Wikipedia

Talk:Laura Branigan/Archive 2

< Talk:Laura Branigan
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Devilmanozzy in topic DOB issue yet again
Archive 1 Archive 2

Trying to help resolve the birth year issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

Can anyone interested in resolving this please follow some very simple instructions. If you have a source for a birth year, please:

  1. Post the information regarding that source in the appropriate subsection below.
  2. Please do NOT add any additional information, such as arguments why it's a great source or another one is a bad source or about another person posting or actually anything at all
  3. ...other than signing your contribution with four tildes (~)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions so far and for playing by the rules. This is a fairly active place, so there's no need for this to take a long time, but I'll give this a day or two to make sure everyone's had a chance to chip in. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

1952 sources

1957 sources

(Please place discussion in the discussion section below. Gamaliel (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC))

Formal RfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had hoped that a simple consensus-finding conversation would suffice, but with allegations of edit-warring and socking, and continued arguing, so be it. I'll open a formal RfC. WP:LAME beckons with a welcoming hand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wider discussion

Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments9 people in discussion

[moved from section above] The press isn't a "neutral source", they only report what they're being told, i.e. in this case the official line as told by the manager. And newspaper reports about her death are less reliable than newspaper reports from her high school days, many years before someone shaved five years off her age. Another interesting fact is that all reports about the scholarship in her memory at Byram Hills HS that I could find, except for the reports on her "official website", state that the scholarship is "in memory of Laura Branigan, class of 1970". But the school website is unfortunately off line, or at least not accessible for people on this side of the pond, so I can't link to them. Thomas.W talk 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a PDF of the school's 2009 bulletin on the Wayback Machine: [1] The reference to "Laura Branigan, class of 1970" is on page 11. Muzilon (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

American Academy of Dramatic Arts lists Branigan as notable alumni from the Class of 1972, which means if she was born in '57, she was 15 when she graduated from the Academy and would have started there when she was 13/14?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: She was not 15 when she graduated from AADA, but 20, it's a two-year fulltime associates degree program, i.e. post-HS, which would have required that she graduated from HS at the age of 13, and there are plenty of mentions and photos from the local newspaper that show that she was 18, not 13, when she graduated from highschool in 1970. So she was born in 1952... Thomas.W talk 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree with you that she was born in 1952, it was not my intention to imply that she was actually 15 when she commenced from AADA, I was merely trying to point out that she is listed as notable alumni from the class of 1972, and if she was born in '57 (like others argue with RS), then apparently she was attending high school and AADA at the same time, which seems illogical. That's just my 2cents.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources/evidence to consider

NOTE: Added after RfC was closed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway...May I ask you where you have found those sources? You know I was the one who found the family picture from 1954? They are all published at my research about Laura Branigan https://se.pinterest.com/born53/8-brundage-street-armonk/ Branigan Family 1954 I am the one who started all this about Laura Branigan. My question to you...Can you support me so 1952 will forever blow away 1957? 1957 is so totally wrong. Watch again and see my site https://se.pinterest.com/born53/laura-branigan-high-school-1966-70/ there are old pictures when Laura was a cheerleader in high school, her graduation documents, and much, much more. Take a look and work for me in my efforts to convince all that Laura was born 1952. I know it, and you know it..let all know it! --Born53 swe (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


My Goodness! I am the one who started all this, The Swedish superfan. The researcher of the truth about late singer Laura Branigan. If you check my published research at my site https://se.pinterest.com/born53/8-brundage-street-armonk/ you are welcome to comment or whatever you will do. For me Laura Branigan is over, my research is over, everything is over. US public Records about Billy B https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2738-GFK Billy Branigan born Feb 28 1957 and also his birth announcement http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_mount_kisco_19570314_english_7 If US Public Record is a fake or not trustful, I recommend you to contact them for your concerns about being NOT trustful or reliable. And also Patent Trader, if you think this digitized paper is a fake or photoshop (as Vince Golik accuse me for) I would like you to contact Advance-preservation.com in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Ask for Grant, he knows me quite well. If you do, say hello from me. And ask him about his "coffeefika" in Stockholm. Instead of accusing me for all kind of things, write to me at born53@gmail.com and we can discuss via email. I am not young any longer, so if you have problems with my English, you have to live with that. So write an email to me and we can discuss Laura Branigan born July 3, 1952 at NWH in Mount Kisco, Westchester County in New York. Oh almost forgot to add , I have a contact in New York (her name is not mentioned here) who is a famous genealogist, she has ordered a copy of Laura's birth certificate. It is a long delivery time, but hopefully during 2016 it will arrive to me. Once again, write to me so you can skip the bullshit here. Best greetings from Sweden! --Born53 swe (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, on Wikipedia we are not historians and journalists who examine primary sources in this manner. We only cite the work of professionals who do in the form of secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Ehh, it should be a simple matter for some investigative journalist or celebrity biographer to order a copy of Ms. Branigan's birth certificate and Social Security application and publish their findings in a "reliable source" like a book or newspaper. Problem solved. Although I understand New York State (unlike some other jurisdictions) won't release a birth certificate to an unrelated third party without a court order. Muzilon (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I must comment this as well. During my research I came in contact with a genealogist from New York Genealogy History. (No names will be mention.) As I live in Sweden and have difficulties with practical things we made an agreement. I happened to mention about how good it would be with a birth certificate. That would end all discussions. A couple of days later I had an email that the order was made. He/she had offered to request a certificate "as you live in Sweden". So December 27 I had another email saying "Done". Though it will take time, but hopefully I will have the copy during spring or summer this year. It is a very prominent person who is behind several historical books about New York's genealogy and history. Depending of the situation here about the so called experts I will take it under big considerations about publishing. I have presented so many evidence in my favour, but still you don't believe it. Even Vince Golik has approved 1952 and Mount Kisco, though he is the one of the protectors of Laura's wiki. No one shall edit or change anything without very heavy evidence. And all the heavy evidence are already in my Laura collection.--Born53 swe (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I need to comment this...Laura Branigan's official site has blocked and banned me for lifetime due my questions when the will recognize Laura's right birth year to 1952.

  • Billboard has been using their best friend SILENCE. I have asked them so many time when they will change their wrongs about Laura, but not a single answer since early 2015.
  • The Guardian is to old. They will not make changes or anything else.
  • The Telegraph no contact with them.
  • BBC news has changed Laura's birth year to 1952.
  • Google Books...no contact.
  • New York Times was interested making a story of Laura and my research in August 2015. I have asked them why they didn't do it. No answer on email or Facebook messages.
  • La Times...They say they have published directly from the press release sent out August 2004. They are sorry if anything was wrong, but they did as the press release said.
  • All Music has changed to 1952.
  • The Guinness encyclopedia. Colin Larkin answered my question about the wrongs in his encyclopedia. The answer was I have to contact the new owners, though he has sold the encyclopedia. But he agrees in 1952!
  • Almanac of famous people and Contemporary musicians was new for me. I will contact them and ask them which is their accurate, trust and reliable sources. If they say the press release, I will show the the wrongs,

I think this will be all. If you have any problems with following sources I recommend you to contact US Public Record for complaining about publishing wrong birth info. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2738-GFK Billy Branigan Feb 28 1957 And also contact Advance-preservation.com in Cedar Rapids, Iowa if you think this is a photoshop fabricated by me. http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_mount_kisco_19570314_english_7. Contact Grant and ask him how and why. And say hello from me, though I know him quite well. Or write to me at born53@gmail.com so we can sort it out. Or visit https://se.pinterest.com/born53/boards/ Laura Branigan 1952 Ther are old rare pictures from early 50's, Laura's graduation documents from high school 1970, graduation from the academy 1972, etc. etc. After that you are welcome back to discuss Laura Branigan born 1952.--Born53 swe (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So again....

  • laura branigan Contemporary Musicians. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 1989 Contemporary Musicians (http://genius.com/artists/Laura-branigan) Laura Branigan's author is a nickname called LuckyBlu Jay. She/he has copy and paste from something I don't know. Genius is building a system of making so many changes you can to earn points. Is this reliable? In my view wikipedia has a higher ranking. Source ranking from me...No way.

So I hope you will misclassify this source. I will contact LuckyBlu Jay and ask what is the sources.--Born53 swe (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So again....http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19831218-1.2.124.15.1.aspx An old paper from 1983. No much to say about it. Laura wasn't honest with her age. It is known and why she did it, I don't know. 2nd. Laura's career as a Leonard Cohen 1978 background singer needs just one comment. Crap!

