Talk:Natalie Wood/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reaching a basis of agreement

A few statments are given to make sure editors are in agreement with some of the basics facts. If anyone disagrees, simply add that below the statement. I agree with all of them, so won't bother. If anyone disagrees, please don't explain under the statement, but create a subsection below so we can isolate issues.

• Wood, according to the official legal conclusion published 30 years ago, died by accidental drowning, and that conclusion has not been revised.
• There were four people on board, whose names and relevance have been stated.
• There are no official allegations of foul play and therefore no one is suspected of foul play.
• The boat's captain and Wagner have each published their own descriptions of the period before and after the death and give differing accounts.
• The earlier investigation was reopened new investigation has begun based on unpublished information the police say they received.

--Agree with all statements. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I agree with all 4 of the 5, though more details may be needed than that. [Added later since noticed edits: I mean more NEW details and this doesn't mean all other details should be removed.]

As for "There are no official allegations of foul play and therefore no one is suspected of foul play." If there is a WP:RS for that and it is not redundant to some other similar statement, fine. It's WP:OR to say that because editors believe it is true. CarolMooreDC 14:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We should not assume that some allegations exist unless proven otherwise. It's the allegations that need proof and citations. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−8)

First point: Agree.

Second point: Agree.

Third point: Agree in part. The LACSO has made no public statements about who or what they feel went on that night, but law enforcement doesn't make allegations, they charge people with crimes. They have not said if they officially suspect someone as having culpability, but it has been reported that they have reopened the case in part because of information Rulli has given them. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn from the case being reopened is that they do suspect foul play. If they didn't, the case wouldn't have been reopened.

Fourth point: agree.

Fifth point: Disagree. A new investigation has not been opened, an old investigation that was closed has been reopened.

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change what I have said above and will not be held to any of it in relation to editing the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you wrote that! You might want to strike it, based on your disclaimer option.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed case being "reopened" per comment.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't believe I wrote what, exactly, and why can't you believe it? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The last 2 sentences in your #3 point. The reasons I can't are/should be obvious.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't believe I would write it. What I said is true and correct. And the reasons aren't obvious to me. If they were, I wouldn't have asked for you to explain. So - now that we have that cleared up, could you please explain your disbelief that I wrote what I did? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant facts or trivia?

Someone please add some relevance to the fact that Wagner walked behind Wood on their way back to their stateroom. Also mentioned in the section is that Wagner and Walken had an argument. Is there any relevance to that in the section about her death? Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted that in my version and will when finally edit it. Argument is relevant to a heated atmosphere, whatever it was; in fact I think I accidentally deleted from my above version in drive to clean up. If it turns out through WP:RS that the fight was about a Wood/Walken affair, even more so.

The "even more so" needs some expansion. Whether there was a heated atmosphere inside the cabin or frigid weather outside, emphasizing those things without clearly explaining relevance to the section becomes trivia.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−8)

Actually, I'm thinking in terms of having that in the Davern version paragraph, not integrating into some "neutral" sounding version. There can't be a neutral version because only people there at the time can give their versions. In fact I did a quick search and here's LA Times summary of Walken's version (though not original Playboy interview). Sorry I don't have time right now to put up my own version similar to above. Solstice is coming! But hopefully by end of weekend. CarolMooreDC 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivia removal

A number of details added to the section contradict some facts there seems to be agreement about. Details which imply things, or which add innuendo, do not belong and are flagrant violations of BLP guidlines. This article section should not suddenly become a recitation of a captain's comments. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is no given relevance to even the few facts mentioned in the section above, despite requests. Until relevance is proven with citations, and the facts don't overwhelm the article or rely on editor opinions, they do not belong. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be specific about what you feel is contradictory.

There is relevance to everything in the death section regarding the events surrounding Wood's death. Everyone quoted in that section regarding Wood's death was an eyewitness to those events and everything is referenced per Wikipedia guidelines. Since I removed the content regarding Davern accusing Wagner of having culpability in Wood's death, there is no longer any possibility of violating WP:BLP. You have been going on about BLP concerns for quite some time now, even bringing your concerns to the BLP noticeboard. No one there thought BLP was an issue, and save for one other editor, no one here has thought there were valid BLP concerns, either. As I asked at the noticeboard, when are you going to take what has already been said and drop this? At this point, continuing to go on about the same content being a BLP violation when you've already been told it isn't is clearly becoming disruptive. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Simply re-read previous material to start. IMO, the section has been badly corrupted as a result of the BLP-violation storm. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait for others to weigh in. You have my opinion and it stands. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 wrote: Details which imply things, or which add innuendo, do not belong and are flagrant violations of BLP guidlines. Yes, if a personal version by Wagner/Walken/Davern is presented as neutral information and not attributed to them. Not necessarily if it's part of their personal account supported by multiple WP:RS. And details from noninvolved witnesses may be neutral and relevant. In any case, these are not necessarily trivial pieces of info.

Make clear what you think is wrong; don't just list a few points that should be in, evidently thinking that it is carte blance to remove everything else. CarolMooreDC 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's simple, but you'll have to ask which one from the list of problems mentioned you're unclear about. Some have been described on various notice boards, for instance, not just here. There are others not even mentioned yet. All in all, this article section can reasonably be used as a case study for what WP is not supposed to be. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In all frankness Wikiwatcher, your unwillingness to answer direct questions is getting tedious. You make these vague statements in conjunction with proclamations that things are wrong in the article or are trivial or are <insert claim here>. Then, when asked to explain or be specific, you answer with something akin to, "The answer's already there", never making your meaning clear and never giving due consideration to others through an direct answer. You've done it on this talk page and you've done it in various noticeboards where this article has been discussed. I'm tired of the riddles. If you have something to say, please say it and be clear. No one here should have to assume what you mean or play guessing games with you. Until you get specific, you can't expect anyone to be able to edit with you collegially and cooperatively because your vagueness and riddles are uncollegial and uncooperative. So far, CarolMooreDC and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on most of the things that need to be done, need to stay, and need to be changed in the "Death" section you find so out of order. Unless someone else steps in with a different view or Carol disagrees, I'm going call that consensus. As it says in the guidelines regarding consensus: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Since you refuse to dispute anything specifically, we have consensus. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I and no doubt some others, would appreciate it greatly if you in fact did manage to ask a direct question. This talk page and some of the boards are loaded with very specific reasons why there are violations of guidelines in the section. What's downright strange is that it's actually you who seem to be the one skirting issues. I mentioned this yesterday, in response to the way you were engaging with a potentially valuable editor:

MT just stated, "In addition to the BLP policy, the "Death" section article violates NPOV, recentism and undue weight." Bullseye! So try to stay on target, like him, and minimize finding minor flaws. And quickly and consistently accusing editors who are obviously trying to improve and balance the article with bad faith does not help. Despite repeating those same issues he lists numerous times elsewhere, you have made no attempt to counter them or justify why your overwhelming the section (1600%) with tabloid-like material does not violate all those problems.

