Talk:Natalie Wood/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Birth name moved to secondary position in opening

I have changed the opening to reflect the fact that the name of the subject is "Natalie Wood" for all purposes, public, private, and legal. Refer to these links for images of contracts and other official legal documents signed "Natalie Wood". Many other actors changed their names; this is a clear standard. --Tysto 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Chrisappel.net
• History for Sale

If you (being the public-at-large) haven't noticed, I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I'm fairly confident that the name shown as Natalie Wood's birth name in INCORRECT. I'd be willing to put money on her first name being 'Natasha' (yes I know it's the same as her first daughter) and while I'm not confident enough to put money on it, I've been told that her last name at birth was 'Gurdin'. I just watched her bio on the Biography Channel...that's my citation ;). According to the 'boob-tube', Natasha's handlers thought she should have a more 'American' sounding name; Natalie was not happy with the involuntary name change, she didn't think it was very pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StillNotAnExpert (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

religion?

Did she convert to Judaism? I heard this somewhere

Former Child Actors Nominated for Oscars

The Trivia section notes that "Along with Tatum O'Neal, Haley Joel Osment, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Anna Paquin, Dean Stockwell, Ben Affleck and Jodie Foster she is one of only nine former child actors to have been nominated for an Oscar."

This list seems incomplete, as it excludes, for example, Linda Blair (who was nominated the same year as Tatum O'Neal), as well as Ron Howard (who has actually won the award for Best Director). Additionally, Patty Duke won an Oscar for The Miracle Worker, and her son Sean Astin was nominated for producing the documentary Kangaroo Court. Oscar-nominee Jeff Bridges could also be identified as a former child actor, since he appeared as a boy on his father's series Sea Hunt. Best Actor nominee Laurence Fishburne started acting on One Life to Live when he was only twelve. And Best Actress winner Helen Hunt was the same age when she starred in The Swiss Family Robinson TV series. Research should be conducted to create a more complete list, or else the phrasing should be changed to something less definite like "she is one of a handful of former child actors."

It's also worth noting that for a number of years the Academy would sometimes present an Academy Juvenile Award to young actors, such as Shirley Temple, Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, and Hayley Mills. Mickey Rooney also won an Academy Honorary Award as an adult. To distinguish awards voted upon by Academy members from these types of honorary awards, it might be clearer to specify "an Oscar in a competitive category" or "an Oscar for a specific film" or just "a competitive Oscar."

76.168.253.250 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)F Smith

You make a very good point, but I think it would be going too far to do further research on this matter because it has very little to do with Natalie Wood, and any point made on this article would then need to be made on the article for each of the actors identified. I think it would be far more relevant on the article about child actors for example, than for any particular actor. I think it would be good to just say "Wood was one of a handful of former child actors to be nominated for an Academy Award", and this should be in the article rather than in the trivia section. Rossrs 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. It's worth noting that since this discussion began, someone has tried to remedy the situation by removing "former," eliminating Ben Affleck (who was nominated as an adult, and not for an acting award), and adding Quinn Cummings and Justin Henry, both nominated as children. It currently reads, "Along with Tatum O'Neal, Haley Joel Osment, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Anna Paquin, Quinn Cummings, Dean Stockwell, Justin Henry and Jodie Foster she is one of only ten child actors to have been nominated for an Oscar."

Ultimately, though it's nice to see names like Cummings and Henry yielded by more research, the list still seems possibly incomplete. Additionally, the elimination of the word "former" probably causes more confusion, since Taylor, Garland, and Stockwell were all nominated as adults.

I agree that it would be best to simply delete the piece of trivia. It seems more relevant to the child actor article and could potentially be relocated there.

I also like your phrasing of that addition to the main body of the article (as an alternative to a note in the trivia section); although upon a second review it seems the point has been nicely made already by the existing lines, "Indeed, she was one of the relative few who made a successful transition to adult stardom. By the time she was 28, she was already a three-time Oscar nominee, with nominations for Rebel Without a Cause, Splendor in the Grass and Love With the Proper Stranger."

I will go ahead and delete the line in the trivia section.

76.168.253.250 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)F Smith

addition: someone replaced the line. It read: She is one of A HANDFUL OF child actors... (caps mine) then goes on to name 10 plus an unnamed "few others". This is hardly a handful. I changed it to "several". Really, I agree with the above assessment: the line is meaningless. Its not an unusual thing for a child actor to become successful in adulthood. It doesn't always happen, but it happens too often to be remarkable. However, in respect to the feelings of the person who seems to want it in I left it, but made it more accurate.

I'd ask the Admins to review this piece of "trivia" for permanent removal, its not very informative nor relevant. Raphaelaarchon 08:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lana Wood

The article originally stated that Lana Wood was a "Playboy playmate." She did appear in her own pictorial in Playboy, but was never Playmate of the Month. I've made this correction. DerbertBeak 07:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Daughters

Didn't Natalie have several daughters? Why aren't they mentioned in this article? -[208.120.100.103, on 05:17, 6 May 2007]

I can't speak for the author, but I REALLY wouldn't put too much, if any stock in the reliability of this particular article. I haven't found SEVERAL discrepencies.

Yes she did have daughters, her first was named Natasha, who she had with her second husband. When Natalie remarried her first husband (making him husband #1 and #3) she had a second daughter who's name is Courtney. (Please forgive, this information is from my memory and I have not verified/sited it yet. It's currently 3:25am, so this had to be short and sweet...and hopefully accurate.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StillNotAnExpert (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rebel Without a Cause screenshot.jpg

Image:Rebel Without a Cause screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict in Dates

Natalie wood Died in 1981

The filmography section says that a movie featuring her released in 1983. two years is a long time. Did the shootig take place before 1981. Odd for a movie not to have been released for two years after having been shot.

Anyone can verify the dates?

The shooting of Brainstorm (film) took place in 1980-81. The movie was put in production limbo after her untimely death. So the movie company used Natalie Wood look-alikes and sound-a-likes to completes the 25% that needed to be completed. This process took about a year or two. Yoda317 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually all of Natalie's scenes took place in September-November 1981. The rest of the film was shot in 1982 with the other actors, and yes there were some look-alikes and sound-alikes to replace her. It was released posthumously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excuseme99 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Natalie's fear of water

Natalie always had a fear of water because before Natalie was born, a gypsy told her mother that her second child would be a world famous beauty and that she should also fear deep water. It's in the miniseries about Natalie. 121.44.212.119 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't somebody document her hydrophobia and put it in the article? Sage Sophia (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This new edit may contain original research (the editor's own original thoughts and conclusions). Text such as...

Few writers emphasize that this alleged behavior had to have happened within 36 hours of her death and that the DVD of Brainstorm stands as evidence of her long days of shooting an erudite science-fiction film (in which Wood's character is a scientist who plays classical piano) for almost three months until Thanksgiving week. A positive story from the Saturday-afternoon restaurant meal was published immediately after her death in a supermarket tabloid and then forgotten.

...reads like a personal essay and is wholly uncited hence, I've added an OR tag to give the editor time to provide citations for these assertions and conclusions. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How much time are you allowing ? Like many people, I'm on vacation until January 4. I can't access my library until then.

I can cite the supermarket tabloid that reported Natalie's encounter with the little girl in the Catalina Island restaurant. As for Natalie's character playing piano in the movie, you can learn that by renting the DVD. What else is wrong ? Debbiesvoucher (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The time you have depends on other editors but they'll likely see this and hold off. Tabloids don't meet WP:RS. Also, in short, a performance on a DVD is not in itself evidence of anything except that she made a performance. Some DVDs have audio commentary though and you can cite that if someone says she worked hard and so on but you can't come to this conclusion yourself and put it here, even if it's true and reasonable. Either way, you can't span citations and draw your own original conclusions from them. If you want the article to say she had gone through "long days of shooting an erudite science-fiction film (in which Wood's character is a scientist who plays classical piano) for almost three months until Thanksgiving week," you'll have to cite sources which clearly back up the statement. WP is a tertiary source built only on verifiable citations from verifiable and reliable secondary and primary sources. Please do read WP:OR and WP:V. It's ok though, sometimes it takes awhile for newer editors to get the hang of WP's OR and sourcing policies and your efforts are appreciated! Meanwhile this article has been lacking for a long time and needs all the help it can get. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Over the last week or so I've done lots of cleanup, rm'ing unsupported stuff and cite spanning, OR and so on. The article needs more about her career after 1972. I now see the article as a steady skeleton upon which editors can build a thorough narrative. Please provide citations for additions, since her death at a young age has stirred up lots of unsupported codswallop, gossip and meaningless speculation about her. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Could someone help me with licensing some photos? There aren't any photos to illustrate her career, and the default of her in gypsy is not very flattering. Plus she is in costume and it doesn't fit the intro. I found some great photos of her, including a shot of her in the ocean while making "From Here to Eternity" is there any way I can license these so they can be on the page? —Excuseme99 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sorry that you've been waiting so long for someone to answer. I suggest that you read through Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Image description page and any pages that they link to discussing copyright. Because Wood is deceased and there won't be any new free images of her, there is a chance that some unfree images could be used. A few things to consider - it's generally accepted that a free image will always be used in preference to an unfree image, even if in the unfree image is of lesser quality. The Gypsy image is not very good. I uploaded it, but I'm the first to say it's not good quality. For now, it's the best free image we have of her as an adult, so it needs to stay in the infobox. Any unfree images must be used sparingly and carefully chosen and you will need to be able to establish that they are necessary for the article. That is, they can't be purely decorative and they must show something that is discussed in the article in sufficient detail as to make a picture necessary, and they can't show something that is already shown by a free image. So, for example if you happened to have a picture of Natalie in Gypsy you couldn't use it, because we have one already. The image must not be of high resolution or "large" so before uploading it, you would need to ensure it's small. There's no hard and fast rule, and if you upload something that's too big, it's easily fixed, so don't worry too much about that part of it. You will need to ensure that the image description page clearly explains why the image is being used and where it came from. You could look at this image page for an example of the way to display the information. I would suggest updating the image description page for the image you've added from Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice. None of this guarantees that any other editor may not look at it and question its use, but at least it's working in the right direction. Hope this helps, but you're welcome to leave a message on my talk page - or here - if you need help with anything. Rossrs (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• 20-Jan-2009: I agree; fair-use images can be added, if the article text discusses them in some detail. The trick is: even a DVD cover could be displayed, legally, but only if the DVD recording is discussed in the "Natalie Wood" article (such as short section "Gypsy DVD"). However, a far, far, far worse problem is that the vast majority of Wikipedia folks are stuck-on-severe that DVD images can only go in a film article. Nonsense: copyright law wasn't written around Wikipedia articles, so limiting DVD-covers to DVD articles is just more wiki-warping of reality. However, after working on Wikipedia for over 4 years, I can assure you the warped opinions of others are utterly fatal to progress: I've said for years, "Wikipedia is 10% information & 90% deformation". You will need help from savvy people to get more non-free images accepted in an actor article, because you will be fighting the wiki-deformed views of copyright law. The problem is so difficult because, due to the vast scope of issues, all of us fall into that 90% deformation, at some point. We're all basically working against 90% of everyone on everything. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Verification

20-Jan-2009: Every few months, some Wikipedia articles might get hacked where the information drifts into inaccurate statements. For that reason, it is good to keep a core set of facts in the talk-page to help run a sanity check on the basic data. Here it is:

• Birthname: Natalia Nikolaevna Zakharenko
• Born: July 20, 1938 - San Francisco, California, United States
• Died: November 29, 1981 (aged 43) - Santa Catalina Island, California, United States
• Occupation: actress
• Years active: 1943 - 1981
• Spouse(s): Robert Wagner (1957-1962, 1972-1981), Richard Gregson (1969-1971)

Please add key facts to the above, to help simplify verification. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Item 1950 1.jpg

The image File:Item 1950 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Youngest Person with 3 Oscar nods

this needs to be mentioned in the intro. it is a useful fact. also, stop mentioning the names of the characters she played if you are only going to list a few movies. and don't include that she was married to robert wagner without including her daughters. it is part of her bio, just see angelina jolie's page, it has the names of all of her children on there. Excuseme99 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not when it constitutes original research. Also, stop suggesting that character names of critical roles are unimportant. Children are mentioned in the lead only if they were highly notable, such as on Angelina Jolie's page. It is already part of Wood's bio, it isn't a highly publicized part of it. Stop tampering with leads and spinning it with your own POV out of line with MOS. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How odd that DJ-x3 would come along at precisely this moment and revert.

A few points:

1. We do not replace a free image with an unfree image. It has nothing to do with quality, or personal preference, and I've discussed the Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice image before. It's not acceptable, it's not staying and while other points are negotiable, this one is not.

2. "Her film debut at age of 5". This is tricky. Maybe she was 4 when the film was made and 5 when it was released. Who knows? The film was released in 1943 and in saying this, there is no ambiguity.

3. Youngest Person to achieve three Academy Award nominations - why is this so relevant? The point is she was nominated 3 times which is more than most actresses do even if they live to be 100. Three nominations by age 25, or by any age, is quite an achievement, but her age is not what is remembered or what is significant. That's why I don't think it needs to be part of her overall summary in the lead. In the article, maybe, but if it's so important, why is it not supported by the addition of a reliable source? Rossrs (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Her age has been in the lead for over a year until you changed it. Obviously you are editing out of POV. It is an achievement that should be mentioned. Also, it is not just Angelina Jolie whose children are mentioned in the intro. Just take a look around the most popular pages, you will find it in many articles. And the current image IS free, it was published before 1977 which makes it free.DJ-x3 (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The age has been there for a while and recently someone changed it to make her a year younger. I could not care less how old she was and I wouldn't have bothered if someone else had not changed it. The film was released in 1943, and this is a fairly neutral fact. I don't want to have to wonder if it was released before or after her 5th birthday. Your point about the names of the children makes no sense. I didn't remove them. Before you hit the 'undo' button I'd suggest you actually read what is there. The names are still there. The image is not free. It's a promotional image used to promote the film. It's cropped from a lobby card that is still under copyright. It's already been loaded and deleted from Commons because it was not free, and it's not going to happen again. For it to be free based only on age, it would have had to be published before 1923. Rossrs (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So I said to check the image page and read the tags. Followed by edit summary "I did and it has the info about being published before 1977 so its part of the public domain" Of course it says on the page that it is in the public domain because YOU uploaded the image and tagged it with that tag! How is that an argument? YOU also tagged it as being copyrighted. It can't be both, and you clearly don't have a good grasp of copyrights. Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, here is the lobby card from which this image was cropped. It's clearly a lobby card (so the screenshot tag is also wrong) and the writing in the bottom right hand corner - that would be the copyright information. Rossrs (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

that LOBBY CARD which you posted IS a screenshot from the film! by the way, the uploaded photo OBVIOUSLY is not cropped from that because the quality is much better. it is a screenshot! it is from the trailer of a 1969 film and the rights have not been renewed. it was released PRIOR to 1977. if you do not like it, then make INDIVIDUAL edits instead of undoing everything. and i was not referring to "following her film debut at the age of five" i was referring to "by age 25 she was a three-time oscar nominee" because that is extremely important and relevant. i also think it is necessary who she was vacationing with when she died. make individual edits, do not undo everything.DJ-x3 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Individual edits instead of undoing everything". Excuse me, but you have reverted everything each time you've reverted. For example, you changed the "age of 5 bit" and now you're telling me you were talking about the "by age 25" bit. I'm not a mind-reader. You reverted both. I have stated above my reasons for each of the points I've reverted, and I'm not going to keep repeating them. I find it impossible to believe that you went through the film trailer and extracted the identical frame that was used in the lobby card. I've made enough screenshots to know that even by advancing a single frame there is a subtle difference. You're stretching credibility. Where did you find the trailer anyhow? I've not been able to find it on any website, and it's not on the DVD release. Anyway, consensus is against you. Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DJ, you have violated the WP:3RR policy, and you were warned that continuing to edit war will result in your being blocked. You don't have consensus for your changes - in particular regarding the image issues. You are welcome to make your argument in favor of your upload at the discussion page here, but you've been asked to stop posting it here until the matter is settled. As for the other edits, as has been explained above, they are unsourced and not particularly notable, and appear to be original research which is not acceptable. For example, if you find a reliable source that makes the point about her being "the youngest person in film history to receive three Academy Award nominations", then that assertion could perhaps be added with its reference. But by itself, it's unsourced analysis, and therefore viewed as unnotable original research. But the larger point is that you need to engage with other editors in discussion, not just repeatedly revert. Tvoz/talk 05:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this again. This is getting ridiculous. The most recent version that I changed from reinstated the "Wood was with Walker and Wagner when she drowned", which is just one of several points that we have already been discussed. Rossrs (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

About the Oscar nominations, Kate Winlet's page says At 22, she became the youngest actress to receive two Oscar nominations. So why can't Natalie Wood's page say At 25, she became the youngest actress to receive three Oscar nominations.? Excuseme99 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Source? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The Kate Winslet article sources the information. The Natalie Wood article never has. Rossrs (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't find any sources but it is true. The E! True Hollywood Story about her says so, but theres no online record that says so. It is a fact.Excuseme99 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Biography of living people

Just a reminder to the editors of this article, that although Natalie Wood is dead, Robert Wagner is not, and Christopher Walken is not. WP:BLP applies to them. I've removed a lengthy section that is not at all supportable by WP:BLP. In it Wikipedia speculates, hints and draws conclusions based on one published work - it steps dangerously close to accusing someone of murder. There was no attempt to strike a balance or stick to sourced material. It presented a biased viewpoint, and was not even prudent enough to mention that Wagner has stenuously denied these accusations. In short, it's not acceptable. The media attention and hoopla is notable, but it needs to be presented carefully, and the need to report the accusations is not outweighed by the need to adhere to WP:BLP. On the contrary WP:BLP outweighs the need to report this, until it can be framed in a more neutral and less accusatory tone. It can not be restored without the language and innuendo being toned down considerably. If there is a "mystery", it is not Wikipedia's role to enhance it (or to try to solve it, for that matter). Rossrs (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Any text having to do with Wagner and Walken is indeed thoroughly covered by WP:BLP. The reverted edit also carries a plug for a book. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And Richard Gregson. I've also removed two unsourced bits about the end of the first Wood/Wagner marriage and the Wood/Gregson marriage, which attaches specific blame to each of the husbands, both still living. Both are potentially libelous. Rossrs (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations

How come accusations against Robert Wagner continued to be removed? The same goes for Richard Gregson and Christopher Walken. They are sourced! The explanation for the reverting says "they are still alive" so? Biographer Suzanne Finstad, the subject's sister, Lana Wood, and the skipper, Dennis Davern, are very reliable sources for the information surrounding her death. And neither Walken or Wagner have denied this information, they have simply ignored it. Someone needs to fix this.Excuseme99 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wagner has strenuously denied it. I would imagine that after 28 years, he's sick and tired of denying it. Read WP:BLP. If we ever err, it is on the side of caution. You need to start reading some of our policy pages, and adhering to them. We're not going to formulate an attack on a living person, by selectively quoting from sources which may or may not be accurate. Rossrs (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So instead you will write his version of her death on this page, no matter how inplausible it seems? She did not try to board that dingy....why on earth would she? It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself.

Suzanne Finstad interviewed nearly 400 people for her book. It is approved by Natalie's sisters, and Dennis Davern, who was on the boat the knight she died, told Lana Wood that Wagner was teasing Natalie while she drowned. It's legitimate information. I guess we will have to wait until he dies before it can be put on this page.

As for the cheating accusations, those are common sense. I don't see why that even needs a source. But if you require one then I will try to find something legitimate. I don't know why the youtube link isn't considered reliable. . Excuseme99 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely important to present content in a neutral, unbiased and thoroughly cited way, especially when one considers your statement above "It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself." Wikipedia cannot published content such as that because of libel laws and we have strong policies governing what can and cannot be included based on WP:BLP. Natalie Wood may be dead, but Robert Wagner is not and there is absolutely no way whatsoever that anything can be included that says, or implies, that Wagner killed her. He was never charged for such a thing, he was certainly never convicted and this is absolutely not the place for it. Your bias regarding it is quite clear and I'd suggest because of that, you avoid editing this article without your edits being scrupulously vetted and probably removed. This article is based on many sources, but you know what? Not one of them was published by Robert Wagner. It isn't going to be skewed to reflect the perspective of only one writer, especially when that writer is bound to prove something that isn't proven anywhere else. Cheating allegations are just as problematic, since you tried to assert that Wood spent the night at a hotel with another person who is still alive, although there is nothing to support that. YouTube is rarely if EVER allowed as a source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep it simple, because you've been told time and again. READ WP:BLP and READ WP:RS. Ask questions if you don't understand. Then you can avoid making comments like "I don't see why that even needs a source". Rossrs (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not add the thing about her spending the night in the hotel the night before she died. It was previously listed under "other relationships" for a long time. All I did was cut and paste it to a different section. Once again, Gregson's cheating is common knowledge. Google it and there are tons of sources. The youtube video is a documentary containing needed information.Excuseme99 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not include "common knowledge", it requires reliable 3rd party sources. The YouTube video cannot be used as a reference, that's been explained. Needed or not needed is a personal opinion, but it cannot be used as a reference. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme99 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I also included the Discovery Channel website. Why do you not consider that reliable?

I don't think you really understand the objections that have been raised about your edits on this page. This isn't a tabloid and content isn't going to be included in a tabloid manner. The personal life/marriage/relationships sections you've changed have been written in an exploitative manner. You've managed to smear Christopher Walken and Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood, simply by how you've written things. The best example is from above where you declared that Wagner murdered Wood. That POV shows through in what you're writing and it just can't remain. It doesn't really much matter if Gregson was unfaithful. It doesn't add anything to the article to explore their marital discord, they were married, they had a daughter, they were divorced. We don't routinely exploit the situation by explaining it bit by bit. Nor is it necessary to spell out each and every actor she ever went out on a date with. Dates are one thing, relationships are something else, and in a few short sentences, it managed to make her sound completely promiscuous. Another is the sectioning out of the paragraph about studio arranged dates with some gay actors. You simply cannot section that out and call her a beard. That's derogatory. Things must be written neutrally and that's not happening here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You should read these Wikipedia:Writing better articles and WP:HARM. And remember this if you remember nothing else - WP:BLP overrides EVERYTHING. It's possible to collect a whole bunch of facts from reliable sources, and still assemble them to create something that is not objective or neutral. That's what you're doing. Please move past the notion of sourcing. It's not a case of "if it's sourced, we'll use it". No, we won't. It requires more care and consideration than that. We really must aim higher than repeating gossip and innuendo or using it to slant an article to represent a particular viewpoint, no matter how many "reliable" sources we try to hide behind. We must avoid letting our personal viewpoints add flavour to the article. Excuseme, you clearly have a viewpoint on this subject, and unfortunately it comes through in your writing. So much of what you've been adding is inappropriate, for reasons that have been given several times. I just don't see any attempt to compromise or to evaluate what you keeping adding. All I see is the same information being copied and pasted. My head is spinning to think that anyone would think that "as a beard" is a suitable section header for an encyclopedic article. It would also be good if we weren't having variations of the same discussion every couple of days, when the same nonsense gets grafted back into the article. Rossrs (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable! This site allows for Dennis Hopper's POINT OF VIEW to be published but not that of the skipper who was with her the night she drowned?

For example, its common knowledge that Natalie slept with Nicholas Ray. However, she denied it several time and even threatened to sue the makers of an Elvis Presley biopic if the script mentioned who she slept with. Plus the fact that Hopper is known for experimenting with many different drugs, its very possible his memory is clouded. Yet this article continues to site him as a source. And you find that acceptable because she is dead.

So just because Wagner is still alive means we can't make accusations against him? Finstad's book was approved by Wood's sisters Lana and Olga as well as nearly 400 other people who provided the information. Dennis Davern's book Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour will be published in September. It MUST be included in this article. Otherwise all other negative things mentioned about Natalie should be removed. and WHY is it necessary to list all of her gay friends in the article? Excuseme99 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Excuseme, you cannot make accusations against Robert Wagner on this website, whether he is alive or if he were dead. You cannot make accusations against anyone on this website. The only content regarding someone's alleged complicity in something must be accompanied by verifiable and reliable sources, not the opinion of Excuseme99 or his/her interpretation of facts. Keep your beliefs to yourself, we are not in the habit of adding someone's personal opinion to articles, especially when it is an editor's personal opinion. We also do not print "common knowledge" that you claim exists about alleged affairs. You also cannot discredit a reliably sourced comment by someone by saying he did drugs in the 60s. You really have no idea what constitutes a reliable source, the proper way to present cited information or how to write a neutral sentence. You've shown your bias regarding this article multiple times and by now, you should be well aware that anything you write here is going to be scrutinized very carefully because of your professed bias. I find it way more than hypocritical for you to suddenly question sourced content about the support Wood showed a gay playwright so that a play could be written, or that she was friends with notable persons who happened to be gay, especially in light of the fact that you tried to insert a section topic of "As a beard." Please contain your outrage. It is well beyond time for this to stop, and time for an WP:AN/I discussion regarding your conduct and privileges of editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme, if you had read WP:BLP as has been suggested to you numerous times, you wouldn't be making a statement such as "So just because Wagner is still alive means we can't make accusations against him?" Yes, that is EXACTLY what it means. This is one of the most basic rules of Wikipedia and it has been explained to you so many times, that I feel any further discussion would be fruitless. Rossrs (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme99, you will be very swiftly blocked from editing if you carry on trying to add weakly sourced, defamatory information about living persons to this encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wildhart, I did not say Dennis Hopper was lying, I pointed out that you consider a former drug addict whose memory could quite possibly be clouded as a reliable source, yet you do not consider the subjects own family, including her two sisters as well as the person who was there the night she died as reliable sources. These people, as well as nearly 400 others, provided information to Suzanne Finstad, who has it published and approved by everyone she interviewed, including Dr. Thomas Noguchi, who did her autopsy. I am not saying this is true, but the possibility should be included, as well as According to..... That book is cited many time on this page, but you do not consider the last chapter reliable?Excuseme99 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor did I say you claimed Dennis Hopper was lying. But nevertheless, you try to discredit him by mentioning a drug history. Do you think Hopper is the only person who was interviewed for something about Natalie Wood with a history of drugs or alcohol? You cannot discount someone as a reliable source in that way, you have no specific knowledge of them personally, only your POV. I also have doubts that any author submitted a finished manuscript to 400+ people for approval before publishing. Whether Wood's sisters are reliable sources or not really isn't an issue here. What you added to the article included a quote from one of her sisters who was only speculating "Wood's sister Lana said they "may have had an affair, but Natalie would have never left R.J."" And my response to that is basically, "so what?" It's a speculative statement. It neither confirms or disputes anything. And Natalie did split with "R.J." before, so it seems a bit extreme for this article to entertain Lana Wood's speculation. The next thing you use the book for is to stick in speculation about Wagner's sexual proclivities, speculation that Wagner soundly disputed. It is a violation of WP:BLP to include this sort of speculation. Finstad's book is cited twice on the article, neither of which is that controversial. However, there is little to no possibility that her book, or anyone else's, will be used to make a case against "Wagner, the murderer himself", or include that he taunted Wood as she drowned. We cannot print that here, it is a violation of WP:BLP, regardless of how many times Wood's sisters endorse it. And we don't generally make mention of forthcoming books, and if it has content that will violate WP:BLP, it cannot be used here either. That policy governs everything here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again you are blaming me for information that was already there. Before you started nitpicking this page, there was plenty of stuff written about that. I did not suddenly add information about her affairs or her death, it was already on this site and I cut and copied it from one section of the article to another and you blamed me for writing out of POV.

As far as what Lana Wood said, I was referring to what she told Finstad, and what the skipper told her over phone conversations regarding her death. That was removed by you because you did not consider it reliable. This article has so many lies. She did not try to board the dingy, why on earth would she get in a dingy in the middle of the knight, wearing her nightgown? She had a lifelong fear of water, and would not go out on deck to "tie up the dingy" ; this page looks as if Wagner wrote it.

Also, Finstad may not have sent the manuscript to all the interviewees before it was published, but the book was made into a TV-movie "The Mystery of Natalie Wood" which was produced by Lana. She has expressed her disappointment and anger towards Wagner on her website and also supports Davern's upcoming book.Excuseme99 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When something is removed for any reason and an editor chooses to resurrect it and return it to the article, that editor takes responsibility for the content. You've done that, and regardless of who put it in the article first, once you returned it, it's your responsibility. As for writing with POV, all one need do is scroll up to your very clear comment that "She did not try to board that dingy....why on earth would she? It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself." And you have repeated that in your last post. That is your point of view, it has no place in this article or even on this talk page. You are asserting that content is lies, yet you cannot provide proof in any way whatsoever that it is untrue. You have again clearly stated your POV that Wagner is somehow responsible for Wood's death. This page looks like what can be adequately sourced. Again, you cannot and will not be able to write into this article that Wagner is responsible for Wood's death. If it takes nitpicking to keep that libellous content out of this article, then expect a whole lot of nitpicking, because you've been clearly warned about it, not just by me, but by adminstrators. At present, the only thing I've removed about Davern is the plug for his upcoming book. It doesn't belong here. It has yet to be published. You are conjecting about my issue regarding the Lana Wood quote, I said her opinion of whether Wood would have left Wagner was irrelevant, I made no statement regarding reliability. That may well be what Lana Wood thought, but again, so what? You have clearly said you see no need for references to support extramarital affairs because they are common knowledge, yet you are totally wrong about that. And finally, you've backtracked on your claim regarding approval by 400+ people about the book. You said it very clearly: "These people, as well as nearly 400 others, provided information to Suzanne Finstad, who has it published and approved by everyone she interviewed." So which was untrue? When you said everyone that she interviewed had approved the book or when you backtracked and said "Finstad may not have sent the manuscript to all the interviewees before it was published, but the book was made into a TV-movie "The Mystery of Natalie Wood" which was produced by Lana." This makes it quite difficult to know which claims and assertions are true and which are hyperbole. Finally, because there is such doubt on your neutrality regarding this article, you will have to provide page numbers for everything you source or it will be called into question and disputed. It must be verifiable and no one is going to sit and read an entire book to confirm what you claim is written there. Your credibility is in question due to the statements you've made here regarding Wagner and your insistence that he is "the murderer himself." Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Teen star section?

would it be possible to create an article with that tile? I don't think "Rebel Without a Cause" and others should be considered part of her adult career, but not as a child actor either, since she made those films when she was a teenager. could we create another section?Misty313 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay well I guess I can make the edit since no one seems to be against it. Misty313 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Lambert's book

