim that may be true or untrue, but as for now has been reported by media all around the world and is worth mentioning. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have said nothing about the quality of the rest of the article, just that this would make it worse and there is no reason to do so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, adding verified and interesting informations would make Wikipedia articles worse? I'm lost. I think you are too biased because you think it's all a hoax. We should stick to the neutral point of view, and include significative news as reported by the media. By the way, I would like to know what other users think. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not just a collection of stuffs. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

True, and there's no doubt that possibly found the Fountain of Youth is encyclopedic. For know it's just a claim waiting to be proven or rejected, but it has been reported all over the world. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

" found the Fountain of Youth " uhhh right. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues thoroughly. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes. I have made no previous edits on this page that I am aware of and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template. I hope this reply is of assistance and I am expressly open to feedback, barnstars, kittens, or trout slaps on my talk page!

I agree with RedPenn that this deserves mention in the article. There appear to be scores of places where this was reported. However, I think we should include some sources where they speculate that Copperfield is making this claim as a promotional gimmick. I say that because John is correct -- this does look a whole lot like a well-played promotional stunt. And, if we have reliable sources questioning whether these claims are precisely that, I think we should include this in the article so readers don't get the wrong idea. (Even as I type this, I find myself hesitating on this second part of my advice. I can't remember ever advocating for inclusion of sources which speculate as to a speaker's intent. However, in this case, I think it may be appropriate.)—JoelWhy (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • "I agree with RedPenn that this deserves mention in the article"...Actually, RedPenn doesn't want to add the info, I am the one who wants. Just to evitate misunderstanding with users' names. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry...and, on that basis, I actually shouldn't have taken the 30 request (i.e. more than 2 people involved in the discussion.) But, no matter, it's not like my opinion is binding or anything. In any case, I'll see if there are any sources outright questioning it.JoelWhy (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources I found actually outright question this extrodinary claim. They simply state the Copperfield made it, and slyly wink "yeah, right". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
And I would point out that it was six years ago that he supposedly had scientists out to prove the amazing properties so simply as putting a leaf or a dead bug in the water and they were brought back to life. One would think that verification of such miraculous properties would have been made public when verified since they were so widely trumpeted previously. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing we should imply there's any validity to this claim. I think the only question is, if we include it based strictly on what he said, he comes across as a nutcase (which he may be, I have no idea.) Or, we include speculation from other sources (assuming we have any making such speculation.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
" if we include it based strictly on what he said, he comes across as a nutcase" or an outright liar promoting tourism to his resort; either of which is BLP problematical. there is nothing that I have found that would allow the second option of "placing the extrodinary claim" in some kind of context. Which would lead us to the third option of not including it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, can we agree to include in the page all the information we have? The reader will know this is a six years old claim, and then will be free to conclude what he/she wants. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a 2011 interview where he told the journalist that he believes it could be the home of the Fountain of Youth; he then says “Life is good. I have lots of exciting stuff going on, and I’m working on so many things. I’ll keep you informed -- and, who knows, maybe if we do discover that Fountain of Youth, I’ll become the world’s first 150-year-old magician.”

So, 5 years on he's still on this? Maybe he really is a nutcase. But, at least he now isn't claiming he has found it, only that it could be there.JoelWhy (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, can you post the link? Anyway, I think even the 2006 interview made clear that it "could" be a fountain of youth, and he hired scientist to verify it. As for the world’s first 150-year-old magician, I remember reading it in an Italian newspaper in 2006 (while he was doing his last tour in Italy, and shortly before the Tornado of Fire special aired here). Well, I think we have enough information to add to the article. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link to the 2011 article.

