This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). New York (state): Hudson Valley / Long Island Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Pop music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AP did a corrected Obit today 2/17/2017 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBIT_BRANIGANCORRECTIVE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-17-11-34-00

Based on that I have updated the birth year. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.75.112 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush. I've reverted you, prior to further consideration by editors on this page. Personally I favour giving precedence to the 1952 birth date now, but other editors may have different opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the note & read the lengthy debate LOL but I thought that was because there was still doubt. I was in shock to look at AP breaking news & see a Laura Obit. Then saw AP seeming to have a debate within itself like the one on Wiki LOL.

Would not have corrected it otherwise but thought the AP doing a revised Obit 12 1/2 years later was a point to update the page.

Also for a point in the Wiki Page in Early years it states Branigan attended Byram Hills High School in 1966 to 1970 If she was born in 1957 she was in High School at 9 years old?

1 other small point. While this is unverifiable for Wiki editing , when Gloria came out in 1982 I do remember her being referred to as 30 years old. Same as when Bonnie Tyler was big in 1983 it was known she was 32 years old. Later on her DOB became 1953. It took years but now 1951 is the accepted date.

Maybe it is time for all those who told I was a liar with fabricated pictures and articles to apologize? So many hard words from contributors that I wasn't trustful or reliable in my research. Yes, it was I who contacted AP late summer 2016. They were not interested making chances though their own information and sources were accurate, they told me. But after 65 emails with details from my research they gave up and changed their mind. I told them I wanted to read the correction, but they said no. I couldn't do anything. (I have the emails in my research). So after 3 years of research and struggling I think I can say...I won over AP, Wikipedia, IMDb (they let me do the corrections I wanted, and after that they closed and protected her biography. It is only I who can make changes.) Swedish papers were in contact with me, they wanted to see my research. People in Armonk, Laura's former friends, neighbours, classmates, etc, has sent me congratulations for my work. They said that Laura is back again. Thanks to me! People in Armonk stood by my side and also confirmed my research as true, when AP asked them. They also invited me to be a member if their Facebook group "You know you from Armonk". As a Swede it was their way to show their appreciation to me. If you are interested, you can watch my research. Some chapters are finished and has been ended. Laura Branigan Encyclopedia. She was born 3 July, 1952 in Mt Kisco, NY I think you will enjoy it.--Born53 swe (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Born53 swe: Why does her Social Security application say she was born in Manhattan (not Mt Kisco)? There is evidence from the Manhattan Birth Index to support this, as I mentioned above. Muzilon (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a conversation about this with a lady who knew Laura from the 70's. I have never involved her in my search, but I can do it now. From my emails with Rolle Gere, October 2016.. Rolle Gere <zingarri@gmail.com>

2016-10-03 Manhattan's a better read than Mt. Kisco! So you mean Manhattan, New York is correct? People from Armonk said to me... hmmm sure of that? So it is Manhattan? StigP No. NOT Manhattan. It sounds hip & sexy! She didn't want to say Mount Kisco. A teenager telling a lie. ®olle Not born in Manhattan !!!! Period. Paragraph. ®olle Laura was born: City: Mt. Kisco County: Westchester But you already know this. ®olle . Are we agreed about Mt Kisco? StigP . This is her last contact with me. She was very furious when I still asked about NY or Mt. Kisco. This answer ended all.. Enough! You know she was born in Mount Kisco !!!! I wouldn't read too much into her writing Manhattan. However If it's desperately important to you find an expert online. Good luck & good bye. ®olle. I was later told that Laura hated to say Mount Kisco. It was more cool, hip, etc. by saying New York. I decided to trust her, though she knew Laura. And Mt Kisco hasn't been denied from the Branigan's who still are alive. A lady from Armonk has offered to help me in my search for Laura's birth announcements. She is a former librarian at The New York Public Library. She has access to the archives and knows where to look. The paper we are looking after is on microfilm. I can only hope and pray she will find something. That would end all discussions about Laura Branigan. That's all I have, hope you are satisfied. Though I have ended writing in Wikipedia, this was just for me a "one time" jump in. Now it is up to wikipedia to handle it like you want. To be honest, wiki doesn't interest me. I have my own Laura wiki, supported from Los Angeles.--Born53 swe (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the NYC Birth Indexes do record that a girl named Branigan was born in Manhattan on 3rd July 1952. If this isn't Laura, then it's a remarkable coincidence. Muzilon (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am speechless! You have found something real extraordinary. When and how? Congratulation! If you knew this, why have you been so mean to me? All those hard words you have given me. I don't get it.--Born53 swe (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message to Laura's friend from Atlantic era. She says NYC is not right. So please, can you show where you find it.--Born53 swe (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With such information, why are you not editing Laura's biography and background information? You only have to show your reference, and it's done. FamilySearch has nothing about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born53 swe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've been "mean" to you, Born53Swe – you and I have had cordial discussions on your WP Talk page. :) If you scroll up, you'll see me saying here that after you posted the Social Security document giving her birth place as Manhattan, I consulted the Manhattan Birth Index. The site is paywalled, unfortunately, but there is a record of a "BRANIGAN, Female" being born there on 3rd July 1952. No first name listed, so at this point I can't be sure whether it's Laura or not. However, it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that someone would "perjure" herself by deliberately giving a false place of birth on an important government document like a Social Security application. Muzilon (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda: the New York Birth Index 1910-1965 is now available online via Ancestry.com. This is the birth record I was talking about:

Name: Branigan

Gender: Female

Birth Date: 3 Jul 1952

Birth Place: Queens, New York City, New York, USA.

NB. This is not a Manhattan birth record as I originally thought; the page image scan of the Index – which you will need an Ancestry subscription to view – is of poor quality. So, this may - or may not - be Laura Branigan's birth record.--Muzilon (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this all went back into question in the first place was AP correcting her age and noting they researched it. I respect the citation and it is good enough to change her date of birth to 1952. I don't have to agree with the outcome to see that as of now, this is where we should be at. AP has now corrected the birthdate and hometown to "July 3, 1952, Armonk, New York". