Talk:Natasha Richardson/Archive 1

Fact Check

CNN, FOX News Channel, and TMZ.com confirms family is "shocked and devastated" over the tragic death of actress Natasha Richardson from injuries she sustained during a skiing accident.

Released statement: "Liam Neeson, his sons, and the entire family are shocked and devastated by the tragic death of their beloved Natasha. They are profoundly grateful for the support, love and prayers of everyone, and ask for privacy during this very difficult time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.156.112 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha has died, according to www.cnn.com God Bless Natasha and her family and those little boys. Another angel has been born. 70.160.79.17 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

She was taken to Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe and then to Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.211.127 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Richardson was taken off life support at 4.45pm EST according to CNN, and she died a little before midnight GMT.. according to several sources.. BBC, CNN, FOX..

Natasha Richardson's death is not being inputted for some reason? I've seen two edits, will look at revert history. Why? She is really dead, yo.

EsocksLAMB (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pics or it didn't happen. 208.37.156.52 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add a reliable source. I can't find anything in the news about that, only that she's in serious condition with a head injury. PatríciaR ^msg 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

http://defamer.gawker.com/5172167/natasha-richardson-reported-dead-at-45-after-skiing-accident PostHuman (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking Google News and no death reports, though there can be a lag. But, yeah. Not one labeled source means no proof and no allowing calling her dead. I'd add to what we *do* know in terms of accident details:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jay-EEHR_emw-tg1NXbgx3lwO5qgD96VTHJO0 99.249.63.153 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News claims she's cerebrally dead. 92.143.233.175 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief plz show some human decency and wait until she is formally pronounced dead before we state it on the page ok? This is just the right thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

NY Post this morning less then 20 minutes ago reported she has been taken off life support. She is dead. Check their website. 11:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.193.87 (talk)

The problem is that there are currently multiple competing reports on her condition being circulated in the press. Picking one that matches what you want to say and ignoring the rest is not a proper solution. It does no harm to wait till competing news agencies can agree on a single variation of what has happened while propagating an early but incorrect can cause significant harm to both Wikipedia and Richardson's family. --Allen3 ^talk 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to become 100% official until they make a statement later today. There's definitely no point jumping the gun beforehand. Some people's eagerness to confirm her death is morbid. Gunstar hero (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, there's just no need for an encyclopedia to have the latest info the second it happens. Wikipedia's strength is in part because it's quickly updated, but there's simply no reason why people can't wait a few hours to get clear and well sourced information before rushing ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.95.132 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If she died in NYC, she died 18 March 2009 Nion552 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

Ok magazine says she is dead, her family took her off life support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.241.168 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As unsourced death rumors still continue through the semi-protection, I have fully-protected this page for three days. If she has died please find a reliable source to back it up. I suspect that this page will require semi-protection after the full-protection has expired or is lifted; any admin may lift the protection. Thank you. Acalamari 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I should've sourced it and read further. She is being listed as brain-dead and being treated as dead by the family. Source: http://www3.timeoutny.com/newyork/upstaged/2009/03/natasha-richardson-is-brain-dead/ Pejorative.majeure (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeoutny amended the post[2]. In any case I think its better to wait until multiple sources say the same thing, there is no rush. —StaticVision (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Natasha Richardson reportedly brain dead Actress Natasha Richardson is said to be brain dead after a ski accident in Mont Tremblant in Quebec, friends have told The New York Post. Tune into 680News for the very latest on this story, or visit 680news.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.3 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet rumours of Richardson's death were untrue said a family spokesperson. Gran² 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The resort says that she didn't hit her head but fell while having a beginner's lesson, began experiencing a headache later and was taken to hospital. See here http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/movies/2009/03/17/8781331.html. Kitchawan (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

