Talk:Brittany Murphy/Archive 1

Career

This line is seen.... "Also in 2005, she appeared in the promo video for Tears for Fears' comeback single Closest Thing To Heaven, and in August 2009, Brittany co-presented UK music show CD:UK alongside Holly Willoughby."

August 2009???can anyone correct this?Bilbo elffriend | Talk 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please correct the following statement: "She was nominated for an Annie Award for voice acting in the King of the Hill episode "Movin' On Up."[11]"

This statement is only partially correct, and I recommend it be removed in lieu of creating an "Awards" section for Murphy.

Complete list of known nominations and awards Murphy received: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005261/awards [Note: IMDb is incorrect on the first item. Murphy won an Annie Award in 2004. An correction has already been submitted there but has not yet been accepted.]

She was nominated three times for an Annie Award:

- 1997 Best Individual Achievement: Voice Acting by a Female Performer in a TV Production "King of the Hill" - Brittany Murphy as "Luanne" (Lost to June Foray as Granny in "The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries."

- 2000 Outstanding Individual Achievement for Voice Acting By a Female Performer in an Animated Television Production Brittany Murphy As the voice of Luanne Platter - King of the Hill - "Movin on Up" (Lost to Christine Cavanaugh as the voice of Dexter - Dexter's Laboratory "Ego Trip")

- 2004 Voice Acting in an Animated Television Production Winner: Brittany Murphy - Voice of Luane Platter - King of the Hill - "Girl, You'll Be A Giant Soon"

Sources: http://voiceactors.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/brittany-murphy-dies/ http://www.annieawards.org/

Not done: The sentence you have asked to have removed is sourced and correct, although it does not cover the other nominations or winning the award in 2005. That paragraph would be awfully thin on content if this were removed. Perhaps it would be better to improve the sentence to be more complete. Celestra (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloody-Discusting is one of many sources saying Deadline will be released Direcr-to-DVD. This should e out in the notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.163.0 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusations about criminal activities should be substantiated

"she has had little contact with her father, who later served time for racketeering" - Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.212.196 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion below I removed this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Band name

I have seen sources that claim the band was called "Blessed With Soul" or "Blessed Soul". The amount of sources seems to be about equal. Can someone find a definitive source? 24.105.143.110 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Debut album

Are there any credible sources that claim her debut album is being released in 2009? I remember reading that about 2007 and 2008 and no album has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamking (talk • contribs) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} This version is the most recent "correct" version I believe. Comparison: [1]. Thanks. 71.162.23.69 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for the heads-up. matt (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's still a few left: [2]

• Please change "birth date" template in the infobox back to "birth date and age".
• Please remove the date and place of death in the metadata at the bottom.
• Please re-add Category:Living people and Category:1977 births.
• Please change "She starred" back to "She has starred" in the lead, and change "was a non-denominational practicing Christian" back to present tense in the "Early life" section.

Thanks. 71.162.23.69 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And obviously, disregard the above if the reports turn out to be true. 71.162.23.69 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Its on Sky News now.

If Sky are reporting second hand news from TMZ it won't matter. Still same (as yet unverified) source. Doctorbob (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gossipcop.com/reports-brittany-murphy-dead/

A website with the word "gossip" in the URL is inherently unreliable. matt (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sun isn't reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.4.131 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Please put a lock on this page, since it is being reported that she has passed away from a full cardiac arrest.

 Done I've fully protected the article due to all the attention its gotten because of Murphy's rumored death. We need a reliable source for her death; every single report I've seen has referenced the sole TMZ article. We need something a wee bit more substantial than that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution actually took down their story. We've had fake death reports before. Castro, anyone? --Smashville^talk 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone ever heard the story of Joe Dimaggio watching TV when the ticker announcing his death came across? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/1999/01/25/tv_dimaggio/

By verified source do you mean one which has not quoted TMZ?

Well, let's think back to Michael Jackson's death, where for half the day, TMZ was the only one to report his death. Since both ABC , the LA Times, and the Examiner are now reporting her death, without citing TMZ I might add, I would have to think that there is some pretty weighty truth behind this "rumor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothangelblood (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite. Only mention I can find from ABC is that they are trying to verify the information. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not for us to decide whether it is true or not, regardless of any likelihoods. We're not a news source, we're a tertiary source – so our information comes from reliable third party sources only. matt (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't cite the TMZ website doesn't make it true either, I could post something on the internet myself claiming to have spoken to a reliable source. doesn't make it true.

The BBc or Sky News may have got their info from TMZ and just not cited them. Wikipedia in itself is not a reliable source.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. You're comparing apples to oranges. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you can't exactly get all high and mighty claiming to need reliable sources when you admit to being a tertiary source, what is TMZ? what is Sky News? a higher source than Wikipedia I'm guessing.

TMZ is a primary source that has been wrong in the past. It doesn't meet WP:V Doctorbob (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If its a primary source it has a higher reliability than Wikipedia. Every news source makes mistakes.

Most news sites/shows have been wrong in the past, it should atleast be noted as her current state being unknown after speculation by several major news sources.

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayekai88 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Death

"Brittany Murphy died early this morning after she went into full cardiac arrest and could not be revived, multiple sources tell TMZ.

She was 32.

A 911 call was made at 8:00 AM from a home in Los Angeles that is listed as belonging to her husband, Simon Monjack, the Los Angeles City Fire Department tells TMZ.

