User talk:W090584

Brittany Murphy

Please note that the use of primary sources fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please discuss concerns on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Justice For Brittany

The problem is that it is posted on the Justice for Brittany site, a completely unreliable source. There's no assurance that it hasn't been tampered with or modified in some way. Additionally, the information it was being used to support is already being supported by reliable third-party sourcing, so it was unnecessary.

You seem to be associated with the site, and appear to be using your account primarily to insert links to it, violating WP:COI. I am going to request that you stop posting links to it. If you continue, I will consider taking further action, such as blocking your account or modifying the Wikipedia blacklist so that links to it can not be inserted. —Kww(talk) 16:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel I should answer this further for the benefit of subsequent readers..

In fact I did not insert links (plural) to the site. I posted one link to a document via a URL containing that of the site. This edit was counteracted by Kww. I accept the removal on those grounds but continue to dispute other reasons why a link to the document should not be included if the link did not include the URL of the site in question. I refute the allegation that I obtained a Wikipedia account in order to promote that site. I also submit that the tone of Kww to a newbie was unnecessarily strident (W090584 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

"The problem is that it is posted on the Justice for Brittany site, a completely unreliable source." - I take this to mean that in your view the partiality of the site suggests that the certificate may be forged. The same could equally be said of the death certificate - we do not know whether Eonline has made enquiries to establish it's authenticity. In either case enquiries could be made by any viewer who is concerned as to the authenticity of either document, using the information which appears on it. Posting a document which I know to be false would obviously be extremely foolish as it could be proven so by anyone making enquiries.

I would accept an argument that the fact that the document is linked via Justice For Brittany could be construed as an attempt to promote the site so I am willing to link directly and remove all reference to it. I do not understand however where there is a conflict of interest. The argument for the relevant citation is either valid or not regardless of who is making it. Furthermore, as I said before, an attempt to allow the death certificate which does not mention Angelo Bertolotti but exclude the birth certificate which does equally raises questions of impartiality.

To sum up, all I am asking for is a citation for a statement already present in the article. I am not attempting to assert anything. I await your response to my suggestion of removing reference to Justice For Brittany (W090584 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

If you can point to an image on a reliable news site (not an image hosting site, not YouTube, not MySpace, but a reputable news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), I would withdraw my objection.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"If you can point to an image on a reliable news site""a reputable news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - Could you list acceptable organisations?

Also, I repeat my earlier point - reference numbers are clearly visible on the document, you or anyone else can check the authenticity just as easily as any media organisation. It is, is it not, permissable to cite books by title and ISDN number, when enquiries would have to be made to check that they existed and that they contained the relevant information. Explain the difference in the case of other printed matter such as a certificate - what if I were to cite the reference number of the certificate and the authority which issued it? (W090584 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

A "list of acceptable organisations"? No, because it would number in the tens of thousands. If you have doubts, discuss your source at WP:RSN. The key is being able to demonstrate that the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When it comes to difficult to verify information (like pointing at a county recorder's office), the question becomes the importance of the information vs. the risk of hoaxes persisting because of the inconvenience of checking it out. What information are you trying to provide that isn't already provided by sources in the article?—Kww(talk) 17:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked for a list of acceptable organisations, not a list of ALL acceptable organisations. "The key is being able to demonstrate that the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - how has this been demonstrated to you in the case of eonline?

"What information are you trying to provide that isn't already provided by sources in the article?" - I repeat once again...

Currently there is a citation after the name of Sharon Murphy with a link to the death certificate. I assume that this is to illustrate her full name and to establish her as being Brittany's mother. I therefore demand that there be a similar citation as to the full name of Angelo Bertolotti and the fact that he is Brittany's father - that fact is the additional information which the birth certificate gives which that copy of the death certificate does not. I can't make it any clearer than that. (W090584 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

The Wikipedia article has never had a problem with naming Angelo Bertolotti as Brittany Murphy's father, as this has appeared in reliable secondary sources. The real problems here are a) the tweets at IMAKESTARS which have serious WP:BLP issues (they cannot even make up their mind about whether Brittany's "real" father is still alive or not) and linking to the Justice for Brittany site, which supports a cause in a way that would probably fail WP:RS. When an average reader comes across the article Brittany Murphy, they will see Angelo Bertolotti named as Brittany Murphy's father. This is what matters, and the current mudslinging in the blogosphere is non-notable unless the mainstream media picks up on it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well strictly speaking, what matters is that whatever the article asserts us backed by citations. A citation is necessary as to the assertion that Angelo Bertolotti is Brittany's father. I still await Kww's response on this, and the point regarding the citation of a certificate versus a book

