Talk:Laura Branigan

A slow Edit War is happening

Over, and over again. Seriously, protect the article til the RfC is decided.

• Undo one
• Undo two
• edit to question the previous Rfc "primary sources" note is in question. It is not edit warring. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently its on that last edit. Trying to avoid a edit war I'm asking that the article be protected. Devilmanozzy (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The last of those three edits was mine, and I question why you see it as part of an "edit war". The RFC concluded that the 1957 date be included in the article, and mentioned the possibility of including a footnote regarding other claims. The previous wording did not include a correctly-formatted footnote - it added a partial explanation under "references" - and my text and formatting sought to clarify it, and so to better implement the closing argument at the RFC. Of course, I would be happy to discuss the wording further if challenged, but I resent it being termed part of an "edit war". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see you are in the very discussion about the Page6 reference. It might be okay as a footnote as for why the 1952 argument has been mounted, but calling it a "primary sources" is incorrect in every way. From WP:PRIMARY "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

So it lacks references. It is perhaps a "secondary source" though. But with the very subject opinion of the piece being a user in the conversation on this talk page also, it might also be a conflict of interest to use it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The citation is to a claim that primary sources have been found - not that the claim itself is a primary source. Please withdraw your unsubstantiated claims that I have engaged in "edit warring", or that I have any more "conflict of interest" than anyone else who has commented on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, and that "The citation is to a claim that primary sources have been found - not that the claim itself is a primary source." Explain as I'm not understanding you there. I retract the edit Warring comment, but I believe your edit is misleading. The "conflict of interest" comment is aimed at the factor that the very user that submitted it himself is commenting on the talk page and actively promoting the link. The page6 column lacks references, therefore it simply is not a primary source. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Devilmanozzy: I can explain this. The claim here is "some primary sources suggest that she may have been born in 1952". The citation to back up the previous claim is that page6 article. (The actual primary sources are the school website etc.) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hopefully footnote will remain for at least as long as discussion on talk page". Who would dare to change it? I would very much change it, but as I am a non reliable or trustful person I rather stand beside. Anyone who can give me a good answer how you will handle and solve Billy's birth year 1957? You have said that his birth announce from Patent Trader 1957 is not a proper source. I have asked but still no answer about Billy's US Public Records which says 28 Feb 1957. Are they also wrong and manipulated? If yes, please explain for me how and in what way you consider why Billy's public records are wrong or manipulated. As a Swede I have not much knowledge about US records, but logical it ought to be very difficult to change public records. At last, I suppose a voter ID is something you need to vote in an US election. Just like in Sweden. I have mine voter ID which is personally. If I say that I have Billy's 9 figures voter ID, which also says Feb 28, 1957, will wiki consider such source as proper and reliable? Or is it something that can be changed or manipulated in photoshop, for instance? If yes, why should Billy do such illegal thing? What would the wins be for him? Vote several times in one election? Please, don't make me disappointed and stay silence in such important questions. Or am I not considered as reliable in such questions?--Born53 swe (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you are casting mockery at us, both here and elsewhere, I imagine (not going to bother to look) I feel compelled to wonder why you let this one little bit of data consume your life. It is one date and one location for someone who has departed this earth. This does not matter. This is one article out of the 2800 on my watchlist and somewhere in a similar discussion I said I never even liked this artist. (and yes, I am old enough). Anyone who can give me a good answer how you will handle and solve Billy's birth year 1957? If you think any of us is lying awake at night fretting over this, well hahaha back at you; my solution is just delete whatever does not agree. These details (parents, graduation, brother, early life) were only added to build the basis for the earlier birth year of 1952. Billy is not even needed to be mentioned in the article; he has no individual notability whatsoever. None of her personal biographical details are even required or even desired. This is not a fan site. So, talk about us all you like, I am anonymous and ducky, you would be surprised! Actually, I thought you said you were going away: [1] Fylbecatulous talk 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"The slow edit war" is without me, so this is something you must sort out by yourself. You remember when I wrote about that lady who met Laura in Atlantic Records office in New York early 80's, and they became real good friends? She is very much involved in my research, and she is also knowing what is happening here at wiki. After a conversation yesterday she told me to ignore wiki, they don't know the truth as we do (incl Billy Branigan, Laura's little brother) so stop acting against them.