We're told Murphy was taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

Murphy starred in such films as "Clueless," "8 Mile," and "Don't Say a Word."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0aG8cXXUB"

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/20/2009-12-20_actress_brittany_murphy_dies_at_32_of_heart_attack_report.html

That article cites TMZ. -- Phoenix2 19:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

editprotected On December 20, 2009, at the age of 32, Murphy went into full cardiac arrest and could not be revived. A 911 call was made at 8:00 AM from a home in Los Angeles that is listed as belonging to her husband, Simon Monjack. Murphy was taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

Declined. See WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

NY Daily News has reported this. This is a reputable source. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/20/2009-12-20_actress_brittany_murphy_dies_at_32_of_heart_attack_report.html

Hardly, its only source of information is TMZ. --Yamla (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

By adopting a stance whereby a credible source is ignored Wikipedia has put itself behind in terms of updating responsive to the latest information. At the very least the TMZ report should be referred to. There is no reason why an on-line source which has proved itself to be reliable should be given less validity than an old-media source, particularly having regard to the fact Wikipedia is internet-based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.80.84 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TMZ has been wrong in the past, therefore it's reliability has been tainted. [[3]] mgahs (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Every major news organization has been wrong in the past. That doesn't mean the TMZ story shouldn't be at least mentioned on the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.198.19 (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It just looks like a prejudice against TMZ because of their "trashy" appearance/reputation. At what point will TMZ become a credible source? Adverge (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to tell the world that, according to TMZ, Brittany Murphy is dead, do it on Twitter or Facebook. Jesus, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canal panama (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This wiki-cluster-fu-know-what is equally funny *and* embarrassing to watch.90.197.61.151 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Death section of the article now reads like a play-by-play of this discussion, saying which sources reported it when, etc. While this is great for the debate on the talk page, is it relevant to the actual article? The entire Death section reads awkwardly and provides few details from the actual reports about the death. 24.18.240.121 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others. TMZ has proven itself to be reliable. They were the first to report about Michael Jackson's death also. They have a TV show and a web site just like other news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.137.241 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#TMZ_revisited because I was uncertain the answer to this question. ---kilbad (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to start an "edit war" with Vyvyan Ade Basterd, as he unnecessarily deleted my information from TMZ. Obviously Basterd (Great name, isn't it, how apropo) thinks that ANYTHING from TMZ should be deleted. What ole Basterd is about to discover is that TMZ actually does its homework 99% of the time, and the information I added is about to become common knowledge. Stonnman (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy died today (12-20-2009)

The article needs to be updated accordingly.Tayspita (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, awaiting confirmation from a source other than TMZ. -- Phoenix2 19:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of mostly reliable news sources taking the TMZ report seriously. While it awaits official confirmation, I would have thought it is certainly enough at the moment to include the fact that her death has been widely reported. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be a decent compromise. I say play the waiting game just now, as the TMZ report will surely have alerted other news agencies to the scene. Doctorbob (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You say this like all of those aren't just quoting TMZ. Seriously. Wait. What happened will come out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.251.248 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're quoting a report which originally appeared on TMZ. Just because something is on TMZ doesn't mean it is inaccurate. They are major news organisations putting their own reputation on the line for saying that this particular TMZ report is worth taking seriously, and that is itself significant - wouldn't you say? Put it this way: suppose (and let's hope) Brittany Murphy turns up alive and well wondering what the fuss is about. There's a lot of people in the media going to be very embarrassed long before anyone mentions Wikipedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. So far, it is not verifiable. I expect this to change in a few minutes. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is quite verified that "Brittany Murphy's death was reported by TMZ on Sunday 20 December 2009, a report taken seriously by other major news organisations". Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

They're quoting the ONLY report based on nebulous sources. It doesn't mean it's inaccurate, it just means it's really still unconfirmed. They're all quoting it as a report, they're all using TMZ as the only source and TMZ really is unsourced. Where's the harm in waiting? Zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.251.248 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The harm in waiting is that it will cause revert wars - a large number of people will seek to add the information anyway, in the mistaken belief that they are the first to notice. It is sometimes better to include this sort of information cast into the proper form of what is actually verified, just so that myriad others do not go adding it in an unverified form. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what protection is for. --Meraxes (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the harm in having any page editable. Sensible Wikipedians (and there are many) will know we are waiting. Or at least read the talk page Krytenia (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That will be added (either way) when we get confirmation (either way) from a reliable source, I'm sure. Meanwhile, let's hold fire until we know what's going on. We want to be right, not first. Krytenia (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It just looks like people have something against TMZ for having a celebrity-gossip reputation, less than the New York Times rep. If the New York Times reported it first with no other sources reporting, would it get posted here? Adverge (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The NYT is a reliable source. TMZ is notorious for running stories that haven't been fact checked, thus is not. --Smashville^talk 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So is the New York Times Rifter0x0000 (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Depends on who they sourced, I guess. WP:V Doctorbob (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The NY Post has also confirmed it. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See Death of Michael Jackson, and this embarrassing story from July. Let's be cautious here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Eonline is confirming it, citing the L.A. County Department of Coroner http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b158928_clueless_star_brittany_murphy_dies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.79.184 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Deceased December 20, 2009 10:04 am. Casue of death: Sudden Cardiac Arrest.

she died today and the article must be updated accordingly

Brittnay Murphy died on December 20, 2009 of an apparent heart attack, age 32.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/20/2009-12-20_actress_brittany_murphy_dies_at_32_of_heart_attack_report.html

WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That link you've provided is for the gossip column at the NY Daily News. That's right, the gossip column. Doctorbob (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

gossip columns should not be used as reliable sources though the news is pretty much confirmed through other more reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilaj (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of jumping all over each other to pronounce it first like a gossip rag, why not let it sit a week to get the facts? It's an encyclopedia, not a magazine.68.196.93.32 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC confirming...

Per this Twitter update; ABC is trying to confirm this. [4] I will update as it's confirmed.

- PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is also reporting it but is only citing TMZ. It may be slightly premature to update the page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. If and when ABC confirms it; there we have our verifiable source to assert enough for the article to be changed. Still no progress, yet. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/star-clueless-mile-actress-brittany-murphy-dies/story?id=9385992

"...according to the gossip Web site TMZ.com". Emphasis mine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press is only confirming that there was a 911 call and a crew was called there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC's actual news site (not the gossip page) says - "Crews Called to Home of Brittany Murphy's Husband": http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9386200 Rorschach 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup reliable sources. Sheilaj (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Sheilaj (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC runs it

ABC has decided to run the story, which means the sources checked out: [5]. --Smashville^talk 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because the only source they cite is TMZ. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still somewhat uncertain about it, saying as it only references TMZ. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, still only citing TMZ though – which it mentions in all but the last paragraph... matt (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd wait for indep. verification before publishing it. ffm is now LFaraone 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC is a reliable source. Is it up to us to rely on their source to be reliable as well? --Smashville^talk 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, ABC are only saying that she has "reportedly" died. ABC aren't exactly commiting themselves here, either. Doctorbob (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If they're reporting it, they've committed themselves. Jeez, am I the only one here who actually works in the media? TMZ may be run by people who I guess aren't considered to be journalists (based on some of the comments here), but once a source like ABC reports it, the gloves come off. They don't report this stuff unless it's been verified. And if you don't agree, the WP:V must disqualify all media sources. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Now reported on Yahoo

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/article/-/6616282/brittany-murphy-39-s-husband-39-we-want-to-know-why-we-lost-our/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.161.103 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Death

Reports that actress Brittany Murphy has died at the age of 32. She was reportatly found in the shower by her mother at 8 am. And suffered a cartiac arrest. Multiple sources have told the website that Murphy went into cardiac arrest and could not be revived. Los Angeles City Fire Department confirms a 911 call was made at 8 a.m. Sunday morning from the home listed as belonging to Murphy's husband, Simon Monjack.

The Powers that be (ie the people that have too much time on their hands and do the majority edits to Wikipedia, don't believe she's dead. The death was first reported by TMZ which apparently isn't a reliable source, despite the fact that they've never been wrong before. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, she isn't officially dead until the LA Times reports it. 81.103.197.86 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, TMZ has been wrong before. [[6]] mgahs (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously citing a blog to confirm your statement that TMZ has been wrong before? Have you heard of Irony?? 81.103.197.86 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Murphy was best-known for her breakthrough role in 1995's Clueless. She went on to star in films including 8 Mile, Uptown Girls and Just Married. She co-starred in the latter with former boyfriend Ashton Kutcher.

The first paragraph has to be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.178.26 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes IMDb front page says she died as well http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1320787/ --Jim Raynor (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post has an article about her death also at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-groner/brittany-murphy-was-recen_b_398594.html Is there some reason her death cannot be reported in the article? Kitchawan (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS REPORTS AS WELL: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/20/2009-12-20_actress_brittany_murphy_dies_at_32_of_heart_attack_report.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveableae (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC) This says the coroner confirmed it http://www.kdvr.com/entertainment/ktla-brittaney-murphy,0,1700866.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.211.58 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that all these links are being very careful to just cite TMZ, none of them have actual verification. When it's actually reported by anyone else in the universe, we'll know. Jordanp (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read three separate things about her death on this page, a car accident, cardiac arrest (x2). Plus two different dates for her death. This just affirms the fact that people are not posting reliable information. Her death is simply hearsay at this point. joecdn (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Death now being reported by the LA Times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.108.118 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And CNN as well. Eeekster (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the BBC her death has been confirmed by a hospital spokesman with no mention of TMZ. [7] IrishPete (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be a spoilsport but it seems odd not to mention that the first report of her death was announced on TMZ and that mainstream media outlets then confirmed that report independently. Obviously TMZ as a source is not Wiki, but to ignore its first-with-the-news status entirely, even just in a footnote, seems shortsighted.Kitchawan (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

At this time her COD has NOT been confirmed, and those results wont be released for at least 48 hours. Someone should make modify this section that the cause of death is SUSPECTED cardiac arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.246.248 (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

She's dead. How much more arrested can her heart get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.117.34 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of jumping all over each other to pronounce it first like a gossip rag, why not let it sit a week to get the facts? It's an encyclopedia, not a magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.93.32 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but people rely on wikipedia for being up to date and not a week behind current events, or months and years like other encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.32.54 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Within reason. Reliable sources are not negotiable, especially for biographies. Wikinews should be up to date, but they also have a requirement for reliable sources. Meanwhile whereas tmz.com may have broken this news, as they broke the news of Michael Jackson's death, otherwise they haven't always got it right. What is really unhelpful is people piling in before the facts become known, and Wikipedia cannot afford to be seen as the purveyor of false rumours. That's why we wait, but being not paper, we can update as soon as the air clears and facts are beyond argument. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

81.103.197.86, you are 100% correct. Admins ignore the fact that TMZ is right over and over again. I have seen this happen on other pages where someone has died,the admins only believe it if CNN or the New York Times etc post it,even when 10 other news outlets are reporting it. And now the article is locked. Why even bother getting a account on Wikipedia when pages are locked by power hungry admins? And if by chance you do get to report something like someones death it just gets removed by a admin because it isn't "verifiable",when really the reason is that the admin didn't get to report it first. I have seen several accounts warned or blocked for vandalism today for trying to add info on her death. Seems the mighty admins had to go back and unblock or apologize to the members or IP's that had been warned or blocked. I wonder how the admins like Crow?--99.177.250.140 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how wonderful it must be to have omniscient powers, when all we know in retrospect is that TMZ have got it right twice and first. That's supremely irrelevant, because in the past, they haven't, and that's why they are not (yet) regarded as necessarily a reliable source. That may change, of course, but it's superbly unbecoming of you to criticise admins for doing the right thing as it appeared at the time. I suspect you wouldn't last a week as an admin, with that attitude, even if you managed to crawl under the wire and survive an Rfa. Start an account, and try it. At the moment, as an IP, you have more liberty and lack of scrutiny than you perhaps deserve. Crow? Fuck off. You haven't a clue. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

99.177.250.140: If you think that an article has been protected unfairly, you're welcome to talk to the protecting admin or, if that doesn't go too well (and it probably won't if you use the same tone of voice as above), to request unprotection at WP:RPP. As for TMZ, so what? Unless the first reports of her death came from the Dalai Lama, the ghost of Elvis, or some other outrageous or unlikely source, the origins of these reports seem rather trivial, just as long as the cited reports are reliable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A source can be perfectly correct, in a given instance, without being a "reliable source". If Bernie Madoff tells you that 1 + 1 = 2, he would be absolutely right, but that alone would not make him a trustworthy fellow. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Yes but people rely on wikipedia for being up to date and not a week behind current events"... Um... What?! Who depends on wikipedia for being up to date? If you DEPEND on knowing the status of Brittany Murphy, you've got issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.93.32 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A whole heck of a lot of people must have "issues", then. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They do.68.196.93.32 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to start an "edit war" with Vyvyan Ade Basterd, as he unnecessarily deleted my information from TMZ. Obviously Basterd (Great name, isn't it, how apropo) thinks that ANYTHING from TMZ should be deleted. What ole Basterd is about to discover is that TMZ actually does its homework 99% of the time, and the information I added is about to become common knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonnman (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Death reported by coroner's office

http://www.thewrap.com/article/reported-brittany-murphy-dies-cardiac-arrest-12030

