![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That topic seems to be surfacing a lot this evening. Please review WP:BLP, and if this is going to be a continued issue or argument for the inclusion or exclusion of certain information, please take it up at WP:BLPN. Flowanda | Talk 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The wiki guidelines for BLPs state: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." The addition proposed, along with many others, contravenes wiki's stated policy.
Karelin7 (
talk)
15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is not a "reliable source." It is a fansite which accepts articles from fans. Collect ( talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This article was brought to my attention by an agent of the subject. I reduced the size of a section that was in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. [1] Jehochman Talk 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I moved the David Copperfield bio at Famouswhy.com link to the talk page because it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS and the info is already sourced to a NYT article. If the site meets WP:EL, it might be a better addition to the External links section. Flowanda | Talk 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed today that the page mentioned that Copperfield only won 1 Emmy, and it sourced a site that didn't even seem an official site for Emmy count, so I went to IMDB and looked all all of Copperfield's 20 TV specials to see how many Emmy nominations and wins each TV special achieved. I added all that info to the TV specials, and updated the Awards section on the page to reflect the actual number of Emmy nominations and wins.
My question is that...for each TV special's Emmy info, do I really need to add a REF to the IMDB page for that special? Or can I just add in my edit notes that I got all the info from IMDB.
Thank for any input. And for those of you who don't know me, I suppose I should declare my COI position...I maintain Copperfield's message board and I also run a fan site. The purpose of me posting these Emmy info is not to boast or anything, but to provide evidence as to the actual Emmys that Copperfield has been nomitaed for and won, so I hope this edit was not a COI. Thanks. TheMagicOfDC ( talk) 02:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Some comments on this:
So please, keep a cool head when editing this section. ► RATEL ◄ 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
STOP THIS OR TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This discussion is about specific edits, nothing else.
I suggest the subsection be edited to a more concise description. Something like (but better than): "In 2007, Copperfield was accused of sexual assault in a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who said Copperfield lured her to his private Bahamas island after meeting him backstage at a January 2007 performance. Copperfield denied the charges, calling the accusation "extortion for money". In January 2010, federal prosecutors closed the investigation without filing criminal charges against Copperfield, but a civil suit is still pending." I also suggest removing the CBSNews blog, People and Smoking Gun references as they are questionable POV/gossip and there is adequate WP:RS reporting. Flowanda | Talk 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This talk page deals only with discussion about specific edits to this article. All other edits will be removed. The mudpits are thattaway.
No one's arguing reliable sourcing; the discussion is about what information should be included in this encyclopedic article. I try to look at the article as how it should look five or more years from now, which may be unrealistic, but this isn't Wikinews and new edits don't compensate for whatever perceived or real editing mistakes were made in the past. We're dealing with two WP:BLPs involved in an active conflict. Flowanda | Talk 08:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"In 2007, Copperfield was accused of sexual assault in a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who said Copperfield lured her to his private Bahamas island after meeting him backstage at a January 2007 performance. Copperfield denied the charges, calling the accusation "extortion for money". In January 2010, federal prosecutors closed the investigation without filing criminal charges against Copperfield. In December 2009, Bellevue, Washington police reported the woman who accused Copperfield made false allegations of rape against a Washington-area businessman, although federal prosecutors did not say there was a connection between their decision to close the case and the Bellevue investigation. A federal civil suit against Copperfield is still pending." 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's unfair to note the investigation is closed without noting also the recent accusations against the woman by the Bellevue police. This is an important aspect of the story and suppressing it is hardly neutral. Karelin7 ( talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I favor restoration of the sentence about the accuser as being fully founded in the RS. And The Smoking Gun is independent of any "PR" as you assert. Their pages redact the woman;s name, and hence are again not even close to sub judice -- which you have not demonstrated as applicable under Florida law in the first place. "One can only surmise" has no place in discussions here. Collect ( talk) 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I say there are, you say no. So the default is yes, for BLP purposes. You need to clear this. Responding to your earlier comment, we can and we will link the dismissal of the case to the loss of credibility of the accusation if that is what the reliable sources do. "One reporter" equals one reliable source. But there are plenty of others. Googling briefly we have the London Telegraph, [5] BBC News [6] and plenty of smaller