In fact, after your news flood of the section, I even counted the words for you! You need to respond to the ever-increasing list of problems, hopefully with more than a silly claim of "consensus" of you and Carol (who stated that she only came to help clean up the mess,) or implying that everyone must agree with you since no one has come forth to say otherwise. In the meantime, you owe User:MathewTownsend a bit of credit for almost surviving the hazing or boot camp (or both), before he dropped out/went AWOL.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

More vagueness and still no answers to the direct questions asked of you. Until you can work collegially and cooperatively by providing the specifics you've been asked countless times to provide.... Well, let's just say that I'm tired of your games. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for heck of it I looked at early Nov version before announcement of new investigation and then quickly searched through User:Lhb1239 contributions looking for evidence of a flood of new words and the biggest entry I found was just her putting back a mention of new investigation which someone had totally deleted. Now over time there were some short edits, and they may not be perfect, and my cutting down and rearranging material probably included some of his/hers; edits that s/he seems to support. Doesn't mean either of us are perfect, but we are trying to be specific.

I also followed User:Wikiwatcher1's link above and mostly noticed User:Berean Hunter complaining about the vagueness of BLP complaints. When I have complaints I always bullet point list them with quotes and explanations of the problem. Just a more collaborative way to do it. CarolMooreDC 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Davern's two books

It is incorrect to say that Davern's second book was merely an expansion of his first. He changed the content. In the first book he did not accuse Robert Wagner of being responsible for the death of his wife. In the second book, he changed his story and say Wagner was responsible That is why the sheriff has been asked if Davern will be accused of lying. Please consult the sources and get these facts straight. The only reason that Davern's second book, issued on the anniversary of Wood's dealt, garnered so much publicity is because Davern changed the content of the book and added support for his accusations of Wagner's responsibility for Natalie Woods death. Therefore, it is inaccurate to conflate the two books as if they were one. Please present these facts accurately. What is the resistance to doing so? I don't get the drive to present the situation inaccurately. Why not tell the truth? And why only present Wagner's 2004 version and leave out his more recent statements when the article is packed with Davern's November 2011 version? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As a good faith gesture to prove a second book - rather than an updated version of the first - exists, please provide a link to an online source that shows this book for sale is a completely new book separate from the first that was released in 2009. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While the above question wasn't answered, I think it's safe to say that since the Library of Congress does not list a new book by Davern and no online booksellers list a new book by Davern, there is no new book by Davern. I am glad to see that the erroneous content in the article stating Davern wrote a new book has been removed. Hopefully, this will put the false claim regarding a second Davern book to rest. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing from this discussion because of harassment

Although discussion of this article is supposed to take place on this talk page, I have been badgered on my talk page by Lhb1239, the last barrage here. As you can see, he has made 35 posts to my talk page regarding the Natalie Wood article[1] since this discussion regarding Natalie Wood began.

This is in addition to reporting me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (as reported above) and the Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance all on the same day and all unsuccessful. He has persistently reverted my comments, here and on other pages. It is not worth it to me to continue to be part of the collaboration on this article. Please do not revert this comment. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you clarified 35 posts, instead of separate complaints. All of the complaints [Add later: that I looked at] looked justified, though they came faster and more furious-er than most editors do them, and one every couple days if the editor doesn't "get it" probably better. If you truly feel you have been harassed, as opposed to overly sternly warned, than you should take it to Wikiquette assistance, usually the best place to start. However, speaking as a newbie to article, I think you have been overly emotional and do need a break for a few days since you were throwing around a lot of dubious facts, rhetoric and questionable policy stands of BLP that confused some of the issues and unnecessarily increased the heat. CarolMooreDC 14:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's already been discussed at WQA. While each of the complaints may have been justified, all of them were not. Part of the responsibility that comes with being a Wikipedia editor is having to deal with newbies from time to time and biting is a poor approach. Gerardw (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lhb1239 me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[2] where his complaint was closed with no action, and the same day he reported me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where his complaint was also determined to be unfounded[3]. Also on the same day he reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance[4] where he was told that he was exhibiting ownership of the Natalie Wood page. This has been exhausting for me, as I have never been reported before. Not worth it, so I am bowing out. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is formatting citations correctly using the templates really counted as a "revert"? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just let it go. Gerardw (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving for clarity

What's the possibility of archiving all of the unrelated content on this talk page so we can get back to discussing the article only? The signal-to-noise ratio on this page is overwhelming, in my opinion and is totally distracting and unproductive. Anyone coming here to try and join in editing the article and discussing necessary changes could easily be chased away by the "excess". As a way to move forward, I, for one would like to see the discussion page just be about the article. Anyone else? Lhb1239 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine to archive the older material -- say the sections with no comments on them for 30 days. Gerardw (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one opinion. Anyone else? Lhb1239 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving recent, or on-going discussions serves no purpose I can think of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since an admin with the tools has spoken, I guess we will just have to abide. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That does not follow. One admin does not consensus make. And archiving requires no tools.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any non-sequitur at all. And my reference to your admin tools had nothing to do with archiving. All the sudden attention at this article and talk page by those who have no (recent) history of editing here means that there's scrutiny going on. In such situations, when someone with power (aka "admin tools") just happens to stop by, its best to do what that admin says. That principle works in the world outside Wikipedia just the same as it does inside Wikipedia. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to hear that you respect your janitor's opinions in real life.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Janitor". Kinda like the euphemism "plumber" used during Watergate, eh? (the preceding was intended to add a little levity ;-) Lhb1239 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Better sources

One reason I've procrastinated is because I wasn't too happy with the research. Just took a half hour to do some and found these important pieces. Will add more later but just to get in the point that researching good sources better than arguing over not as good ones! (For example need page number of Wagner's book saying he had a fight and broke a bottle since at the time Walken/Wagner both denied it):

• Several LA Times stories at time of death: http://documents.latimes.com/natalie-wood/
• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/natalie-wood-investigation-prompted-by-boat-captain-comments.html (Important factoid that should be mentioned; though he's not the only source of new info.)
• A lot of LA Times stories; still looking for the one about the press conference itself
• To be continued...

CarolMooreDC 15:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article since it seems that some people need an enforced break from this article. I will be happy to unprotect if there is a consensus regarding the issues that are currently under discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It certainly won't hurt for this article to be protected for a time. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed halt to reverting over minor issues

I suggest that Lhb1239 consider my edits before reverting. For example, he reverted some repetitious wording I had improved within minutes, without consulting the diffs.[5] I pointed out on his talk page that the wording he had reverted to was repetitious[6] so instead of reverting himself, he returned my wording using the incorrect edit summary "rewording".[7]

Lhb1239 has asked me to revert the Natalie Wood article for him when he was up against the 3-RR rule in his edit war with another editor.[8] and [9].

• I propose in the interests of collegiality in editing a change in culture for this article and that the blunt "revert" instrument not be automatically used except for obvious vandalism, and especially not for minor prose issues. Can we all agree on this? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Those sound like very reasonable proposals that I hope everyone can agree to.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Building a wall (protection) around an article because of a minor redundancy issue seems like a major waste of cement. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My answers to the previous are below, point-by-point:

1. "I suggest that Lhb1239 consider my edits before reverting." I always consider why I am reverting before I revert. To suggest otherwise is a presumption about my motives while editing and is, in fact, an uncivil personal attack that doesn't say "collegiality" to me.
2. "For example, he reverted some repetitious wording I had improved within minutes, without consulting the diffs." Please provide diffs for this accusation. I reverted one word change, not everything you did. To suggest I reverted more than that is a total misrepresentation. Providing diffs to back up his claim would be a good faith gesture on the part of MathewTownsend and would clear this up at once. In addition to the above unrproven claim, MathewTownsend is presuming (once again) to know what I did when I did it. There's no way he can know what I did and what I was thinking. This is another personal attack and needs to be addressed by an admin. To let it slide gives MathewTownsend the impression that he can say what he wants about other editors. We're supposed to comment on edits, not editors. Why is he continually allowed to go against simple principle in Wikipedia civility that's expected of all editors?
3. "Lhb1239 has asked me to revert the Natalie Wood article for him when he was up against the 3-RR rule in his edit war with another editor." That has nothing to do with anything being discussed here and serves no helpful or productive purpose.
4. "I propose in the interests of collegiality in editing a change in culture for this article and that the blunt "revert" instrument not be automatically used". Again, this makes an assumption and is a judgement of another editor as to why they did what they did when there is no indication or proof that's actually what happened. There's nothing collegial about accusing other editors of behavior that isn't evident. And - in case no one noticed what really happened - the "revert" option wasn't even used - I used "undo", not my Twinkle tools used for wide reversions. This, again, is proven by looking at the diffs, rather than just taking MathewTownsend's word for it based on his version of the events.
5. "Building a wall around an article because of a minor redundancy issue seems like a major waste of cement." Who's building a wall around the article? (I know I'm not) Again, time to talk about edits, not editors. Why is that basic Wikipedia principle being ignored?

I see nothing in MathewTownsend's "proposal" that mentions anything about what he plans to do to start editing collegially, just what he thinks others should do. I'd like to see more from MathewTownsend about his own personal editing plan (which is basically what Maunus told him to do on his talk page) and less finger pointing at other editors. He was the one, after all, who came back to the article after being told to take a break from it and after he said he would take a break from it. There was no disruption at the article until he decided to start engaging in edit warring rather than discussing. I have no problem discussing things about this article and working collegially here with anyone. As a matter of fact, after Mathew "left" the article (as he said he would do), we were doing that just fine editing and discussing in a manner that reflected both policy and consensus. Prior to that, the talk page was continually filled up with so much crap, no one happening by could have made heads or tails of it in just one sitting. If Mathew wants to make another proposal that works first for the article and second for (all involved) editors rather than just for him, I'd be much more willing to say "agree". As it is, from what I can see, this proposal being based on falsehoods and misrepresentations makes it all about Mathew's interests and no one else's. And I'm not comfortable with saying "agree" to that at all. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(od)You reverted me here[10] I explained on your talk page that I had removed repetition not content.[11] You admitted that you reverted without looking at content.[12] Then, instead of reverting yourself, you returned essentially my wording with the edit summary "(rewording"[13] Nothing you are doing now is promoting collegian editing. Please consult WP:Revert:

It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism or violations of the BLP policy) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Note particularly the three-revert rule (part of the Edit warring policy). Other Wikipedia essays on the subject include Reverting and Revert only when necessary.

It is disruptive to revert as a general editing tool. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're bringing up something that happened 10 days ago? Seriously??? When I asked for diffs I thought you were talking about the most recent edit(s) you made and the one I reverted. Instead, you were talking about something that happened over a week ago? Get over it and move on. Please.

None of this stuff from the past has anything to do with anything and continually bringing up the old stuff is neither helpful nor productive. Another editor told you a couple of days to drop it all and move on. I suggest you do exactly that. Bringing up old stuff most decidedly says to me that you are not seeking to work collegially but to be nothing except disruptive and settle scores where you feel you've been wronged. None of this does anything to improve the article nor is it making an effort to work collegially.

Your first words in your "proposal" were: "I suggest that Lhb1239 consider my edits before reverting" - and personally, I believe this speaks volumes. To me it says that MathewTownsend has only started up here again to attack and to get what he wants. He came here today under the guise of talking about the most recent edit he made to the article and was reverted with a reasonable explanation. Instead of doing that, he brings up edits from 10 days ago that have been long forgotten and are no longer relevant. His mission with his return to the article is clear after reading what he wrote here today: it's all about him. My patience with him is at an end. I submit that if he does elsewhere within Wikipedia what he's been doing here, the community will also eventually lose patience with him (if not sooner than that). Lhb1239 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of wording in article

• ok. All my many recent edits have been formatting the references except this last one where I condensed "general media" to "media"

I changed "Wood received wide recognition in the general media" to "Wood received wide recognition in the media" and was reverted by Lhb1239.

I propose in the interest of good prose style that "general media" be condensed to "media". "General media" is a meaningless term. Instead, one of the meanings under the word media should be selected for the exact meaning if the one word "media" is not good enough.

My reasons: The word "general" adds nothing. Since it has no widely accepted definition, it is an unnecessary word. See User:Tony1's editing tips and exercises, e.g. Eliminating redundancy. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that it was me who added the word "general," (OMG)! Actually, I don't care if it's used or not, since I doubt if anyone reading it would notice the difference. But IMO adding the word "general" probably makes the word "media" more precise, not less. Two reasons: 1) just looking at what media encompasses, that word alone is more general than "general." I think a reader seeing the word "general" would instinctively exclude "advertising, digital, electronic, hypermedia, multimedia, social media," etc. 2) The sentence following it clarifies the kind of media that is being termed "general": Parents Magazine and the NY National Council. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in favor of linking media, just removing the word "general" since to me it is a meaningless qualifier. If the next sentence clarifies the meaning of "media", then "general" is unneeded anyway. I am just interested in clear and precise writing. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The use "general" makes sense. As I stated in the edit summary when I changed the phrase back to include "general", it differentiates the type of media attention Wood was receiving from other Hollywood stars at the time, which was mostly industry publications and fan magazines. The next sentence that gives the information about Parents Magazine further establishes that she was getting press outside the usual Hollywood publicity. That is exactly why I felt then and feel now that "general" should stay. Regardless of the accusation that I was just reverting to revert, I wouldn't have reverted it back to say "general" as a descriptor for "media" if I didn't think it was important. My edit summary at the time said it all, basically. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get that intended meaning from the qualifier "general" at all. If it is important to note that it was a broader media attention than other stars I think a more explicit way of stating that would be preferable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There should be a source saying that Wood got broader media attention than say James Dean and some examples of such coverage. Parants Magazine is not a good example if her coverage in there was as a child star, as they covered all famous kids and were hardly critical reviews exemplifying "general media" coverage. And what was "general media" pre 1980s? A scholarly article in the New York Times not in the "Entertainment" section? The term "general media" needs a definition and a source that she got broader coverage than other stars. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This source suggests that Natalie Wood's personal life was tabloid fodder more than the subject of broader media coverage.[14] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

