Talk:Judith Barsi

I've asked for a Third Opinion, given the brewing edit war. Paul Austin (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Judith Barsi and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: But first a procedural note: There was a request also filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about this dispute. I work at both 3O and DRN. I closed the DRN request since this 3O request was filed first. The DRN request can be refiled if the dispute continues after this opinion. Opinion: WP:NOTMEMORIAL only has to do with notability, as stated in its first sentence, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." As stated in the lede of the Notability policy, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list." Thus WP:NOTMEMORIAL has only to do with the existence of articles as a whole, and has nothing to do with the content of articles. It is not a standard for the inclusion or exclusion of information. The additions and deletions in this article need to be adjudged on the basis of first, whether or not they are reliably sourced and if they are then, second, on the basis of what weight to give them. Remember that reliable sourcing is an exclusionary, not an inclusionary rule: if something is not reliably sourced it cannot be in an article. If it is reliably sourced, it still may not be important enough to be in the article, that's what weight is about. The parties here should familiarize themselves with those policies and then re-discuss the material in question.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Outside of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument, the details the other editor is adding are not appropriate for this article. What happened to the subject's father years before the subject was even born have no place in this article, nor do mentions of the subject's half-siblings. Keeping the picture of the subject's grave marker is fine. However, the details that were included in the Family history and death section in the revision as of 18:15 17 June 2013 were more than appropriate for this article. The Abuse and Death sections should be merged together, with Aftermath (posthumous work) as a separate mention nested underneath Filmography. AldezD (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That may or may not all be true, but that issue has not been sufficiently discussed between the editors here to invoke dispute resolution. Moreover, as I say in my personal standards, linked above, I do not issue further opinions in a matter in which I've already given a 3O. Once you've discussed those matters thoroughly with the other editor, using the appropriate policies as a framework, then if you become deadlocked you can apply for a new 3O or for help at DRN. Remember that in those cases in which policies and guidelines do not provide a clear solution, material is added and deleted at Wikipedia via consensus and it is the burden of the editor who is either attempting to introduce new reliably-sourced material or remove existing reliably-sourced material to obtain a consensus for that action. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

These two sections are barely relevant to the article subject. The information contained within adds no understanding to the article subject, and also does not provide basis for explaining the abuse and murder of the article subject. Instead of edit warring, please provide reasoning and basis for including the information before re-adding/maintaining. AldezD (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Only information that directly relates to her father's growing mental instability should be included. Her father's flight from his native country, where he lived, his first marriage, other children and their dates of death have no use within this article whatsoever. If József Barsi were notable enough to have his own article, it should be included there, not in here. Her mother's career also has no place in this article.

The details contained within the Family history and death section in the revision as of 18:15 17 June 2013 are more than adequate, and no reasoning has been provided as to why this information has been repeatedly added back in by EditorE. AldezD (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the reference to DEATH OF A FAMILY - Judith Barsi's story on YouTube, since this reference is a violation of WP:YOUTUBE, copyrighted material posted on an individual user's account. If there is a non-copyvio version, please re-add the reference. Statements previously referenced with this source have been tagged with WP:CN. AldezD (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Then how about we cite the documentary without the youtube link. That should work, right? EditorE (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the reference to Don Bluth All Dogs Go To Heaven is dubious and may not meet WP:V, since it appears to be a blog post and not directly verifiable back to the author. If there are additional references for the same statement, please add them. AldezD (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@AldezD:, Not having information about where the image of Judith comes from is both ridiculous and patently stupid. Since i do not believe you are stupid, please re-familiarise yourself with WP:OWN. Paul Austin (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@AldezD:: Burying her in Forest Lawn where a lot of Hollywood celebs are buried, *has* to have been a deliberate and powerful statement. We know that the family back in Hungary did not want anything to do with it and Judith and Maria could just have easily been put in a pauper's grave. Paul Austin (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no source that it was deliberate. Also, there is no source that "family back in Hungary did not want anything to do with it". AldezD (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of those who knew Judith and/or attended her funeral are on Twitter. I'll ask them about the decision to put Judith in Forest Lawn. Paul Austin (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You need WP:RS that burial in Forest Lawn Memorial Park was deliberate. A user tweeting they were at a funeral 28 years before Twitter existed is not a RS, especially if the account has not been verified. WP:Twitter. AldezD (talk)

