Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)/Archive 6

Expanding TV Specials and adding Live Tours?

As I was reading the entire article over, it just feels like the focus of the page is about everything David does when he's not an illusionist rather than about David AS an illusionist, which is what he is known for. Take Madonna's page for example, it goes into great detail about her discography, and even individual pages created for each album she released. Supposed I were to expand on the Television Specials section, and actually list out all of the illusions performed in each TV special, as well as add another "Live Tour" section, which lists out all of the live tours David has performed worldwide, and list the illusions performed in each tour, would that be considered undue weight; or cause imbalanced neutrality, any COI concerns, or anything negative?

As far as references are concerened, the illusions performed on the TV specials are evidenced by the actual TV shows, and the only source I'm aware of that lists all the illusions for all the shows is my own Copprefield fan site , so that may be a COI concern, although I provide screen caps to each illusion, which backs up my listings. So they ARE accurate info, but I don't know if I'm allowed to list my own fan site as RS.

And regarding the illusions performed on tour, again, I have a listing on my site that's been gathered from close to hundreds of fans reporting to me what they saw when they went to a Copperfield show. I don't know of any sources out there that provides a list of Copperfield's illusions. At the same time, I don't think these count as "breaking news" as anyone who goes to a show will know the info. Any advice? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see descriptions of notable illusions, tours and appearances, and I've found a number of RS reviews that could be used to source them. I'd also like to ditch the existing bulleted list since there's a separate article already. As to your website, I suggest that you post the edits and links here, plus ask for some neutral assistance from WP:COIN and WP:RSN. Flowanda | Talk 20:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Flowanda. So are you suggesting that I post the proposed content of the illusions and tour info here on the talk page? Can you also please clarify a bit more on what you meant by "there's a separate article already"? Thank you in advance. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MagicOfDC, I think you are doing an excellent job of adding cited material to the page that concentrates on DC's career. Keep it up. I'm more interested in making sure the controversies are mentioned so that the page does not become a mere promotional hagiography, but I appreciated your efforts and support them. I'm a bit quiet at the moment since I have a case of swine flu (confirmed)... not nice. ► RATEL ◄ 07:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel, thanks very much for your support. I'm aware of my own COI here so I've been very careful in adding neutral and factual content, and not make this article a promotional article...that's why I don't mention anything about David's show reviews, provide current tour dates and locations, or how/where to purchase souvenirs and memorabelias. I'm very sorry to hear that you are sick with the swine flu virus. Please take care of yourself and I hope you feel better soon. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: The David Copperfield vs Paris Match lawsuit

May we mention the $30M lawsuit David Copperfield instituted against Paris Match about the "sham relationship" allegations with Claudia Schiffer? ► RATEL ◄ 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Ratel

Proposed edit

In 1997, Copperfield and Schiffer sued Paris Match for US$30 million after the magazine claimed their relationship was a stunt, that Schiffer was paid for pretending to be Copperfield's fiancée and that she didn't even like him. In 1999, they won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match. Copperfield's publicist confirmed that while Schiffer had a contract to appear in the audience at Copperfield's show in Berlin where they met, she was not under contract to be his "consort".

Note: This edit has numerous other sources; such as:

Chicago Sun-Times

International Herald Tribune

Entertainment Weekly

The Guardian

The Observer

Magic Times

People Mag

People Mag 2

Spokesman Review

Buffalo News

San Jose Mercury News

Indian Express

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Contra Costa Times 1

Contra Costa Times 2

Las Vegas Sun

Modesto Bee

Fox (fact is mentioned)

---

I feel the edit is balanced, neutral, notable and well sourced. It is not a "smear" since there was good basis for the magazine article (a contract for Schiifer's appearance in the audience did exist). It is notable because it was a large (in dollars) lawsuit that was widely reported. And the sourcing is so wide that it cannot be questioned. The edit is only 2 sentences, so there is no undue weight. And it is npov because no slant is given to the wording, for or against. ► RATEL ◄ 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

• Oppose For the umpteenth time, WP is not a tabloid, and saying you wish to add negative stuff to BLPs is a case of this by definition: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. [1] " They won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match in January when they sued the magazine for $30 million for claiming their relationship was a sham. " Where a publication has issued an official retraction, it is improper to give further life to the retracted material on WP. [2] "The court determined the "contract" was indeed a fake, and ordered the publication to pay Schiffer damages (an exact dollar figure was not released) and issue a retraction. " Yet here you wish WP to print whatty has been retracted -- seems that this is improper, indeed, even for your position on BLPs. As for Paris MAtch -- [http://www.parismatch.com/Services/Recherche.html?cx=001648560128572425128%3A7yb0npgsndk&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=david+copperfield&sa=#495[ the article can not be found in their own archives, which rather suggests that they did, indeed, retract it. Is a claim "neutral" when the publisher has retracted it? Nope. Is adding dirt on celebrities just becasue you "like" doing so proper? Nope. Is using WP to push material already proven False in a court of law proper? Nope. Is using an RfC to make claims that this edits is proper, proper? Try again. This is nothing more than a continued attack on the BLP rules and policies of WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Putting your continuing PAs against me to one side, you persist in misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to re-fight court battles or decide right from wrong but (on biographical pages) to record the notable events in a person's life. As a tertiary source with a myriad of secondary sources, these events are eligible for mention in the subject's life story (which is why you will find interviewers asking Copperfield about these events in interviews linked above). And I only suggest that a brief summary of what Paris Match published be stated, so as to make sense of the event. In fact there are many more details I have omitted from my proposed edit. It really is the barest minimum of data, to apprise readers of the events surrounding the litigation. And FYI the material was not all proven false in a court of law, only the assertion that the relationship was an ongoing commercial relationship. Copperfield's side had to accede to the charge that the supposed "discovery" of Schiffer in the audience was actually a carefully prepared illusion. They had contracts to hand to prove that. What they couldn't prove was that there were other contracts covering the rest of the appearances of Schiffer with Copperfield, so they were ruled against. Strangely enough, the relationship between Copperfield and Schiffer ended shortly after this whole episode became public. ► RATEL ◄ 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that WP is not a tabloid and does not keep posting smears which have been retracted is a personal attack? I would hope not! The furtherance of a libel on the basis that it was published and then retracted is a clear violation of BLP. WP:LIBEL is a policy: "For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." ArbCom has ruled "Publishing of false information in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and presents liability concerns both for the editor making the false statement and the project. Reasonable effort by users is expected to avoid or mitigate publishing of false information." [3]