CTV is reporting she was put on a private jet and flown -- "probably to NYC" -- to another hospital. Perhaps a specialist at a hospital to treat a possible brain injury? http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/17/natasha-richardson-flown-to-new-hospital/ The main accident article is severely lacking. No mention that she was acting "normal" after the accident but a bit after complained of headaches and was taken to a hospital. There's more than half a dozen sources verifying this. Macshill (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NY Times: [3] She acted normally, then began having headaches, whereupon she went to the hospital. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NY Post: "Brain dead" ---> http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172009/news/worldnews/natasha_richardson_is_brain_dead_160027.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bountyhunter1.0 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News Channel is also confirming that she is brain dead and is currently being transported to New York City where she will be taken off life support. Therefore it is my opinion that the protection be removed and confirmable information be added as warrants. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would they transfer her if she is so badly ill? Is it to do with inheritence laws regarding place of death? And why is everyone saying she is Liam Neesons wife, when Liam is hardly known and she is Vanessa Redgrave's daughter? Surely that is her main claim to fame. Anyway, lets hope and pray she does not go the same way as Ulrike Maier, Sonny Bono and John Denver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.70.50 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw a news story this morning about her being brain dead, didn't recognize her name, and came here to see who she is. Sorry, but I've seen lots of movies that star her husband and recognize the names of her ex-husband, and know who her mother is, but I don't think I've seen any of her movies. --Vrmlguy (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer the person above's question... I don't know, but they wouldn't allow a patient w/ head trauma to fly on a private jet to wherever she's going unless it was to take her off life support at the chosen death location or flying her body back to wherever she will be buried. Macshill (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

SHE PASSED AWAY THIS EVENING —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaly (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clinically Dead

It has been Confirmned that the plug was pulled Natasha Richardson is no longer on Life Support.(Vanhalenjump (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

OK Magazine reports that she has died, her family decided to take her off life support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyworldnow (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New York Post reports on life support en route to Manhattan: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172009/news/worldnews/natasha_richardson_is_brain_dead_160027.htm

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Cyberpresse she is "brain dead" and left Canada for, what is NOT CONFIRMED, a New York hospital.

http://moncinema.cyberpresse.ca/nouvelles-et-critiques/nouvelles/nouvelle-cinema/7866-Natasha-Richardson-cliniquement-morte.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roc 1981 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This says reports of her death are incorrect. I don't know either way, like everyone else here, but while there are reports out there saying that her family have denied the claims, it should stay out of the article (which I see is fully protected so it will stay out for now). I've seen various articles claiming Natasha is dead or brain dead, but most seem to quote the same source so it's not reliable enough at this point to actually say anything for sure. Sky83 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, Sky83. Perhaps she is and they're preparing funeral arrangements and getting other various ducks in order (contacting the entire families and associates, friends, etc.) before the announcement. So it could be a quasi-shot in the dark "lucky guess" on part of some in the press. Macshill (talk)

There is a report on TMZ that claims the hospital have said she is not brain dead. I think while that kind of information is out there with the reports claiming Natasha has died or is brain dead, all speculation must stay out of the main article and the protection is certainly warranted at this time. Sky83 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

She is dead. CNN just reported she is brain dead and is being taken off life support.69.142.18.63 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/natasha-richardson/news/104964-natasha-richardson-dead Add MTV UK to the list that has her dead. Macshill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

The MTV UK article is using that "Time Out NY" piece as the source, not independantly verifying.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Both CNN and MTV are reporting rumours though, neither have statements from a spokesperson. Until an official statement is given from Natasha's family, it probably has to stay out. Sky83 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FOXNEWS is confirming that she is being taken off lifesupport

Bold textShe's dead please update it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509477,00.html

They are not confirming it, they are rehashing the rumour. Sky83 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PerezHilton picked up the CBC story saying the family isn't talking until tomorrow. http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-17-official-word-coming-soon I fear that means she's gone and the formal announcement comes out then. Macshill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

Macshill (talk) We don't need such vulgarity here, please. We're adults. Let's act like it.

