Talk:Bobbi Kristina Brown/Archive 2

Cooperative editing, please

It seems it's time to discuss content edits here rather than having to redo and undo changes that are poorly thought out. My hope is that a particular editor will chose to discuss rather than continue to rewrite practically everything copy-edited. The article was in extremely poor shape until a couple of days ago: filled with lousy prose, tabloid fodder, and unencyclopedic content. It's now starting to come into proper shape, but I'm sensing a lack of letting editors change things for the better. No edit wars, please. How about working together? If that means discussing edits, so be it. Doing so would be better all around and cut the appearance of disruption and warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:AGF—the reason you're here is the reason I'm here. (Did you read my reply?) Second, I make changes only as I feel they are needed—again, the same motivation I presume you have—and I must assume mine are no more nor less "thought out" than are yours. Fair warning, then: I am going to fing a better way to write "being involved" per my explanation here. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

We don't have any reputable source saying that the only reason they're married is because of the Georgia proviso, though. There are hundreds of sources only calling Gordon her husband with no further explanation. And there are sources that say they had a ceremony. And Brown herself states they are husband and wife, so I think we need to leave it at that. What are your thoughts, ATinySliver? You've been super awesome with cleaning this article up. --Kbabej (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. This was why I felt an invisible comment pointing only the editing readers to the appropriate passage—as opposed to something visible to all readers—made sense, because the prose itself outlines and cites the potentially contradictory legal status of their relationship.

(Edit: my thanks for your kind words! Humbly, though, I'd like to think I'm only part of a process that includes you, Winkelvi, Tenebrae and several others. We've taken an article that until recently was a redirect and made it into something worthy.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, an invisible comment is perfect. --Kbabej (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the Georgia proviso should be mentioned. Doing so smacks of WP:SYNTH, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and it isn't—it was in the edit summary only. The invisible comment reads "".

. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct statements from family state that they are not married. This is continue to be cited in several reliable sources.Mcelite (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed under Bobbi Kristina Brown's photo sub-titled "spouse" that it states that Bobbi Kristina Brown and Nick Gordon are married. Has anyone gotten a copy of the source: their marriage license? If no one has seen a copy of the marriage license, are you able to prove that Bobbi Kristina Brown and Nick Gordon are married?

"Contrary to numerous reports"

@Winkelvi: with this edit, you removed a "news-like item" that was matter-of-fact and devoid of speculation with data that introduces rumor into an encyclopedia (even if only to shoot it down). This is a WP:SENSATION vio, IMO. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not introducing rumor into the article at all. The rumor was widespread by reputable and reliable sources. The content addition addresses the fact that there were rumors, which is a progression of events. Not sensation, not a vio. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SENSATION: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking ..." Especially in the article of a still-living person, I'm very strong on this point. I'll ask for new eyes. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how mentioning that rumors and speculation took place in the media -- even in reputable media -- comes anywhere close to violating the policy. If we engaged in rumor and innuendo in the article, THAT would violate said policy. What's written there now isn't even on the same level. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested additional opinions. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to weigh in here. Is the question at issue, whether there should be any mention at all of the "dead" rumors? I think they absolutely have to be mentioned. They are so widespread that we can't just pretend they don't exist. I think the way it currently is in the article - "despite the rumors" - is just perfect. If the situation hasn't been resolved by the time the semiprotection expires on Feb. 9, just let me know and I will extend it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion appreciated.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment, but I find this too morbid and distasteful to discuss. Whether it falls within our guidelines for figures in this field is possibly another matter, but I leave it to those who feel more comfortable here. . DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attention.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the hyperbole and edited the sentence per the ABC report, and also clarified the timeline. I'd say that sentence can stay until a further update preempts the need for it, at which time it should be deleted in my opinion. This covers neutrality all around. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, regarding "Contrary to numerous media reports on February 5 that she had been taken off life support and was declared brain-dead, Brown's family denied the claims and asked for privacy": (1) The citation used does not mention "numerous" media reports; (2) it does not mention "brain dead"; (3) it says "a family source" (emphasis mine), not "Brown's family" or even just "family"; (4) the request for privacy was a day or more previous to the denial. We need to avoid inflammatory wording, incorrect information, and things not in the citation(s) used. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally added the content I had intended to add the USA Today article as a source as it included what was not referenced in the ABC news article. I must have gotten distracted and inadvertently left it out, which is why I was confused over the removal of (what I thought was) well-sourced content. Nevertheless, the USA Today reference has been added and the previous prose restored but improved upon. I have removed the direct quote from Bobby Brown as reading "newsy" rather than encyclopedic or informational; too many direct quotes in a BLP article get to be a problem eventually, no need to go that direction. Bobby Brown asking for privacy has been put into the restored and improved upon content with the date corrected. According to the sources, he asked for privacy on Feb 3, not Feb 4. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed under Bobbi Kristina Brown's photo sub-titled "spouse" that it states that Bobbi Kristina Brown and Nick Gordon are married. Has anyone gotten a copy of the source: their marriage license? If no one has seen a copy of the marriage license, are you able to prove that Bobbi Kristina Brown and Nick Gordon are married?

