Talk:Sharlto Copley

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

Material for expansion[edit]

This should prove useful. --uKER (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he is British descent not Afrikaner[edit]

he is British descent not Afrikaner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.72.65 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

filmography, tabulated?[edit]

Wikipedia articles like this usually have a filmography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.71.45 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Boycool42 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-African[edit]

If the person in question was from the US, would you describe them as Anglo-American, or someone from Australia Anglo-Australian? No. What has this got to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike18121812 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

parent naming[edit]

While I find the anon's removal of the naming of Bruce Copley as his father to be slightly odd, since it was unexplained, I think policy requires we not re-add it, as long as there's no source. I've nominated Bruce Copley for deletion, since, unlike this article, that one apperas to be promotional. I suspect the mentioning of Bruce Copley here is an extension of the same promotion. I haven't reverted myself, since the issue is fairly minor. --Rob (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the radio station source to be doubtful. This seems to be just the station promoting a guest, by restating what ever text they're given by the subject. It's unlikely they did any fact checking. I notice Sharlto Copley has received lots of mainstream media attention, including mentions of his personal life, and none of that has mentioned Bruce Copley. Given the repeated anon removals, we have to consider this contentious material, and demand a higher standard of sourcing. --Rob (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Update: I can get a certified copy of Sharlto's birth certificate. How can we reference this as a source? Are these links adequate?

Maybe just ask people to compare the photo of Sharlto with the photo of his dad. I have rarely seen a father and son who look more alike!ChrisStefan (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

The first one is out, and the last two aren't in English. --Boycool (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ChrisStefan, we don't do original research. sandiegoaccountantsguide.com and diocio.net appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia, containing parts of this article. So, basically we have a circular where we rely on sources that rely on us, which rely on them, which...etc....etc..... One reason I'm particular skeptical of the claim, is the same user (ChrisStefan) used sources in Bruce Copley's which will publish anything on anybody, if you pay them. So, frankly, I'm now doubtful of anything, unless it's a source that can be trusted to factcheck, and not just restate whatever content they're provided by Bruce Copley or an associate. As mentioned, Sharlto Copley has been interviewed about his personal life, and a connection to Bruce Copley has never come up as a result. We need to either verify the linkage as a certain fact, or at least verify Sharlto Copley has acknowledged the connection. So far, all we can be confident is, is that Bruce Copley has made the connection. We need to be cautious of people who may wish to claim association with a celebrity that the celebrity doesn't acknowledge publicly. --Rob (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, yes I used 2 biographical sources which I agree turned out to be dubious sources. I checked with Dr Copley and he said he was contacted by these instances but that they did not ask him to pay anything. He says that the info about him in these sources are correct nonetheless, even though these sources might accept any info to publish from other people in return for payment. He recommended deletion of these sources from his article because he didn't want to be associated with sources that are questionable, even though the info they published about him is correct. It is sad that when official documentation exists which proves that Sharlto is Bruce Copley's son, there is not some way in which this can be used.

ChrisStefan (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharlto Copley might not have mentioned Dr Copley as his father for whatever reason, but that does not change the fact that he is Dr Copley's son. I can produce a birth certificate and photos of Dr Copley with his son. Or Sharlto Copley can be phoned for verification, or his brother Donovan, or Sharlto's girlfriend. If a scan of Sharlto's birth certificate and photos of him appearing with Dr Copley is uploaded into his profile, would that be sufficient? In the meantime, when information is obviously correct but just needs a source, Wikipedia policy is to use the [citation needed] tag instead of deleting such information. ChrisStefan (talk)

