Talk:Laura Branigan/Archive 1

Correcting Error
To whomever is vandalizing this article:

Please stop. Obviously there are only two groups of people truly interested enough to keep monitoring this article for revisions -- us, as Laura Branigan's management company, and whoever you are, whether or not you sign in with a username. But it's clear from your "revisions" and edit summaries that your rationale for continually undoing what others contribute to this article is to propagate lies, mis-truths, error, and to spread confusion among Internet users coming across this article. Apparently you've never been a news writer.

First of all, the inclusion of the name "Other Half Entertainment" in the respect of it being Laura's management company is NOT "self-serving" or serving "to promote a management company". Who writes about an artist who is deceased and fails to identify the person(s) and/or entity who is minding that artist's legacy career, legal, and business interests? In Ms. Branigan's case, that entity is Other Half Entertainment, and the inclusion of the name and facts about this company's activities even since Branigan's death is accurate, factual reference to ongoing activities on the behalf of Laura Branigan. Are you that shallow that you think our inclusion of these facts is "self-serving?" Please think again.

Second, Wiki editors have insisted on inclusion of citations for various factual references within the article, noted by "[citation]" marks. We have endeavored to include those citations for factual content referenced and/or housed on specific website(s). So what is your point of removing them under the edit summary "Tag: references removed"? Do you want references, or do you not? Make up your mind. Or do you want to remove the references that don't fit with a "confuse Laura Branigan fans" agenda? The fact that certain references are easily obtainable from Branigan's own official website does NOT make those factual references somehow less reliable. What can be more factual or straightforward than letters and comments from Laura Branigan HERSELF? When Branigan references, for example, in comments and letters that she never had a connection to a website she considered to have been obtained and operated illegally, and each time the link to that site is justifiably removed (because of its unauthorized nature, its illegally-obtained content and dubious ownership given it has been demonstrated the owner of it had defrauded fans), and you insist on re-entering the link, what are you doing but spreading misinformation and confusion? Such edits defy the concept of accurate information in articles, and show you as "fighting" against Laura Branigan herself. My guess is you've never been a Laura Branigan fan, either.

Your actions in continually vandalizing this article reveal that you'd rather stand for confusion and misinformation, because your edits make it clear to me that you're not standing for truth and accuracy. May I suggest, then, that you step back and allow those who actually KNOW facts about Laura Branigan to maintain this article.

Vince Golik Vice-President, Other Half Entertainment. Other Half Entertainment (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits have been reverted. The reasons are:
 * You have removed what appears to be a legitimate external reference. That you appear not to like this website is irrelevant to Wikipedia: referenced facts are needed .. and to date these ahve not been provided.
 * Your repeated insertion of your own company's name appears to be promotion; it certainly does not help an article that is not about this company. You clearly have a conflict of interest, which, at best, is not encouraged on Wikipedia. It is not clear why mentioning the name, and many times, of a management company would help the article. If you review articles on other artists you will not see such: and one reason is the articles are about the subject themselves and not to promote other businesses.
 * Self-serving was noted because: (i) you added a number of references to your own company (and within a very short section of the article), (ii) you removed content which you admit you do not like but you have not provided legitimate support to demonstrate why it should be excluded, (iii) your edits to wikipedia over a number of years have only been about this article, in which of course you have a very heavily vested interest. These edits have also been to revert similar changes to those recently when other editors have also expressed concern


 * Please could you also treat others politely, and this includes:
 * Not making unfounded allegations of vandalizim.
 * Avoiding libelous claims such as "defrauded fans." And I note I have no connection with the website to which you object.
 * Avoiding such as ".. Are you that shallow .."; "fighting against Laura Branigan herself."; claiming that indviduals trying to improve an article are propagating "lies, mis-truths, error, and to spread confusion.."; "..you're not standing for truth and accuracy." These are unhelpful and aggressive. (and if I make a personal comment, they reflect badly on yourself, and because of your claims of such close association do not help promote a positive view of Ms.Branigan.)


 * Also,
 * "My guess is you've never been a Laura Branigan fan, either." Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to editing this article. But, as noted above, those with a Conflict of Interest are encouraged to consider why they are making edits.
 * Writing "apparently you've never been a news writer" is again bordering on rude and insulting. It is also irrelevant to making edits to an article.


 * Should you still have concerns about the content of the article then please:
 * Discuss then first. Another blind revert of the edits will mean you have breached what is known as the '3 revert rule.' or 3RR.
 * Consider asking an administraor for assistance.
 * Treat other editors with respect, and consider if your edits are for the benefit of Wikipedia or for personal reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.1.146 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To the person who replied above:

I am sorry that I cannot address you by any other name than unsigned, 119.224.1.146, since you did not feel obligated to actually sign in to identify yourself in your discussion.

Please allow me to lay out some facts that should give anyone reading, let alone people attempting to vandalize the Laura Branigan Wiki article, food for thought before attempting to discount future effective contributions to this article by either us as Branigan's management company, or other fans of Laura Branigan (yes, we started out as fans, as well).

Let us start with the largest issue that effectively requires that someone in authority of Laura Branigan's career legacy "mind the store" here.

It is true that in 1998, the domain name "laurabranigan.com" was obtained by a third party without the knowledge or consent of either Laura Brangian or Atlantic Recording Corporation (which, incidentally, she was NOT under contract with at the time). That individual (who we do not name out of respect for individuals' privacy) placed a website on that domain purporting to be the "official" website. It is also true that this individual never had any authority, connection, relationship, or communication with Ms. Branigan herself at any time ever. This individual took advantage of the fact that Branigan had effectively "dropped out of sight" during those later years to care for her husband and subsequently mourn his death, to play on the sympathies of well-meaning fans who were clamoring for anything newsworthy about Branigan during that time she was out of the public eye. After some years, though, it is also true that it became quite clear to many fans that the individual who was operating the website at laurabranigan.com had no authorized connection to Branigan, had no authority to operate that site, and it was around this time that the arguments, back-biting, and hate-speech began in earnest on the discussion board linked to that website. At this point, fans either stopped looking for information, or joined in a back-and-forth online battle with those pervading the hate speech against Branigan, all the while the owner of the website did nothing to remove the hate speech, and in fact, appeared to encourage it. In 2002, myself and my spouse purchased the domain "laurabraniganonline.com" and placed what we called at the time a fan site on that domain, and soon after began a discussion board with the aim of giving fans an alternative where hate speech against Branigan would not be permitted. This site soon gained the attention of Branigan herself, and she actively cooperated with the site, contacting us directly via email and phone during that time to provide updates to her activities, answer fan questions, and offer greetings to her fans. It is also true that in January, 2004, she signed papers sanctioning LauraBraniganOnline.com as her official website, and made it clear to fans via communications on her official website that she never had any connection to the the website on laurabranigan.com, never sanctioned the individual to do anything on her behalf, and that she "hated" that site (her exact words) and directed fans and other interested parties to not visit or promote that site. Finally, during that time, she created an official management and production company with myself and my wife, called Other Half Entertainment. That company continues to exist today under direct written contract from Branigan herself, to maintain her relationship with Warner/Atlantic/Rhino and to oversee and direct her career legacy interests, in their entirety (which incidentally, includes public references to her on the Internet, including Wikipedia).

These facts have been substantiated by the references we have contributed to the article, which your edits are removing. Your action of removing the references that verify the illegitimacy and illegality of laurabranigan.com and her communications to her fans serve only to confuse readers, and the inclusion of the reference to that illegal website further confuses readers, and places Wikipedia itself in a perilous position of encouraging illegal activities, actions, and websites. In parallel to this argument, are there any references/URLs to child pornography websites on Wikipedia? I thought not. By that same rationale, the link to the illegitimate and illegal website laurabranigan.com has been removed, and the discusson about why it is considered such, remains. It is not just because we "don't like" that website as you suggested, it is because we are serving to promote accuracy in this article, and incidentally by not having that link in this article, it is protecting Wikipedia from potential legal liability.

We are saddened by the fact that subsequent to her death in August 2004, those who propigated the "hate speech" on laurabranigan.com popped back up on various locations, including Wikipedia, to attempt to discredit Branigan, her legacy, and her choice in creating Other Half Entertainment and the positive consequences for her legacy of that action. We have, in the past, seen such individuals posting such incorrect and inaccurate statements ranging from Branigan not having any connection to Other Half Entertainment, to Branigan having "improper" relationships, having illegitimate children, etc. We have regularly had to monitor for and remove negative, inaccurate, and libelous Internet communications from such individuals. This isn't just our choice as Laura's friends; this is our responsibility and duty as overseeing her legacy, and we will continue to do so no matter where it is.

Our responsibility in monitoring this Wiki article is SOLELY in that light, to ensure that data on this article is accurate. We do not feign to believe that we are the sole "owners" of this Wiki article, and have often left factual statements and data on the article, even though we know Branigan would rather not have it so publicly available (such as her middle name, which she consistently chose not to publicize).

In deference to your comments about the inclusion of the name of her management company, I have re-written a few lines in the legacy section, to remove additional specific mentions of the name. However, this does not minimize the fact that it is newsworthy and factual to note that Other Half Entertainment is in fact her management company and deserves at least one referential mention in a Wiki article about her, especially given the circumstances that she left the company in charge of her legacy career interests in the event of her death (which occurred in August 2004).

Along this same line of thought, it is certainly factual and newsworthy to specify that it was Other Half Entertainment who envisioned and organized the first "Spirit Of Love" fan gathering in August 2005, and continues to do so. If we left the article reading as was: "her friends and fans held a memorial" -- this gives an inaccurate and erroneous impression that the events were haphazard gatherings of random "friends and fans" who somehow just happened to bump into each other while gathering at her home like Elvis fans laying flowers at Graceland's gates.

We also must take specific issue with the edit: "an official website", instead of the more accurate "the offical website". This is not some paranoid concern here, it is purely grammatical. The use of the word "an" leads one to infer there is more than one, which in this case, is totally inaccurate and can lead fans reading this to believe the editor may be another of the "hate-speech" people attempting vandalization. If wikipedia is given to accuracy, let us also be gramatically and factually accurate. There has only been one official Laura Branigan website ever, and it is LauraBraniganOnline.com

Finally, I have once again removed the comment about her so-called dating relationship with a drummer. Beyond the gramatically incorrect use of "heals" in that statement (where it should have been "on the heels", not "on the heals", the fact is that such a statement does not belong on a public Wiki article, given the fact that the person who was specifically named in the statement has contacted us directly requesting that the statement as well as his name be removed out of respect and his privacy. Therefore, whoever is continually including that statment, we are requesting that you please, out of respect for both Branigan and the other individual involved, do not attempt to reinsert it.

In summary, we know that to this day, there are those who thrive on feeding the public inaccurate information about celebrities. We do not monitor or edit other Wiki articles, simply because we are interested in maintaining accuracy and propriety in THIS article. We also know that this reason is much more acute given the fact that in recent years, many other sites, including now Facebook.com, have linked to and/or "pulled" article contents directly from Wikipedia onto their sites and pages, and don't always refresh the contents regularly; therefore, inaccurate data left in this article may linger across the Internet for days. Further, though we know that many fans around the world have personal knowledge regarding Laura Branigan facts, such as the vast amount of song ranking data and similar information which is found in this article (which we did not insert, but appreciate fans around the world making such positive contributions), it must be ABSOLUTELY crystal clear to everyone, including Wikipedia editors/administrators, that Other Half Entertainment is THE official voice of Laura Branigan, and we are the ones who publicize information about her that fans may not know, and who regularly work to ensure publicly-available data about Laura Branigan is accurate, as she would have wanted it anyway.

We will continue to monitor this article for accuracy and content, as this is our responsibility and duty as both friends of Laura Branigan and her legacy management company. If this somehow places us in a "conflict of interest" position with Wikipedia, then I strongly suggest that the CEO of Wikipedia contact us directly about these issues, because we and these accuracy issues will not simply "go away".

Vince Golik, Vice-President Other Half Entertainment (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tokio and Maybe Tonight chart peaks
Hello my fellow Wikipedians! I was wondering if anyone had the peak chart positions of the Branigan songs Tokio (1991) and Maybe Tonight (1985). I have looked everywhere, and User:Cherrylimerikey has kindly directed me to a few sites, but I've had no luck in finding ANY info. I'll make note that Tokio was a Japan-only release, and I think there is a high chance that Maybe Tonight only charted on the US Dance charts, not the Billboard Hot 100. Any help would be sincerely appreciated, because I hate to see blank spaces in her discography. Kind regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhakoJacko2009 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Whacko Jacko: there's a message for you on my User page.Cherrylimerickey (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointless and Unwanted Post
The person above using all capital letters, butting in to a topic he has no real input on and lashing out in a way that would be looked upon as a child throwing a fit just to get attention. This comment from said poster should be removed. It has no valid point, nothing to do once so ever about anything at length here other than he wants to harass others. Just because this topic is dealing with a lot of negativity between a person here who clearly has no standing as an "Official" anything, does not mean it's a free target to everyone coming here and wanting to show their inner-child.

As for the quote on quote Official site discussion. It's nice to see that the website itself is not linked on here any longer. The person clearly was not in right to claim such a title. So glad to see that come to an end. I would love to see more input from the original owner of this Wiki page for Laura, and get us a really nice picture of her up as well. Make it something to be really proud of. It's great to be able to look anything up on Wiki and get a good idea of past and as well current happenings within any part of our world we wish to find out about. Myself it's a lot of Music / Artist searching I do just to find out what my favorites from the past are up to now days. Sadly to find someone like Laura has passed really is not something I expect to find but at least people that care take the time to do things right and with care.

RTWright```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTWright67 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Official website
Why is laurabranigan.com listed as the official website when in the article itself it is acknowledged that ONLINE is the one that Laura labeled as her "offical" website.

This page is here for those who edit the main page (or wish to) to discuss, inquire about, explain, cite and confirm the changes they wish to make and see remain. Anyone who is interested enough in significantly adding to or deleting from this entry should be interested enough to read this discussion and process the debate that has gone on here (or ignore the debate entirely and begin a new thread of discussion if their edit is unrelated). Certain edits have been extremely welcome and of course require no discussion (changing "grammy" to "Grammy" in one instance); other edits satisfy the editor's sense of style and I have no question or complaint (changing the way Branigan is referenced in the "Self Control" controversy mention away from a mention of her first name alone). This instance made sense and does not need to be explained either; such changes make for a better piece. There have been instances of copyediting which clearly have been done by someone not up to the job grammatically. If it does not correct a factual, grammatical, or usage error in the original, I or someone else may decide to go back and re-edit the change, either reverting it back to the original or further perfecting it.

I have (way down in here somewhere) already explained and parsed my sensitively constructed mention of the MEMORIAL. I will not repeat myself here as this page is already three times longer than is preferable and will soon require editing in the interest of space. I invite whomever has deleted these two sentences to find that part of this discussion here and read it. If you still find an objection to this mention, I suggest that you elucidate it for us here. If this is merely a retaliation for whomever it is that continues the amusing add/delete war with VL over his self-promotional link to his article, bear in mind it is not I who delete those mentions. Those add/deletes are part of an ongoing dispute which has been fairly well-documented here; VL has been logically and factually rebuffed and now persists in not only linking but referencing his article. The repeated memorial mention deletes are simple vandalism and will be treated as such. - J T 23:37 21 November, 2005

JT- I to would be very interested in coming to a compromise as far as the age controversy if my addition is not correct and to the point. However, the one proposal by AZ was inaccurate and an outright lie. I want to have it posted for all to see what Atlantic Records did to Laura just to promote her and her album. And as we all know, that happened many years ago, not last year at the time of her death. I am willing to discuss this since a continual cut and repaste is a waste of time. I believe that you have done an excellent job with the LB piece for Wikipedia however, as with other information in the world, there is always more out there to add. This is not to harm LB, but to inform readers.

