Talk:Marcia Wallace/Archives/2013

ITN

This article has been nominated for a Recent Death listing in ITN on the front page. Editors can comment on the nomination here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD_Marcia_Wallace and if you feel you contributed significantly you can add your name as an updater by editting the nomination template. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Death

At this point (5:00am PST) the only evidence for her death is a tweet. No news sources have confirmed at this point, so we don't know the date, time or cause. I think it's sensible to refrain from updating anything until at least a few news sources are able to collaborate. Word from her agent would be even better. Haku8645 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The official Twitter of Yeardley Smith confirms her death -- https://twitter.com/YeardleySmith 173.18.34.11 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

TMZ are now reporting her death. --Dorsal Axe 15:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're both right, I just saw the TMZ article as well, and I see that someone has updated the page already so I won't be rolling that edit back. RIP Marcia Wallace - we all just lost a teacher. Haku8645 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Deadline is also reporting her death. http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/r-i-p-marcia-wallace/# --67.9.75.210 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing meaningful to contribute, and the last thing I wish to do is to spam Wiki, but she will be sorely missed. Rest in peace, Marcia. You were and still are one of the brightest actresses out there. 109.66.217.7 (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture Caption

I added a year to the caption of Marcia's picture, which I calculated from the first Emmy Awards being in 1949. Thus, the year could be wrong. The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand quite what you're saying but she was born in 1942. What type of calculation are you referring to?? Quis separabit? 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 (seven days shy of her 71st birthday) due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death, however Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace "passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing." So which is right. The reflinks cited (as I indicated on the article's edit summary for my last edit), either indicate that the cause is "not clear" (see [1]) or support Cathryn Michon (see [2]). This insidetv.ew.com obituary simply says she died at age 70. Quis separabit? 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC) WE SHOULD DESIST from making any more unilateral changes without knowing for sure. There is no sin in saying that something remains unclear or is disputed. Quis separabit? 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC) For all it's worth, just for the sake of interest, my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial and that her friend is likely far more objective and accurate. That's just supposition on my part. Also, would The Simpsons have needed to announce (at least two weeks ago, if not longer) that a well-known character was being written out of the show if what Wallace had was pneumonia, not a recurrence of breast cancer. Not to understate how deadly pneumonia can be but it's usually not the kind of disease (i.e. like cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease or Alzheimer's) that can be forseen well enough to know that the person who has it is no longer going to be able to come to work. Do we even know if she died at home or in a hospital? Again I'm sure I'm not 100% right in all the above, but not necessarily 100% wrong, either. Quis separabit? 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC) This repeated edit diff adding claims about the statements of living people is unsupported in the refs and amounts to edit warring. I have warned the editor, who is already aware of the above comments. If it's repeated it will go to BLP and AN3 for blocking. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I have already contacted WP:ANI about User:Medeis, to wit: For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death. This editor publicly accused me, without even attempting to contact me, of: Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre) Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!) Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!) First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were not true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed an dhad no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death. Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for. This is the text in question: On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death; however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace "passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing". Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text: "editor has expressed OR on talk [page]" -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages?? This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis merits a block, in my humble opinion. Quis separabit? 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC) =================VINDICATION FOR RMS (see [3])================= first of all this is a bit disruptive. Please do not discuss editors on the article talk page. Also, your links are not straight forward and you made a mistake above where you state you began an AN/ report and then above leave a cryptic message with a link. To be clear, you began an AN report here. The only reason I mention this is that editors can locate the report made if they wish to weigh in.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC) With all due respect if the editor in question begins by attacking me, making outlandish and bizarre charges on one of this talk page's edit summaries, I believe I have the right to defend myself. But I want to move on. Quis separabit? 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC) The report above, pasted into both AN3 and AN, was closed in each case. This matter has nothing to do with the article itself, and is hence inappropriate to this talk page, as Mark Miller suggests. Hence I am closing it. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Stage career