Material which has been officially retracted is not valid for a cite, even if the original smear was picked up by other papers. In fact, the purpose of a retraction is to prevent people from thinking the article was correct. Smears are perforce not fact. Collect (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Flowanda

• Agree Per my comments above, I agree the info should be included, but the length and detail need to be balanced with the rest of the section. Ratel's proposed edit is written neutrally and sourced (although I'd rather see the NYD and independent gossipy briefs changed to more straight forward news articles), but it's out of whack with the rest of the section. There are plenty of solid sources that discuss the relationship and other aspects of his personal life (including observations about trying to keep it private and incorporating personal stories into his shows), so it shouldn't be too difficult to do. Since we err on the side of caution concerning BLPs, I think the proposed edit should stay on the talk page and incorporated into a more complete depiction of the relationship (as reported by RS). However, I think there needs to be some commitments as to contribution and deadlines, so there's no sense of stalling to keep the info out.

:And I have to say, just because there's a retraction and an out-of-court settlement doesn't mean that the Information is Now Stricken and Must Not Be Mentioned. The proposed edits are not about the "smears" themselves, but about the lawsuit and its results. Flowanda | Talk 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood--I thought Collect meant the entire case shouldn't be included because of the retraction...all the more reason to replace the Independent gossipy brief with a news article that provides more neutral reporting. Flowanda | Talk 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests I ask that we try to stick to discussing only the edits and details that should go into the article, not background or other details about the case that are not going to be included. And I ask that we do not comment on past history with other editors or other editors' history or COI (actual or perceived), but that those with COI disclose that info. There's plenty of info on this and other pages for editors to review. Flowanda | Talk 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by TheMagicOfDC (COI Editor)

• Oppose From the source where it said Copperfield's publicist confirmed a contract, the exact quote was "Copperfield's publicist said he and Schiffer had contracts to do the 1993 show, but 'there is no contract that states Claudia is there as some sort of consort.'" So, the publicist only confirmed that there was a contract for Schiffer to particiate in that show, nothing more.

Also, take into account the following 2 points:

1. It's very common for shows (any show) to pay for guest appearances
2. It's very common for magicians and illusionist to have their guests sign contractual agreements to not reveal illusion secrets.

Based on the above, this is what all it appears to be - Copperfield paid Schiffer to make a guest appearance on one of his shows, which is where they met for the first time, and she was contractually obligated to assist Copperfield on stage and not reveal any of the secrets.

I personally feel that by using the phrase "although Copperfield's publicist confirmed that Schiffer had a contract to appear..." in Ratel's proposed edit, it feels as if he is suggesting the contract was for more than just an professional agreement for Schiffer to be part of the show, which there is no evidence of.TheMagicOfDC (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to do original research when considering an edit, MoDC. It doesn't matter what it "appears to be" to us. Our views on the truth or otherwise of the case are immaterial (and we'll never know the full truth anyway). Instead, you have to ask yourself these questions when considering if something should go into the encyclopedia:

Did it actually happen (the lawsuit) according to reliable sources? Answer: yes.

Was it a notable event in the subject's life? Answer: yes (which is why it is so widely covered and why DC is questioned about it in interviews).

Is it being presented neutrally? Answer: yes (to the best of my ability; you are welcome to propose alternate wordings that still include all the salient facts)

Is it given appropriate weight? Answer: yes, although Flowanda makes a good point about including it in a fuller edit about the whole relationship, with which I concur. ► RATEL ◄ 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the input from Ratel and Flowanda, and combined Ratel's proposed edit from above, made some minor changes, and combined it with the 1-lline mention of Copperfield and Schiffer's relationship from the main article, and propose the following:

Copperfield was engaged to supermodel Claudia Schiffer for six years. They had met in 1993 at a Berlin celebrity gala where Schiffer had been contracted to appear and participate in a mind reading act. In 1997, Copperfield and Schiffer sued Paris Match for US$30 million after the magazine claimed their relationship was a stunt, that Schiffer was paid for pretending to be Copperfield's fiancée and that she didn't even like him. In 1999, a French court ruled that the story was indeed false and defamatory and awarded Schiffer an undisclosed amount and a retraction from Paris Match. However, due to incompatible work schedule, Copperfield and Schiffer grew apart and separated amicably in that same year, after a six-year relationship. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

MoDC, that's good, but the last sentence assumes we know that the relationship was real, IOW it's OR. In fact, we don't know anything. Rather say that they parted after 6 years, giving divergent work schedules as the reason. This is more neutrally phrased. You also need to say, somehow, that their original meeting was made to look like a surprise, with Schiffer being "discovered" in the audience, apparently by chance. The way you have written it, it seems as if she was on the billing for the show. She wasn't. It was a subterfuge. That's partly what caused Paris Match to print the article. And don't use emphatic phrases like "the story was indeed false and defamatory" when the source does not say that. ► RATEL ◄ 01:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel, I'll try to work on another edit. In the meantime, the People.com source I referenced did state that the court "...declared the story false and defamatory..." I quoted that passage in my references. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Second thought, I think I'll stay out of this for now...I think my COI is getting in the way. But overall, I still remain opposed to adding info about the Paris Match lawsuit onto the page because I still don't see the relevance of it as part of Copperfield's professional career. I agree with Karelin's comment below that if we were to look up Copperfield on Britannica, there would probably not be mention of inconsequential info like this. However, if there is consensus to actually post the info, then I'll try to add to it with RS and neutrality, but I just feel I shouldn't contribute to it at this moment. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannica comparison