She is reading and also laughing at you, how you are playing with words without any kind of substance. She is also looking forward to see how you will solve Billy's birth year from 1957 to something unknown. You know, she knows Billy as well. You are really playing with the truth about 1957. And your reputation as well as a trustful wiki. You can't change Laura's birth year any longer. As Devilmanozzy wrote to me "1957 stays". And you can't change Billy's. Remember US Public Records "Billy Branigan 28 Feb 1957". So his 1957 stays! Good luck in your efforts to solve this delicate problem you got when you decided I was unreliable and not trustful in my sources. Which many came from just people who knew Laura. Just a small tiny question, how old are you so called "wikiexperts"? I am 1953 and my sources are born 1952. The same year Laura Branigan entered the world. So how old are you, wikisiers?--Born53 swe (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

How do we know Laura or her brother weren't adopted? Stranger things have happened. Where's the birth certificate? Plinuckment (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I wish her brother would address this on his facebook. Claims here about what could be cause of original research and that original research will never trump newspapers; but the family may be able to clear this up if they know of the debate. Like said, there are many reasons why the original research doesn't work, one being that it goes against newspaper articles and such. That is why when I saw this reference the other day, I was so happy about it. I want the date correct based on proper references. There is at this point far more proof that she was in 1954/or 1955 than 1952 since all research is from questionable sources. History overall has 1957 as her birthdate, and those in the 1952 camp need a strong reference like a relative actually addressing it. Sadly, the clock is ticking on this issue as we are all getting older. A entertainment piece in a mag interviewing her brother would so blow all the newspaper articles out of the water if he addressed this issue. Ultimately, what folks arguing on here fail to realize is that wikipedia isn't the place to prove or disprove a date/place. Wikipedia is a place to build properly referenced articles on a subject. Billy's birthday doesn't matter as there isn't a true source for it, nor does it even prove or disprove her birthday. There isn't a strong case for the 1952 date, and it lacks proper sources to even be considered.

As for the pro-1952 camp attacking folks in the 1957 camp, that doesn't prove anyone anymore right. It only proves that folks in the 1952 don't have anything else to add to the conversation currently. Remaining open minded to the research presented is the key to resolving this. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

My last statement! Yes, I am a pro-52 and knows the right things about Laura, but my FB-friends (Laura's former friend from Atlantic Records and Laura's former classmate from BHHS, class of 1970) has told me stop arguing with you. They have both read the wiki and this "Talks" on my request. They feels both very sad that you were allowed to destroy my wiki and also Laura's legacy. But there are no reasons to have more knifes in my back from contributors who doesn't read or understand sources, and therefore "we 3" will let you believe Laura was born in 1957. Also, they are both very impressed of my research, especially from Laura's time at high school. With both pictures from the yearbook "The Arch" and all articles mostly from The Patent Trader, the local paper in Armonk at that time. And also my findings that showed Branigan's lived in Brooklyn, later Long Island and last in Armonk. Branigans never lived in Brewster. But we 3 are out from this wiki, and let you play with your words and your "sources". I just wanted to make a last statement from us 3 who knows the truth. And Billy, not to forgive. So go ahead with your so called truth. Oh, last thing....the separation which someone wrote about earlier. None of them has ever heard of it, and they would like to see where it came from. A reliable and trustful source is at least that you can show them, don't you think. And gossips from People magazine is nothing you shall care about. Forget People, it is just gossip!--Born53 swe (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you have decided not to present the published sources here, as it would be most helpful, Born 53 swe. Please remember that WP does not, cannot, and will never be able to determine truth. All WP does is reword and summarize what is in the published sources. This is done here by giving the very-widely-reported 1957 date, with a note sharing the concerns from a small number of sources.Shajure (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shajure..thanks for kind words. If you like you can (and others) watch and read my research of Laura. I have lately added about her time in Meadow, the group she was a member in 1972-73. There is also Chris van Cleave's story how it all started in 1972, when he and Walker Daniels found Laura during her rehearsal of Beggars Opera. Walker Daniels was a teacher at the academy where Laura studied. Sadly Laura never spoke about Meadow. One reason could be that her new timeline and biography didn't involved things from her early 70's. It wouldn't suit the "Project 1957" which was established to build up her new timeline and biography. This was made by creators from Atlantic Records, who had people with that skill and knowledge.

*1. - My research Laura Branigan 1952-2004. Everything you need to know about Laura included with sources. https://se.pinterest.com/born53/
*2. - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at famous British Library http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&vl(freeText0)=Branigan%2c+Laura%2c+1952-2004&tab=local_tab&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3a(BLCONTENT)&vid=BLVU1&vl(1423900464UI1)=all_items&vl(488279563UI0)=creator
*3. - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at House of Names https://www.houseofnames.com/branigan-family-crest
*4. - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at Library of Congress http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n91051432.html Laura Branigan 1952-2004
*5. - Chris van Cleave, former friend and member of Meadow. Read his story how he and Walker Daniels discovered Laura in 1972 at the American Academy in New York. http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html
van Cleave story is added in my research under "Meadow". Hope you'll enjoy it!--Born53 swe (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1. I see the same stuff there. You should get it organized to cite, instead of saying "look at this". I see newspapers, You need to link to them instead. Many newspapers are online thanks to google. find the papers on a source thats not edited by yourself as proof.

2. British Library doesn't give sources and allows users to edit entries, pretty much making it User-generated content.

3. It never explains where it got the birthdate. I see references at the bottom of the page, but none seem to address Laura directly. They assume her birthdate is 1952, which may have been because of Wikipedia again.

4. Noting WP:CIRCULAR.

Sources "found: Wikipedia, September 8, 2015 (Laura Branigan; Laura Ann Branigan; born July 3, 1952, Brewster, New York; died August 26, 2004, East Quogue, New York; American singer, songwriter, and actress)"

Change Notes "1991-05-23: new, 2015-09-09: revised"

They changed the information last year to match Wikipedia. Stunning, simply stunning. Not blaming you Born53 Swe, that "should" have been a good source. I can't believe that the Library of Congress sourced Wikipedia.

5. Read over that a few times, it doesn't actually give her age. She could have actually been that young... noting acts like The Jackson 5 which featured among members a 6 year old Michael Jackson. So while it is questionable, no sources flat out claimed she was older when with them. Devilmanozzy (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that the Library of Congress explicitly using Wikipedia as a source is an issue that needs to be considered at WP:RS/N (if it hasn't been already). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave the experts to fight that out. It isn't my issue. It is a issue that a white knight can address if he/she wants. But, I can read, they have referenced Wikipedia as a source that could have affected the choice of birthdate in the data. Devilmanozzy (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I raised it at WP:RS/N, and got a couple of responses. I suggest we add in to the current footnote a reference to the LOC, not in order to give the contested 1952 date any additional credibility but simply to forestall arguments along the lines of "the LoC is a RS and says 1952 so it must be right." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, forget everything about me and my worthless sources. I'll give up now (again). I thought I would have some help from you Devilmanozzy by giving you all my options of finding news about Laura. But obviously you didn't care about it.

First you said, it is not your business finding and looking after sources, then when I gave you HOW to find it. But nada! Have you read Mr van Cleaves whole story when he met Laura, how Meadow were split up and how he tried in the 70s to tell Laura being a part of Jesus Christ Superstar? If Laura was 15 in 1972, she wouldn't even have met van Cleave, though you must be at least 18y to get your acceptance. And Walker Daniels wife Sharon Storm would have met Laura either. (Which she did!) But OK, you win again. As you understand I will contact British Library and LoC and tell them how badly they work with finding reliable sources. And could someone please delete my research, I am not interested of having it here, though it wasn't worth anything, even if Shajure said it would be a good thing.--Born53 swe (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the birthdate. So yeah, I will point out that the links are incorrect. The burden of proof is on your side still. I have told you time and time again how to actually have proper references, yet you never bother understanding, only disagreeing. You seem to think this is a cred/authority issue. Simply put, I don't care who you or anyone is. What I care about is not being given misleading or misguided information created because of a form of speculation or theory. I believe that you believe that date is right. The problem is that sources/references need to be able to be based on unbiased, none position source. The true answer was and still lies with your collection of newspapers. You need to get the newspaper name, date of publication and explain why it matters in regards to her birthdate and birthplace. I don't know how to explain it more clearly to you. Get off your high horse and listen. In the real world, people disagree about a number of things but it is proper sources that wins at the end of the day. The point of sources/references is to prove that a unbias perspective/record agree with the position presented without altering it or somehow manipulating it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know one thing...you are soooo full of crap and shit that you should think about how to behave. I don't care about you for a single Swedish dime. You are the most stupid, silly person in this fucking page.