We don't do original research, ever. And we do not rely on primary sources for contested material in biographies of living persons. Wikipedia requires claims to be published elsewhere, in reliable, independent places, before being published here. W If you read our policy, it's very clear we remove such claims, instead of just tagging them *if* we're dealing with a biography of a living person. --Rob (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, don't worry about it anymore. I have added a source which incontestably proves that Dr Copley is the father of Donovan Copley, who is the brother of Sharlto Copley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 10:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You undid the change again, with this comment: "article doesn't mention Sharlto. Siblings can share one parent, but not the other". Once again, please read carefully what is stated. The statement is that Dr Copley is the father of Donovan Copley who is Sharlto's brother. The reference article provides incontestable proof that Dr Copley is Donovan's father. The statement DOES NOT say that Dr Copley is Sharlto's father. However, consider this: if Dr Copley is only Donovan's farther and not Sharlto's, how do you explain that the two brothers have the same surname? Did Sharlto's mother also marry another Copley, do you think? You seem to have a personal vendetta against myself and Dr Copley for some reason - I have already reported possible bad faith on your part, and this seems to be yet another example of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Sharlto Copley, not Donovan. So, it is not the purpose of this article to discuss Donovan Copley. You're highly charged accusations are an unfortunate consequence of editing a subject you're personally connected to. It's very hard to be objective when you know somebody personally. --Rob (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections to this statement are academic to say the very least. You refuse to allow a statement (Dr Copley is Sharlto's dad) which is provable via sources to a very high level of certainty, yet you allow 'facts' stated without any sources, for instance the statement that Donovan Copley is Sharlto's brother. If this does not show bad-faith then what does? This article is riddled with unsourced claims like this and yet these are acceptable to you instead? According to your own statement above in an earlier comment: "Wikipedia requires claims to be published elsewhere, in reliable, independent places, before being published here. If you read our policy, it's very clear we remove such claims, instead of just tagging them *if* we're dealing with a biography of a living person." So I am asking you: Either allow the (sourced) statement to stand namely that Dr Copley is Sharlto's and Donovan's father, or remove all the unsourced claims from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with removing more unsourced claims. Feel free to remove all WP:BLP violations you find. For the moment, I'm taking a break, to avoid violating WP:3RR. I also want to wait to see what happens to the Bruce Copley article. --Rob (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you come back and remove this sourced claim then the onus is on you to also remove all the other unsourced claims, if you don't want to keep on being accused of bias and bad-faith here. I personally don't have bad-faith in many of these unsourced statements but if Wikipedia policy requires that they be sourced, then this must be so. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied yet another reference which taken as a whole must surely prove way beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr Bruce Copley is the father of Sharlto and Donovan Copley. Anybody who cares to remove this statement should have serious grounds on which to base their distrust of this information, or risk being reported for continued vandalism and bad-faith. ChrisStefan (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have again replaced info about Sharlto's dad, and added link to his mom's details, whose contact info can be used to verify parentage.
According to user Rob the criterium for proving parentage is that both Sharlto and his father MUST be mentioned on the SAME PAGE in an independent source... On closer inspection however it is revealed that this is an arbitrary made-up requirement... Even so, if you look at the reference http://www.clubclaims.co.za/c.html you will notice that the names of the entire Copley family are grouped together on one page and in one section... To break it up in little pieces: If you are somebody's brother and your brother has a father and all your surnames are the same, then your brother's dad must also be your dad unless your mother has remarried to somebody else with exactly that same surname - extremely unlikely. Put this together with the mention of the Copley family as claimants in an independent source... put this together with numerous interviews with the father where he mentions who his sons are... if in any further doubt, use the mother's contact details supplied by an independent source for verification. (Note that this is not original research, but is simply a verifiable source.) The result is that there can be no real doubt beyond purely academic grounds about Sharlto's parentage. ChrisStefan (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Father's Name[edit]

I don't know the purpose of this argument and frankly don't care, but feel I must add my two cents worth in here ... I have my stepfather's last name because when he married my mother, he legally adopted me. That gives me his last name but I don't consider him to be my father and he's certainly not my biological father. Sharlto is older than Donovan which means it could be that Bruce married Sharlto's mother and then legally adopted Sharlto, giving him the last name Copley. He could very well be the adoptive stepfather of Donovan, and Donovan simply calls him his father without going into family detail. No, I don't think that's what happened in their family and am not trying to imply it's actually the case; my point is simply that two siblings having the same last name as the father doesn't prove 100% that he is the father to both of them.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced facts, inadequate sources, misleading sources, non-active links[edit]

