Jump to content

Talk:Judith Barsi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 11:09, 10 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Women}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

Mirror Vax, a murder/suicide such as the ones involving Phil Hartman and Judith Barsi, counts as unsolved cases, on the merit that even though we know who did the crime, the circumstances behind it will never be known and the killer was never brought to justice as he killed himself. A murderer killing him/herself makes the case all the more difficult to solve, if not at all. So it is an unsolved case, and the category is hereby reinstated.

Why don't you make this argument over at September 11, 2001 attacks. That might be entertaining to watch. Mirror Vax 23:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


If it's OK, I've added a bit more context to the article. I was a childhood friend of Judith’s and remember her story very well. CagedRage 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She died in 1988 but her voice work appears in 1994 and 1995 films? Is this accurate?

The article states, "On July 25th 1988 Judith was murdered by her father, Jozsef Barsi, along with her mother Maria Barsi." When I first read this sentence, I was unsure as to whether Judith was murdered along with her mother, or if her father, along with her mother, murdered her. Could I (or someone else) change the sentence to read "On July 25th, 1988 Judith was murdered, along with her mother Maria Barsi, by her father, Jozsef Barsi." (Since I'm not a registered user and this is sort of complicated, I thought I should ask permission first...also note the addition of a comma in the date.) 74.69.87.172 02:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't see it listed here, but can someone add that she played a character on Punky Brewster on season 2's episode 19? Her character's name was Anna. I'd do it myself but I don't know how to do it without messing it up. Thanks! KikiC423 (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The credit is already listed in the filmography section. Pinkadelica♣ 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous Voice Work

The Filmography lists a 1989 production in which Judith Barsi was credited with voice acting. Maybe the technical details of sound production are simple, I wouldn't know, but shouldn't the circumstances of this posthumous use of her voice be mentioned in the article? -Fsotrain09 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The production of an animated motion picture is complex and time-consuming. The voice work is normally done rather early in the process, since the animation can be matched to the speech far more easily than the speech could be matched to the animation. It is quite normal for an animated movie to be released well after the voice work has been completed. As a matter of fact, A Land Before Time, which Judith voiced before All Dogs Go To Heaven, was not released until some months after her death. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gravestone

I was wondering if we could have a bit more info about her headstone? Does anyone know why her grave was unmarked for so long. Certainly the family would have had money to buy a headstone. Also, there is no mention about the reaction to her death by the media and by anyone she ever worked with. Does anyone have any info about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.250.143 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope this answers some of your questions, in part at least) Her mother and father both died at the same time as Judith. As far as I know, she had no other family (apart from whatever relations her parents left behind in Hungary) to buy a headstone. According to her certificate of death she was not embalmed, which suggests that no one was available to take care of her funeral arrangements. Apart from the initial report of her death, the LA Times took a closer look at her fate in an article called "A Script Of Fear", printed a couple of weeks after the murder. The Commission for Children's Services was critical of the Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services for its handling of the case, and made a series of recommendations. This was reported in the Times, but I do not know whether anything was actually done. Michael Caine was quoted as saying "She was a very talented actress and a lovely young girl." Don Bluth said, "She was absolutely astonishing. She understood verbal direction, even for the most sophisticated situations. We loved working with her." I understand there was some sort of tribute to Judith at the 1989 Academy Awards Show, but I have not seen it. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A childhood friend of Judith's has told me he heard that Maria had a brother in the LA area. Does anyone know more? 24.36.35.188 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Barsi" or "Judith"

Because the only persons mentioned in this article (at the moment) are all surnamed "Barsi", I think it would be preferable to call the child "Judith" rather than "Barsi". Note that the parents are called "Jozsef" and "Maria" throughout. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Use wikipedia all the time, new to editing.