Just because I've seen a few mentions in this talk page of looking up Copperfield on Britannica for comparison, I did just that. Based on Britannica's website, its entry for David Copperfield contained nothing but highlights and milestones on his career. It makes no mention whatsoever on any lawsuits, rumors, or personal relationships, and focuses only on Copperfield's professional career. Based on the content of the current Copperfield page on Wikipedia, it definitely much more like a tabloid than the Briannica article. It's probably a copyright violation for me to quote the article here, but if anybody wants to confirm, you can sign up for a free trial membership at Britannica and see Copperfield's entry at this URL: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/711015/David-Copperfield TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for numerous entries if you compare the pages on WP to those on EB. For instance, try the Tom Cruise page. EB tends to be short and bland in its biographies. Now that EB is open to editing by readers, that will slowly change. Finally, comparing WP to EB (or any other source) is not a relevant argument for inclusion or exclusion of material. BTW, I thought you said you were going to keep out of this discussion now? ► RATEL ◄ 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

...I was planning on keeping out of this entire discussion about Paris Match. I started a new section to talk about the comparison with the Britannica article, and you were the one who moved it back into this section. I guess you assumed I meant the post the Britannica comparison as a continuation of this section? I wasn't planning on using the comarison for purposes of inclusion or exclusion. I simply saw that there were a few mentions by multiple editors on this talk page that suggested a comparison with the Britannica article should be made, and that's all I did. I started a new section because the comparison wasn't meant to be applied to any specific discussion topic, that's all. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Karelin7 (COI Editor)

In my view the proposed article, which contains a story nearly a decade old, is intended to taint Copperfield. Claudia Schiffer sued Paris Match too. No mention of the lawsuit on her wikipedia page. Same lawsuit, same allegations, same outcome. Relevant to Copperfield but not to Schiffer? Why? Joan Rivers's page contains no mention of the falling out with Johnny Carson (covered on Carson's wiki page), nor any mention of the settlement of a $50 million lawsuit with Ben Stein. Cyndi Lauper's current wiki page contains no mention of the well-publicized lawsuit recently filed against her by a European tour promoter for breach of contract. Bill Cosby's page, incredibly, CONTAINS NO MENTION OF THE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT lawsuit or paternity lawsuits, even though it has a section on his moral views. Bill O'Reilly's wiki page contains no separate section for the fairly massive sexual harassment lawsuit he was involved in. It is incorporated with other controversy and fits within the tenor of the article. Even wikipedia pages for dead celebrities generally contain less scandal-ridden info than that on Copperfield's page. Walt Disney's page contains no mention of the controversy whether he was anti-Semitic, although that controversy can be found elsewhere on wikipedia. Errol Flynn's wikipedia page contains no mention of his prosecution for statutory rape. If the consensus is to include the story, the entire Litigation section should be shortened or deleted. Does anyone think that if they opened the Brittanica and looked up the entry on Copperfield they would find the insurance company lawsuit, the private island lawsuit, etc? If mentioned in an encyclopedia, litigation should bear some relevance to the person's career. The wikipedia page on Carol Burnett, for example, notes that she won her defamation lawsuit against the Enquirer, and lost her lawsuit against Family Guy. Both lawsuits seem directly relevant to Burnett's life and career. That Copperfield sued his insurance company; that he was sued by the guy he bought the island from, etc., are non sequiturs. Compare, again, Walt Disney's page--which contains no mention of the controversial allegations, and Bill Cosby's page, which also contains no mention of CLEARLY RELEVANT lawsuits and a criminal investigation, with Copperfield's page. Disney and Cosby are beloved figures whose pages focus on their accomplishments, and seem to be entirely in keeping with a standard encyclopedic entry. Copperfield's page, as its history shows, read like a scandal sheet from a grocery store tabloid. I commend Ratel for opening this issue to discussion before posting it. That's my two cents for now. Karelin7 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the many deficiencies on other pages within wikipedia. Those pages will get my attention in due course. As for the relevance of those comparisons, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And there are no rules about whether info in wikipedia BLPs needs to "bear some relevance to the person's career". That's a rule you made up, so please stop doing that. ► RATEL ◄ 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, the notion of limiting entries about litigation to litigation that's relevant to a person's career is in keeping with the BLP guidelines.Karelin7 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Karelin7, if you have a problem with this editor contributing IN ANY WAY or that consensus cannot be reached in this discussion or this page or by the editors here, then there plenty of places to file a complaint. WP:COIN WP:ANI WP:OTRS are the first that come to mind. We're here to discuss edits and not editors, so please stop trying to disparage other editors as a way to cast doubt on the validity of the edits we're discussing. Flowanda | Talk 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

5, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cameron Scott

I see no problem with the inclusion of the material although care must be taken to ensure the language is netural and the sources are reliable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Emely1219

Hello all! I am an anthropology student and I am currently doing research for a paper on social aspects of wikipedia, an environment that uses "consensus" as a form of governing. In my opinion, BLP should be adhered to on the strictest of terms. Let's put in a Request For comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emely1219 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Emely1219 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) ((i forgot to sign it.... oops!))

Emely, there is a RfC. Look above. Let's hope we get the input from some previously uninvolved editors. Cirt is a highly experienced sysop (admin), so that's a great external input, but let's hope we get more from the BLP RFC page, which has a link pointing here. ► RATEL ◄ 08:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

