Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mental health and The Princess Diarist

At the end of the Mental health section is "In 2016, she released The Princess Diarist." I have not read the book. The publicity for it focuses on Fisher's disclosure of her 1976 affair with Harrison Ford. Does this autobiography also cover "mental health" aspects of Fisher's life? If so, it would be great if that could be added to the article along with page numbers from the book to better tie why this book is mentioned in the mental health section. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Work on Star Wars prequels

The citation for this is a Yahoo article, since taken down: https://web.archive.org/web/20070818103950/http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800010395/bio

It doesn't actually back up this claim. It only credits her with working on 'The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles', and appearing on the red carpet for the prequel premieres.

If there is no actually primary source for this claim, it should be removed, as it's basically a slur given the atrocious quality of the prequel film scripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Earwicker (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This corrupted version of the claim has unfortunately been copied in various other "news" sources now, probably based on this Wikipedia page. Often it is claimed that she was "said to be" involved in the scripts, e.g. a user-posted comment on IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Earwicker (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

"Fisher died on December 27, 2016 at a hospital in Los Angeles, California from complications of cardiac arrest, aged 60." instead of "Fisher died at age 60 in Los Angeles on December 27, 2016. " Naculgummie (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This stylistic suggestion seems to be moot in light of more-recent edits. Brianga (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Recently Died Template Removal

So why did user ATS remove the recently died template? Can either he or someone else explain why that template should be removed from this article. Seems like it would be appropriate and it is helpful to folks who read the article. Unless someone has a good explanation I am inclined to put it back into the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the template and its instructions—the template is not used to ientify a person who recently died. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this is a useless explanation, please explain your reasoning as to why its not proper to use it. I did read the template and it says "This is about a person who has recently died" -- so what am I missing here? Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that after the fact. It's an entirely separate question whether there ought to be a template identifying articles about people who have recently died. But clearly this template is not that. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Recent death}} is meant to alert editors of rapid changing edits on the onset of a well known persons death, it is not used to advertise or confirm the death itself. Please review the Template's documentation - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Mlperac; if you read the template documentation, you'll find that it says that "[the template] should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day". Fisher's article clearly meets that criteria, and I see no reason as to why the template shouldn't be re-added. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

... and that was the entire problem that I just fixed, again. Look at the documentation below the template:

This template warns our readers that the information presented in the article may not be final or correct due to missing/unpublished/uncertain information about a recently deceased person, and that readers should therefore be cautious about the content presented. This is generally true for all of our articles, but in cases of extraordinary public attention that risk is especially high. As such, it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again. Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the template's purpose.

—ATS 🖖 talk 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I reviewed the template and it's somewhat confusing. I also note that ATS has just edited it and changed the description. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's exactlly why I changed it back. When the opening sentence completely contradicts its own purpose, confusion can only be the result. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-add by JudgeRM

Since this discussion has been re-opened, I should probably state that I have re-added the template, since I believe the article has reached the "significant levels of editing" for it to be included. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record I closed this discussion because it seemed everyone was getting to the same page, but now it seems it's an article issue. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The template isn't for when there is a high level of edit activity. It's for when there is edit activity surrounding a death where the circumstances are emerging rapidly and confusingly. That isn't the case here. From what I can tell, most of the edits are article cleanup unrelated to the death. The template doesn't belong. Brianga (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

By looking at what the template documentation says, it simply just says that it should be used "in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day". Taken at face value, this article qualifies that criteria. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

you're skipping the preceding explanation, that the point is to alert readers that information is emerging and has a high risk of inaccuracy. That isn't the case here. Brianga (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just over 110 revisions by 51 users in eleven hours. Meh. Borderline, but okay. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority (100-ish) of those revisions are from the last TWO hours. TompaDompa (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Half of them added/removed the template. Yes, I'm kidding. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

DVT leading to Pulmonary Embolism leading to MI or Cardiac Arrest ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently she was on an 11 hour flight. This would suggest a DVT leading to a Pulmonary Embolism leading to an MI or Cardiac Arrest. If she actually had a prolonged cardiac arrest one would have expected her condition to have been dire immediately. She was fairly young. Did she have any risk factors for an MI or Cardiac Arrhythmia or torsades de pointes ?

We don't have the answers to this question at this time, and we cannot speculate. It may become a noted factor in the heart attack. Until then, we don't add it as it's not verifiable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Do airplanes have A.E.D.'s on board ?

Do airplanes have automated external defibrillators on board ? (They should)

This is really not a question for this talk page, anon IP. Please see WP:TPG for what's appropriate for article talk pages and what isn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Family spokesman

Winkelvi, in case you missed it: why is the spokesman's name and approximate time of the statement's delivery relevant to an encyclopedia article? Thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see it as relevant for two reasons: (1) It's not unusual to mention the name of the spokesperson who actually delivered the news to the press; (2) It's further information for readers to say the news was confirmed by the daughter but to not mention by whom the news was delivered. I can't see why it should be left out since it's verifiable and has been reported. Why to you think it's not relevant, ATS? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: because, in the end, it's the family's statement. Unless there's a particular, encyclopedic reason why the person who read it was the one to do so, it's irrelevant. IMO. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. And, frankly, can't see what harm it does to have the spokesperson's name in the article. It's correctly and well sourced, plus, it gives a clearer picture to the reader. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how this clears up the picture in any way, but I'll let it be. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

removed two orange tags

I have removed the orange tag on the lede and on the filmography section as neither seemed applicable. Please discuss here if anyone thinks they should be reinstated. MurielMary (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

--188.238.102.248 (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Tabloids

There are stories on tabloids about her having a massive heart attack. Not sure as not in any broad news yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The most "reliable" source reporting this at the time of this comment would be this news station, which cites the the TMZ article. I wouldn't add it since I wouldn't consider it "broad news" yet, but I'd definitely keep an eye out on the situation. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: the LA Times has reported on the heart attack. I'd consider the LA Times "broad news". More news sites are likely to follow. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added it. Many "broad" news agencies outside of tabloids are reporting on the situation now. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation closely. Good news: she appears to be in stable condition now. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

And now she's dead... RIP, you will be forever missed D: TDMfan23! talk 00:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Date of Death

Seeing as there is no indication of higher brain functions after she was unconscious on December 23, would it not be better to list the 23rd as the date of death unless new information indicating mental activity later on is brought forward? The 27th is an arbitrary date when the apparatus of the rest of her body shut down.2605:E000:61D3:8500:C1B0:E585:4EE:324F (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RS. News reports based on the family's statement specifically say she died during the morning of the 27th. Anything else is original research. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand your bioethical and metaphysical point, but I'm sure no medical professional declared her dead on Dec 23, which is what we would be concerned about for purposes of this article. Brianga (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Brianga. How do we know if there was higher brain function or not?? Her doctors may know but they have not published that info. AND they declared her deceased on December 27 at a specific time in the morning. So that is the date/time of death. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-colons or commas when separating items in a list?

I posted this sentence with commas between the names: Fisher was survived by her daughter, her mother Debbie Reynolds, her brother Todd Fisher and their half-sisters Joely Fisher and Tricia Leigh Fisher.[89] User:TompaDompa kept changing it to semi-colons between the names. How does that make sense? http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm : Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base." Peter K Burian (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's somewhat disingenuous. The sentence read "Fisher is survived by her daughter; her mother Debbie Reynolds; her brother Todd Fisher; and her half-sisters, actresses Joely Fisher and Tricia Leigh Fisher." Per the same link as you used in a later edit summary: Rule 3. Use a semicolon to separate units of a series when one or more of the units contain commas.