Assuming I change the URL of the birth certificate to remove any reference to Justice For Brittany what action can Kww take against me if I repost the link, and what action can I take against him? (W090584 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

It's not really a question of taking action "against" each other. You've run up against the policies and guidelines of the site. As an admin, I look over these issues and take action if things are clear cut (which, in this case, they were). I've added a specific citation to a news article about the identity of the father. If you have a new fact you wish to introduce into the article, feel free, but remember to stay clear of WP:COI and to follow WP:RS, both of which would preclude sourcing any material to your blog.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the statement "It's not really a question of taking action "against" each other" I recall...

"I am going to request that you stop posting links to it. If you continue, I will consider taking further action, such as blocking your account or modifying the Wikipedia blacklist so that links to it can not be inserted." My interpretation of that quote is that you are proposing to carry out sanctions against me.

"You've run up against the policies and guidelines of the site" - better to say that I have run up against YOUR interpretation that those policies have been violated. Evidently Wikipedia is not available to be edited by anyone, you are in fact running this article/discussion as a dictatorship, sole arbiter of policies with no right of appeal.

You keep referring to a conflict of interest - what conflict? My interest as a contributor to that blog is entirely in accord with my interest as an improver of this article. I simply ask for parity in citing BOTH parents' identities. YOU are the one whose position in applying double standards is capable of interpretation of being partial and thus demonstrating a conflict of interest within the context of this article/discussion. My partiality is inferred by you due to my participation in another site - this is not relevant to the question of the lack of citation of the identity of Brittany's father while her mother's identity IS cited.

"both of which would preclude sourcing any material to your blog" - I have already agreed not to link the tweets and not to link the certificate via the blog, this statement is no longer relevant. We are now debating the certificate solely. In any case the blog never was the source, hence my dispute regarding your interpretation of policies.

You have repeatedly ignored my questions, I ask again....

Why is it permissable to link one offline source i.e. a book and not another i.e. a certificate when in both cases further checks would have to be done by a reader to verify them?

Why does the full name and status as parent of Sharon Murphy require citation but not that of Angelo Bertolotti?

What organisations would be acceptable sources to host the certificate?

If I repost the link to the certificate having removed all reference to the blog, what action will you take against me and what action can I take to counter this? I claim that your application of a double standard compromises your impartiality. (W090584 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

I haven't ignored your questions at all. I'll go after them one more time:

• "Why is it permissable to link one offline source i.e. a book and not another i.e. a certificate when in both cases further checks would have to be done by a reader to verify them?"

• It isn't impermissible to provide an offline source for the birth certificate. However, since there is already a reliable online citation for the statement that Angelo Bertolotti is the father, it isn't necessary to add a source that is difficult to verify. The question here is this: since we already have a citation that supports him being the father, why would you insist on adding another one? What's the motivation?

• "Why does the full name and status as parent of Sharon Murphy require citation but not that of Angelo Bertolotti?"

• Both require citation, and both have them.

• "'What organisations would be acceptable sources to host the certificate?"

• As I said above, an exhaustive list would be impossible. You need to be able to show that the host has a reputation for reliability and fact-checking. That would rule out Facebook, MySpace, imageshack, blogs, and most random internet sites. It would include cnn.com, latimes.com, nytimes.com, newsweek.com, and most reputable news sources. Why don't you just tell me what reliable source contains the scan, and we can discuss that? If your goal is to post it someplace yourself and then link to it, that won't be acceptable.

• "If I repost the link to the certificate having removed all reference to the blog, what action will you take against me and what action can I take to counter this?"

• That would depend on what you actually sourced it to, so I can't answer the question. My COI comment above was based on the conclusion that you are involved with the production of the blog, which is something I concluded after watching your interaction with other editors. Am I wrong about that?

• "I claim that your application of a double standard compromises your impartiality."

• You'll have to show where I'm applying a double standard. If you honestly believe I have, WP:ANI is the appropriate spot to file a complaint, but you should be certain that you have a compelling argument. "Kww won't let me post purported scans of a birth certificate hosted on a blog" won't fly very far.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"It isn't impermissible to provide an offline source for the birth certificate" - so in that case what will action will you take if I post one? Up until now you have attacked my link on grounds of reliability now you assert that it isn't necessary.