I am not interested in the petty revisions, but I do believe the age controversy is more than petty or minor. DS

AZ- I have no ax to grind but wish the age controversy to be added to this piece. It is a true controversy as to Laura's true age and I will continue to add this until there is either a compromise or until this site decides on a version. You are the one trying to hide information and it seems to be so in order to follow the direction of the Goliks. If you feel this is something to hide and I feel it is something that should be put forth for the fans, then it proves the fact that it is a true controversy. Thus fitting within the controversy section. DS

Mr JT, Bravo. To use the American phrase, you "nailed it." I for one applaud you for your honesty and dedication. It is a sore pity that your heartfelt work on this encyclopaedia page must be subject to the electronic pens of certain individuals who have nothing better to do with their time but get the digs in at every opportunity. It is patently clear that they have no love for Ms Branigan, they may listen to her music, they may have been to a concert or two or three, they may have even obtained an autograph or even have written publicly about their autographs, etc. But it is not their words, but their actions that betray them as truly people who cannot in the remotest sense be called "Branigan fans". One can be a fan of an artist and make a critical remark about something the artist did or said. This is evident for many artists and their fans. However, one simply should not continue to spew negative criticism toward the deceased. So, they have now found a convenient target in the management of the deceased, deriding their character, their integrity, questioning their actions, motives, and intentions, making up deliberate and malicious lies about what ms Branigan's management did and said, and so much more. They have found both Ms Branigan and Other Half Entertainment to be convenient targets of their pre-pubescent insults and lies simply because both parties made themselves available. Ms Branigan whilst alive, answered fans' letters and emails, having such posted to her official website LauraBraniganOnline.com, and (a point I believe that bothers some of these "non-fans" the most) her management made themselves available -- but ONLY on Ms Branigan's official discussion forum. I have personally seen some of these "non-fans" attack the Goliks viciously on the "renegade" discussion board operated in a precisely Stalinist fashion in my opinion, by Mr Fiore. Much of this attacking has included open calls for the Goliks to make a post on that illegitimate message board, which true Branigan fans know for certainty that they have never done and, for the honour of Ms Branigan and their own moral scruples I believe, they never will. Yet the attacks continue, and why? Because Ms Branigan is no longer with us for these "non-fans" to ridicule, so they have turned their attentions to the "next best thing."

And though Ms Branigan's memory, the Goliks, and true Branigan fans worldwide owe you, sir, a debt of thanks for a job well done with this entry, it is unfortunate that these dim-witted souls who feel Wikipedia entry vandalism is a fun hobby, continue to travel the proverbial "Ho Chi Mihn Trail" from that illegitimate discussion board of Mr Fiore's to an honourable and respectable site such as Wikipedia, just because they know they can do it (temporarily, at least) and because they derive sick pleasure in hacking away at your fine work, with the grammatical mastery of a six-year-old, all because they believe their vandalism is somehow injuring Ms Branigan, Other Half Entertainment, and/or true Branigan fans.

Please do not be discouraged, Mr JT, for I believe a change is in the wind; a change that will not only sweep these troublemakers from making edits on Wikipedia, but perhaps a more complete change than that.

Now, for Mr VL.

I, sir, am the one speaking of alleged plagarism, and it is easily seen, and easily proven. Please do not think for one second that you can scare me off with your feeble words about being "serious charges." The only unfortunate fact for you, sir, is that I am in no position to levy an official charge against you, for I am none of the original authors which I see that you allegedly plagarised. What I have seen, though, is a weak writing style by someone who should well have stayed in his original profession, instead of believing himself an author simply because he had the opportunity to write a piece, and thus earned himself a place in a magazine which itself has PROVEN dubious credentials.

I tire of your pathetic claims that other people such as Mr JT would cease to debate with you for any reason. In my view, it is the tactic of a weak, immature, unconfident person to try to degrade an opponent by simply claiming his opponent's argument has no merit, without showing valid evidence to the allegation. It has been consistently proven through your own words on both the Official LB Discussion Forum, and the renegade discussion board you now call home, that you immediately either drop off the face of the board or simply change the subject when someone has properly backed your weak, baseless arguments into a corner from which you know you could not escape. The charge of "egomaniac" which many many true Branigan fans have said of you, is well placed upon your brow. You are NOT the bastion of the English language, much to your dismay, as it has been consistently seen you desire nothing less than to play "oneupmanship" with others using your supposed "superior vocabulary skills".

As for your assertions about Mr JT and Mr Golik "removing" your edits, I ask you specifically to post your clear, undisputable evidence to that assertion; that is, if you can validate your claims. If you cannot, may I suggest that you refrain from publicly making such charges, since in reality you have NO IDEA of WHO is actually making such edits to this entry, and it is patently clear to me at least that the administration of Wikipedia would not stop all the good work they continue to do, simply to talk to someone who has proven on this page, by his own words, to have vandalised a Wikipedia entry, which is against Wikipedia rules. You may well continue to think you have such wonderful and far-reaching power to make the claim of the administration, quote, "until I decided to permit the moderators of this site to decide what is relevant..." I have seen many times that all egomaniacs believe they have power, influence, and authority over everyone; and in your case, by your own words, it is patently clear that you believe you can make the decision for the moderators of Wikipedia, as if all you needed to do was email them and tell them you've decided to make them do something. You may not have intended it that way, but what I have written is exactly the way your words READ.

And sir, I do not need "feeble attempts to discredit" you... you have already done a superb job of that yourself. I care not what you did with the money you received for writing your introductory piece for Autograph Collector. The fact that I did NOT get wrong, mind you, is that you DID get paid for it. If you indeed presented that payment to a legitimate charity, good for you. I doubt, however, that that action would hold you in good stead with either Branigan fans or your Creator when you meet Him one day. The other fact is that you have indeed written other pieces for a magazine known for prior problems in the "publishing false information" department. Again, how many you have written, as opposed to how many were used and paid for, is neither here nor there. As for your continued success bring contingent upon links, it has been shown that you have made it a major point to keep your article in peoples' faces, and that you have gone on wild written tirades against the Goliks and others who support them, when it became public that Other Half Entertainment would not acknowledge or endorse your article; your ego was sorely bruised, and you clearly decided to do all in your power to get back at them, and harm their reputation in any way. Yes you have certainly made the argument that by not acknowledging the article's existence, they were somehow maligning you and denying Branigan fans a chance to read the article. However, this argument from you (I have pictured you as a child stomping his feet in anger when I read your posts on this subject back then), does not take into account the fact you wish to hide: that despite the official "lack of endorsement" from Ms Branigan's management, many Branigan fans have read your article at least on the magazine's website, and have thus dubbed it UNWORTHY... because THEY have seen, what I have seen, and what no doubt Ms Branigan's management has seen: a half-hearted attempt at writing, the quick way out of the background section by effective "cut-and-paste" of certain previously written biographies (thus the allegation of plagarism), and the piece-de-resistance, the publication of the marriage certificate, the subject of which you vowed to both the Goliks and to Ms Branigan's memory, you would NEVER make public. You see, sir, you and the Goliks were not the only ones within earshot when you made that promise. There are others who will attest to the fact you made that vow, and only later maliciously broke that vow, because you wanted to get a dig back at the Goliks for your feeble reasonings that they harmed you in some way; an issue that very much was in reality, of your own making.

Again, sir, * I * am the one speaking to you regarding these matters, and doing so here since you felt the need to bring your problems onto Wikipedia in the first place. There is no "self-proclaimed public relations specialist" speaking to you; there is no manager speaking to you; it is I. If you feel so defamed that you or your solicitor feel you must deal with something "accordingly", I welceome your challenge, to which, I dare say, you and your newly-found magazine would find yourselves on the losing end. But I would caution you, sir, before you reach for your phone to call your solicitor, that you examine your own past and present actions and words in the light of defamation, and if you can find the scrap of decency to be starkly honest with yourself (a long stretch I fear), you would find your proven, well-documented defamation of both Ms Branigan and her management far more egregious and actionable than any supposed "defamation" you feel I am causing you. Think very carefully before you act, and ensure yourself without shade of doubt that you would act against the correct party. Errors in this regard could be more costly to you than simply leaving this issue alone, and leaving Wikipedia to those such as Mr JT with undeniably honest and impartial motives, which is what you and your vandalising friends should have done from the start. AZ

Alright, what is going on here? This nitpicking is incredible. I'm sitting here pondering the three-page response I've written to VL and it's called to my attention there have been a rash of bizarre little edits that have spread over the site. I realize this is open territory, but if you can't make the thread better, aren't privy to accurate information, and can't even manage an edit with proper grammar, isn't there a video game somewhere you could be playing? Changes are supposed to be substantiated and the basic rules of grammar followed. If you're not up to the job, ask a parent or adult family member.

I will address the less egregious of these edits first. The re-recording of "Self Control" debuted in the top ten on the nationally significant Billboard Dance Club Play chart. "Gloria 2004" and the subsequent singles did not chart in Billboard. Period. End of story. Those recordings, while some are stupefyingly poor mixes, did indeed verifiably chart very well on what my best determination shows is a legitimate chart. I have had an exchange with the editor of that chart and, as best as one can on the web, would attest to its veracity. The placement of it in the bio where it is is extremely clumsy. And is hardly the best you can do if you want to hurt the Goliks. That is your aim, right? This is pitiful. And again it is atrocious English, and not just from my perspective, it reads like it's written by someone for whom English is a recent whimsy.

Now the part that really has me steamed. Two words. TWO words. Read the bit about the memorial. Does that read to anybody in their right mind as a promotional bit? Nowhere in my entire bio do I mention the Goliks or even reference Laura's management in recent years. Nowhere do I give the name of the weekend event. Nowhere do I suggest it was organized through the official website or by the Goliks. This backbiting and pettiness has to stop. This is Laura Branigan on this Wiki site, not laurabranigan.com OR laurabraniganonline.com. They are both referenced for interested parties, as if anybody would stumble here prior to one of those high profile sites. I am not trying to steal anyone's thunder or publicize anything or choose sides in that bio and I would appreciate it if others would really take a look at this and see it for what it is. This is not an endorsement of sites or the events or moderators or members of sites and not some battleground between the sites or affiliated with LBO but an independent Wiki bio. I have kept my word and not edited a thing on this page, I stepped back and returned to my life for two days and in good faith left with the offending material still on and not requesting it be removed during that time. That this has aroused interest from visitors or friends who have picked up on what's transpiring here and apparently felt compelled to make a change is not a surprise, but neither was it my request. This was not intended as promotion for the event, it was intended as a sweet denouement to a sad ending. What on earth could be the justification for changing the words "friends and fans" to "very selected fans"? I'll tell you what the justification is. That's backlash at the Goliks for their exclusion from that weekend of some who they found some fault with. It is not my business and I did not follow any thread or conversation that addressed it. I am a member of that site, I am a friend to several who have posted on it, as I am not ashamed to admit but have seen no purpose in extolling. I am an independent thinker who has expressed conflicting views at times with respect and decorum, who has explained his reasoning and done so in a noncombative way and as such find myself a welcome member on that site. But I am not affiliated with the webmasters professionally in any capacity there, here or otherwise. I say that not to distance myself from them but to discern myself from them. Attacking this site is attacking Laura, and it is attacking me, and while the Goliks are evidently and with good reason unhappy about your attacks, it is not them to whom you do harm here. It is me and other independent and respectful (yes, both, ooh, new concept?) fans of Laura's who have a respect for her as an artist and person and who may or may not be members of but are not agents or representatives of LBO. Not to mention any friends and family who might happen upon the place. I do not know the details of this parting of ways between former fans and LBO and I do not care to know, but I would prefer the whole bloody story be told, add twelve freaking paragraphs about it, but don't suggest that some of the people attending the weekend were not friends of Laura Branigan's. I met them, I spoke with them, and I was privileged to be a guest in their home. One of them gave me his card. I can attest to the fact that this was not merely 36 hours of LBO website denizens. Which, I'd add would not be bad company and who became the closest of the friends I made. Nevertheless, the change to "very selected" is neither more accurate nor even proper English. "A very select group of fans" is a way to express exclusivity. "Selected fans" would express something more like a lottery where fans are chosen to win entry and that is not the method by which we came to be there. Either way, there were people who knew Ms. Branigan personally and independently of the Goliks who attended that weekend and it is simply incorrect to state otherwise. You don't do the veracity and motivations of your comrade VL any favors by erroneously modifying this to make some hollow point. Talk about re-hashing old arguments. --J T

VL - Your argument as to why you were banned from the Official Laura Branigan Discussion Forum leads one to believe that you simply asked the Forum administrator a question, and it was entirely their fault, such that you "did nothing wrong" and were given the boots.

Your assertion follows that of other former members of that Forum, who were ALL removed from posting privileges for the same thing -- clear violation of the rules set forth for that Forum. This, then, IS your fault, however you and your "cronies" on the illegitimate, renegade discussion board to which you all now subscribe, are utilising a 1984-like tactic of attempting to change history by so consistently and vehemently denying any wrongdoing, whilst at the same time loudly crying how horrible the Goliks (owners of Other Half Entertainment and Ms. Branigan's licensees) are toward you, how disgusting their website is, etc., that you and your friends do not let one day go by where something is not said in insult or degradation to the Goliks, or Ms Branigan's official website. This is a clearly documented fact, and I have been one of the "friends of Laura" who have regularly visited Mr Fiore's illegitimate discussion board and meticulously recording every word said against the "Branigan camp" via PDF. There is therefore nothing that either any of you, nor Mr Fiore, can hide to the appropriate authorities at the appropriate time by continuing in any Orwellian mode of action.

It is on this point I continue with you specifically, in that your consistent self-aggrandisement is not only tiring, it is indeed a testament to what members of the Official LB Discussion Forum have discovered about you: wasting no time in loudly proclaiming all of your own attributes and accomplishments, whilst at the same time either openly or subtly degrading those of others. In plain terms, so you wrote an article with Ms Branigan as the intended subject, and you talk about the time when you received an autograph. That's wonderful in first light... until people begin to understand some things that you deliberately are keeping mum about. Let no one who reads this forget that you received payment from the target magazine for that article, and that it was a stepping stone, a door if you will, for you to begin writing and receiving more payment from the magazine for additional articles you admit to having written for them. Let no one forget also that there is indeed plagarism in your article, however I do not doubt for a second the reason why you fluff that point off, and attempt to play the "prove it" game with everyone who brings up this point to you. You know specificially where you plagarised, but what amazes me about you is that after that, in which the original authors could well bring you to the bench for such action were they so minded, you seem to have such a flippant attitude about perhaps the most egregious actions any journalist (or in your case, "so-called" journalist) could ever undertake. Knowing then how you specifically chose a magazine for your article that was itself fingered in the past for acts of plagarism and publishing false information, and which is occasionally in "hot water" from various celebrities for statements published by the magazine, and also knowing that this magazine in particular may well be a "national" magazine but is so specialised that its circulation is nowhere near what, in my opinion, your evident ego could stomach, it is then no wonder to anyone that you continue attempting to keep your blase article about Ms Branigan in the faces of anyone who will either listen or in those of whom you believe you have a captive audience... hence Wikipedia.

It is obviously evident that your fingers would finally approach the Free Encyclopaedia, since the only Internet location you have to post your discussions, the illegitimate discussion board owned by Mr Fiore, has a severely limited readership.

But this "cat and mouse" game of you and your cronies changing Wikipedia entries to match your beliefs, and those interested in maintaining an accurate entry for Ms Branigan which is free of your bias, changing it back, cannot last forever. It is patently clear that Mr JT researched well, and updated Ms Branigan's Wikipedia page effectively, and that neither you nor your cronies had thought about what I consider your cult-like alterations of Wikipedia, until your friend Ms Smith posted that she recalled Mr JT's Official Forum post about Wikipedia. And this is when the "hell broke loose" by what I see as your improper edits, as well as those of your friends DS et al.

Certainly this game of everyone contacting Wikipedia administration is akin to children crying to mummy, all with a different story about how Johnny took the ball and went home. In the final analysis, however, if (and I do not know for certain) Other Half Entertainment contacted the administration about these "edits", I feel strongly that the weight of belief and action would rest on their side, rather than myself, Mr JT, Ms DS, or even you, an unrecognised author with an axe to grind.