The facts in this article are incredibly inaccurate and badly checked and terribly sourced! Almost every single sentence is contentious! And I have only just started! The original editor has a lot to answer for here.
1. "Copley, an Anglo-African,[2][3]..": The link from [2] does not exist. I read through the article [3] and cannot see anywhere where Copley says he is Anglo-African. Even if he did say this, how would this be proof of that fact? All you can say here is that "Copley SAYS he is an Anglo-African" - however you first have to show where he says that.
2. "...was born in Johannesburg, South Africa.[4]": I have original research (which I of course realize is not acceptable as listed sources) which tells me that this is a lie, it should be "Pretoria" and this must be proved to be so by another source. Also, the link from the source [4] is no longer active.
3. "His first name, "Sharlto" (pronounced Shol-toe), was a word his mother heard on a radio play.[5]. " Once again, this is stated as a fact but the only fact is that he says so in the sourced interview."
5. "Copley attended St. Andrew's Preparatory School, a private school in the town Grahamstown, until the age of thirteen, when his family moved to Johannesburg." Unsourced and this should be provable without original research.
6. "While at school Copley was very involved in amateur production (both theatre and film) and through this interest he met Neill Blomkamp. Blomkamp would also attend Redhill High School, although Copley had already graduated by this time." No sources provided.
7. "Copley was not averse to pushing the boundaries and often produced, directed and acted in risqué school plays.[6]" The so-called proof for this self-promotional statement consists of a circular reference to the exact same words used in this article.
8. "He is in a relationship with Jeanne-Melanie Haasbroek, his longtime girlfriend.[9]" This reference does not mention her name at all, or even that he has a girlfriend.
9. "Channel 69 became part of the Midi TV consortium bidding for, and eventually winning, the broadcasting licence for South Africa's first privately owned terrestrial television channel": no verification supplied for any of these statements
9. "...after Midi won the licence and started e.tv.": Reliable and independent proof for this claim is required.
" 0. "Copley's company produced and controlled the overnight content for the new e.tv channel, broadcasting a youth focused music/entertainment brand called "Deadtime": No verifiable and independent sources supplied.
11. "Throughout his career in South Africa, Copley has co-directed commercials, music videos and short films.[11]": The link from this source does not exist. Additional verification needed for this.
This is as far as I have got so far, but anybody please feel free to pick up after me. ChrisStefan (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. "In 2010, Copley produced, wrote and directed an insert for the South African Music Awards called "Wikus and Charlize", featuring fellow South African star Charlize Theron. The clip features Copley as Wikus attempting to track down Charlize in Hollywood to help him present the Award for Best Afrikaans Pop album." sources needed. ChrisStefan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC). :[reply]

I reverted this removal because there is a link in the external sources section which verifies this information. ChrisStefan (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13. "...to an internment camp outside the city.[8]": This source [8] has nothing to do with this statement and instead verifies the above statement 12. I moved it to its correct location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14. "...and Best Performance of 2009[11] for his role in District 9.[12]": Source [12] has absolutely nothing to do with this statement and refers to Sharlto being replaced by another actor in another movie. Source removed from article. ChrisStefan (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15 "...in the feature film adaptation of The A-Team,[13]": Source [13] does not exist. Have replaced this source with another source I found on the internet. ChrisStefan (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Sources 14 and 17 are exactly the same. I have removed one of them. ChrisStefan (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17. Invalid external link removed, and could not find article with this title on the site (From local production to blockbuster) ChrisStefan (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18. Removed another external link: this one has no info about Sharlto on the page linked to: * http://www.channel24.co.za/Content/Movies/Features/654/e90b3c2d262e4b8da4ea78d0f0495886/12-09-2008%2004-09/Local_CGI_revolution

19. Replaced pdf external link (does not exist) with a working link. This one does not exist: http://www.oscars.org/press/presskits/nominations/pdf/district_9.pdf ChrisStefan (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ClubClaims[edit]