And Laura graduated from the academy https://www.aada.edu/alumni/notable-alumni#decade:1960_1970/orderby:year/display:panel A wonderful picture of Laura. So once again I have destroyed your so called reliable sources. When will you let us see REEL trustful sources. You can find my sources at https://se.pinterest.com/born53/pins/ Laura Branigan born 1952, Mount Kisco. --Born53 swe (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not easy to understand. I found it earlier today. First I thought, shall I mention it here? OK, this link from FamilySearch shows that Laura Branigan and Billy Branigan, siblings born in Armonk, both are born in 1957. Billy's says Feb 28, 1957. Laura's just says 1957. So what shall you believe in, Laura's or Billy's public Record? https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=75&query=%2Bsurname%3Abranigan%20%2Bbirth_place%3Aarmonk~%20%2Bbirth_year%3A1952-1957~ I suggest someone of you contact FamilySearch and ask them.--Born53 swe (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic obviously can't make up their mind. Their biography of Laura Branigan says "1952" in the infobox, but "1957" in the main body of the article. Muzilon (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an answer about Allmusic's different birth years. If you read to the end you see the name Greg Prato. He is the man behind this wrong biography. He worked at Rovi as a music writer. Several times I have tried to reach him and ask him to change his wrongs about Laura. He hasn't answered my emails, Facebook or Google+ messages. He is like many others...silence. And Allmusic are not allowed to change, delete or whatever with Mr.Prato's biography. That's is 1957. Allmusic itself changed to 1952 just weeks ago. I think they were tired over all my corrections I sent to them every week. So an extra thanks to them, it only took them 1½ year to change it. About FamilySearch I wrote about yesterday. My case "FamilySearch Support Case 02226032: Laura Branigan and Family Search all wrongs about her person details." I had a an answer today why it is so many different informations in their databases. The problem is the press release that Laura's manager wrote August 28, 2004. She wrote 1957, Brewster, wrong years in Laura's timeline, etc. And when I showed FamilySearch they understood the problem. The press release! This is the complete answer from FS..."You are right, the information is from an indexed record. So this conclusion must be rather accurate. "If the newspaper or the press release obituary had incorrect information when it was published it will forever be wrong in that issue of the newspaper. And the information will be wrong in any index of the obituary or in any transcription of the obituary because the job of an indexer or transcriber is to index/transcribe exactly what is in the obituary or document they are indexing/transcribing. They are not supposed to do research or make corrections. You can always look to see if a corrected obituary was published on a different day and people can certainly make notes in family trees or in any current write up they do based on other documents, but no one can change a published newspaper obituary to say something different than what it says." So it seems to we will forever live with Laura Branigan's wrong records when we are searching in FamilySearch". I hope this is for you trustful and reliable answer from me. I have really done what I can do. I will return when I have the answer from LuckyBluJay from Contemporary Musicians. He/she has been demanded to delete or change the wrongs. Greetings from Sweden--Born53 swe (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again I will let you see my sources about Laura Branigan...http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_mount_kisco_19610706_english_2 Happy b-day Laura 9 years, http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=Laura Branigan fitness award, http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_Laura Branigan "Baby" http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_Laura Branigan graduation 1970, http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?key=branigan%20&pc=2984&psi=1631&pci=1626&pfd=11-08-1942&fn=patent_trader Laura to the academy New York, http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_Laura Branigan to American Academy of Dramatic Arts, That is enough. If you want to see ALL my sources go to https://se.pinterest.com/born53/laura-branigan-high-school-1966-70/, https://se.pinterest.com/born53/ Overview of research Laura Branigan 1952-2004 If you want to read the story about this, you will find it here. It is scary to read how wikipedia treated me with warnings, bans, etc. It is a wonder I am here again, but thanks to this writer I have my pride back and I am proud over my research. And so is also Billy Branigan, Laura little brother. The link.. [redatcted] --Born53 swe (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed your link to a blog post which attacks other editors here. I'm sorry, but that is not considered appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. You have every right to be proud of your research, but the fundamental rules of Wikipedia prohibit editors from using personal research to draw conclusions in articles. Wikipedia relies on published sources of information that are considered reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
We all know the media loves exposing celebrities who lied about their age. Born53swe just needs to turn over his research to a tabloid like The Sun, which has published the birth certificates of a number of singers like Sinitta, who also knocked five years off her true age. See here and here. We then have our reliable source. Muzilon (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The Sun is in no way a reliable source. Many other newspapers are, but it's doubtful whether they would be interested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe the Daily Mail or The Smoking Gun then :) Muzilon (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Mail...???!!!!! You jest, of course - it's quite hard to think of a less reliable source.. I don't know enough about The Smoking Gun to comment, but it looks a little bloggy. Perhaps Rolling Stone?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe New York Post, though they did a story about Laura August 2015. I don't know, but is this a reliable source to be used http://pagesix.com/2015/08/24/laura-branigan-was-52-not-47-when-she-died/ said Swedish fan In my view it is more credibly than other writers has presented.--Born53 swe (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To quote what I see on that link: "With the 11th anniversary of Laura Branigan’s death on Wednesday, fans of the “Gloria” singer want to set the record straight. She wasn’t 47 when she died of a brain aneurysm, she was 52. One superfan in Sweden, Stig Persson, told me he spent a year researching her childhood in Armonk during the ’50s: her years at Byram Hills High School, where she graduated in 1970, and her time at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, which she graduated from in 1972."- Page Six. Page Six is a gossip Paper. Not a reliable source. But even if it was, it is only re-quoting what a fan said, not proper source. Devilmanozzy (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You know that Swedish fan is me. It took me several month to convince Pag 6. And back to you Devilmanozzy, do you recognize the following words "Thanks for being civil about this. However, the issue at hand is that the official website about her is stating what we are noting. I'm going to email the General inquiries email address about this, hopefully clarifying it. But the official website is the most proper source there is in this debate, therefore it stands. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 14:52, March 16, 2016 (UTC) It is confirmed that the official website has battled misinformation waged by a user sockpuppeting on Wikipedia. The Laura article may need to be protected here for a time due to it. As noted she was born on 1957 in the town of Brewster, in New York state. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 07:45, March 17, 2016 (UTC) , Her name is common. Either way, the official website is what the wiki is going with. None of the links can be seen as credible. Either way, this is not a music wiki, this is a Ghostbusters Wiki. 1957 stays. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 00:17, April 5, 2016 (UTC)"

So this Devilmanozzy is defending Laura Branigans official website by telling me that 1957 stays. http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Laura_Branigan. In my world you have just disqualified yourself Devilmanozzy. The best thing you can do is apologize, log out and don't come back here again. To all contributors, this writer Devilmanozzy is NOT credible, reliable or trustful in his/hers discussion with me. I hope you are as tough this time as many has been to me. I have been warned and banned when I have trying to convince Wikipedia. If you don't act, I will be very disappointed. From now my sources has to been considered as trustful, reliable and credibly. Thank you so much Devilmanozzy, I think you just help me in my 1952 discussions. And as always, I take a back up. so things will stay in MY computer. Thank you and greetings from Sweden! --Born53 swe (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to the fun, here's an article from The Hour, March 1978 that gives her age as 23 - which would mean she was born 1954, I think. Muzilon (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I just find this...you remember that very trustful source about laura branigan Contemporary Musicians. Vol. 2 http://genius.com/artists/Laura-branigan born 1952, Mount Kisco.. That very trustful source has changed from 1957, Brewster to 1952 and Mount Kisco. "Laura Branigan (born Laura Ann Branigan on July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, New York)" Another source who is on my 1952 side. Thank you! Another beautiful website I found yesterday was at FamilySearch genealogy and its database about Laura's little brother William C Branigan aka Billy. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2738-GFK, William C Branigan 28 Feb 1957 And as you see the database comes from United States Public Records. I can't be fabricated as one of Laura's websites admins accused me. At last, can we end this discussion now and agree that Laura Branigan was born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, Westchester County, New York. Devilmanozzy, if you change anything on your Ghostbuster wiki about Laura, you have for all time put yourself in the chamber of bullshit. As we say in Sweden...You are smoked! Now--Born53 swe (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC) leave! --Born53 swe (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This argument has descended into a "argumentum ad hominem", a logic fallacy. Born53 swe is blaming me for questioning his assumptions and his so called evidence. Dissecting my engagement in this debate so far does not prove you are right, and when the debate was open above, you ignored it and starting posting in this new section below. You so far have proven time and time again that you can not provide proof or handle any form of criticism when others provide sound judgement on links. To rebuttal your response to my questioning of the link above, You didn't disclose before hand that you are the person that submitted the opinion that the editor was sharing. It of coarse is questionable to provide as proof even without knowing who wrote it as it provides references to back it up. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if we consider 1952 as the birth year, there are no sources which support that she was born on "3 July" of the year 1952. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking over the discussions and the sources, there is not enough for us to change her birthdate to 1952 (even if it is 1952, what we do on Wikipedia is summarise reliable sources, and if reliable sources say she was born in 1957 that is what we put); however, as there are reliable sources which comment on Stig Persson/Born53 swe's research, a cited footnote mentioning that a fan is campaigning for a 1952 birthdate would be appropriate and helpful. The research by Stig Persson/Born53 swe is interesting and plausible, but Wikipedia is not the place for changing existing knowledge. It would be against the founding principles of Wikipedia for us to use our position to argue for a change in existing knowledge. This essay is helpful in explaining our position: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So is this essay - Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. Essays have equivalent weight to each other - the guidance is that we use common sense. My opinion is that we should not knowingly give out false information - or, if we feel we have to report it, we caveat it in such a way that readers can make their own inferences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Both essays are saying the same thing. Just because a source says something doesn't mean we report it. We give due weight to multiple reliable sources and don't give undue weight to fringe views. The widespread consensus in reliable sources is that she was born 1957, so that is what we put. However, we can use common sense to put in a footnote to a fringe view if this view has been reported in reliable sources, and that is a conclusion of the RfC, and that is what I have now done. We can, howver, continue to openly discuss the matter as fresh evidence comes in. The RfC does not need to be confirmed or overturned. It recorded a moment in time. Time moves on and consensus can change. We keep an open mind. I think the evidence is interesting and plausible, but not yet confirmed by reliable sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you are overemphasising the "fringe" nature of the argument that she was born in 1952, and claiming it is only the view of one "Swedish fan". It isn't. Any independent outsider looking at the evidence would, in my opinion, conclude that it is overwhelmingly likely that she was born in 1952, not 1957, and that, in this case, "reliable sources" are wrong - they were misled by what they were told earlier in her career, and have never bothered to check the evidence (nor would anyone reasonably expect them to - it's of minimal interest to them). Yes, we need to give due weight to what those sources say, but we should not suggest that other claims are "fringe" views - they are simply under-reported. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

The decision taken in the above Consensus discussion has been challenged. Additional sources have been presented suggesting a 1952 birth date. As such, the community is asked to decide whether the additional sources now listed in Talk:Laura_Branigan#1952_sources are reliable to the extent that the previous decision of "1957 with a footnote" should be overturned.

As there are two options that could replace that decision (no date at all, footnoted or both dates, footnoted) I would suggest that to keep the discussion simple, editors should respond with "support" or "overturn" the consensus found above.

Whichever decision is taken, appropriate text will have to be crafted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Overturn- The birth place and removal of original research needs to be in on it. It's not only the birth date. Please re-read about the conflict Dweller. Please restart. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No. This RfC is on the birth date, only. Adding more strands will only confuse the matter further. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Note, in most cases it's either 1952 Mount Kisco or 1957 Brewster. Please see previous conversations on this talk page on this. I think if you read through most arguments on both sides, you will find that the birth date and location match up. Ultimately, I just don't want to see this RFC to be ignored due to this detail. Please reconsider. Devilmanozzy (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The article should say both 1952 and 1957, with a footnote (since reliable sources say that she graduated from highschool in 1970, and got an associates degree from AADA in 1972 there's no way she could have been born in 1957...). Thomas.W talk 22:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading through the above conversations I don't think this RfC as formulated is going to be helpful. Dweller closed the previous RfC which was discussing sources available at that time; it was fairly close with seven in favour of 1957 and five in favour of an alternative, but I think pretty much most closers would have closed in favour of 1957 as that was the consensus, and that fits better with our policies and guidelines. I would have closed the same way. There is no need to formally overturn that close as it was appropriate at the time. What would be helpful now is a new and open discussion involving consideration of the new research. My suggestion is to open a fresh discussion, and close or ignore this RfC as unnecessary. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    Note, I'd be very happy if consensus agreed with SilkTork, for this RfC to be closed and conversation take a useful bent. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Silk Tork that this RfC is needless with just the stipulation of overturning our previous conclusion (why I have not made a response until now). I echo the desires of SIlk Tork and Dweller to close this and await a new discussion. Consensus is mine ツ Fylbecatulous talk 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The journalist lists her age and description in a way that suggests he may have been quoting from a talent-agent's profile or similar source. The date isn't necessarily correct of course, but it's evidence that before she became famous she was giving out a birthdate earlier than 1957. Muzilon (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Post from Born53 swe