sources. [7] [8] [9] [10] It is abundantly clear that: (1) the woman filed another rape complaint, (2) the accused in the other case filed a police report and police have investigated for false claims, (3) The Seattle Times broke the story but others have confirmed this, and (4) a number of major sources consider it germane to mention the new case when covering the closing of the old one. All this speculation about paid media campaigns and the possibility this is a cover-up are not really pertinent. We can revisit that if it turns out to be true and covered by reliable sources. The US attorney's statements are not reliable, and as a routine position statement made about a matter in which it has an interest, they are not terribly credible. It looks like a cover-your-butt statement of the sort typically made by prosecutors who realize they don't have a case to make. Including that by way of impugning Copperfield (by hinting that the rape case has merit) is a big BLP problem. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Wikidemon's edit was fine. I would note this has been many times to BLP/N -- [11] with only one person arguing for Ratel's position, [12] with a strong personal attack on the person bringing it to BLP/N, and a claim made that the National Enquirer was a reliable source -- post made here [13] section "National Enquirer", [14] with only one editor supporting material contrary to BLP, [15] wherein the issue is rather conclusively handled, [16] and many more, involving dozens of people not currently on this page. Collect ( talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I have blanked the section for BLP concerns. That does not mean we shouldn't cover it, just that we cannot allow a BLP violation to stand pending agreement. Does anyone wish to start the ball rolling with a proposal as to how the section might read? Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Is peripheral at best. She is definitely BLP1E as far as notability is concerned, and she has not been found guilty. Iw was correct to indicate she has been charged, but adding her name is unneeded. Collect ( talk) 12:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Name removed as this appears to be a near unanimous consensus. Collect ( talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a pretty obvious BLP issue, we should not be mentioning her name. Period. JBsupreme ( talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The source is "The Seoul Times", but I don't think it's possible. The article even says 550. It's more than the number of days in a year! Do they count every trick as a separate show? Antimirov ( talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors. Again, I am a COI editor, with what I hope to be a proven track record of making neutral and factual posts with proper sourcing of information.
Just a heads up that I would like to make an edit to the opening paragraph of this article. I have always felt that the introductory paragraph for this article has been quite different from most other celebrity biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. A quick search for some well-known celebrities shows that those articles' introductory paragraph(s) is a summarization of what the celebrity is known for as well a quick highlight of his/her/their awards and achievements. Examples of such introductions can be seen on the articles for Barbara Streisand, Steven Speilberg, Mel Brooks, Justin Timberlake, Jack Nicholson, Rod Stewart and many others (too many to list). After seeing the content of those articles, I would like to edit the introductory paragraph of the David Copperfield article to be as follows:
David Copperfield (born David Seth Kotkin; September 16, 1956) is an Emmy Award-winning American illusionist, and was described by Forbes as the most commercially successful magician in history. Copperfield’s network specials have been nominated for 38 Emmy Awards and won a total of 21 Emmys. Best known for his combination of storytelling and illusion, Copperfield’s career of over 30 years has earned him 11 Guinness World Records, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a knighthood by the French government, and he was named a Living Legend by the US Library of Congress. Notable illusions created and performed by David Copperfield include vanishing the Statue of Liberty, walking through the Great Wall of China, escaping from a locked safe inside an imploding building, and flying through the air night after night in his Broadway show. Copperfield has sold over 40 million tickets and grossed over 3 billion dollars, which is more than any other solo entertainer in history, including Madonna, Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga. He currently performs over 500 shows a year, and spends his time off relaxing on his privately-owned chain of islands in the Bahamas - Musha Cay and the Islands of Copperfield Bay.
Everything will be properly sourced within the edit (although the edits are just a summarization of other factual statements that have been already sourced on other areas of the article). Hopefully the tone in the edit remains neutral enough for the Wikipedia community guidelines. I'm open for discussion regarding any of the above. TheMagicOfDC ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
Is not a "reliable source" for a BLP as nearly as I can determine. Collect ( talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Reference number 64 is a dead link. -- Jeevies ( talk) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That topic seems to be surfacing a lot this evening. Please review WP:BLP, and if this is going to be a continued issue or argument for the inclusion or exclusion of certain information, please take it up at WP:BLPN. Flowanda | Talk 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The wiki guidelines for BLPs state: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." The addition proposed, along with many others, contravenes wiki's stated policy.