Regarding sources used in this addition, please tell me what http://www.clubclaims.co.za/c.html is supposed to provide evidence of? Going to the home page of the web site it says "Clubclaims Trust holds former Health & Racquet liquidation dividend payout". I can not determine why this was used. Not only does it not show proof of Sharlto's father, it doesn't show proof of anything remotely useful to this article. In the case of http://www.fullcirclemag.co.za fails, I can at least understand the reason for using the link, even though it's not adequate (see above reasons). But ClubClaims.com makes absolutely no sense. --Rob (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reference section: Next to the Club Claims reference is stated the following: "The Copley family listed as claimants: claim numbers 726 - 722." It lists the names of the entire Copley family mentioned in the article and groups them together as claimants. This is further proof of their family connection. It would be virtually impossible for random unrelated Copley's to have joined with consecutive member numbers. ChrisStefan (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fullcircle magazine link proves that Dr Copley is Sharlto's brother's father and therefore also Sharlto's father - unless their mother remarried to another person also called Copley - which is extremely unlikely. This magazine archives some of it's articles in the form of image files, which does not invalidate it as a reliable source. Visit their homepage www.fullcirclemag.co.za to see what the magazine is about and why it is an independent and reliable resource. ChrisStefan (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing that this appears to private information. There's nowhere that Sharlto Copley has publicly identified his father. There's no 3rd party source that's made the link. So, we're basically giving out private information. With BLPs we need to be cautious about violating privacy, which is sourcing requirements go beyond technically proving something likely true. --Rob (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be meant as private information, since it is openly accessible to the public as an unprotected internet link and has been for a while. This information has been made freely available to anybody who cares to find it. These sources prove the family connection indisputably - whether it is recorded or not that Sharlto has acknowledged this somewhere else is not the issue at all. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am visiting from the biographies of living persons noticeboard, where this edit dispute is being discussed. In my opinion, the attempt to establish the family relationship based on the sources given, constitutes synthesis and original research. The Clubclaims site which shows the names being listed together is not a reliable source for any purpose in this article and the other piece only states that Copley is the father of the subject's musician brother. There are a number of scenarios in which he would not technically be the subject's father despite bearing the same name and without better sourced information, we should exclude the information from the article. I have therefore reverted the last edit. The user adding it should be aware of the three revert rule, as he appears to have already made three reverts in 24 hours. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about synthesis, and I have removed the Club Claims reference. As to the other source 'synthesising' Sharlto's father to be the father of his brother Donovan, well, my opinion is there is some synthesis here but very little - it is more of a directly visible and obvious relation. Also note that there can only be 2 possible and very obscure scenarios for when the father would not be the brother's father: 1) Mother remarried to another Copley; 2) Father renamed himself to Copley. I have also added another reference which is an interview with Sharlto Copley where interviewer states that Sharlto's father is Bruce and his mother is Linda. Re 3 revert rule: If you look at article's history you will notice that this current revert is now the 3rd one in 24 hours. ChrisStefan (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your counting is a bit off - going back from your last revert (7:57 on 2-21), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts, all for substantially the same information. That's textbook edit-warring and 3RR violation. You NEED to use the talk page to get consensus when multiple editors are reverting you, not just keep reverting with minimal changes. Put your edit and sources here and work on them here. You're probably going to end up blocked if you keep doing this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the correct revision history, namely at the articles history. You will see that there are only 3 reverts in 24 hours: [1], [2] and [3]. ChrisStefan (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotsman is now added to substantiate the claim, so I think/hope this dispute is settled. As always, a single good source, is better than multiple crappy sources strung together. A number of other sources in the article should be improved now, and we should strive to use the "cite" tag, to better display source information. Also, please note, this is an article about Sharlto, not Bruce. I mention the fact Bruce was a professor, only because a source about Sharlto mentions it. What we should not do is mention descriptions of Bruce that come in pieces that were only about Bruce. --Rob (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rob this is great, glad we seem to be getting somewhere. Yes this is an article about Sharlto and pertinent info relating to him. Should we argue that this article is about Sharlto so we should remove mention of all other names and what those persons activities are...? What would be left? Who one's parents are and what they do are directly relevant, is that not so? Just like what Neil Blomkamp does and where he grew up and went to school etc...I mean there is a LOT of info about that but nobody seems to think it shouldn't be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs)