This NPOV source gives a plausible cause of death based on the official autopsy, mentions the names of two drugs plus alcohol reported in the autopsy and describes how her heavy coat weighted down with cold water would have made it impossible for her to climb out of the water once she fell in.Historic Trauma Cases: Natalie Wood MathewTownsend (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Quaaludes

I removed the content about Davern, Wood, and Wagner and quaaludes. There's no need for this in an article about Natalie Wood. The statement never says they actually took the drug, there were no Quaaludes in her system at autopsy, and it really serves no pupose to mention this. If this was put in an article about Davern or his book, that would be a different story. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Davern about the atmosphere and additional drugs relates to the "scenario" material (550 words) you added. One of the key findings during the investigation of her death was related to drugs and alcohol. The fact that an autopsy didn't mention a particular drug does not mean it wasn't in her blood system, since specific tests need to done. The cited book says that they all did take the quaaludes. It even says that Davern and Walken went back to the boat just to bring back bottles of better wine, smoking a joint along the way. The investigators noted the drunkenness of the parties. A number of people on shore who worked at the bars and restaurants stressed the drunken state they were in, with one even calling Wagner after they left to return to their boat just to make sure they got back OK. Do you want quotes and cites? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"The fact that an autopsy didn't mention a particular drug does not mean it wasn't in her blood system" Uh...what??? Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and its editors aren't supposed to be making up their own theories. As you wrote it the inclusion, the quaaludes have zero to do with the death section so how did it relate? Without any indication (either in the included statement or by toxicology reports/autopsy) that the drug played a role in anything, the placing of that info in the article as it was is gratuitous at best and sensationalistic at worst (something you've said for weeks you want to keep out of the article). Either revise what you wrote and make it clear that the toxicology report didn't show quaaludes were in her system or leave it out. Further, I'm puzzled by your sudden addition of this kind of information - previously you wanted to gut the section of everything other than the police report, now you're adding things written in a fashion that doesn't connect them to her death at all? Why the change? Lhb1239 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is inconsistent with your previous avoidance of questions of relevance and trivia. As to having a crystal ball or being clairvoyant, do we allow editors to draw conclusions ("the conclusion to be drawn from the case being reopened is that they . . . ") as you did? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not inconsistent. Nice try, though. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I note you replaced the information without reading the further discussion. That's decidedly uncooperative and uncollegial. Next time, please wait for a response before just forging ahead. What's more, the information you say exists that they did take the quaaludes needs to be included with what you replaced and something needs to be said that the toxicology/autopsy report did not show quaaludes present in Wood's system. If you don't make the changes, I'm afraid that what you've replaced is unrelated to her death and will, once again, have to be removed. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think editors need to be going off into tangents about how drug tests are done. If you've ever had blood tests done, you'd notice the forms given to the nurse has tons of check boxes next to the specific subject they're testing for. Unless a blood test is used to look for particular drugs, like pot, it wouldn't be tested for or found.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So will you be adding the info from the book (with cites, of course) that Wood and Wagner took the quaaludes according to Davern? If you don't within a reasonable amount of time, the information you have re-placed in the article will need to be removed as it is just something Davern said to Wagner and has no relevance to the events surrounding Wood's death. Remember, the article is about Wood, not Davern. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The cite from the Davern-Rulli book is already there. I didn't bother adding redundant quotes from the book, "They each swallowed a Quaalude." The 2nd cite covers it better with his recent sworn statement. BTW, what's the point of your consistently heated comments? Is it necessary to threaten even good faith editors, implying your prefer flame wars as a rhetorical device? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how improving the article isn't in the best interest of all concerned. Considering that, I further fail to see how clarifying that each Wood and Wagner took Quaaludes when mentioning that Davern offered them the drug is "redundant" and would be considered anything less than improving the article. Having access to the quote in combination with the page number in the book that they each took the drug but withholding it is, in my opinion, irresponsible and intentionally uncivil.

As I stated earlier, if you quote Davern saying he had Quaaludes and that he recommended Wagner take it but nothing to tie Wood and her death to the statement, then the quote is irrelevant to the article. If it's irrelevant to the article, then it needs to be removed as the quote is only about Davern stating he had Quaaludes and recommended they take them. This isn't an article about Davern - it's not even an article about Wagner. It is about Wood and the section you have placed the irrelevant quote in is about her death. If the statement by Davern isn't connected to Wood or her death, then it shouldn't even be there. And before you say, "The other stuff about Davern and Wagner isn't about her death, either", let me remind you that Wagner's own statements about that night regarding the argument between Walken, Wagner, and Wood is the reason he says Wood left the yacht to begin with, and (somehow) ended up in the water. That makes it all relevant. The Davern statement about Quaaludes as it is written - not relevant.

So - either the statment/quote from the book about them taking quaaludes (complete with page numbers) is included in the article (since you have the page numbers, Wikiwatcher, you are the most likely person to do this) or the entire quaalude scendario needs to be removed from the article because without that information, it is irrelevant to the article. If you still refuse to do it, claiming the necessary information to be "redundant", then it will be obvious (to me, at least) that you are attempting to hijack and control the article and are refusing to work cooperatively and collegially. I prefer cooperative and collegial - what do you prefer, Wikiwatcher? Lhb1239 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the speech, but I prefer florescent bulbs over incandescent, since they produce more light than heat. Your comments are the mark of a very inefficient incandescent writer, and some of the most uncivil I've ever come across. -Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After doing some online research and reading portions of "Goodbye Natalie..." by Davern, the Quaalude event didn't even occur the day/night of Wood's death. Turns out, it's just an irrelevant piece of trivia that doesn't even play into the events/scenario surrounding her death, therefore, it has been appropriately removed. The situation with the Quaaludes as described in the book happened days before the boat was docked in Isthmus Cove - where the events surrounding Wood's death starts in the "Death" section. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The other cite was information given out by the LAPD as relevant to the overall atmosphere of the incident, along with heated arguments, inattentive concern, etc. Drugs and alcohol were all relevant, and covered extensively by Finstad and Rulli. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The section is on Wood's death. The Quaaludes had nothing to do with the events surrounding her death - adding it is simply gratuitous and irrelevant. The quote you provided happened days before her death. The official autopsy/toxicology report did not report Quaaludes in her system (probably because she took the Quaaludes days before she died - as the book relates). The Quaalude story doesn't belong in the article any more than the the stuff from North Carolina days and weeks before her death occured that the sockpuppet tried several times to include. Which, by the way, you objected to vehemently (remember?). So - I have to wonder what your purpose is in readding (and now edit warring) over content that doesn't have anything to do with Natalie Wood's death (and am starting to think you are doing it in order to make a point). In fact, it would be really great if you could answer why you are insistent on adding and readding content that isn't applicable, relevant or in any way related to the article and the article section. But - no matter why you are doing it, because the content just doesn't belong in the article at all, and because you are displaying one of the worst cases of IDHT I've ever seen in Wikipedia, your behavior is decidedly disruptive. In fact, in this particular case, it is textbook disruptive editing: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Adding, readding, and adding again the same irrelevant content isn't improving the article nor is it building an encyclopedia. If I were you, I'd reconsider leaving the content in the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While beer and wine stay in your system for 1 to 12 house, Quaaludes and other sedatives stay in from 10-15 days.[15]. There are hundreds of famous people whose deaths were drug related. The coroner stated that the Darvon they found in her system caused a "much more drunken state" with alcohol. Quaaludes were the only recreational drug mentioned used by everyone, and whether or not it was tested for or discovered, it describes the overall mood and atmosphere surrounding the accidental drowning. It is no less relevant to describe than people arguing over careers or jealousy. It's been noted already that you added 550 words about the atmosphere and arguments without mentioning the fact that everyone was drunk. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the either/or attitude. It's quite possible both that they were all drunk, she was on drugs and that Davern's inference and/or statements Wagner smacked her around and didn't give a darn about looking for her are all true. More importantly, how many WP:RS were they reported in? Anyway, busy with real world writing deadline I decided I better stop procrastinating on. But keeping half and eye on this and still have these and previously expressed concerns with the section. CarolMooreDC 06:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The bigger problem here, Carol, is that what Wikiwatcher has included isn't related to Wood's death and what's more, it didn't even happen on the same day of her death. It happened days before. Wikiwatcher has included it in content that leads the reader to believe it all happened on the same day and is, in some way, related. Beyond that, because it has nothing to do with Wood or her death, it doesn't even belong in the article. It's gratuitous, unnecessary and completely irrelevant information. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