Ok, I'm going to edit the page using this link. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to wait for consensus to form here first. I am still against including it, for the reasons that RedPen has already given. --John (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, a minut, after the last RedPen message there have been new reasons for including it, such as a new link (and my last edit had 7 SOURCES). I asked "So, can we agree to include in the page all the information we have?" 1 hour ago, and since then I haven't seen reasons against it. I wonder how this story will end. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
One hour isn't long enough. Leave it two or three days. Meantime you could try to write a one-sentence summary that doesn't copy the source, and find more and better sources. Proposing those here is more likely to lead to something being included. --John (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
a "new source" that does nothing but repeat the same "Copperfield says " of the old sources. And its puff piece by Robin Leach who makes his living by being able to be invited into the homes of the "rich and famous", not exactly your standard for "journalistic reporting" . -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Copperfield has repeated these claims (albeit in a modified form) in this 2011 interview. We have a direct quote from Copperfield, so the fact that Leach wrote it isn't really relevant (unless you're implying that he made up the direct quote.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I am saying the Robin Leach has a vested interest not to do anything other than regurgitate what Copperfield has said. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Meantime you could try to write a one-sentence summary". You mean here in the talk page, or can I add a one-sentece content in the page about the fountain? --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here in the talk page. --John (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And what kind of summary could I make in one sentence? By the way, I hope you can confirm that Copperfield did make the claim, and none here thinks he didn't and the sources are wrong. So, the only thing left to prove is that an encyclopedic man's claim to have possibly found the Fountain of Youth and hired scientists to study the phenomenon is worth mentioning. I think the answer it's obvious, bue apparently it isn't. To prove it deserves mention, we can notice how the news have been reported by media all around the world for years, including biggest national newspaper. If this doesn't prove it, I don't know what will do. But I feel I'm repeting the same things all over again. I hope we don't go on forever --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A man claims to have found the fountain of youth!!!!!!! - and the entire world wide response is "this guy says he found the fountain of youth. he's performing thursday night at 7 at the appollo." pretty much going nowhere there. you get a bigger reaction from a fart in church.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reactions were far more than what you said, if we read all the sources (not to mention sites that can't be usesd as sources, such as forums, while we can see the huge impact this news had). By the way, how are we supposed to end this discussion? You did a third opinion request, and the response was "I agree [...] that this deserves mention in the article", with the only condition that if we see source questioning the claim we should also put it in the article, yet we are still here discussing the same things. Should consensus be searched only between us, or should we call another third option? --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Forums aren't notable for an encyclopaedia unless they generate notable third-party coverage. I am still against the inclusion of this material; at best I think it is trivia and at worst I think it could be seen as ridiculing the living subject of the article, which is a no-no. --John (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

THe FoY "claim" is not notable. Period. Any weight at all would be UNDUE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Forums aren't notable for an encyclopaedia": that was unnecessary since I explicitly called them "sites that can't be usesd as sources", and I only mentioned them to debunk RedPen's claim that the world reaction was insignificant. Of course the information cannot be trivia, since it is a potential discovery that can change the history of humanity, and I don't see how it could ridiculize Copperfield, since he is the one who made the claim and is still making it in recent interviews. Remember that we are talking about a man who is famous for making possible the seemingly impossible. When in 1981 he said he was going to make an airplane disappear, few people believed him, but he did it. When in 1983 he said he was going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear, many people thought he either was publicizing the airplane feat or got mad after that, but again he did that. Sure, those were illusions, but not everything he did was just that. The Alcatraz escape was half illusion and half real, while stunts such as surviving a 2,000 degrees tornado of fire were real. Giving his reputation, it's not wonder that the article can report claims like "he wants to put a woman's face on Mt. Rushmore, straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa and even vanish the moon" without fearing this could be seen as ridiculing him. Also, since we should follow a neutral point of view, we should all be more open-minded. Remember when last September it was announced the discovery of neutrinos possibly travelling faster than light, which could have lead to time travel and teleportation? The news was instantly reported on Wikipedia, and none said "at best it is trivia, at worst it could be seen as ridiculing those physics who think speed of light can be exceeded". The claim is (rightfully) still there, even now that it has been proven false (like historical scientific claims). With a bit of common sense, we could do the same thing. Copperfield's claim is well-known and has been reported by at least hundreds of thousands of sites, including several major national newspapers. Since we are trying to find consensus in this page, I think those who are against it could do a little effort of accepting it, since few lines reporting a referenced claim will not hurt anyone. And I think writing sentences like "THe FoY "claim" is not notable. Period." is not going to help us. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Find reliable sources first. Promoting an edit by using absolutely non-usable sources is not going to get you very far on Wikipedia. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