First, please sign your posts, as it's hard to follow threads, if you can't see who said what. I never said we can't mention other people. If a source about Sharlto says something about somebody else (like Bruce Copely, or whomever) we can mention that, if it's relevant to Sharlto, it's fine. But, it's wrong to go to a source that doesn't mention Sharlto, and say stuff unrelated to Sharlto. As for your Blomkamp example: I would be opposed to mentioning any thing Blomkamp did that was unrelated to Sharlto. A reliable source has to show that relation. If a source mentioned Blomkamp, without mentioning Sharlto, we shouldn't normally use that. If you wish to remove claims about Blomkamp or others, which are poorly sourced, feel free. I won't put anything back, without a proper source. In fact, please feel welcome to go throughout any of the millions of articles on Wikipedia and clean those up. --Rob (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the information in a source relates directly and obviously to Sharlto without specifically mentioning him, then I don't see what the problem is. For instance if a source is about his brother and his father, then it obviously relates directly and with very little synthesis to Sharlto's parentage even if he isn't specifically mentioned himself. You can take this even further. Let's say for instance that somebody's father is Jesus. Now you want to use this fact in that person's article. Let's say that in this case you have already proven via a source (let's call it source 1) that Jesus is his dad. But you don't just want to say "This guy's dad is Jesus full-stop." You'd rather want to say "this guy's dad is Jesus who died on the cross" or something to that effect. Why? It immediately enlightens the reader and it is pertinent information which places things in context. So you use a reliable source where there is a discussion about Jesus dying on the cross, to backup this statement (let's call this source 2). Unfortunately, source 2 makes no mention about the person whose article you are writing. So according to your logic, source 2 is not a valid source. And according to some people's 'synthesis' argument, they would now say that you have to 'synthesise' that the Jesus mentioned in source 2, is the dad of the same guy who is mentioned in source 1 where you proof parentage. I say this is ridiculous. If you want to 'clean up' Wikipedia like this, my feeling is it won't be of too much use to anybody at the end of the day.ChrisStefan (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic that the Scotsman source which is now accepted as a reliable source about Sharlto's parents, is actually wrong in saying that Bruce is a university professor. What probably happened is that Sharlto told them that his father was a university professor while he (Sharlto) was at school. The Scotsman interviewer then somehow morphed the past tense into the present. The real truth is that Bruce Copley was a university professor but for the last 20 years or so he has been a self-employed holistic teacher. How do I know this? For one thing, from his website - which of course, since it is self-published, you would argue that it's not a reliable source, the Scotsman knows better... and from numerous online interviews with Dr Copley (can't put stock in this though, because it is what HE says, not what some 3rd party reports, right?) and also, from my personal connection - but of course, this would be classified as original research so you can't take me seriously, can you? Yet, this 'fact' of my personal connection is taken seriously by people who allege that I am unqualified to write an article about Bruce Copley... ChrisStefan (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a bit of a fair point. Often non-notable people are covered very sparingly in third-party sources. So facts reported about them in one source, aren't covered in other sources. Generally, it's best to just cover people where there's multiple sources covering the topic, in detail, so we can find contradictions in the sources. For truly notable people, it's easy to spot the mistakes. If an article claimed George W. Bush was a professor, it would be pretty easier to check on it in many different sources. What is in this article about Bruce Copley is an attempt by me at compromise. I probably shouldn't have mentioned Bruce was a professor, as it's not really relevant to Sharlto. It's a non-notable detail about a non-notable person, that nobody considers worth fact checking. It's probably best not to mention his parents at all, so feel free to remove it. It made more sense in the interview, because in that context, he was talking about Sharlto being raised by his parents (so wasn't really about today, even though he used the present tense). I'm not removing it myself, as I want to avoid an edit war. Anyways, self-published sources just aren't reliable. People often make dishonest claims as a means of promoting themselves. Of course, everyone thinks *their* self-published source is somehow better. Crap is still crap, even when compared to other crap. --Rob (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this sounds to me like a case of "guilty until proven innocent". I'd be hesitant to conveniently blanket all self-published sources under the heading of 'crap' just because some people make dishonest claims. It's just not true. Why can't we rather prioritize the use of reason and logic instead of treating Wikipedia guidelines as laws? Why not consider each case on its own merit? For instance, why would somebody lie on his own company website about not being a university professor anymore? I would much rather take this information first-hand from the horse's mouth, so to speak, than trust the report of a 3rd party interviewer who got this information from somebody else, even if this someone is notable (his son in this case). You can be notable, it doesn't follow that you are now a reliable source about someone else. Many madmen are notable and have their own Wikipedia articles, for instance. So as you can see, in this case the result is that this Wikipedia article, meant to be a reliable reference, now propagates a lie! This is proof, at least in this case, that the process failed. Secondly, I have to disagree that including information about a parent's occupation (whether the parent is notable or not) in a biographical article is not sometimes directly relevant and pertinent to the person whose biographical article this is. Psychologists at least would tell you this is highly relevant! It is something I would like and even expect an encyclopedia to be able to tell me about someone. It tells you a lot about the person's milieu, in what kind of environment you were brought up and what your influences were. I don't think you have to be necessarily notable in Wikipedia terms, in order to be referenced or for your relevant activities to be referenced in someone else's article (which is why there are so many redlinks in Wikipedia articles). Wikpedia says you have to be notable enough to have an article about yourself - that's all. ChrisStefan (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False Claims?[edit]