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
A Wailing Wall of Text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Stig Persson the Swedish fan is me. I can't believe what I see! Thank you for destroying my 2 years of researching of Laura Branigan and her early life. My tears are fallen while I am reading this. I have shown ALL my sources I have gathered during this time. And I ask, can anyone of you show me your resources that 1957, Brewster, etc. is correct. If 1957 is correct she was just 13 when she graduated 1970 from Byram Hills High School in 1970, she was just 13 when she begin at The American Academy of Dramatic Arts 1970. And just 15 when she graduated from the Academy 1972! I don't care about this any longer, but if you watch me site of research you would see all old newspapers from Laura's time in school in early 60's. I will not argue for 1952 any longer, I give up. I couldn't believe that Wikipedia who warned me now is letting 1957 take over this wiki. I have also mentioned wiki as a trustful and reliable source, but that will not happen again. I will do all I can to let websites, bloggers, writers, etc, know what dirty games wiki plays. As I have mentioned before I am waiting for Laura's birth certificate from my contact in New York. I had thoughts of sharing and let people see it, but it will not happen. I have no reason to show you something that would for ever make you all ashamed of how you are treating Laura's legacy. What you 1957ers have done now is simple to explain. Without any kind of sources you have brought back Laura's wiki to a mess of lies. And don't forget one very important thing..it is not enough with changing her birth year, birthplace, etc. You have to rewrite the whole wiki so Laura's timeline suits to 1957. Like this..."Laura grew up and lived in Armonk, New York,[10] where she attended Byram Hills High School in 1966-1970". You see if you change in on place you must change all evidence I have written. So if Laura graduated 1975 instead, when did her little Brother Billy graduate? The yearbook says 1975, but maybe the school is lying, fabricating wrongs of their students. I have Billy as a Facebook friend, I think he needs a message about it. You also need to change this.." Leonard Cohen's backup singers for his European tour in April–August 1976" The tour came to Sweden May 30, 1976 and performed in an outsold arena. Maybe Cohen is a liar as well? My last line would need an explanation from anyone of the 1957ers. "At Byram Hills High School in Armonk, New York, the Laura Branigan Memorial Scholarship is given annually to a senior for excellence in the performing arts.[29." In this link it says Laura Branigan graduated in 1970, so how do you explain that? You say she was born 1957, she graduated 1975 but her high school says she graduated 1970! I don't get it, do you? This has really taken a new direction, so I am really looking forward to read your explanations how Byram Hills says 1970, and the experts here says 1975. This is my last comments in this wikigate. I lost against the so called wiki experts, even if I know you are far, far behind me. You play with words, I show facts! So it is goodbye from me now. I beg you NOT to contact me in any way. If you do, you will have no answer from me. Do not forget to rewrite the whole wiki so Laura's timeline suits a birth of 1957! And sources and references should also be checked, though they show I am right. So who takes the responsibility of deleting my sources? I am looking forward of this, and I will not comment anything. I leave you now, and I hope you always will defend and letting all readers know that 1957 is right, even if you are wrong. I will also let my readers and Facebook read the madness of Laura Branigan's wikipedia. And not forget...all wikis language says 1952, don't forget to change everywhere. The Swedish fan, Stig-Åke Persson is logging out. And again...don't forget to change all wikis. You can't let 1952 disturb any readers, now when 1957 have won over sources which shows the truth of Laura Branigan.--Born53 swe (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

By its own admission, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And as the New York Times said of Al Lewis, "a discrepancy in the age of a minor celebrity poses no threat to the well-being of our nation." However, as with President Obama, the real clincher here would be the birth certificate, or Social Security application (SS-5). But if you upload those documents here, or to to your personal Pinterest page, Wikipedia would then say it has no way of verifying the authenticity of these self-published scans. (See WP:SELFPUBLISH and this relevant Helpdesk discussion here. And as New York birth certificates are supposed to be private, and available to unrelated third parties only by court order, there may also be copyright/legal restrictions on uploading them to Wikipedia. A declassified SS-5 is OK under {{PD-USGov-SSA}} though. So, if and when you get the birth certificate and SS-5, I think your best course of action is to turn them over to a respected journalist or author who can broadcast your research in a reliable published (as opposed to self-published) source. Muzilon (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your wiki says now "Her younger brother Billy Branigan was born on February 28, 1957.[7]"? How could he was born 1957, when you have decided it was wrong. Which is Billy's right birth year? He graduated 1975 from BHHS, or am I wrong even here?--Born53 swe (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You do understand you have to change lines like this "where she attended Byram Hills High School in 1966-1970" and "1970-1972 she attended the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York City" and "including a stint as one of Leonard Cohen's backup singers for his European tour in April–August 1976". You see, those lines indicates a birth of 1952. And as you has decided I wasn't reliable in my sources you must show sources that shows your correct information otherwise those lines has to be changed to suit a birth of 1957, or you must delete it though they came from me and my sources. You must read everything so you understand the whole issue so you don't have anything from my research. Which are your source of this line "In December 1978 after meeting him at a party in Manhattan, New York". According to Laura's first wiki it was 1981. 1978 is from my sources and may not be reliable. So change or delete! I asked you yesterday and I ask you again about Billy's birth year "Her younger brother Billy Branigan was born on February 28, 1957.[8]" This is also from me and my sources. Ref #8 is a link to Billy's birth announce from Patent Trader in 1957. Again, otherwise you change Billy's birth year what your sources says, or you delete it. Or do you believe that Laura and Billy had the same birth year? So if Laura was born 1957, when was Billy born? And now to my very special note. I have really tried to find out about this "Kathleen O'Hare Branigan (1921-2006)[7] and James Branigan, Sr., an account executive and mutual funds broker, who later separated". You see, over a year I have been searching after this separation and the source where it comes from. And I couldn't find anything in old papers neither with help from the town clerk in New York. I know what year this should have happened, but not a single line I have found. So now I am glad to see you seems to know it. When and where did this separation happened? Was it in Brewster, Armonk or New York? And for how long time were they separated? I failed where you seems to have the answers in this question. If you don't know about it, how will you act? You must remember when you re-write Laura's new timeline and biography, you must change so my no longer reliable sources disappear. And what will you do about the scholarship that was given in Laura's memory saying she was a graduate "class of 1970"? 1970 gives a birth of 1952, right? But as 1952 was instead 1957, so why are Byram Hills High School lying? And they did it twice, both 2009 and 2010! And I need to ask you about Billy's birth year again. As Patent Trader wasn't reliable (according to you) when they announced that James and Kathleen Branigan's son was born in 1957, why has US Public Records also 1957? I don't get it, do you? Are they also lying? Or what is it? As you have said, my sources are not reliable so you must act in some way. I suggest someone writes to them and tell them they are wrong. If they ask you what; just show them your reliable sources saying Billy Branigan was born in 19xx. I am sure they will listen to you and change so they will stop spreading lies about Billy. And it is good for my collections though I must know if the records in my collection are wrongs or lies. But you must agree in some small way that it is strange that Laura's official website and its owners Kathy and Vince Golik knows more than US Public Records. Because it was Kathy Golik who wrote Laura's press release in August 2004 saying Laura was born 1957 in Brewster and died at 47. Terrible thoughts, but pretend that Kathy Golik didn't know Laura so well as she says? Is she behind all this wrongs? But she must be reliable and trustful as she is the owner of all sites about Laura. Or is she? What do you believe? Don't forget to delete my sources and what I have written in Laura's wiki, and let all readers find yours reliable sources that Laura was born 1957, and Billy was born 19xx! I am waiting for this special moment. Please, do not make me disappointed.--Born53 swe (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Need to know...who is this? "She had two older brothers, James, Jr. "Jim" (1945–91)? The older brother I knew died earlier than 1991. What is your sources? About my sources from scanned papers at www.advantage-preservation.com in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I just want to show the process of scanned pictures and papers you say I could have fabricated..Hi Stig: The content on Chappaqua’s site is first hand information written by the publisher of the newspaper. The images we’ve scanned, and made searchable, are microfilms sent to us by the Chappaqua Public Library. Meaning, the Chappaqua Public Library had these exact newspapers filmed. They then sent us the copies on microfilm, and we scanned, indexed, and OCR’d all of their content on microfilm. I can tell you, for a fact, that every piece of content on Chappaqua’s archive is the exact newspaper issue from their newspaper publisher. I wish I had better answers for you. This would be something to straighten out with Wikipedia, or IMDB, though. We don’t alter the publication, stories, or any such content. We just enhance the images, so they’re more legible, because microfilm images can darken a little bit, over time. As far as the content/photos, we do not alter any of our client’s newspapers. This is the original history from the newspaper. I’m sorry I don’t have better news for you. Hopefully, IMDB and Wikipedia have better answers for you. Best of luck! Grant So, all my sources from papers or pictures in papers are NOT fabricated by me. They are reliable and trustful copies from that specific time. For your knowledge, Grant is working with saving US papers for the future. So how have I been doing those fabricated stories and pictures as you say they are not reliable? All scanned papers from Patent Trader I have showed and used as sources during Laura's graduation in 1970, are they reliable or not? According to Grant they are, but what does wiki says about it? Grant is very interested to know if wikipedia has the answer of how I should have fabricated american papers from 1970, when I live in Sweden and never heard of them? How is it even possible? Can you give me an answer?--Born53 swe (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Branigan wasn't always polite against press & media. As wiki now have stated her birth year to 1957, here are some interviews where Laura says she was born both 1957 and 1958! One interview she says Armonk as her town, and some says Brewster. Note that Branigan family never lived in Brewster, and if Laura lived in Brewster until she was 17, she lived without her parents and siblings, though they lived in Armonk at the same time.

At last, if you read all this (which I have done several times) you will see that Laura are changing both birth year and birthplace. Which is true of them? Could it be like I am right all the time and wiki are wrong? I have now showed you parts of my sources. I ask you to read them, think and put all together in a box and ask yourself: Maybe Stig Persson in Sweden is right? So much which shows Laura actually was born in 1952. How do we tackle this? Shall we agree with him and say this is reliable sources and let his wiki be the ruling one? Or shall we declare all his work and sources as "not true and reliable" and let us delete all of them? This is what you at least can do for me instead of putting a knife in my back. I feel bad, sad and very much humiliated in your treats of me. I don't care if you delete everything of my research, sources and references. But what you have done against me is something I will never forget. Since 2015 wiki has questioned all my work, banned me, warned me, called me a liar and and I am fabricating papers and photos in photoshops to justify my research. And that is also what Kathy and Vince Golik has called me since I let Page 6 publish Laura wasn't 47, she was 52. Laura Branigan was born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, Westchester County, New York. I will never let anything change my mind. That is the truth and nothing else but truth. --Born53 swe (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

But the two sources from 1978 give her age as 23. This works out to a birth year of 1954/55 (not 1958). Muzilon (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

--To wikis Laura Branigan experts (hahaha). You gave me a real big knife in my back by doing all this against me. To be considered as a not reliable person is not so fun for a person 60+. I have been thinking last hours how I shall act, and this is the result. I will on my research site clearly tell my readers I have no relation to Wikipedia any more. Whatever wiki contributors will write about Laura is up to them, with or without sources. It doesn't interest me or I could care for less. I will do all I can to clarify the far distance between wiki and me and that Wikipedia is living their own life far away from the truth. I think you all would like it as well. Now you can write whatever you want, I will not argue by asking of sources or anything else. It could even be funny to read your new timeline and biography. So now it is over for me. It will be so good to skip wikipedia and skip to explain and explain to people who can't read and understand reliable sources and put things together. Kathy and Vince Golik will be very proud of you all. Their dreams will come true when Laura once again are born 1957 in Brewster!--Born53 swe (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruling on "Edit Warring" noticeboard

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Copy Pasted:"Unless the RfC is superseded and a new closure occurs, the birthdate has to be '1957' or '1957 with a footnote'. Use the talk page to agree on a proper footnote and I suggest getting rid of primary sources. It is likely that the American Academy of Dramatic Arts might be sufficiently reliable to use in a footnote. Try working that out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)"