Question...Are former classmates to Laura Branigan reliable and proper sources? Or do you want Laura to stand beside them wishing you a happy holiday? The best thing you can do is...log out and never come back here again. Do you know what I am doing on your fucking sources...shitting!! Have you (and all others) read Chris van Cleaves story about Meadow and Laura? If not...read here http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html Meadow Story It is a very well document of the rise and fall of Meadow. Walker Daniels, a teacher from the academy, etc. And why haven't you and others already read it. But you are so fucking stupid that you CAN'T read and make conclusions of what you read. Poor little fellow! My source is a very well known author from Manhattan. She has written several books, and yes, she remembers Laura wery well. But maybe she is a fake as my other friend who also were classmate with Laura Branigan, born 1952. I don't know how to explain so you understand....Laura Branigan WAS born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, Westchester County, New York. She attended high school 1966-70, The american academy in New York between 1970-72, she toured with Cohen in Europe 1976, she married Larry Kruteck 1978, etc. You can take 1957, Brewster, what ever you want and stick them up in your brown eye. AND, not to forget..sources you are referring to says clearly that Laura WASN'T born 1957. Have you even read all you are screaming about? Advice, read and you will see, damn it, she was born 1952. Read http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html , https://www.aada.edu/alumni/notable-alumni#decade:1960_1970/orderby:last_name/display:panel , http://chappaqua.advantage-preservation.com/Viewer/?fn=patent_trader_usa_new_york_mount_kisco_19700620_english_21 , her graduation from high school. Start reading and let you be convince that you are so fucking wrong. THANK YOU! And don't go like other cowards to daddy wiki and have me banned. Be a man!!--Born53 swe (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article states that she attended Byram Hills High School in 1966-1970. Most students in the U.S. graduate high school at age 18. That suggests the 1952 date of birth is most probable, and 1957 is highly improbable. While it may be common for people in the entertainment industry person to shave a few years off their age, once a person is deceased, an encyclopedia should provide the true date of birth in the main article, rather than in a footnote. If the 1952 date of birth cannot be supported by reliable sources, then it would be preferable to put "unknown", "redacted" or "in the 1950s" rather than perpetuating a falsehood (the 1957 date of birth.)Tetsuo (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"be supported by reliable sources" - we have a date supported by broad WP:RS, and a footnote for the date given in a smaller number of other key sources. Please see the WP:RFC if you would like to reach a broader wp:consensus. WP cannot, and will never be able to, determine truth or falsehood. It can only paraphrase information published elsewhere. This matter is what is called "beating a dead horse". Going out and changing the "minds" of the press, perhaps by publishing a widely-accepted biographical book, might be a good step. Arguing with WP editors about what the press should do is fruitless endeavor.Shajure (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Please read Talk:Laura Branigan/Archive 2. Unless you have a new reference that is reliable source, there isn't much that can be done. The last RfC was done in March and then was denied a overturn a month later. It's only been four months. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI about Laura Branigan. Requests has been sent out to major US- and UK papers about rewriting Laura's obits. Also, I have been approved as a Facebook member in an exclusive group "only for Armonkers". I was asked to write a story about Laura and her 64th birthday (born 1952) which was published in Armonk Daily News. I had a lot of kind words and also credits from Laura's former classmates and people who knew Laura and her family, that I was so accurate, trustful and reliable in my story. Digitized old papers, pictures, etc, which I had sent to the editor were all double checked by the editor and approved as OK when I had "Let's go, write". The very strange thing in this history is, the sources I have used here which has been disqualified as not reliable or proper and therefore deleted, are exactly the same I sent to the editor. So that gave me a bitter taste about wikis experts who deleted my work, but was later welcomed by people in Armonk who really knew Laura and also other readers as 100% reliable and proper. Many were excited how I had managed to find all those notices which they remember so well. The same notice which was deleted by wikis. Therefore, when my true story about Laura (born 1952 in Mount Kisco) will be published and also come into lights it will not be for wikis knowledge. In your world Laura Branigan was born 1957 in Brewster. Yours so called "professional biography" over Laura is something Armonkers are laughing at. Btw, did you know Brewster wasn't Atlantic Rec first choice as Laura's new town, it was Pound Ridge. The reason was that Pound Ridge sounded more classic than Brewster. In my opinion Pound Ridge is better than Brewster. But sadly, maybe Brewster won the lottery? Of course there will be wiki people who will laugh at me while reading this. That is OK for me, though I know the truth which wiki don't.--Born53 swe (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I would point toward wp:Pillars as a good read. I don't think the point of WP is clear, based on these continued posts about "knowing" and "truth". WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood. It can only summarize, as it has here, the contents of the published sources. Here, we have many generally reliable sources using the (it appears erroneous) date. Even if every single interested editor were to suddenly agree that the the published sources were, in fact, wrong, it would not matter: WP contains the footnote that a minority of the wp:RS give other dates, and that individuals with personal knowledge (primary sources) give other dates. This is in keeping with the purpose of WP: to summarize in editors own words the content of the generally reliable sources. I hope this helps in some way.Shajure (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In the vague hope that this won't be taken the wrong way, an example. I have personally been present when 2 events took place that were subsequently covered by the press. Neither event was accurately presented. Yet the news bodies that published the accounts were generally reliable publishers of news. This is reality. Everyone lives in the same world, and we know (hopefully we all know) that no source is going to get everything right. In some cases NONE of them will get it even CLOSE to right. And in those cases, it is the job of the millions of web sites that are not WP to post the truth (hopefully). And WP will post a summary of what the WP:RS contain. *possibly* with a footnote as was added here.Shajure (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