Just heard on the Sheppard Smith Show on Fox News that Natasha's family has confirmed that she's been declared clinically brain dead and will take her off life-support tomorrow. I hope he's wrong but that's what was reported on the show. Dionyseus (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's not confirmed, it's still news. Can't the page be unlocked to report that. What happened to Wikipedia where evolving news was reported as it unfolded without pages locked? --Crunch (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be blurb stating that she suffered a serious head injury in a skiing accident. At least that much could be added to the article. Even the speculation that she is clinicly dead is verifiable at this point (note emphasis). Argel1200 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the article has been updated. Thanks admins! Argel1200 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry King Live's CNN headline right this moment still says "seriously injured", not dead yet. John Darrow (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about Wikipedia and being up to date, but the reason I fully protected this page earlier was because, at the time, nothing was confirmed, and us reporting that someone has died when in fact there's no confirmation of that information would not be a good thing. Any admin may unprotect this article before the expiry time if they see it necessary to. Thanks. Acalamari 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC says "Internet rumours of Richardson's death were untrue, said a family spokesperson." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7947826.stm --BignBad (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox News they had a neurosurgeon on and he says he's very surprised by the report that she is clinically brain dead and he doubts the report. Greta said she's not so certain about the report herself. Dionyseus (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, we need to keep in mind that, as has been said numerous times above, the rumor of brain death is likely just that- a rumor. Speaking from experience, dealing with just the "family and friends" grapevine down which updates of planned medical procedures travels is incredibly frustrating. It's a massive telephone game in which one family member hears a bit of medical information, to which is appended the family member's own interpretation of the medical information given them. As everyone within Richardson's family is likely confused and extremely anxious about this event, the possibility of misinterpreting that sort of medical information grows all the time. In short, we should continue to discount the rumors of brain death, no matter which source reports them, until such a time that either the family makes a statement or it's evident that a reliable source is doing more than reporting the rumor printed in another work. I will say however that when the time comes, it may be worthwhile mentioning that there was a rumor of brain death started shortly after the accident. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely factual at this point that she was flown to NYC, after being transferred from the Canadian hospital. She is now in a NYC hospital. where both her mother and sister visited her. Can someone please add this one thing in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplemines (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is not a valid source of anything. 24.29.219.27 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for innuendo, rumors, and baldface lies. Safety Cap (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget car chases. Its car chase coverage is second to none. Gunstar hero (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless a news source is something better than a rumor mill, we have nothing new to discuss here. I'm marking this section as archive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Where are the rumors coming from? How far back can we trace the rumors? It may be notable to display who told who what, or how the rumors of Natasha's brain death began. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha's Accident

A source at the ski resort where Natasha was staying tells ET that the actress, who is the wife of actor Liam Neeson and daughter of actress Vanessa Redgrave, was taking a private ski lesson on a beginner slope. The actress fell down near the bottom, at which point the ski instructor called ski patrol. As of that time, there was no apparent injury and Natasha said she was fine.

The ski instructor accompanied Natasha back to her hotel room, where she later began complaining of headaches and saying she wasn't feeling well.

At that point, the hotel called 911. The actress was conscious between her fall and the time she left the hotel, and a police spokesperson tells ET that she continued to maintain consciousness on the ambulance ride to the hospital.

Originally Natasha was taken to a hospital near the resort, but was later transferred to a hospital in Montreal. Most people say that she might be brain dead from the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.130.114 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.accesshollywood.com/how-the-media-is-covering-the-natasha-richardson-breaking-news_article_15692 Access Hollywood have a good overview of the media coverage so far. 121.73.45.7 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha is dead. People Magazine and other major entertainment news sources have all reported it. There has been no "official announcement," but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the People article... while it's not an official confirmation that she's brain dead, People counts as an reliable source. I think we can say that a family friend reported to the news media that Richardson was brain dead. Though, then again, from what the People article says, it might just be a reprint of the same inaccurate information. Well, it's not crucial that we update the article immediately. That's what Wikinews is for, after all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian news