This means that until the new decision (See topic above) is reached, that the previous RFC is in effect and that the birth date should be changed to 1957. Both Thomas.W and myself really should not be the ones to do it, so I'm asking another editor to go ahead and put it into effect. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the date to 1957 with a source and added a footnote to the article mentioning Stig Persson's research into a possible 1952 birth date. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you know why I dislike/hate wikipeople so damn much? I'll tell you...Several times you have called me for being not reliable in my sources, and now what the hell do I see!! The two interviews from 1978! Once again you have proved to me..1. You are NOT capable of finding your own sources. 2. In the same time when you kill me for not being reliable you are shameless and steal my sources although you have accused me for NOT being reliable! Thank's god I am out of this mad people who can't do anything own their own. Sometimes I really regret I once started to restore Laura's memory. For a while it was perfect, I enjoyed reading what I had achieved with the mess which destroyed this wiki. And now, it is back. Thank's to you wikiexperts who has done this. Honestly, can you read and understand sources? Can you think logical and see things in a bigger view? Accuse and destroy is something you can and are good in. Why are doing all this? What will you do if I make all this public and let others see how you are treating the truth?--Born53 swe (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Remember Me album?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know it was deemed as "unofficial", which is probably why it does not appear on the article, but the posthumous album sure deserves a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.36.27 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is covered in the published, WP:RS, I would think it might merit mention. As to why it is not mentioned... because no one has added it.Shajure (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Four octaves?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article claims that Branigan had a four-octave vocal range. The only source cited is a bio on the Branigan web page, written by a fan. No further facts are given, such as identifying a highest or lowest note. Such claims of specific numbers of octaves are widely made, and not nearly so widely supportable. There is nothing even close to four octaves in her recorded oevre. The claim is dubious, and almost certainly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

cut from lead

known for her powerful, husky alto singing voice which spanned four octaves which spanned four octaves[citation needed].< ref name="LauraBraniganOnline.com">"The Official Laura Branigan Website – Laura's Biography". LauraBraniganOnline.com. Archived from the original on April 24, 2011. Retrieved April 11, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)< /ref>

While WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood, this does not belong in the lead... which should rest on the body... and the range is not there currently. If the range of her voice is in fact what she is known for, we will need a published source saying so. This source might (might) be useful in the body as part of that. Or perhaps in a broader section about, say, Voice. Based on wp:lead then we might want to include a mention of it in the lead, but I doubt it.Shajure (talk)

And now for something completely different

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article says "The strength and range of her voice actually impeded her career for several years while the label went through the process of categorizing her as a pop singer."

While her AllMusic biography gives a very different reason for the hold-up: "A breach-of-contract lawsuit resulted after Branigan changed management, which held up work commencing on her solo debut."

Why no mention of this lawsuit here? Muzilon (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about Sid Bernstein? Devilmanozzy (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The AllMusic.com article implies there was a contractual dispute well before she became a star, while that People article talks about a legal dispute that arose after "Gloria" became a hit. Maybe AllMusic has the sequence of events wrong. Muzilon (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It probably is the same thing. I don't see proof of it being otherwise. Rumor has it that Sid was also the reason the her real first solo album got shelved. (Google "Love Me Tonight" for the single for it.) Ultimately, songs from her shelved first album ended up on the "Expanded edition" of Branigan released two years ago. Sid meet Laura in New York and helped her to get set up with a audition that snagged her deal with Atlantic Records. I found this information from Boca Raton News - Sep 2, 1983. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I need an advise from people here, perhaps most from Devilmanozzy. But please, don't laugh this is a very serious request from me. Many people who are visiting my research about Laura Branigan are asking me why wikipedia are so wrong about Laura. They have all noticed wiki has 1957, Brewster and age 47. Some of them are living in Armonk and knew Laura. One of them has even been donating money to wiki in several year, but it is over now. It is his way of showing he doesn't like what wiki has done to me and how wiki is treating Laura's wrong info. I have told them I will not make any changes, though it will be undone in seconds after savings. So that is out of questions. Devilmanozzy, are you willing to make the changes so people will take wiki as a serious site. And stop laughing at wiki? Or somebody else can do it? During the last weeks I have found that so many sites are using wikipedia as a main source. I just shake my head and wonder...how could wikipedia be the God of Sources? And honestly, do you all really think I am a liar and have fabricated all my sources? Devilmanozzy has written in his box that he has

debunked me and my research, but he can't tell me what it exactly means. So, are someone of you contributors ready to support me in my request of setting Laura's right info back in order? I would really appreciate it. Please, make the changes in the coming days.--Born53 swe (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Younger brother Billy's DOB

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I removed Billy Branigan's date of birth with the following edit summary - "younger brother's dob not relevant to her bio". It was reverted back into the article with - "It's very much relevant to the article; read the talk page." I have read the entire talk page and do not find any discussion (based on policies or guidelines) that would support including her younger brother's date of birth as being relevant to her biography. Please explain why her younger brother's date of birth is relevant, while her older brother's and sister and parent's and grandparent's dates of birth are excluded. It would appear the only reason is to make a WP:POINT.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you sense that we are all so tired of this? Whether you think it is based on 'policies or guidelines' the statement and the citation are staying. This article is more exhausting to maintain than Tortoiseshell cat to me. Since you asked, why don't you discuss, based on policies or guidelines, why we must remove it? That would be really nice. thanks and happy editing and whatever. Fylbecatulous talk 16:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that sarcasm is partcularly profitable right now. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I have had to deal with this on Simple Wikipedia as well: simple:Laura Branigan with associated personal talk page mockery (mine and article and Simple talk page) sigh ..our version is still in the dark ages since we kept restoring our original dates and added sources to support that. Fylbecatulous talk 12:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation to a random-seeming fan account

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"Laura grew up and lived in Armonk, New York" is cited to https://instagy.com/media/1054670278279320502 - is a nice old picture and I have no doubt of it's authenticity or correctness of text, but I can't see how it meets wp:RS. I see other sources saying she grew up in Brewster, about 23 miles away. I don't know that this matters. The next source , 2010 Armonk school publication, seems to support Armonk, so I don't think we need an CN flag. I propose to just kill the instagram link.Shajure (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Show me ALL reliable sources that shows Laura grew up in Brewster. And then we can compare what my friends in Armonk says about your sources. Ans also my contacts in Brewster. I said it before, and I do it again..Seek help. You are completely insane with your bullshit. The best you can do, log out and never come back. This is from you Latest revision as of 20:19, 7 September 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Shajure "Growing up in Armonk, New York, http://instagy.com/media/1054670278279320502%7Ctitle=@laura_branigan_forever (Laura Branigan) Instagram photo 19/08/2015 • Instagy|work=Instagy|accessdate=24 August 2015}} Branigan attended Byram Hills High School in 1966-1970". If Laura was born 1957, why the hell are you not changing her years at Byram Hills High School. You agree with 1966-1970 which gives a birth of 1952. Which years did Laura attend high school? I suppose you know it? But you are like a devil as fast you see 1952. This is what I mean. You don't understand what you are reading and that's why you can't understand. Can you use your fucking brain and read the whole biography. It looks ridiculous when you are mixing her timeline from 1952 to 1957. Do you understand? No you don't. I feel sorry for you. How many other sites have you destroyed? Poor wikipedia who has idiots like you. Seek help!--Born53 swe (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggested reading wp:NPA, wp:pillars. Let the users draw their own conclusions. If they are interested, the data form the wp:RS is in the article, which is quite "undestroyed". Your behaviour is unacceptable. Stop now.Shajure (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There being no objection that I can understand, I have removed the instagram as a source. I see no need to change the content or add a CN... it seems reasonably supported by her HS reference. Any objections to leaving the Armonk-grow-up, please be prepared for the verbal attack by a pack of ravening chihuahuas and try not to take it personally.Shajure (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A slow Edit War is happening

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion

Over, and over again. Seriously, protect the article til the RfC is decided.

Currently its on that last edit. Trying to avoid a edit war I'm asking that the article be protected. Devilmanozzy (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The last of those three edits was mine, and I question why you see it as part of an "edit war". The RFC concluded that the 1957 date be included in the article, and mentioned the possibility of including a footnote regarding other claims. The previous wording did not include a correctly-formatted footnote - it added a partial explanation under "references" - and my text and formatting sought to clarify it, and so to better implement the closing argument at the RFC. Of course, I would be happy to discuss the wording further if challenged, but I resent it being termed part of an "edit war". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see you are in the very discussion about the Page6 reference. It might be okay as a footnote as for why the 1952 argument has been mounted, but calling it a "primary sources" is incorrect in every way. From WP:PRIMARY "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."
So it lacks references. It is perhaps a "secondary source" though. But with the very subject opinion of the piece being a user in the conversation on this talk page also, it might also be a conflict of interest to use it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The citation is to a claim that primary sources have been found - not that the claim itself is a primary source. Please withdraw your unsubstantiated claims that I have engaged in "edit warring", or that I have any more "conflict of interest" than anyone else who has commented on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, and that "The citation is to a claim that primary sources have been found - not that the claim itself is a primary source." Explain as I'm not understanding you there. I retract the edit Warring comment, but I believe your edit is misleading. The "conflict of interest" comment is aimed at the factor that the very user that submitted it himself is commenting on the talk page and actively promoting the link. The page6 column lacks references, therefore it simply is not a primary source. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Devilmanozzy: I can explain this. The claim here is "some primary sources suggest that she may have been born in 1952". The citation to back up the previous claim is that page6 article. (The actual primary sources are the school website etc.) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
"Hopefully footnote will remain for at least as long as discussion on talk page". Who would dare to change it? I would very much change it, but as I am a non reliable or trustful person I rather stand beside. Anyone who can give me a good answer how you will handle and solve Billy's birth year 1957? You have said that his birth announce from Patent Trader 1957 is not a proper source. I have asked but still no answer about Billy's US Public Records which says 28 Feb 1957. Are they also wrong and manipulated? If yes, please explain for me how and in what way you consider why Billy's public records are wrong or manipulated. As a Swede I have not much knowledge about US records, but logical it ought to be very difficult to change public records. At last, I suppose a voter ID is something you need to vote in an US election. Just like in Sweden. I have mine voter ID which is personally. If I say that I have Billy's 9 figures voter ID, which also says Feb 28, 1957, will wiki consider such source as proper and reliable? Or is it something that can be changed or manipulated in photoshop, for instance? If yes, why should Billy do such illegal thing? What would the wins be for him? Vote several times in one election? Please, don't make me disappointed and stay silence in such important questions. Or am I not considered as reliable in such questions?--Born53 swe (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Since you are casting mockery at us, both here and elsewhere, I imagine (not going to bother to look) I feel compelled to wonder why you let this one little bit of data consume your life. It is one date and one location for someone who has departed this earth. This does not matter. This is one article out of the 2800 on my watchlist and somewhere in a similar discussion I said I never even liked this artist. (and yes, I am old enough). Anyone who can give me a good answer how you will handle and solve Billy's birth year 1957? If you think any of us is lying awake at night fretting over this, well hahaha back at you; my solution is just delete whatever does not agree. These details (parents, graduation, brother, early life) were only added to build the basis for the earlier birth year of 1952. Billy is not even needed to be mentioned in the article; he has no individual notability whatsoever. None of her personal biographical details are even required or even desired. This is not a fan site. So, talk about us all you like, I am anonymous and ducky, you would be surprised! Actually, I thought you said you were going away: [2] Fylbecatulous talk 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
"The slow edit war" is without me, so this is something you must sort out by yourself. You remember when I wrote about that lady who met Laura in Atlantic Records office in New York early 80's, and they became real good friends? She is very much involved in my research, and she is also knowing what is happening here at wiki. After a conversation yesterday she told me to ignore wiki, they don't know the truth as we do (incl Billy Branigan, Laura's little brother) so stop acting against them.