This book should not be cited anywhere on this page. It is full of lies. It claims that Nikolai Gurdin was not her father, but the product of an adulterous affair her mother had with a sea captain named George. Also, on page 65, it says that Lana Wood was the product of another affair with an Armenian (when she is obviously Caucasian). This is crap. It has been disputed by Olga Viriapaeff and Lana Wood and is notorious for its false information. The author himself is a homosexual, and much of the gay stuff written about her is just an example of his story-telling. Excuseme99 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so we are to disregard this book because you have issues with it, but we shouldn't disregard a book because you think it is the definitive source? And all Armenians are not Caucasian? What about the ones who are? So we should take your POV that it is crap? The predominant problem with your contributing to this page in any way whatsoever is that you edit from POV, not to mention what is becoming quite obvious as a homophobic viewpoint. The author is a homosexual so he cannot write a book that happens to cover friendships with gay people? You think it's quite okay to create a section title calling Wood a beard, but a book should be discarded because Lana Wood doesn't like it although Natasha Wagner praised it and lambasted Finstad's book? Eeps and curious. It's time to stop editing, Excuseme99, and this post would be why I'm going to spend tomorrow formulating a request for at least a topic ban, if not a ban for tenditiousness, POV editing, and refusal to work collaboratively. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This selectivity and "Excuseme99 knows best" attitude is getting beyond belief. You've shown over and over that you are either unwilling or incapable of looking at this issue without your own biased viewpoint. You don't accept one source just because it supports your already-held opinion and reject another just because it conflicts with your already-held opinion. But just to prove how easy it is to play "Selectively Sifting Through Source Material", here's something from a Washington Post interview with Suzanne Finstad. "Q: Do you suspect any foul play in Natalie Wood's death? Suzanne Finstad : No". Will you add that to the article? No? Rossrs (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So what if Natasha praised it? She was just a kid when Natalie Wood died. She knows NOTHING about her mother except for what Robert Wagner has told her, much of which is not true. Her sisters, however, knew her as children and adults. Their opinion is far more important than that of Natasha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excuseme99 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thus spaketh Excuseme99, who knows better than anyone else about what is important and what is not. Excuseme, that's your POV and it isn't neutral. Just one more reason why you have no business editing this article. I also notice you blew off answering the question Rossrs asked you about Finstad writing something she doesn't even admit to believing. POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Parent's death

Everything is sourced and it is entirely necessary to list her parents' death. Audrey Hepburn's page lists when and how both of her ex-husbands died; Grace Kelly's page lists the date of birth and death of her sibling; I don't see why not to include the deaths of her parents.Excuseme99 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is entirely necessary here is for you to either begin to work collaboratively with editors that are more than concerned with your POV and opinions you've posted on this page about this person and those around her, and your attempts to include your belief that Robert Wagner killed her or to stop trying to edit this page. Your POV is dangerous because of liability concerns despite the fact that you don't seem to understand that. Stop ignoring the legitimate concerns being voiced and just jumping to something new, only to post complaints about being reverted. There's a lot of reason to not accept on face value what you "don't see why not", that's demonstrated quite well above. One problem is how you've inserted it and stuck it in front of references for the sentence before you crammed in your edit and your stark refusal to learn how to properly format a reference citation. You've been given citation templates to use, and have had months to learn how to put brackets and a title with the bare reference. Meanwhile, it is not entirely necessary to insert parents death dates and causes. Most articles do not and unless it is entirely necessary to show how that impacted on the subject's career and notability, it does not need to be included. Her father's death is not mentioned anywhere else in the article to make it something that needs to be clarified. Everyone's parents die. Wood's mother died after her. How is that notable? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You have good reasons for it to not be added, but why is it allowed to be on the pages of other people? Hepburn's husbands died after her, how does that affect her or her career? Same goes for Grace Kelly.Excuseme99 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've quote a basic WP tenet before. That other stuff exists is not a valid reason for something that is not necessarily notable to be included. This sort of argument is exactly why that guideline was written. I wouldn't even begin to address Grace Kelly's article. Her film career and the course of her biography is governed by other factors than what govern actor biographies. She was the wife of a head of state, a royal princess. Extended family data is often included in articles on royalty and heads of state and family. As for Hepburn's husbands, perhaps the deaths belong, perhaps they don't. Two short sentences with no sources seem to have been stuck in to reference the deaths and that is done in a non-intrusive way at the end of a paragraph. Meanwhile, they aren't done in a stark way with dates of their lives in obtrusive parentheses in the midst of other content. It is much more common, however, to briefly mention events with spouses and descendants, when notable, if done in an intelligent and well worded manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalie's death

I have found some extra information about her death that I think will greatly contribute to the article. It does not talk about her alleged affair or muder, simply extra details discovered in her autopsy. Misty313 (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances of her death stroke me as similar to the subject of L'avventura - unsolved disappearance of a woman from the yacht. I was sure that someone else have already noticed this, but I haven't found anything relevant on the net on that matter. Anonymous. 10:01, 9 March 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.26 (talk)

Changes

I am discussing my edits to the page by request of Wildhartlive.

• Since the infobox already says what years she was active, I wrote that she made her film debut at age 4, and gave a source in case of any confusion
• Calling her father a passive alcoholic is negative and therefore would require a reliable source.
• I have already observed other users try to write that she is the youngest 3-time Oscar nominee. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources on the internet, even though it is commonly known among her fans. I added her age to emphasize the significance, which I feel is very important to the article.
• I listed that her parents changed the family's surname to Gurdin from Zakharenko, and that she was called Natasha.
• To the career section, I have added some character names, costars, bits of plot summary, salary information, and sources to the already-there roles that she turned down as well as adding role she tried out for.
• Some of the information about her relationships seemed poorly written, so I have been more specific about the dates and added some miscellaneous information, with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staplestore (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I intended was that edits be proposed here first, not just post here and then revert the article. Overall, some of the problems I had with your edits included the addition of numerous sources that are not considered reliable sources. familytreelegends, notstarring.com, mcqueenonline, and the note "Please note, that unlike the "trivia" section on imdb, the "salary" is not contributed to by users, but by the administrators; either way, this information is listed by various websites as well" are not acceptable as reliable sources. The only possible thing Wikipedia might accept from IMDB would be roles. Bios, trivia, salaries, anything on that separate bio page do not note the source and should be considered user contributed. When one clicks "update information", salary is one of the options given to permitted user submission of data. It is not clear how or if submissions are vetted and thus are not permitted. I'm also unclear about the photo you uploaded. In any event, because of the controversy that has surrounded this article in the recent past, everything should be discussed here and discussions be concluded prior to just reverting when issues have been raised. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot licensing

I would like to add two screenshots to this page. One is from the film "Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay!" since a black and white photo of her at 15 looks out of place. The other is from "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice" since it was a high point in her career and because there are no other photos available on commons to illustrate that article. I used the public domain tag that applies to works created between 1923 and 1977, but once I added the tag, the 1977 date was changed to 1963. I can not find another tag that applies to the photo. I intend to upload it with a screenshot license on wikipedia, but in order to do that I have to become an established editor first. Any help?

S 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to know where you obtained a trailer image for this film. I can't find the trailer on the net, and the film has not been released on either DVD or Video. Please advise where you obtained the image from. Rossrs (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos from Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice have been deleted repeatedly because of issues over copyright. Interesting it would be one you propose to upload. I'm also not clear on the copyright status of the screenshot which would be dealt with on the Commons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic?

I’ve removed the Cyrillic transcription of her name. Natalie Wood wasn’t Russian, she was American, born of parents who were American citizens, so there’s no reason I can see to put her name in Cyrillic here. The heritage is explained in detail, and the Russian family name given (though I’d thought they’d adopted the name Gurdin by the time she was born) and the patronymic (though, again, I don’t know if that’s appropriate in this case). But using Cyrillic looks like an affectation by someone here, so I've taken it out. Swanny18 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elabortate

why my edit was undone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justppl (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme, the content was reverted because you removed referenced content without a clear explanation of why. Need we pursue another sock puppet report? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gregson's affair

Why is there no mention of the reason Natalie Wood divorced Richard Gregson? It has been made clear that he had an affair with her secretary in the A&E biography as well as several books about Natalie Wood, including Natasha by Suzanne Finstad and A Memoir by Her Sister by Lana Wood. There should be mention of this. On Steve McQueen's page, it alleges that he had an adulterous affair that produced a son without any proof, yet the administrators are allowing this because McQueen is dead. I don't see why their is no mention of Gregson's affair just because he is alive.
Also, there is a new book titled Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendor which gives an entirely different account of Natalie's fatal weekend than the one on here. Since it is co-written by the man who was on the boat the night she died (see http://martirulli.blogspot.com) and the book has full support from Lana Wood (see here http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1086458/) this should be included in the "Death" section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.18.83 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You are banned, Excuseme99. Please read that to mean, go away, your contributions are not wanted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Other relationships

How is it necessary to write that about her friendships with gay men in this section? This information is not important to the article, such as the fact that she gave money to a gay playwrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.18.83 (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You are banned, Excuseme99. Please read that to mean, go away, your contributions are not wanted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

New pictures

As long as there is no policy against this, I will post some candid pictures of Natalie Wood from my personal collection. I have permission from Ginger Blymer and Lana Wood to post them online and there is no copyright claim.Classic80 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you did not personally take these photos, they are copyrighted by someone and since you state you got them from somewhere else, you cannot claim ownership and upload them to release them here. It doesn't matter what Ginger Blymer and Lana Wood said, they don't have the authority to give permission to post them online. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand what I am trying to communicate. If Ginger Blymer and Lana Wood don't have the authority to give me permission to post the photos, then who does? They are the owners of the photos. See my dispute to the claims about the copyright to the default photo on it's talk page on commons. Classic80 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly do understand. But the first image is a scan of either a magazine or newspaper photo and you cannot upload such photographs since the copyright belongs first to the photographer and second to the magazine. Just because they own a copy of a photo does not mean that they own the copyright. You don't seem to understand copyright law. But you've tried to upload one of these photos before under another account name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

She is the photographer! The circumstances of this photo are quite well-known. Her former husband Richard Smedley gave these to Photoplay. Hence, how can she not be the owner and not permit me to use them?Classic80 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The key statement there is they were given to Photoplay. Photoplay thus owns the copyright, and they cannot be transferred to you. Please stop violating copyright law, Excuseme99. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Photoplay image no longer appears in the article (I don't see why that matters since you stated that the copyright belongs first to the photographer themself). But I have permission from those who have photographed her at the carnival and on the Splendor, there is no copyright to these images. I never uploaded this before.Classic80 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When the photograph is given to the magazine, it becomes their property and the scan was obviously a scan of a magazine, that violates copyright law. In fact, you are not permitted to edit at all since you've been blocked for sock puppet violations in the past. You must prove that you have permission, you just can't claim that you have it. Please desist, and respond to the sock case that was filed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Dead People

I can not find a policy on this, but just because Natalie Wood is dead does not mean any new information on her death should be reverted. Natalie has no voice in this article. The death section states the account provided by Robert Wagner, but does not include the account provided by Dennis Davern. Davern, unlike Wagner, has passed a polygraph test and is willing to testify, so why is his account being removed whenever it is posted? This is Natalie's only voice. Her sister Lana Wood and hairdresser of 17 years, Ginger Blymer, have also spoken out about this.

I'm not saying we need to say "Wagner is responsible for Natalie Wood's death" or "Robert Wagner is a liar," but it it notable and essential to this article that Lana Wood and Dennis Davern are requesting this case be reopened. I'm not going to push anymore for Dennis' account to be published in this article, but there is no reason to not simply include that he and Wood want this case reopened. They are, after all, her only intermidiate family member and the man whom was with her during the hours leading up to her death. I notice that other editors have tried to post this information, along with the link to the Natalie Wood petition, and their edits have been reverted.Classic80 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Robert Wagner is a living person and there is a policy covering this. You know this from your earlier forays into this. You cannot put anything in this article that suggests, blatantly or subtlely, that Wagner is directly involved in her death. Not to mention you've tried this in the past as Excuseme99 and various other accounts. Further, since you assert a connection with Lana Wood, you have an issue with conflict of interest and anything you add would be quite suspect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wagner photo and text rationale

I'm restoring earlier text and image deletions that were made without clear rationale. I'll add a page # source for the quotations removed. This is a BRD edit and should be discussed before any other similar changes. This is also true of the lead image, which was replaced with another which seems no better. Generally, when making unsourced additions to a bio, it's important to discuss them first to avoid similar issues. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

More of the same problem with deletions, without any rationale summary. The issue raised on my talk page by User:Closeminded8 about possible undue weight should be discussed here first, for other editors to consider. She was married to Wagner 1st and it was obviously a significant early life event. She remarried him again and they were married for seven years. It deserves much more than a few sentences and a simple quote, yet even those were deleted. Her marriage to Gregson, 2 years, can be expanded by you or anyone with the time and desire. But if it's too brief right now, by your opinion, that is not a rationale for excluding some details about her marriage to Wagner. Hope you agree. The way we can improve the article is not by unexplainably erasing other editor's contributions, especially when they include verifiable sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. See my new edits, tell me what you think. The only content I will remove is the main photo because, although you list the date as 1960, that photo was taken 3-5 years earlier when Wood was a teenager. You can verify this by finding pictures from the same session in the imdb gallery. The other photo is from 1963 when she was older, but it's in color.Closeminded8 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and according to other books, the marriage ended because she found him "in a compromising position with another man."Closeminded8 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Hollywood Babylon! But the fact that she remained loyal to Wagner for all those years made it one of the more stable relationships. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. Touche. We will not be including speculations from the Finstad book that alleges that Wagner was involved in same-sex relationships. There are huge problems with that, including WP:BLP. Can't do it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is totally improper to remove a free-use photo and replace it with a fair-use one that has a "rationale for use" even though it is published in a newer copyrighted book. Not proper. And your comment about a marriage ending because of an alleged relationship with another man is unsupported and puts me in mind of another now blocked editor, interestingly enough. Why would one upload an image and give it a non-free use rationale and also tag it is an "uncopyrighted image" between 1923 and 1968. On what does one base that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A reader should be able to pick and chose what they read in a book. I'm not suggesting we add that to the article! Certain parts are true, others aren't.

My problem is that all of the photos that have been added recently are all from the same time period! Natalie Wood lived to be 43 yet these pictures are all of her at 18-22. The Marjorie Morningstar photo does not belong in the adult career section, as there are already other photos from that same time period in there. At least BCTA was a little later on.Closeminded8 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The photo looks like a pararazzi shot from the cover of National Enquirer. You actually prefer that to a real movie still? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I will upload a different shot from the film, but the studio shot from Marjorie Morningstar doesn't look good either. To include a picture from 1956 in "teen stardom" and then in the "adult career" section have a picture taken just two years later is not a good way to illustrate the article. A movie shot of Wood in her 20s, 30s, or early 40s would be more appropriate to illustrate her adult career than a black and white pose of 19-year old Wood being embraced by 45-year old Gene Kelly.Closeminded8 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your problem is that you uploaded an image from a copyrighted work and tagged it both as fair-use and as public domain. You can't have it both ways. Your other problem, much as the now blocked editor, is that you are slanting content to reflect the Finstad book. There are a lot of problems with what you have done. It only starts with not proposing changes on this page and now you have two editors taking exception to your work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie I would very much appreciate your help on getting to right license before that photo is deleted!Closeminded8 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you can get the right license on that. It is included in a copyrighted publication and there is no fair-use rationale for it. We have a free-use non-copyrighted photo that is correctly used. You can't replace it with a fair-use image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, a screen shot from a film like Gypsy is a non-free use, not PD. The source from the familylegends website also seems to be invalid, as I tried entering different names and nothing showed up to verify the spelling. The bio "Natasha" is a more reliable source for her name. I'd like to replace the more relevant and better quality photos. There is no logical reason why they would be replaced by blurry screen shots. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Closeminded, I would truly appreciate it if you would stop trying to make edits while you are completely aware that I am trying to clean up what has been added. And Wikiwatcher, that image from Gypsy is free-use, it is a screeshot from a non-copyrighted trailer that is appropriately used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher I will find better quality shots but the photos you posted weren't appropriate. Don't you have any pictures of her in her 20s, 30s, or early 40s? The default photo was incorrectly dated as 1960, that is a picture from the 50s of her as a teenager. The tacky photo with Gene Kelly was not appropriate for the "adult career" section either.Closeminded8 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose restoration to clean version