In this case, the last unit (her half-sisters, actresses Joely Fisher and Tricia Leigh Fisher) indeed contained a comma, making the use of semicolons appropriate. See also Semicolon#Usage: Applications of the semicolon in English include: Between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as serial commas [...], which also supports the notion that the use of semicolons was appropriate in this case. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The current version is using commas to separate the names of the survivors; I could understand one semi-colon somewhere in the sentence, but not a series of semi-colons to separate each of the names. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because the explanatory comma between "her half-sisters" and their names was removed along with the word "actresses". I explained this in my later edit summary when I made that change. TompaDompa (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

TompaDompa is correct in both cases. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The full quote and perspective re: "strangled by my own bra" quote

From the Vanity Fair article: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/carrie-fisher-dies-strangled-by-bra-wishful-drinking#pq=R27nzB

According to Fisher, Lucas did eventually explain why galaxies far, far away are underwear-free zones—which led her to a great gag about how she'd eventually like to go: What happens is you go to space and you become weightless. So far so good, right? But then your body expands??? But your bra doesn't—so you get strangled by your own bra. Now I think that this would make for a fantastic obit—so I tell my younger friends that no matter how I go, I want it reported that I drowned in moonlight, strangled by my own bra. As you wish, your Worshipfulness. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Lewd WP:OR about "strangling herself with her own bra"

I removed this section as OR. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And unless I am mistaken the speculation about why this was reported is OR. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not lewd, it's not OR. But if there's another reason to suggest this should be removed, go for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, not lewd, not OR (quote from a book), but IMO it's borderline WP:NOTMEMORIALish and WP:QUOTEFARM invoking. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's one sentence and has been reported post-mortem by numerous reliable sources. It's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In her book, Wishful Drinking, Fisher wrote: "I want it reported that I drowned in moonlight, strangled by my own bra."2003:C7:53C2:D700:14CC:7861:EE34:1CE (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely "lewd" about the quote, and it's sourced, from her own book. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I apologize in advance for being a little on the conservative side, but a section in an article about a person's death doesn't seem to me to be the right place for an off the wall, potentially suggestive quote about her being strangled to death with a bra. It's tasteless, WP:UNDUE, nonsense for a section of the article dealing with a very serious topic -- namely, her death. At any rate ... Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And the section about "...Several obituaries and retrospectives obliged. " is OR since it's not in the source, it's someone's opinion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's Carrie Fucking Fisher ... —ATS 🖖 talk 00:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Potentially suggestive"?! Sorry, are you saying you find mention of the word "bra" potentially suggestive?! If so... well, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet. Also, don't watch Empire Strikes Back. "Several obituaries" should probably be changed to "many" as, well this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple cites, so it is not Original Research. Using the word "bra" may offend you, but Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. RJ4 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering the title of this section (specifically the inclusion of the word "herself"), I think the original poster may have misread what was written, which would explain why they considered it lewd. TompaDompa (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe (I can't find the source at the moment so haven't added it to the article) that this quote (which is not lewd) is a response by Fisher to George Lucas asking her not to wear a bra in Star Wars. When Fisher asked him why he said there is not underwear in space. Hence the witty response from Fisher. I think reference to this underlying reason would help explain the comment in the article Robynthehode (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The story behind the quote is explained here (under "On death and underwear"), and again here (not sure if this latter one is RS, though it does connect the story to her autobiog) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the assessment of the editors that this quote has numerous RS to back it up, and since I first challenged the edit, it has since undergone extreme scrutiny and the current quote is not as off the wall as it was. These types of off the wall materials and quotes are always fun to write about and fun to read about, but that does not mean that every quote attributed to her should be included in an article. Wikipedia should be viewed as a reliable, balanced source of information, not a sewer pipe from the internet into our readers homes. At any rate, the current quote is framed properly and not as wierd or offensive as it was. I thank the other editors for applying a reasonable level of scrutiny to these quotes. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the same quote now as it was when I first inserted it. The quote "attributed to her" is from her own autobiography! I believe the words you are looking for are "I misread the quote, apologies." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"...Several obituaries and retrospectives obliged. " was in the first versions of this quote. They obliged what? To strangle her in the moonlight with her bra? Confusing and OR since the editor is attributing intent to the press. That has been removed and the quote framed properly. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, I have seen far too many discussions walk the line between maintaining the encyclopedic and scrubbing the human being from his/her own article. As long as the context—that news agencies and other reliable sources included the quote because she wanted them to—is clear, I am 100% for its inclusion. —ATS 🖖 talk

TMZ claims Reynolds has died

No other such reports as of this moment. Someone already lists her death in the Facts section. Hmmm... http://www.tmz.com/2016/12/28/debbie-reynolds-dead/ Peter K Burian (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A few other sources are also reporting her death; waiting for a very reliable one to do so. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-me-debbie-reynolds-20161228-story.html —ATS 🖖 talk 01:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

mentioned WP in her book

Page 28 of Shockaholic she talks about wanting to get the img used in the article changed and how she wonders if the editor "hated" her.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy link. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to a nice image of her most famous character. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, because she was so much more than one character she played. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc, she wrote Shockaholic years ago and the photo she referred to was removed from this article long ago. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Modifying tables

Mlpearc, how does my adding the "refs" column break a table, compared to the recent version? Sure, I left some other ones blank, but I see nothing wrong with blank, borderless cells in the now-merged "Refs" column. Comments? --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See here - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If the borderless cells are the issue, I'll add additional cells. If that's not it, can you summarize what I did wrong? George Ho (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see something wrong with broken cells, please add your changes without breaking the table. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me on fixing borderless/broken cells. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher birthplace

In a message to me by editor winkelvi, they state that Carrie Fisher could've been born at home in Beverly Hills, offering no legitimate references to support this claim. I offer the following: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138202742/wishful-drinking http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088513/Dad-ran-Liz-Taylor-Cary-Grant-lectured-drugs-George-Lucas ruined-life-The-extraordinary-autobiography-CARRIE-FISHER.html By Carrie Fisher for the MailOnline http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html s=&authornamef=Carrie+Fisher+for+MailOnline The above reference was also used in Vanity Fair: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/12/carrie-fisher-parents-debbie-reynolds-eddie-hollywood Wishful Drinking is a biography. See the back cover of the book. https://www.amazon.com/Wishful-Drinking-Carrie Fisher/dp/143915371X She says she was born in, surprisingly, Burbank, CA. The excerpts from this book state she was born in a hospital. There are no hospitals in Beverly Hills that deliver babies; Definitely not in 1955. Cedars Sinai hospital https://www.cedars-sinai.edu/Patients/Patient-and-Visitor-Resources/Getting-Here/ is adjacent to Beverly Hills, but not in Beverly Hills. I find it difficult to think Ms. Fisher would say she was born in a hospital in Burbank if she was actually born at home in Beverly Hills! She certainly was raised in Beverly Hills. I feel your addition of a legacy.com reference for her birthplace is not a good source and cites no references. I have contacted biography.com for their source reference since they say she was born in Los Angeles. However, I'm quoting from Ms. Fisher's memoir, so unless someone has a birth certificate? Janetmanning (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I also can find no verification for what is listed as the official website, carriefisher.com. Many of these are fan based. Janetmanning (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think what you're not understanding is this: we don't care one way or the other whether she was born in Beverly Hills or Los Angeles or Burbank or Bombay. We care that her birthplace listed in the article is supported by a reliable source. It's the sourcing that's the issue, not the actual place of birth. Again, please read WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Stage performances table? Wit?

There are mentions of Carries Fischer's stage appearances in the prose, but no table summary, like for her film and TV appearances. Is this a conscious omission?

In the interviews that I've seen, she displayed a sharp wit and an acerbic sense of humor. Do any sources mention this so that she can be credited with these wonderful traits?

The is a disturbance in the Force that I hope will soon becalm. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Along the same lines, she was recently a guest on the British show 8 out of 10 cats (I mistakenly said QI earlier and have corrected this), which is where she was returning to the US from when this happened. 8 out of 10 cats is not listed in her TV appearances and was her final appearance.

Last poster, please remember to sign your comment with 4 tildes in a row (this is a tilde, located in the upper L corner of the QWERTY keyboard ---> ~ ). Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

When did she quit illegal drugs?

I heard her say a few years ago that she had stopped taking illegal drugs some time ago. Is there any source for that information? The article already mentions the Harvard award she received for her service to the topic of addiction. Thank you, I appreciate it your help. Wordreader (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Roseanne roast

Apologies for violating TALK, but if you can watch Carrie Fisher roast Roseanne, do it. Professional writers help non-comedians with their sets and, no doubt, Fisher's too, but a great deal of it appeared to be completely off the cuff. And hilarious.

• "Hi, I'm Carrie and I'm am alcoholic. ... And I can't say 'Oops, wrong room'."