"Promoting an edit by using absolutely non-usable sources": are you kidding? I have mentioned several usable sourced in this talk page: for example here is an article from Corriere della Sera, Italy's largest circulation newspaper. Here is another article from Corriere. Here is la Repubblica, Italy's second largest circulation newspaper. This article is from Repubblica again. Since Corriere and Republica have ALWAYS be considered reliable sources, that's already four good references. Foreign sources are not forbidden by our guidelines and Google translator is very good, not to mention I could do a full translation of those articles myself. But is it really true that we don't have reliable sources in English? This is a 2011 verbatim interview with Copperfield, and it doesn't matter who is the interviewer, since it reports words said by Copperfield himself. Unless someone is implying that the whole interview is made up, which would be laughable, we do have a reliable English source. There is enough material to finally edit the article. We don't need to have a perfect section: for now, an acceptable section is good enough. Most pages are really improved only after months. And since we are going to find a compromise of some sort, I think everyone has to give up something: I can renounce to my original wording and to certain sources, but you should also renounce to intransigent attidudes such as "not notable. Period".--Newblackwhite (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

reaction on forums IS completely insignificant to Wikipedia articles unless the reaction on forums itself is covered by reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
sources out-weigh anything anyone has got to say, it has references and it was news at the time. Just keep it and everyone move on with your lives.intraining Jack In 15:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"sources" alone do NOT outweigh everything. In fact ", but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be true, but in this case we have a piece of information that is verifiable AND interesting, so it's about time we mention it in the article, even with few lines. Or is there a particular reason not to include it? We have discussed this matter too much, if we go on like this this talk page is going to become a novel. --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

neither "sources" alone nor the claim that it is "interesting" outweigh editorial judgment and other Wikipedia policies. In fact "because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." The claim of FoY without a proper context is in violation of BLP by making the guy appear to be a loony or a huckster or brings Wikipedia in collusion with a marketing campaign or promoting the absolute edge of fringe theories. Find a third party source that puts the claim into a context that is not Wikipedia's voice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When I said "interesting" I meant "relevant", "not trivial", I just couldn't find a better world. And due to its exceptionality the relevance of the claim is self-evident. Also, it's untrue to say that the claim doesn't have a context, since we know who made it, when, how many times, where the FoY is supposed to be, which clues led to the discovery (dead lives, bugs etc.), who was called (scientists) and for what, the fact that the fountain remains off limits to outside visitors and so on. I don't see how this piece of information could showcase Copperfield as "a loony or a huckster", since he is the one who publicy made the claim and keeps publicy repeting it every time he can. I think the info meets all of the requisites of WP:BLP. People who would read the claim on Wikipedia are free to decide whether think it could be a true and rivolutionary discovery (which, giving Copperfield's reputation, wouldn't be surprising) or a hoax (which you seem to think). In both cases, we shouldn't take position for the reader. --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, if it were indeed an exceptional claim that should be covered then the sources covering this exceptional claim would be more than "Copperfield sez".
Period.
It is a non serious claim that is not taken seriously by reliable sources and is not going to be placed in the article until you provide reliable third party sourcing that does more than simply repeat "Copperfield sez". -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What does "sez" mean in English? --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is non-grammatical/colloquial version of "says", sometimes carrying implications such as the actual words spoken probably shouldn't be taken at face value. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, now I can comment your previous message. And my comment is that once the sources have proven that the claim does exist, then we must include it. Several notorious newspaper have been talking about it for years, and it's not up to us to guess the unexpressed opinion of the reporter. Saying that the claim is "not taken seriously by reliable sources" is an original research. And we are talking about a man who holds 11 Guinness World Records, have been nominated for 38 Emmy Awards and won 21 of them, has sold 40 million tickets and grossed over $3 billion. It's not an unknown charlatan who makes senseless claims to become famous, and this is a further reason to include the info in the article. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It is indeed up to us to exercise editorial judgment for any number of reasons but most particularly to ensure that we are not participating in WP:BLP violations or promotion of WP:FRINGE theories. The mere repetition of "copperfield sez" in sources does NOT over-ride our primary duties. If the claim is so "extraordinary" that we are "required" to cover it, it would be easy to find reliable sources actually covering and commenting on the "extraordinary"-ness of the claim and not simply repeating "copperfield sez". The extreme LACK of any actual coverage of the "extraordinary" claim beyond the fact that it has been made is a sure sign that we SHOULDN'T be covering it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Now we do have a source (2 of em) which places it in context. You happy? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Does including reliable sources who quote David Copperfield as stating that he may have located the fountain of youth on the premises of resort islands that he owns meet the encyclopedic standard of inclusion for the article?