This page is seriously lacking in sources. It needs to be sourced or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find additional sources, add them. See WP:CITE to learn how to do that. The article is not going to be removed from Wikipedia because every last sentence doesn't have a source (read WP:CITEKILL and WP:FACTS). The subject is clearly notable and none of the content that is uncited is contentious or damning to the subject in any way. If the subject were still alive and the uncited material were contentious, you might have a point but since neither is true your comment is moot and rather unhelpful. 70.242.0.95 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

I believe it's customary for a person's nationality to be based on the country the person is born, not on the nationality of the person's parents, even in this case where we are talking about a child. Her parents may have been from Hungary but Judith was born in America and never had Hungarian citizenship. For An Angel (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I have since restored the lede to reflect that Barsi was American. Pinkadelica♣ 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revert to hungarian

judiths parents are both hungarian and in all other pages such as Michael J. Fox and Ashleigh Aston Moore that they'd either be *place of birth*-american or nationality is *place of birth*, also, they are immigrants and i don't think are legal citizens. so at least put Hungarian-American or better yet Hungarian which it says on her death certificate.

Barsi's parents' nationality has no bearing on her nationality - it doesn't matter if they became citizens or not. She was born, raised and worked in the United States which made her a citizen of the U.S. As far as what Barsi's death certificate states (which is available online) - her Race/ethnicity is liasted as "White/Hungarian". Race and ethnicity are not the same as nationality. Further, the death certificate clearly states that she was born in "Burbank" and that she was a citizen of the "USA". Pinkadelica♣ 20:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what bout michael j fox and ashleigh aston moore and others who are listed the same way even though their parents were born somewhere else, and technically american isn't a heritage, someone always has roots from another country, so she definitely and unarguably is hungarian or at least Hungarian American, thats like saying someone who is spanish is asian or german just because they were born there, not trying to be racist, just giving an example. *Text removed* (Boberson33 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not copy another editor's signature, even in jest. I have removed it per WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. Now, nobody is saying Barsi was not of Hungarian decent. The categories in the article identify her as such and no one has disputed that. We are discussing her nationality, which you seem to be getting mixed up with her heritage. Nationality and heritage are two different things. Her parents were born in Hungary, they were Hungarians who may or may not have become American citizens later (I presume they did as they both lived and worked here for many years). Barsi herself was born in the United States to Hungarian parents - that means she was an American citizen who was of Hungarian decent. If she were born in Hungary and then immigrated to the United States as her parents had, then we would identify her "Hungarian-American" presuming she became a citizen at some point. Even her death certificate cites her as being an American citizen which is enough to satisfy both WP:V and WP:RS. As for the two examples you keep referring to, nothing in either of those article discuss the nationality of the subject's parents. Both subjects are seemingly identified by their nationalities (ie the countries where they were born and/or hold citizenship). Please see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH for additional information regarding what kind of information should be in the lede paragraph. Pinkadelica♣ 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where does it say that she's american on her death certificate (Boberson33 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Under the "Decedent Personal Data" (11a to be exact) which typically lists such information. Pinkadelica♣ 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a link to this photo? (Boberson33 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The death certificate is available on Find-a-death. Section 11a, under "Decedent Personal Data" states "Citizen of What Country" - answer is clearly "USA". Pinkadelica♣ 21:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise why don't we say "was an american child actress of Hungarian descent" I've seen it used on other articles so why should this be an exception, I'll edit it now and if anyone objects then they can take it off and say why in the discussion 82.5.224.82 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting and/or adding additional content while a discussion is ongoing in not a compromise. I am reverting as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a solid argument. Further Barsi was born in California and was, unless another sources is forthcoming, an American citizen. She was, according to her death certificate, an American citizen, and should continue to be identified as such. We also do not refer to ethnicity and/or heritage in the lede. She is categorized as "Hungarian American" which is sufficient. Unless someone has a reliable source that clearly states she held both Hungarian and American citizenship, I've no idea why this is an issue. Pinkadelica♣ 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what about Ashleigh Aston Moore, on her page it say 'Canadian child actress' even though she was born in sweet-ol'-Cali (california), and she only died in Canada, it doesn't say anywhere she became a canadian citizen, and their are plenty of other articles as well that do the same thing, (Boberson33 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) , and i still don't see why you had to be such a grouchy pants[reply]

What other articles say has no bearing on what this article says per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because something is incorrect or violates policy elsewhere in the project does not justify it being that way elsewhere. If you have issue with the Ashleigh Aston Moore article, go to the talk page and debate that there. Her citizenship, what the article has her nationality listed as has nothing whatsoever to do with Judith Barsi's. Since your response are degrading into lame name calling and I am rather tired of repeating myself, I suggest you open a request for comment if you just cannot accept my repeated explanations. Pinkadelica♣ 22:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT HER THAT IS AMERICAN, UR FRIGGIN IGNERINTT, YEA GO AHEAD, BLOCKK MEE [[Boberson33}]♣ You'll just be like the rest of the adminz— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boberson33 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 June 2010

