Talk:Herbert L. Becker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unsourced material[edit]

Per WP:BLP, unsourced contentious material must be removed. Collect (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not contentious, as you well know. ► RATEL ◄ 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unsourced, per WP:V, and still gets removed. Unsourced is unsourced, and its out. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal squabbles[edit]

Moved from article:

He was unsuccessfully sued by David Copperfield in order to stop the book from being published. Becker won the law suit. The book went on to become the bestselling magic book in history, selling more than 250,000 copies — but without any information exposing Copperfield's illusions. Becker then sued his publisher, Lifetime Books for colluding with magician David Copperfield to remove details of Copperfield's illusions.

Copperfield subsequently named Becker in a $US30 million lawsuit, claiming he was the source of a story in Paris Match claiming his relationship with model Claudia Schiffer was being faked for publicity purposes. Becker countersued for $US50 million, claiming Copperfield was responsible to the alterations to his book. The dispute between the two was eventually settled, Becker issued a statement confirming that Paris Match knew claims of a contract outlining the conditions of the Copperfield/Schiffer relationship were fake, and Schiffer went on to win a suit against the magazine.


While this is sourced, it was wedged in between two books, and didn't seem to quite fit there. I suggest either a new section, or else if someone can suggest a more graceful way to incorporate this into the article, I am more than open to ideas. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks more or less like a coatrack with which to slip in the old Paris Match bit, which is a BLP worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; however it appears there was a lawsuit or two; should we summarize? Omit? Rephrase? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd skive it down to no more than a sentence or two and leave out the smear about CS altogether, owing to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take one[edit]

Becker has been involved in some legal disputes with David Copperfield. Copperfield sued Becker in an attempt to prevent publication of 101 Greatest Magic Secrets Exposed, which Copperfield maintained revealed some of his (Copperfield's) secrets; Copperfield lost and the book was published. Becker then sued his publisher, Lifetime Books for purportedly colluding with Copperfield to remove details of Copperfield's illusions.[1][2]

  1. ^ "America's top two magicians locked in bitter legal battle". New Straits Times. 1997-08-01. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  2. ^ "Copperfield Loses Court Bid to Keep Rabbits in the Hat". San Jose Mercury News. 1994-09-01. Retrieved 2009-07-13.

Yes/no/maybe? And do we know how the second suit ended? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem -- the publisher acceded to Copperfield's claims -- which made that suit moot. Saying "Copperfield lost" is disingenuous. The url given is a copyright infringing one on its own, by the way. Not to mention that using a "gossip column" as a reliable source is iffy at best for any BLP. My suggestion? It fails any BLP standards pretty thoroughly. Collect (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with the gossip column source myself, but the lawsuits are notable events, and we should try to find better sourcing and work together to craft acceptable phrasing. The Straits Times is a good source. Remember that there is coatrack and smearing on the one end, but then there is whitewash on the other, and we need to avoid both. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that "the publisher acceded to ..." is just OR without a source, Collect, and you know it. Do you have one? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking just the one source, the New Sunday Times piece [1], we can ascertain that:
  1. DC and HB sued each other
  2. DC sued to stop publication of HB's book, and lost.
  3. HB sued DC bec. of the disappearance of the sections on DC's tricks from the book.
  4. As part of his $30M lawsuit against Paris Match, DC asked for punitive damages against HB (so claims of this being a COATRACK inclusion per Gwen Gale are nonsense). DC also alleged HB was the source of the Paris Match story.

e. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Straits Times, not the Sunday Times. Its out of Malaysia. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KillerC, other sources for all this you may find useful are Entertainment Weekly, New Straits Times (different report), Kingsport Daily News. ► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Too tired tonight. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page for Copperfield also deals with this -- and a long discussion as to whether the smear itself should be perpetuated along with a reasonable statement of fact that the lawsuit was made. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) One article at a time, please - and I think a brief mention should be made there too, perhaps we can do the work here, then migrate the same solution there? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Copperfield's page was carefully worked out with input from multiple admins. Best leave that one be if possible. This has nothing to do with perpetuating smears. It documents significant events in the subject's life. We are not here to decide if something is actually a smear or not, no matter what a court decided. These are widely reported events, in RSes. ► RATEL ◄ 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second NST article is usless here; its all gossip about DC and Paris Match. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The E article gives no information except that Becker's publisher was also named in the suit. The Daikly News is more Paris Match stuff about DC; this is completely irrelevant here, and not acceptable on the DC article. We're not a tabloid, we're not going to repeat nasty gossip. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look past the gossipy bits, the basic facts, or some of them, are confirmed. It's a source. ► RATEL ◄ 13:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP issue. Just because one can find a gossip mag saying something does not make it proper for a BLP. WP is not the National Enquirer. Collect (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while you two were sniping at each other, I found another source and did some rewriting. Please comment on the para as it now stands, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Collect is absolutely correct about his comment: many sources are unacceptable, and some content is not acceptable, and we don't add snarky gossip which is questionably sourced. We have WP:BLP and the BLP noticeboard and the Reliable sources noticeboard for a reason, eh? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look like a redux of the Copperfield debate. I saw nothing "snarky" in the quotes that were removed from the page. Your edit is starting to approach what was there in the first place. ► RATEL ◄ 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the "some" in "some legal disputes" being unneeded, it looks fine. Collect (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ratel, your post is unclear, are you ok with this version? Have you suggestions for improvement? (I will be taking out the "some" as an unnecessary qualifier.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me, as far as it goes. But what about the fact that Copperfield named Becker in a $30M lawsuit over the Paris Match brouhaha? ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trashy gossip. Absolutely no reason to include such utter trash. I'd just as soon add "Who's Nailin' Palin" to the Sarah Palin article. In other words, BLP. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining: sources[edit]

If someone has the time, some missing details of Becker's life are here. ► RATEL ◄ 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) More details here [2], but not a RS. Also, Becker's current business interests (SEC filing)[3]. Googling on "herbert lawrence becker" is very revealing. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma mill[edit]

Is it relevant that a diploma mill had its founders found guilty of crimes when the only connection to Becker is that he got a diploma from it? Collect (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly relevant that his academic qualifications originate at such a place. Short of having an encyclopaedia page on Roosevelt University (Belgium), this info is best assigned to a footnote. ► RATEL ◄ 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying it as a mill is one thing -- whether or not its founders were convicted is entirely irrelevant to the BLP of Becker here. Suppose he ate at a Mafia-run restaurant -- would that be relevant? Or worked part-time at a birthday party for Bernie Madoff? There is no reason to believe he knew he was dealing with a criminal enterprise, hence no reason to insert into a BLP. Collect (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He knowingly bought his degrees. If you think this is a BLP issue, take it to the noticeboard. I don't care one way or the other, but given your history of stalking me, I'm not happy with you removing my edits. If an admin vetoes it, so be it. ► RATEL ◄ 02:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is it was a "diploma mill." That the starters went to jail is not relevant to this BLP. As for your iteration of charges, they are fallaciaous and false and I would appreciate your not iterating them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it patently clear that you are stalking me, but I am compiling a compendium of instances to present as evidence. If you wish to prove that I am wrong, then stay away from me and my edits for 6 months! There are nearly 3 million pages on wikipedia, but you manage to make your presence felt, again and again, on the tiny handful I edit, always to obstruct or cause trouble. You've edit warred me numerous times, and reported me numerous times for any infraction, real or imagined, that you can conjure. |Re-read your RfC and try to learn something. Get a life! ► RATEL ◄ 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? You have edited 673 distinct pages -- I have now edited 1,346. Our overlap on articles is a total of EIGHT article pages. That is, just over 1% of your articles, and a bit uner one half of one percent of mine. Might you calm down and have a cup of tea or something? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll calm down when I don't see your name appearing on my watchlist, on every page I currently edit. You've been accused by others of being a compulsive and addictive confrontation seeker, and it's clearly true. Have you ever seriously thought about trying to overcome it? ► RATEL ◄ 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yor watchlist only has EIGHT articles on it? Perhaps you should deal with topics related to the article and not keep seeing personal issues with every editor at some point? Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma mill sourcing strictly per WP:BLP[edit]

I have removed the diploma mill information until any direct connection can be sourced to news reporting in a WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data at the book sales site is supplied by the author, and it's attached to 3 books there [4] [5] and [6]. Since that data has been there for years, and must have been supplied by the author or publisher, I consider it a RS. ► RATEL ◄ 08:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not what I meant...the sources may be individually WP:RS, but what I was looking for was reliable reporting that says Becker's degree was from a diploma mill. I agree that the source's info was probably added by the author, but I also suspect the books are self-published. But I'm okay with saying "received". Duh on me. What does bother me is that I could find no real sourcing or published articles about Becker's career, which is odd given the the accomplishments stated in the article. And Google news searches on a number of names/combinations bring up nothing before 1994. What am I missing here? Flowanda | Talk 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing, and I was too, is that the subject is a man of mirrors and illusion, like Copperfield. In other words look for misdirection, false claims of grand achievements, tricks, and so on. Feel free to change or delete this comment if you think it's against BLP. ► RATEL ◄ 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Copperfield can be verified; the discussions there revolve around which of the 100s of sources are suitable. But with HLB, I found little to nothing where he's even mentioned, other than what you found and added. But since the unsourced info is mostly promotional, I don't see any immediate BLP issues. Flowanda | Talk 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is no quote from Becker in any of his 3 books about the schools he attended. You can write to him at hbecker@hackettsonline.com and ask him yourself. You should take the entire bit about his school off the site, it is wrong and misleading.