"The question here is this: since we already have a citation that supports him being the father, why would you insist on adding another one? What's the motivation?" - Then why is a citation of the death certificate necessary in the case of Sharon when there are numerous references to her being Brittany's mother elsewhere?

"Both require citation, and both have them." - There is a clear disparity in that a link to the death certificate appears after Sharon's name but no citation appears after Angelo's name. I ask again, why is a link to a reference elsewhere in the article sufficient in the case of Angelo while a specific reference to death certificate appears to substantiate the full name and relationship of Sharon. That constitutes a disparity.

"As I said above, an exhaustive list would be impossible" - I repeat once again, I did not ask for an exhaustive list, simply a list - two names would constitute a list. "It would include cnn.com, latimes.com, nytimes.com, newsweek.com, and most reputable news sources" - and eonline presumably, since you accepted the link to the death certificate which they are hosting.

"That would depend on what you actually sourced it to, so I can't answer the question" - I don't understand. I asked what action you would take against me for violating. What difference does it make which policy I violate?

"My COI comment above was based on the conclusion that you are involved with the production of the blog, which is something I concluded after watching your interaction with other editors. Am I wrong about that?" - I have already acknowledged that I contribute to that blog, go back and read my previous answers. Once again I repeat, where is the conflict of interest between my participating in that blog and asking for the disparity in the citations to be resolved? Also, that quote seems to suggest that you only started to attack my edits AFTER you became aware that I was a participant in the blog.

"Kww won't let me post purported scans of a birth certificate hosted on a blog" - That comment is childish. You are well aware that the disparity in citations is the issue, not merely that you won't let me post the link under any circumstances.

Who appointed you admin and what's your interest in the subject?

I'm going to bed now, so don't expect an immediate response to anything else you may post. (W090584 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

There are citations after both parties named. Take a look at the article. His status as the father is directly sourced to the New York Daily News. The death certificate is hosted on an easily accessible, reliable source, which is not the case with the birth certificate. Point at a reliable source for the birth certificate, and the discussion goes away.

I haven't "attacked" your edits. I've removed comments from you on the talk page based on WP:BLP (while Brittany is dead, you made statements about living members of the family), and reverted edits by you based on WP:RS and my conclusion that you were violating WP:COI. I became aware of the apparent conflict of interest slightly before I removed your links to the blog this morning.

The only issue here that I can take administrative actions on is your COI. We don't just have policies guiding what editors can do, we have even more about what admins can do (I was appointed as an admin April 20, 2010, by the way). There are other actions that can be taken if you attempted an edit war (WP:EDITWAR) in an effort to post a scan or similar forms of disruptive editing. Some actions would permit me to block you directly. Since I've made an edit to the article, some actions would have to be reviewed by another admin. In the end, though, there isn't a path through this that would permit you to upload the scan to another site and then link to it here.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"There are citations after both parties named. Take a look at the article" - I see that you have now added a citation to one of many hundred pages which mentions Angelo Bertolotti as Brittany's father. I infer from this that you are of the belief that the New York Daily News fact-checks every mention of someone as being someone else's parent - I don't share that belief. I believe they are simply repeating the common assumption that he is her father. There is still a disparity between merely linking to an article which mentions Angelo Bertolotti as Brittany's father and linking to an official document which names Sharon Murphy as her mother. Also, Sharon's citation appears after her full name is given - my inference from that is that the citation is offered at least in part to establish that her middle name is Kathleen. The article which you cite in the case of Angelo does not establish that his middle name is Joseph. Either link Angelo to a certificate or link Sharon to an article which mentions her as being Brittany's mother (and remove references to middle names). Then you will have resolved the disparity.

"I haven't "attacked" your edits" - merely a question of semantics. "I've removed comments from you on the talk page based on WP:BLP" - I wasn't aware that you had removed anything from the talk page and don't recall making any statements about living members of Brittany's family other than saying that I have a mutual contact with Mr Bertolotti. Furthermore the removal of any statement from the talk page which is not legally contentious would naturally have to be viewed as censorship. You still haven't explained where the conflict of interest lies. I challenge you to quote anything from the blog which suggests such a conflict, any statement which I have made there has been backed by appropriate citation. All I and the rest of the contributors to that blog are doing is holding Sharon Murphy and Roger Neal to account for statements which they have made. Would you accuse a journalist who skeptically examines the statements of a politician in an interview of exhibiting a conflict of interest? His interest is in getting as close as possible to the truth, precisely the goal we are striving for in improving Wikipedia articles I would submit.