From the sentence before the one about Quaaludes, it's clear that they took them early into the weekend trip, not the same day.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange if we are trying to keep it free of truly irrelevant detail that quaaludes be put in, especially when facts that LA Times says Davern's allegations were one of the reasons investigation opened and LA Times report on sheriff's investigation specifically mentions that “persons" have stated they had additional information about the drowning. Any response from Wikiwatcher1 or Mathew on that? Still working on other project, but learning a big more about this everyday. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher: No, it's not clear. What is clear if you read the book exerpt at googlebooks.com is that this incident didn't even happen by the time they anchored the boat in Isthmus Cove - and that's where the story of the events surrounding her death starts in the death section - YOU were the one who pushed hard on having the events prior to that time period removed from the article. Now, you're putting something into the article that (a) happens before that time period, (b) from where you've placed it, looks like it was one of the things that contributed to Wood's death, and (c) doesn't even mention they all took the drug. If it stays, it needs to (a) be stated it happened DAYS before her last night on earth, (b) placed before they dock in Isthmus Cove, and (c) made clear that they ALL took the drug. If none of that happens, it's misleading and has NO BEARING on Wood - the subject of the article - and is all about Davern, who is NOT the subject of the article.

CarolMooreDC: Yes, the drug information is trivial, but it's also irrelevant. And you are right, there has been important stuff about the case reported in the LA Times that was taken out and not included at all. As far as Wikiwatcher getting back on what's been asked previously - those questions still remain unanswered.

It's time for formal consensus on the drug/Quaaludes trivia. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

@Carole, actually, the exact reverse is true about what's "strange." As you noted a key news story about the case being reopened, you also read at the beginning, that the investigator "did not detail what the captain said regarding the case," only that "he made comments worthy of exploring." So I assume we all agree on that?

You probably also read the massive addition of new material, mostly OR, because of that news story. Some of the gratuitous cites (ie. pseudo-cites) were not related to the added text, and the matter was taken to the ANI board since User:Lhb1239 decided to edit war so his OR "scenarios" stayed in. His point was made clear: "the conclusion to be drawn from the case being reopened is that they . . . ", in effect declaring that he knows something the chief investigator doesn't.

How is that opinion being promoted? Simply read his additions: The first sentence of his scenario begins with a smashed wine bottle, with little context. A large proportion of his added minutia begins with "According to Davern . . . ", and what "he saw," what "he heard," what "he reports," and even such trivia as his "turning up his stereo." More of the same about how the captain "looked out his window" and what "he saw." More of the same dramatics with "Davern claims," how he "searched the boat," what he noticed, and again "According to Davern." And all this was in just the first of many paragraphs added. Yet nothing about alcohol or drugs, although both those factors were considered as very relevant by the coroner. The rest of his story included cherry-picked quotes added for drama.

So adding balance and relevant facts to added material is not "strange," it's actually necessary. Had that editor not added 550 words of his choosing, creating dramatic scenarios with factoids and quotes, to what was originally a 14 word summary of the death and case being reopened, the death section would not have been corrupted, overwhelmed and thrown off balance. It would be "strange" to focus just on arguments about careers and jealousy without mentioning other key facts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What I see above is an admission of WP:POINT which is considered to be disruptive. That makes an even stronger case for removing the content you placed (and reverted more than once, constituting edit warring) that has nothing to do with the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, shorter is better and obviously I wasn't happy with amount/excess verbiage of detail and its placement when I presented an alternative but you [User:Wikiwatcher1] just poo poo-ed it making me feel like I would have to do some huge amount of research just to clean up what was there and defend it at some outside noticeboard.

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/natalie-wood-investigation-prompted-by-boat-captain-comments.html The LA Times article says a bit more than you quote: Detectives decided to reopen the investigation into the death of actress Natalie Wood in part because of statements made by the captain of the boat Wood was on at the time of her death. L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca told The Times that homicide detectives want to talk to the captain based on comments he had made recounting the case on its 30th anniversary. Considering those comments were covered in lots of WP:RS a couple sentences are relevant. However, again, not integrated into the original account, just like Wagner's should not be, but mentioned as a more contemporary version. (Has anyone anywhere compared it to what he said at the time?) Davern's is an even more recent version. Is it known (as opposed to assume) who the second person who reported this is? CarolMooreDC 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Carol: To whom are you responding and directing your comments? Lhb1239 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary and inappropriate

As was suggested in an edit summary, discussing every move and change in any Wikipedia article is not necessary. Using edit summaries as a substitute for discussion that should take place on the article talk page, however, is inappropriate.