Relatives in infobox

The infoxbox content on relatives has now officially jumped the shark, in my opinion. WP:IBX states the purpose of an infobox is for "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance"; we are to "exclude any unnecessary content." Naming in the infobox what relatives are in Brown's family tree (or anyone, in any bio article infobox, for that matter) is one thing. Stating which person is a cousin however many times removed is unnecessary in the infobox. It certainly doesn't aid the reader in a better understanding of the article subject, which is one of the criteria we use in determining the difference between trivia and valuable content to be included. I really think the familial rankings in the infobox should go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ditch the explanations and leave them as relatives. Makes sense. :) --Kbabej (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection

With the amount of attention that Bobbi's recent accident is having, would it be pertinent to add a subsection to her 'Adult life' section? It could be broken up by date, and then at the end have the " Contrary to numerous media reports that she had been taken off life support and was declared brain-dead, on February 5 Brown's family denied the claims and asked for privacy." I feel like that is what a lot of people will be scanning the article for. But it's also not a ton of info. Thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd hold off for the time being, as this article is likely to continue undergoing significant changes in the days ahead.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Please show me the same courtesy. Injuries suffered by Brown indicates she was the subject of the "possible altercation" and I'll attempt a rewrite for clarity. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivia, it's gossip, it's not encyclopedic. At this point it a "possible altercation" and is not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article - especially a BLP. I hope this isn't an attempt at WP:SYNTH by trying to tie this "possible altercation" to the bathtub incident. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an active police investigation. Whether "possible" or confirmed is irrelevant, IMO. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is sufficiently verified to include. TMZ seems like a very shaky source. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, it appears they would rather be sensational than right. If it gets reported by a mainstream source (not citing TMZ as their source), then we can add it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related. TMZ isn't a notable nor reliable news organization. If it's re-added with any personal information, such as any identifiable individuals, the user will be blocked and the content deleted from record. Thanks :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"TMZ - has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not policy or even a guideline. seicer | talk | contribs 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or guideline against using TMZ? I'd love to see it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:RS. Bar none, TMZ is not a reliable source. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up on that respective talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 04:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ is not mentioned within your Wikilink. Period. If you have a problem with that, and with all due respect, perhaps we need to discuss with other sysops why you are not acting like a sysop ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As is every other non-notable or unreliable source; the list would be indefinite. But we are done here. If you persist in edit warring, then you will be blocked. Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 04:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an outsider: This is a BLP; the TMZ source not only accuses someone of trying to kill her, they also accuse him of trying to cover it up as well as naming him. The title of their page is "Celebrity Gossip", and the whole basis of their article appears to be the person who found her lying in the tub. This is frankly a nobrainer, and we shouldn't use the TMZ source. If other agencies decide to publish a story claiming the same, we have to consider it source-by-source. If the material is re-introduced into the article as-is, the user doing it risks being blocked or having the article protected as per the BLP policy. Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Details/wording of inheritance

There may be some reasonable point to the details people are trying to add to the article, but they should not come from WP:PRIMARY sources like Whitney's will. They should come from reliable secondary sources which cite the facts of her will. We aren't lawyers; we have no place interpreting Whitney's will in WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, in my opinion. Thank you. If it hasn't been detailed in reliable news sources (yet?), don't add it. If you want to add it, find a reliable secondary source which details it. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who added the information, I apologize, as I am new to editing Wikipedia pages. I didn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. In fact, as a newbie to this, I would have thought primary sources were BETTER than secondary sources.