"my conclusion that you were violating WP:COI" - YOUR conclusion - key issue.

"The only issue here that I can take administrative actions on is your COI" - My question was, what action will you take if I post a citation referring to an offline certificate? Further to that, what action could I take to dispute that a conflict of interest exists?

"I was appointed as an admin April 20, 2010" - The irony of the date has not escaped me, but my question was who appointed you, not when were you appointed. And I note that you have not answered the question "what's your interest in the subject?"

"There are other actions that can be taken if you attempted an edit war (WP:EDITWAR)." Who would decide on when the "edit war" began and who started it? The term "war" incidentally seems entirely in keeping with my use of the word "attack" which you found inappropriate. And I would remind you that it was you who introduced a belligerent tone into this discussion.

"In the end, though, there isn't a path through this that would permit you to upload the scan to another site and then link to it here" - You are contradicting your earlier statement that such a link would be allowed if it were to a trusted site. (W090584 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

The Google image search results for Michael Jackson death certificate bring up a large number of results, Michael Jackson birth certificate much less so. The media is wary of publishing these documents, and so is Wikipedia per WP:DOB. The image of Brittany Murphy's birth certificate at [1] may well be genuine, but it is less than ideal as a citation. Even the publication of Barack Obama's birth certificate has not stopped the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Since nobody in the media seems interested in the claims made on Roger Neal's Twitter profile, the current sourcing in the article is sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"The media is wary of publishing these documents" - That appears to be your inference based on the disparity in search result numbers. I would suggest that the example you quote merely illustrates that there is more interest in Michael Jackson's death than his birth, and does not compare to the issue which we are discussing regarding this article. You seem to have reversed your earlier position of accepting my link to the certificate and merely challenging the link to the tweets. Both you and the admin seem to have acknowleged my indirect connection to Mr Bertotti, it is our mutual contact who provided me with the scan of the certificate. You both appear to be making contradictory statements, namely that I am simultaneously acting on Mr Bertolotti's behalf and yet offending against his privacy. In any case, sensitive information has been blacked out.

"Since nobody in the media seems interested in the claims made on Roger Neal's Twitter profile, the current sourcing in the article is sufficient" - I fail to see the relevance of the certificate to the issue of the tweets. I have already agreed not to link the tweets, the current issue is the disparity in the citations of Sharon's status as parent vs Angelo's (and, while it's a relatively trivial matter, the citations of their full names) (W090584 (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

I am not disputing the good faith of the version of the birth certificate, but other than Mr Bertolotti's middle name (Joseph) it adds little to what is already known. The link to the death certificate could be removed if it was a problem, but again it adds little to what is already known. Incidentally, the "irony" of KWW being made an admin on April 20 seems to be a reference to the birthday of Adolf Hitler, which confirms Godwin's law. In view of this, it might be worth raising this matter at WP:ANI for further comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"I am not disputing the good faith of the version of the birth certificate but other than Mr Bertolotti's middle name (Joseph) it adds little to what is already known" - Like I said you have reversed your earler position. One inference from that could be that you feel encouraged by the tough line taken by the admin. Either you object or you don't, I ask that you stand by your own convictions.

"Incidentally, the "irony" of KWW being made an admin on April 20 seems to be a reference to the birthday of Adolf Hitler" - I have already described the admin's attitude as dictatorial. I stand by that, however trite it may seem to you.

"In view of this, it might be worth raising this matter at WP:ANI for further comment" - could you elaborate on that? (W090584 (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

We are all becoming burned out and saying the same things over and over again. There are various forms of dispute resolution available on Wikipedia, including the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as KWW has commented on this. I have tried to be consistent with the birth certificate, but do believe that it is not adding greatly to what is already in the article. It is a cliché to accuse the admins of being like Hitler, and seldom helps in dispute resolution. Let's be honest here, were it not for the claims on Roger Neal's Twitter profile, none of this would have happened.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"I have tried to be consistent with the birth certificate" - Sorry, but you haven't. You earlier accepted my link to the certificate and then reversed your position when the admin became involved.