Please watch the WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and do NOT mimic another users signature again. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait

I like the portrait and all, and it has a place in this article, but isn't it inappropriate to use a portrait of her as her picture when there are many actual photographs of her available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.32 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A photo would be better and should not be too hard to find. As an aside, the "portrait" is rather creepy and should probably not even be included in the article because it was obviously made by someone. I don't know how it ended up as an approved Commons image. 24.72.176.240 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the old photo (from find a grave) was better but it was deleted because it was not a free image. Normally, with articles of people who are deceased, nonfree images are allowed since it would be impossible to replace it with a free image if one didn't already exist before they died. But in this case, the image of her portrait was made for Wikipedia so it got replaced. For An Angel (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits and WP:NOTMEMORIAL

I reverted the recent edits by User:EditorE. Overall, prior to my edits, this article was poorly organized, and my edits were an effort to better organize the information contained within the article while removing details that fell under WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

Introduction

Barsi did not "star" in Jaws: The Revenge, and her other film contributions were as a voice actress. Trivia about her stature and "[playing] characters younger than her actual age" does not belong in the lead of an article. Also, the drawing of Barsi was not appropriate for the infobox.

Okay, I can get maybe why saying she starred in that Jaws film was dumb to do, and playing characters other than her might've been Trivial, but I didn't put the fan art back in the infobox when I reverted your edits. EditorE (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Family history

Most of this information was retained and relocated to the Judith Barsi#Family history and death section.

I don't see why there would be too much family history in the "Family history" section before you put it with the death section. The amount of family history before your edits were pretty much the same amount as the Brian Epstein wiki article, which is already a good article. Don't see why that fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. EditorE (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Career

Most of the details prior to my reversions were retained and the section was condensed. Information removed included where the child was discovered, and a description of Barsi made by a director.

Don't see why the info you removed from this section fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. In fact, in the Heather O'Rourke wiki article, it mentions that Spielberg discovered Heather O'Rourke "having lunch with her mother[7] while older sister Tammy was shooting Pennies from Heaven.[9]" It's the same type of info as Judith Barsi being discovered at a skating rank, so I don't see why Barsi being discovered should be removed. Also, the quote by the director is a very significant opinion, and I'm sure there's other biography articles on Wikipedia that use notable people's opinions about him or her to give the reader an idea on what the person's personality was like. EditorE (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse and death sections

A quote box containing her father's words is not appropriate for this article. Again, most of the information from these two sections was retained and condensed in the last three paragraphs Judith Barsi#Family history and death.

I think the abuse section wasn't under any violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It looked like a comprehensive enough section to me on what she grew news coverage and media attention for. EditorE (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy

A 10-year old child actress (whose contributions included little more than appearing as an extra and providing voice work for animated films released after her death) does not have a legacy. Yes, it is very unfortunate a child was murdered. However, this section was a clear violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fan club activity is not information that should be included, and including a picture of her headstone is not necessary.

Well, the fact that Fan club activity may not be necessary for a legacy article, however I think saying that 75 people attending the funeral, most of them children, does not violate that policy, and it's not like it reads like some sort of Newspaper Obituary. EditorE (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way. How come a gravestone shouldn't be used in this article. I'm sure at least some dead person bio articles on Wikipedia use gravestones in those article's "Death" or "Legacy" section. EditorE (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AldezD (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of her grave marker is not necessary for this article as the infobox contains an image of the subject. AldezD (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed two external links to fansites per WP:ELNO #11, since neither was written by a recognized authority. AldezD (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia: Dispute resolutions

I've asked for a Third Opinion, given the brewing edit war. Paul Austin (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Judith Barsi and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.
Opinion: But first a procedural note: There was a request also filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about this dispute. I work at both 3O and DRN. I closed the DRN request since this 3O request was filed first. The DRN request can be refiled if the dispute continues after this opinion. Opinion: WP:NOTMEMORIAL only has to do with notability, as stated in its first sentence,

"Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements."