Don't know how reliable thewrap is thought. MorganaFiolett (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune agrees: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ktla-brittaney-murphy,0,614448.story That'll do it...Sqlman (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

KTLA is the 2nd source. http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-brittaney-murphy,0,5929592.story Pxlt (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How sad, but they do look like reliable sources. I think the article can be updated. Basket of Puppies 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Trib story: "Actress Brittany Murphy died after being hospitalized in Los Angeles Sunday morning, the Los Angeles County Coroner's office has confirmed." They credit TMZ as breaking the story, not as their (sole) source. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So admins, unprotect the page now, please. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclined to agree: If we get a rush of major news sources confirming the story off the back of a coroners report, we should be good to go. Right, not first people. Doctorbob (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it turns out to be false, isn't the fact that almost every major news source reported that she's dead in of itself worth mentioning on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.198.19 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin remove the text "TMZ Confirmed that she passed away today in Los Angeles. 12.20.09" that's repeated three times in the infobox? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Somebody got it. I wasn't able to find out where they smuggled it into the infobox code. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It was in an obscure template that happened to not be protected. I had to resort to filtering recent changes to the template namespace to find it, I couldn't get it out of the overcomplicated template calls. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have requested unprotection. Basket of Puppies 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the Chicago Tribune is being cited even though they're just reprinting KTLA's story? Pxlt (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably gets more hits by virtue of being the Tribune and thus pops up higher on Google. --Smashville^talk 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that's relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Seems logical to cite the actual source (KTLA, not the Chicago Tribune). Pxlt (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though the Chicago Tribune confirms it, they're only confirming that a Coroner's office official is reporting that a person named "Brittany Murphy" was reported dead at Cedars-Sinai. I might be splitting hairs here, but that's still a pretty common name. joecdn (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Reuters. –MuZemike 20:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AP. –MuZemike 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lock icon

If the article is locked, the lock icon should be displayed. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the big hurry?

This is an encyclopedia, not Headline News. Once (if) the story is confirmed and there are encyclopedic details to add, THEN the article should be updated. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Because people always come here first for breaking news, at least I do. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed per the Trib. --Smashville^talk 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, a sensible solution to the BLPs dilemma instead of flagged revisions would be to automatically semi-protect any article for which there is a rumor of a death, or to semi-protect for a week after a confirmed death. Just watch and see: almost all the IP edits here will be vandalism. The 1-in-100 IP edit that is a good faith edit does not justify allowing the 99 others. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Every major figure who dies (or is rumored to) has their article semi-protected almost immediately. I don't know that it's a policy, but it's always done anyway (and that's the case for Murphy's page right now as far as I can see). Yes, it's a lot better than the torrid flagged revisions. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. It is one of the most popular websites on the internet. If someone dies, their article will be edited as soon as possible. Portillo (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reported on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/20/brittany.murphy/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.161.103 (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

New source that cites Ashton Kutcher

From the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/hollywood-actress-brittany-murphy-dead-reports-20091221-l7qr.html

Actor Ashton Kutcher, who starred with Murphy in the 2003 film Just Married, spoke about the actress's death on micro-blogging platform Twitter.

"[Today] the world lost a little piece of sunshine," he wrote just after 7am [AEDT].

"My deepest condolences go out 2 Brittany’s family, her husband, & her amazing mother Sharon."

Alexanderino (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

This article is protected because of "excessive" violations of WP:BLP. Given that the subject is not a living person (anymore), this is not an acceptable reason for protection. Bubbaprog (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the media has fucked up before on deaths, I'm sure. –MuZemike 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries? matt (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

TMZ reported Kimo Leopoldo dead in July 2009 [8], only to retract the story without an explanation when it turned out to be wrong. Call it citation snobbery, but nobody is reported dead on Wikipedia on the basis of a TMZ report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

CNN cites a named spokesperson at the hospital[9]. I'm all in favor of strict BLP enforcement but this seems to have been independently confirmed, sadly. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP has traditionally applied to the recently deceased as well as to the living; see for example this or this. NW (Talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone claiming BLP applies to any people who are verifiably dead, please show some proof of it, those links do not do that. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

MTV is reporting it

[10] But they are citing TMZ. Still though, this is tragic. Dexter111344 (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaaand now CNN, Fox News, etc, all have it, citing the LAPD. Confirmed. 76.224.166.183 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the ones just coming in are getting their confirmation from the LA County Coroner's Office. –MuZemike 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why...

Instead of the article saying that she's dead, do we have a section on who says she's dead and when they said it? --Smashville^talk 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Death section of the article now reads like a play-by-play of this discussion, saying which sources reported it when, etc. While this is great for the debate on the talk page, is it relevant to the actual article? The entire Death section reads awkwardly and provides few details from the actual reports about the death. 24.18.240.121 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Better now? ffm is now LFaraone 21:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've simplified to just TMZ's initial report/rumor, followed by the mainstream media verification. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8423785.stm Calvin (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by CNN as well. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/20/brittany.murphy/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunoob (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This makes two times that TMZ is both first and right

Maybe TMZ should be listed a future reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stlmetsfan5 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And see my post above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Which for some reason got lost in vandalism reversion. Here's what I said:

If we don't consider TMZ a reliable source, why are they cited at all? We sort of look hypocritical here. We wouldn't cite them as long as they were the only source everybody was citing, but now that it's been confirmed by undeniably reliable sources they're OK? Is this some interpretation of WP:RS I'm unaware of? Barring the exception for information about themselves, sources are either reliable and we cite them or they're not and we don't. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream media has developed a love/hate relationship with TMZ. It has had some big scoops, but also some big screw-ups. This is why, when the chips are down, people still look to sources like CNN and Reuters.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to the question. If we do not consider an outlet reliable, we are not supposed to cite them save for information about themselves, even if reliable sources later verify the same information through their own means. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

They are cited to verify that they actually posted that. The rest is cited to reliable sources. That is an acceptable use of an unreliable source. They said it, we provide the link to show that they did. The rest is, as I said, sourced using reliable sources. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't buy this. She's dead, it's official ... who reported it first is not relevant to this article. By citing them along with undeniably reliable sources we are allowing them to gain credibility they do not merit. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I like to believe that our readers aren't that dumb but your other argument about relevance is more convincing so remove it if you feel that way. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did this. And my other argument has nothing to do with readers' intelligence but the integrity of our policies. As the saying goes, a broken clock is still right twice a day. That doesn't make it WWV. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not, and did not for any considerable length of time, cite TMZ as a reliable source for Murphy's death. A while after the news broke, administrators locked the page, reverting it to a point where news of her death was not included in the article. Only when the Chicago Tribune (via KTLA) officially verified the reports, did admins unlock the page and editors added the news of her death. TMZ is included as a ref now because the fact that TMZ was the first source to break the news remains in the article, while the article has reliable sources after the TMZ ref. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the article about Brittany Murphy or TMZ? Is it any way relevant to her death that TMZ reported it first? Is it encylopedic? We are making them appear reliable by citing them alongside sources we have considered reliable, in contradiction of community consensus that they are not a reliable source. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I was going to remove the TMZ ref but it looks like it's already been done. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really silly under "Death" - "Mainstream media sources later confirmed the reports of her death via the Los Angeles County Coroner's office and a spokesperson at the hospital." TMZ *did* report this first, and scooped the story. When it comes to celebrity deaths these days the news organisation that reports the death first is part of the news story. TMZ isn't mentioned on the main page even though they've become a large part of the story of her death. Also, I think TMZ can be considered a mainstream media source, or at least a mainstream pop culture news source. Everyone follows what TMZ is up to now. Adverge (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant only if you believe one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to promote media outlets. TMZ's desire to make itself part of the story does not mean we have to follow suit. They were first, but ... do you remember offhand the first media outlet that reported Marilyn Monroe's death? Thirty-eight years later the only fact that matters is that she died.

If media coverage of her death becomes a factor in it, and if we were to have a separate Death of Brittany Murphy article, then it is relevant. At the moment the only place "TMZ reported it first ..." with a cite belongs is in the TMZ.com article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone also follows Perez Hilton's blog, that don't make him anymore of a reliable source than Harvey Levin & Co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if this community is going to accept TMZ as a reliable source, what's the point to make a donation to support Wikipedia? --213.252.192.73 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way are these propositions connected? Nobody should be suggesting on the basis of two successful hits that TMZ should be regarded as reliable; from WP:RS: "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; we are not there quite yet since two swallows do not a summer make. And making a donation to Wikipedia is entirely unconnected with that, unless you think we should pay for only sources we regard as reliable, which would be a recipe for disaster. Rodhullandemu 02:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But that does go to a point I was making. I've always thought a big part of Wikipedia's appeal was our distance from the media universe, and not just because anyone reading this article or this talk page is not getting bombarded with ads. Like The New York Times, we refused to toe the line of a tabloid website, and I think people appreciate that. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Her father

The bit about her father being a convicted mobster should probably be removed as it doesn't have a source. None of the citations in the paragraph it's in support that assertion and the guy might still be alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.184 (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And I can't even get to it. This is not the first discussion of this (see above under "Accusations of criminal activity should be substantiated"). I'll remove. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only other reference I could find at the moment is here, which quotes an article in The Sun (newspaper) from 2003. There would need to be firmer sourcing in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that her father did jailtime for Mafia crimes? Or are those merely malicious rumors? If verifiable, should that info be incorporated or is it too irrelevant? --195.14.197.207 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did some checking and the claim appears to be true. Her father gave a statement about her death and also stated that he was once in the mob and was convicted on federal drug charges at some point. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so it appears to be true. Could we get some more input on whether this info is relevant enough to include? --195.14.197.207 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Harold Giuliani's criminal past is relevant in light of his son's career choice as a prosecutor and law-and-order reputation as mayor. Leighton Meester's parents' criminal record is relevant because she was born in a federal prison as a result. But not here unless someone finds an interview where she or someone who knew her well during that time period talks about it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. --195.14.197.207 (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If he was sent to prison while she was growing up, it is relevant. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If that relevance can be demonstrated, yes. It is not relevant ipso facto. His daughter's fame by itself is not a reason to make sure a widely-read online encyclopedia article about his late daughter has as its sole fact about him that he did prison time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Her mother