Please do not add deliberate factual errors (, , , , , ) or add "little orphan girl" describing a character/change "child" to "little girl" (, , , , ) as seen in these linked edits. These edits do not improve the article. AldezD (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It is stated that " Physical violence continued", but the article refers to no physical violence, jus the threat of violence. This should be corrected.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier: In the previous paragraph, it says, "In December 1986, Maria reported his threats and physical violence toward her to the police." It's iffy because the police didn't press charges but there's no WP:BLP concern since all three people are no longer alive. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And even though I just posted a reply to a thread that had probably long been forgotten, it's still pertinent, especially since the reported-to-the-police text was there when this thread was started. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Since there was no mention of actual specified physical violence, or any confirmation physical violence actually occurred, I would suggest that it would be unsound to say that "physical violence continued".Royalcourtier (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier: I wondered if that would be a problem but since it's not a BLP concern, I figured that might lower the standards for this. If not, I have no issue with adding qualifying text to show that it wasn't established beyond Barsi's mother's police report or if it has to go further, just removing the offending text. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Why, then, after this discussion, does this wikipedia article still include this sentence: "Judith was subjected to both physical and sexual abuse by him, the latter occurring usually without anyone else around." ? That is weird. I don't see any sources confirming sexual abuse, particularly. It is uncomfortable and strange that this claim exists on this wikipedia page, especially the caveat "the latter occurring usually wihtout anyone else around." How would that ever be verifiable information? What weird and sick freak wrote that on this dead childs wikipedia page? I'd edit it myself, and actually- I will. I'm going to omit this sentence from the article. But I will leave this as well, so it is known why this edit was made.

I have removed the parameter in its entirety for now, in an effort to shut down an edit war based entirely on WP:IDLI and/or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In particular, we cannot use our own articles as an excuse to spread inaccurate data in violation of policy.

"Gunshot" was left intact per the discussion here. To be clear, per Crime Museum and numerous coroners' websites:

• "gunshot" is the action that causes
• "gunshot wounds", which cause death; if inflicted by another, then
• "homicide" is classified as the manner of death.

Further discussion should take place here, not in summaries during edit wars. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Homicide" covers the issue sufficiently. Another option is "murder". This quibble is quickly approaching WP:LAME, even when considering the other nonsense discussions on this talk page about the nationality of the subject's parents, inclusion of events that happened decades before the subject's birth, non-WP:V sources/copyrighted material previously linked/included in the article, etc. AldezD (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not lame to be correct; it is not encyclopedic to be incorrect. Manner ≠ cause. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's my approach in a nutshell, or as much of a nutshell as I could fit it in.

• "Gunshot" is more informative or equally as informative as any other option. Its minimalist nature helps pare down a bloated infobox, keeps unnecessary, morbid language off a sensitive article, and would make any changes by the "She Bore Him" vandal easy to catch.
• "Gunshot wound" is probably as close as I can come to a compromise. Its florid, gory nature comes very close to the line. The word "wound" does not add a single bit of knowledge for any reader and is thus unnecessary.
• "Homicide" contains no useful information. We might as well remove the parameter and let people read the article.
• "Homicide by shooting" has the exact same issues same problem as gunshot wound; what pushes it past the line is that its the preferred terminology of the "She Bore Him" vandal. If that person wants it, decent people shouldn't.

Two of us appear to be at a standstill. AldezD, terminology like that indicates it's a low priority for you. I promise you, you're not convincing anybody to accept "homicide" because it's the worst of the options, so if your input is going to consist entirely of basically "WP:LAME and 'homicide'", maybe move on to somewhere where you'll actually get something done. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, honestly. End this back-and-forth and use what is listed on the death certificate as "cause of death"—"gunshot wound to the head"—and link the appropriate reference. AldezD (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No kidding you don't. That's why you keep posting messages that could be replaced with "I'M PARTICIPATING IN A DISCUSSION WHERE I HAVEN'T READ ANYTHING ANYBODY ELSE HAS SAID" and it wouldn't change a thing. And if we're ordering each other around, stop participating here because you're not helping anything. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, dial it back, please; you're bordering on WP:NPA. Let's work on finding proper resolutions instead. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, you and ATS invited me to the discussion, tagging me in edits at User talk:RunnyAmiga/Archive 3#FYI. Seconding that you need to chill out over something that is clearly bordering on WP:LAME. Be WP:BOLD, make an edit with a source and be done with it. AldezD (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I ask User:AldezD to re-familiarise themselves with Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't make condescending statements like this. Instead put forward your argument here for your edit per WP:BRD. AIRcorn (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Paul, The details you are adding to this article in this edit are unnecessary and nonsense. There are also no details about the ages of the characters in Fatal Vision and Jaws. You have also repeatedly added nonsensical, unsourced information to this article:

• Revision as of 17:46, 30 August 2015
• Revision as of 17:46, 30 August 2015
• Edit to talk page after additional edit warring on 30 August 2015‎
• Your edit warring 22 February 2014 and my resulting revert, with explanation of "not text included in reference at http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-07/local/me-382_1_child-abuse/3"

Please stop this disruptive behavior within this article. AldezD (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am a bitch. However, in this latest case, I am a well-informed bitch. Judith's on-screen credit for Fatal Vision ("Kimberly (age 3)" indicates the character was toddler age. Barsi was six in 1984. It is stated in Jaws IV that Barsi's character, Thea Brody, is five. Jaws IV was filmed in 1987 when Barsi was nine. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How about "in Fatal Vision she played "Kimberly" (age 3) when aged 6?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an acceptable compromise to me. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What is already stated in the article, "Her petiteness led casting directors to cast her as children that were younger than her actual age.", is more than appropriate. Stating the subject's age and the perceived ages of characters is absolutely unnecessary. The edit history of this article as well as discussions on this talk page show a long-term pattern of disruptive editing by multiple editors, and this is nothing more than additional disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's called an illustrative example.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I accept a compromise and he just imposes his preferred version? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's wholly unnecessary. The subject isn't even mentioned—neither in the plot nor the cast list—in the Fatal Vision article. This is nothing more than obsessive, disruptive editing by a problem user. AldezD (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Two users now agree this is relevant, and you are now edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussing on a talk page is not edit warring. AldezD (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, but reverting other users edits is.18:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the support. I've poured 14 years of my life into this project and to be labelled a "problem user" makes me very angry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to RFC this, s if one more edit is made *and then reverted by Aldesd) it will be a breach of 3RR and that smacks of baiting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As it reads the page makes little sense (due to removal of information) why does it matter how old she was in Fatal Image unless there is some difference between that and the age of the character she played? Either we explain why this is a relevant fact or removal what is (in effect) a non sequitur.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove the non sequitur. A child actress portraying characters younger than her actual age—but well within reason for someone working as a child actress—is not information that provides any differentiation between other child actors and provides no notability to this subject. This is not as if a 50-year old is portraying a 30-year old—she was supposedly six playing a three or four-year old. AldezD (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You know full well it was a three year old, I fail to see why you need to interject a range that is not present.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Still, age details about a six year old child actress playing a child character who is three, well within reason for a six-year old, does not need to specifically be mentioned in the article.

At various times this article has included portrait drawings of the subject, grainy and blurry family photos, pictures of her death certificate, quote boxes containing words purported to be threats to the subject, details about events which happened decades prior to the subject's birth, etc. There is even a picture of the subject's headstone in this article. These are all items which go far beyond what is appropriate for biographical articles, especially for an individual with not nearly the contribution to entertainment nor longevity as others. These items are not models of WP:GA content. AldezD (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"murder" is a legal term. József Barsi killed himself before he could be tried and convicted of murder. Judith and Maria's deaths were therefore homicides not murders. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The RFC linked above from two years ago addresses this issue. AldezD (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding that user's recent addition of the Hanna-Barbera audition... the two series H-B were making in 1988 were Dink, the Little Dinosaur and Paddington Bear. All the evidence and sources we have point towards it being Dink that Judith was scheduled to audition for that day. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no "evidence" and there are no "sources" presented that point toward any of your WP:OR comments. AldezD (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Change American actress to hungarian-American actress. Her mother and father were both hungarian 31.111.19.148 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Doesn't appear she's actually Hungarian, although her parents were. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)