Found this about Sharlto Copley and Simon Hansen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hansen: "Claims the duo were instrumental in starting a television Channel in South Africa called e.tv are false." Unless I am missing something, I don't see any sources in the article proving the lead sentence "He co-founded a media production company, visual effects company and a talent agency." 41.241.18.83 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this lead sentence from the article until references can be found to verify those claims. ChrisStefan (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much bulls..t in this original article (see all the errors and claims noted above) that I find it extremely surprising that it passed any round of Wikipedia critical consensus. One cannot help but wonder about the creator of this article and the source for all the discounted statements, as well as the laxness of the initial reviewers? Somebody deliberately attempted to create an inflated picture of Sharlto Copley and for some reason this was allowed without being questioned. ChrisStefan (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent films: fixing & cleaning up continuity a bit[edit]

Hi All,

Found a couple of logical sequence errors in the listing of Copley's recent films:

Text as of 13 Aug 2013:

<<Copley portrayed Agent Kruger, the secondary antagonist in Elysium,[16] along with Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, a science-fiction film written and directed by Neill Blomkamp. Despite similarities with District 9, Blomkamp has confirmed it will not be a sequel.[17] Copley was cast in Men in Black 3 as "a fast-talking Yoda type alien"[18] but later left the project.

Copley appears in The Europa Report - the story of a crew of international astronauts who are sent on a private mission to Jupiter's fourth moon.>>


Men in Black 3 was released in May 2012, so this should come 1st. Separating that sentence out as a separate paragraph before the rest.

Europa Report was released earlier than Elysium <<The film was released on Video on Demand, iTunes, and Google Play Movies on June 27, 2013, and was released theatrically on August 2, 2013.>> (Wiki Europa Report page). So I'm putting that second, followed by Elysium. The sentence <<Despite similarities with District 9, Blomkamp has confirmed it will not be a sequel.[17]>> should probably go on the Elysium page, as it is not about Sharlto Copley. The paragraphs have some verb tense issues that I am not going to fix, as I don't know Wiki policy on wording re: current films (present tense), past films (obviously past tense). Cheers. SaturnCat (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-edit: Actually, did go ahead & fix the tense error-- I think it was just one instance. Also added a bit more description of Copley's role in Europa Report. Cheers. SaturnCat (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja[edit]

His recieving of (and not addressing) a non-consensual explicit photograph of Chappie co-star "Ninja"'s ex/girfriend should be added either to the personal life section or a new one entirely. MisfitBlitz (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some reliable sources? I can't find much of anything in a quick search. Without RS, this shouldn't even be on the talk page. – 2.O.Boxing 08:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharlto_Copley&oldid=1201139229"