I'd like to add here that when I first edited the page, I made two edits. One was to correct a false statement in the lede, that Bobbi Kristina had inherited Whitney Houston's estate upon Whitney Houston's death. IIRC this statement was not supported by a link to any source, and from my own research on-line, was factually inaccurate. I also added details of the terms of Bobbi Kristina's trust with this edit, specifically the schedule by which she WOULD inherit all of Whitney's estate by age 30. This is something which is very much of interest to people, and the media is abuzz with speculation about it, so I thought it would be of interest to any visitor to BKB's page, not to mention, she is a noteworthy person primarily because of her association with Whitney Houston, and people are interested in what happened (and will happen) to Whitney Houston's money in the event of BKB's death. My other edit was to to delete two words from a mention of her aunt-in-law Marion "Pat" Houston getting a restraining order against Nick Gordon. I removed the reference to Pat being an executor of Whitney's estate.

Winkelvi (sp?) reverted both of my edits with the comment that they were too long. Well obviously, when one of the edits involved DELETING two words, it wasn't "too long;" so if I may editorialize, that was sloppy commenting by Winkelvi.

As a newcomer to editing on Wikipedia, I took Winkelvi's comment not as a "DO NOT DARE EDIT THIS PAGE AGAIN" but rather as guidance as to HOW to edit. So, I added back information about Whitney's Trust, and the schedule for Bobbi K to inherit her estate, but did so in much less detail and using many fewer words. I also re-deleted the reference to Pat Houston being Whitney's executor, and added a reference linking to Whitney's will in which she named her mother her executor, thinking that if I sourced it, the edit would be OK. This was a newbie error, as I later found - I was linking to primary material. But my edits were a good faith effort to comply with Winkelvi's objections while improving the page.

Winkelvi immediately reverted both of my edits again and reported me for edit warring. When I went to his (her?) talk page to discuss this, the game of "whack-a-mole" continued because Winkelvi now had NEW reasons why my edits were not appropriate, such as "it does not help the reader better understand the subject matter" and "it doesn't have encyclopedic nature."

I see from Winkelvi's edit wars with other more experienced Wikipedia editors, that "not encyclopedic" is one of Winkelvi's favorite reasons for reverting other people's changes.

Well, perhaps being new to Wikipedia, I don't understand this term but I would argue that BKB's page is FULL of questionable gossip and rumors (albeit "reliably sourced") ... and that information about her inheritance *does* belong on her page. I have since learned by reading this talk page and doing some reading on Wikipedia in general, that if I want to add this information I have to find a more acceptable source that Whitney Houston's actual will ... so I'll try to do that, and add it when the ban is lifted.

As for Marion "Pat" Houston being Whitney's executor - that was my bad. I did some more research on-line and found that in fact she IS Whitney's executor. Apparently when Whitney's will was probated in Georgia a few weeks after she died, her mom Cissy Houston - who was named as executor in Whitney's will - declined to serve and Pat Houston was appointed executor by the probate court down there. Additionally, Whitney had named her brother Michael and his wife Donna as trustees of BKB's trust ... Michael declined to serve and, not sure what happened with Donna but it appears that Cissy and Pat became co-trustees. So ... one of my edits was incorrectly sourced and the other was incorrect - call it a learning curve for a new editor, and kudos to you all for catching it. But I have to say, Winkelvi was NOT helpful in this process with cryptic edits and escalating to reporting me for attempting to comply with his/her ambiguous comments. 2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:3140:69B2:C415:921C (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Hannah[reply]

Hello IP, and welcome to Wikipedia. In the future, please indent (every paragraph of) your talk page posts using the correct number of colons to properly nest your reply under the post it is in response to (check in preview mode before you Save). I have done that for you above. Also, please keep your posts focused on content and on Wikipedia policy, rather than on other editors or their behavior. Please also keep your posts brief and to the point -- I'm afraid yours is too long for most anyone to have the patience to fully read. It's generally best to create a new section on the Talk page about every specific item you want to discuss, rather than lump several things into one thread. Lastly, if you would like us to call you Hannah, why don't you create an account, which would give you a lot more abilities and tools and wiki support? Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Softlavender, I will heed your advice. Am debating whether to create an account, since I can see editing on Wikipedia could grow to be yet another hobby <=> time sink! 107.223.10.220 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Hannah[reply]