—ATS 🖖 talk 05:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a few days ago, on one of the talking head show I saw, someone stated that Carrie wrote her own material for that roast. It's not like she didn't have the talent to do so! I wish I could remember what show it was - on CNN or MSNBC? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember what channel the Comedy Central Roast of Roseanne was on, sorry. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

Carrie Fisher starred as herself in the 2007 FOX reality series "On the Lot" as a judge for each episode see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Lot Cblakework (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Heart attack vs. cardiac arrest

While the headlines state that she had a "heart attack" (meaning a myocardial infarction), the actual text in the news reports don't corroborate that claim. Rather, it seems she went into cardiac arrest for reasons unknown. Most laypeople (including reporters) do not know the difference, but we should strive for accuracy. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Until there is an official licensed medical statement, we do't know either (for sure). I suggest we wait for that statement. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, at the moment the article states cardiac arrest but the one source now being used states heart attack, with no mention of cardiac arrest. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's nothing—The Huffington Post has one in the headline and the other in the body. Something like "heart trouble" is a possible alternative until something definitive comes along. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed to "cardiac episode" as reported. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The LAFD issued a statement that she had a cardiac arrest, more significant than a heart attack. (Scan down a few entries.) "Transported to a local hospital." - apparently UCLA Medical Center. https://twitter.com/i/moments/812408392148889600

As much as I hate to quote the Mirror, they are doing a timeline of updates and includes an audio of the pilot declaring the medical emergency to LAX. http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/carrie-fisher-heart-attack-latest-9509603

Fingers, toes, and eyes all crossed, Wordreader (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"Stable condition"

Meantime, a common reporting error (THR and the AP got it wrong, too) is "stable condition". Medically, there is no such thing. Until further notice, Ms. Fisher is in critical condition with stable life signs. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, "stable" is not the same thing as "stabilized" - medically speaking. Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct; I should have used "stabilized life signs". —ATS 🖖 talk 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I just read a Daily Mail article on her condition written by clueless reporters. For the record, it goes like this: ER -> stabilized -> ICU (or CICU for cardiac-specific care). [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Impossible to say, Rklawton; however, if someone attempted such conjecture within the article, you would revert and properly upbraid the editor, right? Right?! —ATS 🖖 talk 01:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: According to a follow up interview with Variety she is decidedly NOT stabilising. Her brother has stated that right now he has no good news or bad news - she is in the ICU, out of the ER, but not in the CCU, which is where she would be if the condition was stabilised. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh heck no. I'd resist adding even published speculations in the article body. Folks read these articles at times like this because they want to cut through the crap, and they know they can get that here. I added my own thoughts above as an exercise in mental preparation. That is - be on the lookout for the news taking a 90 degree turn in this direction given the considerations noted. Rklawton (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Heart attack?

Interesting. People cites AP calling it a "massive heart attack".[1] And yet, the linked AP source[2] doesn't say word one about a "heart attack". Basically, People decided to add that little detail in all on their own. I think we should be very careful about sourcing the diagnosis, "heart attack", before we put it back in the article. Think of it this way, the only folks who can provide the "heart attack" diagnosis are her doctors following diagnostic tests, and they are bound by U.S. privacy laws. Only her family can release that information. As a result, any source that says she has had a heart attack that is not quoting her family is full of crap. Rklawton (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Precisely why I'd changed it. Welcome to the party. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

AP is reporting Carrie's brother as saying the cause is "unknown". TMZ (not especially reliable) is reporting anonymous sources (also not particularly encouraging) as saying it was a "heart attack".[3] Given a choice between a Hollywood rag citing anonymous sources and Carrie's brother who has a direct line to her doctors, I suggest we go with her brother's statements and wait for more. Rklawton (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion about the medical event in the Sources section, below. And the article has been revised for greater accuracy!!Peter K Burian (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Witness reports of seeing a heart attack

I'm not entirely happy with the phrasing "witnesses reported seeing a heart attack"; its inclusion is important because it explains why news media went on to refer to the incident as a heart attack, but the current phrasing does not make it clear that it's pure conjecture on the part the witnesses – they couldn't possibly tell the difference between a myocardial infarction and, say, a pulmonary embolism. I'm not sure how to better phrase it, though. Suggestions? TompaDompa (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed —ATS 🖖 talk 20:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

When Wikipedia has some text in the article, we have to try to prevent just having the slanted side or not having anything major, either. "Cardiac episode" is largely made up and not a medical term nor a usual layman's term. Looking at the sources, the family is using the term and the family is largely actors.

The BBC and NPR mention "cardiac arrest", which is a good term. It could be cardiac arrest from pulmonary embolism or something else. Medical emergency is too vague and like a lawyer would say when they want to be vague. Being WP:BOLD and also not being very ground breaking, merely accurate, I am adding cardiact arrest to see how it looks like. Usernamen1 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As you can see within the existing discussions, we cannot say this in Wikivoice until an attending physician, either through a spokesperson or the family, confirms a specific episode. The reliability of sources notwithstanding, they are, all of them, reporting what has been said by non-medical-professionals who witnessed the event. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree because WP:BLP does not require an attending physician's statement. Furthermore, family members often sugar coat medical things. Politicians really sugar coat their own medical condition, sometimes falsely claiming they are healthy. Another reason the suggested standard is unreasonable is because of US privacy laws. You can see that even United Airlines didn't want to give out even the passenger's name even though everyone agrees it is Ms. Fisher. I would like to note that the suggested standard described by ATS does not have consensus consisting of my input but I do not have plans to contest it. Part of the reason is that Ms. Fisher's condition is so poor that she might die in a few weeks, making this point moot. (People whose heart stops and are now on a ventilator are worse off than people with some moderate chest pain who walk to a waiting car that takes them to the hospital.)Usernamen1 (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see my response to your edit to my talk page. This is, all respect, nonsense in terms of an encyclopedia. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, any argument that this is moot is also incorrect. Someday, like every other notable, living human, her article will say "Fisher died of [FITB]." That detail also would not stand unless issued by a reputable person with first-hand knowledge as reported by reliable sources—since BLP also governs recent deaths involving, say, living relatives. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Even after death, public reports are often inaccurate and sugar coated. But if Ms. Fisher passes away, it is not necessary for WP to be so specific. Simply collapsed on a plane, later died is almost enough (actual wording would likely be longer than those 7 words) Usernamen1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest you view literally every other article about a dead person whose cause of death is known? True, other stuff exists, but this is very clearly SOP. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There is now admission from the mother that she suffered cardiac arrest, according to the BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38432360 Usernamen1 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The BBC have misreported Debbie Reynold's twitter - she did not mention anything about the cause of her daughter's condition in her tweet: https://twitter.com/DebbieReynolds1 RJ4 (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC staff: "Actress Carrie Fisher is in stable condition after suffering a cardiac arrest on Friday, her mother says."

Reynolds' tweet: "Carrie is in stable condition. If there is a change, we will share it. For all her fans & friends. I thank you for your prayers & good wishes."

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here."