AZ

AZ Your compromise is not sufficient as this rumor of age has been ongoing for a very long time, not just from last year until now for a particular fan base as you have written. I will change this yet again and wait for the administrators to make a decision on this. Your version makes this seem like something recent which it is not. You can call this problematic if you like, but it will not be covered up any longer and is not a problem, it is a fact. Why will none of you who have the "officials" on your side, request a birth certificate? If they are so "official" then they would be able to obtain one would they not? I think it is you who is problematic here, not those who with the truth to be brought to light...finally! DS

There... I hope that that "compromise" makes everyone happy. If it doesn't, I would examine your own motives before "adding" to the rumour. Enough people have started enough rumours regarding this poor woman. Leave well enough alone. If you believe she's 52, 47, 861, it makes little difference. A great voice is gone. What matters is what she left behind and to whom she left it. The right things, in the right hands, as has already been seen with Other Half Ent., makes all the difference. I suspect that more would have been accomplished both by Other Half and Ms. Branigan whilst she was alive, had she not had to WASTE time dealing with problematic issues such as laurabranigan.com's owner, and so-called "managers" prior to her arrangement with Other Half. Those who simply talk-talk-talk at maligning and ridiculing Ms. Branigan's manager, would do well to hang their heads in shame, as actions truly do speak louder than words. AZ

JT-- I have sources, unofficial of course, people who knew Ms. Branigan that will state her date of birth as that of being 1952. The wedding certificate that VL has, I'm sure as you know, can have mistakes on them and have them covered up. Ms. Branigan herself had difficulty in remembering the age she was supposed to be. Watch her interviews and you will see. So, writing the wrong date on her wedding certificate would not be out of the question. This is strictly my point in bring this to light in the controversy section of this piece. I am not trying to bring up falsehoods, inuendo or anything of that manner, but I ask that you use an open mind to consider that some things may be different than you realize. VL's post to this piece is his own. Mine is totally different and for a different reason. This age issue has been a controvery for many years and is know by many of Ms. Branigan's fans just not openly discussed. The ultimate authority would be her birth certificate but even then some would state that it was falsified to promote some agenda. Not everyone has an agenda but would like the truth out there for other fans. DS

DS- Your tone in the controversy section is closer to balanced than VL's and I am inclined to leave it there and perhaps discuss it with you further in the next few days if you would allow me to and suggest another way of possibly wording it that perhaps we could come to an agreement on as suitable to both parties, as it is clear there is a contingency that for whatever reason and from whatever germination finds this trivial matter fasinating. Please understand, I could be petty and pigheaded and keep going over there and deleting or copyediting myself, as often as VL has returned to reinstate his thing, until one of us was kicked out or acquires carpal tunnel, but it's not my desire to be overbearing or handicapped and while I am trying to be as objective an arbiter as I can be, I am nobody's appointed final word, just someone who wishes to keep this place from turning into a hotbed of contention, acrimony, slander, innuendo, and out-of-context garbage. I am not directing all (or even any) of those words against you personally, though this begins to tread in that direction and if you are as reasonable as you sound, you can see it's possible for the next person who arrives here with a "contribution" to be all of those things and more. Indeed, it's not ultimately mine, but Laura's, her fans', the world's (not to be grandiose, I've no idea if three or three hundred people have been here these past months). As I've maintained with VL, it's less the content than the presentation that I, personally, have a problem with. I will go on record as saying that it is not one, not two, but at least four parties known to me, including myself (and the Goliks counting as one) who have edited those posts of VL's, for whatever that's worth. And so you don't mischaracterize my words, however innocently, I did not acknowledge any "known controversy," my words with regard to this matter are only responding to VL's claim to have a document he seems to present as legitimate and untampered with, which he purports lists her birth date as 1954. It has still not once been stated or hinted at by VL or yourself where the phantom date of 1952 comes from, and so continues to surprise and arouse my suspicions that this allegation without source finds its way into the discussion. VL's document may or may not be genuine and it may or may not be accurate. By his own suggestion that the date is 1952, he would seem to be admitting his own suspicions that the document he presents in his "article" is, in fact, not accurate, is that not a reasonable conclusion to draw? Or are you not an independent mind in weeding through this confusion? And if his assertion the date is 1952 disproves his document, then why the attempt to draw attention to it? On the other hand, if he has nothing to support his assertion of the 1952 date, and we can conclude that his document is not accurate, then what choice do we have but to go with the official bio date of 1957? I'll tell you what choice we have, we have the choice to prefer the unsubstantiated rumor to the official claim and display as fact or as guess the allegation of this Laura Branigan site pariah. And this is not a choice I, as an objective biographer, will ever make with regard to this issue. I can't imagine how an objective moderator on this site would come to a different conclusion, I truly hope VL's request that one reviews this situation arrives and has the patience to weed through all of the posts here, although I would think the gist of the problem with VL's allegations have been addressed and dispensed with as fallacious reasoning and self-serving innuendo in this single post. Why not pick numbers out of the air? Think of how many more years it would be conceivable to suggest if all one needed to support their allegation was the claim it was common knowledge and a few cronies to back them up. A controversy is indeed a controversy, and it is an unpleasant thing to be embroiled in. Surely there are other sites you could turn to with VL and any others who find this to be the most significant thing to add to a Laura bio and create your own narrative to the story of Laura's life. I might even be surprised to read your final product and not be horrified and disgusted. This is the only place I have endeavored to make a bio for Ms. Branigan, I am not a cybersquatter, I am not in league with any established entity to monopolize Laura Branigan bio sites or beseige them and hold them hostage to my views. It would seem even more appropriate to turn your phrase back upon you and say that in light of Ms. Branigan's untimely and still so recent death and her inability to speak on her own behalf in this matter, it might be you who should let it be. I won't flatter myself to suppose that you'll consider that, but until my return, J T

JT- I am not VL I am yet another person wishing to add to this LB piece. I see that the controversy over Laura's age was removed. I believe it is a valid point and I want to have it added. I do not believe that I have to run it by you and will post it again. I have asked the people of this site to look into this matter as any changes that have been made have been removed by you. You are not as you mentioned below, the owner of this piece, so anyone wishing to add to this article should be allowed to do so. I am trying to be fair about this, but it is hard when you and another person keep removing what you "believe" to be the things that should be allowed in this piece. I request that you do not remove content that I post in the controversy area dealing with Ms. Branigan's age as it is a known controversy as you have mentioned below and not a concrete fact until her birth certificate can be obtained. A controversy is a controversy, let it be. DS

VL- I could hardly be considered an interrogation expert as you haven't addressed any of the main issues I've put to you, even those that seek to resolve issues you have suggested, as in your mention of compromise. I am a biographer of sorts here, and indeed this is frustrating for me to find a personal issue you have with two very disparate websites which have each, by your own acknowledgement, turned you away, has overtaken this labor of love. This needn't be a debate if you would merely discuss, rather than allege, as this is the discussion page. I can sympathize if you feel barraged by the two of us; on the other hand, it feels like rather an attack from my standpoint as well, I feel as if some other country's civil war has stumbled across onto my property. Indeed, this bio is not my property, I was merely making an analogy. In the final analysis you may be kicked off yet another board or I may, we may both be slapped on the wrist and told to play nice. You may be advised not to print something you can't cite a source for or I may be advised there's nothing I can do to keep any scurrulous innuendo from darkening the varied but balanced portrait, the collage, this might otherwise be. In any case it would be nice, a weak word and perhaps unmeaningful to you, if we each understood one other--or at the very least ourselves. I can't get over the sense that, despite my "flair for the dramatic," I've endeavored to engage you in civil discourse in which you have been unwilling to join me. You speak of facts but allege a date that isn't cited by the sources you wish to lead us to. Writing sentences addressed to me without acknowledging any of my salient points or answering my questions is not a response, not a discussion, it is a verbal skirmish, a subterfuge, an avoidance. It is entirely within your rights to ignore me on this substantive level, but I should imagine it doesn't make your case look very convincing to any objective parties. Someone who didn't give two figs would chalk it up to a tempest in a teapot. Someone with the patience to read all this and the sensitivity to process it, well, perhaps that's what we'll have. If you were interested in placing your allegations into the context of a bio and not some unsalient factoid (if that), it might be more compelling. I find it sad that the first time someone chooses to add something to enrich Laura Branigan's bio it is something of this squalid tenor in the "Controversy" section. I find it ironic that a man who speaks of facts and actually seems he might have a unique document doesn't arrive at the conclusion this document alleges. I find it disturbing he's someone who has been driven away from not only the "Official Website," but the maligned, everything-goes one as well. I find it tedious and telling he responds more to the webmaster of the former site than he does to the biographer of this one. And I do fear (not the ideal word) making more out of this than it is. But I fear even more not making enough out of this for what I see it to be. I've endeavored to copyedit the entry in question so as to strike a balance between the suggestion you wish to allege and the respect and obligation people who care for Ms. Branigan, including her family, friends, associates, and fans, feel for her, but it is you who keeps trying to word it in as obvious and harsh and self-promoting a way as possible. You might have engaged me in a discussion about this, but you have not. Ultimately, whatever I may wish to do here, and whatever I may ultimately be in the right for trying to do, I can't be here 24/7 and if you're intent on taking this low road, I can't play traffic cop for eternity. I am grateful there is no bio of me for people with chips on their shoulders to sully and plant self-promoting links on. J T 00:29, 6 Nov 2005

Mr. VL- Is your aim to engage the Goliks in contention due to the rift you apparently have or do you plan to address my responses, posted below that, to you as well? Not that I want to keep up this line of argument any longer than we have to to come to an understanding. What compromise is it you conceive of striking with Mr. Golik? And to serve what purpose?

You state it is your "intention to see that Ms. Branigan's listing on this site is inclusive of ALL written material out there." Since when did any encyclopedia entry or bio include ALL written material on the subject? I find it unfortunate you have been divested of a place to go to share whatever your complex feelings for Ms. Branigan are, for many reasons including honest sympathy, but not the least of which is because it has brought you here to act upon your mistaken impression that it's appropriate to pull in links to "ALL written material out there," beginning with your own piece, of course. Because you are so personally motivated by this self-promotion, and I'm beginning to see by a resentment towards Ms. Branigan's management, you have seemed to turn your interest in Branigan into vindictiveness and are making your human interest-style piece out to be the stuff of investigative journalism. Have you no political affiliation that might inspire you in current events to write a story of real import? Do you get rewarded with a followup assignment for "Autograph Hound" magazine if your past article gets a certain amount of hits? Because, if not, splaying as we are our viscera all over this board, perhaps you could simply cut-and-paste here in the discussion page the section of your article that addresses the topic at hand, Ms. Branigan's date of birth. You could if the article contained such a thing, but it does not. Any rational and objective person reviewing your article there in light of your statements here on the board and the changes you have sought to make will see it does not support your allegations even remotely.

Perhaps we could all let the bio revert back to its original form, step back a day or two, cool off, and try to rethink this. Build your case, VL, and build it well, and there will be no rational argument to make against you. You have not done so. I am neither Mr. Golik nor a "carefully planned alias," but a real person and one who holds Ms. Branigan in esteem. Nobody is going to take legal action against you for terroristic actions against Laura Branigan's Wikipedia site, if you are relishing a fight. For her sake and her sake only, I took a bio that was several short sentences that sketched a bleak overview that could be gleaned from any published bio and fleshed it out with color and detail that I felt would represent the public figure Laura Branigan, the singer, the recording artist, the international star, yes, the downturn in her career, tragedies in her later life, and her setbacks in launching the comeback she foresaw for herself. Are there no other stories to tell? Did I cover the entire tale exhaustively? No, of course not. But explain to me why her autobiography, her Wiki entry, should be inclusive of ALL written material out there. Are you able to translate German? Do you speak Spanish? Do we have permission to access Billboard story and review archives, Latin glamor magazines, Australian TV guide, South African newspapers? No, but there are a few things on the web, beginning with YOUR tale of nabbing Laura's autograph and some lovely pictures. What are we to suffer next, victims alongside Laura of your "intention?" I cannot see how this serves any purpose beyond a selfish vendetta. I can, however, be persuaded to see the truth when the truth is set before me and logically explained. Have you the ability to do so? You and I both know it isn't addressed in your article. If you are on the trail of some real and irrefutable evidence, why not wait until that comes in and really drop the bomb? If there is no proof to substantiate your allegations, then can we hope you've catharted your frustrations against the Goliks, and will find a healthier way of spending your time and energies? Put on a Laura Branigan CD and listen to her music. Is this someone who deserves your unsubstantiated "truth?" Does it bring you joy? Do you still feel fondly toward her music? Or would you rather put it away as well for awhile until you can return to it fresh, at some remove from the injustices you have suffered? Come on, man, prove yourself to be better than what you say the Goliks mischaracterized you as and stop flaming this little bio. J T 21:07, 5 Nov 2005

--

Mr. Liaguno, You will not "goad" me into utilizing the Wikipedia service as a battleground to discuss the problems you have with Ms. Branigan and her management company. The history of this page demonstrates clearly that YOU have brought ME into this discussion, not as you contend, the other way around.

Other Half Entertainment has a right and obligation to protect and defend the marks and rights which were assigned to us, no matter who assigned them to Other Half Entertainment or when they were assigned. Additionally, Other Half Entertainment is under no obligation to provide specific proof of such assigns to fans or individuals who, in the final analysis, are merely interested in criticizing or otherwise tarnishing the good names of our assignors.

Neither Laura Branigan nor Other Half Entertainment have any obligation to acknowledge, provide information about or access to, or endorse any material published anywhere, regarding Ms. Branigan, particularly if said material contains information that, in any form, may be detrimental to the character, reputation, and good name of Laura Branigan. Simply the fact that you have written an article with Ms. Branigan as the proposed subject does not mean you have an automatic right to be acknowledged or endorsed by the artist's official website, or by her management company. Additionally, "plagarism" is a legal term, not as you mentioned, a "derogatory" term, and I submit that it would only be considered derogatory by those who are engaged in such behavior.

Again, I will not utilize the Wikipedia service as a battleground. Other Half Entertainment respects and abides by this Service's terms and will take appropriate measures to ensure that the Service is notified of anyone attempting to vandalize, spread propaganda on, or create dissention and arguments on, the Wikipedia service dedicated to one of our assignors.

Vincent Golik, Other Half Entertainment

--

Mr. Liaguno, Since you feel the need to grandstand and puff yourself up regarding your article to which you referred, you have obviously found a place where you can grandstand on a legitimate search engine. Since Wikipedia has been created as an open source license project, enabling anyone to edit and alter material found thereon, it is thus subject to error -- and the material that you are adding to this project is simply that -- error. In addition, you are deliberately using this forum and its search functions for your own personal gain, in that you know that you have created problems for other users on the Official Laura Branigan Discussion Forum found at LauraBraniganOnline.aimoo.com, and have deliberately falsified information in the article you now hold up as some sort of "independent bastion" of Laura Branigan fandom. It is clear to all concerned Laura Branigan fans and curious readers that you have a deliberate and malicious intent toward those who are in Laura Branigan management, because one of your posts was edited, and you began a "rampage" of sorts because someone actually edited you. These, sir, are the FACTS.

Further, since you seem intent on continually pushing your article in peoples' faces, may I remind everyone that the article in question was published in a publication which has itself been the target of deliberately false reporting -- from among its own ranks, in that one of their own staffers had written an article in which he referred to facts the author knew to be false -- yet the piece was published nonetheless. For them to publish your article with its overt plagarism included, is a testamant to what I personally feel is a level of "yellow journalism" on the part of that publication, meant to increase not just their circulation, but also their exposure to the general public readership. I will NOT speak for Ms. Branigan's business manager here, though I suspect she feels the same way as I do regarding this.

The interest of Branigan fans worldwide, ARE indeed the interests of Laura Branigan, and those of Other Half Entertainment, in which, I remind you, she specifically entrusted and extended all rights. Whether or not you or your friends on that renegade discussion board you belong to, personally like that fact, is irrelevant.

The fact that you have a marriage certificate in your possession that claims a specific date, does not diminish the possibility that the creator of that document erred in typing any information on that. I myself have seen valid marriage licenses in which errors have been made, yet they are, by their individual jurisdictions, still considered valid for marriage purposes. For you to use that certificate as "waving the flag" that Ms. Branigan either deliberately or subtly lied about her birth year, is evidence of the fact that you have truly no interest in seeking the actual truth about situations, as the multiplicity of posts made by you both on the Official Laura Branigan Discussion Forum and another renegade discussion forum, clearly demonstrates. The fact that you utilize effective English writing patterns, does not diminish or hide the mean, may I say "anti-Laura" spirit behind your words.

May I remind you (all) that Wikipedia is a great source for sometimes little-known information, but as it is open-source, it is also open to interpretation and subject to error. As a member of Ms. Branigan's management team, I certify that the only official biography in existence, the biography that Ms. Branigan herself set her signature to as certifying its official sanction, is the biography found on her only ever official website, LauraBraniganOnline.com. All information contained therein, including her year of birth, is certified as being official, which is what such open-source information houses as Wikipedia should reflect. It is not for renegades such as Mr. Liaguno or any of his newly-found friends, all who find delight in negatively-critizing Ms. Branigan and her management team, to make any changes to facts which the artist herself have already certified. For them to do so, is the ultimate "slap in the face" not only to the legacy and memory of Ms. Branigan, not only to Other Half Entertainment, not only to Ms. Branigan's close and long-time friendships (all of whom also certify the information found in Ms. Branigan's official biography), but also a major slap-in-the-face to legitimate Laura Branigan fans worldwide.

Finally, may I remind you that Wikipedia is NOT intended as a "propaganda machine" or as a "battleground" to air differences, problems, or grievances. As Other Half Entertainment has reminded you and ALL of your newly found friends in the past, Mr. Liaguno, the proper forum to air such differences, problems, or grievances you feel you have, is PRIVATELY with Ms. Branigan's management. If you don't receive the answer you personally like, it is NOT for you to take such issues and air them publicly, you do not have a right to take such issues up with any court of law, and neither do you have the right to use a well-meaning site like Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox, propaganda machine, or battleground with those you personally disagree with.