I think it's important to note that I removed the derriere comment made by the film critic. As it was presented, it was out of context (you can look at the reference online to verify). Even so, I don't see how the comment really applies to the article and, in my opinion, shouldn't be included at all. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See below. I have quoted the book. It was in context, all in the same paragraph. You removed the comment because you don't like it. You removed a comment twice so far because of your opinion without discussion when it is well sourced. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the exerpt from the book online. It was taken out of context. Whether it's referenced or not is neither here nor there. The comment is really not necessary to the article because it adds nothing encyclopedic - it's really more fancruft-ish than anything. The film critic's comment as it remains adds to the article - the rest of the comment doesn't. See WP:QUOTEFARM for more. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a very POV view of what should be included. You include all the favorable quotes. But what would give the article life, the comparison with Clara Bow etc. and the word derriere which apparently offends you! It is unbalanced and makes for a boring article. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. I gave you my reasons - they are all valid and all within policy. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My reasons are just as valid as yours and just as much "all within policy". I am not personal attacking you. I am trying to understand what to me seems to be your unreasonable and arbitrary behavior. It is not permissible to cherry pick a source as this article does with the Tibbetts' four pages. You do not own this article. Are you offended by the word derriere? There is nothing "inappropriate" about the word. It is a witty quote by a famous film critic. That's why Tibbetts used it. Do you think Natalie Wood was not aware she had a derriere? She was known for her sex appeal. Did that just "happen" without her participation? Perhaps she wasn't quite Marilyn Monroe, a cultural icon but her sex appeal was a large part of her attraction to the public. Of course, the article carefully avoids this issue, but it does say: Following her death, Time magazine noted that although critical praise for Wood had been sparse throughout her career, "she always had work." What do you think was going on? MathewTownsend (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Regardless of what you claim, your comments above and below contain personal attacks.

(2) I'm not offended by anything having to do with the quote and never said the word "derriere" was inappropriate. What's more, I don't give a damn about Wood's ass or her sex appeal. Stop trying to analyze and assign reasons (borne out of your assumptions) about my motives and why I'm saying what I am. (3) Much of what you have said above is WP:OR. I hope you don't think it would be suitable to place that OR into the article. (4) My concern is over what's encyclopedic, adds to the article, and doesn't give undue weight. If it's not encylopedic, doesn't add to the readers' understanding about the article subject and is undue weight, it needs to go. It's really quite simple. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you take my opinion as a personal attack. I don't mean it as such. I am only asking why you removed a sourced quote that addresses aspects of Natalie Wood's career currently left out of the article, giving the reason that it is "inappropriate". I don't understand you mean by "inappropriate"? What do you mean? What is the criteria? What I added was not WP:OR as it is all together in one paragraph in Tibbetts' chapter. I think it is closer to OR to cherry pick Tibbetts' sentences from one paragraph and sprinkle them out of context throughout the article. Usually the way to avoid using material out of context is to provide the entire quote. That way Tibbetts' words would not taken out of context as they are now. I am trying to represent the source in a balanced way, contrary to the way Tibbetts' chapter is currently used in the article. Since Tibbetts' four pages already account for eight different inline citations in the article already, I am concerned about the bias in the selection of what to use from his chapter while considering his other material "inappropriate". MathewTownsend (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) I never said the Tibbets material was inappropriate. Go back and re-read what I wrote in the OP at the top of this section.

(2) There's no other way to take comments that have nothing to do with reality and are directed at a specific editor other than how they were intended: personal attacks. Comment on edits, not editors.

Lhb1239 (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove sources comments from the article

The Tibbets book only contains four pages on Natalie Wood, pages 146-149. Most of the favorable parts are quoted in the article already; his other comments are ignored. The quote from Pauline Kael, who was a famous film critic for the New York Times for many years and is more noteworthy than endlessly quoting the favorable parts of Tibbetts' four pages. The quote from Tibbetts that includes Kael's comment is:

Kael referred to her as "clever little Natalie Wood," the "most machine-tooled of Hollywood ingenues": worse yet she accused her of acting more with her body than with her mind--"Miss Wood probably has the more active derrière since Clara Bow." Another critic described her as being "built like a brick dollhouse. By contrast, however, director Elia Kazan noted that she had a "true-blue quality with a wanton side that is held down by social pressure." As early as 1947, she had been named the "most exciting juvenile motion picture star of the year" by Parents Magazine. In 1950 she had been judged Child Star of the Year by the Children's Day National Council of New York. And over the years she had received three Academy Award nominations--for Splendor in the Grass, Love with the Proper Stranger, and Rebel Without a Cause.-- pp. 148-149 of Tibbetts, American Classic Screen Profiles.

Notice that everything favorable is already in the article. But left out are the more equivocal comments, such as that below about Elia Kazan. There is also a more thorough analysis of her films, e.g. that she ended up in a mental institution in Splendor in the Grass and faced an abortion in Love with the Proper Stranger the gives the gritty feel of her more adult roles. Tibbetts says:

"The styled violence of Rebel and West Side Story had changed to the brutal chaos of director Elia Kazan--including numerous bloody beatings and a gang rape."-- p. 148 of Tibbetts.

The Tibbetts four little pages have been cherry picked of all favorable comments so that the effect is very POV. If the article is going to rely extensively on the four pages of Tibbetts, more balance information from his four pages should be included also, IMHO. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Death section redone

According to the draft of the death section as rewritten by Carol Moore (see above), I have reworked that section. As it was, the death section had become a cluster of trivia and synthesis leading readers to believe things that weren't even part of the references cited. Because a basic consensus was reached weeks ago that the draft was acceptable and nothing new or better has been proposed nor has their been any attempts by other editors to improve the disputed death section (including the removal of contested content), I have taken the bold step of doing what we had discussed and agreed on according to WP:CONSENSUS quite a while back. Because the death section has been a hot-button issue previoiusly, please discuss here first before any changes or reversions take place. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 04:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us about the changes after you made them. There was no consensus as you state. Carol Moore only copy edited your massive scenario text for clarity and does not own the article, so your rationale is silly. But those are the minor problems! Your rewrite, even if you were elected to rewrite your original text, is much, much worse. In fact, the chronology and presentation of facts is cockeyed and confusing. The first paragraph is a hodge-podge of trivia without context: Brainstorm, North Carolina, Thanksgiving, Saturday, the yacht "was anchored" Captain Davern on board, long-time employee. And the next paragraph begins with a fact about a woman who heard 15 minutes of yelling for help around midnight. The rest is more of your personal scenario descriptions.