And while we're on the subject of her parents, what is the encylopedic justification for including the details of how her mother's breast cancer was dealt with, or indeed that she had it at all, in an article about her late daughter? Yes, it was discussed in a reliable source, but I don't see the relevance of it to her daughter's career or personality absent a sourced discussion of that. BLP applies to everyone, not just the subjects of articles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Gone. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It must have had a significant effect on Murphy that her mother had breast cancer; therefore it is relevant to this bio. You can't claim that Murphy wouldn't have been bothered in the slightest, or that it was completely irrelevant to Murphy's life. Murphy found out whilst she was filming Clueless. She said: "... told me it was malignant. I'll never forget that day as long as I live." A Legacy of Strength Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to see that she discussed it at greater length than that, that it affected her determination to succeed or get involved in breast-cancer activism or something like that. A lot of women have had breast cancer; quite a few have had notable children who were in their teens. And I'm sure none of those children took the attitude that it was just another day at the beach. And do we mention it in every article about someone whose mother had breast cancer that their mother had breast cancer? Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, read your own words again: "It must have had a significant effect ...". That's speculation, which we don't accept in articles. I grant that it may have. But without a source saying that there's no need to mention her mother's health issues in an article about her recently-deceased daughter. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm agree. Apparently one of her cousins was Edward Murphy, but there's no need to mention that in the article for now (is clear that need more reliable sources). --213.252.192.73 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Which one? Your link leads to a disambiguation page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The linked article is from interviews conducted well over a decade after the mother's first diagnosis. If it didn't have a significant effect, she wouldn't have vividly remembered the details so long afterward. People don't remember where they were when they heard their mother had a cold. Imagine being in her position when she was 15, then try claiming it wouldn't affect you significantly. Someone doesn't have to have become an activist for it to have been relevant to their life. Note that one of the other two young women interviewed was Christina Applegate, note what happened to her last year, and why. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that breast cancer is a very serious condition. What we're saying is that any suggestion that this is relevant in this article is original research/speculation. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that she didn't remember where she was when her mother told her, I'm sure she did. But she is hardly the only child of a woman with breast cancer to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We don't mention it in every single instance. Indeed, in Ms. Applegate's case it's relevant because she herself developed breast cancer. But, now that that will never happen to Ms. Murphy, it is not something to be mentioned automatically, any more than her father's criminal history. Its relevance to her life must be demonstrated. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the fact she remembered the details, over a decade on, of her finding out of her mother's diagnosis, to show its relevance to her life. Murphy was filming Clueless at the time, one of her more notable roles. She was so pre-occupied and concerned with her mother's health problems that she phoned her mother's doctor, pretending to be her, in order to find out as soon as possible whether her mother's neoplasm was benign or malignant. Most teenagers take for granted, without even thinking about it, that their mothers will live for many years more. To be confronted at that age of there being a significant chance she will be dead within a few years must cause much anxiety to someone of that age in a position like that. The way Murphy described it, in the Yahoo article, demonstrates its relevance to Murphy's life. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to argue its specific relevance through generalizations, and her contemporaneous reaction, which I would argue are not unique to Brittany Murphy or breast cancer (i.e., if her mother had tested HIV-positive I'd say the same thing). As I've said above, if some interview either with her or a close personal friend from the time surfaces now or in the future in which Brittany or that person says something to the effect that because of her mother's breast cancer she changed the way she looked at life, perhaps with consequences to her career, then it's relevant and should be included. As it stands, without anything more than supposition, it's a nice anecdote for a breast-cancer support forum, but not a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cocaine?

The blogs are now going into overdrive with speculation that the death was related to cocaine. This Telegraph article hedges it bets, but the article should not be drawn on this issue without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN! Have some respect, and stop removing my contributions. The issue of cocaine is an unsubstantiated allegation. Lets wait to see what the coroner says...please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.235.134 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes please don't rumors in wiki. Sheilaj (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

When did "rumors" become a verb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.70.110 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because acording to this source:

"Wow. No, just for the record I have never tried it in my entire life, I've never even seen it, and I don't leave the house too much, except to go to work," she said. "My worst vice is caffeine. [The rumor is] really pretty darn far-fetched -- it couldn't be further from the truth. I have known people over the course of my life that have bad problems with drugs, and it's something really serious."

"I am also way too high-strung," she continues. "I can't even take a Sudafed. Can you imagine? My God. I think my heart would explode. I mean, literally something terrible. That's awful."

Her heart was allergic or something to certain drugs --213.252.192.73 (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Clueless (film)

the filmography is missing "Clueless" from 1999, where Brittany Murphy played Tai Fraiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.44.235 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's there, in 1995. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthname - "Brittany Bertolotti"?

Does anyone have a definitive source on her birthname? This suggests "Brittany Bertolotti". I've also seen "Sharon Lane Murphy" and "Brittany Anne Murphy" listed in some places. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Acting uncited

Just wanted to point out that the Acting section is completely uncited. Not a big deal unless someone slips in a movie she wasn't in. Maybe it can wait until the frenzy dies down a bit.
Also, protecting the page was exactly the right thing to do! If this is not standard practice, I believe that anytime a notable person dies, especially one as well know/popular/ as here, then their BIO should be protected ASAP. Anon IPs' (like me) can still contribute by looking for sources and reporting errors in the article. Fairly common for grammar/ spelling errors etc. to sneak in as things are added and shifted around. Proofreading is always helpful. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The source for Reference #1 has been updated, Actress Brittany Murphy dead at 32 December 21, 2009 -- Updated 0142 GMT (0942 HKT). This also mentions some of her movies, so could be used for citing in "Acting" as mentioned above. This section also claims "successful" and "critically acclaimed" movies. I wouldn't know, but without cites could be editors POV. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe IMDb is routinely used as a source for film & TV appearances. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the failed policy proposal, it may be used for hard information like credits. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Her heritage

I was wondering about her "Eastern European" heritage so I searched a little and found out her maternal grandmother was an Ashkenazi Jew. I couldn't locate where she was originally from but that would explain some events in Brittany's life (such as the Jewish wedding). Can we update the article? Thanks. 174.6.87.98 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This source The Jewish Chronicle.com you refer to merely states "Brittany’s mother, it turns out, is Ashkenazi-Jewish on her own mother’s side, making Brittany halachically kosher." But there is no further reference given. Where did they get their info? Not a source that can be trusted without more proof. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle (aka London Jewish Chronicle) seems to have a very long tradition. Just saying ... I do agree though that it's an unsourced and unverifiable information. 174.6.87.98 (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Her heritage/religion are actually discussed near the top of the talk page under "Faith". Teaches me to read the talk page more thoroughly! Has other references/source. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Domestic partners"

Folks, just because someone dated someone else does not make them a domestic partner. In order to characterize someone in that way, sources need to be present that Murphy shared a residence with someone and they lived together as partners. Please don't add someone to that category without reliable sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Time zone

Can someone please state what time zone in the death section? Shark96z (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Pparazorback (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Final proof...

And as if we even needed any further evidence that this site and the vast majority of the normal posters on this site think FAR too highly of themselves, we have this completely asinine discussion of this woman's death, where now even major news networks like ABC are not considered a reliable enough source for the exalted holiness of Wikipedia to sully it's webpages with..