Usernamen1, it would really, really behoove you to familiarize yourself with policy. This subject is not doing you any favors. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with policy. The BBC link reports a cardiac arrest and reports the mother as the source. The BBC doesn't say that the mother's tweet is their only source. Usernamen1 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Then re-familiarize yourself; we will not be using the poorly written opening sentence as anything reliable in this or any other encyclopedia article, ever. Even properly parsed, "Actress Carrie Fisher is in stable condition (after suffering a cardiac arrest on Friday), her mother says" is poor writing, at best; at worst, it puts words in Reynolds' mouth with no source therefor. Any edit to the article insisting that Reynolds said what you interpret she said will be nuked immediately per BLP, and I won't nearly be the only one to do so. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: BBC has rephrased. Time to move on. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not worth the fight because based on expert opinions, there will be poor news eventually. She relied on CPR and did not regain a pulse for 15-30 minutes. Best of luck but the prognosis is poor. What that means is that eventually, the endpoint will be widely reported in the news. Detailed reporting right now is not essential nor easily documented for Wikipedia purposes. This is the limitation of Wikipedia, which I generally agree with. Usernamen1 (Usernamen 🖖 talk 06:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Can we eliminate entertainment rags as sources for this matter? TMZ, E!, Variety are all about sensationalism. I really don't think they have the boots on the ground like AP and other news agencies to actually gather and verify their news. By all appearances, they are just parroting and even embellishing what they're reading off the news wires. Rklawton (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Variety? The "entertainment bible" for more than a century? Our primer for newcomers specifically uses Variety. No offense, but have you lost your mind??! —ATS 🖖 talk 04:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also getting a strong "drongo" feeling at the disparaging of Variety. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if I'd go that far ... —ATS 🖖 talk 05:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, TMZ often gets the flak it deserves, but gets credit for more "boots on the ground" at places like LAX and the county courthouse than anyone. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So, in summation (so far): Rklawton has offered his opinion of the real cause of the emergency (violating TALK and BLP); chimed in re the heart attack/cardiac arrest issue three hours after I'd fixed it; and called Variety a "rag". I dunno what's in your egg nog, Robert, but I want some ... —ATS 🖖 talk 05:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, it's a shot of espresso in my 'nog. The point I was trying to make is that we don't know the cause of her illness because no reliable source has published it nor could they because Carrie isn't speaking, her health care providers can not speak, and her brother who can speak has said very clearly that he does not know. Observations that the symptoms and her history also match overdose may have walked the line. Next, if you check the article's edit history, you'll see that after I posted here, I updated the article to remove heart attack. So while I'm glad you "fixed" the article, the fix didn't stay fixed, and my re-fixes and explanation were useful. Also note, I just re-re-fixed it as another editor just re-added massive heart attack to the article without supporting sources. In short, this is going to be an ongoing exercise in educating inexperienced editors about being leery of sources that are parroting and embellishing other sources. Rklawton (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of a source more reliable than a trade rag. In this CNN article,[4] there is no mention of "massive heart attack" or "myocardial infarction". It cites the LAFD as responding to a "cardiac arrest". Just to be clear, cardiac arrest and heart attack are not the same thing. Per my example above, a drug overdose can also cause cardiac arrest - as could a stroke, a pulmonary embolism, and so on. Hence, I think it's important until we hear from a reliable source, to keep "heart attack" out of the article. Its inclusion is simply not yet supported. Rklawton (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the relevant text to carefully distinguish between various reports: Fisher suffered from a "medical episode" on her flight and received medical treatment (solidly confirmed); at least one passenger observed that she had "stopped breathing" (accurately described as an observation rather than a confirmed fact); the LAFD reported treated a passenger on Fisher's flight who had gone into "cardiac arrest" (but didn't identify the passenger as Fisher, so we shouldn't until that's confirmed by appropriate family, medical, or otherwise authorized sources). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the re-write since NY Times is the most credible source. Here's what the highly-respected Canadian Broadcasting Corp wrote minutes ago: Fisher, 60, experienced medical trouble during a Friday flight from London and was treated by paramedics immediately after the plane landed in Los Angeles, according to reports citing unnamed sources. Celebrity website TMZ, which first reported the incident, said anonymous sources told them the actress suffered a heart attack. http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/best-wishes-carrie-fisher-hospital-1.3912177

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

On another topic: Someone suggested that Variety (magazine) should not be used as a source, but this is also highly credible publication. NOT a fan mag or celeb site like TMZ and many others.Peter K Burian (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

How solid is the quote from the fire department saying she had a heart attack. Neither CBC nor CBS News are using that. Here's what CBS said minutes ago: Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Erik Scott said paramedics administered advanced life-saving care to a patient at Los Angeles International Airport on Friday and transported the person to a nearby hospital. He did not identify the patient. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Per NOTNEWS I've trimmed this way back; details were there that simply would not be in this article upon passage of time. I've included in a note the sources of "cardiac episode". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: In EMS we're taught that CPR only has about a 3% success rate without a defibrillator, by far the most important thing is to get those pads on your patient's chest. If she was still in full arrest when they landed, presumably after at least 10 minutes of attempted CPR and AED used in combination, I highly doubt she'll recover. I expect she'll live on life support for a while yet, but I don't expect her ever to get to the point even of leaving the hospital. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

All too possible, Paul Benjamin Austin. In terms of the article, no doubt several of us are keeping an eye on the news. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought that US jetliners carried defib units, but maybe not. It also depends on how long she was stricken before anyone noticed. And where on a plane do they have the room to do effective CPR? I find the lack of updates to be ominous, though I still certainly hope for the best. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Numerous reliable news outlets have no problem flatly saying, without qualifiers, that she had a heart attack on the plane. I think we should do the same. [5] [6] [7] [8] Everymorning (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

... is a medical pronouncement, it is not a media consensus. Let the MEs do their job, then we include the actual cause. We are in no rush. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah, let's add "drowned in moonlight, strangled by her own bra" as the cause of death. Agreed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Medical emergency"

It has been proposed that the phrase "cardiac arrest" be eschewed in favour of "medical emergency", for reasons I cannot claim to fully understand. As far as I can tell, it is not under dispute that she went into cardiac arrest. TompaDompa (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It was changed to reflect what was happening from the beginning of the scenario to the time she was taken to the hospital. There were no physicians onboard the flight, no way anyone could have known at the time that she was in the midst of cardiac arrest or having a heart attack. "Medical emergency" is why 911 was called, cardiac arrest was determined post landing at LAX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Was there no physician onboard? I seem to recall reading there was one. Anyway, while it is true that there was no way anyone could have known at the time whether she was having a heart attack, the same is not true of being in cardiac arrest; the latter assessment does not require any medical equipment.

On a related note, I would like to address this edit summary. It is correct that there is no official cause of death yet, but the cause of death is a separate question from the nature of the medical emergency four days before. Stating that she went into cardiac arrest on December 23 is not the same thing as saying that she died of cardiac arrest on December 27. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, the article currently does not mention cardiac arrest at all. It should at the very least be mentioned alongside the term "medical emergency", though preferably in lieu of it.

"Determined post landing" seems like pointless hairsplitting to me. Even worse, it is obviously incorrect; CPR was administered before the plane landed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

CPR is the standard of care for a number of conditions requiring assistance, TompaDompa. This is explained in CPR and First Aid classes currently available nationwide. One doesn't receive CPR only in the case of cardiac arrest anymore. So, no, not so obvious or incorrect. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this varies depending on region, but "One doesn't receive CPR only in the case of cardiac arrest anymore" is not entirely accurate where I live. The standard here is to check for breathing and consciousness but not for a pulse. The reason isn't that CPR is indicated when the heart is beating, but rather that it's safe to assume that the heart isn't beating when someone is unconscious and not breathing. That is, checking for a pulse is more difficult and time-consuming than checking for breathing, and is therefore forgone so as to not unnecessarily delay treatment. The difference lies not in whether the patient must be in cardiac arrest, but in how to ascertain that they are. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup. According to the Red Cross, rescuers should begin CPR after opening the patient's airway and determining after 10 seconds of "look, listen, and feel" that the patient is not breathing. Note that the standard of care has changed over the years, but that's what it currently is. It doesn't require "cardiac arrest". I'd be interested to know if the airplane had an AED (I can't imagine it not having one), if it was used, and if so, whether or not it administered a shock. A shock would be more indicative of a classic heart attack. No shock would be more indicative of a pulmonary embolism that simply starved her whole body of oxygen. Interesting stuff. Rklawton (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Her dog "Gary" was very important to her, should the Wikipedia page mention him?

-188.238.102.248 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice gesture, but no, everything important to her can not be listed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless sufficient coverage is given by reliable third party sources. If the relationship was notable enough, then yes, it can certainly be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

He was with her, ON CAMERA, in pretty much all recent interviews:

Jonathan Ross Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYMSngTxP6k&feature=youtu.be

Late Show with Stephen Colbert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1E6IexeSrQ&feature=youtu.be

Chicago Comic Con https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TurIhh-i_Gg&feature=youtu.be

Official Star Wars interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCLyozLL_t0&feature=youtu.be

ABC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh1t2MJDbrs&feature=youtu.be

The Today Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_9L2ZkgxpA&feature=youtu.be

He's on her Twitter userpicture: http://www.twitter.com/carrieffisher

He's with her on the red carpet: https://www.google.fi/search?q=carrie+fisher+red++carpet&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpMrZv5XRAhUFCiwKHaQDAOAQ_AUIBygB&biw=375&bih=559 188.238.102.248 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: ^ ^ - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

USA Today article about her and Gary: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/12/27/carrie-fishers-frequent-companion-french-bulldog-gary/95880672/ 188.238.102.248 (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Does seem significant enough to me for a mention. Added. Brianga (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's written to stress the point that he was her constant companion (Conan O'Brien, too), and without unnecessary linger, I see no problem with it. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Pets are rarely (if ever) really worth including unless they warrant their own articles. Gary isn't one of those pets worth noting, even if she often brought him out in public. Remember that this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive collection of details in her life per WP:NOTADIARY. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO, in an article that goes into the proper detail about its subject's struggles with mental health, as does Fisher's, presentation in the proper context of her support animal—who accompanied her virtually if not literally everywhere—is not IINFO and supersedes NOTADIARY. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This was a mental health dog so he is very important to that part of the article. If she had been blind, we would have no debate about whether her dog should be included. I fully support this part of the article. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we list DOGS as survivors after someone's death??