-- Vincent Golik, Public Relations Specialist-Laura Branigan, Other Half Entertainment

--

I'm confused as to whom I'm responding here and the direction more recent additions are to progress, I'd responded to the first message below it. I find it odd that my arguments are said not to follow when the claim is that Ms. Branigan's marriage certificate reads 1954 for DOB. Why support your change from '57 with the marriage certificate and then not change it to the date you allege the marriage certificate proves? "Common knowledge," without substantiation, is a collective rumor. In the absence of a corroborating document that can be independently judged, why is this an issue, and I return to the question, why do we arrive at 1952 in possession of a document that alleges 1954? I look at the official date of 1957 as a default date until some fair adjudicator reviews and presents irrefutable proof to the contrary. Is that not a reasonable position to take? If all three dates are unsubstantiated or suspect, why does it strike anyone that going to 1952 until proven one way or another is more reasonable than remaining at 1957 until proven one way or another?

-	Well rounded would seem to be a term you and I have different definitions for. Not every discrepancy, rumor and salaciousness that may be associated with a given person rises to the level of something that bears mention in a brief bio. This is a Wiki bio, not a scandal sheet or a novel or a compendium of article links. That Ms. Branigan had strong feelings against one site and for another were considered by another writer, not myself, worthy of comment. I don't disagree, and in fact find Ms. Branigan's feelings to be more important, or to use your word, "interesting," than the opinions of someone who disregarded her feelings and wishes. Certainly in the context of her own bio. That people connected with Ms. Branigan in various limited ways for finite periods of time might wish to self-aggrandize by promoting their interests after her death when she can no longer "allegedly" speak out on her own "supposed" opinions should come as no surprise. You will notice I didn't promote myself, or any friends and aquaintances of Ms. Branigan's, nor did I promote anyone connected with her official website in the bio, as this is not my agenda. Again, were the piece to run a hundred pages, there would be room in there for quite a few more details of the friends and enemies of Laura Branigan and might still not merit a mention for you or I.

-	If both of these posts below are not from the same person, I apologize, as only one is signed; I referred to the writer of the autograph magazine piece, "VL" here, as a "former fan," and in the lower post VL corrects me as claiming himself to be "not...a former fan, but a current fan..." The post above it, which is more recent, reads "'Self professed fan' is your characterization of me, nothing I'm claiming." Please, if this is two different people, indicate this by giving another set of initials or some differentiating "signature." Otherwise, you are clearly contradicting yourself and it's no surprise to me the writer of this material can't commit to a position on his fanhood. -	Finally, it is you who "wish to add that the DOB is controversial," and have done so, not me. It is also you who has changed the DOB repeatedly at the head of the bio, in addition to this. So your implication is that you will be placated from your wishes to change the DOB in the heading by a mention that there is a controversy over her age in the controversy section, and as we're discussing it here at such length we might as well put it in the controversy section. I do not, however, feel a mention of or a link to your article is appropriate, as the article does not make an allegation of her age and in that light is pure self-promotion. I wouldn't dream of mentioning a fan by name as you did because regardless of how much she or you may (or, alternately may not) consider yourselves to be a fan, there are a hundred more who would stake a similar claim and this is not the place for a rundown of her greatest fans, even ones who have taken actions in her name in other media. Your article is indeed published and available to the world that reads such tomes and stumbles upon such websites, I've read it, and it doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in Laura Branigan's Wiki bio. I've read quite a few wonderful and informative published articles containing FACTS, none of which are linked to here. Those from authoritative sources which provide legitimate and pertinent information have been incorporated into the bio. Your info at best is not only impertinent, in every sense of the word, but not even addressed in the article in question. J T 17:53, 5 Nov 2005

JT--Your arguments do not follow. If a site is listed as it is in the Laura Branigan piece, and that site being the "first one created" then the link should be left for those who wish to view it. No other sites are listed and therefore are not relevant to this article. If another site, such as "fan sites" like that of Leanne were to be mentioned in passing, it would only be fair to list her site as well. However, that is not the case. Whether Ms. Branigan liked the site or not, Wikipedia in it's discussion concerning articles says that it wants well rounded articles, not one sided ones. So, if you continue to discuss Laurabranigan.com, there should be a link as well.

As for Ms. Branigan's age, it is common knowledge in the recording world. Even the webmaster at Laurabraniganonline.com knows the true age of Ms. Branigan, however, to keep controversy from erupting, she will not discuss it. Whether you believe "Bios" is your business, but remember, they were written by people who perpetuated the lie to begin with. Being blind to the truth does not make it a lie. If you continue to change the date you should first do research into Ms. Branighan's actual date of birth. Please check the public records for proof. "Self professed fan" is your characterization of me, nothing I'm claiming. I seek to have the truth put into Wikipedia, not something bought into by a person who refuses to seek the tsame but would rather post a falsehood. If you wish to add that the date of birth is controversial, that is fine, however, I will not leave it as 1957 unless a controversial topic is created to bring attention to this matter. That is, until you find the truth.

Both site links should be included since the Laura Branigan piece mentions the one created prior to Laurabraniganonline.com. This seems to best show both sides of a controversy rather than just one. Hence, the controversy between boards.

Furthermore, the date of Laura's birth is 1952. It is commonly known that Laura subtracted 5 years from her age at the behest of Atlantic records.

Until proof is given that Laura Branigan had a lawsuit against Laurabranigan.com, I do not believe it should be an absolute in this piece.

The issue of which was her official site has already been resolved by a moderator here. Given that, the controversy isn't construed to be between boards but related to the offending board alone. There are other fan sites for Laura Branigan which neither misleadingly claimed to be her official site nor accrued her offense, and as such they are neither part of this controversy nor are they listed here. To provide a link to a site deemed to be unofficial, the subject of a controversy, and the bane of Ms. Branigan's existence during the last years of her life would be to add insult to the injury it caused her.

One version of these additions suggested that her marriage certificate, apparently in the possession of a former fan and member of the controversial site, and the same person who seeks to add these allegations, stated her date of birth as 1954. Her official bio states her DOB was 1957. What then substantiates the claim of 1952? Among what circles is this common knowledge?

The wording of the issue that is your final point was that Branigan sought legal advice or had some legal action pending before, at the time of, or after her death, which doesn't implicitly state a lawsuit. It is your characterization that translates that to the absolute of a lawsuit, not the language that was used in the controversy mention.

What should not be an absolute in the piece is the 1952 birth date, as her official bios give it as 1957. It would seem a fairly insignificant difference if it were true, and not one it makes sense for a self-professed fan to quibble over. Your characterization of it as an "interesting question" raises an insteresting question in itself. The other topics of the controversy section remain relegated to that section, under that heading, and able to be absorbed in that context by any party interested enough to make it that far. Your insistence upon changing the official date of birth at the top of the page by its very definition turns a controversial allegation into an absolute in this piece! Please refrain from doing so.

Finally, you would seem to be the author of the article in the autograph magazine you keep trying to publicize here with not only its mention but a link to the article. This is a bio of the singer Laura Branigan which focuses largely on her public career as such and is not an opportunity for anyone who ever managed to have the remotest connection to call attention to themselves and publicize their other work. With the confluence of websites, perhaps one of them would be receptive to having you share this sort of personal material there.--J T 15:37, 5 Nov 2005

-- Um... WHY is this person ARGUING WITH HIMSELF on this page? Crazy People..LOL - James.

No official Website, see letter from Laura Branigan on her official site: http://www.laurabraniganonline.com/images/lfl_040524.gif


 * OK...guess that's conclusive enough!(Even though laurabranigan.com offers a link to email her!).Wouldn't have quibbled if the laurabraniganonline.com site had stored her letters as readable text rather than graphics,as I work from a text console!--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cleanup tag, singles tables?
any particular reason why this article has multiple singles tables with essentially the same information? can one template be chosen and the chart statistics combined? the current version seems kind of silly. -- eo 16:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who amended the chart section to include more of her singles and more chart data for each title. The three versions I presented were never intended to remain together beyond a couple of weeks. I had posted on her official website that I had expanded the LB entry and invited input on which table her fans felt was most informative, easiest to read, etc., and invited feedback and suggestions. While several response posts there and personal messages to me, including one from the site master, lauded and appreciated my expansion, I received no suggestions on the charts, and so have this morning deleted the two I, personally, felt were most cluttered in favor of a single, larger one. Thanks for your interest, and thanks even more for not just deleting them yourself. - J T 10.17.05
 * No prob JT - I removed the cleanup tag and wikified the column headers to point to the charts they represent. -- eo 15:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues
"MTV never apologized, never ceased lowering its threshold of decency,"

This is just the tip of the ice-berg. While I agree with the sentiment, the controversy section, if not the entire article, should be tagged as unprofessional and non-neutral.

Likewise, I can scarcely believe that an article on the subject of an 80's popstar deserves a larger discussion than the already quite sufficiently lengthy article of which it is a part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiliyyah (talk • contribs)


 * I came to this article via a link and was appalled at the Controversy section. It violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V, and was basically an overblown, unsourced, POV rant. The MTV video "controversy" deserves exactly one factual and verifiable sentence, which is that MTV would not air the video until it was re-edited; it was re-edited; and MTV aired it. Everything else is unsourced speculation and POV-pushing. I edited it down to what is factual and verifiable. The paragraph about the two Web sites was unencyclopedic as well as unsourced, POV, and unverifiable, and I removed it entirely. --MCB 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can somebody tell me why MTV refused to air the video for "Self Control" until it was re-edited? What was MTV's objection?  24.6.66.193 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and correspondence from Kathy Golik
Today I received by email a message from a person identifying herself as Kathy Golik and stating that she "served as business manager for the late singer Laura Branigan, and [...] continue[s] to operate Other Half Entertainment, the management and production company formed with Ms. Branigan prior to her death". The substance of her message was that she objected to my edit to the "Controversy" section of this article, specifically to my removal of a paragraph describing a dispute between the proprietors of LauraBranigan.com and LauraBraniganOnline.com regarding which Web site was "official" and a dispute over the ownership of the "LauraBranigan.com" domain name.

I replied (my reply can be found here), and asked that all correspondence regarding my Wikipedia edits and Wikipedia policy be posted to article Talk pages or my User Talk page, in order that the community can observe and comment, as is our custom. It appears that she, or someone at her direction, edited the article as User:24.239.56.109 to re-insert a strongly POV paragraph about the dispute, in which she is presumably involved. I edited the paragraph regarding the dispute to reduce it to two factual and neutral sentences. This was removed by User:24.239.56.109, and I got a further email message from Golik, saying "there is NO dispute as to which Web site IS Ms. Branigan's official site, therefore, you are inaccurate in stating that". (That claim is somewhat confusing, since the substance of her first email message consisted of the history and details of the dispute, and a simple look at both Web sites shows that both claim to the be the "official" site.) I have reverted the page for now, but it looks like this should probably head in the direction of mediation or other dispute resolution, and I would caution User:24.239.56.109/Golik regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:OWN. --MCB 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Verification
Mr MCB,

Speaking up for Ms Branigan, I suggest that you have actually no concept of what has been going on in the world of Laura Branigan, for you to say:

"Everything else is unsourced speculation and POV-pushing. I edited it down to what is factual and verifiable. The paragraph about the two Web sites was unencyclopedic as well as unsourced, POV, and unverifiable, and I removed it entirely."

Perhaps, sir, you should have done your homework a bit better.

This particular article has, for many months, been the victim of vandalism in the instant regard, as well as with respect to Ms Branigan's age, by those who have had chips on their shoulders against Ms Branigan for various reasons. This article has had actual, verifiable, and provable LIBEL (I understand you are a lawyer and thus hopefully should be familiar with the term) against Ms Branigan's business manager, the very person you claim responded to you yesterday, Mrs Kathy Golik. Where were you when the vandals were claiming, for example in true ridiculously POV fashion, that Mrs Golik saw the ghost of Branigan? Even for you to have claimed "It appears that she [Golik], or someone at her direction, edited the article as User:24.239.56.109 to re-insert a strongly POV paragraph about the dispute, in which she is presumably involved" smacks very strongly of someone who has an agenda to create a strong POV against the verifiable facts, as was the custom of those who, now relegated to minor private "winge" message boards, have similarly libeled Branigan, Golik, Branigan's genuine fan base; the same few who, no doubt, have been behind the past vandalism of this article. I should wonder where your impartiality lies based upon your statements of what is disputed, what is not, and what is factual and verifiable, which according to common knowledge, your statements have completely 180 degrees to the opposite.

With respect to the instant edits by yourself, which I should now personally consider "professional vandalism" on the part of a Wiki editor (I do have a right to state my opinion, yes?), you truly have no knowledge of the situation surrounding Ms Branigan's Web site issue, proven by your flippant claim "a simple look at both Web sites shows that both claim to... be the "official" site." Your so-called "revert" of the page was no revert at all; rather, your subjective uneducated opinion of the situation... quite rightly evidenced by your statement "a SIMPLE look" (emphasis mine). In point of fact, your so-called "revert" contained information that is verifably FALSE; specifically your claim that the operators "of two Web sites" are engaged in a dispute as to which site is "official". This is not correct. Being familiar with this situation, I can assuredly say that the owners of these two Web sites are NOT engaged in a dispute as to which site is official. This "official Web site" issue was settled once and for all in January 2004 by Ms. Branigan herself; if you had dug a bit deeper than the front page of LauraBraniganOnline.com, you would have seen the letter Ms. Branigan wrote at that time, sanctioning LauraBraniganOnline.com as her only ever official Web site. Thus, there is no debate as to which one is truly "official". The dispute is rather over wresting control of the domain name laurabranigan.com from its current owner because of issues of impropriety and illegal acts on its owner's part.

I would have thought that an editor for such a large information database as Wikipedia would have taken more care to dig deeper and understand an issue than to simply wipe it off as "overblown nonsense."

So, in the interest of saving your face, and returning the Branigan article to truly "what is factual and verifiable", I have restored the instant paragraph of the Controversy section to reflect what truly is NPOV, factual, and verifiable. Had you truly had questions about the factual nature of these statements, you would have done well to seek out verification of the statements from those who know, namely Branigan's management company, rather than simply taking the proveribial red pen to the entry. A good editor seeks verification before printing and/or editing; but your actions yesterday, sir, do not reflect that behaviour.

AZ


 * You are correct that I "have actually no concept of what has been going on in the world of Laura Branigan". I'm approaching this the same way that I would approach any other article in Wikipedia, that is, to produce a neutral, factual article based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Please read WP:RS; as you will see, our policies require that information be sourced from established reference sources such as academic publications, mass media, and published material, and not directly from the subjects of articles or people who represent them (e.g. publicists, PR agencies, business managers, agents, etc.)


 * Reading through this Talk page it appears that there is some long-standing dispute among members of various Branigan-related forums that has carried over into Wikipedia. Please do not do this.


 * As for the dispute between Web sites, it is patently apparent that both sites claim to be the "official site". (Just take a look.) That is a dispute, and it's unquestionable. You and Ms. Golik appear to consider it a settled matter, but manifestly it is not, and Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that it be reported neutrally, not favoring one side or another, and not using POV language such as "a more comprehensive and respectful site", etc. That's just something we don't do here. I've reworded the paragraph to include the domain-name ownership dispute as well, for additional clarity. But until either or both matters are settled or decided, and reported as such by a reliable source, the article must treat the subject neutrally.


 * As for any agenda on my part, please be assured that I have absolutely no personal opinion about the web site dispute, the domain name dispute, or any other of the squabbles that seem to have marked the history of this article. I don't consider myself a Laura Branigan fan; she was just someone I might have seen on MTV a couple of times 20 years ago, and who was in the news when she died an untimely death. I don't know any of the parties involved in any of the disputes. The agenda I do have, however, is to make sure that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are observed in this article. This is not a fan site, nor a chat room, nor a memorial; nor is it the prerogative of Branigan's managment company or any other personal representative to "own" the article and determine its contents. --MCB 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see that you are admitting your ignorance of the goings-on with Laura Branigan and her fan base. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it appears to me that your ignorance has carried over to what constitues neutral points of view, as well as verifiable & reliable sources.  Under your guidelines, over half of Wiki articles must be severely cut to the bone, perhaps including wine articles to which you have contributed, based upon the same premise of being too close to the issue as a result of your ownership of a wine website, as evidenced (reliable source?) on your "ME" page.  I have personally come across hundreds of Wiki pages containing material clearly from management agencies, PR representatives, and the like, yet nothing had been done to edit the POV from such pages.


 * What strikes me as even more profoundly strange is the fact that someone who purports to be a lawyer, cannot understand a simple concept of investigation. You apparently still have no desire to reach beyond the main pages of both laurabranigan.com and LauraBraniganOnline.com, for a more detailed investigation of both websites will reveal that LauraBraniganOnline.com is the only one of the two that is truly comprehensive, and has actual letters written by Ms. Branigan herself upon it.  The website at laurabranigan.com can claim none of this, nor any verifiable connection to Ms. Branigan herself.  The owners of LauraBraniganOnline.com, however, do indeed have a verifiable source: their contract with Ms. Branigan.  That, Sir, is what is unquestionable and neutral.  The fact that you personally cannot see that verifiable source in your hands, does in no way negate its existence, its value, or its force.