" I am an anthropology student and I am currently doing research for a paper on social aspects of wikipedia, an environment that uses "consensus" as a form of governing." - anyone believe this? it's got bells on it. Especially since you are currently proposing a policy change that says that BLPs should be limited to career details only (gosh there's a surprise). Is that meant to be a bit of grounded research? So what is it? are you an uninvolved student or a involved single purpose account? have a think, get your story straight and get back to us. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What we have is a "get your story straight" comment by an involved editor who actually has no basis for his ire. As for accusing anyone of being an SPA -- what if the person had started off with tons of edits to "Powers and abilities of the Hulk" or the like? Would you be so quick to judge then? Virtually everyone starts off as an SPA by that definition -- the person here has not come close to that standard at all <g>. 25 total edits of which 5 have been made to the article and 5 on talk (including the above) is not enough to cast aspersions. Really. The person on the Hulk made well over 50 edits as an SPA off the bat. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.. AGF doesn't require us to be empty-headed. So if they are really an anthropology student, we need to get into informed consent (which is a seperate matter from issues about them as a wikipedia user). What's the research methods, what information is collected, what are the forms of dissemntation? What are the risks and possible benefits to our inclusion in this study? How do we contact the researcher? etc etc (disclaimer: I *am* someone who has performed anthropological studies) --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are we making personal attacks on Emely1219 now? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is supposed to be for discussions about editing this article, not about studies or other editors. Please take any further discussion of a study, editors' editing history or an Rfc to Emely1219's or the involved editors' talk pages, BLP noticeboard or the proper RfC page. And I request that another RfC not be filed until the one above it is completed and closed or that you consult with an uninvolved admin since you are a new editor and this is a contentious article. Flowanda | Talk 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused...what did you want me to consult with another admin about? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the request was for Emely1219 as RfCs are very complicated, but I'm sure I can find something for you too. :) Flowanda | Talk 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If there's anything you think I can do to improve my participation here, please let me know :) TheMagicOfDC (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees acknowledges that the following issues are becoming more prominent:

1. "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects. Generally, the Wikimedia community protects the projects well against this common problem by deleting or improving hagiographies." I think all the editors here are doing a good job to make sure that this article is not overly promotional, and are keeping all of the COI editors (myself included) in check.
2. "People sometimes make edits designed to smear others. This is difficult to identify and counteract, particularly if the malicious editor is persistent." This I am a little worried about. It wouldn't be as much of a concern if the editor(s) involved searched and posted positive and negative content, but there seems to be a recent pattern to focus and post information only about lawsuits, allegations, and other information that, although presented in a neutral tone, is a negative impact on the subject of the article.

But in any case, let's please all refocus and do what's best, and that is to continue making the David Copperfield article as best as we can in terms of quality and content. According to the Wikimedia Foundation's official position on BLP, "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by:

1. Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;
2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest;
3. Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems;
4. Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same." TheMagicOfDC (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by Cirt

I am not entirely sure how much weight this should be given, but judging from the amount of WP:RS sources that have covered it, it should be mentioned in the article in some capacity, yes. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Ratel (talk · contribs) asked me for advice on this, and I suggested he start an RfC [4] and [5]. Cirt (talk) 06:0

Comment by Euryalus

Sufficiently neutral and relevant to the overall biography to be included, though I would remove the last half of the final sentence and end with "In 1999, they won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match." If there is no suggestion that Schiffer's paid appearance at a Copperfield event was "as a paid consort" then its inclusion in the paragraph has no relevance. As it is, there's an implication that her appearance does have a valid connection to the retracted claim. As Cirt mentions above, there's also an element of undue weight for what is a fairly minor issue - a slight shortening of the paragraph wouldn't go astray. Euryalus (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. The last half of the second sentence is there because the contract that covered Schiffer's appearance in the audience, and her subsequent "discovery" there by Copperfield, formed part of the magazine's justifications for claiming the entire relationship was a sham. So essentially while Paris Match lost the case and had to retract, the basis for their claim was partially true. Leaving this out would imply that the magazine has sucked the whole concept out of its thumb, and while Paris Match is not the august publication of yore, it does have some respectability. We need to be fair to the publication, as well as the plaintiffs. ► RATEL ◄ 07:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But there we get back into the undue weight argument. The sources provide additional detail of the nuances of the matter - there's no need to provide this one minor detail in the article. The claim was made, then retracted with a payout as compensation. Essentially, that's all we need to say about a fairly minor incident, in my view at least. Euryalus (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by SarekOfVulcan

I don't see much wrong with including Ratel's original wording, but I see even less wrong with MoDC's proposed wording, with or without Ratel's suggested edits. It's cited to a wide variety of sources, and since they won the suit, it's not an attempt to smear them -- it could even have the benefit of filling in the resolution for someone who heard about the suit at some point, but didn't follow the story long enough to hear the end of it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Writegeist

Inclusion in neutral language and with RSs as cited conforms to WP policy and guidelines. There are no persuasive arguments here for exclusion. The material should be included per the rationales of Cirt, SarekOfVulcan, Ratel and Euryalus (with the part of the sentence that was of concern to Euryalus included per Ratel's response). Writegeist (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by John Carter

Per Cirt, Sarekofvulcan, etc., above, it seems that the material in general is notable and relevant to be included. Details about the nature of the alleged contract are however completely irrelevant to this biographical article, as the publisher printed a retraction of their statement. While that material might well be relevant to the article on Paris Match itself, as it was their cause for printing it, it does not relate particularly well to the subject of this article. Considering the comparatively poor shape the Paris Match article is in, I think such material would be a better fit and more directly relevant there. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I still feel that the sentence fragment that explains why PM printed the allegations has sufficient informative value for wikipedia readers to justify its inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's informative, and useful information. The question is whether it is directly relevant to the subject, and thus informative about the subject of the article. We have individual articles on lawsuits already, and if there were sufficient reason to create one here I wouldn't see a problem. But this article is primarily a biographical article, and the fact that an illusionist got someone to sign a standard contract isn't particularly notable. Natalie Wood had to sign contracts each time she did a four or five-second walk-on on Switch with her husband Robert Wagner, even if she was already on the set all day. That is so routine and expected in such areas that it isn't particularly notable. Again, the information is relevant to Paris Match, and some additional information on "controversies" it's been involved in would make perfect sense in the article on the paper, but it isn't so unusual as to really be notable enough in this article, at least in my opinion. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are saying. You are seeing this as an unremarkable "standard contract". In fact, it was an entirely unusual contract in that it was part of the creation of an illusion in which Copperfield would "discover" her by chance, seemingly, in the audience. This subterfuge was extended into their entire "relationship" and "engagement", the magazine alleged. That initial contract was the primary cause of the magazine's article. Had that contract not existed, IOW had Paris Match's allegations been wholly without any foundation —nothing but a pure attack on Copperfield— this would doubtless have gone to court and the full $30M would've been awarded. Instead we had a silent settlement and retraction, because it suited both parties. Did Copperfield want the fact that this contract existed to be broadcast repeatedly in every newspaper again and again as the trial proceeded? Probably not. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that, from the phrasing of the above comment, there is very good reason to believe that Ratel in fact believes the allegation to be true. If that is the case, then I believe that there is a reasonable chance that he has a WP:COI on this article, and that he should consider refraining from editing it, as he is possibly not in a position to be really neutral about the subject. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh please! Don't mistake my healthy scepticism towards all pronouncements by celebs and celeb-centred magazines as a COI. I see you think nothing of ditching AGF. ► RATEL ◄ 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel. Actually, I just read through all of the references you provided, and I did not see in any of them where it stated that the contract involved Copperfield to discover Schiffer in the audience by chance. All of them say that PM was sued for claiming their relationship was fake, and some of them mention that Schiffer was paid to be at the event where they first met, but I didn't see any mention of the elaborate setup you mentioned. Where are you getting that info from? Also, any mention of the supposed fake relationship were all referenced back to Paris Match, so all of these media covererage were all based on Paris Match's mysterious anonymous fax, which, according to the Chicago Sun-Times reference, the original sender was later identified and admitted that it was a phony contract. Several of the references also states that the courts confirmed the PM story was indeed false. This is the same thing as The National Enquirer (tabloid) running a fake story, then sued by the party involved and then admitted it was false. Why are we giving this story so much weight? Would we have to write about every rumor that's spread around by the subject of a BLP article and how they fought to defend each one?