As stated in the lede of the Notability policy,

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list."

Thus WP:NOTMEMORIAL has only to do with the existence of articles as a whole, and has nothing to do with the content of articles. It is not a standard for the inclusion or exclusion of information. The additions and deletions in this article need to be adjudged on the basis of first, whether or not they are reliably sourced and if they are then, second, on the basis of what weight to give them. Remember that reliable sourcing is an exclusionary, not an inclusionary rule: if something is not reliably sourced it cannot be in an article. If it is reliably sourced, it still may not be important enough to be in the article, that's what weight is about. The parties here should familiarize themselves with those policies and then re-discuss the material in question.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Outside of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument, the details the other editor is adding are not appropriate for this article. What happened to the subject's father years before the subject was even born have no place in this article, nor do mentions of the subject's half-siblings. Keeping the picture of the subject's grave marker is fine. However, the details that were included in the Family history and death section in the revision as of 18:15 17 June 2013 were more than appropriate for this article. The Abuse and Death sections should be merged together, with Aftermath (posthumous work) as a separate mention nested underneath Filmography. AldezD (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not all be true, but that issue has not been sufficiently discussed between the editors here to invoke dispute resolution. Moreover, as I say in my personal standards, linked above, I do not issue further opinions in a matter in which I've already given a 3O. Once you've discussed those matters thoroughly with the other editor, using the appropriate policies as a framework, then if you become deadlocked you can apply for a new 3O or for help at DRN. Remember that in those cases in which policies and guidelines do not provide a clear solution, material is added and deleted at Wikipedia via consensus and it is the burden of the editor who is either attempting to introduce new reliably-sourced material or remove existing reliably-sourced material to obtain a consensus for that action. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry and Family History sections

These two sections are barely relevant to the article subject. The information contained within adds no understanding to the article subject, and also does not provide basis for explaining the abuse and murder of the article subject. Instead of edit warring, please provide reasoning and basis for including the information before re-adding/maintaining. AldezD (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only information that directly relates to her father's growing mental instability should be included. Her father's flight from his native country, where he lived, his first marriage, other children and their dates of death have no use within this article whatsoever. If József Barsi were notable enough to have his own article, it should be included there, not in here. Her mother's career also has no place in this article.

The details contained within the Family history and death section in the revision as of 18:15 17 June 2013 are more than adequate, and no reasoning has been provided as to why this information has been repeatedly added back in by EditorE. AldezD (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video and other references

I removed the reference to DEATH OF A FAMILY - Judith Barsi's story on YouTube, since this reference is a violation of WP:YOUTUBE, copyrighted material posted on an individual user's account. If there is a non-copyvio version, please re-add the reference. Statements previously referenced with this source have been tagged with WP:CN. AldezD (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about we cite the documentary without the youtube link. That should work, right? EditorE (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the reference to Don Bluth All Dogs Go To Heaven is dubious and may not meet WP:V, since it appears to be a blog post and not directly verifiable back to the author. If there are additional references for the same statement, please add them. AldezD (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox caption/Punky Brewster

@AldezD:, Not having information about where the image of Judith comes from is both ridiculous and patently stupid. Since i do not believe you are stupid, please re-familiarise yourself with WP:OWN. Paul Austin (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lawn

@AldezD:: Burying her in Forest Lawn where a lot of Hollywood celebs are buried, *has* to have been a deliberate and powerful statement. We know that the family back in Hungary did not want anything to do with it and Judith and Maria could just have easily been put in a pauper's grave. Paul Austin (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that it was deliberate. Also, there is no source that "family back in Hungary did not want anything to do with it". AldezD (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those who knew Judith and/or attended her funeral are on Twitter. I'll ask them about the decision to put Judith in Forest Lawn. Paul Austin (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need WP:RS that burial in Forest Lawn Memorial Park was deliberate. A user tweeting they were at a funeral 28 years before Twitter existed is not a RS, especially if the account has not been verified. WP:Twitter. AldezD (talk)

Recent edits

Please do not add deliberate factual errors ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) or add "little orphan girl" describing a character/change "child" to "little girl" ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) as seen in these linked edits. These edits do not improve the article. AldezD (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physical violence