Due to the nature of repeated edits by User:Closeminded8 where verifiable citations, quotes, and relevant text material, along with a number of quality images, have all been deleted, I propose we go back to a clean start at this version, and try again. However, because of the repeated edit warring, lack of rationale, etc., future similar edits should be discussed first. This higher standard for adding to this article is required due to the allegedly disruptive style of recent edits. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, that's fine with me, but I did add new sourcing and I'd note that while you changed her birth name, it is not what the sources support. Her birth name was Natalia, and if you'd look further, the article did cover that her entire name was changed to Natasha Gurdin when she was young. That includes this source, although many writers claimed her birth name was Natasha Gurdin, that's not true. Her parents saddled her with that name in the early 1940s, when she started working in film. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize that. But I just checked with a few key sources, International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers -3: Actors and Actresses, David Thomson's bios, and Halliwells, and they all have her first name as "Natasha." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that "Natalia" is used in other places within the article. We should choose one based on a consensus of best sources. Who wants to start? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this from afar, basically this has been flooding my watchlist. :( After all that I've seen I have to agree with Wikiwatcher1 to revert the article back to the location s/he suggests above. After looking at the last thread about the socking, I also agree that this looks like a socking case too which is another reason to revert back. Socking has been a big problem lately in articles I've been going to and we need to do what we can to close the socks down. So with that in mind, please revert this article back to the clean version of this article. Thanks, (Oh, as for the other comments on her name, I haven't checked that out yet so no comment for now at least. sorry.) --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the current diffs, it seems that most of the changes and problem edits have been fixed. Thanks for watching the article - if you see anything that can or should be repaired, you can point them out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable intentions

Maybe I'm imagining things, but recent repeated additions of blurry and poor images, and the removal of better quality images, are unexplainable if one tries to assume good faith by such edits. A recent change to the lead's image, which is public domain, with a non-free one that is of much less quality, is a good example. Adding a blurry, tabloid-style bikini photo, is another example. The list keeps growing. These edits are not improving the article. On the contrary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1, do you know how to flush out a sock puppet of a banned editor? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for you to answer. The answer is that you wait long enough and eventually the sock account uploads an exact duplicate of a previously deleted image that was deleted because it had a totally invalid and deceptive license. Wanna guess which image that was? Well, the new version of that same image is now called File:Natasha Gurdin.jpg. So, I'm going to change my approach here. Excuseme99, please stop trying to "improve" this article. You are banned and not permitted to edit here. Your images are questionable at best and not at all helpful. Please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking to videos

There is no question that a lot of stuff on YouTube is a type of copyright violation. But there are a few factors worth keeping in mind about YouTube and acceptable videos:

• YouTube, owned by Google, has implemented a strong policy about removing copyright violations. I see a lot of stuff removed within days after uploading, as they have a filtering bot that searches for TV shows, movies, etc. However, a lot of copyrighted TV material has been allowed to remain by the TV company as it promotes various celebrities, shows, movies, etc. and acts as a form of free publicity which increases sales. This is especially apparent when a TV show, like "Biography" has a full searchable title, may be unavailable for purchase, and has remained online at YouTube for years. That's why I felt that the "Biography" clips were presumed to be allowed by the producers to remain as a "fair use" clip.

Companies continually allow their photos, text, and video shows to be displayed within the "fair use" paramenters so long as they in no way compete with the original product and are not "resold." Anyone profiting from such material is violating "fair use" rules by definition. And so long as the material is being used for "educational" purposes, it is acceptable. Wikipedia is a non-profit educational site; it sells no adds; it cannot promote products, etc. Hence, a link at Wikipedia is presumed to be "not for profit" or promotion. The "Biography" link and the other interviews have been on YouTube for years, and it's reasonable to assume that they have passed the "fair use" guidelines, and most likely allowed to remain by the original producers. Like book publishers whose works are out-of-print, they benefit from anyone using portions with attribution, as it helps promote the producer. This is clear in the "Biography" clips where the title of the show is included in the first segment.

• Compilations, slideshows, and collages, do not violate copyright as they are considered an original work. Even the white pages of the phone book are copyrighted as a "compilation." The links to the slideshow and compilation of clips is therefore owned by the creator/uploader. Coincidentally, I created some YouTube-posted compilations for another star a while back, similar to the ones at issue, and YouTube formally "approved" them as allowed because they were compilations.

What I think is the best compromise is to keep the compilations and slide show videos linked, and I'll do some more research from the source of the others, to check their policies on "fair use" of the videos. These are very old, out-of-print video segments, so I'm pretty sure they would want them linked from Wikipedia with proper attribution. Any other thoughts or comments would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really much matter what YouTube does. If the program is copyrighted but still on YouTube, we can't link to it. Compilations, slideshows and collages themselves may not violate copyright law, but the images used in them often do violate copyright law. So does the use of music in the background. Anyone can go to YouTube and search for Natalie Wood and do so freely. The issue on Wikipedia is that we cannot publish links to pages that are questionable regarding copyright. I've been through this many times on here regarding acceptable linking and it is taken very seriously. See WP:YOUTUBE, WP:ELNEVER and WP:FANSITE. I feel these links should not be used, partially because of copyright concerns and also because I saw nothing on those links that adds anything of content value beyond what is already included. Tributes are essentially fan material and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As a definite improvement to the article, I'd like to restore just two items, both of which I believe are clear "fair use" video compilations. One is composed of short movie clips, and the other photos from both movie roles and elsewhere. Both are beneficial to the understanding of the actress, as movie clips and photos serve to illustrate her career in different ways, which the text alone could never do. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I would really like to hear Moonriddengirl's take on these links. She's essentially the copyright infringement go-to person. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Since "compilations" are a special category in the copyright law, here's a good start: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note also that compilations are "original creations" that have their own copyright, per the copyright law, Sect. 103, U.S. Copyright Law. That would make the uploader/creator of the video the owner of the copyright, and by their uploading to YouTube, they are giving everyone the right to watch them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Case example: "Many instructors compile film clips on a VHS tape or a DVD, which they then show to their classes. At a recent hearing before the Copyright Office, representatives of the motion picture industry acknowledged that an instructor’s creation of a film clip compilation is a fair use, and that section 110(1) permits the instructor to show this compilation in the classroom."Alabama case.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments might carry great weight in the classroom, but unfortunately they are not really applicable to Wikipedia. Besides the fact that classroom demonstration of film clips is not international at-will display, we do not rely on fair use, but, as our policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria notes, use "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law". This helps protect us from skirting too closely, since fair use determinations are often hotly contested in courts, but also protects our reusers, who may be commercial entities or located in countries with stricter standards than those of the U.S. (though the U.S. governs). Wikipedia's non-profit status therefore does not factor. We are not building our content simply for us. This is why we do not accept material that is licensed for non-commercial use, even though we are not a commercial entity. Many of our reusers are.

With respect to YouTube, Wkipedians are particularly advised to exercise due caution with YouTube content by WP:ELNEVER. YouTube requires an official takedown notice by the copyright holder or designated agents before it removes content. Hence, copyright infringements remain until an official agent notices and takes action. We cannot presume that the copyright owners of the content have noticed and decided to permit the clips to remain as fair use. Lacking reasonable expectation that the content was placed by the copyright holders or some verification that the material is public domain, we should presume that it is hosted without permission...as were the 63,000 copyrighted works (clips, in fact) over which ViaCom is currently suing YouTube.

(This is a bit off-topic, but since you raised it I do want to note that in the U.S. at least, compilations, slideshows and collages can certainly violate copyright to the extent that they overutilize copyrighted material without permission. You mention white pages; these are not copyrightable in the United States, per Feist v. Rural, unless those white pages do not conform to the customary patterns of display. The law that governs Wikipedia does not recognize sweat of the brow.)

Meanwhile, please do not restore material removed for copyright concerns prior to establishing consensus for doing so. Just as with material of concern over BLP, this content must be handled cautiously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough and educational post, MRG. It's very helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Natalie Wood.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Natalie Wood.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Death" section too detailed?

Seems to be, IMO. At least wp:undue in relation to rest of article. Compare a critical period in her career, Teen Stardom, with the Death section, and the single event accident/negligence? gets twice the detail. It's also somewhat meaningless: Noguchi first says she was drunk, and then says she was not drunk. He says she would have realized her down jacket was weighing her down, etc. In one part the section states, "Wood apparently either tried to leave the yacht or . . ." and later, "There was much partying going on in the area, though, and it should be stressed that it has never been proven that the women calling for help was, indeed, Natalie Wood."

In other words, even the National Enquirer or Hollywood Star would consider the description selectively padded and nearly worthless. I suggest we condense the Death section to the essence of allegations and possibilities and trim out the minutia and quotes. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it actually needs far more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstraw (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean details about the down jacket theory, for example, then the conflicting details should be trimmed. This small section shouldn't be used to slant theories, but to simply add relevant cites and summarize the speculations. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "Death" section is too detailed at all. Just because the "Teen Stardom" section needs to be expanded doesn't mean reducing the content of the "Death" section is a reasonable alternative. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, it's not nearly detailed enough - it's ludicrously thin, even on details that are in the public record. Was she in the dinghy or not? What did the official report say? What will the amended report say - there's no place to put the new information, as now the section is stunningly empty of fact. Whatever happened, the "essence of the allegations" did not remain in the article. Her blood alcohol level upon autopsy is known, etc - and was originally in the article. Who wants to go re-research it if this kind of slicing is going to take place? LéVeillé 20:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I second LéVeillé's comment. I was here this morning (November 18), read this section, and then came back in the evening to look at it again, and the entire section had been removed. I'm not going to comment on the specifics, since I am not familiar with the case, but it seems rather ridiculous to exclude material that is in the public record because it might somehow "bias" an ongoing investigation or potential future trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Below 39 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:NatalieWood1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NatalieWood1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page so active/guarded?

I didn't realize there was that much sheltering on the Natalie Wood page, compared to other pages I've edited. I really don't like the way this page is set up. All the pictures are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstraw (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who just started editing on Wikipedia a few hours ago, your observation is questionable. In any case, I'll try to find some more adult movie photos. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very guarded. The page is one of the most disappointing I've visited in recent memory.LéVeillé 20:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Zig71 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)==Zach/Zakh -arenko== How come her father was a Zacharenko, and her younger sister Svetlana was also a Zacharenko, but Natalie was a Zakharenko?

Later on it says: "Though Natalie had been born "Natalia Zacharenko," her father later changed the family name to "Gurdin". " - so can we get the story straight? Was her original name, in English, spelled Zakharenko or Zacharenko? It can't be both. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Her surname is originally written in Cyrillic script. Cyrillic letter 'x' is corresponding to Latin 'h' (as it's pronounced in home). Not really an answer to your question, but I wanted to address the correct pronunciation. In my opinion, it should be 'Zaharenko' and pronounced like 'h' in 'mahogany'. Both 'kh' and 'ch' result in wrong pronunciation of the surname. Krizanic (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Kh" or "Ch" is the standard transliteraton of the Cyrillic "Х" into the Roman alphabet. The Russian "X" is pronounced differently than the English "H". In fact, when words containing the "H" sound are transliterated into Russian, the letter "Г" (hard "G") is used rather than "Х". For example, "Hitler" is transliterated as "Гитлер". But much more importantly, Wood was born in San Francisco, USA, so her birth name would have been written down in Roman alphabet from the beginning. Just Below 39 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly her name would have been written down in that manner - her parents were immigrants and Wood was a first generation American. As well, she very well could have been baptized and/or christened in a Russian Orthodox church which would have allowed for her name to be notated in Russian. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My uncle Volodia was also Natalie's uncle on her father's side and his surname was spelled Zacharenko and the "ch" was indeed pronounced "h" as in "home".

Suggest trimming death section due to new case

I think it's probably necessary to thin that section to not to affect a pending case. There were no doubt hundreds of pages of witness testimony and evidence material related to the original autopsy. This section shouldn't be selectively including witness statements or evidence material. We can leave reliable published citations for others to reference, but I'd suggest not including fine details to keep the topic general and neutral. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the whole first paragraph of this section is irrelevant to her death regardless of the case being reopened. zubrowka74 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, it reads more like a fan novel. Statements like, "There was much partying going on in the waters of Isthmus Cove" don't help any encyclopedic value or tone the article might have. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A few problems have crept in to the article it seems. 1) The section has returned to a police report-style, based on selected facts from various sources. But there is no way for any editor to decide which of the minute details are encyclopedic, which ones can mislead readers, or otherwise create potential bias; 2) Most of the added descriptive text is unsourced and pure commentary by editors(?), thereby original research, which is not allowed. The cites appended to each large paragraph do not pertain to the added text, aka "pseudo-cites." 3) The edits were made without discussion, and as the subject has been discussed here for a while, it's fair to say that the editor(s) chose to ignore it. I think any one of the 3 reasons, to start, are enough to justify removing the expanded section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) I can't imagine why or how this article is going to "affect the case". Wikipedia is an online encylopedia, not a fan magazine, not a newspaper. Anyone involved in the re-opened case isn't going to come to Wikipedia to get investigative material and determine anything related to the case based on what's here. (2) Wikipedia is something that is ever evolving - and unless there's the possibility of libel, a copyright violation, or needed references are not added in a timely manner, there's no deadline in Wikipedia. Ergo, there's nothing wrong with the article changing as the new information surrounding Wood's death becomes available. (3) The new version has references attached that relate to the content. What's more, the death section reading more like a police report has precedent in this online encyclopedia when it comes to crime (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, after all). (4) The removal of such a large portion of reference content without discussion first is not the way to do things. Such huge changes really should have consensus and they most certainly should be based in policy. (5) The unilateral removal of said content seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me than anything else. (6) If you have policy to back up why the section should be gutted, fine. If not, I don't see how you can dictate how that section should be essentially "empty" regarding the scenario(s) surrounding her death. (7) It would be better for you to be specific about which parts of the article section you have a problem with and discuss them, rather than removing everything. (Lhb1239 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

An original research tag has been added per above explanation and pending any comments on the ANI board. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As I asked above and at the AN/I you started, why don't you supply specifics so no one has to guess about what you think is OR? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I calculate that 84.37% of the commentary you added lacks a citation. Specific enough? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, specific enough. Wrong enough, as well. Everything I added had and has references. It is not necessary to reference every line, every sentence when one reference can cover several sentences or even an entire paragraph. For more on this, look into the article WP:CITE. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A question of balance

The "Death" section, including the newly-added "Final Months" section (WTF?) is equivalent in size (92%) to the "Adult career" section, which covered a 20-year span, and 20 films. The "Personal life" section is almost 60% as long as that career section. So we have her personal life and death with over 150% more detail (trivia?) than her 20-year adult career. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the new "Final months" section: frankly, I don't like it, nor do I think it's necessary. Her death, however, was a big thing when it happened, and it's likely going to get big again. With that in mind, I don't think the size of the death section is undue weight. Others may disagree with me on this, though..... And - you're free to work on expanding the career section, of course. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it since it was added as a major section topic, yet seemed to have a totally minor relevance to anything in the article. It stuck out like a sore thumb of trivia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The deletion probably should have been discussed a more and with other editors before actually taking place; consensus and all that. And, there really was no hurry since there's no deadline in Wikipedia. I guess at this point, we can view it as a WP:BRD if anyone challenges the removal. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This trivia addition, now restored by Gertrude, does not belong. It has no context; it creates a section for her Thanksgiving dinner in 1981 equal in importance to her entire career; it absurdly gives the street address where she ate that dinner; it gives the people who sat at the table enjoying the turkey. But it fails to tell the reader exactly where she bought that turkey, or how much it weighed. It goes off into more trivialand by discussing her husband's series and a weekend visit; it describes Wood shooting interior scenes with special fx with other cast members, and at the MGM lot. However, it fails again to describe in fine detail what kind of furnishings were used in those interior scenes, who the other cast members were, and precisely what studio number on the lot she worked in. What's worse, it skips the time of day or the weather conditions during the shoot.

