Talk:Natalie Wood

"Death" section too detailed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this page so active/guarded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Natalie Wood.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

Suggest trimming death section due to new case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question of balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:NatalieWood1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

Unnecessary weight added within the last day

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

Three of the photos on here are violation of copyright.

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

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

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

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

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

Per some of the comments by the apparent SPA,

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

New section Final months

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

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

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

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

"== Final months ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are sure that Chrisopher Walken contributed to her death?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed intro for death section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem with the Death section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davern is used as a source for quotations by Wagner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

Other supports of MathewTownsend's concerns:

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

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

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

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

Statement not supported by sources

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Draft section here with more sources??

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

Archiving

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

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

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

Death section becoming more saturated with trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest balance for death section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death section

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

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

Rough draft of cleaner/clearer death section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differing accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Please take your own advice (see above). MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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