Italy's RAI Uno and Canale 5 both have definitely stated that she is dead. I'm sorry to hear it, however the article does need to be changed to show this sad but true fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that a number of media sources have reported her death, but that other media outlets are at the same time reporting the death claims are false. --Allen3 ^talk 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Here in Italy, they reported her death early this morning. Perhaps we should wait at least another 24 hours before updating the article, which by that time the true facts should have emerged. Reporting a person's death is always such a delicate, sensitive business. One cannot be too pre-emptive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In NY

The BBC is reporting that she is in NY's Lenox Hill hospital[4] Can this be added please as it's a reputable source? 86.147.162.82 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks decent. If there's no objection, the last paragraph of the personal life section should have the following wikicode appended:

Richardson was flown by private jet to [[Lenox Hill Hospital]] in [[Manhattan]] and visited by her sons and mother.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7949810.stm|title=Richardson's family at hospital|date=2009-03-18|publisher=[[BBC News]]|accessdate=2009-03-18}}</ref>

I know I protected it, but yes, that addition is fine so I've added it. As I said above, any admin may lift the protection before the expiry, and anyone can request unprotection at requests for page protection should they see it necessary to. Thanks. Acalamari 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough w/ this protection crap. It was fine when she was incorrectly declared death, but now I think someone's just living in denial here. This article is pathetically out of date. So much has happened that warrants inclusion. Dozens upon dozens articles (newspapers, magazines, celeb gossip websites) saying she's almost guaranteed brain dead and will be taken off life support soon. Someone's either in denial here or powertripping. 99.249.54.111 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss it as "protection crap". This is an article on a real person here, regardless of health, which was why I was far quicker to protect this page. If the article ends up being a little bit out of date for some time, then it'll be worth it rather than having another "death by Wikipedia" scenario and people complaining about that. Throwing arounds terms like "protection crap" and "powertripping" is unhelpful. Acalamari 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that long ago that Wikipedia made news by prematurely declaring Ted Kennedy dead - see here for one such story. And if you want to go back further, how about when we reported Sinbad dead - one news story. Tabercil (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rapidly changing story that is uneditable

Smart. Wikipedia once again showing why it cannot be relied on. As facts change, they cannot be updated here.

Anyway...there is new news, folks. Head over to CNN.com to read it. I would update it here, but I don't know the secret handshake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.150.55 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, as is being discussed in the section above, this is an article on a real person, and Wikipedia has been criticzed in the past (and recently) for reporting deaths/injuries that are "rumored" or haven't even happened. Yes, Wikipedia can update its information quickly, but at the same time, it's not a news source or a gossip site either, and it's far more visible than those sites are. Judging by the amount of activity on this talk page, if I hadn't placed any sort of protection then someone else would have, and there's no "secret handshake" either. Acalamari 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment This appears to be a worse situation than Ted Kennedy during the Obama inauguration. Once again, while there was the predictable jumping of the gun, something serious appears to have happened to Natasha Richardson. She may well have died, but nobody knows for sure. Nonetheless, I feel that full protection is overdoing it. Proper response to this controversy should've been semiprotection, and full move protect. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my initial response was semi-protection, but autoconfirmed accounts continued to insert death rumors, hence the full-protection. That being said, I have now lowered the protection to edit=autoconfirmed move=sysop to allow updating. Acalamari 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

HERE ARE YOUR SOURCES

Well...I don't know how to update that page in its current status...I've been waiting for an hour for someone to update the article...I still see no "edit" button...So...Here's your sources...if someone who knows the magic words sees fit to do so, please update the page at your convenience....

http://www.wowowow.com/entertainment/liz-smith-natasha-richardson-life-support-lenox-hill-hospital-243237

http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2009/03/natasha_richardson_off_life_su.php

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/natasha-richardson-dead-after-taken-off-life-support_100168309.html

I will cut and paste more here as I find them.

Gotta love the user friendly and informative world of Wikipedia...information people.