 * As you have clearly taken it upon yourself to read through the prior discussions on this page, I would have thought it would have struck you in the same way it seems to srike most everyone, that the discussion dealt with a rash of vandalism of the Branigan article, in which her birth year was repeatedly changed, libelous material and true nonsense phrases slid inside otherwise reasonable material, and other such games were played. Though I will grant that the discussion has run its course and no longer needs displayed, it appears that you have completely underrated its significance and meaning, and simply relegated it to the bargain basement of "some long-standing dispute among members of various Branigan-related forums that has carried over into Wikipedia."  If it truly had "carried over" onto Wikipedia, I submit to you that it had because of the lack of action on Wikipedia's part to actively reverse and prevent the vandalism that so pervaded this article during that time.


 * I further contend that as you stated that it is not the prerogative of Ms. Branigan's management company or any other "personal representative" to "own" the article, neither is it yours. I have twice offered adequate argument to the fact that your edits as they appear are erroneous as stated, yet you seem totally unwilling to allay from your position.  I am beginning to feel that for you this is something more than simply "wiki-editor-god" work with the instant article, and more a personal agenda that you are denying well.  Wiki editors are NOT above reproach!  You are NOT gods!


 * Reading through the entirety of this discussion as well as your emails between yourself and Mrs Golik, it appears to me that your continued insistence on editing the article to include your contribution of unverifiable, inaccurate, and misleading information (in total violation of Wiki editor code of conduct, no doubt), smacks very much of annoyance that Mrs Golik dared question your edit and contacted you at all about it.


 * AZ


 * First of all, a Wikipedia article is not about "goings-on with Laura Branigan and her fan base". This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, memorial, chat room, discussion board, etc. It would probably be best if Branigan's "fan base" and sources closely associated with her (such as Golik and Other Half Entertainment) refrain from editing this article, for obvious reasons of lack of neutrality and objectivity.


 * Wikipedia's requirements of NPOV and reliable sources are fundamental policies. This is why we require objective, third-party sources to confirm facts and events; an entertainer or his/her publicist, PR firm, management, etc., are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, nor are editors' claims of personal knowledge, nor "investigation" (WP:NOR). Indeed, a large number of articles lack proper sourcing, and I hope that as a Wikipedia editor you will help out in finding reliable sources and adding them to articles. Claiming that "over half of Wiki articles must be severely cut to the bone" does not, in any way, excuse lack of reliable sources in this article. Your job -- and mine -- as an editor, is to find those sources, cite them, and if they do not exist, remove the material from the article.


 * Lastly, besides violating Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks, your comments about my edits to "wine articles" (!?) based on my "ownership of a wine site" are totally bewildering. I am not aware of having edited any wine articles (that I can remember), nor do I run a wine site of any sort. Perhaps you would like to cite examples of what you are talking about here? (I do have a food blog, mentioned on my user page, which does not sell any product or service, but I have never linked to it in a Wikipedia article, nor have I ever cited it, or myself, as a reliable source.). --MCB 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Michael Berch from Kathy Golik, President, Other Half Entertainment
My signed contract with Ms. Branigan contains authorization to manage all matters which concern her and her career legacy; and this authorization does not change in the event of her death. Therefore, the company known as Other Half Entertainment, a partnership formed by Ms. Branigan, myself, and Vince Golik, is charged with this task. Given that, one of my responsibilities is to ensure that accurate information regarding Ms. Branigan and those things which concern her is presented to the public.

I contacted Mr. Berch via email regarding a concern I had pertaining to one of his edits that he recently made to Ms. Branigan's article. In a review of the article, I noticed that Mr.Berch had deleted the entire paragraph in the "Controversy" section which contained FACTUAL statements regarding the websites found at laurabranigan.com and LauraBraniganOnline.com, including the FACTUAL mention that "Branigan herself endorsed LauraBraniganOnline.com as her sole official website in January 2004."

The following is the text of the email I sent to Mr. Berch:

"Mr. Berch, My name is Kathy Golik, and I served as business manager for the late singer Laura Branigan, and I continue to operate Other Half Entertainment, the management and production company formed with Ms. Branigan prior to her death. As such, I oversee Ms. Branigan's career legacy, handle business affairs involving her and her work, and maintain her official website at LauraBraniganOnline.com. I am writing in regards to the recent edit you made to the "Controversy" section found within Ms. Branigan's Wikipedia entry.  Previous to your deletion of it, there was a paragraph explaining which particular website is Ms. Branigan's official website.  That paragraph was placed there, and I will add not by myself originally, due to the fact that a cybersquatter owns the domain "laurabranigan.com," and has falsely marked his site for several years as being Ms. Branigan's official one, when in fact, neither the owner nor the website found at that domain has ever had any association with or personal endorsement from Ms. Branigan. Other Half Entertainment continues the legal process started with Ms. Branigan prior to her death, to retrieve ownership of the laurabranigan.com domain. Because of the deception perpetrated by the presence of that website on the Web, it is crucial the public be informed of the truth regarding which website is Ms. Branigan's official website, personally authorized and endorsed by her, and which is not, until the domain issue is settled legally. Furthermore, I monitor Ms. Branigan's Wikipedia entry on a regular basis, as those associated with the owner of the laurabranigan.com domain, have taken it upon themselves to "vandalize" the entry at times. Those who personally knew Ms. Branigan, as well as her legitimate fans, are very aware of how very outspoken Ms. Branigan was concerning the website issue, and her strong desire for the distinction to be made between which website containing her name was legitimate, and which was not. In light of the very serious nature of this matter, the ongoing legal process to correct it, and the public's right to be presented accurate information, I do not agree with your reasoning for the deletion of that paragraph, stated as "remove overblown nonsense." To you personally, that may be your interpretation, but the facts of the situation speak otherwise. Best regards, Kathy Golik President, Other Half Entertainment The Laura Branigan Management and Production Company

________________________________

In Mr. Berch's email reply to me, he stated,

"As a long-time Wikipedia editor, my personal judgment was that the web site controversy was too minor and only of interest to a small number of people. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia read by millions, and we try to focus on material that is of wide public note and interest. I'm not sure that a dispute between two competing web sites as to which is the "official" site of a deceased entertainer meets that criterion (as the other material in the section, a long and lurid description of events supposedly connected with the video for one of Branigan's songs certainly did not)."

With this reply, Mr. Berch clearly demonstrated his lack of understanding of what was expressed in the original paragraph in the "Controversy" section which he chose to delete.

The following is the text which he removed -

"By the late 1990's, a website was made using the name laurabranigan.com. After several years it was apparent to many Branigan fans (some of whom call themselves "Branifans" or "Fanigans") this website had no authorized connection to the singer herself. In an effort to provide a more comprehensive and respectful site, a new Laura Branigan fan website at LauraBraniganOnline.com was created in November 2002. Branigan herself endorsed LauraBraniganOnline.com as her sole official website in January 2004. Currently, both websites can be found on the Web."

Regarding the text as originally written, I will go on record as stating that I had no involvement whatsoever in the addition of that paragraph to Ms. Branigan's entry.

Mr. Berch's implication is that I have some sort of agenda to push a particular point of view within this section of Ms. Branigan's entry, and nothing could be further from the truth. The paragraph in question had virtually remained the same for quite some time now, except for the vandalizations of the entry that have occurred on several occasions. If I wished to skew the perspective of the text, then why would I have a problem with his deletion of the entire paragraph? If I wished to proffer a biased point of view, why wouldn't I have celebrated the very absence of the website laurabranigan.com mention, since "Controversy" was the only section in Ms. Branigan's article where mention of that website appeared?

The text that was subsequently placed there by Mr. Berch, shows a clear misunderstanding of the intent of the whole issue.

First, he deleted the original text, stating that it was "too minor and only of interest to a small number of people" and that, "I'm not so sure that a dispute between two competing websites as to which is the"official" site of a deceased entertainer meets that criterion," and now his latest edit to that section places text back into the entry which talks about a domain dispute and treats both websites as if neither one of them can be verified as being Ms. Branigan's sole personally authorized and sanctioned official website. He has gone from removing all mention of the websites to totally altering the purpose of the original text. In my email I provided information regarding the domain dispute for informational purposes only, whereas the main reason I contacted him was to disagree with him removing the mention of both websites, and this was done in the interest of ensuring that accurate information was being presented to the public regarding which website is indeed Ms. Branigan's official website, since both websites are labeled as such.Mr. Berch's statement that "Both sites claim official status" is blatantly inaccurate based upon the facts. A domain dispute and the status of an official website are two distinct things. Although the right to ownership of the laurabranigan.com domain is in the process of being disputed, it is FACT, and both first and third-party verifiable that the website located at LauraBraniganOnline.com IS Ms. Branigan's official website. LauraBraniganOnline.com is NOT "claiming" to be Ms. Branigan's official website, as the website at laurabranigan.com is, it IS MS. Branigan's official website.

I suggest that Mr. Berch perform searches under "Laura Branigan" on the major search engines such as Google, Yahoo, AOL, and MSN. He will find that not one of the search results listings for "www.laurabranigan.com" includes the word "official" website, whereas every listing for "www.LauraBraniganOnline.com does. I will further point out that due to Other Half Entertainment's communications with MSN, and MSN's stringent standards as far as accuracy in their search engine database, Mr. Berch will not even find a listing for "www.laurabranigan.com" in their database, as the decision was made by MSN to completely remove the listing for that domain.  Also, the link found in the Wikipedia entry for official website goes to LauraBraniganOnline.com.  Additional examples of the verified official status of LauraBraniganonline.com can be found at the Internet Movie Database  website (link found in Ms. Branigan's Wikipedia entry), and as a part of Ms. Branigan's VH-1 artist profile page at http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/branigan_laura/artist.jhtml.

As far as direct proof of the official website status of LauraBraniganOnline.com, the following is a letter written by Ms. Branigan that was posted on LauraBraniganOnline.com in January 2004 when she made the announcement that she was personally authorizing and endorsing LauraBraniganOnline.com as her sole official website. In this letter, Ms. Branigan also comments specifically regarding the website at laurabranigan.com, as well as its owner. This letter is located at http://www.laurabraniganonline.com/main/lfl.php

January 19, 2004 Dear Fans,

I am pleased to announce that I am naming and fully endorsing www.LauraBraniganOnline.com as my official website, and as such, all official news, information, concert updates, etc., will be released exclusively through LauraBraniganOnline.com.

I am aware that for some time there has been some confusion regarding the status of the website found at www.laurabranigan.com. I want to make clear to all my fans and website visitors that the website at laurabranigan.com is NOT my official website. I have absolutely NO affiliation, contact, or relationship with laurabranigan.com or its owner, and I do NOT endorse the website found at laurabranigan.com in any way.

I look forward to having all my fans visit me at my "home" on the Web at LauraBraniganOnline.com. We have some exciting things planned, including an official online store coming soon!

I wish to thank all of you for your love and continued support.

Laura Branigan

________________________________

Based upon the information presented, there is no question as to the official status of the website found at LauraBraniganOnline.com, yet Mr. Berch seems to not see that forest for the trees, and seems totally hung up on "claims" of official status based on what he sees simply based on a seeming 10-second glance at both websites. Mr. Berch's statement that "Both sites claim official status" is a blatant falsehood, and a statement that will clearly mislead the public that he, as a Wikipedia editor, supposedly wants to protect from such biased points of view.

I also take issue with the placement of a clickable link to laurabranigan.com within the current text, as there are illegalities found within the operation of that website which are able to be verified by correspondence sent by Ms. Branigan's attorney to the domain owner, Jason Fiore, which clearly specify that Fiore is illegally selling Ms. Branigan's music through an online store on that domain, and we also have in our possession affidavits from fans of Ms. Branigan who purchased and paid for items offered through his online store at laurabranigan.com, and never received what they paid for. Such statements and material facts have already been entered into evidence against Mr. Fiore. In the original text, neither website link was directly clickable, and I wouldn't think that Wikipedia would advocate links being provided to websites that are involved in illegal activities. The fact that the article's subject is Laura Branigan, and the coupling of this subject matter with a website that operates illegally, makes for a possible negative association in regards to the public's perception of Ms. Branigan and those she placed herself in association with during her career, in that she would associate herself with, or at the very least condone, illegal activities.

In closing, I contacted Mr. Berch regarding his edit, and presented information to him that would assist him in understanding the overall situation better, which was in addition to giving him my reasoning why I did not agree with his removal of the original text. He then took the information regarding the domain dispute and placed it in the entry. If it were my intention for that information to be placed in Ms. Branigan's entry, then I would have done so myself. The original text stated factual information regarding both websites, and as such was neutral in nature. This is a statement of neutral fact, and cannot be disputed.

Kathy Golik President, Other Half Entertainment


 * It actually is true that the "other" site claims official status, as it has a tagline "The Official Website". Whether such claim has any basis in truth is a different matter.  As for the "illegal activities", Wikipedia has to be very careful in making or spreading any accusations to the effect that somebody (who has not been convicted in a court of law) is doing something illegal, since those can be libelous if untrue.  This is an important reason for the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, which seems to be what you're running into here; we can't simply accept things as fact (even if they actually are true) on the say-so of somebody who writes here, even if they say they're the official management of the celebrity involved (how can this be proved?).  People can claim all sorts of things (as, in fact, the "fake" "official site" is doing on its own behalf).  A reference in a reputable source, such as a newspaper or book, would go a long way. *Dan T.* 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Dan T. by Kathy Golik, President, Other Half Entertainment
A link was given in my statement that goes to a page of letters found on LauraBraniganOnline.com, The Official Laura Branigan Website, that were written by Laura Branigan herself. Several of these letters to her fans state that LauraBraniganOnline.com is her ONLY official website, and she also speaks against the website found at laurabranigan.com and its owner, Jason Fiore. It is a fact that these letters have all been accepted as evidence in the contining legal case against Fiore. THE definitive source of the truth regarding which website is Laura Branigan's official one is Laura Branigan HERSELF. Other Half Entertainment, The Laura Branigan Management and Production Company, the entity which also owns and operates Laura's official website at LauraBraniganOnline.com, regularly works with various music industry related companies, including Warner Music Group who owns her music catalog, representing the interests of Laura Branigan, all of which can be verified by company personnel. I would also say that the Branigan family solely authorizing Other Half Entertainment to compose and disseminate the official press release regarding Laura's death first through LauraBraniganOnline.com, and then to all newswire services as the first public notifications of Laura's passing, is ample proof of the authorization of our company to represent Laura's interests. I also have done several interviews, including one with BBC London Radio, who contacted me after Laura's death, and media organizations such as the BBC thoroughly do their research when it comes to seeking out authorized representatives qualified to speak on behalf of a music artist. Again, given the fact that Other Half Entertainment also owns and operates LauraBraniganOnline.com, there are many "reputable" sources that can back up everything I have stated.

Kathy Golik, President, Other Half Entertainment


 * I think what Dan is trying to say is that using an unverifiable transcription of a letter supposedly from Laura hosted on your own website to back up a claim that financialy benefits you while harming the reputation of another is not appropriate. YOU claim that this letter is written by Laura Branigan, but LauraBraniganOnline.com is hardly an impartial source! This isn't even bad scholarship, it's not sholarship at all. The section should be removed until an impartial source can be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.151.139 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue actually seems to have been cleared up now legally, with the Kathy Golick's claim being denied - she doesn't have any legal claim over Branigan's estate, and most of what was said in the paragraph she insisted on maintaining was false or unverifiable. Maybe this should be added to the article? here is the source: www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1156.html 92.3.180.38 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing Link
Just real quick, I am removing the link to Jack White. It links up to the famous white stripes singer and that is not who produced anything of hers in the 80's.RyanDaniel 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vocal Coach
I can't substantiate this, other than to reference the liner notes of her first album (Branigan), where she lists "Carlos Menotti" in the credits - and her second album (Branigan 2) where she credits "CARLO MENOTTI for the voice" - but it seems likely that her vocal coach was Carlo Menotti, who was born in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1909 & died in 1993 - and not Pulitzer Prize-winning composer Gian-Carlo Menotti, who was born in Italy, in 1911 & died in 2007.

There is a website http://thedeadrockstarsclub.com that lists Carlo Menotti's voice students as Connie Francis, Tony Bennett, Annette Funicello, Judy Garland, Nancy Sinatra, Laura Branigan, Pat Boone, Diana Ross, Paul Anka and Frankie Avalon.

Otherwise, it is difficult to find objective information online, as all the bios for Gian-Carlo Menotti (apparently copied from the same source) seem to mention that Laura Branigan credited him as her vocal coach (but they seem to stop short of actually saying that he coached her.)

Unfortunately, Carlo Menotti (the Brazilian vocal coach) was apparently not famous enough to have many web articles written about him.