In addition, I would also like to point out that "The Observer" reference provided is unreliable, because it doesn't have the facts straight...it referred to Schiffer as Copperfield's "ex-wife" and that the contract was for a "fake marriage" when in fact they were never married. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you said you were going to refrain from further comment, but it seems not 8-/. I'll give you one quote from many available: "The mag says their apparently fateful meeting at a 1993 Berlin performance by Copperfield was actually a setup. It says Schiffer was given a first-class, round-trip ticket from Paris, provided with a Mercedes, a bodyguard and $20,000, plus a 20 percent agency fee to appear in the audience where Copperfield discovered her. The contract, the mag says, specifies that Schiffer ``will remain in Berlin for 24 hours during which time she shall attend the 9 p.m. show and participate in the reception following the show." It also read: ``We kindly ask you not to disclose the terms of this agreement to anybody . . . other than the principals involved." [6] Copperfield's publicist acknowledged that these details are correct. ► RATEL ◄ 05:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I refrained from further comments until I saw what you wrote, which is not true. In your own quote, the contract only specified that Schiffer must attend the show and participate in the reception. It doesn't say anything about a setup where Copperfield discovers Schiffer by chance. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know why we're disagreeing back and forth about the "contract" which was already confirmed to have been fabricated by rival magician Herbert Becker (Chicago Sun-Times reference). TheMagicOfDC (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If it has been confirmed to be a allegation somehow proven to be false, then I think there is absolutely no reason to add it to the article. I don't see the Chicago Sun-Times reference in the article though. By the way, were Copperfield and Schiffer together five or six years? Her bio says five. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun-Times reference was the 1st one of the whole list of additional references Ratel provided underneath the blue box. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The years that Copperfield and Schiffer were together was from 1993 to 1999, but I don't know the exact dates, so I supposed if it was something like December 93 to January 99 then technically it's not 6 full years as far as the number of days that they were together, so it could be counted as 5 years that way. But again, I don't know the exact dates. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The contract that was apparently forged by Becker was not the contract we are talking about, but another one covering the rest of their public appearances after the staged meeting. Unfortunately, nobody here seems to have read all the sources and know what this issue is about. ► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read all of them, as I said in my earlier reply. I saw no mention of a second contract. The only contract that was in question was the one brought up by Paris Match. It was faxed to Paris Match anonymously. Chicago Sun-Times stated that it was discovered that the contract was sent in by Herbert Becker, who admitted that the contract was false. Please show me where a second contract came into play that I missed to see in all of the sources. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid this discussion because it adds a lot of complexity to the issue and if we try to include all the complexity we hit an undue weight wall. I went through hundreds of sources and left out the ones that included all the wrinkles since I knew people would have enough trouble grasping the basic story, which is that PM mag claimed their entire relationship was a sham, not only their initial meeting (which DC's people admit was a business arrangement — that was not the false document). I don't have time to dig up all the sources again right now but this reposting of a source gives you something to go along with if you're so interested in knowing all the angles: [7]. ► RATEL ◄ 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to avoid providing direct information on how the information you seek to include is sourced. Without that information, there would be no way for the material you seek to add to be included. The burden of proof is on the person seeking to add the material. If you don't have time to dig up the sources, then you are unable to prove the material you seek to add is verifiable, and the material cannot be added. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit is FULLY SOUURCED, in fact the list of sources is more than adequate for the wording proposed. This other, peripheral detail is provided as background. Thank you for your comments. ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New York Post's "Page Six" is a celebrity gossip column and should not be considered RS. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the Page Six info is going into the edit. I was trying to help you by providing background. My mistake. ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the whole point of my replies in this part of the discussion was because this editor thought that the details about the alleged contract was not relevant, to which you disagreed, so I was trying to see how you got your point of view based on the sources you provided, which I believe are all relevant discussions to the proposed edit in question. So, I'm aware that none of the Page Six info is going into the edit, I'm just saying if part of what you perceived about this contract was based on info from Page Six, that it's just gossip material. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters for the purposes of this edit, but the NY Post is RS. Check RS/N. ► RATEL ◄ 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have major questions regarding the phrasing of the last clause after the comma. This is not saying that I believe that the material after the comma in the first sentence is necessarily relevant, particularly the part about how Schiffer doesn't allegedly like him. I cannot see how that information is relevant to this article. However, the "although" starting the section after the last comma is a constuction that I have often seen used to cast doubts on the veracity of what is stated before. At the very least I believe that section should be restructured. Personally, I do not see how it is necessarily relevant at all, but at the very least the phrasing should be changed. Simply for purposes of information, I have also left a message on the BLP noticeboard regarding this discussion and a note on the Talk:Claudia Schiffer page, as I believe parties involved in both areas Might be somewhat interested in the discussion, and input from the noticeboard one way or another would reasonably be useful. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Er .. you say "cannot see how" the core allegation, an allegation that generated a huge lawsuit and many press reports, is relevant to the article? Well, then I cannot help you. Perhaps you could ask the other admins who commented and who can see the relevance.
2. The "although" is used not to cast doubt, but to give some weight to the magazine's position as shown in the cited reports, where the spokesperson said something similar (ie accusations of love contracts = false, but initial meeting contract = true). I don't appreciate the way you are flouting basic WP rules like AGF, especially since you should know better. Unlike the other pre-involved editors here, I do not work for Copperfield or run his fanclub (a paid job?). I simply loathe hagiographies. ► RATEL ◄ 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about me, I don't work for Copperfield nor do I run his fanclub (he doesn't have one). I just made my own fan site, and I moderate his message board on a volunteer basis...I don't get paid a single penny by Copperfield or anyone who works for Copperfield (missed that chance about 10 years ago). And yes, I know NY Post is RS, but Page Six is definitely not. Just because a newspaper publication is reliable doesn't mean the ENTIRE newspaper is reliable, or else we'd be allowed to source the comics :) TheMagicOfDC (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So just so we are all clear on who you are, according to your userpage you own this site [8] (you're the guy cuddling Copperfield, right?) and moderate this one too www.davidcopperfield.com forum. I see. Talk about COI. Given your input here, which I regard as obstructionist, you should (as is recommended on the WP:COI page) "consider withdrawing from editing the article". ► RATEL ◄ 08:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's me :) I know I have clear COI and I never denied it, but I don't think I've ever posted anything that caused a COI concern. You even wrote to me above, "MagicOfDC, I think you are doing an excellent job of adding cited material to the page that concentrates on DC's career. Keep it up. I'm more interested in making sure the controversies are mentioned so that the page does not become a mere promotional hagiography, but I appreciated your efforts and support them." So what made you change your mind? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You've already given your (extensive) opinion about this edit, after which you wrote: "I think I'll stay out of this for now...I think my COI is getting in the way". I hoped you were as good as your word. Instead, you're intruding on input from other uninvolved and non-aligned editors. ► RATEL ◄ 12:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think my COI was getting in the way of what I was proposing instead of what you proposed, so I stopped making further proposed edits to the PM story. I have not commented at all about John Carter's input at all, I was replying to your message, because I could not find the source of where you got your information from. I don't see how that's raising a COI concern. Are you saying because of my COI, I can't even join in a discussion here? If you can somehow manage to get consensus on THAT, I will gladly stay quiet. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I find Patel's response regarding the "although" insufficient. The term is often used in "gossipy" comments, and in this context it could reasonably be seen as being used in that manner. Like I more or less said earlier, there is no specific reason why that particularly phrasing has to be used. The phrasing is of dubious encyclopedic usage, and I believe that, given its potential ambiguity, it should not be used. The material could be included elsewhere, possibly earlier, but the proposed phrasing is dubious. And, yes, I guess Patel cannot see how an article about the life of a living person, should conform to BLP. The core allegation is one which was retracted, I believe, presumably because it was decided that it had little if any merit. As such, there is a reasonable question as to why Patel is so interested in including information which was found to have little if any merit and which could reasonably be seen as impugning the subject of this article. As I have said already regarding this matter, the information about the reasons Paris Match ran the piece are much more relevant to Paris Match itself, and could reasonably be seen as being better placed there, possibly in a "Controversies" section, because such material is, in general, much more about the publisher than the subject. There is a very serious question how much weight to give this seemingly spurious allegation made by them regarding this subject. I would think the answer would be "not much". Certainly, reprinting the allegations in the biography of one of the individuals whose public reputation was impugned by those comments is at best dubious, although they would be relevant to the article on the publisher itself. And I have to ask what possible motivation there might be to "give weight" to allegations which the publisher retracted? Again, inforation about Paris Match's position belongs perhaps in that article, but not in this one. I believe I have said as much before. Evidently it wasn't noted then. I hope that this comment is a bit clearer. If Patel still does not grasp the thinking behind it, however, I guess I could try to further clarify it if I had to. Patel's personal biases regarding "hagiographies" are at best irrelevant to this discussion, and could be seen as indicating that he does himself have a bias here. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Jon. I'll look at how else the sentence can be phrased without "although". Cheers/ ► RATEL ◄ 14:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, meet John Carter. John Carter, meet Ratel. We are getting close, right? Please? Flowanda | Talk 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If this information is to be included at all, and as I said above I have serious questions about that in this specific article, although others seem to not unreasonably disagree, I believe in the interests of neutrality it should be said that not only was the allegation withdrawn, but that there seems to be evidence referenced above that the entire matter was possibly maliciously (not using those exact words, of course) created by a competitor of Copperfield to damage his reputation. After all, if inclusion of the allegations against Copperfield qualifies for inclusion, then I think it makes as much sense to include the apparently better founded allegations against the party who seems to have been responsible for making up the story? John Carter (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, that would need a rock solid source, which you probably won't be able to obtain. The allegation was made by a magazine that was sued and had to withdraw the allegation. This is tantamount to admitting guilt (or at least admitting that you didn't have enough to prove the case), it is a story. An allegation against a competitor would need something stronger than mere speculation, hypothesis, etc or it would be a BLP violation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that was referenced above, although I'm having trouble finding the exact quote. Note that I don't necessarily think the name of the person or any other direct identifier should be used per se. It was said above, "Also, any mention of the supposed fake relationship were all referenced back to Paris Match, so all of these media covererage were all based on Paris Match's mysterious anonymous fax, which, according to the Chicago Sun-Times reference, the original sender was later identified and admitted that it was a phony contract." Elsewhere, it is said that the person who sent it was "Herbert Becker", who is presumably Herbert L. Becker, I'm thinking. The phrase that it was done to damage the reputation I don't specifically see, so I apologize for that, but saying that the material was apparently falsified by a competitor does seem to be substantiated, evidently, if the Chicago Sun-Times reference is right, by Becker himself? John Carter (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want more background on DC and Becker, try [9]. But if you try to insert all the minutiae, you will run foul of undue weight. ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons why I suggested earlier that this be created as a separate article. Another is that there are at least three individuals who already have their own articles, and a magazine with its own article, which are directly relevant to this subject, and that it makes little if any sense to try to put content regarding this subject seemingly primarily in one of those article. And I cannot see how a simple clause to the effect that the allegation was admitted to be a fraud qualifies as "minutiae" more than a standard contract does. Also, I never said anything about "adding all the minutiae", just referencing that the contract was admitted to be fraudulent, which could be done in one simple clause. I cannot see how adding a short cause to that effect would have the slightest impact on due weight, particularly as it is directly relevant to the alleged contract, which is the primary subject of the lawsuit issue. In all honesty, the material in question seems to be much more about Becker, his books, and his lawsuits than about Copperfield. Why the material is sought to be added here first is frankly a mystery to me. Logically it would seem to make sense to me that the bulk of the material would be most easily and appropriately placed there, with links to the appropriate section, probably "Controversies"?, from the Copperfield, Schiffer, and Paris Match articles. The fact that he claimed to have the documents makes them I believe much more relevant to him than to either of the other parties. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a unique view of the edit, with which I don't agree. Question: do you think this kerfuffle could get its own page, where it can be fully expanded, and simply mentioned on CP's page (and Schiffer's and Becker's) as a wikified stub? ► RATEL ◄ 02:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An entire page dedicated to a lawsuit about a fabricated contract and a false allegation? Isn't this being blown out of proportion? TheMagicOfDC (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It goes much deeper than that. This is a very interesting affair, involving real contracts, false contracts, possibly forged signatures, Copperfield's best known relationship, book publications, revealing of magic secrets, censorship, DC's alleged collusion with Becker's publisher, multiple lawsuits (one $30M, one $50M), professional rivalry between the two best known magicians in the world, and more. It's quite a saga! ► RATEL ◄ 08:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is, so far as I can tell, in large part about Becker's attempts to basically steal Copperfield's secrets and good name for Becker's own profit. Becker tried to publish some of Copperfield's secret in one book. So far as I can remember from limited knowledge of the illusion business, such shall we call it theft of intellectual property(?) makes one a virtual pariah in the illusion business. Copperfield was successful in preventing Becker from profiting from this attempt to publish his secrets. Then, apparently in conjunction with the timing of Becker's next book, Becker once again seems to attempt to exploit Copperfield's name and now also Schiffer's name for the purpose of getting publicity by talking about alleged contracts he said he had, although he apparently(?) never revealed how he got these confidential documents, and I'm not even sure whether there is really any clear evidence that these alleged documents actualy existed. In any event, there has apparently(?) been no subsequent reference to them.