  • The point is that sources like publisher sites and bookseller bios & blurbs are routinely used in BLPs to insert facts about people. For some reason, Becker saw fit to release this info about himself (unwisely, it later turns out). For wikipedia to stop using the information, Becker needs to contact the people who are publishing it and demand that it is withdrawn. We do not need to quote his books to be able to use the data. We are not allowed to contact Becker himself, no matter what he says to us (we are a tertiary source that cannot use info direct from any primary source). Suggest you remove email address. Also, if you are Becker, it's best to declare your interest in this page. ► RATEL ◄ 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming here. As Ratel says, any edits made from a direct contact will be considered WP:PRIMARY at best. I think the best way to deal with this issue is through a private request on WP:OTRS. Biographies have more stringent policies than other articles. Flowanda | Talk 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved from article[edit]

I removed this unencyclopedic content added by IP 67.249.236.35:

Current News Stories[edit]

Herbert Becker, President and CEO of Hackett's Stores bring free Wi-Fi to his stores

http://www.northcountrynow.com/business/featurestories/full-story.asp?uid=4803&area=Local+Business

CEO introduces "store in store" concept into Hackett's with a photo studio

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091022/NEWS05/310229969

Archived News Stories[edit]

Herbert Becker as the Great Kardeen

http://news.google.com/newspapers/p/st_petersburg?id=bPELAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6lkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5062,1341103&dq=kardeen&hl=en

Kardeen on TV interview show

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2003970/6412053

Herbert Becker reveals why he reveals magic secrets

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2004551/6415150

Maury Povich and Herbert Becker

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1990865/6391663

Famous Quotes by Becker[edit]

Do not look back and ask why, look forward and ask, why not.

Life is fair, just not equal

In business, you need an income to get an outcome

Source http://www.quotes and poem.com/quotes/listquotes/author/herbert-l.-becker (space between quotes AND poem.com need to be removed

when you want to check out the link.


It is time to put this back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.235.170 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before putting this back in, please learn how to source it properly at wp:MOS etc. ► RATEL ◄ 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed in December 2011[edit]

This article contains the following statements which have no sources and seem rather bold:

  • "the inventor and patent/copyright holder for BOIP (broadcasting over internet protocol)." — This sounds suspiciously like a claim by someone that doesn't know the differences between patent and a copyright are and which can apply to what things.
  • "Successfully turned around one of the world's best casinos." — No quanification of what "Successfully", "turned around", "one of the ... best" mean, if he was even involved with a casino at all.
  • "Becker and Copperfield have since become very close friends." — Again, WP:BLP violation against both Becker and Copperfield.
  • "1974 Began a relationship with Miss Florida and actress Delta Burke after she became his assistant on the ABC TV show Bozo The Clown." — WP:BLP violation against Becker and Burke. Also, it appears he wasn't on any "ABC TV" show: He was on a local version of Bozo the Clown on WJRT 12 in Flint, Michigan, which is an ABC affiliate but neither received nor sent the Bozo the Clown show to or from ABC.

There's also this:

  • "According to Hollywood Insider, Feb., 1976, the song "Magic Man" was written about love interest Herbert L. Becker" — a WP:BLP violation against not only Becker, but against Ann & Nancy Wilson of the band Heart, unless the issue of that publication is verified; and then it's still trivial. (Note that the "Magic Man" article says, unsourced, that the song was about Ann Wilson's band manager.)

Per WP:PROVEIT, these can all be removed at any time, and re-adding them requires the person adding or asserting the claims to provide the sources. Unless someone sources them very soon, I am simply going to remove anything from the article that is unsourced, as WP:BLP requires. --Closeapple (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you likely know I pulled some items related to immediate BLP concerns yesterday; had I seen this note I likely would have pruned it even further. Kudos for the work you've done on trying to make this article more accurate! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert L. Becker. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herbert_L._Becker&oldid=1199739487"