Regarding your editor-focused comments, "Hannah" (or User:107.223.10.220/User:2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:3140:69B2:C415:921C):

Winkelvi (sp?) reverted both of my edits with the comment that they were too long. No, I said that the content added was too much detail. And it was.
I took Winkelvi's comment not as a "DO NOT DARE EDIT THIS PAGE AGAIN" You may have taken it that way, but that's not what I wrote and it's not what I said. It was your choice to take my words as you did. We have a thing here at Wikipedia called "assume good faith. You will be happier here if you operate in that vein.
This was a newbie error, as I later found - I was linking to primary material. But my edits were a good faith effort to comply with Winkelvi's objections while improving the page. That wasn't the only "newbie error" you made. You were also edit warring. After being warned not to do so.
Winkelvi immediately reverted both of my edits again and reported me for edit warring. No, not immediately. After some thought. It was obvious that because you were ignoring not only the edit summaries stating you shouldn't edit war as well as the edit warring warnings placed on your talk page that you felt you didn't have to comply with policy. I reported you so you would stop edit warring and violating policy in the way of sourcing, reverting, and the Manual of Style.
Winkelvi now had NEW reasons why my edits were not appropriate, such as it does not help the reader better understand the subject matter" and "it doesn't have encyclopedic nature." That's correct. Both of which are part of Wikipedia policy. If you had taken the time to look into how to edit by reading up on policy why we do things the way we do here, you would know that both of what you quoted me on above are basics for Wikipedia articles.
I see from Winkelvi's edit wars with other more experienced Wikipedia editors, that "not encyclopedic" is one of Winkelvi's favorite reasons for reverting other people's changes. That's because content in Wikipedia articles has to be encyclopedic. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Duh.
I would argue that BKB's page is FULL of questionable gossip and rumors. You could argue it, but you'd be completely wrong. The article used to be full of questionable gossip and rumors. Not any longer. Everything is reliably referenced with secondary sources.
information about her inheritance *does* belong on her page. And it's there. But not in the form of undue weight. Which is where the laundry list of what Brown received when and how much went after your edits to that part of the article. I know you will likely get upset that I've been blunt about it, but honestly, specific percentages about her inheritance are for fan sites and the tabloids, not an encyclopedia. Whatever minimal fame she has is because she's the daughter of Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown, not because of what she's inheriting (in spite of the what the infobox in the article states).
I did some more research on-line and found that in fact she IS Whitney's executor. And yet, you edit warred over it and left rude edit summaries in regard to it. I'm glad you finally realized your mistake, but the edit warring you were doing over information you had wrong is the kind of disruption that we shouldn't have to put up with and it's not the kind of disruption anyone should take part in. Including me, including you, including anyone here.
But I have to say, Winkelvi was NOT helpful in this process with cryptic edits and escalating to reporting me for attempting to comply with his/her ambiguous comments. Ignoring edit summaries, not taking part in talk page discussion as suggested, and ignoring the edit warring warnings placed on your talk page was not helpful. It was disruptive.

I think I can speak for every regular editor at this article that you are more than welcome to help improve this article. Edit warring, disruption, stubborn reverting because you haven't looked at sources as well insistence on the article containing items and detail that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia -- none of those things are "welcome". Reading Wikipedia policy, standards, and the like before pushing ahead is a good start for all newcomers. Listening to what editors who have more than a few edits and years under their belts doesn't hurt, either. When the article protection is lifted, please be sure to come back and help out. No one wants you to stop editing. But, if you pay attention to the things I've pointed out above, it will all help make your experience here better and you to be happy editing. We've all made mistakes when we started here, some of us (including myself) make mistakes still. It's part of the "process". You're not alone in those mistakes.

