Talk:Natalie Wood

This is the discussion/talk page for article: Natalie Wood.

Talk-page subpages: /Archive_1 - for 2005 into 2006 /Comments - for edit reviews

Topics from 2005

Anon edits removed

An anon editor slipped in a paragraph about her contact with certain homosexual men in Hollywood. The casual social contacts of Hollywood celebrities are usually considered as gossip, which is not encyclopedic and the edited content demonstrated no relevance to her artistic career. I've removed it, am watching this page and will routinely delete such content until it can be cited from peer-reviewed secondary sources as having anything to do with her career. Note: Gossip may be suitable for an extended, book-length biography, where balance and context can be controlled. A short encyclopedia article, however, can be quickly distorted and overwhelmed with such details (which I suspect the anon already knows). Wyss 1 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Sorry. The information added to the article is taken from a new biography on Natalie Wood by Gavin Lambert. The book clearly is a reliable source. The author coedited the film magazine Sequence with Lindsay Anderson, was the editor of Sight and Sound and wrote film criticism for The Sunday Times and The Guardian. He is the author of four biographies (On Cukor, Norma Shearer, Nazimova and Mainly About Lindsay Anderson) and seven novels. He's known Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner for 40 years. His book, Natalie Wood: A Life includes interviews with the people who knew Wood best, for instance, Robert Wagner, Warren Beatty, Paul Mazursky, and Leslie Caron. The author, himself deeply involved in Hollywood's gay scene, writes about the sexual dalliances of Wagner and Wood and their friends, both gay and straight, and clearly says that they "had many gay friends" throughout their life and that Wood frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. Wood even did her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band, which was praised as "the first truly honest portrayal of the lives of contemporary homosexuals". Therefore, the passage you deleted should be reinstalled, as Natalie Wood's contacts to Hollywood gays played a significant part in her life. 80.141.228.219 1 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Sorry, while I don't question this particular source on this latest edit, you're trying to distort this article in relation to unverified "gay gossip" or whatever which you've been trying to slip into the Nick Adams and Elvis Presley articles. Wyss 2 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Did you mention that what you call unverified "gay gossip" is part of the reliable source cited above? Why are you so keenly interested to delete this important information? Presumably because you don't like the idea that Nick Adams was gay, which is proved by several independent sources, among them the Wood biography by Gavin Lambert. The fact is that you are deeply involved in an edit war concerning the article on Nick Adams and that your only "contribution" to the Wood article is the removal of what I have written. See also Talk:Nick Adams.

Do you read my posts? Wyss 2 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)

Further discussion from 2005 moved to: /Archive_1.

Topics from 2006

Birth name moved to secondary position in opening

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

• Chrisappel.net
• History for Sale

religion?

Did she convert to Judaism? I heard this somewhere

Former Child Actors Nominated for Oscars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lana Wood

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

Topics from 2007

Daughters

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict in Dates

Natalie wood Died in 1981

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

Anyone can verify the dates?

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

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

Natalie's fear of water

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

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topics from 2008-2010

Cleanup

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

Photos

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

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

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

Verification

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with File:Item 1950 1.jpg

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

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

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

Youngest Person with 3 Oscar nods

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

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

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

A few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biography of living people

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

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

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

Accusations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teen star section?

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