I added a reference to her stage career that may contain more details about her other work and quotes that may be relevant. See The Day 1983. Seems like there may be some good stuff to use from that reference. I just added that her musical stage debut was in Gypsy at Sac Music Circus, her biography should also mention that Promises, Promises was the same company the following year.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

willowy

The adjective "willowy" has been added to the lead, but apparently no source describes her in this manner. We might be better off just describing her as tall, which is widely commented upon. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude. I can find nothing anywhere.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

marciawallace.com

This seems off line, and it is the source for 7 claims in the article. I wonder if her autobiography might support them? μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The book is"Don't Look Back, We're Not Going That Way". I need to make a trip to the local library for some other sources I need (and have been putting off too long for a GA review) so I will look to see if that one can be ordered as well (I just order them to come to my local library so I don't have to travel far). It may take about a week to get it if I order tomorrow.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on including or excluding information from family and friends on death of subject

I propose and herein open a discussion regarding the removal of the comments made by Marcia Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, that his mother was cancer-free at the time of her death from apparently pneumonia, and the sources which state she died of complications of breast cancer. I had mentioned on this very talk page (above) that perhaps her son was in denial and that her friend's comments seemed more likely however I was forced to engage in a debate at AN since another editor (who shall remain nameless) accused me of perpetrating OR by positing unsourced opinions on this talk page. An admin delved into this age-old conundrum before, with the wisdom of Solomon, he asserted that talk pages are not subject to NOR. Praise the Lord.

Now however the same editor (who will remain nameless) has removed wholesale the comments by Wallace's son, asserting that they are unimportant, irrelevant, etc. More recently this nameless editor suggested that the son's words may carry undue weight. So, my fellow Wikipedians, please leave your thoughts regarding the removal of Wallace's son's comments, widely publicized as they were, and I will abide by whatever consensus emerges. Should Michael Hawley's comments stay or not? I believe this form of dispute resolution is preferable to WP:DR as this will not impose an additional burden on the already overburdened staffers who handle dispute resolutions. Quis separabit? 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please leave your comments below:

I have to disagree with removal. Comments of this sort from family will be unnecessary once/if an official medical opinion be issued (e.g. autopsy), but until/unless such an opinion is announced, they're the best we can get. It's often inappropriate to cite a non-medical person for cause of death, but family members are an exception: "her family says she died of ___" is pretty much always appropriate when there's nothing more authoritative. Since Cathryn Michon is a friend of the family but apparently not medically trained, we really shouldn't assume that she's right and the son's wrong: WP:NPOV demands that we include multiple perspectives when they're of generally equal weight. Excluding one perspective is basically only correct when it's both blatantly wrong and not particularly significant (e.g. moon-landing hoaxers aren't given much weight in the Neil Armstrong article), and the only way that would happen is if the family members would disagree with medical findings without the disagreement becoming a big deal. Finally, note that Rms125 asked me to participate here, since I've already given input elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are multiple RS we can use it. If not...no.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

" No, why multiple sources?? Isn't one source enough? Quis separabit? 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We do realize that the son has not given a cause of death according to the attributed source, and that death due to pneumonia is not referenced, while death due to complications of cancer is referenced by many sources? The pneumonia sentence should be confirmed from a professional, or removed.

Rms125a's reversion restored the unreferenced cause of pneumonia, and restored the son's assertion she was cancer free--it did not restore any cause of death attributed to the son. As Mark Miller has commented on the latest of Rms125a' AN's, treating the son's unprofessional statement one the day of his mother's death is insensitive to the family, and as I have repeated, undue weight. We don't need to be guessing at this point, especially not on the basis of our belief the son is in denial. This violates undue weight, it violates WP:BLP as it makes the son look bad according to the editor adding the comment, it violates fringe, it violates WP:BLP1E, if violates WP:NPF. Given the reason Nyttend suggests for keeping the son's comment doesn't apply, mention of the son should be removed. Her friend's comment should mention only her cancer activism as well, not the cause of death.