The end result is that you took your original 550 word non-neutral tabloidal trivia blitz, which was already very poor, and rewrote it to be even worse! The revision has so much more wrong with it that pointing out the errors would be pointless. The bottom line is that you are using this section as your personal non-neutral blog, backed up with tabloid sources like the Daily Mail. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus - Carol and I both were for the draft, yours was the only dissenting voice. It has been reverted back so that discussion about what needs to be changed can ensue. Edit warring is not the answer here - discussion and working together is. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 07:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've been out of it last two weeks. Ho Ho HO and all that. Still hitting up to a 12/31 writing deadline too. Anyway, I can't believe Wikiwatcher1 thinks her/his version is perfect either; if I remember correct s/he only wants a couple sentences anyway. In any case, can't we work on a draft here? Since WikiWatcher1 wants LESS info, why doesn't WW1 put their preferred text. And then we'll see how and what can be added from there? If you do it, start a new section. I'll try to pay some attention, but don't want to write myself til research those original articles and a few more things. One of these days I will present a full blown version... :-) CarolMooreDC 15:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be more logical to first question whether it's even possible to write more than a brief summary without violating npov guidelines for this section. IMO, by shifting the focus and center of gravity away from the neutral police conclusions, to the non-neutral statements by an accuser and an accused, a line has been crossed. The section has grown to 850 words from a few dozen, and the majority of sources are from non-neutral parties to an investigation or from tabloidal-reports relying on those same non-neutral sources. The two scenarios, newly added since the case was reopened, was written based on those non-neutral sources, has drowned out the earlier official conclusions and the fact that the case was reopened based on "undisclosed" new facts. So I would first get the section back to a purely neutral status. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"It may be more logical to first question whether it's even possible to write more than a brief summary without violating npov guidelines for this section." Of course it's possible. If it weren't possible, there would be few articles in Wikipedia with anything other than a couple of paragraphs each. I agree with Carol - since you want less wording WW1, present what you find acceptible by using less wording. I'm certain you can accomplish that by the weekend. At that point, we will then go from there and cooperatively build a section that works by consensus (even though consensus was already reached with the draft Carol provided a month ago). If you don't present something by the weekend, Carol and I will work on the section. But - we just can't leave it as it is any longer. Nor will it be acceptible for changes to be made and then reverted wholesale without any discussion on what the reverting editor thinks can be done to improve the article. Carol, how does that suit you? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but for some reason I think that there probably are more than a "few articles" in Wikipedia that don't involve mysterious deaths of movie stars. But I haven't read them all, so maybe you're right. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, Lhb1239. And remember as always we can always invite opinions from the larger community when we have a version that isn't just embarrassing, like the current one. CarolMooreDC 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Embarassing" is a perfect description, Carol. Why anyone would think the current version is acceptible and preferable over what was done a few nights ago is beyond my level of AGF understanding. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's probably time to avoid real embarrassment and prune all the innuendos and gratuitous implications that contradict the official conclusions. Unless the final conclusion of the detectives are not good enough for WP. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Death section is almost 20% of the article body. I think more around 5% or less would be reasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

After recent pruning, it's 7%. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a couple more sentences could be inserted since this is a well known case and it will look like a) we aren't doing are job and/or b) there's a coverup. But at least a lot of unnecessary was removed. At my leisure. CarolMooreDC 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see, that you guys have tried really hard to get the death section correct, and I applaud you for your effort. // I read this article a year or so back, and found myself here again today. When I reread this version, I was taken-aback. It is SO lean. I've seen more detail in other biographies relating to deaths from natural causes, than the stuff found here. Furthermore, references to any of the questions surrounding Miss Wood's death have been removed from both her article and the others involved [ Wagner, Walken ]. // Her death should not overshadow any of those individual's lives, but it is certainly a significant event in them, and questions do exist. Perhaps, this section should be made into its own article and simply linked in here. // PS: In its current form, it does give the appearance of a cover-up. I do not believe IN ANY WAY, that you guys were doing that -> It's just that it ended up far too generic for what it is. // Thank you --- 71.251.161.129 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

infobox problem

Got here by random: Appariently my favrote actress is a bigomist:

"Robert Wagner (m. 1957–1962) Richard Gregson (m. 1969–1972) Robert Wagner (m. 1972–1981) (her death)"

I think there is a problem with the first one...

What's the problem?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

A sockpuppet User:Lhb1239, (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen now blocked as of 11 January 2012) has been editing this page. Please take this into account in evaluating his edits. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

I found a nice PD photo of her in 1965 which I personally like better than the current lead image. Thoughts? File:Natalie Wood-press release.jpg --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Looks great! Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Prescription pill overdose on November 27, 1964

Suzanne Finstad describes an episode in which Wood swallowed a bottle of pills and had to be taken to the hospital by her gay friend Mart Crowley. She was living alone at the time, locked in her Brentwood mansion, and Crowley had to crawl through the dog's door flap to gain entrance. The particular day was the very last one on which she worked on The Great Race—it was the final day of her vocal work in the sound studio, performing dialog replacement. Wood almost died, says Crowley.

The Finstad book is already cited as a reliable source, so why is this important occurrence not described in the article? Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There was edit warring with the dominating editors seeking to keep out anything negative about Wood. I was harassed by (talk→ LesHB ←track), who posted complaints about me multiple places and peppered my page with warnings. He drove me and others away. It turns out that he was sockpuppet, but the damage has been done. I know I don't want to edit the page ever again. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It probably should be included, but in a larger context, which at this point is missing. Implying that a major star may have attempted suicide is contentious. Giving an isolated incident like above would need much more in the way of news sources and actual statements by others to discuss any serious emotional issues. Because she died under mysterious circumstances, and later found with medications in her system which could have been a contributing factor, the connections between all that and implied (or quoted) suicide attempts require extreme caution when including. Kazan's quote is potentially part of the bigger picture, but implications otherwise are fodder for Hollywood Babylon-type stories. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The larger context would be Wood's mental health, specifically depression, which Finstad addresses in her book, as does Gavin Lambert in Natalie Wood: a life. A section about Wood's mental health could cover her visits to a psychiatrist, and observations from her sister and others that she was often depressed. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Official change in the case: LA County Sheriff's Department has officially changed from "accident" to "undetermined"

I would have updated the article, but it's locked.

It needs updating.

Yesterday the official status of the case pertaining to the incident of her death changed from "accident" to "undetermined."

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/06/natalie-wood-death-certificate-changed-undetermined/

RTIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtiii (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just added the revision, but if someone could insert the proper citation, I would appreciate it.Ronsword (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better source? -- Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/23/entertainment-us-nataliewood-idUSBRE87L17720120823 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, a copy of the actual certificate: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2012/08/21/80/eb/1c73e165c1c34317a2148083fda60ea1-c9f5c2b37a284f0e8329a1033a2e7dd1-1.jpg 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk)

Another article (progress to date) [16] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My recent edits

Due to the extremity of my last two edits (approximately 8,000 characters removed) some users may view them as destructive upon glancing at the revision history. However, before anyone reverts, I am suggesting you read the article as I have left it. I think you will find that, despite the significant amount of content removed, this current version is much better than the old, bloated version. Shipofcool (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Great job on the copy/edit. Sometimes less is more. The narrative is now much more consistent. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC) -- Or ... maybe not? There currently is a bit too much fluff; but what needs attention is some sort of delineation between West Side Story subsection, and the remainder of her (post-WestSide) 'Adult Career' section. ~Anyway... ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2013

Please add, under 'Tributes', an entry for the song "Electric Relaxation" by A Tribe Called Quest. Tribute is paid to Ms. Wood in this (famous and celebrated) song when Q-Tip says, "Not to come across as a thug or a hood / But hon' you got the goods, like Natalie Wood." Many thanks. M. John Bamford (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC) M. John Bamford M. John Bamford (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that including her name in a song unrelated to Woods is considered a "tribute," as used in a biography. For instance, there's a song call "Goldie Hawn", that while it probably helps sell the song, was not recorded as a tribute to her.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiwatcher. Calling it a tribute is probably a stretch here, and without a reliable source that directly supports that statement this would probably be considered original research. In the absence of consensus to the contrary, I'm closing this edit request as  Not done. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for the "Death" section.