64.19.150.55 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They are all still just reporting rumours. I don't believe anything about her 'death' should be placed into the article until there is an official statement. Sky83 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy, try using some legitimate news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Official statement? Those are the parameters now? Please. Media reports are considered more than adequate most of the time. You people are being ridiculous. I understand being careful...but the media reports cover you. TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I signed up for a user name now...I am the original poster above. Now let me get this straight....do you want an official statement, or legitimate sourcing? I can try to do better than Warner Bros if that company isn't established enough for you...but not sure if I can pry the family away for a statement right now... TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another, from CBS Marketwatch, running a United Press International report...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/smith-richardson-taken-off-life/story.aspx?guid=%7B25F3AA35-96E2-460A-9734-DF2E0FE44125%7D&dist=msr_2

Let me know when I have provided a good enough source so I can stop searching...thanks... TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. The point is, unless there is an official statement, it can't be said that she is definitely dead as it needs to be confirmed, and the only way it can really be confirmed is with someone releasing a statement to that effect, be that the family or the hospital. If you want to word it somehow that the situation has been reported as a fatality, but that it is unconfirmed by anyone official, that's something else, although reporting rumours is not acceptable so I don't know that there is really a good way to get that in. Bottom line: the death can only realistically go into the article once it has been confirmed, and that will almost certainly be through an official statement. Sky83 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude...just to confirm...the only people who's deaths are mentioned on wikipedia then are those whose deaths are confirmed by some sort of an official statement? Those whose deaths are widely reported in the media are not included here? Honestly...it seems there is conflicting info here, as there are others here telling me to "keep searching" for better sourcing...As much as I would like Wikipedia updated with the most current info, I dont want to waste my time searching if there is no realistic standard that can be met TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Still going...

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/gossip%20guru%20smith%20reports%20richardsons%20life%20support%20machine%20has%20been%20switched%20off_1098108

http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?Section=1&ID=21934

TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it will take a statement to confirm it. All the sources you are coming up with are re-reporting the rumours put out there by a gossip columnist. Sometimes things are reported in the media that come from different sources, but with deaths, wikipedia needs a reliable confirmation, and none of the ones already stated are reliable, and given how bloated with rumours this story has become, to confirm the death, it will be official confimation from the hospital or family that will be enough for inclusion. Hope this clears up the confusion for you, feel free to report an official statement here. Sky83 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well...that could take a while...the family may be preoccupied, and at the time of her death, she had no publicist... TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, there may not be a statement for a few days, who knows? But that doesn't mean we need to make assumptions in the meantime. There is not such a severe rush to add info that rumours and assumptions will suffice. Sky83 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.145.2 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Until an official statement is released by the family or the hospital, I have to agree that Richardson's death should not be stated as fact here. Many of the reports I'm seeing are not coming from reputable mainstream media sources anyway. She may well be brain dead, but if so, and if the family decides to shut off life support, then a statement will surely be made. That will be the time to make the necessary alterations to the article.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More sources

http://www.660news.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090318_161400_7660

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/MovieNews/2009/03/18/8797676.html

TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem currently is not the lack of sources, but the existence of multiple competing claims from ordinarily reliable sources (just perform a quick web search for news stories on Richardson to see the various claims). The problem is acute enough that there are even main stream news reports about the conflicting reports.[5] Until proven otherwise, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to this article and requires that questionably sourced material be removed. As there is currently no consensus in the news media as to Richardson's status, cherry picking a couple of news reports that support your position is not sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia's policies. --Allen3 ^talk 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Allen, I am not cherry picking...These are the most recent sources! Find me a report that has come out in the past hour that says she is still alive!!! I am providing them as I see them. Cherry picking would indicate there are stories currently being reported that indicate she is still alive. All of the new updates are confirming that she has been remove from life support. Now...to be technical...some do not fill in the blank (ie, removal of life support = dead), but I think we all know 1+1=2 TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/movies/2009/03/18/8797866.html

http://x17online.com/celebrities/natasha_richardson/report_natasha_richardson_taken_off_life_support-03182009.php

http://beat.bodoglife.com/entertainment/natasha-richardson-removed-from-life-support-16947.html

TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "according to the website TMZ.com" or "gossip columnist Liz Smith writes" are not reliable sources. You've been posted articles that say such-and-such is saying she's dead. But until something comes out where a hospital spokesperson, family spokesperson, or family member actually says it, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.

