Talk:Marianne Edwards

Still alive?
According to this website (http://ourgang.wikia.com/wiki/Marianne_Edwards), the main source of her death is an Our Gang historian namend Bob Satterfield. Satterfield also published the death of actor Jack Hanlon in January 2013 (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jack-hanlon-actor-our-gang-films-dies-nv) and seems to be in good contact with many Our Gang people. What shall we do? --Clibenfoart (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) This article states that Bob Satterfield was in contact with Marianne Edwards: http://www.catsafterme.com/blog/archives/3069 In the commentarys, author Brad from the L&H-Page "The Wax Apple" states that Edwards has died. Also, IMDb states now that she has died. --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * None of these qualify as a reliable published source under Wikipedia policy, so for now what we shall do is wait (or keep looking for a reliable source, according to our individual natures).


 * The thing is that an encyclopedia – even an encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit – is not a breaking news source. An encyclopedia, by its nature, is a collation of previously-published information gathered from reliable sources. An encyclopedia is not afraid of being somewhat out of date: for a printed paper encyclopedia, that was an unavoidable state of being, and even an online encyclopedia is never entirely up to date on all topics – nor does it want to be. We would rather have an article that is accurate as far as it goes than too-hastily add unreliable information, especially if it's something like a death that would be needlessly distressing if untrue. — Paul A (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, does that sound pompous? I have a tendency to go formal when I'm trying speak clearly, and it doesn't always come across well. — Paul A (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Agreed - Clibenfoart, you must wait for a reliable source to be published. Biographical information about living or recently deceased individuals is considered more sensitive and is subject to more stringent rules than other information, so we remove it outright rather than just flagging the poor sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! You might say that the information of her death is maybe wrong but to mark her as a living person could be falss as well. I agree that the Wikipedia isn't a Newspaper and that we must have the lastest news, but according to the sources she's death for 13 months which is quite a long time. It isn't so unlikely that she died at this age and that her death not gone through the media (she was less-known and lived far away from the film industry). In the last year there were persistant IPs who wanted to add the death of her, maybe people who knew her. IPs who constantly do this are very unusual in such articles of low-importance. I've a asked a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. There's the question if IMDb and the "Our Gang" insiders are reliable enough (I'm from the quite big and very much referenced German Wikipedia - sorry for my sometimes rough English - where we consider IMDb a reliable source). I found another link where the death or not-death of her is discussed: http://littlerascals.proboards.com/thread/943?page=9. Thanks. --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To continue marking her as a living person may be inaccurate, but being slow to add new information that might be true is not as bad as being quick to add new information that might be seriously wrong. Please also remember that this is not just about this one article; the policy has been developed to cover all biography articles, and needs to be consistently applied. We have to be suspicious of death claims that are not well-supported, because too often they turn out to be falsehoods from people trying to make trouble.
 * English Wikipedia does not consider websites with user-generated content reliable sources. Fan wikis, discussion forums, and IMDb all fall into this category – in fact, the policy mentions IMDb by name as a site that is not considered reliable for this reason. Information from an Our Gang insider might be considered reliable, if you can find a reliable published source establishing that they're an Our Gang insider. — Paul A (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Death
I've added the date of Marianne Edward's death to her bio before noticing that apparently the fact is a subject of debate here.

So far I have not found an actual newspaper obituary, but the date of November 8, 2013 is given on IMDb as well as several other webites: http://obitpatrol.blogspot.com/2014/08/marianne-edwards-provencio.html#uds-search-results, http://threestooges.net/cast/actor/1793, and http://ourgang.wikia.com/wiki/Marianne_Edwards. The last one cites "Our Gang historian, Bob Satterfield" who apparently has also hosted numerous Our Gang related events and is apparently well connected to the group.

Note: Her married name was Marianne Edwards Provencio. Perhaps an editor who subscribes to one of the "ancestry" databases would be able to use that name to find additional references to her death.

(By the way - if there ever was a vote - I'd definitely vote to change the policy that considers IMDb as an "unreliable" source, lumping it into the same category as personal blogs and fan pages. If it's a bad source, then there are a lot of second and third tier actors whose pages would unfortunately be subject to deletion.)

Thanks. - Xenxax (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)