--Zeichner 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed; my research turns up a thank you from Branigan to a "Maestro Carlo Menotti" as late as 1993 in the liner notes to her album Over My Heart. I've uncovered other references to the Carlo Menotti credited as coaching Tony Bennett and others, though they are hard to fish out of the sea of information about the composer. Their bios contain numerous similarities and they even somewhat resemble one another in photos. The Branigan reference to a "Carlos" looks to be a typo. The Wiki references to the composer look to be an understandable error based on this remarkable coincidence and magnified in the echo chamber of sites that quote Wikipedia articles in their entirety. With that impressive list of students, and the uncanny similarities to his near-namesake, maybe there should be a Wiki bio! Abrazame 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reborn" - Stupid, Untruthful, Yet Libelous Vandalism
Once again, but for the first time in a long time, Wiki users have to be subjected to the "rebirth" of IMO jealous stupidity in the form of the abject VANDALISM of the Laura Branigan wiki article by an individual identified by IP address 172.132.223.161 (an AOL address), who has taken to writing ridiculous lies about Laura Branigan and her management team. This individual is violating Wiki policies by 1) vandalising an article, 2) violating NPOV guidelines, and 3) submitting verifiable libel against specific persons. So, true fans of Laura Branigan are then duty-bound to continue reversing the vandalism until such time as Wiki senior editors/management decide that enough is enough, and decide to drill through AOL and discover who at 172.132.223.161 is vandalising this article, and put a thorough stop to it.

However, noting also that 2+ years beyond the tragic death of Ms Branigan, there are still that handful of renegades who populate the discussion board linked to the illegitimate site laurabranigan.com, who haven't seemed to get the concept of "moving on with life", and continue to this day to have nothing more to do with their day but eat, sleep, relieve, and populate Mr Fiore's board that Ms Branigan herself called "trash and lies against me" with continual ridicule, lies, and libel against Ms Branigan and those in her management team. It is my opinion that such people do not even have gainful employment to occupy their time, and perhaps even feed off their respective state welfare systems, at the expense of self-reliant citizens of such respective countries.

At some point, perhaps, this individual will tire of continually having to re-edit the Laura Branigan article with his/her vandalism, and this episode will end rather quietly. More forcefully, however, I believe true LB fans would do well to notify Wiki administration of this vandalism so that effective blocking measures can be undertaken against the perpetrator of this vandalism.

AZ

Fair use album cover deletion issue
The question of what constitutes fair use, and the separate question of how such rationale is worded and applied, is currently being hotly debated in the interests of arriving at a solution. What this situation needs is persistent light, not insistent heat. If the motivation to flag all these album covers was to spark attention to poorly elucidated (or poorly enforced) guidelines with the purpose of moving toward greater elucidation and/or greater enforcement, then this subject is definitely receiving attention. The tenor of all this seems to be refining the elucidation so that it is more legally accurate and easily applied and enforced: that album covers constitute fair use, but that a rationale needs to appear no more than a click or two away from the photo. The art should remain as editors and administrators attempt to fashion a fair use rationale template that would fit an entire category within certain necessary parameters. There is no legal urgency to this matter, and the best efforts of the community to move forward constructively in resolving this issue and perfecting the system should be allowed to play out before further action is taken to devalue the articles by unnecessarily and destructively removing photos that do not clearly represent violations. Abrazame 11:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To "Tim Horrigan"
I don't know who you are, but your persistent contention that anonymous persons and/or persons associated with Other Half Entertainment are continually performing "edits" on the Laura Branigan article lead me to believe that your intentions have far less to do with simply "helping to edit" the article as you asserted, and much more to do with deliberate vandalism and abuse of the overall intent of the article.

You asserted we don't want Mr. Fiore's name mentioned. The fact that you're either forgetting or deliberately ignoring is that just as Mr. Fiore's name was not mentioned, NOWHERE in the original unvandalized article were the names Kathy and Vince Golik, or Other Half Entertainment mentioned. For you to claim that "he deserves to have his name mentioned in the article" when ours were not even mentioned in the original, is patently biased. In truth, Mr. Fiore and his website, which is a true embarrassment to Laura and her true fan base, "deserve" nothing, as Branigan herself repeatedly stated that she despised Fiore for all the harm he had caused to her public image and reputation. She also had similar contempt for those few who aided and abetted Mr. Fiore. In contrast, those who cared about Laura Branigan, and those such as ourselves who dealt daily with her, know full well the damage he caused and the hurt Laura felt over the issue, which is exactly why she was so keen to publicly state her position and end the confusion Fiore caused once and for all. To continue in this point, the so-called "controversies" in the original article aren't actually controversies at all: there is no dispute, no "controversy", that LauraBraniganOnline.com is Laura's only ever official website; to claim there was ever a controversy about whether or not LauraBraniganOnline.com is official, is simply untrue. Similarly, to claim that laurabranigan.com was ever, at any time, sanctioned as Laura's official website, is also untrue. Those who persist in continuing this falsehood cannot claim to care about or be fans of Laura Branigan, and obviously have their own ulterior motives for perpetuating such ridiculous untruth.

Your persistent addition to this article does little but stir up unnecessary argumentative controversy. Had you done your homework, you would have compared apples to apples in terms of artist to artist, and realized that a number of artists and/or artist legacies are in a similar situation with illegal and/or illegitimate entities or misrepresentations of themselves out there, that caused them to require legal recourse, often with unpredictable results. In the instant case, astute research shows that in the overwhelming majority of cases presided over by WIPO panelist Mr. Abbott, where the case included a deceased individual, he neglected the merits of the case and rather concentrated on his assumption that just because he personally couldn't hear directly from the deceased individual, that the arguments presented by the representative(s) of the deceased could not be upheld by Abbott. Similarly, not all living artists have the automatic win; for example, Bruce Springsteen, a contemporary of Branigan, argued for rights to brucespringsteen.com, and lost. Yet there is not one word of this decision on the Bruce Springsteen Wikipedia article.

Similarly, there is no need for such reference on the Laura Branigan Wikipedia article. For you to insist upon vandalizing the article to continually include it, shows a malicious bias on your part, borne out of some desire on your part to stir up needless controversy. My suggestion to you would be to not persist in editing Wikipedia articles about which subjects you are unfamiliar or where your edis do not enhance, but detract from, the content.

Vince Golik

Vice-President, Other Half Entertainment (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I have no malicious intent... although I must admit that I first looked out of the website just out of idle curiousity to see what if anything was being said about someone who was not exactly one of the great figures in music history. She could sing a little and she was doubtless a wonderful person who died much too young... and it is good that someone is looking after her legacy... but we're not talking Madonna or Debbie Harry here.

I saw a rather bombastic passage about the website (non-)controversy in the entry which seemed worth fixing. I guess it wasn't worth fixing-- though I think the Goliks should at least let us put the WIPO ruling in there. As an outsider I am not sure why we are supposed find Fiore's web site so problematic. He says nothing bad about Ms Branigan at all and not much bad about the Goliks considering that they have been fighting with him for years. The basic facts don't reflect badly on the Goliks: they tried to shut Fiore's site down, they sued him and Fiore won on a technicality. Not sure why this is a big deal.

Just for the sake of full disclosure, I should confess that I know two of Bruce Springsteen's lawyers, and that I did actually buy an iTunes download of Branigan's version of "the Name Game" (which is oddly enjoyable even though it's kinda bizarre.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gloria
Are there any sources that Umberto Tozzi's version was not a success outside of Italy? I don't think it's true. In German-speaking countries, his version seems to be more known. Martg76 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

POV
The article has numerous unsourced statements - partially alluded to above. Presently we have "Branigan's high-impact version of the now widely-covered ballad featured an extraordinary key change in the final chorus." Maybe true, more likely fancruft. I believe - this is my point of view - that the article needs more references/sources/in-line citations, to stem the flow of opinionated sycophancy (however well intentioned). Am I alone ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not alone. 92.3.180.38 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Gloria" vs. "Self Control"
She is best known for her Top-10 hit "Self Control" (1984), her biggest hit from the Platinum album of the same name. Branigan is also remembered for her other Top-10 hits, "Gloria" (1982) and "Solitaire" (1983). I don't think this is accurate. The only song I recall that got significant airplay was "Gloria". -TunaSushi (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What you recall is Original Research and not encyclopedic. Radio Airplay alone, aside from being difficult to gauge (and source), is not necessarily indicative of a songs success, the method usually used is Charts (which are actually based on surveys from various disc jockeys as well as sales). Looking at Billboard only, Gloria did peak higher at #2 on the Hot 100 while Self Control peaked at #4. However, Billboard's end of year charts show Gloria at #56 and Self Control at #20 for their respective years, Suggesting that Self Control stayed on the charts at high positions for a longer period of time during that year. I'm personally of the opinion that the end of year is a more accurate portrayal of the song's popularity than peak times, but I'm not an expert on the guidelines of music articles, I'd check with WikiProject Music for advice on which is more suitable. International success and alternative charts should be taken into consideration as well.

THE REASON THAT "GLORIA" DIDN'T CHART AS HIGH ON THE END YEAR CHARTS AS "SELF CONTROL" IS BECAUSE THE SONGS PEAK WAS FROM VERY LATE 1982 UNTIL EARLY 1983, SO IT CHARTS ON THE YEAR END CHARTS IN 1982 AND 1983, WHEREAS "SELF CONTROL" WAS AT ITS PEAK MIDWAY THROUGH 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhakoJacko2009 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Official Links to year end charts for 1983 (Gloria) and 1984 (Self Control)
 * 1983: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+Hot+100&g=Year-end+Singles&year=1983
 * 1984: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+Hot+100&g=Year-end+Singles&year=1984


 * Registration required.


 * Unofficial Mirror with no registration required:


 * 1983: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1983
 * 1984: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1984


 * Hope this helps, Nar Matteru (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, how 'bout this link? (http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-b/laurabranigan_main.htm) Also, you can't compare positions on the year end charts from different years. You'd have to have a "decade-end" chart. I'd say she's equally known for both.

... I wasn't comparing them Nar Matteru (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In Europe it was "Self Control" which she was known for. --Tbone (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Gloria" is probably her most recognized hit. As for the end-of-year-charts, yes I think they are helpful in comparing success. But "Gloria" first reached the Top 40 in August 1982 and spent a large amount of time on the charts throughout 1983 enough that it would have been considered a bigger hit of that year than the year before because it had more time measured. If we are really comparing the two, "Gloria" spent 3 weeks at #2, spent 22 weeks in the Top 40 (and a record for a female artist to that point for its total stay on the charts) and was her only certified single, going Platinum. "Self Control" spent 15 weeks in the Top 40 peaking at #4 and remains uncertified. However in Europe, "Self Control" peaked higher in many markets. If that helps anyone, I love both of them but it was "Gloria" that I think really has stood the test of time, besides a memorable resurgence of "Self Control" on Grand Theft Auto, which was pretty exciting. Puckeylut (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote
Can something be done about the way the quote from Ms. Branigan's website overlaps with the infobox? I thought it might be vandalism at first, looked for somewhere else to put it, and finally deleted it, but okay, I guess it's legitimate content. But the right side of the quote box runs into the infobox and it looks awful. Methychroma (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. I hope you all like it. Methychroma (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Jessica Gordon removing the quote altogether is even better. Methychroma (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Top 10 or Top 12
Recently I attempted to edit the sentence

Branigan is also remembered for other Top-10 hits, including " Self Control," "Solitaire," and "How Am I Supposed to Live Without You."

to read

Branigan is also remembered for other Top-12 hits, including "Self Control," "Solitaire," and "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You."

Without further qualification, the adjective "Top-10" refers to Hot 100 peak position.

I received a message from a Wikipedia editor indicating that my edit was factually incorrect and reverted back, presumably primarily to read "Top-10". If that editor had looked further down the Laura Branigan page, that editor would have seen that "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You" peaked at #12, which is correct. So therefore the adjective "Top-10" is factually incorrect and the adjective "Top-12" is factually correct, contrary to the editor's stated belief. Therefore I appeal to have the sentence in question read the way I edited it, or to omit "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You" from the list, or to include an equivalent change, anything to remove the factual error I discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.121.99 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Official website?
This issue probably needs the attention of an editor versed in legal issues. The problem with the Goliks' claim to be the only official website of Laura Branigan is that they cannot point to any independently verifiable third party source... only a supposed letter, published conveniently on the domain that they own. Furthermore, the letter was published as an image, which is one way that unlicensed fansites try to give themselves the appearance of having been officially endorsed. These items cast doubt on the extensive claims made by Vince and Kathy Golik.

The main reason I post is because in the preceding volumes they've written, the Goliks have conveniently neglected to mention the fact that their complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center was DENIED on 6 February 2006 (Case No. D2005-1156), in part on the grounds that their contract with Branigan did not clearly convey rights to the trademark upon them, and even if it had, the disposition of those rights would likely have to be confirmed by a probate court.

If it was just a matter of who runs a better maintained fan site, the Goliks win hands down... but that doesn't make their site any more "official" than Fiore's.Wilford Nusser (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected
I have semi-protected the article for one week, to stop the edit warring about whether Branigan had Italian ancestry or not. (I listed the reason as "BLP violations", but that was my mistake - I now see that she died in 2004.) To include information about her ancestry we will need a reliable source that includes the information. We can't just put it in the article without a source, per the verifiability policy. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ERROR re BIRTHDATE
Byram Hills High School gives a scholarship in Branigan's name. It notes that she was the class of 1970: http://www.byramhills.org/files/filesystem/Spectrum_Summer09.pdf http://www.byramhills.org/files/filesystem/Spectrum_July10.pdf

If 1970 is correct, and most likely it is, Branigan was more likely born in 1952, not 1957. That also means her husband was not 20 years older than she was, as noted in the Wiki article--more likely 15 years older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.152.19 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems patently ridiculous that anybody would think Laura Branigan was recording with Meadow in NYC at the age of 16! The Byram Hills High School page lists her dates of attendance as 1966-1970 and her birth YEAR as 1952. This makes more sense than the birth year of 1957. Her information should be updated to reflect the official school records and not the previous birth year that allegedly was promulgated by Atlantic Records to make her age more palatable to a youthful audience for the release of her first album. A FAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.135.230 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDb has today March 17, 2015 updated Laura's biography to her right birth year, 1952. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0105104/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm--Born53 swe (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Laura wasn't born in 1957, it was her little brother Billy, Feb 28 to be exactly. Billy's birth notice from Patent Trader can be found here..scroll down to "Born yesterday". http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/document/patent-trader-1957-03-14-page-7 Billy graduated from Byram Hills High School in 1975. November 1954 Laura and her family were in the local paper. You can read about it here...http://northcastle.advantage-preservation.com/document/villager-1954-03-11-page-3 Laura graduated from Byram Hills High School, June 21, 1970. She was one of 116 students that day. From Patent Trader same day... http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/document/patent-trader-1970-06-20-page-21 All this together makes Laura's birth year to 1952--Born53 swe (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

To all of you who still proclaim that Laura was born 1957. Congratulations, you are worth it! Now it would be very nice if you can tell me how it is even possible that their mother Kathleen Branigan had 2 births 1957! Are you really sure about 1957? Can 1952 be realistic? You see, Laura's little brother Billy Branigan was born February 28, 1957 (see Patent Trader March 1957) and then his older sister Laura arrives July 3, also 1957! Suddenly Laura is Billy's little sister?! Is it possible? Please, if you believe in this mysterious you must have extraordinary, reliable and trustful sources that shows how Kathleen Branigan gave birth to two children in 1957. The Bible is not a source! I am really looking forward to see your sources. Sources, do you know that one of your sources has an award in Laura's name? Byram Hills Spectrum, page 11. "Awarded to a senior for excellence in the Performing Arts. The award is presented in memory of Laura Branigan, BHHS class of 1970, and is intended to encourage a career in the performing arts." http://www.byramhills.org/files/filesystem/spectrum_summer09.pdf Very nice words, which comes again in Byrams Spectrum from 2010..http://www.byramhills.org/files/filesystem/spectrum_july10.pdf This time on page 9. Could Byram Hills High School be so wrong? Laura Branigan was according to your sources born in 1957! She was just 13 yo when she graduated from high school 1970! And 15 yo when she graduated from the American Academy in 1972? Laura was excellent in school, but was she really born 1957? The other source is IMDb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0105104/bio?ref_=nm_ql_1. They changed their information about Laura, March 17 this year. And IMDb is a trustful source, and they made their changes together with me. But that is another story.--Born53 swe (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