GET OVER YOURSELF. This site is not some journal of record that will be referred to in the same breath as the Library of Congress in future generations. It is a trivia and semi-factual website that people look at for general knowledge about things, and take such "facts" with a grain of salt. The seriousness with which you all take yourselves here would be laughable if it weren't so fucking sad. Or sad if it weren't so fucking laughable.. I can't quite decide which..

Here's a little rule of thumb for you nerds pretending you're Radio Free Europe--if a major news network (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, etc.) runs a story...YOU FUCKING GO WITH IT.

1) Sign your comments 2) Look at the article's history page and see that as soon as a major news organization, the Chicago Tribute via KTLA, broke the news independently of TMZ, the article was unlocked and that was added. Thank you. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point about why there is almost always an issue when breaking news like this on Wikipedia. Until an hour or two after the first reports, the major news sites were stating that there were "reports" that she'd died – all based on TMZ. Now, rather than referencing a regurgitation of the story, we should cite the original report. However, TMZ is not deemed to be a reliable source (as others have said, it has broken incorrect stories in the past). Because of this, we need verifiable information to be able to announce it – remember, we're not here to "sell" news, so we're not in a rush to break a story before another outlet.

The other main issue is that people do come to Wikipedia for information – even the press (see top banner regarding Huffington Post). I don't know how many times I've heard it mentioned on TV or radio, or how it's obvious that this is where researchers have got their interview material. Regardless of someone's perception of Wikipedia, it happens. Therefore, we must do our utmost not to fuel rumours. Of course, our threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. This is especially true in this circumstance, where TMZ's scoop was true, but not verifiable. It only took an hour or so for the first confirmation (Chicago Tribune through KTLA, citing the coroner and LAFD).

So ultimately, it's not that ABC, NBC, CBS etc. aren't ever reliable enough for "our holiness", it's that this time they were citing very unstable information – once they could confirm it (independently from the original TMZ report). matt (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It was inevitable that when reports of Brittany Murphy's death started appearing on the Internet, there would be a stampede to edit this article. This is undesirable for a range of reasons. Wikipedia was widely criticized in the media in January 2009 for a vandal edit wrongly reporting the death of Edward Kennedy [11]. All journalists are taught "If in doubt, leave it out", and it did not hurt to wait an hour for mainstream media confirmation of Brittany Murphy's death. Wikipedia is not a rolling news channel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

here's an idea: when a public figure is reported as dead by a major media outlet, regardless of whether it is true or not, and regardless of their reliability, that ITSELF is noteworthy. so we do need to report TMZ reporting major events like deaths, but only as rumors, until confirmed. if she had turned out not to have died, her being reported as dead would have been a major gaffe, and a major news story. I would draw the line at deaths, however, and not include tmz reports of divorce, breakups, or spilled lattes.66.80.6.163 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it bothers me when editors take it upon themselves to wait for sources which they think are reliable, but there are alot of hoaxes out there. Portillo (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The link: "Perez Hilton Predicted Brittany Murphy Death" said it may breach my browser security when I tried to access it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.84.39 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

<< GET OVER YOURSELF. This site is not some journal of record that will be referred to in the same breath as the Library of Congress in future generations. >> You mean the time wikipedia stated "George Clooney began his Hollywood career as a fluffer..." ISN'T TRUE  ? ? ? ? ? ? Codenamemary (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth surname

Presumably her surname at birth was Bertolotti. Can anyone verify this and add to the article? Was Murphy her legal name or stage name? And had it been changed from Bertolotti, if indeed that was her birth name?Kitchawan (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany's father

Several years ago The Sun newspaper in Britain identified Angelo J. Bertolotti as a former organized-crime figure (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/154693/Brittany-father-is-a-mobster.html). The Sun is a scandal tabloid but reputable sources appear to back up The Sun's assertion, such as the US Court of Appeals (http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/529/149/386914/) and case files in the State of Florida (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/505509) and (http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/590/590.F2d.1379.77-5032.html) dated 1979, when Murphy was two, the same time her parents reportedly divorced. Can anyone back this up even more clearly for inclusion in the article?Kitchawan (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. Even with the sourcing, there are still some concerns about whether this is relevant or notable enough for the article. What do other users think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we keep this discussion above under "Her father"? Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship and complacence

I don't agree with deleting relevant discussion about the alleged causes of her death. Wikipedia isn't supposed to become complacent with official media, this would make it a mere tribune to official government inquiries and investigations. Besides, there are already plenty of cases where complacence becomes impossible, such as in the series on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. ADM (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The cocaine stories are in the realms of wild speculation at the moment. If it turns out that Brittany Murphy died of natural causes, Wikipedia would look silly for repeating unsourced gossip. See also WP:ALLEGED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Magazine lists

Why do we keep the info about what ranking she recieved in various magazine polls? This seems like useless trivia and fancruft to me. If she had ranked in the top 10 I might be persuaded that this was relevant information but in this article it seems utterly irrelevant to me. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed these. They do not add very much to the article and could be seen as WP:TRIVIA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alot of articles have this "voted such and such hottest person in such and such magazine." I didnt see much wrong with it. Portillo (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what was removed:

"She was featured as Number 17 in Maxim Magazine's Hot 100 of 2002 supplement. She was ranked 32 on the annual Maxim Hot 100 List in 2003 and in 2004 was named Number 108 out of 137 on Entertainment Weekly's Must List. In 2006, Murphy was voted 36th in FHM's 100 Sexiest Women List, and in May of the same year, Maxim Magazine named Murphy Number 49 on its Hot 100 List."

As Vyvyan Basterd pointed out, coming 108 out of 137 in a magazine poll is non-notable. Polls like these prove very little unless there is external sourcing to establish the notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this a bit differently; I'd say that the fact that she was in a long series of these lists is signficant objective evidence about one aspect of her celebrity identity during those years. It's reasonably notable to be listed in a Top 100 list--there are tens of thousands of working actresses who never get near them. The particular place on each list isn't the point.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

These "lists" are just coatracks on which the magazines hang pictures of attractive actresses, and I'd expect that the cost/availability of the pictures has more to do with the listings, rather than any "significant objective" criteria being involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The other reason for removing these is that they are completely unsourced. Although they look to have been added in good faith and are probably correct, without sourcing they could be wrong and no-one would be any the wiser.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like encyclopedic content to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Influenza?