Fisher is survived by her daughter, her mother Debbie Reynolds, her brother Todd Fisher and their half-sisters Joely Fisher and Tricia Leigh Fisher along with her beloved dog Gary.[92]

Wow the above seems really strange to me. Is it common to list dogs on Wikipedia? And cats? And budgie birds? Where do we draw the line on listing pets when someone has died?? Peter K Burian (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, he was a therapy dog and is discussed in this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/28/the-delightful-legacy-of-gary-carrie-fishers-beloved-french-bulldog/ However, I am still not convinced that Gary should be listed as one of the survivors. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the discussion of Gary in the Mental Health section but does that make him a survivor after her death??

In her later years, Fisher had a French Bulldog therapy animal named Gary. Fisher brought him to numerous appearances and interviews.[85]Gary was so popular that since 2014 he even had his own Twitter account with over 50,000 followers.[86] Following her passing it was reported that Fisher's daughter would now take care of Gary.[85] Peter K Burian (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We should be listing her bra in the obit section: Now I think that this would make for a fantastic obit—so I tell my younger friends that no matter how I go, I want it reported that I drowned in moonlight, strangled by my own bra. Carrie Fisher Had Just One Request for Her Obituary http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/carrie-fisher-dies-strangled-by-bra-wishful-drinking Peter K Burian (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

AND yes, someone has added that! In her book, Wishful Drinking, Fisher wrote about her eventual obituary: "I want it reported that I drowned in moonlight, strangled by my own bra." Several obituaries and retrospectives featured the quote.[94] Peter K Burian (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting ... https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Actress_and_writer_Carrie_Fisher_dies_at_60ttps://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Actress_and_writer_Carrie_Fisher_dies_at_60 does NOT cite the dog as a survivor. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Amazingly, TIME magazine shows the dog Gary as one of the survivors. http://time.com/4618441/carrie-fisher-dead/ So, I have left that in the text. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The dog is no longer mentioned as a survivor; but he is covered in the mental health section and that is definitely very valid for this article! Peter K Burian (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Mention of mother's death in the lead

Mention of the death of Fisher's mother should not be inserted into the lead, especially not while the lead is so short. In the main text, yes of course it should be included, but in the lead it is contrary to WP:LEAD, which states that "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." (Bolding emphasis is mine). There are many more things that could be said about Fisher's life in the lead, rather than editors being over eager to add the current news about her mother (however heart-tugging it may be). This isn't a news article, and in ten years (or even one year) such information about Fisher's mother will surely look odd tacked onto the end of a summary of Fisher's life, so why have it there now? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I have removed it. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree completely, especially if the lead is properly expanded. A sentence to the effect, Reynolds died in a Los Angeles hospital the following day, after telling her son Todd that she wanted to "be with Carrie." would provide the historical perspective sought by LEAD. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. If it, indeed, becomes relevant in a historical sense - rather than something that's just part of a sensationalistic news cycle for a day or two - then it could be included. Currently, I think it's inappropriate content in the lede. Remember, we are not news, Rome wasn't built in a day, and there's no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I can live with that. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove - the lead is short, and it should be about Carrie. Her mother's death had no impact on Carrie and has little bearing on the article as a whole, though I wouldn't object to its mention in the article's body.

With the addition of Bright Lights to the lead, her mother's death while preparing for her daughter's funeral now seems missing. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree; a few words about her mother's death is logical. Just as the Debbie Reynolds lede mentions Fisher's death. Let's try to get some consensus: more of us agreeing that it should be in the lede, than those who argue it should not.

There is other heavy-handed editing going on here. See the TALK topic about the Bright Lights movie. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Peter, I hope any belief of heavy-handedness has been sufficiently addressed below.

In the meantime in light of your search for a consensus ...

Informal RfC

Should the lead state, approximately if not exactly:

Fisher died at the age of 60 on December 27, 2016, four days after experiencing a medical emergency near the end of a transatlantic flight from London to Los Angeles. Reynolds was assisting in Fisher's funeral arrangements when she suffered an apparent stroke and died the following day.

Of course, I support this addition; the historical context is clear and present. (Edit: if, as planned, there's a joint service and burial, this argument becomes moot—inclusion would be all but mandatory.) —ATS 🖖 talk 21:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose only because the death occurred after Carrie Fisher's, therefore, it had no bearing on her life. Put it in the lede and it will be coincidental information - trivia - in my opinion. I do believe, however, that Carrie Fisher's death being a day before her mother's should be in the lede of the Reynolds article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

By extension of this argument, Fisher's survivors, funeral, memorials, cause of death, etc., have no bearing on her life. Your logic escapes me. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not trying to sound rude, but your all-or-nothing conclusion is ridiculous.

Of course her survivors, funeral, etc. have bearing on her life because it is about the end of her life. Her mother's death isn't about the end of her life. If Reynolds had died a week later or a month later, would it be lede worthy? No. Reynolds' death the day after Fisher's is not on par with the things you listed above that are about the end of Fisher's life. Putting it there will - as I already pointed out - be equivalent to trivia. It's relevant to the section on her death, but it's not lede-worthy content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to disagree with it. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Naturally. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This article is about Fisher and the lead belongs to her. The amazing happenstance of her mother's time of passing can be addressed ANY other place in the article, but not the lead. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

... and if indeed they are buried together? —ATS 🖖 talk 00:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Still trivia and not lede-worthy. The lede should mention her death, but burial information is not the kind of thing put in the lede, either. Have you read WP:LEDE? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see how that changes anything I've said above. The blurb will simply contain that information. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:49

Yes, I have read LEDE. I wouldn't be making the argument if I hadn't. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I sense you getting a little testy. I hope you're not taking this personally. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I concur with both Winkelvi and Mlpearc; no impact on Carrie's life. If perhaps they died on the same day (i.e. were killed together), then my stance would be different. Debbie is a different story because Todd Fisher says she "wanted to be with Carrie" and the death was too much for her to bear. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - for reasons given above. This info should be included in the main body of the article as part of the details of Fisher's death and its effects, but it shouldn't occupy a position in the lead because the lead is supposed to be a summary (in this case of 60 years of life). Nobody would suggest including this info in the lead if Reynolds died a year later, which suggests it's a bad idea to add it now. There is a danger that, as a result of natural human interest in recent sad events, Fisher's life and work is being, if not overshadowed, then at least coloured by events that happened when she wasn't around to witness them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Add this TV program?

The Carrie Fisher article should mention this TV documentary:

Bright Lights: Starring Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds is a 2016 documentary about entertainer Debbie Reynolds and her daughter actress Carrie Fisher.[1] It premiered at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. It is slated to air on HBO in March 2017.[2][3] The actresses have both since died: Fisher on December 27 after suffering a heart attack four days earlier, and Reynolds on the following day, December 28, 2016, after being taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for a "medical emergency".[3][4] Peter K Burian (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

also maybe notable: she voiced "Hope" in Rogue One (from old archive) according to Princess_Leia#Anthology_films. Maybe it is listed in movie credits. TGCP (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add the upcoming documentary. However, I strongly disagree with posting a review of that documentary in this article. It reads a lot like POV promotional material. Readers can click on the link to the documentary to read more about it. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverting fully cited content?? USA Today quotes about the Bright Lights movie

I used part of this content as a quote.. then User:PaleCloudedWhite deleted it claiming the source did not include that content. Well it does! (I have added back the deleted section.)

Described as "an intimate portrait of Hollywood royalty," Bright Lights loosely chronicles their lives through interviews, photos, footage and vintage home movies. One such clip shows 15-year-old Fisher singing Bridge Over Troubled Water, written by Paul Simon, whom she briefly married more than a decade later.

Filmmakers Alexis Bloom and Fisher Stevens follow the two to fan events and Reynolds' Las Vegas cabaret show, and spend time with the family at their neighboring homes in Beverly Hills. It culminates in a moving scene, just as Reynolds is preparing to receive the 2015 Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award, which Fisher presented to her mom. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/12/29/carrie-fisher-debbie-reynolds-hbo-documentary-bright-lights/95954398/

Before deleting fully cited content, claiming it does not contain the quoted words, it's worth reading the content. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Then User:ATS deleted the content once again - without any explanation. = heavy-handed editing I have inserted it again. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The full details do not go in the lead per WP:LEAD. A summary only goes there, with the full details in the body. Your reversion is incorrect. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Have you tried to get consensus before deleting fully cited text? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I moved the entire Bright Lights paragraph to the Death section. If ATS felt it belong there, he could have moved it instead of deleting most of the content I had added. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I could have; I believed its correct placement was to be your prerogative. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Peter K Burian, nothing cited was removed; I MOVED the info to the section on her work in the 2010s, and I left a SUMMARY in the lead, as per WP:LEAD.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the summary of the revision that deleted most of the content from the Bright Lights section.