17:56, 29 July 2015‎ Michaud34 (talk | contribs)‎. . (23,916 bytes) (+28)‎. . (Laura Branigan was born in 1957 not 1951. This can be confirmed on other Websites) (undo | thank) Which trustful and reliable sources has confirmed Lauras birth year to 1957, and who has spoken of 1951? Byram Hills own school paper Spectrum says that Laura was a senior, class of 1970. Have you read that, or did you just take a chance?--Born53 swe (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are all Laura Branigan experts? Reading the view history of edits is like a dream. My name has disappeared and has been replaced by 71.218.57.249. Why are you not deleting and undoing editings and changes? Is it because he knows how to make and write a perfect wiki, with sources and links? I confess without hesitating I was not good in writing this wiki. But you all loved my nickname and you all knew directly..let's undo!! I was right every time, but you experts didn't care. It wasn't my changes or sources you read. It was my nickname you were all monitoring. And who would be first to give me a hit in my back? All the time I have asked you experts of trustful and reliable sources. But you had no, just old one's that the writes no longer will back what they wrote. It was long ago, can't remember, etc. But it was all right for me. I have done a research that took me to a journey from March 1952, when Laura's mother were taken to Northern Westchester Hospital after a car accident. She was expecting a baby in July, so she was under observation. (This baby was Laura). Catholic school at "Church of Saint John and Mary in Chappaqua, New York. https://www.sjsmrcc.com/ Her high school at Byram Hills, 1966-1970, her time at The American Academy of Dramatic Arts, 1970-1972. With Leonard Cohen's first European tour in 1976, http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/76.html her marriage with Laurence "Larry" Kruteck, December 1978, (marriage licence Manhattan #22691. Yes, I have a copy in my collection), and to her death August 2004. Learning this showed how you all completely didn't know anything about late singer Laura Branigan. Why didn't some of you the same journey I did? Seeing and reading Laura's biography was a painful experience.. But you never let me show I was right. Instead I was warned by some of you and also banned from wiki. Am I still warned and banned or will you give my freedom back? You don't have to, though Laura's wiki as today is a master peace. And who needs to change something such wonderful writing and reading? Not me! I enjoy every time I read, finding updates and knowing "who will undo this"? At last I will say thank you to "Headmaster T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Iron Chef of World History™ http://historyscoper.com/ You have done a wonderful work with Laura's biography. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. This "Talk" began years ago, by some who started discussing Laura's right age and birth year. Today, August 2015 we can close this discussion by saying "Laura Ann Branigan July 3, 1952 - August 26, 2004." May you rest in peace of knowing your memory and legacy is back, and no one will never ever change it again.--Born53 swe (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Vandalism/Edits
Hello everyone... more to come... I am writing this now... stay tuned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Half Entertainment (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

COI-editing
(Copied from User talk:Thomas.W)

Thomas, I represent Laura Branigan's management company, Other Half Entertainment. Please refer to my talk on user/editor Jim1138 's page regarding reverts I made to Branigan's Wiki page last night, and re-did just now. There is very much to say about what this article should demonstrate, and there are so-called "fans" who have an unhealthy fixation with "correcting" what they perceive as "errors". In the past, the article was rather well-written, but since these people have appeared to hijack her page in July, the article has much uncited content, little NPOV, and sounds more like a promotional piece for everyone else but Branigan. I am in the midst of preparing for this weekend's "Spirit of Love" Memorial Gathering and we are on Long Island for that purpose, and particularly, today is the anniversary of Branigan's death. I am asking everyone to understand and respect the time. Once the event is over, I will endeavor to revert this article to what it was before it was hijacked by these so-called "fans".

The Laura Branigan Management and Production Company, the Official Voice of the Laura Branigan legacy 12:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Vince Golik, Other Half Entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Half Entertainment (talk • contribs)
 * Representing that company does not give you the right to control the article on Wikipedia, and the exact same rules apply to you as to anyone else who edits here, including all rules regarding blanking/vandalism and edit-warring. According to Wikipedia's rules all content should be properly sourced (see Wikipedia's rules regarding reliable sources and Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiability), but we do not censor content, nor do we remove content just because a production company doesn't like it. Instead of removing the material you should discuss it on the talk page of the article, and explain why you want it removed, adhering to Wikipedia's policies when doing so, and attempt to get the support of other editors for it, before removing it. Thomas.W talk 12:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth year "deception"
Honestly, how notable really is this supposed "deception" and was it really a deception? I seriously doubt that Laura Branigan was the first person to be economical with their age and even if she wasn't truthful about her true age, that was likely due to the sexism in the music industry (and society in general) against older women. This whole "dig[ging] up the truth" sounds more to me like a smear campaign against a dead person, who can't defend herself. Perhaps this information about her age can be trimmed to be significantly less hostile? Acalamari 10:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "deception" section should probably go, but the main problem here is that her production company has been systematically removing all material supporting 1952 as the correct year of birth, from both the article and the talk page, for at least seven years now (this edit is from 2008), with no attempt to engage in a serious discussion, or produce any form of evidence supporting 1957, to counter the multitude of evidence supporting 1952 that has been presented. And they're still doing it, now using IPs (this edit is from today...). Thomas.W talk 10:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section is UNDUE and tabloid-y. I just deleted it.  We record the correct 1952 birthdate and that is plenty. (no source was actually provided for any kind of active conspiracy or reason for it, and the one source was Page Six, which is as tabloidy as it gets.  Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog...do you mean I have no rights to defend myself!! Are you the judge and the jury at the same time? Instead of deleting, contact me instead. I have understand that wiki is for just some contributors who decides what wikipedia shall content. I have no problems telling who I am. Have you? This will also be print screened, and a very angry letter will be written to Mr Bryan Foster what is happening here. What sources do you have or all others who seems to know so much about Laura? Have you and all others the knowledge and the sources who you all act? Wikipedia Facebook will also have a copy of this actings. And newspapers perhaps are interested how Wikipedia is treating people. And let say one thing, I have no problems with letting people know!--Born53 swe (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia is not personal. Content is governed by policies and guidelines, as is behavior. Article talk pages are for discussing content and sources for content, per WP:TPG, the talk page guidelines. Please read them.   Please also read WP:VERIFY, which is the policy which says that Wikipedia content needs to be based on reliable sources.  Please also read WP:RS which is the guideline that describes what a 'reliable source" is. If you have some reliable sources to bring with regard to content about Branigan's birthday, that is great. Otherwise, this Talk page is not a forum (that is from the talk page guidelines) Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How can I show anything when you and others are deleting it before I push enter? I have asked before...where are your sources about Laura and her birth of 1957? Why must I be called a troll and other things when I am trying to show what I know? Do you know more so please, show your sources. Or do you have problems with your own reliable sources? Contact me and I will gladly show all my sources. I challenge you hereby? Do you dare or will you delete this as well? If you delete this, you have put yourself in a corner which might be difficult for you to be free from. Don't talk about Wiki rules..just answer this simple question..Was Laura Branigan born 1952? Yes or no? Saying no means you must show me and all others here at wiki your sources. Say yes..and it's over and I will quit Wiki. No problems. Deal Jytdog?--Born53 swe (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog..Is this a reliable source of a birth notice from Patent Trader 1957, yes or no? Billy Branigan's birth notice Patent Trader 1957 If you say no, what's wrong with it? Is it to old, or to relieving that Billy Branigan was born Feb 28 1957. If yes, why have wiki deleted this source before? Question..Did Laura graduate from high school 1970? Yes or no! Sources if you say no, please Thank you!--Born53 swe (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you talking about at this point. She was born in 1952 and there are reliable sources for that, cited in the article.  I suggest you stop typing and read the three pages I pointed you.  I will not respond again if you reply again before you have read them.  Again, Wikipedia is not a wild west.  It is governed by policies and guidelines.  Please take the time to read and understand them.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So she was born 1952, as I have said all the time. Good to know, Pal! I'll take this as a promise that nobody will or can change it back to 1957, without a trustful, reliable and accurate sources? Tell me pal, those reliable sources (your words) I have linked, why were they deleted if the were trustful and reliable? Can you give me some good reasons why they were deleted? And to be real sure about this, I have asked Wiki Facebook how some "experts" can act like the do and how they have done. It will be very interesting to read. But I will not show any answers here, though we are agreed about Laura Branigan, born July 3, 1952! Right Pal!! (This will also be print screened and used if it's necessary. As I said, I have no problems with such things.) Perhaps Page Six should have a note about your thoughts. Yes, they will definitely have a message so all can read how wiki treats the truth. And wiki Facebook, not to forgive! Print screen is a wonderful event--Born53 swe (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one here gives a rat's ass about "wiki Facebook", whatever that is.  Please read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. I suggest you stop referring to it. As I have told you several times, the only determinants of WP content are reliable sources (as defined in policies and guidelines) used in accordance with the policies and guidelines.  You are apparently not here to build an encyclopedia so I will not be responding to you further.Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I try to give my version of this story. As a Swede I apologize if my English is not the best. But hopefully you will understand what I mean, and that is the most important, I guess. Laura Branigan visited Sweden November 1985 in the TV-show Nöjesmassakern. She had several hits in Sweden which made me to be very fond of her voice and music. Foolish Lullaby grab me and I was sold. Then years are floating away with family, children, work, just like all others. But Laura's music has been there, and each time she was on the radio it was glorious. I had read Laura's wiki many times, but one day I saw "Talk" and wondered what is that. I started to read, and I couldn't stop reading. I read it several times and began to look around what is the case. I had been a member of Laura's official AB-page, when I found a different page, which I still am a member. So during 2014 I started my own research of Laura and the truth of 1952 or 1957. I founded pictures on the net, some news, some websites and I collected them all in my LB-collection. One day I saw Armonk's homepage which wrote.."Laura Branigan (1952–2004), Grammy-nominated musician, grew up in Armonk and was a Byram Hills HS graduate (1970)". And then I was caught, and wanted to know more. I found Old Fulton History Postcards, a gold mine. I found The Ancestor Hunt blog, I also found a web site, Advantage Preservation which focuses exclusively of historical document. When I found Laura's name it was amazing, but it ended rather quick. I tried with Laurie, and a new world opened up. Did you know she called herself Laurie all the way from childhood to graduation 1970. When she moved to New York, and the academy, it was Laura. I found Byram Hills yearbook "The Arch", and all was the same..Laura Branigan was born 1952! I was sure about it. My collection went bigger and bigger, and one day I had so much sources I could "go out" and convince people on internet I was right. It wasn't always easy, but a few breakthroughs were made. British Britannica, which I had a very good conversation with. My name stands as a contributor to Laura's 15 lines. That was big! I admit, and which I also apologize, my attitude in some comments. I was warned and banned, even I had an email from Wikis Bryan Foster, where he told me I was right in my claims about Laura. He offered me to write in a wiki "Sandbox", only if I stayed at the wiki. No one told me it wasn't private, I thought it was my own wiki note book. When someone started to give me warnings about things I didn't understand, I deleted it. Perhaps you should know all my emails with different person are saved in my pc. Mr Foster at wiki, Mr Bill Smith from Rovi Corps (he offered me to rewrite their biography in Allmusic and Allmovie, though the author never answered my emails.) I have never had any attentions making people sick, ill or angry. I have just asked, where are the trustful and reliable sources which says 1957. I showed mine sources, which was deleted of reasons I don't know. I have/had one goal, and it was to tell that Laura wasn't born July 3, 1957. Why is that so important? You see, Laura's little brother was also born 1957, Feb 28 to be exactly. How did they solve this problem? Easy, very easy. Suddenly he had a new birth year, 1961! And perhaps the most sad in this story is...what does official papers and documents say about Laura's birth year? I don't know, but in all ancestry homepages it says 1957! What does US Archives says? 1957 or 1952? It is very easy to let a joke about a birth year become a false true which later will be written in solid wiki stone impossible to change. Well I did it. Am I a bad guy now that shall be hunted and also be killed of people who now hates me? Perhaps it would be interesting for some here in wiki to start looking after the real truth in US Governments Archives. I started with this, my role is over and I leave the rest to someone who will take it further. I hope someone will do it. I have taken print screens of this comment and also a print screen will be taken to Laura's article if this will be deleted. I have no secret agenda, and if anybody wants to contact me it would be appreciated. Except you, and you know who you are. At last, New York Times was asked and very interested of making a memorial article, but of some reason they never answered. And I do have the email!--Born53 swe (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember Me album
Why is there no mention at all of the posthumous album that was released? I know its not considered "official" by Branigan's team but it was released nonetheless and should appear on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.30.211 (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Laura Branigan July 3, 1952
Laura Ann Branigan was born July 3, 1952, at Northern Westchester Hospital, Mount Kisco, Westchester County, New York. This information was given by Laura's little brother Billy Branigan. Who also tells he was born at the same hospital in February 28, 1957. Is this something to be added in Laura's wiki, or is it in wikipedia's opinion irrelevant for Laura's wiki as a whole. Wiki says Brewster which is wrong according to Mr Branigan. Question..? Can Brewster be replaced by my new information?--Born53 swe (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on what published sources say, not what individual Wikipedia editors claim, but cannot verify in published sources, that a family member of the subject said in a private conversation. It's entirely possible that she really was born in 1952, and just claimed to be five years younger than she really was for some personal reason, but we can't say that here until published sources have confirmed that to be true. And if you are the researcher who uncovered, and is personally distributing, the claims that her birthdate was falsified, then you need to step back from the discussion per our rules against citing yourself — your own self-published claims do not, in and of themselves, constitute adequate proof that what you're claiming is true, if it contradicts what any other source says. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Once you hated me and should do everything to stop me. And now, you admit and agree I was right. I congratulate you by copying your own words..it should say 47 in that link, not 52, even though it wasn't her real age. Don't delete this Thomas.W. I have a copy and I have no problem sent it further to Wikipedia's Ryan Foster, who I already am in contact with.--Born53 swe (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hate you? Don't flatter yourself. Noone here hates you, we just go by what Wikipedia's rules say about reliable sources being required. As for the rest, it doesn't even deserve a comment. Thomas.W talk 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Vincent, reliable sources shouldn't come from you. During all years I can't remember a single one from you. You have called me to be liar and also a photoshoper, fabricated all my material. If 52 is fabricated, why do admit it? Back to Laura, is Billy Branigan a trustful and reliable source? After all, a better source than a family member is hard to get in this issue. About comments, will you delete Brewster and replace it with Mount Kisco? Yes or No? Do it and you will never hear from me again. I am sick and tired of this fucking shit from you and other so called wiki experts. So yes or no? A copy of this is saved at my hard drive and will be sent to Wiki's Ryan Foster if you say no. This offer is nothing you can say no to, so change directly.--Born53 swe (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Vincent? You're obviously confusing me with someone else. Thomas.W talk 20:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK Thomas, will you change Laura's birthplace? If not, will you backup me up with help if I edit to Mount Kisco?--Born53 swe (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Me again, my very last comment. Things happens and suddenly Wiki is not important any longer. It is OK if you will keep Laura's birthplace to Brewster. I have lost all interest how you will handle my last info about Mount Kisco. Perhaps you think Billy is just a damn liar, I don't know. The main thing and most important is that I and my Facebook-group knows the truth about Laura. We have updated it but I don't care about Laura's officials pages. To be honest, hiding the truth is something you did when you were a kid. Laura's management act the same. But now it's over. Things happens and correcting wiki is not my business anymore. Good look Thomas.W I hope I don't have to be involved with you any longer. I'll rather stay with real friend than a person who makes everything hiding the truth as you and your so called experts are doing.--Born53 swe (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear...I will take a step back, breath, eat, having coffee, having more coffee, listen to my Laura on Spotify, etc. But do not touch, edit, undo or anything else with my edit of Laura Branigan's birth place. Since spring 2014 I have been doing my research of Laura. I have manage to rewrite almost her 20 first year. She wasn't born 1957 in Brewster as her wrong and sadly published press release. She didn't graduate from high school 1975, she didn't tour all the world with Leonard Cohen, etc, etc. It is I and only I who has made this. Instead of being helpful and grateful for all my new discoveries, I have been stabbed by many. Now in winter 2016 my journey is over. I would so much respect if my edits will NOT be edit or undo. I will even close down my wiki account, though it has been a mess and a hell. If you still will blame ask those who stubbed me. Why did they delete all my reliable sources? Note..no one and that includes Vince and Kathy Golik has not during my time presented a single reliable source telling I am wrong. What they have done is ban and block me from social medias. It is amazing how they can administrate a fansite, when they are against the truth. So my advice to all wiki contributors, Vince & Kathy, is to give me a big apologize for what you have done to me. Thank's to me Laura Branigan's memory and legacy has been restored as it should have been from the very first..Laura Ann Branigan, born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco. And her brother Billy doesn't need to be born 1961 any longer. And I know I have the Branigan's on my side. Thank's from me, now it's over. Greetings from Sweden, Stig-Åke Persson--Born53 swe (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (I'll write this in Swedish to make sure that understands it, if you want to know what it means in English, ask on my talk) . Jag har följt dina inlägg här, med fullt av grova personangrepp, mot både mig och andra här (och påståenden om att jag skulle vara någon "Vincent", vem nu det är), men har inte brytt mig om att svara för att inte göra det värre (andra här har dock raderat en del av dina inlägg, och gett dig en allvarlig varning för det). Världen är full av självutnämnda experter inom alla tänkbara områden, folk som säger sig veta Sanningen, med stort 'S', om allt här i världen, ungefär som du när det gäller Laura Branigan, men Wikipedia är ett uppslagsverk, inte en blogg för fans, så vi går enbart efter vad tillförlitliga källor säger, inget annat. Och du har inte presenterat några sådana källor för det material du har velat få in i artikeln, därför har det raderats. Det har absolut inget att göra med att någon här hatar dig eller Laura Branigan, eller medvetet vill presentera en felaktig bild av henne, det har bara att göra med den totala avsaknad på tillförlitliga källor vi sett. Jag kan tillägga att jag är några år äldre än vad du är, och skäms över att se en man i ungefär min ålder bete sig så illa mot andra som du har gjort här... Thomas.W talk 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tjena, en svensk här inne. Det trodde jag inte. Det är synd att wiki är ett ställe för anonyma. Tänk så bra det hade varit om alla hade varit som modiga mindre män och vågat stå upp för sina åsikter. Jag har lagt av med min Laura research som har tagit ganska mycket tid, men som förtidspensionär har det varit perfekt. Mount Kisco var min sista detalj, nu kan jag koppla av detta. Kan du på något sätt skydda så att det blir kvar? Det hade varit väldigt tacksamt. När du ändå är igång så kanske du vill titta på den svenska wikin. Den är i stort behov av en uppdatering. Och eftersom allt måste gå efter wikis alla konstens regler så är jag säker på att du fixar detta. Om inte, ja då får svenska wikin se ut som den gör. Mig gör det inget. Så då svenskvännen min, allt är glömt och förlåtet. Givetvis måste jag tillägga. Vill du eller någon annan ändra på något som inte faller er i smaken, så ska ni givetvis ändra till vad ni vill. Om NI alla vill att Brewster ska vara Laura's (felaktiga) födelseort så är det ju inte mina problem. Jag vet ju att jag har rätt. Jag har en grej till på gång, men den kommer ni inte att få tillgång till. En kontakt i New York har ordnat med så att jag kommer att få en kopia av Laura's födelsebevis under våren 2016. Det kommer att bli spännande, men det är inget som Wiki kommer att få ta del av. Förresten, en kopia, hade det varit en godkänd källa till wiki? Du får härmed mina sister rader i engelska wikin...Det är över nu Wikipedia. Thomas, hur står du ut med att vara en del av detta sanslösa gäng? Har du inget liv? Skrattar du någon gång? Nåväl, inte mina problem. Du behöver inte svara på detta. Tack på förhand. Stig-Åke Persson--Born53 swe (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