As regards dispute resolution, I haven't currently got a grievance against the admin - he hasn't yet taken any action against me. I observed his attitude to be belligerent and dictatorial (His very first reply mentioned blocking my account) but that doesn't constitute a grievance. We've all seen message board discussions descend quickly into flame wars and personal abuse, this is nothing like that. It's robust but intelligent debate - such as you might find in politics or a courtroom. I haven't called him an idiot of used profane language. Naturally we're dealing with contentious issues here. I genuinely wanted to know what recourse I would have were the admin to take action against me and believe that asking who appointed him and what his interest in the subject of this article is were fair questions.

"Let's be honest here, were it not for the claims on Roger Neal's Twitter profile, none of this would have happened." - None of what would have happened? I would still debate the issue of the disparity in the citations regardless of the tweets, it wasn't them alone that drew me to get a Wikipedia account and edit this article.

"It is a cliché to accuse the admins of being like Hitler". - I merely mentioned irony. I had already described the admin's attitude as dictatorial. You have observed yourself that that name is synonymous with dictactor, so naturally there is an irony. And are you saying that unoriginality breaches Wikipedia policy?

Incidentally, what would be your attitude to mention being made to the fact that Sharon is allegedly writing a book about Brittany, assuming I could find an acceptable source? (W090584 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

We are into retread territory here again. On the subject of the book allegedly being written by Sharon Murphy, I had not heard about it until seeing the mention of it [2] at Talk:Brittany Murphy. This would be covered by WP:CRYSTAL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"We are into retread territory here again" - I'm lost, this is the first time I've mentioned it.If you are unaware of the topic you are obviously not very aware of Brittany Murphy coverage over the last several months as it has been widely reported. I have found a link to the story on the same site which is hosting the death certificate, so presumably you will regard it as a trusted source.

I would like it noted by the admin that your last post includes a link to the blog which was not inserted by me, neither can I recall posting any such links before on any talk page. (W090584 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

The problem is being asked to comment on things that have not received widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will freely admit to not being an expert on Brittany Murphy, with the book and the parentage issues falling into this category. My Brittany Murphy web world is based on Google News results, not the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"I will freely admit to not being an expert on Brittany Murphy" - in that case I ask you the same question I asked Kww - what brought you here? You obviously don't monitor every page on Wikipedia,why this one? Seriously, I'm not trying to be clever, I want to know. I'm a newbie remember. Also you didn't answer my question, would a link to the book story on eoline be acceptable bearing in mind that it is the same site which is hosting the death certificate whose validity I gather you accept? (W090584 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Further to my previous post in answer to yours...

"My Brittany Murphy web world is based on Google News results, not the blogs" - My knowledge is also not based on blogs, rather major entertainment media sites. The story in question has been widely reported on such sites and been readily accessible in Google results since late November. Do you seriously think Sharon and her publicist or anyone else in the public eye would announce a book project via blogs? You seem seriously uninformed (W090584 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

What do Archimedes, The Amityville Horror and Brittany Murphy have in common? Not very much, other than these articles are on my WP:WATCHLIST. I was in the middle of a quiet Sunday when this happened. This has become a classic Wikipedia Tempest in a teapot, because as far as the average person is concerned, Brittany Murphy's father is still Angelo Bertolotti. Nothing has changed since Sunday, other than the drama over a few edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

" was in the middle of a quiet Sunday when this happened" - Then why do it, if it's interfering with your life?

"because as far as the average person is concerned, Brittany Murphy's father is still Angelo Bertolotti" - I doubt most people know who she was. Much as I rate her, she didn't make the A list. Is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give an overview to the uninitiated? All the more reason to ensure accuracy. Surely it makes sense for people who are interested in a topic to take an interest in ensuring accuracy rather than some random person who would complain about his time being impinged upon and who can't be bothered to research the subject properly. Again, I'm not having a go but what prompted you to get involved with Wikipedia in the first place? (W090584 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Why indeed, but my involvement with Wikipedia is not up for discussion here. Over the years I have been accused of bias/conflict of interest on various articles, but have been unprepared for the level of accusations here. Check out my edit history for a look at the range of articles that I have edited. Since you asked first, please could I ask why this has become such an issue, since Google News has not had a squeak about this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Why indeed" - Yes, that was my question. If you don't want to answer, fair enough. Just seems weird. "Since you asked first, please could I ask why this has become such an issue, since Google News has not had a squeak about this?" What, whether Angelo is the father or just stuff relating to Brittany generally? (W090584 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

"Why indeed?" means that I will reply seven days a week on articles including Talk:Goldbach's conjecture and Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, which is not the work of the average Hollywood publicist. Many Wikipedians have similarly diverse and hard to explain watchlists. What puzzles me here is why something that the "mainstream" media has shown zero interest in has set off such a drama.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"...which is not the work of the average Hollywood publicist" - Obviously true, but your point is obscure to me.