Because of those omissions, this section should again be removed, at least until those problems are fixed, with cites. Otherwise, I for one see a potential invasion of privacy risk: whoever now lives at that street address where she ate turkey 30 years ago, may get inundated with paparazzi or fans wanting to witness that 30-year anniversary feast. I think the risk is too high, and we should let those people enjoy their dinner alone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Wikiwatcher1. IMHO Wood's death should be handled as is Marilyn Monroe's in her article, and a separate article created (like Death of Marilyn Monroe) if the recent recent spate of speculations in the news provoked by the boat captain speaking out on his two-year-old book and the L.A. police announcing they are reopening the case after 30 years actually results in more than recent idle speculation. So far, there's no new information. Robert Wagner is not a suspect, according the news reports and the police. The recent additions to this article seem to suggest that he should be. It's not the article's job to parse news articles and try to compare various versions of a thirty-year-old incident. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the new section needs to go as it really has no value. As far as treating it like the Monroe article - no, I don't agree. This is a different person, a different kind of death, and there's new activity surrounding the investigation of her death. If the new investigation becomes something, then the possibility of creating a new article can be revisited, but I see nothing wrong with adding to what's there currently as things develop. Wood's article isn't any more sacred or different than any other bio when new pertinent information becomes available - it gets addedto and edited and the article is monitored. If there's a serious worry about IPs adding nonsense as things heat up investigation-wise, then have the article protected. But as it is, having to discuss big changes on the talk page with established editors isn't a big deal. It's supposed to be part of the cooperative and collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia, after all. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that no separate dead article is needed. The "separate death article" suggestion was a pie-in-the-sky proposal on the off-chance that the Natalie Wood death speculation got out-of-hand in the future, which I don't anticipate happening. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like at least three of us agree about the new section. With that in mind, feel free to remove it, MathewTownsend. If formal consensus gathering needs to take place (for instance if another editor or other editors strongly object to it being removed), so be it. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary weight added within the last day

We do not need two individual sections with multiple paragraphs for just 2 of her movies.

Three of the photos on here are violation of copyright.

We do not need endless quotes from directors, or extensive information about her ancestry.

How can so much junk be added so quickly without being discussed on the talk page first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwaa1234 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Who are you? You talk as if you have been involved with this article for a long period of time. According to your account information, you've only been on Wikipedia for a few days.
• (2) If you are using an alternate account, you need to be uprfront about that.
• (3) If you are a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user, please go away.
• (4) You can't make huge unilateral changes to an article such as you have been trying to do over the last hour without discussing them here on the article's talk page with those who have been working on and discussing this article for a while now.
• (5) Please refrain from making any more edits to the article before discussion ensues and at least another editor weighs in.

Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re caption, I guess the photographer is notable, since he has an article. However, I don't think the caption, especially on a lead image, should include it. That kind of detail can be on the image information page.

Per some of the comments by the apparent SPA,

• 1) The article is evolving and you can add more film information. It's common to expand on particular films that had a major impact on an actor or director's career, and the use of quotes is helpful. Section sub-heads are useful to readers when there is a massive amount of text about a career.
• 2) The photos added are public domain as explained in each photo's description page;
• 3) Opinions are not a problem. However you first deleted material in a gangbusters sort of way, and then discussed your reason. You suggested "talk first," so why not follow your own advice? I assume you're not closedminded. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement not supported by sources

In Case reopened there is a statement not supported by the sources.

On November 17, 2011, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department office announced that it had officially reopened the case, based on new information from the yacht's skipper Dennis Davern.

References

However, neither source given says that the case has been reopened "based on new information from the yacht's skipper Dennis Davern." The first just says they are reopening it based on substantial new information. The second source says:

Actor Robert Wagner isn't a suspect in the reopened investigation into the 1981 drowning death of his wife, actress Natalie Wood, but authorities have received "substantial" new information to initiate a new inquiry, Los Angeles County authorities said Friday.

The yacht captain, Dennis Davern, offered a new account Friday about how Wood's death was reported and said Wagner waited hours to call the Coast Guard after Wood went missing.

When asked if the captain could face charges for possibly lying to authorities during the 1981 investigation, Corina responded: "That, I can't say. We'll probably end up talking to the captain sooner or later, and we'll assess what he has to say then and now."

I would like to see the article changed to correctly reflect the sources it uses. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New section Final months

When I added this a few minutes ago, I didn't touch a thing that anyone else had contributed. So please keep your hands off "Final months" without saying something here first. Thank you. During my previous attempts to add "Final months," I messed around with the part about the female witness on another yacht who heard someone who might have been Natalie saying unemotionally, "Help me." Alright then, I'm keeping my hands off that despite yesterday's television Inside Edition report from the witness' son who was nine years old in 1981. I'm keeping my hands off that so please leave my "Final months" alone.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion/consensus on this section above as well as comments I left on your talk page. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Inside Edition' material is recent gossip. It's not appropriate for a stable article that covers her whole life. Just think, if every Inside Edition or E! item were entered into the encyclopedia, what a mess it would be! If a fact emerges in the future, such as someone is convicted of her murder in a court of law, then material relevant to that could be added. This is my opinion. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion on this with one addition: as things develop and are reported on by reliable sources, they can be added (with discretion toward adherence to policy, of course). The "Final Months" section was already decided on a while back through consensus, however, and needs to stay out of the article. Continuing to readd it in spite of the clear consesnsus is edit warring and will have to be dealt with appropriately. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"== Final months ==

In September and October 1981, Wood stayed in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she, Christopher Walken, Louise Fletcher, and other cast members were shooting scenes for the film Brainstorm. Although her husband Robert Wagner had a commitment to his series Hart to Hart in Los Angeles, he visited Wood in Raleigh for a weekend. Wood spent most of November in California shooting interior scenes, many of them utilizing special effects, with other cast members on the MGM lot in Culver City. Wood spent Thanksgiving at her Beverly Hills home at 603 North Canon Drive with her husband, her recently widowed mother and secretary Mart Crowley. The next day, the Wagners and Christopher Walken went to Catalina Island for the weekend."

I'd suggest a compromise. The material is sourced to the LA Times and not Inside Edition. I would suggest reducing some of it to the more pertinent bits and use it as an intro in the Death section. Having some lead-in about what was happening in Wood's life is germane here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think recent news items are not good, whether its the L.A. Times or Inside Edition, its still recentism What comes out of a book on her life is taking a longer viewpoint, IMHO. Whatever is added must be in proportion to the whole article and not focus on recent events or the present. Also, when talking about Wood's death, is it really appropriate to list the caste members of her last film? And why do we care that Robert Wagner was working on Hart to Hart? How is such information related to her death? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with the compromise - in part. Putting something limited about the time leading up to that last weekend in the intro to the death section is fine as long as it isn't undue weight and doesn't take up more than a sentence or two (at most). It would also have to be referenced by something reliable and verifiable. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The way it is now cannot possibly be described as "undue weight." And it's referenced by reliable sources including the Lambert book that the article already uses in other sections.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lambert book I am ok with as a source. And I don't mind some context to the "Death" section, as in a sentence or so. But a bunch of extraneous information like caste members, the TV show her husband was working on etc. has nothing to do with her death. I don't see how. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't mean to start an edit war. Someone said in last week's Discussion thread that the excess of material in "Final months and death" made the thing much longer than her "Adult career." That's why I split "Final months" into a separate section.

I think Robert Wagner's commitment to Hart to Hart is important because it explains why he had to stay in Los Angeles while Natalie filmed Brainstorm in Raleigh, North Carolina for a few weeks. He flew to Raleigh to visit her once. I find all of that relevant to whatever deterioration in their marriage that led to the fatal argument. We don't know for sure what they argued about, but we know their careers had caused their separation a short time earlier. Also, it is not our business to throw this at readers, but we are revealing that Christopher Walken was in Raleigh the entire time Natalie was. How that contributed to the fatal argument on the yacht never will be known, but it is relevant.

It's a fact that Christopher and Natalie were together in Raleigh for a few weeks (the article should not try to nail down exactly how much time) while her husband was 3,000 miles away. No cell phones or email back then.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gertrude, these gentlemen are stating that they are amenable towards a compromise and I believe that I understand their objections in Wikipedia terms. My suggestion is to pare down some of the unnecessary facts which will shorten the content some and then use it as a lead-in for the death section. We don't need to mention Fletcher, her secretary or other facts that aren't significant do we? We should be trying to work together towards a common goal. I'm not sure that "fatal argument" is an accurate description.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, leave out Louise Fletcher, but Mart Crowley was an important part of her career and life. This would be the only reference to him in the entire article. I'm not saying we should reference his soundbite interview in the very recent 48 Hours television documentary. We should not, but consider that people who are investigating her death as well as entertainment people who worked with her agree that Crowley was important to her.

A 1990 television documentary on the A & E network that was authorized by Robert Wagner includes several soundbites from Crowley, including his recollection of Elia Kazan tricking Natalie into filming the Splendour In the Grass scene where her character is drowning. (That was several years after her near drowning on another movie set caused her lifelong fear of water.) Evidently, everyone from sheriffs' deputies to entertainment people agree that as her veteran secretary, Crowley is an excellent source on her career and life.

If you don't mention Mart Crowley's being with Natalie on Thanksgiving Day, then where else can you place him ? One source says she invited him to join the group on the yacht but he said no. Don't include that, but please include his name.

Also, the description of her last Thanksgiving Day is the closest the article gets to mentioning that she, her husband and children lived in Beverly Hills. That's relevant because people who've never been to California are reading this and they don't know where Catalina is in relation to the neighborhoods where a lot of entertainment people have houses.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gertrude Lawrence, you propose that these are the major sections relating to her life:

1. Early years
2. Child actress
3. Teen stardom
4. Adult career
5. Personal life
6. Final months
7. Death
8. Filmography
9. Other awards
10. etc.

I don't agree, for example that "Final months" is just as important as her entire "Adult career" or as her whole "Personal life" or the other major sections.

You are assuming a lot of information that is just supposition. By calling it "the fatal argument", you are saying that the argument caused her death. What evidence do you have that her death was caused by an argument, that other factors were not involved perhaps unrelated to the argument? Why does that fact that Wagner was working on Hart to Hart explain anything? If he were working on something else, the outcome would have been different? If Wood had been working on something other than the out takes for Brainstorm the outcome would have been different? If there were cellphones and email the outcome would have been different? If they didn't live in Beverly Hills, the outcome would have been different?

Why do you have to "place" Mart Crowley? Was he involved in her death? If he were an important part of her career, as you state, then he would be mentioned elsewhere, such as under "Adult career" or where ever he belongs.

You are sure that Chrisopher Walken contributed to her death?

Exactly how did her "fear of water" cause her death?

I'm ok with mentioning Thanksgiving, as that locates it in time. But much of the rest you propose is information that belongs somewhere else other than in the section related to her death. And the "Final months" definitely is not of equal weight to the other sections in the article.

My opinion. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Try to think of this from the viewpoint of the uninformed reader. Simply namedropping Crowley into that paragraph lacks context and is confusing. I realize that he may be important in the larger story of Wood's life but the significance fails the reader here. Now, if there is pertinent testimony from Crowley that may be different. This may take some research and working in a different point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If "Final months" doesn't merit the same space as "Adult career" or "Death," then we can make it a subheading under "Personal life." Or a subheading under a new umbrella section for "Adult life."

• • You are assuming a lot of information that is just supposition. By calling it "the fatal argument", you are saying that the argument caused her death. **

I never said the article should include that. What I said was it's a fact that Natalie filmed Brainstorm with Chris Walken in North Carolina while her husband was 3,000 miles away. It's a lot more relevant to whatever happened on the yacht than the studio-arranged dates she went on with Raymond Burr and Nick Adams more than twenty years before her death. Adams died in 1968. Why include those 1950s events and leave out the period of a few weeks that Natalie spent with someone who has a lot to do with events on the yacht? We don't know what happened on the yacht, but we know Chris Walken was there. Nick Adams had been dead for thirteen years by then.

• • What evidence do you have that her death was caused by an argument, that other factors were not involved perhaps unrelated to the argument? **

I never said it was caused by an argument. I used the events on the yacht (whatever they were) to illustrate that time Natalie had spent with her yacht guest in another part of the United States is relevant. It's especially relevant because her husband was far away when she and Chris Walken worked on their movie in North Carolina.

• • Why does that fact that Wagner was working on Hart to Hart explain anything? If he were working on something else, the outcome would have been different? If Wood had been working on something other than the out takes for Brainstorm the outcome would have been different? **

It is relevant to Robert Wagner being 3,000 miles away from the filming location of Brainstorm in North Carolina. Natalie, Chris and the entire cast and crew of the movie were there for a few weeks. I'm not saying the article should nail down the exact dates. But it should say Natalie and Chris were there for an important reason, and her husband was somewhere else for his professional reason.

• • If there were cellphones and email the outcome would have been different? If they didn't live in Beverly Hills, the outcome would have been different? **

I didn't say that. I said a lot of Wikipedia readers don't know where Santa Catalina Island is or its distance from the home where Natalie and her husband lived. Thanksgiving Day seems like the best place to identify her place of residence. They didn't live on the island near where they anchored their yacht. They lived more than fifty miles away.

• • Why do you have to "place" Mart Crowley? Was he involved in her death? If he were an important part of her career, as you state, then he would be mentioned elsewhere, such as under "Adult career" or where ever he belongs. **

I never said he was involved in her death. He was an important part of her career. Nearly all legitimate sources on Natalie Wood, including a 1990 basic cable television documentary that was authorized by Robert Wagner, include his recollections. Very recently, the 48 Hours documentary that emphasized the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department included Crowley's recollections. I'm not saying we should reference either of those documentaries. I'm saying he belongs somewhere in the article. The only specific event to which we can link him is the Thanksgiving Day gathering at Natalie and Robert's house in Beverly Hills.

I'll have to repeat my bewilderment at the article's inclusion of her 1950s dates with Raymond Burr and Nick Adams at this point. How relevant are they to any part of Natalie Wood's life or career, including the time period when they happened? If the dates were phony and arranged by movie studios, that tells us more about Burr and Adams than about her. After their dates were long over, she gave birth to two children.

I say the Thanksgiving Day gathering tells Wikipedia readers very relevant information about where Natalie and her husband lived and her reliance on Mart Crowley as a personal assistant. Much more relevant than a 1950s phony publicity date. Natalie thought Mart Crowley was important enough to attend her Thanksgiving Day gathering. We don't have to include her inviting Crowley to join her group on the yacht. But referencing Thanksgiving tells the readers how important he was and how important he remains as a source.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The "Final months" section is out according to earlier consensus. There's no use talking about it any longer as if it's still a viable option. As it stands - based on the consensus reached about 10 days ago and Berean's proposal - it needs to be very basic information about Wood filming Brainstorm with Walken in SC and is included as an intro to the Death section or nothing at all. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed intro for death section

Wood spent the last few months of her life working on the movie Brainstorm with co-star Christopher Walken with much of the filming occurring in North Carolina. During this time, her husband Robert Wagner was only able to visit Wood once in Raleigh for a weekend. After Wood returned to California, she worked through November on her final shots while at the MGM lot in Culver City. She returned to her home in Beverly Hills to spend Thanksgiving with her mother, Wagner and personal secretary Mart Crowley. The following day Wood, Wagner and Christopher Walken traveled to Catalina Island for the weekend.

I left the mention of the secretary in for the moment pending a better understanding of the relevance. Were her mother, Wagner and Crowley the only people with her during Thanksgiving? Was Walken with them?

How does this text work as a compromise?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed compromise is fine by me. As for the issue of whether Chris Walken was at the Wagners' Beverly Hills house on Thanksgiving Day, check the books by Finstad and Lambert. The article uses each as a source more than once. I don't have the books handy. Can check them during the next 24 hours. Many public libraries have them.

Off the top of my head I seem to recall that Finstad said Walken dropped by the Wagners' Thanksgiving gathering, he felt awkward and left a short time later. Of course, we need a page number for this. The Lambert source says the 17-year-old Katie Wagner was there. She was Natalie's stepdaughter and Robert Wagner's biological daughter. Should that influence whether we include her? Cannot remember off the top of my head if anyone has placed Natalie's biological daughter Natasha at the Thanksgiving gathering. All this can be checked at a public library.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My concern is that by singling out certain "facts" to mention in relation to her death, the implication is that these "facts" have special importance, e.g. who she spent Thanksgiving with, etc. The actuality is that we do not know much about her death. To assert otherwise is misleading. For example, since there is evidence that she was an alcoholic and that she had sought help for emotional problems, should that be put in as a possible cause of her death in that she foolishly ventured out on a boat alone at night into the Pacific Ocean in casual attire when she had a known fear of water? I would say "no", as we really do not know.