To user 190.193.131.78! Don't edit anything without trustful sources. You can't edit if you have no knowledge about Laura Branigan. Laura was born 1952 in Mount Kisco. A message from Laura's little brother Billy was the last detail in my research of Laura's early life. Contact me and show me your reliable sources, and I will check them. I am waiting for Laura's birth certificate. An order is placed December 2015, and will be delivered summer 2016. So please, don't do anything! Stig-Åke Persson, Sweden--Born53 swe (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Read here on the official website.
 * Removed the following:


 * All three sources are questionable at best, and do not disprove the official site. I came down here from Ghostbusters Wiki, from which this false information was noted. She was 47 when she passed away, not 52. Devilmanozzy (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * From heading "Early years" Removed:
 * Internet Movie Database. The AP/NYT obit. has Westchester County in Upstate New York, where she lived later in life.
 * IMDb is a user submitted website, and CNN's news article doesn't seem to address the location she was born in. Again, the official website has noted the location of Brewster, New York. Devilmanozzy (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edits since this has been discussed multiple times. The official website does not trump the other references. Thomas.W talk 23:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am contesting that. The official site is a proper reference. The ball is in your court. Prove that the official is not correct. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, see WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:BRD. The former manager's version of it has also been thoroughly disqualified by other evidence... Thomas.W talk 10:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. You are explain nothing. The article already acknowledges the website as official. So your are going to have explain what is not official about the website. You don't have a case. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the fake "accent"? You had no problems writing in proper English when you posted on 's talk page accusing me of sockpuppetry, among other things, and had no problems with the English language further up on this page, but now suddenly want to make it look as if English isn't your first language. As for the "official website", being listed as such doesn't automagically make it a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, quite the opposite in fact, since "official websites" aren't independent of the subjects of the articles. Thomas.W talk 10:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a outsiders perspective. Unless you can provide proof that she was born in 1952, you are simply making it up. The ball is still in your court. I have one strong reference, you have none. Devilmanozzy (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer the one part, the date of birth and birth location is not a opinion based subject matter. It is straight up factual. Also, as big as those Wikipedia pages on legalize are, you going to have to copy paste or direct to the headline section of what you think is allowing your false information. You have not provided a link yet. Unless you have a reference or can explain why my link is wrong, you really are only wasting time here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Came here from ANI. Firstly, just because a website is official does not make it a WP:RELIABLE source. In fact, I would prefer not to cite the "official" website. However, I did find some other reliable sources which I have listed in the section below. At the same time however, the references for the 1952 date are not reliable either. It cites 'find a grave' (user generated content) and this article where a certain fan was stating their opinion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Lemongirl942, Thanks for helping out. I'm not the best at this sort of thing. I was going to post links to google newspaper archived headlines like this, But the more straight forward links you found were much better. Never got used to the very restrictive rules at Wikipedia. I do far better at Wikia. Devilmanozzy (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also brought here by the ANI post. For the record, I'm making the following comment in the full awareness that people can, and do, often misrepresent their biographical details in self-published sources — the stereotype of the Hollywood actress who claims to be 10 years younger than she really is, out of vanity or not wanting to be pigeonholed into "old lady" roles or whatever, does exist for a reason. So my comments are not meant to preclude the possibility that the OP's research, indicating that Branigan was born in 1952 rather than 1957, might in reality be true. However, under the rules of how Wikipedia works, we are not the correct venue for originating the propagation of the 1952 claim — regardless of how true it may be, we can state it on Wikipedia only after reliable sources have already corrected the record for us.
 * We are not allowed, per no original research, to go around digging into birth or hospital or court records, or interviewing the topics or their family members, ourselves to collect biographical information that has not already been published on the record in reliable sources. We are not allowed to get our own grubby little hands on somebody's birth certificate, and then use that certificate itself as a "source" for the hitherto-unpublished revelation that all the other sources have had her birthdate wrong all these years. And on and so forth: we rely on what published sources say about a topic, never on a Wikipedia editor's own unpublished private personal detective work.
 * And if the main published source for "she was really born in 1952" is a newspaper gossip column, publishing the claim because they were fed it by the same Wikipedia editor who's trying to get that same research into our article, then that's still a case of self-citing your own original research. Besides that, the sources cited for the 1952 birthdate are an Encyclopedia Britannica entry which gives her birthdate as 1952 question mark, and a user-generated page on Find-a-Grave — which means these are not acceptable sources either.
 * As much as we value accuracy in Wikipedia articles, that accuracy has to be properly verifiable in reliable sources — and sometimes, that means we will actually get some stuff wrong, if the sources got it wrong and the type and quality of sourcing needed to correct the record is not out there. So even if she really was born in 1952, our job on here is to stay with 1957 until such time as 1952 can be referenced to better sourcing than a Wikipedia editor's own private unpublished research files. When there are competing claims as to what's the "truth", Wikipedia is required to fall in line with the preponderance of the published sources, and not with original research claims. So I'm sorry, but even if the real birthdate is actually 1952, our job is to stay with 1957 until there's much more published proof of 1952 than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that One Half Entertainment, who own and operate laurabraniganonline.com, one of two "official websites" (the other being laurabranigan.com), and the ones who are repeatedly fighting over material in he article, don't have any information that proves their version either, other than a couple of sites that got the information from them. So we have nothing RA that proves or disproves 1957 either. The best we can get is sources like her old hometown's (Armonk, NY) official Facebook page, which says that she was born in 1952 and graduated from Byram Hills HS in Armonk in 1970, which makes 1952 most probable since noone graduates from high school at the age of 13... Thomas.W talk 21:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thomas.W Please add your link(s) in the 1952 sources. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't understand my comment, then. It's not your, or anyone else's, role as a Wikipedia editor to conduct our own private personal fact-checking investigations of whether the sources which gave her birthdate as 1957, and her age of death as 47, were right or wrong about that; it's not your role as a Wikipedian to question where they got their information from, or whether or not they had independent corroboration of her birthdate or just regurgitated a press release from somebody who was misrepresenting her age. If 1957 is the year that the published sources do say then that's what we say too, end of story — until such time as there are enough published sources to properly support switching to 1952, then your job as a Wikipedian does not include questioning or investigating whether the sources that said 1957 were right or wrong about it. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism project — it's not your role to seek out confirmation of whether anybody's birthdate is really right or wrong in the existing sources, but to simply and uncritically repeat the birthdate that is in the existing sources with no ifs, no ands, no buts, no high school yearbooks, no personal interviews with her brother, no independent investigation of anything on your own.
 * I know, for a similar example, of another (still-living) public figure, whose "official" birthdate in her own self-published web presence results in her appearing in one of the most famous movies in the history of cinema at the age of 13, even though she's quite verifiably more like 25 years old when you actually see that movie. There's also another birthdate for her floating around out there on the web, which puts her at the right age at the time of that film appearance and is thus far more credible in theory — but in reality, neither of those dates is actually referenceable to any reliable sources. So you wanna know what we do in her Wikipedia article? No birthdate at all. It's the sourcing, or lack thereof, that determines what date we give, not anybody's personal assessment of which date is more or less credible than which other date. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not conducting any investigation, what I'm saying is that neither side has provided any reliable sources to support their version, including the "official website" (or rather the one of them that is most active here). And I'm perfectly happy with removing the year of birth completely, or listing both 1952 and 1957 with an informative footnote, until someone comes up with a reliable source (preferably her birth certificate), but I'm not comfortable with one side "winning" the dispute by just claiming that they're "the official website". Which is what they're trying to do. Thomas.W talk 22:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Five independent media sources have been shown below for 1957, including Billboard, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC and a book. And her birth certificate would not count as a valid source for any information that hadn't already been replicated in a published source, because the birth certificate isn't available in any public archive that any Wikipedian can walk into and have it pulled out for them on demand — so tracking down a person's birth certificate is exactly the kind of original research that we're not allowed to do. And her high school yearbook isn't valid sourcing either, for the same reasons. So until media coverage of her switches to 1952, the existing media coverage which already says 1957 is the end of the story regardless of whether they're right or wrong about 1957. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you have a look at the sources in the section below? For the record I don't consider any of her so called "official" websites reliable. But I put up 6 other sources (showing birth date as 1957) which I consider reliable and which include a couple of books published in the late eighties/nineties. I want you to please explain why do you think these are not reliable and why "find a grave" and "imdb" are reliable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Be civil
All of those in the preceding conversation are reminded that WP:CIVIL applies here. Seriously, we are all adults; please act like it. (Those who are not (technically) adults yet, are still expected to act like adults on this site.) It is obvious that there is a dispute regarding some biographical information concerning the subject of the article. I would suggest that instead of just saying "I'm right, you're wrong." -- perhaps editors should figure out where and how incorrect information was first introduced, and discuss same, so as to come to agreement about how to proceed. This dispute has grown to the point that I read about it on a source outside of English Wikipedia -- it threatens to bring disrepute on the entire project (and might possibly end up on WP:LAME). For those who are convinced that their source is better than someone else's source, I want to tell you about a similar dispute in my own family. I have two relatives who disagreed with each other about the spelling of their mother's middle name (for privacy reasons, I won't mention the exact name here -- it's extremely unusual). Their mother was born in the very late 1800s and can be found in census records. Some of those records use one version of the name, some use the other, and some use only the initial. Their mother's own written papers, documents, etc., are also split on the correct spelling of the name. There is no evidence that it was ever formally changed either. So which is correct? Both are. At least until someone locates her birth certificate (the ultimate authority on what someone's name is or was). The family's "RS" are split, but that is not a reason argue. Likewise, for the subject of this article, better RS need to be located. Family members, ages or birth dates written on forms (especially if age mattered for some reason), etc. are not necessarily reliable enough when there is a dispute. People lie about their age (in either direction, depending on need), family members mis-remember things or get confused about things that are ancient history, people mis-read numbers (a 7 and a 2 look quite similar, especially on handwritten documents that have faded with age). Seriously, step back, take a deep breath, and find incontrovertable evidence that supports your point of view. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Laura Branigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110424051653/http://www.laurabraniganonline.com:80/main/bio.php to http://www.laurabraniganonline.com/main/bio.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150425070409/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/08/30/arts/music/30branigan.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/30/arts/music/30branigan.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040828235054/http://laurabraniganonline.com:80/ to http://www.laurabraniganonline.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Thomas.W talk 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus discussion
I now encourage users to assess the sources presented above and suggest whether they believe the article should state 1952, 1957, both years or neither. Please do not post more than once in this section and don't attack other users. Just state your opinion, give a reason and then leave it alone please. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A note on timing. A normal RFC would run for a month. I see no problem with letting this run a little longer, to see if more people might participate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposing to close this soon. No new comments for a few days. I'll wait another day or so for any last minute contributions and then assess consensus and close the discussion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1957 only: At the moment, multiple reliable sources (including those published before 2004) giver her date as 1957. I would prefer to abide by what is said currently. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1957 only: at this time, we only have evidence given in reliable sourcing for 1957; and nothing asserting the year of birth as 1952. Nor do we even have any that mention that her year of birth is dubious or disputed. All sources strictly state 'age 47 (at death) and/ or 'born 1957'. So please use 1957.  Fylbecatulous talk 22:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither Reliable sources say 1957, but reliable sources can be wrong. This page on Pinterest is not a reliable source in itself but it contains compelling evidence including scans of reliable sources that she attended high school in the late 1960s and graduated from high school in 1970 at the normal age. Better to have no date of birth than a false date of birth. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither since there's compelling evidence on the 'Net, including on the official FB page of her old home town, Armonk, NY, that she was born in 1952 and graduated from Byram Hills HS in Armonk in 1970, meaning that the birth year on the official website is false. I would prefer to have 1952 in the article, but having no birth year at all in the article is better than having a birth year that is obviously false. Thomas.W talk 14:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1957 only: No links were provided as reliable for the 1952 birth date. Furthermore, newspapers at the time of her death said she was born in the year 1957. Ultimately, the press being a neutral party in this makes the information more believable, lacking bias or agenda. Devilmanozzy (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * State 1952 or 1957, with an explanatory footnote - stating simply that although most obituaries and independent sources at the time of her death and beforehand gave her year of birth as 1957, there is evidence elsewhere (giving sources such as Findagrave, comments by family members, etc.) that she was born in 1952. We are an encyclopedia, and though - quite correctly - we have rules about what sources we treat as reliable and those we don't, we are also responsible for ensuring  that, as much as possible, the correct information is put before readers; and not put forward, without any explanation, information that may well be false.  In cases of uncertainty or contention (and this case is by no means unique), all possible years of birth that are referenced should be mentioned.  Readers can then decide for themselves what is the truth.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1957 only - For the moment, a Facebook posting on an outside groups official page is not enough to make any change, even if it is accurate. The source is considered weak on its own, with no comment from the subject and multiple reliable sources backing the 1957 dating. In another biography about a celebrity, there was a similar issue on the birth date. The earlier sources gave an earlier date and the more recent sources gave a later date. Birth records (that are considered reliable but could not be shown due to privacy concerns) indicated the person was born earlier. If there is equal indication of dates you could mention the other dating. This is not even close to that yet. We do not give weight to a single source just because it is available to use or makes a contradicting statement. For the moment it is fringe or on the outside of the known facts because the source is just not strong enough for inclusion. You need more to add the earlier date.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't notice that the subject is long deceased. It's therefore unlikely she would comment about it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Both - I would say both given that the evidence seems uncertain. Until we can find a source that examines the controversy and uncovers the truth, I'd say it could be either. TheLogician112 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1957 only. All the reliable sources listed above say 1957.  A Facebook page or Findagrave cannot be used as a source of information for a Wikipedia article.   We cannot change the birthdate listed in reliable sources based on the conclusions of editors here because that would be original research.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both - the majority of reliable sources do state 1957, but we have at least one recent published (as opposed to self-published) source reporting 1952. Maybe not the ideal comparison, but the Joan Crawford infobox says "1904 (disputed)" with a footnote explaining the controversy. A similar approach could be taken here. Muzilon (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1957 with a footnote explaining that a single source expresses a difference of opinion. If not that then remove it altogether.  I'm not convinced how this factoid assists our readers in their appreciation of the article as a whole.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1957 Only - I agree with the above user. There should be a footnote explaining the reasoning behind the 1957 date.  Anyways, most of the reliable sources list the birth date as 1957 anyway.  We shouldn't disregard that just because one source, not a completely reliable one either, states otherwise.  I don't think a Facebook page should be used to dismantle the credibility of many other reliable sources.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 20:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)