It is stated that " Physical violence continued", but the article refers to no physical violence, jus the threat of violence. This should be corrected.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalcourtier: In the previous paragraph, it says, "In December 1986, Maria reported his threats and physical violence toward her to the police." It's iffy because the police didn't press charges but there's no WP:BLP concern since all three people are no longer alive. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And even though I just posted a reply to a thread that had probably long been forgotten, it's still pertinent, especially since the reported-to-the-police text was there when this thread was started. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no mention of actual specified physical violence, or any confirmation physical violence actually occurred, I would suggest that it would be unsound to say that "physical violence continued".Royalcourtier (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Royalcourtier: I wondered if that would be a problem but since it's not a BLP concern, I figured that might lower the standards for this. If not, I have no issue with adding qualifying text to show that it wasn't established beyond Barsi's mother's police report or if it has to go further, just removing the offending text. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death

I have removed the parameter in its entirety for now, in an effort to shut down an edit war based entirely on WP:IDLI and/or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In particular, we cannot use our own articles as an excuse to spread inaccurate data in violation of policy.

"Gunshot" was left intact per the discussion here. To be clear, per Crime Museum and numerous coroners' websites:

  • "gunshot" is the action that causes
  • "gunshot wounds", which cause death; if inflicted by another, then
  • "homicide" is classified as the manner of death.

Further discussion should take place here, not in summaries during edit wars. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Homicide" covers the issue sufficiently. Another option is "murder". This quibble is quickly approaching WP:LAME, even when considering the other nonsense discussions on this talk page about the nationality of the subject's parents, inclusion of events that happened decades before the subject's birth, non-WP:V sources/copyrighted material previously linked/included in the article, etc. AldezD (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not lame to be correct; it is not encyclopedic to be incorrect. Manner ≠ cause. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my approach in a nutshell, or as much of a nutshell as I could fit it in.
  • "Gunshot" is more informative or equally as informative as any other option. Its minimalist nature helps pare down a bloated infobox, keeps unnecessary, morbid language off a sensitive article, and would make any changes by the "She Bore Him" vandal easy to catch.
  • "Gunshot wound" is probably as close as I can come to a compromise. Its florid, gory nature comes very close to the line. The word "wound" does not add a single bit of knowledge for any reader and is thus unnecessary.
  • "Homicide" contains no useful information. We might as well remove the parameter and let people read the article.
  • "Homicide by shooting" has the exact same issues same problem as gunshot wound; what pushes it past the line is that its the preferred terminology of the "She Bore Him" vandal. If that person wants it, decent people shouldn't.
Two of us appear to be at a standstill. AldezD, terminology like that indicates it's a low priority for you. I promise you, you're not convincing anybody to accept "homicide" because it's the worst of the options, so if your input is going to consist entirely of basically "WP:LAME and 'homicide'", maybe move on to somewhere where you'll actually get something done. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way, honestly. End this back-and-forth and use what is listed on the death certificate as "cause of death"—"gunshot wound to the head"—and link the appropriate reference. AldezD (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding you don't. That's why you keep posting messages that could be replaced with "I'M PARTICIPATING IN A DISCUSSION WHERE I HAVEN'T READ ANYTHING ANYBODY ELSE HAS SAID" and it wouldn't change a thing. And if we're ordering each other around, stop participating here because you're not helping anything. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RunnyAmiga, dial it back, please; you're bordering on WP:NPA. Let's work on finding proper resolutions instead. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RunnyAmiga, you and ATS invited me to the discussion, tagging me in edits at User talk:RunnyAmiga/Archive 3#FYI. Seconding that you need to chill out over something that is clearly bordering on WP:LAME. Be WP:BOLD, make an edit with a source and be done with it. AldezD (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on cause of death

Consensus for Homicide by Gunshot. Homicide over murder based on the American English used in majority of the article. (non-admin closure) Amortias (T)(C) 21:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assume a person with a Wiki article is/was shot to death. Which, if any, should be listed under death_cause =?