One more thing: registering and getting an account here will help in you and your edits being taken more seriously. I highly recommend it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cesarean section

WV, I would actually posit that it's you that's doing the edit warring. For what reason do you keep removing the Cesarean section comment and reference? Houston was one of the biggest stars in the States, and Bobbi Kristina is getting tons of coverage at the moment. I don't see how including details is a bad thing. --Kbabej (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content is trivia, fan fluff, not encyclopedic, and doesn't help a reader better understand the article subject. That's why it's being removed. Just because something's referenced, that doesn't mean it merits inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post on my talk page, ✉, when I opened a discussion to discuss the information here. You seem to have a focus on removing information from this article that a number of other editors have added. I think it's best when multiple people work on a page, not one person trying to strip it. That's how you are coming across. --Kbabej (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit warring all day, a warning is appropriate. Like I said above, just because something is verified and referenced by a reliable source, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. The article already has been suffering enough from fan fluff and flotsam, no reason to allow it to continue to be polluted with such crap. And please, comment on edits, not editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding content. You've been arbitrarily removing sourced material. And, if your presumption is correct that I'm edit warring, it takes two to do that. How about taking a break from this article for a bit? --Kbabej (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You first. Anyway, that the silliness is out of the way: yes, you've been adding content, however, some of it is not encyclopedic, some of it is poorly sourced. Add content that's well written, encyclopedic in nature, and is supported by a reliable secondary source and there will be no problem with it staying in the article. Bobbi Kristina Brown's birth by Cesarean section is not encyclopedic, it's trivia, and doesn't assist the reader in better understanding the article subject. It needs to go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You first"? Ok, let's try to stay mature here. You've had issues with a few editors on this page alone; maybe taking a breather would be good. --Kbabej (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please talk about edits, not editors. And no, I'm not taking a breather from the article. Possibility of WP:OWN being in play noted, though. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk about edits, not editors, WV. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't talk about an editor, I talked about a policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you should stop this useless bickering... Focus on the content please. I do agree that we don't need to cover her every detail and meal of her life. Let's keep it encyclopedic. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EoRdE6. This is a useless Talk page subheading. If you want to discuss content, make a section title about the particular content you are referring to -- not one titled "Edit warring" or "Reverts" or etc. Keep the focus on the content, not on other editors or their behavior. If you need to take an editor to AN3, keep that discussion off of this page. If someone wants an opinion about Caesarian section birth, no, we never put that in any biography, as it's medical trivia. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPG regarding section headers ("Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.") as well as Softlavender's own comments above, I have changed the header of this section to "Cesarean section", since that is the content being referenced in the first comments of the section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding in agreement that the information is too trivial. Pinging @Dr. Blofeld:, who has experience with BLP articles similar to this one and could possibly help keep an eye on the article given all of the trivial information that's been added recently. G loss 04:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Because there has been so much edit warring and insertion of unverified information, I have fully-protected the article for a brief period. I will extend it for additional brief periods as needed. If I don't get to it in time, any other admin please do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind about the term of full protection. I thought we could let it expire now and then, to allow for the addition of any news. But looking again at the rumor-frenzy that was underway on this page - all of it with BLP implications - I don't think that will be possible. If we allow even a brief reduction to semi-protection, the people trying to add verified news will once again get swamped by the rumor-mongers. So I am going to extend full protection for a while, perhaps a week. I will ask for additional admin eyes on this page. When there is actual news, two or three of the regular page-watchers should agree here on the talk page about wording and sourcing; then I or another admin will add it to the page. When/as/if there is official word of her death, admins can do the necessary tidying up (dates, past tense, etc.). --MelanieN (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good summation of what we know/don't know about her current medical incident from CNN. I think the full protection is warranted, and there isn't much more that needs to be added at this point (except perhaps her unexplained injuries, but that's a different can of worms). --Kbabej (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unexplained" in regard to her injuries says it all from a Wikipedia policy standpoint: there's nothing to add because we don't add content about speculation and rumor and the unknown in BLPs. Gordon says the bruises on her chest are from when he did CPR on her, and that very well could be. The investigation could very well turn up nothing criminal, therefore, nothing to add. See below for discussion about the investigation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said "another can of worms". ;) There isn't a mention of injuries whatsoever on the page, which is the only thing from the article that isn't on there. I was just pointed to a reliable source being a good summation so far. --Kbabej (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - things are quiet at the moment, but if some kind of (real) news breaks it could require a rapid response here. If something happens that requires editing, please post it here with reference(s), and then ping me and Valfontis. I'll also see if I can find an on-call admin in a different time zone. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal matter?

This looks fairly well confirmed but I want to see if there is consensus to add it, at the end of the "hospitalization" section:

Roswell police confirmed on Feb. 10 that they are treating her case as a criminal investigation.^[1]

^ Brooks, Karen (February 10, 2015). "Police treat Bobbi Kristina Brown case as criminal investigation". Reuters. Retrieved 11 February 2015.

