Talk:Misha Sedgwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Per a complaint about the content, and an apparent ongoing edit war which appears to be mostly absurd, I've radically stubbed the article and ask that it be rebuilt with hardcore sourcing.--Jimbo Wales 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article, providing proper (and credible) sources. What was the absurd argument about, anyhow? (The talk page looks blank, which is why I ask.) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've re-added the information that Jonathan Sedgwick says Misha is not related to Edie, which seem to have been removed several times by anonymous users. The sources are given in proper format (New York Times and New York Post) and is written in neutral style. I would very much appreciate the information being left in as it is verified according to Jimbo's directorate. Please do not revert the article without discussing it here first. Thatcher131 16:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please note the following information from warholstars.org. I don't know how reliable this site is so I haven't included this info as a source in the main article. Note that if this statement is accurate, Misha did not herself claim to be Edie's niece but did go along with it. (The main article now says "was identified" without specifying how or why.)

MISHA SEDGWICK

New York actress Misha Sedgwick is not the niece of Edie Sedgwick as she has previously claimed. Misha appeared in the off-Broadway play Andy and Edie which opened in New York on May 3, 2004 and was written and co-produced by Peter Braunstein. Braunstein's original website for Andy and Edie can be found at

http://web.archive.org/web/20040605180732/www.andyandedie.com.

Jonathan Sedgwick (Edie's brother):

"Misha admitted to my daughter, the real niece, that (in her words) 'I'm only VERY distantly related to her (Edie), even though I have the same last name... I think he (Peter Braunstein) started the rumor and people just picked up on it because my last name is the same. I played her in an off-broadway play and some gossip papers in NY thought I was closely related... which started the whole thing... but I'm not.'"

• It's a weird story all around. This review of the play in 2004 [1] correctly notes that Misha is not Edie's niece, but the New York Times said in 2005 that she was. This page http://www.warholstars.org/news/jan041.html used to have a photo of Misha captioned as Edie's niece (still available in google's cache) but it has been scrubbed from the current version of the page.Thatcher131 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thatcher131, Offoffonline modified their review [2] of the play sometime between late February and March 11th. I recall reading their original review when it was first linked in the Andy & Edie play stub and it did incorrectly refer to Edie as Misha's "aunt." My guess is someone pointed them to the Wikipedia articles and they updated their review without noting the correction on their site. Santress 08:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Update: I was able to find an old Google cache of Offoffline's original review still up a few weeks ago.[3] From the unmodified review, "Misha Sedgwick, the actual niece of Edie Segwick, offers glimmers of her aunt's magnetism and sometimes plumbs the darkest reaches of her character, but mostly settles for the sex kitten's purr." It would have been nice if they had noted the correction and revision date on their site. Santress 09:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. warholstars did the same thing. That's why its better to use newspapers than web sites (at least for now) as sources for contentious issues. It is really extremely useful that the Post printed Jonathan Sedgwick's comments on Feb 10 (after the revert war and Jim's stubbing the article) because it should allow us to settle this with good sources. Thatcher131 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• To De Forest (talk • contribs), please stop putting links to www.warholstars.org all over the article. Warholstars is not a verifiable publication in the same way that the Ney York Times or other newspapers are. I know that Jonathan Sedgwick claims he was contacted by Misha who blamed it on the writer, but for an article as contentious as this has been it is simply not a reliable enough source. Since warholstars can not (by itself) directly prove any contention it does not belong as a footnote to a specific claim. It is included in the external link section. Thank you.Thatcher131 05:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am being as patient as I can. Please understand that among other things, warholstars is not a neutral group. It has a strong interest in protecting the name and image of Edie Sedgwick, which means it is not as reliable as a newspaper. Since the newspaper reports the same thing anyway, why do you persist in putting the warholstars links all over the article? Thatcher131 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• I appologize for your trouble. I was unaware as to why the Warholstars links were being removed. I did not know that Warolstars was not considered as a reliable news source. De Forest 02:29 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That is quite all right and I very much appreciate your response. Some web sites are reliable enough for some things but when Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder and overlord, takes a personal interest in the article and says "hardcore sourcing", well I took that seriously. In another less contentious article it wouldn't matter so much. Thatcher131 02:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I generally don't think encyclopedia biographies should have sections labeled "Controversy". This rewrite removes the label "Controversy" (which could be seen as inflammatory) and puts all the facts up front, so we don't have to have any more silly back and forth over the inclusion of "no relation." We don't have to (and shouldn't) call it a controversy; we present the facts and if the reader wants to decide it's a controversy (or not) he is free to do so. Discuss? Thatcher131 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Nedhepburn (talk • contribs)

Whether you like it or not, the New York Post, even Page 6, is a published newspaper and thus a reliable source per wikipedia policy. I suggest that you contact the Post and ask them to print a correction or retraction, which I am sure they will do if you can prove your case. Then bring it to our attention (date and page number, possibly url) and we will all gladly support changing the article. You can say whatever you want, but De Forest (talk • contribs), who also edits this article, claims to know first hand that the claim is false. That's why, rather than holding a pissing contest between people with different personal beliefs, we rely on published statements. (Also note that wharholstars.org, a warhol fan site, no longer accepts the claim that she is Edie's neice, and has additional information not found in the Post article, but this is not referenced here since it is not considered a reliable source either. If we were to allow your unsourced claims, that would open to floodgates to all sorts of other unsourced claims as well.) Thatcher131 11:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

from nedhepburn.... understood, duders.