She is reading and also laughing at you, how you are playing with words without any kind of substance. She is also looking forward to see how you will solve Billy's birth year from 1957 to something unknown. You know, she knows Billy as well. You are really playing with the truth about 1957. And your reputation as well as a trustful wiki. You can't change Laura's birth year any longer. As Devilmanozzy wrote to me "1957 stays". And you can't change Billy's. Remember US Public Records "Billy Branigan 28 Feb 1957". So his 1957 stays! Good luck in your efforts to solve this delicate problem you got when you decided I was unreliable and not trustful in my sources. Which many came from just people who knew Laura. Just a small tiny question, how old are you so called "wikiexperts"? I am 1953 and my sources are born 1952. The same year Laura Branigan entered the world. So how old are you, wikisiers?--Born53 swe (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

How do we know Laura or her brother weren't adopted? Stranger things have happened. Where's the birth certificate? Plinuckment (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I wish her brother would address this on his facebook. Claims here about what could be cause of original research and that original research will never trump newspapers; but the family may be able to clear this up if they know of the debate. Like said, there are many reasons why the original research doesn't work, one being that it goes against newspaper articles and such. That is why when I saw this reference the other day, I was so happy about it. I want the date correct based on proper references. There is at this point far more proof that she was in 1954/or 1955 than 1952 since all research is from questionable sources. History overall has 1957 as her birthdate, and those in the 1952 camp need a strong reference like a relative actually addressing it. Sadly, the clock is ticking on this issue as we are all getting older. A entertainment piece in a mag interviewing her brother would so blow all the newspaper articles out of the water if he addressed this issue. Ultimately, what folks arguing on here fail to realize is that wikipedia isn't the place to prove or disprove a date/place. Wikipedia is a place to build properly referenced articles on a subject. Billy's birthday doesn't matter as there isn't a true source for it, nor does it even prove or disprove her birthday. There isn't a strong case for the 1952 date, and it lacks proper sources to even be considered.
As for the pro-1952 camp attacking folks in the 1957 camp, that doesn't prove anyone anymore right. It only proves that folks in the 1952 don't have anything else to add to the conversation currently. Remaining open minded to the research presented is the key to resolving this. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
My last statement! Yes, I am a pro-52 and knows the right things about Laura, but my FB-friends (Laura's former friend from Atlantic Records and Laura's former classmate from BHHS, class of 1970) has told me stop arguing with you. They have both read the wiki and this "Talks" on my request. They feels both very sad that you were allowed to destroy my wiki and also Laura's legacy. But there are no reasons to have more knifes in my back from contributors who doesn't read or understand sources, and therefore "we 3" will let you believe Laura was born in 1957. Also, they are both very impressed of my research, especially from Laura's time at high school. With both pictures from the yearbook "The Arch" and all articles mostly from The Patent Trader, the local paper in Armonk at that time. And also my findings that showed Branigan's lived in Brooklyn, later Long Island and last in Armonk. Branigans never lived in Brewster. But we 3 are out from this wiki, and let you play with your words and your "sources". I just wanted to make a last statement from us 3 who knows the truth. And Billy, not to forgive. So go ahead with your so called truth. Oh, last thing....the separation which someone wrote about earlier. None of them has ever heard of it, and they would like to see where it came from. A reliable and trustful source is at least that you can show them, don't you think. And gossips from People magazine is nothing you shall care about. Forget People, it is just gossip!--Born53 swe (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry you have decided not to present the published sources here, as it would be most helpful, Born 53 swe. Please remember that WP does not, cannot, and will never be able to determine truth. All WP does is reword and summarize what is in the published sources. This is done here by giving the very-widely-reported 1957 date, with a note sharing the concerns from a small number of sources.Shajure (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Shajure..thanks for kind words. If you like you can (and others) watch and read my research of Laura. I have lately added about her time in Meadow, the group she was a member in 1972-73. There is also Chris van Cleave's story how it all started in 1972, when he and Walker Daniels found Laura during her rehearsal of Beggars Opera. Walker Daniels was a teacher at the academy where Laura studied. Sadly Laura never spoke about Meadow. One reason could be that her new timeline and biography didn't involved things from her early 70's. It wouldn't suit the "Project 1957" which was established to build up her new timeline and biography. This was made by creators from Atlantic Records, who had people with that skill and knowledge.
*1. - My research Laura Branigan 1952-2004. Everything you need to know about Laura included with sources. https://se.pinterest.com/born53/
*2. - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at famous British Library http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&vl(freeText0)=Branigan%2c+Laura%2c+1952-2004&tab=local_tab&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3a(BLCONTENT)&vid=BLVU1&vl(1423900464UI1)=all_items&vl(488279563UI0)=creator
*3. - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at House of Names https://www.houseofnames.com/branigan-family-crest
*4. - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at Library of Congress http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n91051432.html Laura Branigan 1952-2004
*5. - Chris van Cleave, former friend and member of Meadow. Read his story how he and Walker Daniels discovered Laura in 1972 at the American Academy in New York. http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html
van Cleave story is added in my research under "Meadow". Hope you'll enjoy it!--Born53 swe (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
1. I see the same stuff there. You should get it organized to cite, instead of saying "look at this". I see newspapers, You need to link to them instead. Many newspapers are online thanks to google. find the papers on a source thats not edited by yourself as proof.
2. British Library doesn't give sources and allows users to edit entries, pretty much making it User-generated content.
3. It never explains where it got the birthdate. I see references at the bottom of the page, but none seem to address Laura directly. They assume her birthdate is 1952, which may have been because of Wikipedia again.
4. Noting WP:CIRCULAR.
Sources "found: Wikipedia, September 8, 2015 (Laura Branigan; Laura Ann Branigan; born July 3, 1952, Brewster, New York; died August 26, 2004, East Quogue, New York; American singer, songwriter, and actress)"
Change Notes "1991-05-23: new, 2015-09-09: revised"
They changed the information last year to match Wikipedia. Stunning, simply stunning. Not blaming you Born53 Swe, that "should" have been a good source. I can't believe that the Library of Congress sourced Wikipedia.
5. Read over that a few times, it doesn't actually give her age. She could have actually been that young... noting acts like The Jackson 5 which featured among members a 6 year old Michael Jackson. So while it is questionable, no sources flat out claimed she was older when with them. Devilmanozzy (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought that the Library of Congress explicitly using Wikipedia as a source is an issue that needs to be considered at WP:RS/N (if it hasn't been already). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave the experts to fight that out. It isn't my issue. It is a issue that a white knight can address if he/she wants. But, I can read, they have referenced Wikipedia as a source that could have affected the choice of birthdate in the data. Devilmanozzy (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I raised it at WP:RS/N, and got a couple of responses. I suggest we add in to the current footnote a reference to the LOC, not in order to give the contested 1952 date any additional credibility but simply to forestall arguments along the lines of "the LoC is a RS and says 1952 so it must be right." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, forget everything about me and my worthless sources. I'll give up now (again). I thought I would have some help from you Devilmanozzy by giving you all my options of finding news about Laura. But obviously you didn't care about it.

First you said, it is not your business finding and looking after sources, then when I gave you HOW to find it. But nada! Have you read Mr van Cleaves whole story when he met Laura, how Meadow were split up and how he tried in the 70s to tell Laura being a part of Jesus Christ Superstar? If Laura was 15 in 1972, she wouldn't even have met van Cleave, though you must be at least 18y to get your acceptance. And Walker Daniels wife Sharon Storm would have met Laura either. (Which she did!) But OK, you win again. As you understand I will contact British Library and LoC and tell them how badly they work with finding reliable sources. And could someone please delete my research, I am not interested of having it here, though it wasn't worth anything, even if Shajure said it would be a good thing.--Born53 swe (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the birthdate. So yeah, I will point out that the links are incorrect. The burden of proof is on your side still. I have told you time and time again how to actually have proper references, yet you never bother understanding, only disagreeing. You seem to think this is a cred/authority issue. Simply put, I don't care who you or anyone is. What I care about is not being given misleading or misguided information created because of a form of speculation or theory. I believe that you believe that date is right. The problem is that sources/references need to be able to be based on unbiased, none position source. The true answer was and still lies with your collection of newspapers. You need to get the newspaper name, date of publication and explain why it matters in regards to her birthdate and birthplace. I don't know how to explain it more clearly to you. Get off your high horse and listen. In the real world, people disagree about a number of things but it is proper sources that wins at the end of the day. The point of sources/references is to prove that a unbias perspective/record agree with the position presented without altering it or somehow manipulating it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know one thing...you are soooo full of crap and shit that you should think about how to behave. I don't care about you for a single Swedish dime. You are the most stupid, silly person in this fucking page.