The article says "The strength and range of her voice actually impeded her career for several years while the label went through the process of categorizing her as a pop singer."

While her AllMusic biography gives a very different reason for the hold-up: "A breach-of-contract lawsuit resulted after Branigan changed management, which held up work commencing on her solo debut."

Why no mention of this lawsuit here? Muzilon (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about Sid Bernstein? Devilmanozzy (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The AllMusic.com article implies there was a contractual dispute well before she became a star, while that People article talks about a legal dispute that arose after "Gloria" became a hit. Maybe AllMusic has the sequence of events wrong. Muzilon (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It probably is the same thing. I don't see proof of it being otherwise. Rumor has it that Sid was also the reason the her real first solo album got shelved. (Google "Love Me Tonight" for the single for it.) Ultimately, songs from her shelved first album ended up on the "Expanded edition" of Branigan released two years ago. Sid meet Laura in New York and helped her to get set up with a audition that snagged her deal with Atlantic Records. I found this information from Boca Raton News - Sep 2, 1983. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I need an advise from people here, perhaps most from Devilmanozzy. But please, don't laugh this is a very serious request from me. Many people who are visiting my research about Laura Branigan are asking me why wikipedia are so wrong about Laura. They have all noticed wiki has 1957, Brewster and age 47. Some of them are living in Armonk and knew Laura. One of them has even been donating money to wiki in several year, but it is over now. It is his way of showing he doesn't like what wiki has done to me and how wiki is treating Laura's wrong info. I have told them I will not make any changes, though it will be undone in seconds after savings. So that is out of questions. Devilmanozzy, are you willing to make the changes so people will take wiki as a serious site. And stop laughing at wiki? Or somebody else can do it? During the last weeks I have found that so many sites are using wikipedia as a main source. I just shake my head and wonder...how could wikipedia be the God of Sources? And honestly, do you all really think I am a liar and have fabricated all my sources? Devilmanozzy has written in his box that he has

debunked me and my research, but he can't tell me what it exactly means. So, are someone of you contributors ready to support me in my request of setting Laura's right info back in order? I would really appreciate it. Please, make the changes in the coming days.--Born53 swe (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Younger brother Billy's DOB