Karelin7 (
talk)
15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is not a "reliable source." It is a fansite which accepts articles from fans. Collect ( talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This article was brought to my attention by an agent of the subject. I reduced the size of a section that was in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. [1] Jehochman Talk 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I moved the David Copperfield bio at Famouswhy.com link to the talk page because it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS and the info is already sourced to a NYT article. If the site meets WP:EL, it might be a better addition to the External links section. Flowanda | Talk 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed today that the page mentioned that Copperfield only won 1 Emmy, and it sourced a site that didn't even seem an official site for Emmy count, so I went to IMDB and looked all all of Copperfield's 20 TV specials to see how many Emmy nominations and wins each TV special achieved. I added all that info to the TV specials, and updated the Awards section on the page to reflect the actual number of Emmy nominations and wins.
My question is that...for each TV special's Emmy info, do I really need to add a REF to the IMDB page for that special? Or can I just add in my edit notes that I got all the info from IMDB.
Thank for any input. And for those of you who don't know me, I suppose I should declare my COI position...I maintain Copperfield's message board and I also run a fan site. The purpose of me posting these Emmy info is not to boast or anything, but to provide evidence as to the actual Emmys that Copperfield has been nomitaed for and won, so I hope this edit was not a COI. Thanks. TheMagicOfDC ( talk) 02:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Some comments on this:
So please, keep a cool head when editing this section. ► RATEL ◄ 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
STOP THIS OR TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. This discussion is about specific edits, nothing else.
I suggest the subsection be edited to a more concise description. Something like (but better than): "In 2007, Copperfield was accused of sexual assault in a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who said Copperfield lured her to his private Bahamas island after meeting him backstage at a January 2007 performance. Copperfield denied the charges, calling the accusation "extortion for money". In January 2010, federal prosecutors closed the investigation without filing criminal charges against Copperfield, but a civil suit is still pending." I also suggest removing the CBSNews blog, People and Smoking Gun references as they are questionable POV/gossip and there is adequate WP:RS reporting. Flowanda | Talk 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This talk page deals only with discussion about specific edits to this article. All other edits will be removed. The mudpits are thattaway.
No one's arguing reliable sourcing; the discussion is about what information should be included in this encyclopedic article. I try to look at the article as how it should look five or more years from now, which may be unrealistic, but this isn't Wikinews and new edits don't compensate for whatever perceived or real editing mistakes were made in the past. We're dealing with two WP:BLPs involved in an active conflict. Flowanda | Talk 08:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"In 2007, Copperfield was accused of sexual assault in a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who said Copperfield lured her to his private Bahamas island after meeting him backstage at a January 2007 performance. Copperfield denied the charges, calling the accusation "extortion for money". In January 2010, federal prosecutors closed the investigation without filing criminal charges against Copperfield. In December 2009, Bellevue, Washington police reported the woman who accused Copperfield made false allegations of rape against a Washington-area businessman, although federal prosecutors did not say there was a connection between their decision to close the case and the Bellevue investigation. A federal civil suit against Copperfield is still pending." 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's unfair to note the investigation is closed without noting also the recent accusations against the woman by the Bellevue police. This is an important aspect of the story and suppressing it is hardly neutral. Karelin7 ( talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I favor restoration of the sentence about the accuser as being fully founded in the RS. And The Smoking Gun is independent of any "PR" as you assert. Their pages redact the woman;s name, and hence are again not even close to sub judice -- which you have not demonstrated as applicable under Florida law in the first place. "One can only surmise" has no place in discussions here. Collect ( talk) 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I say there are, you say no. So the default is yes, for BLP purposes. You need to clear this. Responding to your earlier comment, we can and we will link the dismissal of the case to the loss of credibility of the accusation if that is what the reliable sources do. "One reporter" equals one reliable source. But there are plenty of others. Googling briefly we have the London Telegraph, [5] BBC News [6] and plenty of smaller sources. [7] [8] [9] [10] It