Question...Are former classmates to Laura Branigan reliable and proper sources? Or do you want Laura to stand beside them wishing you a happy holiday? The best thing you can do is...log out and never come back here again. Do you know what I am doing on your fucking sources...shitting!! Have you (and all others) read Chris van Cleaves story about Meadow and Laura? If not...read here http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html Meadow Story It is a very well document of the rise and fall of Meadow. Walker Daniels, a teacher from the academy, etc. And why haven't you and others already read it. But you are so fucking stupid that you CAN'T read and make conclusions of what you read. Poor little fellow! My source is a very well known author from Manhattan. She has written several books, and yes, she remembers Laura wery well. But maybe she is a fake as my other friend who also were classmate with Laura Branigan, born 1952. I don't know how to explain so you understand....Laura Branigan WAS born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, Westchester County, New York. She attended high school 1966-70, The american academy in New York between 1970-72, she toured with Cohen in Europe 1976, she married Larry Kruteck 1978, etc. You can take 1957, Brewster, what ever you want and stick them up in your brown eye. AND, not to forget..sources you are referring to says clearly that Laura WASN'T born 1957. Have you even read all you are screaming about? Advice, read and you will see, damn it, she was born 1952. Read http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html , https://www.aada.edu/alumni/notable-alumni#decade:1960_1970/orderby:last_name/display:panel , http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_mount_kisco_19700620_english_21 , her graduation from high school. Start reading and let you be convince that you are so fucking wrong. THANK YOU! And don't go like other cowards to daddy wiki and have me banned. Be a man!!--Born53 swe (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article states that she attended Byram Hills High School in 1966-1970. Most students in the U.S. graduate high school at age 18. That suggests the 1952 date of birth is most probable, and 1957 is highly improbable. While it may be common for people in the entertainment industry person to shave a few years off their age, once a person is deceased, an encyclopedia should provide the true date of birth in the main article, rather than in a footnote. If the 1952 date of birth cannot be supported by reliable sources, then it would be preferable to put "unknown", "redacted" or "in the 1950s" rather than perpetuating a falsehood (the 1957 date of birth.)Tetsuo (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"be supported by reliable sources" - we have a date supported by broad WP:RS, and a footnote for the date given in a smaller number of other key sources. Please see the WP:RFC if you would like to reach a broader wp:consensus. WP cannot, and will never be able to, determine truth or falsehood. It can only paraphrase information published elsewhere. This matter is what is called "beating a dead horse". Going out and changing the "minds" of the press, perhaps by publishing a widely-accepted biographical book, might be a good step. Arguing with WP editors about what the press should do is fruitless endeavor.Shajure (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Please read Talk:Laura Branigan/Archive 2. Unless you have a new reference that is reliable source, there isn't much that can be done. The last RfC was done in March and then was denied a overturn a month later. It's only been four months. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI about Laura Branigan. Requests has been sent out to major US- and UK papers about rewriting Laura's obits. Also, I have been approved as a Facebook member in an exclusive group "only for Armonkers". I was asked to write a story about Laura and her 64th birthday (born 1952) which was published in Armonk Daily News. I had a lot of kind words and also credits from Laura's former classmates and people who knew Laura and her family, that I was so accurate, trustful and reliable in my story. Digitized old papers, pictures, etc, which I had sent to the editor were all double checked by the editor and approved as OK when I had "Let's go, write". The very strange thing in this history is, the sources I have used here which has been disqualified as not reliable or proper and therefore deleted, are exactly the same I sent to the editor. So that gave me a bitter taste about wikis experts who deleted my work, but was later welcomed by people in Armonk who really knew Laura and also other readers as 100% reliable and proper. Many were excited how I had managed to find all those notices which they remember so well. The same notice which was deleted by wikis. Therefore, when my true story about Laura (born 1952 in Mount Kisco) will be published and also come into lights it will not be for wikis knowledge. In your world Laura Branigan was born 1957 in Brewster. Yours so called "professional biography" over Laura is something Armonkers are laughing at. Btw, did you know Brewster wasn't Atlantic Rec first choice as Laura's new town, it was Pound Ridge. The reason was that Pound Ridge sounded more classic than Brewster. In my opinion Pound Ridge is better than Brewster. But sadly, maybe Brewster won the lottery? Of course there will be wiki people who will laugh at me while reading this. That is OK for me, though I know the truth which wiki don't.--Born53 swe (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would point toward wp:Pillars as a good read. I don't think the point of WP is clear, based on these continued posts about "knowing" and "truth". WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood. It can only summarize, as it has here, the contents of the published sources. Here, we have many generally reliable sources using the (it appears erroneous) date. Even if every single interested editor were to suddenly agree that the the published sources were, in fact, wrong, it would not matter: WP contains the footnote that a minority of the wp:RS give other dates, and that individuals with personal knowledge (primary sources) give other dates. This is in keeping with the purpose of WP: to summarize in editors own words the content of the generally reliable sources. I hope this helps in some way.Shajure (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
In the vague hope that this won't be taken the wrong way, an example. I have personally been present when 2 events took place that were subsequently covered by the press. Neither event was accurately presented. Yet the news bodies that published the accounts were generally reliable publishers of news. This is reality. Everyone lives in the same world, and we know (hopefully we all know) that no source is going to get everything right. In some cases NONE of them will get it even CLOSE to right. And in those cases, it is the job of the millions of web sites that are not WP to post the truth (hopefully). And WP will post a summary of what the WP:RS contain. *possibly* with a footnote as was added here.Shajure (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This article says that her brother was also born in 1957. I would think unless his mother was able to gestate two babies and have one born in February and one born in July of the same year, this is impossible that they can both be born in 1957. Perhaps an editor can find supporting documentation re: her brother's BD? 2601:241:8102:221C:2DA1:6BD6:5697:3EBF (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And - why wouldn't it be done like this? This recognizes there's at least a dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Lance 2601:241:8102:221C:2DA1:6BD6:5697:3EBF (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about the editors, discussion of reversion to April 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
I must say I am thinking of edit Laura's whole wiki as it was April 2016, before DevilManozzy and all others decided you knew everything about Laura. I was just a liar and fabricated my research. This time I have the final piece in my Laura collection, her SSN-card with number 093-78-xxxx. Laura has filled in 7-3-1952, birthplace - Manhattan, New York. Phone 273-3540 and her signature. Laura had to make a SSN application when she began at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in September 1970. This information was sent to me from my contact in New York, CH. It took a long time, but at last I have it. Laura's perfect wiki at Last.FM has been edited with this new information. (I am the author) Also some other pages has been updated with New York as birthplace. (Where the hell did you get Brewster from?) Also different papers has this news. This is so new that it will take some time to let it grew in my collection. It is difficult to decide what to do. Shall I let you know, or not? If yes, you need to apologize for your very bad behavior against me, but I also know you would never do it. So, no, I will not let you take part of my treasure. So let it be. I don't care. Btw, I emailed wiki support team yesterday. They haven't answered me though in their eyes I am wrong and wiki right. Poor idiots, wonder if they can read and understand English. Or is it as bad as here, wiki experts. You know, I am the expert, you are just nothing in my eyes. The best you can do is log out and never come back again. You are just nothing!--Born53 swe (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has said that your information is "wrong", or that you are "wrong" - except in your continuing and perplexing inability to understand what Wikipedia is, and how it works. The article sets out, in accordance with policy, what reliable published sources say about her, with a footnote explaining that some other information suggests differently. The readers can make up their own mind. That is as far as we can and should go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, the guy is routinely bugging me on my talk page here at wikipedia, as if I am the issue. He blames users, instead of focusing on what has been said and suggestions given by others. He keeps on pushing he is "right" about this issue and that we need to believe him. It's a weird obsession he has with this topic that is quite frankly unhealthy. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Devilmanozzy: It should, to be fair, be pointed out that you represent one side in this long-going "conflict", and he represents the other side in it, so you're not a neutral observer. Judging by all available evidence (check older discussions here) Born53 swe is most probably right about Laura Branigan having been born in 1952, not 1957, he just hasn't been able to present 3rd party sources for it. Not yet, at least. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Thomas W... I am a bit amazed at your focus on Dman, as you have way too much experience in WP to do that: Here in WP, we focus on content, not editors. "the other side" to which you refer is the result of a formal RFC. The wording from that is in the article. The content of the sources is there in the article. Interested readers are readily able to review the conflicting data about the date of birth and should, and I should think, be able to "see through" the perhaps-promotional birth-date/age given in the press in the amazingly-unlikely event that anyone will care. We do have sources, in the article, that point to a "correct" birth date. But there is a continuous PoV push, involving much screaming of "Poor idiots, wonder if they can read and understand English. Or is it as bad as here, wiki experts. You know, I am the expert, you are just nothing in my eyes. The best you can do is log out and never come back again. You are just nothing!" and such, along with removal of the RFC wording, removal of sources, adding of personal-collection images and personally-written captions as new sources. One interested editor has pursued getting mainstream press to cover the date... but the press has so far declined.Shajure (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Shajure: I suggest you read through all old discussions here before accusing me of anything. I'm not talking about the result of the RfC (which I'm very well aware of) when referring to "the other side", I'm talking about the partisan editing that has been going on here for many years, that is since very long before the RfC, trying to keep 1957 in the article at all cost, and systematically removing both every mention of any other year and every mention of the other official website (there are two equally official websites, but until the RfC only one was mentioned, and every attempt to add the other one was quickly reverted). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I should not have responded, I was simply shocked. "accusing me of anything"... On review I can see how that might seem to be the case, but I still see no value in either DMan's response nor yours (and certainly not mine to yours), nor most of the chatter through the too-painful-to-read-all-the-screaming history of this wrangle. The amount of time wasted on this trivial point about the promo biography of a dead (though quite talented) singer is large. At one point the article referred to Laura B. as a one-hit-wonder which really offended me, though I did find one fool in the press that used the term. I killed it, source notwithstanding, as it seemed clearly to be just nastiness. I keep dropping this article from my watch list as it is such a trivial piece, but it is like a train wreck that I just can't stop checking up on. In any event, apologies for any offense.Shajure (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I wish a wikipedia admin would check up on this talk page every so often. I think it is safe to say that this is not going to stop anytime soon, and with a user picking on me for bringing to light the lack of sound practices on research, it has pretty much set this conversation to total nuke again. The articles rocky history should have placed it on a regular watch by this point. Devilmanozzy (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It is on a regular watch: 99 editors have the article on their watchlist, and 24 of them visited recent edits. You just have to accept that not all edits go your way. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
And for the OP in this section... please review wp:pillars, wp:no personal attacks. This behaviour is unacceptable.Shajure (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
My only contribution and probably the last as well. I know many dislikes (hates) me and my way how to express myself in Laura's wiki. So, therefore I have decided as following. I hereby apologize my language in discussions of Laura's birth informations. I am an old from from Sweden and straight on in my language. So from now you will probably not hear from me again, and yes, I have Laura's private signed SSN-application from September 1970. She needed it when she began at the drama school, New York. It was sent from my New York genealogist and contact as I mentioned early this year. It took time, but now my research and journey with Laura's real biography and timeline is over. Goodbye from StigP in Sweden also known as--Born53 swe (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I need to add a personal thought. God damn it, how wonderful it is to have Laura's handwritten SSN application. Born 1952 and with her own signature. Who beats that?--Born53 swe (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
This is only information for someone who might be interested. Find a Grave, one of the external references has recognized Laura's birth to 1952 and birthplace Mount Kisco. Find a Grave, Laura Branigan born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco. I don't know if this reference should be deleted though wiki stands for 1957 and Brewster. But that's up to wiki, not me!
User-generated content. We already went down this road. No, simply no. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
And this is why people run screaming as if they are on fire from this site, rather than edit Wikipedia. Even in the face of supporting documentation. 2601:241:8102:221C:2DA1:6BD6:5697:3EBF (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
My back is full of scares after knifes that wiki contributors has thrown at me last 2 years. I have provided reliable sources, but they have all been said being false and fabricated by certain wiki experts. One of the oldest and most distinguished encyclopedias in the world has recognized Laura's birth year to 1952. I have also being a very good friend with the head editor who also said in the email "(Please note: If the fact box that accompanies the article still shows “Brewster?” as Laura’s birthplace. But this will be updated soon—within the next day or so.) Thanks for providing the documentation that clearly proves Laura’s date and place of birth!

Best, John". Note! Brewster has now being updated to Mount Kisco! Laura's correct birth place. This is strange, the documentation John is mention is my research that is exactly the same which wiki has condemned as untrue and fabricated by me. Believe me, I respect John much, much more than I ever will trust wiki experts. One more thing, I will never make any changes in Laura's birth information. Why should I, when it would be undone in seconds of people who are monitoring my signature. For me it is now ok that Laura was born 1957 in Brewster, she grew up in Brewster and shared 1957 with little brother Billy. Honestly, I hope 1957 will always be there. At last...If any wiki contributor will make any changes, that is ok, but I will personally demand real independent, trustful and reliable secondary sources. I think that is fair and also exactly the same as you did to me. NOTE! So therefore, my research is forbidden and out of question to be used by wiki or anybody else! My research shall therefor NEVER BE USED and CANNOT BE USED by wikipedia though they are NOT reliable and trustful. That is wikis own word. I hope you respect my wishes. And don't send me any private messages as well. OK!--Born53 swe (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Encylopedia Britannica