In the sentence ending with "...Wagner and Walken told officials that they had an argument the previous evening but eventually calmed down." --The antecedent of "they" is unclear, i.e. I can't tell who had the argument. Was it Wagner and Walken, or was it Wagner and his wife, Natalie Wood? Could someone please clarify? That paragraph goes on to describe injuries found during the autopsy, implying that she had been in an argument. CousinJohn (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Walken and Wagner argued with each other. Wagner even broke a wine bottle over the table during the argument, where everyone was inebriated from a day of drinking on shore. But since the sentence was out of context to the section covering the drowning, with no clear relevance, it's best removed. --Light show (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for Splendor in the Grass

This sentence ends with a transitive phrasal verb and requires an object: "He felt that despite her earlier, innocent roles, she had the talent and maturity to go beyond [sic]." Complete the thought; go beyond what? Autodidact1 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Trivia and duplicate photos

There's no reason to include two nearly identical photos with many others available. I agree that the Warren photo looks good for the lead and a lot of the personal life material is trivial. But some of the background quotes are relevant and well sourced and should be kept, to at least give more depth to her personal life rather than minimal flat facts. Otherwise the Death section seems massive in comparison. Birth year for children are enough. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reopening of investigation

I made this change here [17] as the timeline on the reopening of the investigation seems somewhat unclear. The BBC News source does seem to imply the reopening came after a NBC News appearance. But the second link is to a NBC News Today show interview with the person in question, and while they are very evasive it's clear that the investigation has already been reopened, and there's no mention of an earlier NBC news appearance. The third source also mentioned an interview and while it doesn't directly say it, it implies the interview came after the reopening of the case. Further, in the interview, despite the evasiness the person does say that they'd been saying the stuff privately for years. (It's also not totally clear what lead up to what. For example, that there had been a fight was seemingly fairly well known long before the reopening (at least since the husband himself acknowledged it, but seemingly before since in the interviews it's suggested some info on a fight had been known since 1983.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Wayne witness testimony from ABC News via Good Morning America

Please check the edits that were done by me and another editor a few minutes ago: Saturday, April 23, 2016. How can the excerpt from the ABC News / GMA source be a copyright violation? The article has two references that attribute the excerpt to its source. If you insist that it's a copyright violation, then the long excerpt from Robert Wagner's memoir would have to be a copyright violation, too. Remove it, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Did she get assaulted?

I read today an article claiming that she had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by Kirk Douglass as a teenager. http://connect.everythingzoomer.com/profiles/blogs/was-natalie-wood-raped-by-spartacus-hollywood-noir

Any idea if something about this should be added to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.116.34 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

wrist(s)

there's nothing in the article about the bony protrusions on her wrist(s), about which she was so sensitive that it affected the wardrobe dept. in many of the productions she starred in. I'm not going to add it in without citations, & besides I don't know where it would go, but it is something that should be in here, no?

duncanrmi (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natalie Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117053358/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NATALIE_WOOD_INVESTIGATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NATALIE_WOOD_INVESTIGATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natalie Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013165655/http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/web-storage/Stars/Stars%20dedicated%20by%20date.pdf to http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/web-storage/Stars/Stars%20dedicated%20by%20date.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hydrophobia

Robert Redford reports in this Turner Movies reflection upon Natalie Wood, that she was afraid of water: YouTube code: BvFtas8Ysrc

I'm surprised that this was not mentioned in relation to her death by drowning.

Redford stated that he encouraged her to improvise during their films together (this was not part of her method). She was willing to do so. During one scene he jumped into a pool with her. Only afterwards did she reveal her fear of water. 2001:44B8:1124:6600:CC52:ABBE:43BA:1031 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Art Garfunkel

Art Garfunkel mentions her in the semi-autobiography What Is It All But Luminous, Notes from an Underground Man as "Paul won the writer's royalties. I got the girls" "Glory found its way to me -- Fabulous foxes, slim-hipped, B-cup, little Natalie Woods". 58.167.152.133 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A different era? It would be a disturbing insight if accurate. cygnis insignis 22:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Why "Wood"?

Is there any particular reason why "Wood" was chosen as her stage-surname, or was it just a random name that sounded good? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The answer is to be found in the Lana Wood article. Her surname was changed in reference to the director Sam Wood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I added that bit to the article (verified from book preview on Goodreads) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Stephanie Power jealousy statement

I came across contemporaneous reporting in which Wagner makes statements that what drove his wife to be upset and angry with him on the night that she died was her jealousy of his costar Stefanie Powers who, according to Wagner, she suspected to be having an affair with him. Is this relevent to mention? 1Veertje (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Mars Nate Gurdin?

After a cursory Google search, I can't find any solid references to a child of Natalie Wood's named "Mars Nate Gurdin" (who is referenced in the second paragraph of the article), but that change was added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Wood&diff=prev&oldid=938484049 Looking at the editing user's profile, I think this might not be an accurate change. I don't know how to vet this, but I wanted to let people know.Mirablu (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. Thank you, Mirablu. Dr. K. 02:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mars Nate Gurdin?

After a cursory Google search, I can't find any solid references to a child of Natalie Wood's named "Mars Nate Gurdin" (who is referenced in the second paragraph of the article), but that change was added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Wood&diff=prev&oldid=938484049 Looking at the editing user's profile, I think this might not be an accurate change. I don't know how to vet this, but I wanted to let people know.Mirablu (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. Thank you, Mirablu. Dr. K. 02:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Add category?

I propose to add, Category:Actresses of Ukrainian descent as her father was ethnic Ukrainian from family that emigrated from Kharkiv, Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holiłódź (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported claim

I am going to remove a short claim made by an FBI agent long after Wood's death, which is basically gossip, and comes from an unreliable source.Princetoniac (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Request: neutrality template

I would like to request that this article (or at least the section on her death) be given a template regarding neutrality.

The first thing the “death” section does is state she died under “mysterious circumstances,” before even bringing up her age or a boat.

Following a paragraph about her death and a paragraph on her funeral/memorial, there were several long paragraphs about the suspicious circumstances she died under. While I think it is vital to bring this up (and perhaps even get its own article), the paragraphs go into far too much detail, list more accounts than needed, are all somehow incriminating towards Robert Wagner. Aside from its poor grammar, it invokes strong wording. For instance, it lists that “the coroner responded strangely, as if he were involved in a cover-up”. This was not a part of a quote, it is a real part of this article.

I am not the first Wikipedia editor to say that this article is poorly written. Earlier in the year (and elsewhere on this talk page), another user stated that a piece of the article was written with unreliable sources.

Upon checking the history of this article, one can see that it has been plagued throughout the years by frivolous, lengthy, poorly worded, and badly sourced writing.

Painting17 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Who the hell is wagner?

In the summary at the top, it says wagner was listed as a person of interested despite having never mentioned wagner before. That's just sloppy. 2001:48F8:7028:1E21:69E5:E930:199A:E5BB (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So fix it. Acroterion (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)