comments

See the discussion above for background: Talk:David_Copperfield_(illusionist)#Fountain_of_Youth -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that more than two editors are already involved in the discussion. Collect (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Twice now, Collect has deleted my edits to this page. His/her first concern was that I didn't cite enough sources. I added numerous sources. Now, he/she claims that I didn't use reliable sources, but I cited to TWO Washington Post articles on the event. The Washington Post is not a blog. I would like other views on these edits. "Collect" says that celebrities lend their voices to commercials and this is trivial. This is not just a celebrity voice-over. This is about an entertainer who performs at MGM venues, participating in a political cause that would bring another MGM venue into existence, potentially benefitting him, since he could perform there. In other words, it is far more significant than a mere voice-over. And, when you undertake a robocall in Maryland, where there are almost 2 million households, you can hardly call this trivial. I believe my edit should remain. I welcome the input of others. Athoughtforyou (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Um -- RfCs are not where you attack another editor. Your initial edits included blogs qua blogs etc. I did not remove any properly cited material per WP:BLP but I would like to point out that YouTube is not a WP:RS for much of anything at all. That I try to follow WP:BLP is not a reason for the "interesting wording" you give above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I did not attack you. Following the RfC guidelines, I layed out a factual and objective history of the dispute, including your side of things. My initial edit added a single sentence, and cited only to the Washington Post (not to blogs, as you say). You deleted the edit, saying you wanted more sources. I added another Washington Post citation, plus some additional souces, including online media targeted to the illusionist industry. If you're going to participate in this RfC discussion, please recount things accurately. Athoughtforyou (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to start an RfC. read the instructions. Your post was neither neutral nor accurate. And you still fail to realize you have a total of one RS source for the entire section you wish to add. Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the event may merit a mention, and that your source at [2] is reliable (it is not a blog). I don't think that there should be a whole section to "politicking" that contains only one event. I also am somewhat doubtful that the event is sufficiently notable for inclusion despite Copperfield's profit motive, but not really willing to definitively say it's not notable (at least for the moment). cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 00:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you cooki for your views. I added a heading, because I didn't think this fit within existing headings. If you have suggestions about where this event may fit, I would welcome them. Athoughtforyou (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
By implication "dcist", "itricks", "Youtube" etc. are not RS by WP:BLP requirements. Leaving a single brief mention at most, rather than the extended commentary which was proposed. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The "proposed" "extended commentary" was a good faith attempt to respond to the concerns you raised when you first deleted my edit--which was a single sentence. And, your recitation of WP:IRS is incomplete. Read it. First thing it says is that context matters. I didn't cite to Youtube to prove the content of a statement, I cited it so people could hear the recording if they wanted. No one disputes that the recording is authentic or that it is Copperfield's voice. With respect to iTricks, again, I did not cite to it to prove the substance of what I said. Rather, I cited to it to address your concern that more sources should cover this event before it is notable. Well, I felt that having it be covered in online media that covers the illusionist industry was pretty good support, and again, I was trying to respond to a concern you raised. It's not very collegial to turn around and criticize me for having done so. Bottom line is, this event was covered by the Washington Post (three times now) as well as additional sources. Athoughtforyou (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP and WP:RS are Wikipedia policies, not Wikipedia suggestions. You really need to find a non-WashPo source for this now if you wish it in the article, else it smacks of "silly season" editing utterly. Collect (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You make it hard to continue to assume good faith when you make such definitive statements as this. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:RS have any section which requires two sources for this. Are you denying that he made the robocalls? I can certainly understand, if I were trying to edit to assert that he was having an affair, that WP:RS would require confirmation of a potentially unreliable source. But, no one, to my knowledge, is disputing that he participated in these robocalls, and its report in the Washington Post is more than sufficient for reliability purposes. You provide no support for your claim that I need to include a "non-WashPo" source.Athoughtforyou (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is a frequently used approach where one user (Collect) tries to disqualify the other (Athoughtforyou) by plainly calling on the Wikipedia policy. I advise Collect to pay attention to the knowledge itself first, then to the Wikipedia policy. The Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia is against any rigidity of the policy.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I signal the discussion at Talk:David Copperfield, in which I proposed that the page David Copperfield should be renamed David Copperfield (novel) and the page David Copperfield (disambiguation) should be renamed David Copperfield; all on the base that the novel is not the primary topic, as this page gets more views. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Copperfield is Twins: How Might This Be Covered?