20:48, 30 December 2016‎ PaleCloudedWhite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (81,397 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (Removed editorialising; the source used in the Bright Lights article doesn't describe it in such terms) That does not indicate that the content was being retained and merely moved to another section.

Later, the paragraph about the Bright Lights movie was moved, but on 20:48, 30 December 2016‎ much of the paragraph had been deleted. (I reverted that change.) It's hard to tell which user deleted most of the paragraph. If it was not PaleCloudedWhite, then I apologize. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You're muddling up edits. At 19:48 I moved the info to the 2010s section (leaving a summary in the lead), and at 20:48 (the edit you refer to immediately above), I just removed 2 words. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The pertinent passage by EW writer Devan Coggan:

The documentary quickly turned into a more intimate look at Fisher and Reynolds’ relationship—including the fact that they live in separate houses on the same compound, separated by just a hill.

This certainly allows us to say in Wikivoice that theirs was a "close relationship"; to use "very close" violates NPOV, in my opinion, so I removed "very". —ATS 🖖 talk 21:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, User:Abductive deleted half the paragraph about Bright Lights, calling it useless crap. I Undid his edit. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, the entire statement is pure hagiography, but more importantly, doesn't actually say anything. Keep it off Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Abductive. It was purely promotional puffery. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Per Tenebrae, Rklawton and Abductive, I too find it fluffy. How about:

Fisher and her mother appear in Bright Lights: Starring Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, a 2016 documentary about their close relationship featuring interviews, photographs and home movies. The documentary premiered at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival and was set for broadcast on January 7, 2017.

—ATS 🖖 talk 21:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support ATS' proposed edits. It's factual, neutral, and proportional. Rklawton (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ATS' proposed edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ATS' proposed edits. - - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ATS' proposed edits as clear, concise, and informative without becoming too promotional or wordy Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ATS' proposed edits per Rklawton and others. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Annual No. 1 (1978)

Marvel Comics' first Star Wars Annual claims that Carrie's first movie was a "fairly unknown film called Small Partnership." So unknown that I have never seen this alleged debut film mentioned in any other source. Where did this factoid come from? Error? A working title for Shampoo? A scan of the page in question may be found here. Muzilon (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we delete Funeral info?

Do you feel that all of this should have been deleted? Someone did that saying this is not a newspaper article.

Fisher had also told the news media that a joint funeral is planned for Reynolds and Carrie. This will be held on January 5, 2017.[112] The joint burial be at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Hollywood Hills.[113][114] A public memorial, at a later date, is being considered.[114] Peter K Burian (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This was how I trimmed it. Personally, I find the date irrelevant per NOTNEWS. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted the funeral information. There is too much including such information across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a not a news service as per WP:NOTNEWS. However Wikinews is. Specifically for this article there was too much speculative information being included. Once the funeral has happened the date and place can be noted but nothing else unless it is relevant and sourced. Robynthehode (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This speaks to why I left—and left only—what is currently there. The final data will supplant this, and we're in no rush. Meantime, there is no speculation in saying that Todd Fisher said what he said; had it been written that the event would happen as stated, that would be speculative. —ATS 🖖 talk 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Carrie fisher fan made star on hollywood walk of fame

The star that was created for carrie fisher by fans jason thomas, vanessa Velez, ryan wiltberger and lavonne dominguez was watched over for 6 days straight by them. The fans not only stood watch over the little mementos people left behind but would console other fans that would visit the star distraught but also passed around a notebook for people to sign and leave messages of love in. On saturday there was a memorial at the tcl chinese theater for her, when that concluded fans went to her star and glitter bombed it before taking all the mementos down and donating them to the chinese theater. Once donated, a display case was made inside the lobby of the theater that now holds and displays all the items left behind for her star. At the moment, the notebook that people signed is with one of the star creators so that it can be put into a safer notebook for display as well. Once displayed people will be able to add comments, storys or just send love through the book or just read all the comments others left behind. I wanted to reach out because i know the star creators are not only proud for creating something small that turned out to be a very important place for people to go celebrate her but would be greatly humbled and appreciative of their names being mentioned for creating the star. Once people started leaving items, the creators felt responsible for the items and skipped sleep to protect the items until they figured out what could be done with those items. Thank you for your time. If I could make the edit myself i would but i do not have the authority to do so. Museisgod (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This information is news for a news report not information for an encyclopeadia Robynthehode (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Author/Writer

This one isn't particularly consequential, but wouldn't "author" be more specific than "writer"? She's had several published books that have done very well. Rklawton (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The idea, as I saw it, was a catchall. She's been a screenwriter, script doctor, and author. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Carrie Fisher in 1978

• 
  Fisher
• 
  with a cigarette
• 
  beside Wenders

I know, I know, Winkelvi. Using the cropped version without Wim Wenders looks weird, but I chose the left one for a test. The middle one has Fisher holding a cigarette on her left hand. The right one... while she sat next to Wenders, I don't know whether it adds anything because... I thought she dated Wenders, didn't she? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your reasoning, it's a terrible photo with Fisher alone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as photos go, the '78 photo is just terrible. I would object to using it anywhere in this article. Rklawton (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There are very few free photos of Fisher out there. This is one of them. Being from the time of the first Star Wars makes it even more notable. Not a great photo, I agree. But, I say keep it, but don't crop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• 

I also created the Wenders headshot and then added it into the Wenders article. George Ho (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I have changed the extracted photo of Wenders to the photo of both Wenders and Fisher. Again, out of context, it's not worth having in an article as it's just sub-par. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC

I have taken the infobox image that has been in the article since and did a bit of cropping, straightening, and slight retouching that includes shadow reduction, bring up the more natural color tones, and sharpen. It was reverted out, twice. I'd like opinions of other editors as to the change and which one should be in the infobox.

When you respond, please use the appropriate sections listed below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Current

Proposed

Infobox images to choose from

Survey

Current infobox image

• Support current image. Warmer, easier to look at, as it were. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support current as it is visually pleasing rather than harsh and like the subject just got out of the tanning booth in the proposed photo. Calibrador (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, earlier comment below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as per comment below. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as per other comments. Grammarphile (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Appears more natural. Support. Calidum 23:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - if it ain't broke, don't fix it, there's nothing wrong with the current image. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

*Support - I think the current image portrays the subject best, by way of proper color and tone. Proposed one looks too rosy like the color tones are off. Xi371n (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed infobox image

• Support proposed image. It's lighter, not as dark and shadowed and highlights the article subject's face better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support proposed image. Less Trump-like. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support this version. Obviously looks neat. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I like the proportion of this image and yes, looks much neater. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

If the saturation is reduced, the newer version appears better to me. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually did reduce the saturation with a newer upload, not sure why it's not showing that way yet. May have to try again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've done an adjustment, Winkelvi, shall I upload? I was WP:BOLD, feel free to revert if you have a better version. Never mind, you did already. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• For me, the older. The shadows match death better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What is this, the Wikipedia Roast of Carrie Fisher? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I have it just right this time. What do you say, ATS? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 I approve. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed photo looks very flat and red. Moved my actual vote to the correct section. Calibrador (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda Arendt, I like the older image. The color tones are off in the proposed image. Pauciloquence (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Striking comments from sock of indeffed user and sockmaster WordSeventeen [9]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There's not a lot in it, and the proposed cropped/retouched image looks better than the rather orange version that was first inserted to the article, however I feel the original image looks more natural - the extra contrast means the face contours (OK, let's be honest - wrinkles) are clearer. The proposed version looks just a little too rosy, as if the photographer was trying to produce something flattering. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The older one looks like a spray-on tan; the colors are better in the newer one but, yes, I see why Calibrador called it flat. I've done more work, posted here. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The contrast is too high in that one - the hair above her ear looks like a black hole, whereas her face looks like someone's shining a light into it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to a nice image of her most famous character, in light of this - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Shockaholic was released in November 2012. At the time, this was the infobox image. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Her Prozac urn