I removed Billy Branigan's date of birth with the following edit summary - "younger brother's dob not relevant to her bio". It was reverted back into the article with - "It's very much relevant to the article; read the talk page." I have read the entire talk page and do not find any discussion (based on policies or guidelines) that would support including her younger brother's date of birth as being relevant to her biography. Please explain why her younger brother's date of birth is relevant, while her older brother's and sister and parent's and grandparent's dates of birth are excluded. It would appear the only reason is to make a WP:POINT.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you sense that we are all so tired of this? Whether you think it is based on 'policies or guidelines' the statement and the citation are staying. This article is more exhausting to maintain than Tortoiseshell cat to me. Since you asked, why don't you discuss, based on policies or guidelines, why we must remove it? That would be really nice. thanks and happy editing and whatever. Fylbecatulous talk 16:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sarcasm is partcularly profitable right now. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have had to deal with this on Simple Wikipedia as well: simple:Laura Branigan with associated personal talk page mockery (mine and article and Simple talk page) sigh ..our version is still in the dark ages since we kept restoring our original dates and added sources to support that. Fylbecatulous talk 12:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DOB again

I grew up with Laura Branigan in Armonk, NY. We were in the same classes in elementary school (SS John & Mary) and in high school (Byram Hills). We were born in 1952. We graduated high school in 1970. If fans simply checked her home town records and her school records, they would know she was born in 1952 and was raised in Armonk, NY. The 1957 birth year was used for her career. Lots of celebrities have said they were younger for their careers. But I would think biographers would prefer to stipulate the truth. Maybe it doesn't matter. Personally, I don't really care. I'm just saying 1957 is incorrect. It's simply ignorance of the facts. Why those who insist it's true do not do their research is beyond me. Oh well. smh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1952 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia can only summarize what is given by sources. Newspapers disagree with you. Lots of newspapers. Truth has to be proven from references. See the rest of this talk page and the two Archives. Unless you have something new to add to this, we have spun these wheels already. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would point toward wp:Pillars as a good read. I don't think the point of WP is clear, based on these continued posts about "knowing" and "truth". WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood. It can only summarize, as it has here, the contents of the published sources. Here, we have many generally reliable sources using the (it appears erroneous) date. Even if every single interested editor were to suddenly agree that the the published sources were, in fact, wrong, it would not matter: WP contains the footnote that a minority of the wp:RS give other dates, and that individuals with personal knowledge (primary sources) give other dates. This is in keeping with the purpose of WP: to summarize in editors own words the content of the generally reliable sources.Shajure (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I just want you to see some pictures I had from people in Armonk, who were classmates with Laura at SS John and Mary school in Chappaqua. Laura Branigan picture from Armonk 1958. She is 6 years old. Next is Laura and best friend Geri. From Armonk about 1963-64 Laura and Geri in Armonk about 1963-64. Next is from 1962 and SS John & Mary 5th grade Laura 1962, SS John & Mary school 5th grade, Chappaqua I have much, much more in my Laura collection. I will not show them though this pictures will probably be considered as fakes and fabricated in photoshop. But I think or know the nickname Truth1952 can verify them, though she grew up with Laura. Wiki experts, have you solved the problem with Billy's birth year? In Laura's biography it is said she was child 4th of 5. If you continue to give Billy birth year 1957, then Laura is younger than Billy. Isn't it easier to admit you are wrong and make the changes so it looks trustful in your "professional" wiki. Wiki has now the fenomen of 2 siblings born the same year of 1957. It looks crazy and ridiculous. You are supposed to be the elite of all contributors in this subject, but you can't read, understand and definitely you are not able to think logical and draw conclusions. To 2Truth1952, I understand you didn't came back and tried to defend yourself against Laura's so called experts. I am sure you know who I am after my visit in your Facebook group. If you like, please contact me at my Facebook, maybe we can work out something together to end this stupid game from those pro1957.--Born53 swe (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would point toward wp:Pillars as a good read. I don't think the point of WP is clear, based on these continued posts about "knowing" and "truth". WP cannot, has not, and will not be able to determine truth or falsehood. It can only summarize, as it has here, the contents of the published sources. Here, we have many generally reliable sources using the (it appears erroneous) date. Even if every single interested editor were to suddenly agree that the the published sources were, in fact, wrong, it would not matter: WP contains the footnote that a minority of the wp:RS give other dates, and that individuals with personal knowledge (primary sources) give other dates. This is in keeping with the purpose of WP: to summarize in editors own words the content of the generally reliable sources.Shajure (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)