  • Gunshot
  • Gunshot wound
  • Gunshot wound to [where inflicted]
  • Homicide

Note: while this is intended for general resolution, an editor has noted that the article subject was killed at age 10. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My personal preference is to convey the important points as succinctly as possible. So we need to mention that it is a homicide as gunshot could be accidental or suicidal. Homicide doesn't say much on how they died so I would go with Homicide by gunshot. I am not seeing the importance of saying where the gunshot was inflicted, that is info for the article not the infobox. Alternatives are Murder by shooting or some such combination, but that is really just semantics. FWIW Phil Hartman, which is a WP:FA, uses Homicide by shooting. AIRcorn (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunshot or Murder by shooting - More descriptive yet still concise. Meatsgains (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Ownership of content

I ask User:AldezD to re-familiarise themselves with Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make condescending statements like this. Instead put forward your argument here for your edit per WP:BRD. AIRcorn (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul, The details you are adding to this article in this edit are unnecessary and nonsense. There are also no details about the ages of the characters in Fatal Vision and Jaws. You have also repeatedly added nonsensical, unsourced information to this article:
Please stop this disruptive behavior within this article. AldezD (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a bitch. However, in this latest case, I am a well-informed bitch. Judith's on-screen credit for Fatal Vision ("Kimberly (age 3)" indicates the character was toddler age. Barsi was six in 1984. It is stated in Jaws IV that Barsi's character, Thea Brody, is five. Jaws IV was filmed in 1987 when Barsi was nine. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "in Fatal Vision she played "Kimberly" (age 3) when aged 6?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an acceptable compromise to me. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is already stated in the article, "Her petiteness led casting directors to cast her as children that were younger than her actual age.", is more than appropriate. Stating the subject's age and the perceived ages of characters is absolutely unnecessary. The edit history of this article as well as discussions on this talk page show a long-term pattern of disruptive editing by multiple editors, and this is nothing more than additional disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's called an illustrative example.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accept a compromise and he just imposes his preferred version? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's wholly unnecessary. The subject isn't even mentioned—neither in the plot nor the cast list—in the Fatal Vision article. This is nothing more than obsessive, disruptive editing by a problem user. AldezD (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two users now agree this is relevant, and you are now edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing on a talk page is not edit warring. AldezD (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but reverting other users edits is.18:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thank you for the support. I've poured 14 years of my life into this project and to be labelled a "problem user" makes me very angry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to RFC this, s if one more edit is made *and then reverted by Aldesd) it will be a breach of 3RR and that smacks of baiting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

As it reads the page makes little sense (due to removal of information) why does it matter how old she was in Fatal Image unless there is some difference between that and the age of the character she played? Either we explain why this is a relevant fact or removal what is (in effect) a non sequitur.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the non sequitur. A child actress portraying characters younger than her actual age—but well within reason for someone working as a child actress—is not information that provides any differentiation between other child actors and provides no notability to this subject. This is not as if a 50-year old is portraying a 30-year old—she was supposedly six playing a three or four-year old. AldezD (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well it was a three year old, I fail to see why you need to interject a range that is not present.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, age details about a six year old child actress playing a child character who is three, well within reason for a six-year old, does not need to specifically be mentioned in the article.
At various times this article has included portrait drawings of the subject, grainy and blurry family photos, pictures of her death certificate, quote boxes containing words purported to be threats to the subject, details about events which happened decades prior to the subject's birth, etc. There is even a picture of the subject's headstone in this article. These are all items which go far beyond what is appropriate for biographical articles, especially for an individual with not nearly the contribution to entertainment nor longevity as others. These items are not models of WP:GA content. AldezD (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"murder" vs. "homicide"

"murder" is a legal term. József Barsi killed himself before he could be tried and convicted of murder. Judith and Maria's deaths were therefore homicides not murders. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC linked above from two years ago addresses this issue. AldezD (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna-Barbera

Regarding that user's recent addition of the Hanna-Barbera audition... the two series H-B were making in 1988 were Dink, the Little Dinosaur and Paddington Bear. All the evidence and sources we have point towards it being Dink that Judith was scheduled to audition for that day. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "evidence" and there are no "sources" presented that point toward any of your WP:OR comments. AldezD (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Change American actress to hungarian-American actress. Her mother and father were both hungarian 31.111.19.148 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Doesn't appear she's actually Hungarian, although her parents were. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judith_Barsi&oldid=1205770109"