Finally, Rms125a reverted my string of edits, restoring a clarification needed tag re Wallace's cancer activism in the lead. The matter is addressed fully in her personal life section, and no further explanation in the lead is necessary justifying such a tag. The tag should be removed, with a hidden comment pointing to the personal life section. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

μηδείς is talking nonsense as usual since the sourced text I restored simply stated that her son "claimed" while her friend "stated" to indicate the remaining uncertainty and dichotomy. Unless we see Wallace's birth certificate we are never going to know for sure. The claim that "I restored the unreferenced cause of pneumonia" is nonsense. I deleted it as unproven and challenged by the son's claims. If Medeis really believes what he says then there should be no mention (text, metadata, infobox, anywhere) of ANY cause of death, because unless we see Wallace's death certificate we are never going to know for sure. Quis separabit? 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude if you do not have reliable sources. If you have a source for this claim, please post it here for us to examine. The problem seems clear to me...if, as the OP states such OR is allowed on talk pages (which it is and I have said this a million times...it's how we speculate and make suggestions) then it will be OR on the article itself. No source, no claim of this sort. BLP is clear on this. Also...if you have only a single source...still no. Such claims on BLParticles require multiple sourcing. I don't have an issue mentioning what the son stated if properly sourced with multiple RS. If not...exclude...period.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here is one source so far...[4].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And in further looking it appears that THAT single article is being used to update her cause of death in other articles (citing the LA Times. Any reference that simply cites the LA times claim is not acceptable as a secondary source. Same thing with the Deadline Hollywood source that seems to quote Cathryn Michon. --Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The prevailing information is that she died of complications to cancer. We need to see two separate and clearly original RS stating she died of complications to pneumonia to include the information.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I never claimed Wallace died of pneumonia nor, I think, did her son. He simply stated, unless I am mistaken, that she was cancer-free at the time of her death, as opposed to Cathryn Michon's claims. I removed references to deaths from pneumonia as well as Category:Deaths from pneumonia. If her son claims she died of pneumonia he may be right but that would need to be sourced also. All of this nonsense is because of Medeis insists on having his own way all the time. Quis separabit? 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In sum, we should simply recited verbatim what cause of death reliable news outlets have reported. If they don't list one, neither should we. Quis separabit? 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First..please do not continue a war against another editor on my talk page. Second, we do NOT ever recite verbatim what what a source says unless it is clearly in the public Domain.

Our BLP policy makes it clear that any contentious claims require multiple references. This is that very sort of thing. I recommend removing all mention of a cause of death until such time that it can be referenced with reliable secondary sourcing that does not cite a single source. they must be independent of each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

References that discuss cause of death

The Chicago Tribune states: "Marcia Wallace, the star of "The Bob Newhart Show" and "œThe Simpsons," died Friday at the age of 70 from complications related to breast cancer, according to several media reports." [5]. This reference is already cited for other information.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on including or excluding information from family and friends on death of subject

I propose and herein open a discussion regarding the removal of the comments made by Marcia Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, that his mother was cancer-free at the time of her death from apparently pneumonia, and the sources which state she died of complications of breast cancer. I had mentioned on this very talk page (above) that perhaps her son was in denial and that her friend's comments seemed more likely however I was forced to engage in a debate at AN since another editor (who shall remain nameless) accused me of perpetrating OR by positing unsourced opinions on this talk page. An admin delved into this age-old conundrum before, with the wisdom of Solomon, he asserted that talk pages are not subject to NOR. Praise the Lord.

Now however the same editor (who will remain nameless) has removed wholesale the comments by Wallace's son, asserting that they are unimportant, irrelevant, etc. More recently this nameless editor suggested that the son's words may carry undue weight. So, my fellow Wikipedians, please leave your thoughts regarding the removal of Wallace's son's comments, widely publicized as they were, and I will abide by whatever consensus emerges. Should Michael Hawley's comments stay or not? I believe this form of dispute resolution is preferable to WP:DR as this will not impose an additional burden on the already overburdened staffers who handle dispute resolutions. Quis separabit? 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please leave your comments below:

I have to disagree with removal. Comments of this sort from family will be unnecessary once/if an official medical opinion be issued (e.g. autopsy), but until/unless such an opinion is announced, they're the best we can get. It's often inappropriate to cite a non-medical person for cause of death, but family members are an exception: "her family says she died of ___" is pretty much always appropriate when there's nothing more authoritative. Since Cathryn Michon is a friend of the family but apparently not medically trained, we really shouldn't assume that she's right and the son's wrong: WP:NPOV demands that we include multiple perspectives when they're of generally equal weight. Excluding one perspective is basically only correct when it's both blatantly wrong and not particularly significant (e.g. moon-landing hoaxers aren't given much weight in the Neil Armstrong article), and the only way that would happen is if the family members would disagree with medical findings without the disagreement becoming a big deal. Finally, note that Rms125 asked me to participate here, since I've already given input elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are multiple RS we can use it. If not...no.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

" No, why multiple sources?? Isn't one source enough? Quis separabit? 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We do realize that the son has not given a cause of death according to the attributed source, and that death due to pneumonia is not referenced, while death due to complications of cancer is referenced by many sources? The pneumonia sentence should be confirmed from a professional, or removed.