Is this news this article worthy? I don't really know how to incorporate it.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This tidbit is all over the place and very much reliable. What does everyone think of adding something to the effect: Fisher's ashes were held in an oversized, porcelain Prozac pill, one of her "prized possessions".? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw that too and wasn't sure it was real. If it actually checks out then yes, it should be mentioned. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Carrie's death in Reynolds biography

I raised an issue at Talk:Debbie Reynolds#De-mentioning Carrie's death in the lead, but seems that it's overshadowed. If Reynolds' death can't be mentioned in the lead, what about Fisher's in the intro of Reynolds' Wiki biography? --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Main Page right now says that Carrie's mother died the following day. Who says it can't it be in the lede? Bradv 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reynolds death had no bearing on Fisher's life, therefore, it's inappropriate in the lede (this has been discussed here before, not that long ago). Fisher's death, however, had bearing on Reynolds' life, therefore, it can be mentioned. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What kind of logic is that? Bradv 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sound logic. See previous discussion above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Her death obviously had a profound effect on someone. It's definitely relevant. Bradv 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reynolds' death occurred after Fisher's, therefore, it's impossible for it to have had any impact on Fisher's life, therefore, it's trivia and not encyclopedic. This has already been discussed at length and consensus was reached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was trivia and unencyclopedic - it should be in the body of the article. However, as per comments made before, it shouldn't be in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary. And the main page has it in the In the news section, whereas this article isn't a news item. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts above were poorly expressed, but what you've said is what I was trying to say. Thanks for providing the right explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's unsound logic and the decision should go by weight of sources currently extant, or later go by sources that currently yet to appear. It would be silly for the lede of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria's biography to not mention that his death started World War I. That's the main thing he's remembered for nowadays. Other examples abound, I'm sure. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

In the section "Early Life" of this article, excessive citations are used in the paragraph: "...her mother's ancestry was Protestant, Scots-Irish, and English.[8][9][10][11][excessive citations]." Three of these citations are unnecessary and should be removed because an excessive citations warning is after these four citations. Hypnotron (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Not overcited, tag removed. Ancestry is never simple to source. Number of cites appropriate, relevant, applicable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

... and I've added a comment to that effect. Cheers, all! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017 Carrie Fisher

• • • • • • • Carrie was up on "wrongful death" charges before her death, and this must remain in her legacy online not simply her starring roles. Carries' actions are found:

Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/warren-boyd-carrie-fisher-sued-by-mother-late-amy-breliant-953238

Wikipedia: A motion by Fisher to be removed from a wrongful death lawsuit, which centers on the 2010 death of Amy Breliant, was denied Oct. 24 by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Laura A. Matz. ... Those payments to Fisher, the original filing claims, are evidence that Fisher effectively was in a joint venture with Boyd.Oct 28, 2016

Legal Version per Jill Stanley: http://perezhilton.com/2016-12-29-carrie-fisher-jill-stanley-amy-breliant-warren-boyd-wrongful-death-lawsuit-still-accountable#.WHMCwbG-KrA PEOPLE Magazine: http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher-faces-trial-in-heroin-related-wrongful-death-lawsuit-report/ PrivateSS (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The proposed change needs to be specific (exact words, with references). Bradv 03:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

star on the walk of fame

I am one of the organizers for liningup.net , it was our group that took the unused star and modified it to be carrie's star as shown in the photo. is it possible to credit our group with the star's establishment?Erikmurillo (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There would need to be a notable reason that it was your group—to the exclusion of all others—to do so in order for the data to be considered encyclopedic. Please see our policy on what Wikipedia is not—such as, not a means of promotion. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Official CoD

... added. I know TMZ is problematic in many instances, but when they get official documentation they're never wrong. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Updated using NYDN. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm more than a little bit annoyed that both TMZ and NYDN incorrectly use "cardiac arrest" and "heart attack" interchangeably...

Anyway, I think now would be a good time to raise the issue of "medical emergency" vs. "cardiac arrest" again. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(1) If the coroner's office uses cardiac arrest, that's what we use. If the coroner's office uses heart attack that's what we use. We don't care what TMZ says in this case, it's what the coroner says - they are our reliable source in this case.

(2) Medical emergency still applies in the context of the portion of the scenario as it unfolds. No one could have known exactly what was going on with her without someone on board who could diagnose. What's more, we don't diagnose, either. Medical emergency is what was happening among a group of laymen and non-medical professionals. Once she was on the ambulance and a cardiac monitor was used, then it could be said she was having a heart attack or cardiac arrest, not before. WP:COMMONSENSE, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(1) Says TMZ: TMZ just obtained the official document, which lists the cause of death as "cardiac arrest/deferred." Translation: the L.A. County Coroner's Office needs to do more testing to pinpoint the trigger for the massive heart attack she suffered on the United flight. What irks me is that their "translation" is not in fact a translation at all, and is bound to cause confusion. But yes, the (redacted) death certificate published by TMZ clearly says CARDIAC ARREST/DEFERRED, so that should not be an issue.

(2) I was more thinking about the WP:LEAD than the body. In the body, writing separately that she had a medical emergency on the plane and that the cause of death was ruled to be cardiac arrest is not problematic. It's the sentence Fisher died on December 27, 2016, at age 60, four days after experiencing a medical emergency near the end of a transatlantic flight from London to Los Angeles. in the lead that seems off to me. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1) ... and properly repeated by NYDN, so the edit didn't elaborate further—CoD is CoD.

2) The only thing we could do in the lead is add the cause: Fisher died of cardiac arrest on December 27, 2016, at age 60, four days after experiencing a medical emergency near the end of a transatlantic flight from London to Los Angeles. (I would change "near the end of" to "during" per TMI, but maybe that's just me.) True, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say "four days after going into cardiac arrest", since that killed her, but anyone finding it contentious would be well within BLP to change it back. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I rephrased it. TompaDompa (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image revisit

Option A

Option B

I'm still among those who think the "natural light" through the window in this photograph casts an unnatural pall on Ms. Fisher. So, which looks better to everyone, A or B? —ATS 🖖 talk 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A

B

Sarah Lawrence College

...and in 1978 Fisher was accepted into Sarah Lawrence College, where she planned to study the arts. However, she left before graduating because of conflicts filming Star Wars.

Two things:

1. Perhaps The Evening Independent is a RS but the cited piece is from a newspaper syndicate and contains other copy that's gossipy (e.g., the item about Marisa Berenson) or inaccurate (the reader's question in the last item says, "the last Star Trek episode was made seven years ago [in 1971, seemingly]" but the original series ended in 1969 and the animated series ended in 1974).
2. The source states that she was accepted into Sarah Lawrence College but it doesn't include the year of her acceptance (EDIT : nor anything about her actually attending the school). Furthermore, filming of Star Wars was done in 1976 and 1977.

I suggest removing the above unless and until a (or another) RS for it is found. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Since no one has replied to advocate for keeping this information in the article, I'm going to delete it. (I see it has been rewritten since I posted the above but the revisions don't correct the problems I noted.) --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No discussion doesn't indicate agreement. I've replaced it. The content is well sourced, your math on the years looks like OR to me. I see no reason at this time why the content should be removed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi, if you haven't done so, please examine the source, then reread what I wrote above. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is a RS, the only addition to the article that it supports is that she was accepted by Sarah Lawrence. Beyond that, it doesn't support even a year of acceptance — for all we know, she was accepted in 1977 for enrollment in classes that began in January, 1978 (or earlier). And if all that can be included in the article is that she was once accepted by Sarah Lawrence, I say it should be left out as excess detail. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to add a not in citation given tag to this part of the article but in my opinion the statements don't cited source doesn't meet criterion number four shown in that template's documentation. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Response to third opinion request :

The source given states that she was accepted into Sarah Lawrence College, but it does not give a date, and says nothing about her subsequently dropping out. Furthermore, it appears to be an editorial column of a newspaper, which is not generally considered reliable. I would say that the statement quoted above is not adequately supported by the source given, and should be removed unless a better source can be found. Bradv 21:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bradv.