There is relatively strong evidence, and a couple slip-ups here and there, that indicate that the act known as David Copperfield is actually two twin brothers. However, this all begs the question - if it's harmful to the act, or might explain a variety of issues related to lawsuits or arrests or efforts to squash publishing... does Wikipedia have a duty to uphold this open secret? Chances are likely that the brothers, enriched as they are, would have destroyed the standard birth certificate or government records (or at least some of them), so they would naturally assume a Wikipedia entry mentioning this information as a threat.

While I'm not sure of other examples of this situation elsewhere in Wikipedia in detail, I do know Wikipedia has removed information deemed harmful, illegal or intrusive for the right connected people who knew who to get on the phone. Does this count, or does accuracy trump all? 24.191.122.27 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would consider it helpful if you could be more specific; what evidence? and what got removed? Wikipedia is never the primary source of facts, but can refer to those sources. -- Atluxity (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Um -- I suggest the OP may be fishing here a bit. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a serious question, and I do not know what the Wikipedia community has come up with when faced with such an "outing" situation. Where might that be listed? 24.191.122.27 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As all of his illusion mechanics are well-known in the trade, and do not require a "twin", there is no reason to give it any weight at all. One major problem you have is what are known as "passports" which a twin would need to follow in a putative brother's exact footsteps. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As to policy, the most applicable policies at play are WP:RS & WP:BLP. In brief wikipedia is no place to out someone. It could only be included in an article after rock solid reliable sources had done the outing.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jewish

Could someone explain why his Jewish identity was removed? Sources - [3], [4] Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

$4,000,000,000

The $4 billion figure is hard to believe and is probably untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.251.118 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps: the 2006 Forbes article says "grossed over a billion dollars", the 2011 NYT blog says "$3 billion in ticket sales worldwide" and the 2013 Forbes rich list says "grossing $4 billion over his career". Which certainly seems a bit steep, but I assume the Forbes rich list is a reliable enough source? --McGeddon (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on David Copperfield (illusionist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Copperfield (illusionist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on David Copperfield (illusionist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Copperfield_(illusionist)/Archive_8&oldid=1136651699"