Latest comment: 7 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

The EB now appears to have verified and accepted Born53 swe investigations and have amended their entry to show Laura's DOB to July 3, 1952 Laura Branigan (article on britannica). Is it time to amend or are we going to wait for a retraction from at least one of the major publishers of a now seemingly incorrect obituary? Nthep (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia at one point had User-generated content references as a source until this year when questions were asked of the references. None of the 1952 references so far have been from sources other than edited content presented/made by Born53 swe (aka Stig-Ake Persson). Research needs sourcing and he provides none. In the age of photoshop, any image can be forged. References need to be from neutral third parties that didn't just reuse user-generated content. Newspapers be one of those sources. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Is that your new tactic, claiming that everything is photomanipulated and fake? Why don't you take a good look at the claim that she was born in 1957? There's no support at all for that other than some PR stuff from the manager and some production company, whereas there's plenty of support for 1952 that couldn't possibly have been photomanipulated, such as when she graduated from high school, and when she got her Associates Degree. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you are misunderstanding my point. The previous discussion on this topic have been about OR and lack of verification/recognition by what we would consider reliable sources. We now have an organisation, normally accepted as an RS, saying they accept something that has been presented to them and as a result they have modified their article on Laura to say birth year is 1952. Isn't that what has been asked for all along - for a reliable source to say 1952? I don't advocate changing the article on the basis of Mr Persson's say so, I am asking that we consider that under core policies WP:V and WP:RS there is now more doubt that the currently quoted birth year is incorrect as at least one RS has 1952 and either we amend to 1952 or we make more comment in the article than the current footnote that there is a discrepancy that has been investigated since the appearance of the original obituaries quoting 1957. Nthep (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Alas, I believe that no matter what we decide is the amended consensus, we will always need to at least keep a footnote, similar to the one in use now; and the "Age controversies" category. We cannot possibly vanish all the reliable sources that historically exist and are in use, stating what we now say are 'errata'. Unless new mainstream media now write articles about the age controversy and redact their earlier dates (doubtful), I do not believe we need to add more to the article text. Fylbecatulous talk 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I was primarily looking at what the lead paragraph gives as the "preferred" date. Nthep (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not up to us as editors to question the origins of material contained in reliable sources. EB is regarded as a good-quality reliable source, so undoubtedly we should refer to it. What is questionable is whether the information it now contains should outweigh, in the lead, the other sources that give the 1957 birth year. I suggest that, for the moment (until the majority of usually-reliable sources agree), we say in the lead "1952 or 1957", and direct readers to a revised footnote, which contains the information that EB says that 1952 is correct, but other sources do not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually... the note could be changed from:

"Although most sources give her birth year as 1957, at least two sources indicate a birthdate of 1954/1955,[1][2] and some primary sources suggest that she may have been born in 1952.[3]"
to
"Although most sources give her birth year as 1957, at least two sources indicate a birthdate of 1954/1955,[1][2] and Encyclopedia Britanica [source] states and some primary sources suggest that she may have been born in 1952.[3]"

Because now instead of 0 wp:RS for 1952, we have 1. While this is great news... it is 1 source. I see no reason that change can't be made right away. But... I am confident a change to the lead based on a single source would be promptly reverted.Shajure (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The article in history gives a credits to Stig-Ake Persson. No proof was offered for the change therefore I challenge it (Link to Reliable sources Noticeboard on matter). Look at the history of the page. No references, they take Stig at his word. User-generated content is what that Encylopedia Britannica article is. Devilmanozzy (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll look forward to anything that comes out of the RS board.Shajure (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
EB is a RS; if there are multiple RSs, then both datesshould be given.
BTW, the article states that her younger brother was born on February 28, 1957. This is not compatible with a birthdate for her of July 3, 1957. Nor is a 1954 birthdate compatible with Billy Branigan being a younger brother. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It seems clear to me that the 52 date is "real", and the 57 date was to make her entry into the business much younger. Lots of good, solid implications... and lots of sources for 57, and now 1 (one) for 52. For example, her high school graduation year, noted by honors in her name, would put her finishing HS as a VERY young age (edit to add... if born in 57). Then we have a copy of her records that give the 52 date... but we can't get that from an RS, only from a very interested researcher. Doing the math from dates in stories leads back to 52 in several instances... but... again... many RS explicitly say 57 and until just recently 0 said 52.Shajure (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I plan to make my proposed change in a couple of days. Any objections to adding the EB citation to the NB1 note?Shajure (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, the question is are these References noted for the 1952 date are creditable or not. Also, the brothers birthday hasn't ever been proven. Last time this came up, people at the time on here said this article isn't about her bother therefore it's not creditable. The reference to her brothers birth also not seen as a reliable source. Research these references before believing it. This is getting old. A guy is weirdly obsessed over this singer, to the point he's posting what he claims are family photos about her. That's plain weird. Devilmanozzy (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I stated before that her brother has no inherited notability and was only added to prop up the belief in Laura's earlier birth year. In fact, the entire first paragraph in the 'Early years' section makes us look like Ancestry.com. Really, all that is of no importance; we are writing about a no-longer-living minor celebrity. We are not attempting to prove heirs to the throne such as in List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Fylbecatulous talk 04:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
wp:NPA.wp:AGF might be good reads. It is very ok for fans to be extremely interested in digging up facts about celebrities. It is OK if we do or do not think the EB is being wise in believing the information it has published. It doesn't matter what we think, as editors, in terms of WP. As long as there is wp:consensus (not seeing any support so far for dropping EB in the brief time the item has been up on the RSNB) that EB remains a generally wp:RS, and EB did in fact publish the information, the citation is valid. I am not seeing an objection to my proposed edit. If there is, please cite the wp guideline for the objection, if you will.Shajure (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope, if it is decided that EB is considered a reference, I'm out. Let the crazy have the article. Wikipedia point blank fails. Done. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
EB is pretty much going off of a user submission and that counts?! This makes references pointless. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I cannot see by reading through this non sequitur discussion that we have arrived at any concensus about any content changes, addition of this new EB citation, much less a amendment to the footnote. I believe we need to establish another WP:RfC and invite a wider number of comments through the established processes. It seems to be we are the usual few who are basically in disagreement. Fylbecatulous talk 11:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we should wait a while longer, to see if the discussion started at WP:RSN achieves any consensus about the reliability of EB as a source in this instance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. I really have no idea of the traffic the noticeboard creates. Therefore, we have advised waiting based on two wp guidelines. Fylbecatulous talk 11:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I have had a conversation on Twitter with John M. Cunningham, and he confirms that the documentation was why they changed the date . Further he also notes that John was in contact via email with the owner of "http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nywestch/" and confirms the documentation came from them. So now the reason for the update on EB. I suggest a WP:RfC as well. I'm going to pass along a link on the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Devilmanozzy (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

DOB again

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I grew up with Laura Branigan in Armonk, NY. We were in the same classes in elementary school (SS John & Mary) and in high school (Byram Hills). We were born in 1952. We graduated high school in 1970. If fans simply checked her home town records and her school records, they would know she was born in 1952 and was raised in Armonk, NY. The 1957 birth year was used for her career. Lots of celebrities have said they were younger for their careers. But I would think biographers would prefer to stipulate the truth. Maybe it doesn't matter. Personally, I don't really care. I'm just saying 1957 is incorrect. It's simply ignorance of the facts. Why those who insist it's true do not do their research is beyond me. Oh well. smh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1952 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia can only summarize what is given by sources. Newspapers disagree with you. Lots of newspapers. Truth has to be proven from references. See the rest of this talk page and the two Archives. Unless you have something new to add to this, we have spun these wheels already. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I would point toward wp:Pillars as a good read. I don't think the point of WP is clear, based on these continued posts about "knowing" and "truth". WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood. It can only summarize, as it has here, the contents of the published sources. Here, we have many generally reliable sources using the (it appears erroneous) date. Even if every single interested editor were to suddenly agree that the the published sources were, in fact, wrong, it would not matter: WP contains the footnote that a minority of the wp:RS give other dates, and that individuals with personal knowledge (primary sources) give other dates. This is in keeping with the purpose of WP: to summarize in editors own words the content of the generally reliable sources.Shajure (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I just want you to see some pictures I had from people in Armonk, who were classmates with Laura at SS John and Mary school in Chappaqua. Laura Branigan picture from Armonk 1958. She is 6 years old. Next is Laura and best friend Geri. From Armonk about 1963-64 Laura and Geri in Armonk about 1963-64. Next is from 1962 and SS John & Mary 5th grade Laura 1962, SS John & Mary school 5th grade, Chappaqua I have much, much more in my Laura collection. I will not show them though this pictures will probably be considered as fakes and fabricated in photoshop. But I think or know the nickname Truth1952 can verify them, though she grew up with Laura. Wiki experts, have you solved the problem with Billy's birth year? In Laura's biography it is said she was child 4th of 5. If you continue to give Billy birth year 1957, then Laura is younger than Billy. Isn't it easier to admit you are wrong and make the changes so it looks trustful in your "professional" wiki. Wiki has now the fenomen of 2 siblings born the same year of 1957. It looks crazy and ridiculous. You are supposed to be the elite of all contributors in this subject, but you can't read, understand and definitely you are not able to think logical and draw conclusions. To 2Truth1952, I understand you didn't came back and tried to defend yourself against Laura's so called experts. I am sure you know who I am after my visit in your Facebook group. If you like, please contact me at my Facebook, maybe we can work out something together to end this stupid game from those pro1957.--Born53 swe (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I would point toward wp:Pillars as a good read. I don't think the point of WP is clear, based on these continued posts about "knowing" and "truth". WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood. It can only summarize, as it has here, the contents of the published sources. Here, we have many generally reliable sources using the (it appears erroneous) date. Even if every single interested editor were to suddenly agree that the the published sources were, in fact, wrong, it would not matter: WP contains the footnote that a minority of the wp:RS give other dates, and that individuals with personal knowledge (primary sources) give other dates. This is in keeping with the purpose of WP: to summarize in editors own words the content of the generally reliable sources.Shajure (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
And I would point out again and also I demand an answer. I don't care about Laura's birth year, but Which year was Billy Branigan born? Was it 1957 as his birth announce says from 1957, or when was it? The answer is also the indication about Laura. And if Laura was born 1957, when did she attend high school? I have many emails from different people, but this came from Antoinette Morales, Town clerk in Mount Kisco. She wrote

"Sir, We have no knowledge of which newspaper a birth announcement would have appeared in 1952. The birth record is the ultimate record of proof but you are not interested in the birth record nor are you eligible to request one. The only other suggestion I have to make your case is that in Wikipedia, it says she attended Byram Lake High School from 1966-1970. If she were born in 1957, then she would have been 9 years of age in high school. Typically, a first year high school student is anywhere from 13 to 14 years of age which supports the birth year being 1952. I hope this helps. Good luck, Antoinette Morales, Staff Assistant Finance, Deputy Registrar, Mount Kisco" I answered her "It is with sadness I'll let you know it is not enough. You see, we are many who has been in the same direction to have wikipedia to read, think and draw conclusions of the subject. I had an email from wikipedia's Nigel P. yesterday which said "it is nothing they will take note of that Laura and Billy Branigan has the same birth year, 1957. It is still all information from the press release written by Laura's management in August 2004 which is the only truth". So if I understand Nigel P correct, not even a birth record would help, though it is still Kathy Golik's press release from August 2004 which is ruling everything. And that means it is only Kathy Golik who can change Laura's birth year and birthplace? And she stated August 15 that Laura was born 1957 in Brewster! --Born53 swe (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

wp:Pillars - "have wikipedia to read, think and draw conclusions" - WP does not think, read, or draw conclusions. The published wp:rs do that. WP editors ONLY reword (thus: editors, not authors) that content in their own words. Not their thoughts. Not their conclusions. I'll continue to reply to each of these with key pointers, so that editors will not be confused by this continuing wp:POV push. It does not matter what I/we/you/they think, feel, know, believe, or conclude. It matters only what is in the published, wp:RS.Shajure (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
also wp:tldr (edit: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. All the chatter among wp:primary sources is interesting but has nothing to do with WP articles. Please remain focused on the content of the wp:RS, and how it should be presented in the article. For all those other things, I would point to the other thousands or millions of web sites as possible publication sites.Shajure (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
For God sake, seek help, you need it!--Born53 swe (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggest reading wp:NPA, wp:pillarsShajure (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Laura Branigan was born July 3, 1952. SSN:093-98-XXXX.--Born53 swe (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I continue to agree wholeheartedly. Sadly, most of the wp:RS do not, and thus the article reflects the 1957 date most often given there, with a note about the differing wp:RS and primary sources.Shajure (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