I dont understand the hurry to report a death. We will wait for CNN, NY times or Washingtonpost and similar reliable sources... --Docku: What's up? 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK...so CNN, WaPo, or NY Times would be reliable? So I DONT need an official statement? TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/news/sfl-031809-natasha-richardson-accident-rumors,0,7402274.story

http://www.hollyscoop.com/natasha-richardson/natasha-richardson-reportedly-taken-off-life-support_19642.aspx TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources confirming her death. See, the key word is confirming. --Docku: What's up? 20:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK boss...I got it...I'm working my ass off to try to find that for you...I'm doing the best I can....I am hoping that the family is able to take the time to give an official statement amidst their grieving...but like I said above, she had no publicist at the time of her death so it may be a little unrealistic to expect that any time soon TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the sources you're pasting in here, Tony. Every single one of them reference either TMZ.com or Liz Smith, a well-known gossip journalist. As their sources are unreliable, the stories are considered unreliable. All we can use the stories you're linking for is something like "On Wednesday, March 18, TMZ.com and gossip journalist Liz Smith published unconfirmed reports that Richardson had been taken off life support". Like Docku said above, unless the article says that Richardson is confirmed to have died, we cannot state that Richardson has died. Period. Read WP:BLP and WP:V if you don't understand why this is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha...like I said, I am working my ass off trying to find a source that CONFIRMS it....Hope to have it for you soon...TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck. If you're right, and Richardson's family takes a long time (like more than 12-24 hours) to put out a statement, the reputable news agencies might get confirmation through other channels and announce it that way. But otherwise, I think we're gonna be waiting until the family puts something out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry if I seemed like a jerk. I hate people that vandalize these pages as much as the next guy. I thought my info was sourced. I'll try to come up with better stuff. Just make sure you hold the next guy to as high a threshhold if someone else tries to scoop me! lolTonyTiger386 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You won't find confirmation just by searching hard for it. When an announcement is made, or official confirmation given, it will be all over the place within minutes. Sky83 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

remember that we are not news website. we dont have to worry about to be the first to report any news. --Docku: What's up? 20:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Encylcopedias shouldn't be reporting minute by minute news coverage. Matt lobster (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well bro, for what its worth she died at 1:30pm ET today....thats almost 3 1/2 hours ago...not exactly minute by minute...Its a widely known story at this point...google news her name....TonyTiger386 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Tony, you're still quoting articles that are NOT reporting her death. They are reporting that another source is reporting. That's like me saying, "Well, Tony is saying that...." It doesn't make it fact.

Furthermore -- ""Alan Nierob, a family spokesman, said on Wednesday afternoon that he had no information about Ms. Richardson's medical condition. Asked if she was on life support or had been taken off life support, of if she was brain dead or in a coma -- all of which has been reported on several media outlets over the last 24 hours -- Mr. Nierob replied: 'I don't deal with rumors. I don't care about rumors. All I care about it facts. And I don't have any facts to give you.' " http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19richardson.html?ref=us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.147.4 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He's a hell of a spokesman if he has no information...Just because this guy doesn't have the information yet doesnt mean she isnt dead. Possibly they just werent ready to comment. TonyTiger386 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that "being taken off life support" doesn't mean "dead". 121.73.45.7 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: It appears everyone is now reliably reporting that a family spokesperson has confirmed her death. Both MSNBC and CNN are reporting she has died now.--67.175.218.59 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still marked as dead