Personally, I am more than a little curious as to why this other information which I mentioned above is not something which Ratel has deigned worthy of inclusion in this article, particularly considering that Ratel, who claims to dislike "hagiography", seems to be quite willing to accept the apparently unsubstantiated allegations of a competitor to the point of even by Ratel's own words trying to "add weight" to subsequently retracted statements. And, yes, there already are pages regarding the Mel Gibson DUI incident, the Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row a large section of the FA The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power regarding the subsequent lawsuit, and in fact a whole Category:Show business scandals and a much larger Category:Scandals with several additional subcategories.

Like I said, considering that this is a matter which concerns much more than just Copperfield, but also Schiffer, Becker and his books, Paris Match, and doubtless other things as well, I have to think that the bulk of it does not really belong in this article, but either in the article about the primary player, Becker, particularly considering how little material there currently is in that article, or, alternately, an article on either the broad topic of Copperfield and Becker's feud or a more specific article on the lawsuit. Why Ratel has chosen instead to first seek to add only an apparently selected limited amount of the relevant information to this article is something which I still have trouble understanding. John Carter (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss edits, not editors. That's wiki etiquette 101; did you miss the class? Your idea for a separate entry for this imbroglio is under consideration. I'd like to see one more supporter if possible. ► RATEL ◄ 14:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do so yourself, as you completely failed to do in the above post. I raised relevant questions about how you have selectively chosen to add only, so far as I can tell, amonbg the least substantiable material relating to the conflict between these two parties, and indicated that, perhaps, this is out of line with your own stated believes. And I would also have to remind you that not all of the "supports" necessarily supported the phrasing above, so the question of phrasing, which is relevant, and pretty much by definition what all should be included, still remains in question. Also, for what it is worth, it seems to me that there is no reason not to include the material which I mentioned above that you have, for whatever reason, apparently selectively, unilaterally, not opted to ask to include. However the RfC closes, like any RfC, life goes on thereafter. In the interests of ensuring the article remain neutral, I believe that I, in the interests of neutrality, would probably feel obligated to add what seems to me the other relevant material as well. I believe much of it can be added with less space than is currently occupied by other matters, such as the FBI one, and would thus not in the eyes of most necessarily qualify as giving it "undue weight". And I would really appreciate direct responses to the questions I asked above, which I have not received, particularly regarding whether there are any neutral observers of Becker's claims, and the other substantive matters which you for whatever reason did not choose to address. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem much more interested in my motives —again, by asking why I have included this and failed to mention that— than in the edit itself. Unfocus from me and propose alternate inclusions or additional inclusions, with citations, here. IOW, help to improve the page. So this means you have to do some work, read the sources, find new ones, come up with text, and so on. It's not as easy as making PAs, but that's the way we build content: hard work. Now you've said you may include other material, so let's see the wording. ► RATEL ◄ 16:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I specifically asked for direct responses to relevant questions, and received another comment about persons from someone who criticized me for that. Do I see any of the matters I asked for clarification on in the above comment? No. I cannot produce the wording because I have no way of being sure what phrasing and material will be included as a result of the RfC, considering that several of the people who indicated material should be added did not specifically support the phrasing above, thus leaving the phrasing and material to be added in question. I would have thought that obvious. Can I have direct answers to the questions I have previously requested direct answers to, please? :) Based on what I can see, the "contract" contained a signature which was obviously fraudulent, so it makes no sense to me to talk about the matter without also at least mentioning that it was an obvious fake? If the alleged contract is to be mentioned at all, I would have to assume it being clearly fraudulent would be reasonable to include as well. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your replies are so verbose and you have cast so many aspersions on my edit and asked so many seemingly rhetorical questions that I'm not sure what you want to know. If your basic question is why the edit isn't all about Becker and on Becker's page, it's that the involvement of Becker is only covered in a very few sources, the best of which are either no longer online (not that that precludes us using them) or may face RS challenges. Do a few searches and you'll see what I mean (search for Copperfield and Paris Match and Schiffer, then include Becker and the hit rate shrinks to a small handful of useful links, none of which tell the whole story the way the NYPost Page Six piece does). Regardless of Becker, the fact remains that Paris Match published a contract that was admitted to be true (the Berlin meeting between DC and CS), as well as other contracts about how Schiffer was to be his supposed love companion, and was not allowed to have any other relationship, etc. Those additional contracts were apparently false, according to wording Becker released and after he and Copperfield resolved the $50M book lawsuit. BTW, nowadays Copperfield claims that Becker is a good friend of his. Go figure. There is obviously more to this whole affair than meets the eye at least IMO. Anyway, the next key fact is that Paris Match retracted and made private settlement with DC. Schiffer sued separately, later, it seems. So all the stuff about Becker is a little vague, but the key facts of the publication of material that was retracted by PM and the admission by a DC spokesperson of the validity of the meeting contract are all well sourced. I thought of adding the fact that Becker was involved, but as I've said a few times before, this makes the item into a big edit, and the COI people here energetically oppose anything that does not glorify the subject, so I was reluctant to overcomplicate the issue. ► RATEL ◄ 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are even more longer and "verbose", however. And your justification that material which will face RS challenges on one page and not on another is, at best, hard to understand. In fact, your reasoning is no easier to understand after the above "explanation" than it was before it. RS is RS, and, considering they are both living, BLP applies in any article in which they are mentioned, whether that article is specifically about them or not. And if you don't want people commenting on you, then please stop trying to include your opinions into the discussion, as you have repeatedly done, and have in fact done again above as well. If you continue to introduce yourself as a subject of conversation, then expect others to feel free to make relevant comments regarding those matters as well.