Both Robert Wagner and Christopher Walken are living persons, so BLP rules apply. Again, is who she spent Thanksgiving with directly relevant to her death? If so, please provide the evidence. We need to be especially careful what we imply through selecting certain "facts" relating to her death. That is my view. Others may not agree. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is content in the intro to the death section that can't be backed up by a reference, then it shouldn't be included until the reference is available and can be quoted accurately. "Off the top of [anyone's] head" is not a verifiable, reliable reference, rather, it's original research and isn't permissible. When the reference can be cited properly and with page numbers, then the content can be included. Again, it needs to be basic and pertinent to her death. Stuff that wanders into other, unnecessary content will likely be removed. And Mathew's point above are very valid - while Wood is dead, Walken and Wagner are not and the rules for BLP would apply here. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no BLP issues with what I have written; if there are, point them out directly and do not allude that there are vaguely. Having Thanksgiving is hardly a libelous suggestion. When writing this, I was considering Wagner's admitted jealousy in the death section and looking for the text to transition into that. As to off the top of anyone's head, I asked a simple question and got a lead on what I was asking. I have no preconceived notions concerning any of these folks. Unless, the authorities come forward and state something to the contrary, I consider her death as an accident.

How would you suggest modifying the text to address concerns?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Lhb1239, do not twist what I said. What I said was I don't know off the top of my head if sources place Chris Walken or Natalie's daughter Natasha at her Thanksgiving Day gathering. That was in answer to a question about whether Walken or anyone close to Natalie attended the gathering.

When I added Mart Crowley's name to the article a week ago, I had the Lambert book with me at the time, and I did confirm that it places him at the gathering. Please do not twist what I said.

Wikipedia readers are smart enough not to assume that anyone's presence at a Thanksgiving gathering in Beverly Hills has a connection to his or her behavior on board a yacht two days later. Why does the gathering have to have any direct connection to events on the yacht in order to include it? One reason for including the gathering is to show readers the article is complete enough to explain what Natalie did on a very important American holiday two days before her death. It's a lot more relevant to her life and death than those publicized dates she had with Raymond Burr and Nick Adams more than twenty years before her death. Why should the article include those? They aren't even relevant to what was going on in her life or career when they happened. They certainly have nothing to do with Chris Walken, Robert Wagner, Dennis Davern or anyone else or anything else that was important in 1981. Nick Adams died in 1968.

Another reason for including the Thanksgiving gathering is to show how important Natalie thought Mart Crowley was to her.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But these are reasons that are not directly connected with her death, so do not mention them in the death section unless you can show that who she spent Thanksgiving with is directly connected with her death. If these various "facts" are important, then mention them elsewhere in whatever relevant section. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the new first paragraph in the "Death" section. Berean Hunter made the edit. Sorry if I was abrasive. I'll take a break for a while.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the Death section

The essence of the section on her death is summed up by an isolated sentence paragraph:

Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi ruled her death an accident following his investigation.

Naturally, mentioning the boat, location, and her companions at the time is relevant. However, that 14 word sentence is preceded by 550 words that read like a mystery novel, loaded with implications and innuendo. So when a neutral reader (assuming they are still neutral at that point) finally gets to that little sentence, it has the effect of a digression - maybe even a "so what?" Almost none of the preceding detail leads to that conclusive sentence which is only 3% of the entire dramatic essay.

So for what it's worth, 97% of her death section has probably been corrupted and should be pruned. At a minimum it may seriously violate wp:blp guidelines, along with wp:undue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've asked above for specifics on how it may violate BLP and once again vagueness but accompanied by "At a minimum it may seriously violate wp:blp guidelines". Get specific with your points or otherwise it doesn't exist.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Berean, to me, you seem unnecessarily harsh and combative in your tone. Perhaps if your words sound more like you're asking (rather than demanding), you might get the answer(s) you're looking for. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm coming across as harsh or terse. With claims of BLP, I feel as if it is a kind of accusation which is a little frustrating since as far as I'm concerned her death is an accident and I have no underlying motives here. I started following when the AN/I thread occurred last week. I often see BLP bantered around without it being a valid argument...I don't see it here because there is nothing libelous or accusatory toward any of the involved parties. Trying to work a compromise here yesterday seemed overly difficult for what should have been a trivial matter. Your comment is duly noted and I will try to be more considerate as well as make sure that I have enough coffee in me. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is what I object to in the "Death" section:

According to Wagner in his 2008 book, Pieces of My Heart, he had been jealous of Wood's friendship with Walken and there had been a fight between him, Walken, and Wood, during which Wagner smashed a wine bottle on a table. Also according to Wagner, it was at this time that Wood left for her stateroom and Walken retired to his, with Wagner behind Wood. According to Davern, the yacht's captain, it was at this time that he heard the couple fighting; he reports that he turned up his stereo to drown out the argument. Looking out the pilot house window, he saw both Wood and Wagner arguing at the aft deck of the yacht. Shortly after this, Davern claims, Wagner sought him out, saying he couldn't find Wood. Davern unsuccessfully searched the boat for her, also noticing that the yacht's dinghy was missing. According to Davern, Wagner seemed unconcerned about Wood's disappearance and poured drinks for both himself and Davern.

At this point, Wagner's story as told in his book differs from Davern's: he claims when he went to their stateroom to talk to Wood, she wasn't there. Wagner further states that while he and Davern searched the boat for his wife he also noticed the dinghy to be missing. Wagner further wrote that he had assumed Wood had used the dinghy to go to shore as a result of the argument. Davern claims that Wagner not only seemed unconcerned, but that he told Davern not to alert anyone about Wood's absence. According to Davern, Wagner said, "We're not going to look too hard, we’re not going to turn on the search light, we’re not going to notify anybody right at the moment."

Wagner's theory is that Wood tried either to leave the yacht or to secure a dinghy from banging against the hull when she accidentally slipped and fell overboard. When her body was found a mile from the dinghy on Sunday afternoon, she was wearing a down jacket, a nightgown, and socks. A woman on a nearby yacht reported she had heard a woman calling for help at around midnight. She further reported that the cries lasted for about 15 minutes and were answered by someone else who said, "Take it easy. We'll be over to get you." According to the witness, "It was laid back, there was no urgency or immediacy in their shouts."

There are references in this article quoting the police as saying Wagner is not a suspect. There is no information that Robert Wagner is a suspect. The extensive original research trying to piece together a story line that her death was related to a fight she had with Wagner, and implying that he is responsible, is based on combining quotes from a book Wagner wrote plus material from the CNN article and other recent news sources that rely on statements made by Dennis Davern, the boat captain (who gave a spate of interviews around November 18, 2011 that are apparently promoting the re-release of the captain's book on Thanksgiving of this year and his interview on A&E also coincidental with the re-release of his book}. There is no independent reliable source verifying the Davern's belief that Wagner was responsible. Lana Wood's speculations are not a reliable source. Davern's opinion is irrelevant.

Note that the NY magazine reference is actually Vulture.com, a blog, not a reliable source. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not a reliable source. Also note the many references for this section are recent, thus promoting recentism.

Further, implying that Wagner was responsible, or that a fight involving Chrisopher Walken was responsible violates the rules regarding writing about living persons in WP.

This is my view. I think the speculation and original research has no place in the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Davern's viewpoint can't be considered irrelevant because 1) the LA County Sheriff's office reopened the investigation based on his statements, 2) he was there when Wood was last seen alive and when she was pulled from the water, and 3) his book is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. We aren't investigative journalists, we just provide facts as cited by the reliable sources we are able to find and provide. I agree that implying Wagner was responsible is a violation of BLP standards, but...if we quote a reliable source that states such and the inclusion of that source-backed info is pertinent to the article, then it can be included. just not in an undue weight manner or in a manner that violates BLP. Speculation and OR doesn't have a place here, but as far as I know, there was none of that before the new stuff was introduced. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The police deny on the CNN article that they reopened the case based on Daven's statements. See http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-17/justice/justice_california-natalie-wood_1_yacht-captain-lana-wood-cnn?_s=PM:JUSTICE, the same article used to support other statements in that section. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Even so, Davern was there and his book is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, so...... Lhb1239 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No he isn't by WP standards. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources,

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Davern is not a "reliable, third-party" source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. He is a primary source and therefore does not meet the criteria of a reliable source. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you figure that. His book is a published source that has been quoted in numerous (maybe by this time countless) articles that are available on the Internet and in print. You seem to be seriously misinterpreting what a primary and secondary reliable source is. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Every published book is not a reliable source. Davern's book is a reliable source for what his personal opinion is, nothing more. Davern is not an acknowledged "expert" in the field as is required for a reliable secondary source. It is original research to use his book as speculation about how Wood died. One characteristic of a questionable source is that relies on personal opinion. "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead ..." from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Personal opinion should not be used to speculated about the guilt or innocence of a living person. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Davern's book is a published, reliable source and is being used in this article to describe the events leading up to and surrounding Wood's death. His book is not being used as a forensic guide, nor is it being used as a criminal reference. I note you haven't claimed Wagner isn't a reliable source. Could you be more specific about exactly what in the article is providing speculation on how Wood died vs. content that describes the events surrounding her death? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wagner's book is a reliable source for his personal point of view. Davern's book is a reliable source for his personal point of view. Neither is a neutral source for the "facts" and should not be used to cite any facts other than those identified as their personal points of view.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. From Wikipedia:Verifiability

Davern should not be used to make claims or insinuations about Wagner. In the "Death" section two personal opinions are being combined through original research to piece together and speculate how Natalie Wood died. The police have refrained from making any such speculation. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Davern is used as a source for damaging material on Wagner's behavior:

Davern claims, Wagner sought him out, saying he couldn't find Wood. Davern unsuccessfully searched the boat for her, also noticing that the yacht's dinghy was missing. According to Davern, Wagner seemed unconcerned about Wood's disappearance and poured drinks for both himself and Davern.

Davern is used as a source for quotations by Wagner:

Davern claims that Wagner not only seemed unconcerned, but that he told Davern not to alert anyone about Wood's absence. According to Davern, Wagner said, "We're not going to look too hard, we’re not going to turn on the search light, we’re not going to notify anybody right at the moment." {This is sourced to a blog.)

This violates the rules for reliable sources and those for statements about living persons. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By saying that two sides of the story are being pieced together to draw a conclusion, you are saying that WP:SYNTHESIS is being used. Not from what I read. You are, I believe, reading into the comparison of the two scenarios as reported by Davern and Wagner. There is no inference by supplying the two scenarios one after the other that Wagner is guilty. You have come to that conclusion on your own but not based from anything said about either or both sides. We can't help what readers will read into what's written in Wikipedia when it's written in an NPOV manner. Supplying two accounts, and the account of the witness who hear cries for help, is only saying what is reported to have happened that night. The fact is that there are differing accounts - it's our job to supply the story according to those accounts as NPOV as possible, and I believe that's been done. As far as what you say is sourced to a blog is - if memory serves - sourced to a newsblog. Newsblogs are considered reliable sources and that newsblog, by the way, would be a secondary source. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt whether it's "our job to supply the story" when the sources, autobiographical about the event, by definition can not be neutral. It contradicts a police investigation by overriding it with cherry-picked facts which could imply other conclusions. Mentioning the books in summary form is reasonable, not turning it into a "story." I think citing books written by parties to a police investigation should be disallowed. It acts as testimony.

So your conclusion that "we can't help what readers will read into what's written in Wikipedia . . ." should be rephrased to "Only we can help what readers will read . . .". It isn't our job to "supply two scenarios . . ." which contradicts th police conclusion. It's also interesting that none of the reasons for the police conclusions are given, just the opposing stories by parties to the incident. The result is a transparent soap section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There in fact may be no reliable sources, except maybe the person who heard a cry for help. Everyone on the boat, except for the captain, was drunk. Wood was 8-9 times over the legal level. The captain, who was sober, has already admitted he lied about the events and blames Wagner. So who is the reliable source?

Maybe asking who is the wrong question. Should it be what are reliable sources? For instance, how about the CDC, which claims that there are 79,000 alcohol-related deaths every year, or WHO, which estimate that 2.5 million deaths are alcohol related worldwide. How many sources can be added about the effects of alcohol on family relations, divorce, violence, etc. Another reliable source might be the licensing regulations for hired boat captains, which consider the failure to summon help or attempt rescue a legal offense, even when no one is injured. The safety regulations are strict just for small craft owners. But the duties of a "captain" are much higher, and always override a passenger's or employer's commands with regard to safety regulations.

I agree with Lhb1239, that "we aren't investigative journalists, we just provide facts as cited by the reliable sources." Except the "facts" that are cited have effectively drowned out with selective and undue minutia, the conclusion of the official investigators. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are what Wikipedia policy says they are. Both books can be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards and for the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As we disagree about this, I have asked a question about this at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to clarify. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. And just so you know, I will state that it's very possible I could completely wrong about this (at this point I don't think I am - but...) - so having others comment on this is a good thing and will hopefully put the concerns and disagreement over it all to rest. I think it's safe to say that one thing we do agree on is getting the article in order, in the right way, with the right kind of references. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A response on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard agreed with you that it is not a RS problem but suggested that it may by a BLP problem.

The fact that Davner implies Wagner was complicit in her death is beside the point, ultimately both points of view should be given equal footing. Whether or not Davner's account is libellous, and the secondary sources are libelling Wagner by repeating it, and Wikipedia is doing the same by including it is another matter, but it's not an RS problem. I would run it by the BLP guys at WP:BLPN and get their input.

So I will do that and we'll see what happens. I have another concern that I will bring up below. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not trim this section now pending any future opposing input (by experienced non-SPA editors) to this talk page? There might even be an assumed consensus or balance now about some of the key issues, all of which are wp:blp-related and certainly contentious. Per guidelines:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

By "this section" do you mean this section on the talk page or the death section in the article? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am in full agreement. I just now removed a false statement not supported by the sources that the investigation was reopened "based on new information from the yacht's skipper Dennis Davern". Almost all of the "Death" section in the article comes from recent interviews in the press (November 18 and 19, 2011) with Davner promoting his new version of his book, presumably released, although the book is not listed as a source nor is it apparently used directly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you removed a "false statement". What does the rest of your comment here have to do with anything? In other words: is there some significance and pertinence to editing the article in your comment that "Almost all of the "Death" section in the article comes from recent interviews in the press"? Just trying to understand where you're coming from and why. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Per wp:blp concerns just noted by Wikiwatcher1 who provides a quote from the wp:blp guidelines above. All the Davner material comes from his interviews with the press on November 18 and 19, in which he is promoting the release of his revised book containing his "new memories" and his accusations that Wagner was responsible for his wife's death. The actual book is not referenced or apparently consulted in the "Death" section. Just the quotes from Davner that load a 30-year-old death toward recentism. Nothing he says is supported by the sheriff homicide detective who says they have not talked to Davner yet, according to the sources given. The case was reopened because several sources had come forward with new information, other than Davner, so why should Davner's version be given such credibility? The detective stressed that Wagner is not a suspect. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think your claim that Danver's story is not credible has any bearing on whether or not his statements should be included or removed from the article. You're starting to beat a dead horse here, Mathew. You were already told at the RS noticeboard that there wasn't a problem with RS, yet you're still going on about it and still trying to build a case in that area. It's done. You were told that there isn't an RS problem - please let it go. And, may I remind you, that as I stated yesterday, you don't seem to have a problem with Wagner's version being credible. Not trying to be anti-AGF or launch a personal attack here, but I'm beginning to think that this is a personal issue (on your end) of a prejudice against Davner (for whatever reason). Because you keep banging on about Davner, I can come to no other conclusion because none of the points you've raised so far are based on policy, just (seemingly) personal opinion. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest that the issue be left alone while listed at WP:BLPN. This allows more input from other parties. They can see what is being discussed and comment either here or there. The report at WP:RSN (so far) seems to express no problem with the sources.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the article should be left alone until the BLPN RfC is completed. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the death section in the article. Per the guidelines quote in my note above, leaving contentious, possibly libelous, material in would go against those guidelines. We should cut and paste that contentious section to the talk page with a heading like "Contentious material discussion." It was claimed above by another that "it's our job to supply the story . . . two scenarios," which I disagreed with. Per guidelines:

it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

True, that - however, that's not what's happening. The section is about her death. The information currently in the article relates directly to the events surrounding her death as reported by eye-witnesses. There's no sensational tone to what's written, as you're contending. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do assume good faith on my part. I am doing my best and I am inexperienced in this. Please forgive me if I make mistakes, but I don't see the issue really being addressed. I know from a journalistic point of view the "Death" section is not supported by reliable sources, and there is no source such as the homicide investigators or the New York Times saying that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death as Davner maintains.