is abundantly clear that: (1) the woman filed another rape complaint, (2) the accused in the other case filed a police report and police have investigated for false claims, (3) The Seattle Times broke the story but others have confirmed this, and (4) a number of major sources consider it germane to mention the new case when covering the closing of the old one. All this speculation about paid media campaigns and the possibility this is a cover-up are not really pertinent. We can revisit that if it turns out to be true and covered by reliable sources. The US attorney's statements are not reliable, and as a routine position statement made about a matter in which it has an interest, they are not terribly credible. It looks like a cover-your-butt statement of the sort typically made by prosecutors who realize they don't have a case to make. Including that by way of impugning Copperfield (by hinting that the rape case has merit) is a big BLP problem. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Wikidemon's edit was fine. I would note this has been many times to BLP/N -- [11] with only one person arguing for Ratel's position, [12] with a strong personal attack on the person bringing it to BLP/N, and a claim made that the National Enquirer was a reliable source -- post made here [13] section "National Enquirer", [14] with only one editor supporting material contrary to BLP, [15] wherein the issue is rather conclusively handled, [16] and many more, involving dozens of people not currently on this page. Collect ( talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I have blanked the section for BLP concerns. That does not mean we shouldn't cover it, just that we cannot allow a BLP violation to stand pending agreement. Does anyone wish to start the ball rolling with a proposal as to how the section might read? Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Is peripheral at best. She is definitely BLP1E as far as notability is concerned, and she has not been found guilty. Iw was correct to indicate she has been charged, but adding her name is unneeded. Collect ( talk) 12:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Name removed as this appears to be a near unanimous consensus. Collect ( talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a pretty obvious BLP issue, we should not be mentioning her name. Period. JBsupreme ( talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The source is "The Seoul Times", but I don't think it's possible. The article even says 550. It's more than the number of days in a year! Do they count every trick as a separate show? Antimirov ( talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors. Again, I am a COI editor, with what I hope to be a proven track record of making neutral and factual posts with proper sourcing of information.
Just a heads up that I would like to make an edit to the opening paragraph of this article. I have always felt that the introductory paragraph for this article has been quite different from most other celebrity biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. A quick search for some well-known celebrities shows that those articles' introductory paragraph(s) is a summarization of what the celebrity is known for as well a quick highlight of his/her/their awards and achievements. Examples of such introductions can be seen on the articles for Barbara Streisand, Steven Speilberg, Mel Brooks, Justin Timberlake, Jack Nicholson, Rod Stewart and many others (too many to list). After seeing the content of those articles, I would like to edit the introductory paragraph of the David Copperfield article to be as follows:
David Copperfield (born David Seth Kotkin; September 16, 1956) is an Emmy Award-winning American illusionist, and was described by Forbes as the most commercially successful magician in history. Copperfield’s network specials have been nominated for 38 Emmy Awards and won a total of 21 Emmys. Best known for his combination of storytelling and illusion, Copperfield’s career of over 30 years has earned him 11 Guinness World Records, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a knighthood by the French government, and he was named a Living Legend by the US Library of Congress. Notable illusions created and performed by David Copperfield include vanishing the Statue of Liberty, walking through the Great Wall of China, escaping from a locked safe inside an imploding building, and flying through the air night after night in his Broadway show. Copperfield has sold over 40 million tickets and grossed over 3 billion dollars, which is more than any other solo entertainer in history, including Madonna, Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga. He currently performs over 500 shows a year, and spends his time off relaxing on his privately-owned chain of islands in the Bahamas - Musha Cay and the Islands of Copperfield Bay.
Everything will be properly sourced within the edit (although the edits are just a summarization of other factual statements that have been already sourced on other areas of the article). Hopefully the tone in the edit remains neutral enough for the Wikipedia community guidelines. I'm open for discussion regarding any of the above. TheMagicOfDC ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
Is not a "reliable source" for a BLP as nearly as I can determine. Collect ( talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Reference number 64 is a dead link. -- Jeevies ( talk) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)