Rms125a's reversion restored the unreferenced cause of pneumonia, and restored the son's assertion she was cancer free--it did not restore any cause of death attributed to the son. As Mark Miller has commented on the latest of Rms125a' AN's, treating the son's unprofessional statement one the day of his mother's death is insensitive to the family, and as I have repeated, undue weight. We don't need to be guessing at this point, especially not on the basis of our belief the son is in denial. This violates undue weight, it violates WP:BLP as it makes the son look bad according to the editor adding the comment, it violates fringe, it violates WP:BLP1E, if violates WP:NPF. Given the reason Nyttend suggests for keeping the son's comment doesn't apply, mention of the son should be removed. Her friend's comment should mention only her cancer activism as well, not the cause of death.

Finally, Rms125a reverted my string of edits, restoring a clarification needed tag re Wallace's cancer activism in the lead. The matter is addressed fully in her personal life section, and no further explanation in the lead is necessary justifying such a tag. The tag should be removed, with a hidden comment pointing to the personal life section. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

μηδείς is talking nonsense as usual since the sourced text I restored simply stated that her son "claimed" while her friend "stated" to indicate the remaining uncertainty and dichotomy. Unless we see Wallace's birth certificate we are never going to know for sure. The claim that "I restored the unreferenced cause of pneumonia" is nonsense. I deleted it as unproven and challenged by the son's claims. If Medeis really believes what he says then there should be no mention (text, metadata, infobox, anywhere) of ANY cause of death, because unless we see Wallace's death certificate we are never going to know for sure. Quis separabit? 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude if you do not have reliable sources. If you have a source for this claim, please post it here for us to examine. The problem seems clear to me...if, as the OP states such OR is allowed on talk pages (which it is and I have said this a million times...it's how we speculate and make suggestions) then it will be OR on the article itself. No source, no claim of this sort. BLP is clear on this. Also...if you have only a single source...still no. Such claims on BLParticles require multiple sourcing. I don't have an issue mentioning what the son stated if properly sourced with multiple RS. If not...exclude...period.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here is one source so far...[6].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And in further looking it appears that THAT single article is being used to update her cause of death in other articles (citing the LA Times. Any reference that simply cites the LA times claim is not acceptable as a secondary source. Same thing with the Deadline Hollywood source that seems to quote Cathryn Michon. --Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The prevailing information is that she died of complications to cancer. We need to see two separate and clearly original RS stating she died of complications to pneumonia to include the information.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I never claimed Wallace died of pneumonia nor, I think, did her son. He simply stated, unless I am mistaken, that she was cancer-free at the time of her death, as opposed to Cathryn Michon's claims. I removed references to deaths from pneumonia as well as Category:Deaths from pneumonia. If her son claims she died of pneumonia he may be right but that would need to be sourced also. All of this nonsense is because of Medeis insists on having his own way all the time. Quis separabit? 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In sum, we should simply recited verbatim what cause of death reliable news outlets have reported. If they don't list one, neither should we. Quis separabit? 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First..please do not continue a war against another editor on my talk page. Second, we do NOT ever recite verbatim what what a source says unless it is clearly in the public Domain.

Our BLP policy makes it clear that any contentious claims require multiple references. This is that very sort of thing. I recommend removing all mention of a cause of death until such time that it can be referenced with reliable secondary sourcing that does not cite a single source. they must be independent of each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

References that discuss cause of death

The Chicago Tribune states: "Marcia Wallace, the star of "The Bob Newhart Show" and "œThe Simpsons," died Friday at the age of 70 from complications related to breast cancer, according to several media reports." [7]. This reference is already cited for other information.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)