Please, who are the eye-witnesses? Davner has not yet talked to the homicide investigators, according to them, and they have not named any "eye-witnesses".

Regarding the reliable source issue, only one person responded on the Reliable sources noticeboard and I think this issue, because it is a BLP issue, needs more eyes, since Robert Wagner is being accused of a crime.

I don't think Robert Wagner's version should be included either, as I think it is Wikipedia trying the case in its article, when this is a matter for homicide investigators to determine if the original finding of "accidental death" should be over turned. But at least Robert Wagner's version comes from a book published in 2008 and he is not accusing anyone of causing his wife's death. Davner's book isn't even used as a references, but rather only his "media blitz" a couple of weeks ago, statements made to the press in promoting his new book in which he says he lied in his first book and claims Robert Wagner is responsible for Natalie Woods death. In any event, his "published book" is not used as a source for the "Death" section. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I'll continue to assume good faith on your part. You have to realize that you're making it hard to do so when you go from one forum to another seeking to get answers that you agree with and beating of the proverbial dead horse. The article is supported by reliable sources from the standpoint of Wikipedia's requirements of reliable sources, and that's that. Whether YOU think the sources are reliable or not is not the issue, nor should it be. Who cares if Davner maintains Wagner did it if there's nothing in the article that implies or states Wagner did it according to Davner. You're trying to insert something into the article that isn't even there.

The eye witnesses to the events surrounding Wood's death are Wagner, Davern, Walken, and the woman who heard cries for help. Walken isn't even mentioned in the article as knowing anything because, as far as I know, he hasn't said anything relative. Wagner wrote a book that talked about the events surrounding her death, so his account is included and appropriately referenced. Davner wrote a book and has given interviews about Wood, Wagner, and the events surrounding Wood's death, so his account is included and appropriately referenced as well. The woman who heard cries for help and another voice around the time Wood went missing is quoted and her statements are referenced properly as well. Those are the eye-witnesses and all of their accounts are appropriately referenced according to policy for Wikipedia purposes.

Two editors responded at the RS noticeboard; both told you they saw no issues in relation to the concerns you cited. So far that makes for two more opinions (other than my own - and I think Berean Hunter) that says there is no RS issue with the "Death" section of the article.

You can think that Wikipedia is "trying the case" via the article all you want, however, the content in the article doesn't support what you think in this matter. Further, it seems to me that YOU are the one trying a case against Davner in your statements above. You're starting to sound like an agenda editor with a fair amount of Wiki-lawyering going on. I don't think you want to be labelled as such, do you? Lhb1239 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to Lhb1239, I totally disagree. It's 100% sensationalist. What's worse, it's misleading, as one of the primary factors in her death was that everyone on board, except the "captain", was drunk, a key factor not mentioned. Wood herself was 8-9 times over the legal level. They were drunk before the fact you described:

According to Davern, Wagner seemed unconcerned about Wood's disappearance and poured drinks for both himself and Davern.

This section is written like a treatment to a film drama. It arguably goes against WP:Undue, WP:BLP, WP:RS. Besides oddly avoiding the incapacity of the passengers to handle the situation on their own, it also avoids implying that by law, "a captain is responsible for the safety and welfare of everyone on board." If you can find a single sentence in this 550-word dramatic scenario presentation that is not sensationalistic or titillating, I'd be amazed.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You disagree, and think the article section is "sensationalist". A couple of weeks ago you also thought that anything added into the article could affect the outcome of the criminal investigation. Neither is a viable scenario or accurate assessment and honestly, both seem like over-reactive hyperbole to me. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is over-reactive hyperbole. I have read the section and do not see anything libelous or sensationalist..if I had, I would have rewritten it. A good many eyes have seen these debates including many admins because it is posted on multiple noticeboards. If there is a valid BLP or RS issue, someone would speak up to that effect. If it rides there without that then those arguments are nullified.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• In response to Lhb1239, the second editor who responded at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard was equivocal. He said that he was not "entirely sure", that there would not be a problem "provided the information is properly contextualised" (which I maintain it is not, but rather is sensationalizes and goes into detail not vetted by the police or other reliable sources). And he says "Recentism may be more of an issue, but you will see from the guidance that it is far from clear what exactly should be done about that." I think recentism is very much an issue, the info coming entirely from news reports a couple of weeks ago of Davert's "media blitz". I would be more comfortable if the respondands addressed the WP:BLP issues, as a higher quality of sources is needed when a living person is being accused of a crime on the pages of Wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, only a few non-involved editors on the noticeboard commented. One came right out and said "I'm not entirely sure overall." The other was equivocal: " I would say given the contentious nature of the various accounts—in relation to an incident that could well be a crime—then using primary sources should be a strict no-no. . . .[but since] you have secondary sources interpreting a primary source account," it's OK in Wikipedia. Of course that avoids the issue of crass commercialism and the primary philosophy of such RSs, "If it bleeds, it leads." They have no requirement to be neutral - quite the opposite. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• An editor, Betty Logan, has responded on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard supporting my concerns (and defending me from the charge of "forum shopping"), saying that the sources "do imply Wagner's complicity in Wood's death, even if it is only to the point they are implying his account is not wholly truthful. If there is a problem with these claims, I felt it is not so much where they are coming from as to what is actually being insinuated. ... there might be legal implications if an article insinuates that he had some involvement in her death—that aren't backed up by legal findings—so it's probably wise for someone experienced in these types of things to give it a once over.[1] This is exactly my concern. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're going to need more than just one editor saying there's an issue for this to go the way you want it to, Mathew. There are other editors (who have weighed in here) who disagree. And then, if you do get other editors at the noticeboard to agree with you, then you should probably go for formal consensus on this talk page. If you get consensus to go your way on this talk page, can you be specific as to how you would reword the section? As a regular at this page, I'd like to see what editing plan you have (it might help your case, too). Lhb1239 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Per my comment at BLPN: Since CNN provided some details of what Wavern said, and doubtless other WP:RS did as well, I can see a problem with just providing those details in a neutral fashion in one or two sentences. It makes it clear that Wikipedia is on top of details and deflects the inevitable urge by a possibly less experienced editor to throw in a lot of details. Repeating this sort of information from a WP:BLP source is not a BLP issue if done in a neutral, non-sensational fashion. CarolMooreDC 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Other supports of MathewTownsend's concerns:

• Another editor supports me in response to Lhb1239's complaint about me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance "When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Wikipedia". ... Johnuniq[2]
• Also, subsequent posts at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard have supported my position. "Based on one of the pillars of WP, the material should be removed:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

All of those factors are relevant. They're discussed extensively on the talk page. I'm actually amazed that after all the ANI postings the material is still on a news-related article. This tabloid fodder should have been moved a long time ago." Wikiwatcher1[3] and

• "First of all, I would like to defend MathewTownsend from charges of forum shopping, I specifically asked him to come here. If this was not the correct procedure then I take responsibility for ill-advising him and apologise. The discussion did start off on another board (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Natalie_Wood) in relation to the sources; since the sources were mainly mainstream media sources that are generally regarded as reliable sources I didn't think there was an RS issue, but they do imply Wagner's complicity in Wood's death, even if it is only to the point they are implying his account is not wholly truthful. If there is a problem with these claims, I felt it is not so much where they are coming from as to what is actually being insinuated. I felt this board was better equipped to look it over and see if there are any issues of concern. After all, there might be legal implications if an article insinuates that he had some involvement in her death—that aren't backed up by legal findings—so it's probably wise for someone experienced in these types of things to give it a once over. Betty Logan[4] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft section here with more sources??

I'd like to see more sources. I know I heard there was more than one person allegedly who had something new to add, so if true that needs mentioning. Also, since this is contentious, why not work on a draft here til various issues satisfied. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 04:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

It probably would be good to archive everything before recent November and on discussions, but frankly I'm not sure how to tweak it to make it happen with automatic archiving (or for manual without changing the whole structure). In case anyone else who knows wants to do it. Maybe if it gets to a certain length through manual it automatically starts a new archive? CarolMooreDC 04:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've set up auto archiving and indexing which should occur within 24 hours.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, BereanHunter. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Death section becoming more saturated with trivia

The new fact about the case being reopened and exactly why, is was neatly summed up in a single sentence, the first one. Now that fact has been overwhelmed by trivial quotes by everyone, without adding any information. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I formatted the news sources correctly, using the templates. You can see that the headlines are heavily weighted toward the captain's charges that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death, per undue weight and recentism. I added a press release put out by Wagner, as his story is from his 2008 book (four years ago), whereas the boat captain's charges are plastered all over the headlines of November 18, 2011. And the sheriff makes it clear that Wagner is not a suspect. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone curious about this issue, without a strong POV, I don't think death section overly detailed (excess verbiage always a different issue). But one important detail that IS missing is the fact that Davern says he didn't tell the true the story to police originally, that this is his 2011 account and where he released it (and was it for money?). I don't know the details and don't feel like researching but I think making those factoids clear would be helpful. CarolMooreDC 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the statement from Wagner is unnecessary. If it stays, it needs to be reduced significantly. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Wagner's statement is very necessary for any semblance of balanced coverage. The section is filled with trivia from the plethora of very recent news articles that repeat the boat captain's accusations over and over that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death. The fact that neither the sheriff, or any other authoritative source, consider Wagner a suspect is barely mentioned. Wagner's last words are from 2004, seven years ago. Hardly a balanced coverage of the matter. His statement can be reduced, but it needs to include the allusion to the captain's motivations that he is publishing the revised version of his book with his "new memories" on the 30-year anniversary of Natalie Wood's death. There is no mention of the captain's personal profit from his "new memories" in the article, nor of his alcoholism or the question of whether he will be charged for lying previously about what happened in his first book on the subject. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to get off the bandwagon that the article indicts Wagner. It doesn't, and the death section is balanced. More than one editor with more time and edits behind them than you have feel that way as well. As far as the lengthy quote from Wagner, as it stands it's not necessary to have that much of a quote included in an encyclopedia article. See WP:LONGQUOTE for more. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that no one is a suspect, nor are there any official allegations of foul play. Nor did the captain see any foul play. So why is Wagner mentioned as not being a suspect? Wouldn't it be neutral to simply say that there is no evidence of foul play and there are no suspects? Actually, even that would be redundant. As for anyone needing to get off the bandwagon, it was not MathewTownsend that added this insinuating statement: Corina declined to divulge any information regarding the leads received but did state that Wood's husband, Robert Wagner, isn't considered a suspect at this time. In fact the gratuitous tail on that sentence had to be deleted.

In effect, anything that implies that the results of a police investigation are wrong, and relies on a fictionalized autobiography by a party to the events to support it, can not by definition by neutral. His best-selling book should be mentioned, but his personal opinions from his, or Wagner's book, should not suddenly make up 93% of the death section, with only a fragmentary mention of an extensive investigation by the only people who are in reality totally neutral. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when removing the long, unnecessary statement from Wagner, I toyed with the idea of removing the part of the LACSO statement that Wagner is not a suspect - even removing it and then putting it back in. I agree that it really doesn't need to be there. You can remove it if you'd like. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have removed the lengthy quote from Wagner as having no real encyclopedic value nor pertinence to the article itself. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize that the article is so caught up with the captain's charges that it doesn't even say that she drowned or that when her body was found? Per Per WP:BRD, I am going to remove the speculative trivia. Someone needs to put in the article that she was missing and when and where she was found. The basic facts are missing. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Then do something to add that information, don't remove what you don't like. As far as "removing the speculative trivia", if you do, someone else is likely to replace it as it's not speculative at all but referenced content. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Without real discussion and regardless of what had already been discussed previously editor MathewTownsend removed referenced content that is pertinent to the article and pertinent to the section on Wood's death. I have restored it and added the information Townsend opined was not included. Discussion needs to take place regarding the removal of such a large section of referenced content before it is actually taken out. Especially since there has been discussion on this previously and other editors have disagreed that the content should be removed and comes from an unreliable source. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that several citations incorrectly references sources that did not contain the purported information. Material attributed to Wagner was referenced to articles with headlines saying the captain accused Wagner of being responsible for Wood's death. I moved several of these inaccurately placed references to more correct locations. Also, it is not correct to mix Wagner's 2004 account with the captain's November 2011 account, as if both accounts were produced concurrently.

Further, I formatted about ten reference citations, as they were incorrectly formatted. Please learn to format them correctly. Otherwise, they are misleading. When the headline says something like "Captain accuses Wagner of being responsible for Wood's death", that source should not be used as a reference for Wagner's account. The whole "Death" section was quite a mess. I spent some effort fixing it before I edited it down. However, if there remain badly formatted references, I will leave that for you to fix, Lhb1239, if you ever bother with that sort of thing in your articles.

You are very quick with the warning, Lhb1239, on your articles. Would the world come to an end if you waited for some discussion before you slap warning on those who edit your articles? You have reported me three times on various noticeboards in the last day for editing your articles, and none of them were valid complaints. Perhaps you should encourage a more collegial atmosphere for editors who work on your articles. Slapping warning, (29 of them on my talk page yesterday) and reporting editors on noticeboards is not conducive to collaborative editing. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky I didn't report you for edit warring (which is exactly what you were doing). Can you explain how edit warring when talk page discussion has been asked for and is necessary is collegial and collaborative? And what about the tone of your post above and your presumption to lecture on how to and how not to include references? Don't think I'm not taking note of your lack of good faith and very obvious personal attacks above, because I am (and others likely are, as well). Lhb1239 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

First, of course, MathewTownsend has done his 3rr for the next 24 hours, which might help more neutral editors take a look at it and make some points or ask him some questions. From just a quick look I notice:

• I have a problem with breaking up Wagner's original and Davern's recent statements. It smacks of WP:OR. Keep them and the chronology in which they are presented more in order.
• I notice MT's written Davern's "new book," but a source says it's two years old. Another reason for proper chronology.
• At this diff refs removed with MT's note "match information to references - both references used say Davern accuses Wagner of being responsible for his wife's death." I hope this isn't a claim that you can't use the ref for BLP because it includes Davern's allegations. (And it seems only one of those two refs said he said that in text; headlines which are written by editors don't count).
• I really don't want to have to start editing this article (or that section), but you know how it is when you see questionable behavior and the need for balance. Her death was a mystery to me which the anniversary reminded me of, even before I saw the latest news stories. I moved to LA soon after and it came up a lot. So I think we should make the facts clear - and concise. CarolMooreDC 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do, Carol. After the lastest slew of edits, the death section is a complete mess and, as you noted, the chronology and some "facts" are just all wrong. The WP:OR needs to go. Previously it was stable, now it's just .... something else. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest balance for death section

I propose that the death section be balanced to better incorporate the original, and still used, police conclusion that she died by accidental drowning. It would seem that because both the captain and Wagner have written books about the incident, they deserve mention while acknowledging that they are both non-neutral parties to an ongoing police case.