"Many Wikipedians have similarly diverse and hard to explain watchlists. " - What, randomly assigned?

"What puzzles me here is why something that the "mainstream" media has shown zero interest in has set off such a drama." - As I asked before, do you mean the parenthood issue? And what do you mean by drama? All I'm doing is trying to suggest improvements to the accuracy of this article, I thought that was what we were supposed to do. It's not a matter of life and death to me, although it obviously is to Brittany's family. I'm just a member of the public who has arrived in an online community of Brittany Murphy fans and thinks they've got a good point regarding their skeptical view of Sharon Murphy and Roger Neal's actions (or lack thereof) and statements. (If you want an overview of Neal by the way, check his IMDb page, where some helpful person has posted useful links). As I also said before, what constitutes mainstream? Broadsheet newspapers and "Newsnight"? Do we have to wait for Paxman to call Sharon in for a chat? Within the entertainment world, the likes of Eonline ARE mainstream. Personally, I'm not a Guardian reader, but I sure as hell don't live my life according to Perez Hilton either. Then again, as I said before, whatever we think, he IS now mainstream. (W090584 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

My watchlist is built out of articles that I've ever reverted vandalism on. A vandal hits one page I watch, I follow his edits and revert them, and watch all the new pages he had hit. I monitor 12,468 separate pages. Brittany Murphy was vandalized on January 20, 2011, and that put it on my watchlist. I don't appreciate the Hitler references, nor the other insinuations about my character and motives.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians choose their own watchlists, nobody has assigned articles. My first edit to Brittany Murphy was here, after things were going wild on the day of her death and speculation was creeping into the article. The Internet Movie Database is not considered to be a reliable source, because it allows contributions that are not externally verified. The IMDb trivia for Brittany Murphy does not really explain why her parentage and birth certificate have become an issue in the last few days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedians choose their own watchlists, nobody has assigned articles." - That takes us back to my original question of why you chose to watch this article.

"The Internet Movie Database" - You misunderstand me. I wasn't proposing it as a source for Wikipedia articles, just your personal reference regarding Neal. I would however point out that the headline stories are produced by staffers, only message board posts, user reviews and as you mention biog details etc. are contributed by the public. And filmographies on Wikipedia do come from there do they not?

"The IMDb trivia for Brittany Murphy does not really explain why her parentage and birth certificate have become an issue in the last few days." - OK, now I know that you are indeed talking about the parentage I'll answer. The issue is not entirely new, the death certificate the link to which you have allowed records Brittany's father as "Unknown". This was obviously provocative to the Bertolotti family and was the subject of media coverage at the time. Eventually there was a successful petition to have the document amended. The issue has obviously recently been reignited by Neal's Tweets, initially reporting a statement to him from Sharon that Brittany's father was dead, then that he wasn't dead but was not Angelo Bertolotti. (W090584 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Agreed this is not new, as mentioned in this TMZ article. According to this online document, the original death certificate was amended by the Los Angeles Department of Public Health [3] on April 20, 2010 (coincidence again), to show that Angelo J. Bertolotti was Brittany's father. The original death certificate here gave her father as "unknown". Roger Neal [4] is a Hollywood publicity agent, and his comments on his Twitter profile here completely fail WP:SPS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Roger Neal [4] is a Hollywood publicity agent" - The term "Hollywood" is debatable. His office is not in Hollywood, and I would suggest the term is usually construed to refer to film actors, who don't seem to me to form a significant part of his client list. "his comments on his Twitter profile here completely fail WP:SPS" - There seems no point in continuing the debate since I have agreed not to push for inclusion.

PS, I'm flattered that you are interested in our Google ranking :) (W090584 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Is there anything here that can be added to Brittany Murphy with a reliable source? Otherwise we are no further forward than on Sunday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Is there anything here that can be added to Brittany Murphy with a reliable source?" - Anything where?

Currently I'm arguing for...

Parity in the citations of the parents - either both to certificates or both merely to articles which mention them as being parents

A reference to the fact that Sharon Murphy has announced a book about Brittany on the grounds that it's at least as significant as such trivia as where she went to school, and is available from a source which has already been approved by inclusion of the death certificate link.