I know that Reuters doesn't always get things right, but a direct quote from an email from the police chief seems pretty solid. Opinions? --MelanieN (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should tread lightly with this. An investigation isn't proof of anything, just that police are looking into something. It could turn out to be nothing. If it becomes something and someone is charged, then we could add something into the article. But for now, an investigation is not encyclopedic, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we put it I think we should avoid the word "criminal" at present. Probably can just wait until there is an announcement of a substantive finding by the police. After all, an investigation is standard when someone (especially a celebrity) dies in unusual circumstances. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we avoid the word "criminal" there there is no substance to this sentence and nothing to add. So I guess the feeling is not to add it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off Ventilator

I can't be damned to add anything because I'll probably start a dispute but she in the (conflicted) news again. Heres some links:

CNN
NBC (Not reliable sounding)
Yahoo!
Tons more out there if you can be bother to look.

Not sure if we should wait at little bit for some more confirmation though... All up to you guys I'm off for the night! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: pinged me to help keep an eye on this. It looks like Brown's medical condition is not changed, and the Yahoo link is a bit garbagey as regards to what this development means. I'd wait to add the info. We don't need a play-by-play. Valfontis (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I thought, just wanted to put it here before someone else decided to add it without asking... Also considering I was the one who contacted MelanieN in the first place to stop the others edit war there is no need to ping her back into this. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this closely to see if it needs protection again, and if so what type. So far there have been two inappropriate edits by IPs. One more and I will reinstate semiprotection. I don't yet see a need for full protection but we'll see how it goes; we did need full protection a week ago because many of the inappropriate edits and rumor-mongering were coming from autoconfirmed users. Any other admin, feel free to take necessary action in case I have not responded. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, "off ventilator" is a misreading of the sources. According to CNN they removed her (oral) breathing tube and replaced it with a tracheal tube, through which they are now ventilating her. Also according to CNN this is "standard procedure" when it looks like ventilation will be needed long term. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the semiprotection, Valfontis. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Phil broadcast

I replaced the future-tense item - "Dr. Phil will televise" - with a past tense item. I'd like opinions as to whether that sentence has any place in the article at all. It doesn't seem to add any information about her to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought it doesn't belong, MelanieN, and said so from the get-go, but was shot down. The whole thing is more about the guy Brown referred to as her husband before her hospitalization, not her. As well, it's tabloid-ish and trivia as well as undue, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there was some expectation that the interview might provide some information about her. However, it didn't. I'll delete it. If somebody wants it restored, let them explain why - and how it is related to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I meant to delete it and instead reverted my edit. Thanks for deleting it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Lol It happens :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bobby Brown Tells Concert Fans Bobbi Kristina Is Awake

Says she's awake, off life support and no longer at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent death

So as to not appear to be in an edit-war, I include this opening graf from the template page:

This template warns our readers that the information presented in the article may not be final due to missing/unpublished/uncertain information about a recently deceased person, and that readers should therefore be cautious about the content presented. This is generally true for all of our articles, but in cases of extraordinary public attention that risk is especially high. As such, it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again. Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the template's purpose.

This article does not show nearly this level of activity/involvement, and there is nothing "missing/unpublished/uncertain" about its data. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage  01:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date wrong for bathtub incident.

Date wrong for bathtub incident. Should be Dec 31 2014 not 2015 (you are a bit futuristic!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.149.50 (talk • contribs)

Both instances within article have the actual date, 31 January 2015, as sourced. That said, current source gives the Saturday prior to the article date rather than the actual date, forcing a SYNTH of sorts; I'll correct that presently. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "death dagger"

For the time being, I've removed the "death dagger" (added here) under the principle that Wikipedia is neither genealogy nor manuscript. I've begun a discussion here. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage  00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Now, I'm not suggesting this page be deleted, nor nominated for deletion, of course not, but can we just try to summarise what makes this individual notable on her own, i.e. without being related to her mother? Is it simply the nature of her death? I've read the article several times and I can't see anything that would make her notable in her own right other than the nature of her death and its similarity to her mother's. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bobbi Kristina Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Brooks, Karen (February 10, 2015). "Police treat Bobbi Kristina Brown case as criminal investigation". Reuters. Retrieved 11 February 2015.

[1]