My thought is that 75% of the material about how she died be based on the published police reports, which may change with new published findings. The other 25% could include mention of the books and a brief summary of their author's position. But the center of gravity should be "restored" to revolve around the police investigation. BTW, I added comments to the BLP board regarding some of this. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that with the latest round of edit warring that produced the incorrect content, OR, and chronology being taken out of sync we should let it be until all the regular contributors to the article can work on it. I can't because I don't want to be accused of 3RR, Mathew can't because he's already gone way over 3RR. Maybe waiting 24-hours (or more)? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That might be reasonable if BLP guidelines weren't being ignored, but a fundamental one would be:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the newest barrage of bad edits, I agree there might be an issue. If you're referring to what was already there, then BLP guidelines weren't being ignored. The combination of the response and lack of response from uninvolved editors on the requests for comment you have started over the last few days have already proven that. The references provided were cited appropriately and meet Wikipedia's guidlines for reliable sources. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, even if WP accepts a biographical novel as a RS, its use, and Wagner's book, are given undue weight. The police conclusion deserves a majority viewpoint with supporting cites. It's a question of balance. Adding 16 times more material from two books from biased sources than was originally given by a neutral source, is not editing with a neutral goal.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Death section

• I think your comments CarolMooreDC point out the fundamental problems with the "Death" section. It is unclear because it mixes up sources and inaccurately reports what is in them. Davern published a book a couple of years ago in which he did not implicate Wagner in the death of Natalie Wood. The article does not make this clear. The reason there was a burst of news articles on November 18 is because that on that day Davern announced in an NBC interview that he was coming out with a new book, containing his "new memories" of Wood's death, a different account than the first book, to be published on Thanksgiving 2011, the 30-year anniversary of Wood's death in which he accuses Robert Wagner of being responsible for her death. Neither his first book, nor his second book is referenced directly in this article. The fact there are two books is left out. Davern's comments about his new book are quoted in news reports of his announcement of his new book. Whatever is in the old book is ignored, although Wagner's book, older than Davern's first book, is used as the only source for Wagner's view.
• Questions about Davern's account that he was very drunk at the time of Wood's death are left out, as are the question of his lying in one of his two accounts, and whether he would be prosecuted for doing so. The sheriff said he had not decided whether to or not.
• I moved the two references that said Davern accuses Wagner of being responsible for his wife's death because they were inaccurately placed in the article as they were used to reference Wagner, not Davern.
• I formatted the news references correctly to reveal their content which took me several edits, and an editor on this page counts every edit as a revert. Those are not technically a revert because I was not changing his edits.
• It was maintained by an editor here posting on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the BLP Noticeboard that Davern did not accuse Wagner of being responsible for Wood's death, which is clearly untrue.
• Also note, that although I was templated for 3-RR, most of my edits were formatting the references and cleaning up references that inaccurately cited sources.
• I will not write more in this article as I have no stake in a particular version except to follow rules for biographies of living persons, a Wikipedia policy, and other policies such as do not put undue weight on certain facts and [[WP:RECENT|do not put undue weight on recent events] Every editor is free to write what he wants as long as he follows WP policies. MathewTownsend (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The section header needs to be changed immediately as editors do not own article talk pages or talk page sections. An article talk page is for discussion of the article and content, not what's happening on an editor's talk page. It is not for making personal attacks (as the above editor did before dishonestly changing what he had originally written: "Lhb1239 is free, as he always has been, to write what he wants ..."). The post immediately precedeing this one violates WP:TPG and those things need to be corrected/striken ASAP. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rough draft of cleaner/clearer death section

This is rough with a few facts put back in from latest version, a few facts added that seem significant, and notes about references needed. One way to illustrate what I mean by the correct order of information. More from earlier/contemporaneous reports in the earlier section would be good. If there is no strong objection I can fill in a few of the blanks and we can a version of this - which people can then tweak.

Wood spent the last few months of her life working on the movie Brainstorm with co-star Christopher Walken with much of the filming occurring in North Carolina.[1] She returned to California for Thanksgiving, intending to spend the weekend with Wagner and Christopher Walken.[2] On Saturday, November 28, 1981, the Wagners' yacht, Splendour, was anchored in Isthmus Cove off to Catalina Island with Wagner, Wood, and Walken, on board. Also on board was the boat's captain, Dennis Davern, who had worked a number of years for the Wagners before Wood's death.[Citation needed]

A woman on a nearby yacht reported she had heard a woman calling for help at around midnight. She further reported that the cries lasted for about 15 minutes and were answered by someone else who said, "Take it easy. We'll be over to get you."[3] According to the witness, "It was laid back, there was no urgency or immediacy in their shouts."[3][4]

Wood's body was found off Catalina Island approximately a mile away from where the Splendour was anchored. Police reports stated she was wearing a long nightgown, socks, and a down jacket.[5] Her body was spotted because her jacket was red.[6] There were questions about the drowning because of Wood’s known fear of water.[Any older ref plus sisters more recent account in Daily Mail [7]]

Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi ruled her death an accident following his investigation.[8] According to the autopsy report, Wood had dozens of bruises on her body, including injuries to her face and arms.[9]

Natalie Wood was buried in Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery. Scores of international media and photographers as well as the public tried to attend Wood's funeral at Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery; however, all were required to remain outside the cemetery walls. Among the celebrity attendees were Frank Sinatra, Elizabeth Taylor, Fred Astaire, Rock Hudson, David Niven, Gregory Peck, Gene Kelly, Elia Kazan and Sir Laurence Olivier. Olivier, who had worked with Wood and Wagner in their 1976 television production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, flew from London to Los Angeles to attend the service.[10]

Differing accounts

In his 2008 book Pieces of My Heart Robert Wagner gave his account of the night. He wrote he had been jealous of Wood's friendship with Walken, (ADD: that they all had been drinking) and there had been a fight between Wagner, Walken, and Wood, during which Wagner smashed a wine bottle on a table.[11] He wrote he could not find Wood in their state room. He and Davern searched the boat for his wife and noticed the dinghy was missing. They assumed Wood had used it to go to shore as a result of the argument.[12] Wagner theorized that Wood tried either to leave the yacht or to secure a dinghy from banging against the hull when she accidentally slipped and fell overboard.[7] At the time Davern backed up Wagner’s story. Walken said what??[FACTS & CITATION NEEDED]

In 2009(?) Davern wrote a book presenting a new version of events. He wrote that looking out the pilot house window, he saw both Wood and Wagner arguing at the aft deck of the yacht. Shortly after this Wagner allegedly sought him out, saying he couldn't find Wood. Davern unsuccessfully searched the boat for her, noticing that the yacht's dinghy was missing. Wagner seemed unconcerned about Wood's disappearance.[13] Davern further alleged Wagner told him not to alert anyone about Wood's absence.[14] In 2011 Davern released a second book at the thirtieth anniversary of Wood's death alleging that Robert Wagner was responsible for his wife's death.[15] [16] He also admitted lying to police in 1981.[7]

On November 17, 2011, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department office announced that it had officially reopened the case based on contacts from “persons who stated they had additional information about the Natalie Wood Wagner drowning.”[17] The department spokesman said the information was credible and that Robert Wagner was not considered a suspect.[18]

Of course, I just did a news search and low and behold HuffPost reporting NatlEnquirer story about alleged affair; also different details allegedly from Wagner's book than what we have here. Before you know it a real WP:RS will be reporting it. So still a developing story - thus I added a new subsection including everything after the burial. CarolMooreDC 06:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but per my comments above about trying to give the section a semblance of balance, this simply is a rewrite of the tabloid-style version sourced from a biographical novel and non-neutral parties, so I personally can't support it. Nor do I think we should be using the death section of her bio as a mock courtroom, giving the stand to parties of an investigation. There are no official allegations of foul play and the accepted conclusion as of today is that she died by accidental drowning. Most of the rest so far is tabloid fodder. Improving tabloid material with "cleaner, clearer" writing is not what I'd call a valuable improvement. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to study your earlier comments and see what your specific problems are. Busy today.

In the light of morning I do see that emphasizing differing accounts is a problem. I hope the removal of excessive verbiage was appreciated :-) I do think I pulled out a lot of unnecessary details and brought in a couple needed ones. Unfortunately, I think you removed some important details (like context of full names of who was on the boat and why, which more important in this section than the lead; or need repeating anyway).

And I do think it's good to separate contemporaneous reports (or older reports drawn from them) from people's memories expressed in books written 25-30 years later. CarolMooreDC 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your balance section was part of what I had in mind when I stuck to initial reports and substantially cut Wagner and Davern's tales. I don't think police reports are necessarily the beginning and the end of usable material. Police can be prejudiced, even more so than some reporters. Eye witness reports or other relevant material covered in WP:RS can be used carefully. I didn't want to cut out everything since not sure who else wants what in. And of course I haven't even tried to research for more reliable contemporaneous sources. Have you? CarolMooreDC 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the draft above is a good start to redoing the death section. I like the way it's set up and reordered to be more chronological. As well, it's balanced and it gives a succinct picture of the events surrounding her death - from several sides, including the official side. That being said, it's not up to us to decide what is a more reliable source than another when the reference meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability in sourcing. It's not up to us to say, "Well, so-and-so was drunk at the time the event occured, so his book can't be a reliable source", or to say, "Well, he got more money to say what he did so his account can't be considered reliable." Making such a decision is akin to WP:OR and is not our call. If the source meets WP's standards for reliability, then that's all there is to it. Policies exist here for a reason - not that they can't or won't be changed at a later time - but if they are what they are, accept it or do something to change it. But until it is changed, you're better off to accept it and live with it.

And - I would like to address the issue brought up of the sources that were cited (likely by me) such as the Huffington Post, etc. Everything I placed as a reference directly referenced that which it was linked to at the time it was placed there. Online sources such as the Huff Post, newspaper stories, newsblogs, online magazines frequently change the location and the expansion of their online article, causing the reference to appear later on as not related. That's part of the problem with relying on online sources in articles. We can't know at the time we add them which source is going to change later on. I just know that when I placed those sources in the article, they were valid and directly related to the content. Cites change all the time in Wikipedia just as online sources are likely to become dead links eventually. It's not a new occurance and not an unusual one.

In summary, I think that the changes proposed by CarolMoore are good and should be acted on. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously some tweaks are needed, like removing the "differing accounts" section header and removing a bit more excess verbiage from Davern and Wagner accounts so they seem less "sensational"; but since there is a new investigation they are definitely relevant. Making context of who was on yacht when more clear. More research needs to be done, so for example fear of water doesn't need to go in right now. A brief comment on investigation by Wagner appropriate. My question: Matthew says Davern changes story from book 1 to book 2. A hint as to what the changes are would help. Now if someone more familiar with every detail did all that, that would be great. Otherwise, fools rush in... CarolMooreDC 21:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some tweaks are needed, but as it is, I think it's good. I agree that we need some specifics - without them, there's no substance to the argument. As far as your quote above from Alexander Pope, I say, "Indeed". Lhb1239 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)*We are not saying "so and so is drunk". He is quoted as saying he was. You can use his words. Please read the sources and don't be selective as to what you chose to incorporate in the article. If he says he was drunk, in his own words, that is not us decideing he was out of thin air. One of the problems with the section was that only selective information was taken from the sources to support Davern's version; other conflicting information was ignored. Also, please, if someone uses sources, please format them correctly. I spent considerable time formating the sources correctly. Such work is not considered "reverts". Please, will others take the time to do that, as well as check that the sources correctly cover the information in the article? I found November 18 news articles used to source Wagner's behavior at the time of the death. Eight recent (November 18) sources should not be used to cover a thirty-year section when there are other more relevant sources less concentrated on recentism. Please be aware of this in a biography of living persons article. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Davern wrote two books. Please account for both. The last book with his "new memories" was published Thanksgiving 2011 as interviews with him generated all the publicity. Please quote the two books and not just interviews with him. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Davern wrote one book in conjunction with another author and that first book was expanded in 2011. Please get your "facts" straight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that when I have cited sources, I have been doing it with the Wikipedia reference tool. If you have an issue with the how the tool works, take it up with those who wrote the code for it. Recent sources are fine if they are relevant to the content. You're pretty new here, Mathew - I find it interesting you think you know so much about Wikipedia in just a few short weeks. You have so much less time and so many fewer edits that Carol and I, yet you feel you are in a place experience-wise to lecture and scold us? Of the 607 edits you've made so far in just a few weeks, 8.57% of them have been at article talk pages, 6.59% have been at user talk pages, 8.24% have been at Wikipedia noticeboards. Some would see that as pretty disproportionate for the short amount of time you've been here. Some would likely tell you to stop worrying about what others are doing and if you see a problem, try to be part of the solution. Carol's done a good job with the proposed changes. I've contributed significantly to this article myself and have helped to expand it. You've done a lot of reverting and removing and complaining at RfC boards and noticeboards and taken up a lot of other editor's time with WP:IDHT. No one is stepping up to agreeing with either you or Wikiwatcher at the noticeboards because you've already gotten answers but refuse to listen because they're not the answers that support your agenda.

How about you stop worrying about what others are or aren't doing and just work to put the article in shape according to the current policies and standards in place? You complained last night that I'm not working collegially or cooperatively on this article - perhaps you should look in your own backyard first. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe this was Lhb1239 and s/he didn't sign. In which case I'll put back the section title to below. Meanwhile, looking in books.google, amazon, and news.google I can only find one book referenced Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour by Marti Rulli, Dennis Davern, Nov 2009. Assuming this is Lhb1239 above, you mean he expanded on that book with another author? The one source that said "new book" may have thought it was brand new but evidently is was just same book? Anyway, it doesn't look like anyone's carrying it yet. CarolMooreDC 23:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It was me and didn't forget to sign. Against WP:TPG, Mathew decided to refactor my comments and intersperse his own and splitting my comment into two entries. I explained this in the edit summary when I reverted his comments so he could put them in the right place, but once again, he thought he knew better and chose to behave in a disruptive, WP:IDHT manner. I have, at this point, now put the comments in the correct order and combined my comments which were wrongly divided into two talk page entries.

The old book (from 2009) was expanded with the amended version released at the end of November. The authors remain the same: Davern and Rulli. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• to Lhb1239 - All my noticeboards posting have to do with the 29 warnings you put on my talk page in one day regarding the Natalie Wood article. You reported me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[5] where your complaint was closed with no action, and you reported me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where your complaint was also unfounded[6]. You also reported me to [[7] where you were told that you were exhibiting ownership of the Natalie Wood page. Please stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the content matters at hand. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)::*Please take your own advice (see above). MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be assured that we are aware of your coming to this article just 3 weeks ago and adding 16X more text to her "Death" section from recent sources, like TV news shows. You have coincidentally, since those first edits, spent almost all your time engaging in attacking, or finding and magnifying flaws of editors trying to improve that section and bringing it back in balance. Your scolding and statistical analytics to support them, besides continually implying agenda-pushing, are all against policy. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding more reference content to an article is bad because...? Call me crazy, but I thought we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia here and that the Wikimedia Foundation believes adding sourced content designed to expand knowledge is a good thing. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See above[8] regarding the 29 warnings you put on my talk page in one day along with reporting me to three different noticeboards on the same day, all of your complaints were determined to be unfounded. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just created a separate section so can reply to more concrete issues above. It is interesting to watch someone else's spats for a change instead of being in the middle. It can be difficult having a minority position if one feels others are violating policy. And it can be difficult to see others coming in adding a lot of new material and aggressively defending it by seeking outside opinions. Everybody needs to chill. :-) CarolMooreDC 23:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mathew: Please provide proof in the form of diffs to back up your repeated claim that I put "29 warnings" on your talk page in one day. Please put up or stop making false accusations. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ok,, since Lhb1239 has said that all the editors support him. I am sure they will help you out. I urge you to make clear that Davern wrote two books of differing content. And that in the second, he recanted what he said in the first and also what he said to the police. The police have said (consult the reverences) that they will interview Davern. Good luck with the rewrite. (Being constantly reverted by Lhb1239, having my talk page bombarded with warnings from him, and being reported to three different noticeboards in one day (even if all of them supported me) effectively drives me off any more contributions to this page. Good luck! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never said all editors support me. As with the above, please provide proof in the form of diffs to back up your claim. Please put up or stop making false accusations. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)