{{editprotected}}

There is still no official death announcement or confirmation via reliable sources (by our definition). Need to remove the date of death and possibly the sentence about brain death in the skiing accident section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: [6]. AP. --67.175.218.59 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed on CNN homepage. No article yet. ThomasOwens (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

| The BBC has announced that she has died it is also reported on the midnight news on Radio 4. --Lucy-marie (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

She died on 18 March not 19 March as stated on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.206.31 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC confirms

I'm not an admin, so I can't add it but here it is. WWB (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

They aren't quoting any sources yet. We really need an official announcement. Woody (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If all the media channels can report it i think wikipedia is safe to. shessh. Its been discuss on BBC News for 20 mins and people are still blocking the recent death tag being added BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I haven't been involved in one of these breaking news-type stories before. But, given her previously known condition and the BBC's reputation, seemed reliable enough to me. [adding post-edit conflict] WWB (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even so, Wikipedia is not a news service, it is not a memorial, it has no deadline. When dealing with biographies of living (and recently deceased) persons, we tend to err on the side of caution. While it seems pretty likely that she's died by now, there's no harm in waiting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

official word of death per AP

AP is reporting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29733775/ Tvoz/talk 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC) CNN is also reporting. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2009/03/18/obit.natasha.richardson.cnn 5minutes (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The AP? What a piddling source....You CANNOT be serious...The AP? Next you are going to try to pass CNN and the New York TIMES off as legit sources!!! HA! Blasphemy!!! The page will remain unedited without mention of her death until President Obama does a televised press conference on which he reveals the results of a DNA test confirming that the person inside the hospital is indeed Natasha Richardson! Until then, SHE LIVES!@!@!@! TonyTiger386 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you're pretty funny TonyTiger... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.189.49 (talk • contribs)

This isn't helpful; it was explained to you about sourcing above. Acalamari 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony - there was no need to rush this sad news in before confirmation. We're not the newswire - we had to wait for official word, not rumors. You know that. Tvoz/talk 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Official: Spokesman for family of Natasha Richardson says she has died

"A spokesman for the family of Natasha Richardson says the actress has died." MSNBC article

All major news sources are now reporting that she has died. It doesn't get any more official than that. Information on the article should be changed. Aurora30 (talk)

I disagree. They may be mistaken. I think we should leave it as is until we have first hand video evidence. TonyTiger386 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed: CNN

CNN confirms Natasha Richardson's death:

"Actress Natasha Richardson has died after suffering injuries in a ski accident, according to a family statement." -CNN, Google Toolbar, 3/18/2009

Video source: [7] -CNN.com 3/18/2009

No written article has been posted on the website (cnn.com) yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J. Nario (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit, there has been a story on it for awhile. L337*P4wn 00:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This video source does not show her body....It only shows someone speculating that she may be dead....I think we need visual proof.... TonyTiger386 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need pictures of her corpse. Please, stop the nonsense. L337*P4wn 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. this is CNN we're talking about. I think TonyTiger needs a ban. 68.146.62.92 (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely TonyTiger needs a ban. He's nothing but a troll and troublemaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A Ban? Why? I havent vandalized any page? I merely believe that we should be careful. Time Warner, CBS, and the UPI were apparently not sufficient...I do not understand why CNN should be...we should demand visual evidence...TonyTiger386 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You act like a freakin' child. Grow up and get a life. SChaos1701 (talk)

Come on everyone, calm down. There's no need to throw insults and things around. Acalamari 00:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy, Tony. We have a BBC article now that not only says that her death has been confirmed but by whom (Neeson's publicist). I know you're trying to be ridiculous on purpose, but it doesn't help matters to stir up irritation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

also called Point. --Docku: What's up? 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on Tony's side here. You wont accept TMZ,Warner Bros,CNN,or Fox but you will accept CNN,Why,whats the difference? And banning him is unfair, as he did not break any rules. It does not seem to me like this is a encyclopedia that anyone can edit,well they can edit but a power hungry admin will take what you write down or will lock the page.--72.154.193.191 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Death has been confirmed and article updated"

Was it really necessary to repeat that under EVERY heading? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It was done to prevent confusion of people just joining the discussion; not every thread had a logical conclusion/resolution, and people were still attempting to join a conversation that was entirely moot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind actually archiving the discussions that you said were "archived"? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at the moment. I've reworked the discussions to be less obtrusive until they are properly archived. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that a post-mortem is in order here

And I don't mean on Mrs. Richardson...