I will delete the mention of Sarah Lawrence again. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not so fast. [10], [11], [12]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Huffington Post link gives the college website as its source, and the second link looks like it came directly from Wikipedia. The college website just says that she attended, so that's the only part of the statement that has a source at this point. I've removed it again until sufficient sourcing can be found, or the statement modified to fit the available sources. Bradv 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please adhere to the WP:BRD cycle. The content has been in the article for quite a while. Sources are in the process of being added, one of them being SLC itself. While a primary source (of sorts), I find it hard to believe that an institution like Sarah Lawrence would put dubious material at their webpage regarding former students. Another is the Huff Post - it's definitely a secondary RS. While the year can be left out and the reason she left SLC left out, the content re: being a student there should be included in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of disingenuous to ask me to stick to WP:BRD (which I did), while you revert twice. Bradv 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case, Bold = reverting out or removing long-standing content. Revert = reverting back to the long-standing version. Discuss = Discuss reasons why the long standing version is no longer preferable while the long-standing version remains until consensus is reached. So, no -- not disingenuous at all, just adhering to BRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Which would be fine, except you reverted twice. WP:BRD#Revert explicitly states:

If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.

Bradv 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The reverting happened in that manner only because the content was removed before anyone had an opportunity to look at the sources I provided (which were also added to the article and the accompanying content reworded in line with the concerns over years not being correct). The new content was well written, sourced properly, and should have stayed as it was. A new account editor, however, decided to create more problems by reverting it all out again. No discussion, no real rationale, just reverting. I'm not trying to start an edit war, I'm just asking for some WP:COMMONSENSE and for others to remember that there is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That "new account editor" wisely asked for a draft version to be added here, which everybody can review without any further edit warring. Let's do that, okay? Bradv 22:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is too convoluted. Brad is right let's just do a draft version here. Xi371n (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic

Hey Brad, I was reported to the spi noticeboard for agreeing with you and trying to help improve this article. Opinions? Xi371n (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC) No, you were reported because I believe very strongly that you are a sock of WordSeventeen [13]. Interesting how you and I have never interacted previously (with your current account, anyway), but you are following my edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ::I have been following the Carrie Fisher article. I have edited it a couple times. Don't get ahead of yourself. Xi371n (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

WV, I just dabble in editing WP so I can't quote chapter and verse, but it's safe to say it defies common sense to leave in / undelete the statements that she was accepted to Sarah Lawrence in 1978 and then left the school to film Star Wars, which was filmed in 1976 and 1977. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dyspeptic skeptic: I think you're in the wrong spot. The new proposed draft is just below here. Bradv 01:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I've since given my opinion of the draft there. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft

Here is the "draft":
In 1973, Fisher enrolled at London's Central School of Speech and Drama, which she attended for 18 months. Following her time there, Fisher applied to and was accepted at Sarah Lawrence College, where she planned to study the arts. She later left without graduating.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 22:54, January 4, 2017 (UTC)

The preceding sentence states that she went to London's Central School for 18 months, but that is not in the source given. Is there a better source for that, or should we get rid of the second part of that sentence? Bradv 23:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The reference was there previously, must have been removed with the plethora of edits over the last week. See here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

All right, if you add that source back in at the same time, I will concur with the above draft. Anyone else? What happened to Dyspeptic skeptic? Bradv 23:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My $US0.02: the Huffpost article specifically uses the SLC link as its source, so its inclusion here is redundant. The other two links combine to source the latter sentences, IMO. Otherwise, I find the above draft agreeable. (Edit: upon re-read, I see that this sources the lack of graduation. Never mind that part. ) —ATS 🖖 talk 00:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The most that can be learned from all those sources is that she once attended Sarah Lawrence. They don't indicate when or how long she attended. It's possible she didn't complete any courses, even. Thus, I don't consider this factoid appropriate for an encyclopedia.

But if Sarah Lawrence does make it back into the article without other, more informative sources, I say only SarahLawrence.edu should be cited. Bradv and I find the item from The Evening Independent not a RS. (EDIT: It only states she was accepted, anyway.) HuffPo links to SarahLawrence.edu and while it does state that she didn't graduate, that can reasonably be inferred from SarahLawrence.edu as it would state she graduated rather than simply attended if she had graduated. (By the way, at that site's page of notable alumni, Tovah Feldshuh and Barbara Walters are included without a year of graduation indicated; Carrie Fisher is not listed at all. Draw your own conclusions.) The Armonk Daily Voice obituary got its photo from WP so I suspect it also got the fact that she left Sarah Lawrence to film the Star Wars films (plural) from WP and thus should not be cited. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would add only that its sufficiency is what's at issue, not its reliability. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dyspeptic skeptic and Bradv that the source coming from the Evening Independent should not be considered a reliable source. The analysis above by Dyspeptic skeptic about the sources is on point. Xi371n (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Content re-added as shown in the draft above, including the long standing source of the Evening independent. Nothing wrong with the source being there as long as it is not a stand-alone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you. I added the reference you provided above for the 18 months in London as well. Cheers. Bradv 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Very good, and thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You neglected to update the access date of the Evening Independent cite. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This type of comment isn't terribly helpful. Why does it need to be updated? If you feel it needs to be updated, why not do it yourself? Bradv 20:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in that I recall her mentioning Sarah Lawrence College in her book, "The Princess Diarist," if you would rather use that as a source. I don't think she gave any large details on it, but she does talk about enrolling. Sunshinedaycat (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you currently have the book, I, for one, would appreciate it if you wrote here on the talk page what she writes about Sarah Lawrence, assuming it's not too much trouble. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need to be updated? For the sake of thoroughness, I thought. But it turns out that access date needn't be included in this citation: Not required for linked documents that do not change. If you feel it needs to be updated, why not do it yourself? From what I've seen so far, I remain unconvinced that Carrie Fisher's attendance at Sarah Lawrence is worthy of inclusion, so I'm not about to, um, polish it. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It really isn't much; she talks about working with a philosophy professor at Sarah Lawrence to keep up with Harrison Ford's knowledge of philosophy. Rereading it now, I realize that she makes it sound less like she was an actual student there, and more like she just had private classes with them or something. She said that they were hesitant to let her do this until she mentioned Star Wars.Sunshinedaycat (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

She Was Fluent in French

Why does this article make no mention of it whatsoever? Where did she learn French so well? That should be in this article. Here is an interview she did on French TV back in 1977 (or maybe 78?). The link goes to the TV channel's own youtube channel and it comes from their archives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpf8O6NYvA0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.218.189 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably because being fluent in more than one language isn't in any way notable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know - I think the fact that she was basically bilingual is a large part of who she was. She conducted French interviews on the Star Wars press junkets in French; that isn't exactly common, and I think most celebrities who are bilingual would have that noted in their biographies. It would go very nicely alongside the information on her schooling/education. Sunshinedaycat (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that her ability to speak French fluently is worthy of inclusion, I think it would require citation of a RS that actually states she was fluent, as opposed to videos which simply include her speaking in French. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll look around and see what I can find, but I don't know if there is anything of her discussing this in any concrete or great detail, save for her responding to people on Twitter in French several times, and talking about knowing the language with them. The thing is, to be fair, it did seem to be something she was quite proud of, regardless, judging by what does exist. Sunshinedaycat (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Intro / Lede

"Actress" or "actor"? (Sorry) "First became known" needs a g.d. cite. IMO, she was first famous for being Debbie & Eddie's daughter! Appearing in "Shampoo" was no uncredited B-movie role, either: "... fourth most successful film of 1975 by box office takings, beaten only by Jaws, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and The Rocky Horror Picture Show". Looking pretty unencyclopedic, IYAM, WP. Sadsaque (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't seem to have enough mojo yet to make this edit myself, but I think the mention of Eddie Fisher in this article should link to his own article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Fisher_(singer). Ps8v9 —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fisher's article is linked, both in the lead and Early life sections. Beyond that is overlinking. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for ignoring my assertion, and the delightful Rotsky Sadsaque (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why

Why do we need two instances of the same comment? I think people should be able to see that quite well. --67.86.213.216 (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You would think. They don't. Peruse the article's history and you'll see. On occasion, when an error is introduced deliberately and repeatedly, we will use some comment overkill. It's usually temporary, and invisible to the casual reader anyway. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So it's a way of getting the message through editors' heads? You believe what you want to believe; I want to believe that she "drowned in the moonlight, strangled by her own bra." as she wrote it. 67.86.213.216 (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

... as do we all. Unfortunately, since we build an encyclopedia and not a fan site, well ... —ATS 🖖 talk 04:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Last film

I've seen several places list Wonderwell as her "final" film. If this is correct, then the last sentence in the intro needs to be changed. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fans

She will be loved by all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.52.89 (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)