For what it's worth, I have no particular fondness for either Copperfield or Becker (whom I at least had never heard of before), and the only opinion I have of Schiffer is she's got a really great face. :) Oh, and I already did a google search on Becker, specifically on his book, so I agree there doesn't seem to be much on him online. LexisNexis doesn't have much either, I'm afraid. Personally, my optimum choice of a place to add the material would be in an article on the book itself, because the controversy seemed to arise during the "publicity tour" for it, but I couldn't find any real references to it on Google, Google news, Google books, or Google scholar. If reviews exist in print elsewhere, though, I do think that an article on the book would be the best place for most of the content regarding the contract issue, as that seems the most directly relevant location for it. I can try to check the various books on book reviews in the near future, but I am still trying to take on the ogre of Christianity categorization and don't know how long that will take, but if you can find the reference books listing book reviews, which should be at any reasonably sized university library, they would help to find if there are such reviews. As the final content to be added is still "up in the air", as it were, I would still think that adding as much directly relevant material would be optimum. Probably the best choice, considering the material, if the bulk of the material is added to either bio of Copperfield or Becker, is to create a separate section in that article discussing the entirety of the relevant material about the two of them. Considering that, given the relative amount of public attention they receive, I think it probably plays a bigger role in the thinking about Becker than Copperfield, who gets a lot more press regarding other matters.

Oh, yeah, and finally, regarding your opinion that there might be more involved, there could well be. But in the US, 20% of marriages end in the first five years, and it could well be that the Copperfield-Schiffer couple were beginning to grow apart by that time anyway. Adding my own idle speculation here, I would think that having it said of either of them that they were willing to enter into an apparent relationship for 5 years which was itself both false and exclusive, at least in public perception, would cause a lot of people to speculate about both of them. Probably for Schiffer more than Copperfield, because age would have more relevance to her career than his on average, I would think that such an accusation could make her professional life very much less successful or appealing, and if there were any tension existing already there (and there almost always is in the few celebrity couples I have ever known to any degree) that might have been enough in and of itself to precipitate the breakup. Anyway, like I said, just idle speculation there. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, Ratel worked with Gwen Gale when he first proposed adding the edits, and then with Cirt to start the RfC. I'm not saying those editors agreed with his proposed edits, but I do think Ratel was trying to be responsive to previous consensus on the talk page about similar edits. I still maintain that given the current section size and detail or even the expected length and depth of the section, the acceptable edits are not going to be anywhere near the level of detail under discussion. As to its own article, I don't think there are near enough rock solid sourcing to offset any of the gossipy/snark items, even those printed in reliable sources. Flowanda | Talk 18:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRuban

(I consider myself uninvolved in this particular shooting match. I did add an image to the article, but no one seems to have objected to that from either "side".) The info seems scrupulously sourced to high quality reliable sources, and not overly long. Put it in. Agree with John Carter that the second half of the last sentence seems unnecessary. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by previously-uninvolved Balloonman

I came here due to the note on the BLP notice board, to me this is a non-issue. I've read through the entire RfC. The proposed edit is summarizing the historical events that occured. It is not making the proposal that the relationship was in fact a scam, but rather that a magazine made an allegation. Said allegation was later retracted after a legal suit. This is backed by numerous reliable sources. There is no evidence, or even allegation, that this event didn't happen. An allegation was made, Copperfield sued, Copperfield got the other party to back down. It should be reported, failing to report it would not be NPOV. The wording above is more or less neutral, it might be tweaked some, but it or something similar should go in the article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by previously-uninvolved Editor 7

Comment by user

---