There appears to be a strong possibility that Ms. Murphy was suffering from both influenza and being underweight. These are both risk factors for cardiac failure. This information needs to have a reliable source before it can be added to the article. Whether this is confirmed or not, her death is a great loss to the world. David spector (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article points out that tests and investigations are ongoing into the cause of death. There has been speculation about cocaine, anorexia and influenza, but the article should stick to the facts until more details emerge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This new BBC article reports that Brittany Murphy was suffering from laryngitis before her death. However, since this is not usually a fatal condition, it adds little to what is already known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This story in today's New York Post (which we have considered a reliable source in the past) has some material from TMZ but some on-the-record speculation from Cyril Wecht and other doctors whose credentials are given that combined drug toxicity likely has something to do with this. Could we use it? I believe speculation by an identified expert (as opposed to anonymous bloggers) is something we can use in articles. It would help address the rumors we can't otherwise discuss.

In other developments, NBC has quietly pulled that Weekend Update bit from two weeks ago spoofing her off the web. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of a prescription drug overdose à la Heath Ledger is also considered in this Daily Mail article today.[12] I thought that this was too speculative to add, and the NY Post story covers similar ground. Although the doctors being quoted are a reliable source, there will be no firm answers until the official autopsy results are published.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So we can quote Wecht, at least, expressing doubts as long as we make clear that the "natural causes" thing isn't official? Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyril Wecht has stated "When you have a 32-year-old person dying suddenly, and especially a celebrity in Los Angeles, you can place your bet down that it's going prove to be a case of acute combined drug toxicity.” Like all bets, this could turn out to be wrong. He points out that 32-year-olds rarely drop dead in this manner, but it is still speculation at the moment. I'm still not sure about adding this. In the words of Sherlock Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, given that Wecht's history is not all that spotless, and his continued refusal to understand why it is that the second bullet from Oswald's rifle is mostly pristine smacks of someone given to rushes to judgement, I'll accept that his speculation is not article worthy (however, if he makes similar comments after the official report is out, then it's in IMO).

It has occurred to me that there is a way "natural causes" isn't inconsistent with all this reported recent drug abuse. One thing I've read in a couple of blog comments is that diabetics with eating disorders will frequently stop taking their insulin in order to lose weight ... which, of course, makes the diabetes more life-threatening with the possibility of, among other things, cardiac arrest, especially if there are other conditions like ... hypertension. If, indeed, she had an eating disorder (wouldn't be surprising) and did this, then the cardiac arrest could be a diabetic complication and there would be no apparent toxicity to bring it on, making it indeed appear natural on its face (Note that the TMZ source doesn't say when all those empty prescription containers had been initially filled. They could be old ones, which would discount them as the source of any toxic drug interaction). Of course, I'd call that "natural consequence of reckless human behavior". Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC News reports, "'We noticed here last week how incredibly thin and unhealthy she looked,' US Weekly senior editor Bradley Jacobs told ABCNews.com. 'She appeared skinnier than ever.'" Grundle2600 (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

LAFD Reported in her bedroom "There were prescription pills all over the place." Granted this is just as speculative as influenza, but a very likely scenario KermitClown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If they were "all over the place", clearly, she hadn't taken them. Duh! Meanwhile, if you have them please send them, because I could probably use them, as it would be a welcome release from the fucking stupidity that prevails here. Rodhullandemu 02:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we wait for the results of the autopsy. Mattnad (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No public information yet but it has been reported:

1. cocaine or other drugs
2. H1N1 flu or other influenza
3. internal bleeding such as an aneurysm that busted

At most we can say is that several reports have speculated on different causes of death and not list them. That's because if she didn't die of cocaine, it's nasty to list it. JB50000 (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any official report, there will always be speculation. It is not encyclopedic in and of itself. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Faith

Any documentation that she practices Kabbalah? She says in the Latino Review interview that's a she's a practicing non-denominational Christian. Admittedly that interview was a few years ago, but still, is it confirmed she does practice Kabbalah?

Removed. References say otherwise. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it does mention she got married in a Jewish ceremony, but nothing mentions Kabbalah. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Headline News Article for Tinkerbell addition. --Michael Gray 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy was a Jew. She practiced Judaism and was Jewish on her mother's side, which makes her Jewish according to Jewish Law. --Rivkco (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The latinoreview.com link used for the citation on Brittany Murphy's religion is down [13]. This is now tagged as "citation needed".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look ar the following link which refers to her being Jewish http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/popular_culture/Interfaith_Celebrities_Brittany_Murphys_Rabbi_Husband_and_American_Idols_Jewish_Judges.shtml --Rivkco (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not look like a WP:RS. It also hedges its bets: "The Chronicle cited no specific source for its claim that Murphy's maternal grandmother was Jewish, but the paper says that it is "90%" sure that "Murphy is Jewish." Not exactly a knockout punch on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A 1999 article in USA Today states that Murphy "isn't Jewish" and a 2003 interview in the San Jose Mercury News describes her as a "non-denominational Christian" who wears a cross. However, maybe she did have some Jewish ancestry, as that Interfaith article states, but that would need a good source. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it me, or does the San Jose Mercury News article require a subscription? I can only get at a brief extract.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both that and USA Today require subscriptions. However, as newspapers, they can still be used as reliable sources, even if they're not available online (references don't have to be online to be usable). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone added this new reference from the Jewish Chronicle, which repeats the same claim about her mother being Ashkenazi Jewish - but just as before, without a clear source (the brief statements from her husband's family members don't mention it). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

According to her death certificate, her first cousin is named 'Tayebe Pajooh', hardly Jewish! I'm wondering if her mother was hiding Arabic ancestry by calling her self "Eastern European" which is usually code for 'Jewish'.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

You really should look up what a cousin can be; scarcely authoritative for anything at all. Rodhullandemu 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)