There needs to be a more specific and defined standard as to what is considered "proof" enough for Wikipedia purposes. Mainstream media reports should either be enough all the time or never. And frankly, I dont know how you can ALWAYS insist on a public announcement. It doesnt always come.

Read WP:RS for "more specific and defined standard". Read WP:V for "ALWAYS insist on a public announcement". Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a living, breathing, constantly changing resource. If a person is in crtitical condition, and someone erroneously indicates they have died, it can and will be corrected. Rest assured...the family of Mrs. Richardson has more important things to worry about than a Wikipedia entry that is made in error...and, while I would never want Wikipedia to be the initial SOURCE of such erroneous reports, I believe that there should be a standard as to when sourcing can be trusted, as it can be cited within the article.

"someone erroneously indicates they have died, it can and will be corrected": True, but read WP:BLP for standards about reporting erroneous information about living or recently deceased people.

"the family of Mrs. Richardson has more important things to worry about than a Wikipedia entry that is made in error": That's no excuse for a poorly written encyclopedia. And it is an encylcopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to scoop anyone, or write the news that's hot off the press, or speculate about the news that might happen.

"I believe that there should be a standard as to when sourcing can be trusted": Again, read WP:RS. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lastly....I am of the opinion that if there are rumors as to the death of an individual, that is by itself a story. So. If multiple news stories have reported that an individual has died...at the VERY least I believe it is appropriate if not fundamentally essential to telling the story to mention that "multiple media outlets are reporting that this person has died". That IS part of the story.

"if there are rumors as to the death of an individual, that is by itself a story": It might be, but again read WP:BLP. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents. TonyTiger386 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And FYI....not trying to cause trouble...this is a dead issue in regards to Mrs. Richardson, but is still a concept worth discussing for future instances... TonyTiger386 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this thing started with Siegenthaler or Ted Kennedy. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What "thing"? Ward3001 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I have read those before and am reading them again. Still, my points remain. Wikipedia is too vague as to what reliable sources are, and frankly, here, it seems subjective. Look at this: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Now...2 issues with this...if you read the RS article, it seems to allow for the editor to be the arbiter as to the reliability of sources. While agree TMZ and X17 are NOT reliable, CBS, UPI, and Time Warner, IMO, are. Again, too subjective. Secondarily, the article specifically deals with bios of living persons. At the time, the person was no longer a living person. TonyTiger386 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have ideas about improving Wikipedia's policies about reliable sources, discuss them on WP:RSN, and be prepared to defend your idea. This talk page is not the appropriate venue for discussion of policy issues. Ward3001 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't a forum for general discussion of Wikipedia policies. I highly suggest that if you want to continue this discussion, you do it at the biographies of living persons policy talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Agree. Were it not so fast-moving a situation, you could have asked at the Reliable sources noticeboard; but other editors demonstrated consensus that the sources being offered were inadequate. WP:BLP is a conservative policy, and is to be taken seriously. It is not negotiable, particularly in the light of the experience of years here. There's no need for further discussion, in my view. Only first-hand reliable sources are good enough to report a death. That's the way it is, and the way it will continue to be. --Rodhullandemu 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Wow. OK...I'm out. Its a "discussion" page...didn't realize is was so regimented...First and last trip Wikipedia experience today...this has been a barrel of laughs.

Peace... Rest in peace Natty. TonyTiger386 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Natasha Richardson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is unsourced but has a decent amount of meaningful content, sections, and a good photo. Better than start class but still needs improvement in content and citations. Kafziel Talk 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)