For those who are still interested, Born53 swe has posted Laura Branigan's Social Security application on his web site: https://se.pinterest.com/pin/204913851775644779/
Yeah, I know "Wikipedia cannot accept scans on fan sites as we have no way of verifying the authenticity of such uploads". Anyway, the scan does indicate a birthdate of 3rd July 1952 and also gives her birthplace as Manhattan, NYC (not Brewster, NY). I've had a look at the Manhattan Birth Index for 1952, and there is a record of a "BRANIGAN, Female" being born there on that date. No first name listed, unfortunately. Anyway, it's an interesting piece of the puzzle. Muzilon (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There really isn't any "puzzle" - except the question of how Wikipedia should set out biographical information when there is substantial evidence (and there is no doubt that there is substantial evidence) that the details reported in normally reliable sources are, for whatever reason, wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That isn't a puzzle at all, it is covered thoroughly in the WP guidance documents. WP cannot, never has, never will be able to determine truth. Thus, we are called "editors" not "authors"... we rewrite in our own words, the published data that meets wp:RS, and other guidance. That is what WP is for. There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of other pages on the web that are for other purposes. I observe that WP is about number 6 most-visited site on the web. None of the encyclopedic sites that pursue truth are even close. The evidence is set out in the article. The readers can draw their own conclusions. Idly: the current President of the US has had his birth certificate published, verified by many people and organizations, and there is *still* a huge wrangle about the basic facts.Shajure (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
To the OP of this section - the best course of action at this point, based on what these editors are saying, is for you to get a local newspaper or two, a daily newspaper and or reputable monthly magazine, to do a story on Branigan, and include the debate about her DOB as part of the article. 2601:241:8102:221C:2DA1:6BD6:5697:3EBF (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Heh heh, it looks like people on Twitter are questioning the authenticity of that Social Security form already. Surely some enterprising journalist could get a court order to obtain her NY birth/death certificate? Muzilon (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing issues, verification issues, factual accuracy issues

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This article has some serious sourcing issues which affect the factual accuracy of the following sub-sections: "Early years" and "Height of her career" - Sources contradict one another, some don't verify the content, some are unreliable and many paragraphs are completely unsourced. Reliable sources are required so that this content can be verified.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
First sentence in "Early years:

  • Branigan was born in Brewster, New York - sources used: IMDb and CNN.
IMBb is generally considered unreliable - says she was born in Brewster, CNN says - Growing up in Brewster, doesn't say she was born there, and contradicts the first sentence in 2nd paragraph which says - Growing up in Armonk, New York.
  • Kathleen O'Hare Branigan (1921-2006) - source used: Aimoo, a discussion forum, seriously??, we're using a discussion forum for a reliable source.
  • James Branigan, Sr. (1914-1984), an account executive and mutual funds broker, who later separated. - no source

Second sentence in "Early years":

  • Her younger brother Billy Branigan was born on February 28, 1957. - source used: Patent Trader, March 14, 1957 (newspaper birth announcement)  Y
Birth announcement says: A son to Mr. and Mrs. James H. Branigan of Armonk, February 28. No mention of what the son's name is. Source fails verification

Third sentence in "Early years":

  • She had two older brothers, James, Jr. "Jim" (1945–91) and Mark; and an elder sister, Susan. - source used: NYT/AP obituary.
What the source says: She is survived by her mother, Kathleen, who lived with her in East Quogue; two brothers, Mark and Billy, both of Manhattan; and a sister, Susan, of Connecticut - source doesn't even mention James, Jr. "Jim" (1945–91), nor does it says anything about brothers/sister being older.  Y

Fourth sentence in "Early years":

  • Branigan's maternal grandparents were William O'Hare, Jr. (son of William John O'Hare and Agnes B. O'Connor) and Mary Conway (daughter of Francis J. Conway and Mary Teresa McGuiness); all of them were Irish. - source used: Ethnicelebs
Source appears to be user-submitted, which would make it unreliable and their site says: Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate.

Second paragraph, first sentence in "Early years":

  • Growing up in Armonk, New York, Branigan attended Byram Hills High School in 1966-1970 - source used: Byram Hills School District newsletter
What the source says to verify this content - ...Laura Branigan, BHHS class of 1970... - no mention of where she grew up or years attended, second half of that sentence is sourced and verified.

Second paragraph, second sentence in "Early years":

  • In 1970-1972 she attended the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York City, - sourced used: Encyclopedia.com
What the source says - After graduating from high school in 1975, Branigan enrolled at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York City...

Second paragraph, rest of second sentence in "Early years":

  • working as a waitress until in 1972 she met acoustic guitarist Walker Daniels and his future wife Sharon Storm and acoustic guitarist Chris Van Cleave, forming the folk-rock band Meadow - source used: Vancleavemusic
source does not say anything about her working as a waitress

Second paragraph, last three sentences in that paragraph in "Early years":

  • The record was not properly promoted and never re-released. The band broke up, after which Walker Daniels committed suicide. Branigan preferred not to discuss her involvement with Meadow publicly. - no source

Third paragraph, single sentence in "Early years":

  • During the years after Meadow broke up, Branigan had various jobs, including a stint as one of Leonard Cohen's backup singers for his European tour in April–August 1976. - no source

Fourth paragraph, first sentence in "Early years":

  • In December 1978 after meeting him at a party in Manhattan, New York, earlier in the year - source used - People
What the source says - As a 24-year-old in 1981, when she met Kruteck at a Manhattan party, Branigan was on the way up.

Fourth paragraph, rest of the first sentence in "Early years":

  • Branigan married Larry Ross Kruteck (1936-1996), a lawyer 20 years her senior, who died of colon cancer on June 15, 1996. sources used: CNN and People
Neither source lists Kruteck's date of birth as 1936 and neither source lists June 15 as the day he passed away, they both just state 1996.

The remaining five paragraphs in that section "Early years": Not sourced
"Height of her career section": Entire section is not sourced except for three YouTube videos.

Welcome to the show! Having troubles with Laura's biography and timeline? Don't worry, your questions will probably be answered by contributors who knows everything about Laura. I call them wiki experts. I thought I knew quite much about Laura, but according to wiki experts my sources and references were lies and fabricated in photoshop. So everything were deleted. Strange, though both Encyclopedia Britannica and Association Press, AP, are having exactly the same and they are very impressed over all reliable documentation over Laura. AP is also checking my sources as this is written, though they will rewrite Laura's obituary. Replacing 1957 and Brewster with 1952 and Mount Kisco.Ciao from Sweden!--Born53 swe (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:SOFIXIT. I am assuming before creating such a detailed list, this talk page discussions and those in the archives have been read. I am going to conduct an experiment to the article as a result of this list. I am choosing the ones I have disliked having in the content on the basis that notability is not inherited. We shall see... Fylbecatulous talk 12:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This is one of my favorites. It is so damn funny so comments are not needed. "In 1970-1972 she attended the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York City, - sourced used: Encyclopedia.com
What the source says - After graduating from high school in 1975, Branigan enrolled at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York City.... Have you ever tought of the Encyclopedia is wrong? Have you thought of checking the academy's homepage? If you do that you'll find "Laura Branigan, Class of 1972". My source and references to the academy was deleted by people on this talk-page. They were fake and fabricated it was said. Could it have been Laura's little brother Billy who graduated from Byram Hills high school in Armonk, June 1975? Oh dear, if Billy was born 1957, then it was he who graduteded in 1975. Right or wrong? Time to leave, waiting for my contact person at AP in New York to see the corrections or a rewritten obituary. Ciao from Sweden--Born53 swe (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI! I am leaving Wikipedia for a better site which let me make all changes I want to do about Laura. Her true birth info with her biography and timeline will at last be correct. All my sources and references which were deleted will be back and shown again. Sometimes life is good! And good luck with Laura's wiki.--Born53 swe (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

DOB issue yet again

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

The Associated Press has determined she was born in 1952 and corrected the 2004 obituary. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4ce78d41c83540e2b9b6b6b34a592158/correction-laura-branigan-obituary Should Wikipedia follow the AP's example? --Orat Perman (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

With some trepidation, I have updated the "disputed birthdate" footnote to include the recent Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica articles. We can't really ignore the existence of these two major sources, whether or not we like them or agree with them. Muzilon (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see what that research actually is and what it amounts to? Karst (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
"After being contacted recently by one of Branigan's fans, however, the AP conducted a thorough review...". It's probably obvious who that person is... but that shouldn't stop us referring to those sources. As I think I've said all along, I'd favour the opening sentence stating "...1952 or 1957", retaining the footnote - as is the case in many other articles on popular performers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Caught up with that one and found the WP:OR material. As someone who has not been involved in the pervious disputes, I would favour inserting 1952 while retaining the footnote, based on the Associated Press revision. If all obits are reliant on the press-release from management then that also makes it an unreliable source really. Karst (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. AP is creditable. Need to reconsider the location and date at birth. There are too many sources disagreeing with the two sources, but with AP's they are actually noting the correction and stating why. Devilmanozzy (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there is now a consensus to include 1952 in the lead? If so, it would probably be helpful to agree any changes to the wording, and that of any revised footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps do an RFC and ping some of the previous contributors to get broader consensus? It might get to a situation where 1952 is slotted in and it gets reverted if that is not done. The footnote can then simply refer back to RfC. IMHO the 1954-1955 references should be removed - these are both local newspapers. I would consider the AP amendment more reliable. Karst (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
AP is "A" source and it has to be noted that other sources disagree. I say switch it to 1952 being the likely date and 1957 still being the common answer. One reference doesn't make all the rest irrelevant. It is the common birthdate and AP could still get it wrong. However AP is the strongest and freshest reference. A new RFC might be a good idea. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
AP's obituary has been quoted as their source by several other sites etc that have been used as sources for 1957, so since AP has changed the year of birth to 1952, all other sources who's story was based on the obituary have also changed the year of birth... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Some got it via Laura's management directly, and even with all things considered journalism is a paper by paper issue. If the reference didn't say AP was a source, they are still standing by the printing. Anyways, like said the old date is the known date. So it needs to be acknowledged. Also, the management for Laura are still (for now) standing by her date of birth being 1957. So it ain't going away. Wikipedia doesn't go by official websites, but it needs to be acknowledged. AP disagreeing with Laura's management is a important thing that has to be addressed. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
A) How would you know that they got it from Laura's management directly, and B) why did Laura's management tell them Laura was born in 1957, when all available evidence now shows that the correct year of birth is 1952? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll admit it I don't understand what you are asking. I assume that Laura's Management will stick to their story in their Obituary, as they have no reason to change. As for AP, they directly noted they got their original information from Laura's Management. " When the pop singer Laura Branigan died, The Associated Press, relying on information from her management company, reported in an obituary on Aug. 28, 2004, that she was 47 and had been born on July 3, 1957." I am agreeing because AP is both a respected references and that they explained their changes in public. Those things matter. Devilmanozzy (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
In any event, I'm not sure we need multiple sources citing the exact same AP press release, which is what now appears to be happening in the "disputed birthdate" footnote. WP:CITEOVERKILL Muzilon (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd go with AP, then for the 1957 date use a reference like The telegraph or BBC News since the previous reference was itself a re-report of AP story. Also, two dates for the 1954-1955 date is also a bit much. Devilmanozzy (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Branigan/Archive_2&oldid=1085916065"