I am no longer proposing inclusion of anything to do with Roger Neal, which is what your previous post was about. (W090584 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

For parity in the citations of the birth and death certificates (which is not strictly necessary per WP:V), the best thing to do would be to find a link to the birth certificate that is not on an image hosting site etc, or to drop the PDF of the death certificate. On the question of Sharon Murphy's book, this fails WP:CRYSTAL until more is known about its likely date of publication. It was cited here, but progress seems to have stalled.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would accept dropping of the death certificate as I said. WP:COI is the issue, not WP:V.

WP:CRYSTAL Seems debatable. What's your source for the book having stalled? And is announcement of a book project analogous to mere speculation about for instance future Olympic Games locations? (W090584 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

On that ever reliable source Twitter, Roger Neal says "will let you know about sharons book as soon as I lnow" [sic] [5]. Nothing firm as yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS Also, that's not actually evidence that the book has stalled, merely that Roger Neal has no knowledge of it's progress. We can't be sure that Sharon hasn't dropped him. He seems remarkably evasive considering that the only reason Sharon would need a publicist is the book, and issuing a statement on the current controversy would, it could be argued, be advantageous to it's promotion. Granted another reason for his reluctance to issue a definitive statement could be that the book has indeed stalled, but this is all speculation. It can be argued that most times when a book project is announced, it does indeed appear and thus such a project may be deemed "almost certain to take place" unless there is credible evidence otherwise. (W090584 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

The book is not "almost certain to take place" on the basis of the current evidence. Let's wait and see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"The book is not "almost certain to take place" - I contend that there is no reliable evidence one way or the other except statistical probability based on the high number of announced book projects which do indeed come to fruition. My own view is that the book has indeed stalled but that is purely my opinion. I will probably return to the subject. Regarding WP:COI I will put a statement declaring my interest in the JFB blog on my user page and invite scrutiny as to whether an edit I make or propose favours that blog's aims at the expense of Wikipedia's. My contention in the case of the discussed citations is that it doesn't because I am arguing for parity, rather than weight in favour of the claims of Angelo Bertolotti at the expense of those of Sharon Murphy. (W090584 (talk))

Change made

I added it myself so that there wouldn't be any question about COI.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the URL is invalid, it needs everything after".html" to be deleted (W090584 (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

Actually a missing "{" character earlier in the citation. Fixed now.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Court action for independent test of toxicology

The PDF citation was removed because it appears to give an address for Angelo Bertolotti which could have privacy implications. As a general rule, court documents require caution when used as citations because of the risk that this sort of thing can happen (WP:BLPPRIMARY). The Los Angeles Times citation gives all the key features of the case, and also links to the document which is a more indirect way of viewing it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Does not the fact that the article in turn references it violate the spirit of Wikipedia policies, eg. with regard to privacy (spurious as that is, given that the address in question is obviously that of an office) ? W090584 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times article has enough context to understand the story. If this is an office address, I would not complain about putting it back. The main issue here is the testing of the hair, the full court documents are not strictly necessary, and would be found by clicking on the LAT link anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the LA Times article is that it contains the following incorrect statement: "Bertolotti believes Murphy's moldy home is to blame" (which incidentally illustrates the folly of necessarily trusting a newspaper over a primary source). Mr Bertolotti has contradicted the statement referred to above in a press release http://www.prlog.org/11772418-brittany-murphys-father-sets-the-record-straight.html. The claim that he supports the mould theory comes from this article http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/brittany-murphy-father-sues-angelo-bertolotti-280793 written by a friend of Brittany's mother, Sharon Murphy, who is herself involved in litigation predicated on mould being the cause of death. Alex Ben Block misrepresented himself in that article as an impartial journalist when in fact he is an interested party propagating the mould theory. The other problem with the LA Times article is its use of the word "suit" which is understood by most people to mean a demand for financial compensation, which does not apply in this case. Including the PDF directly as well as establishing its authenticy via the article avoids this potential misunderstanding by the casual reader, who may not follow the link included in the LA Times article. While I appreciate that a link to the PDF alone is clearly unsatifactory, I cannot see your objection to its inclusion to aid clarification if you have dropped the privacy objection. W090584 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference of emphasis between the LAT story and the press release. The coroner ruled out the mould theory in Murphy's death, and the January 2012 action is described as a "complaint". I'm not going to argue if the link to the PDF is put back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)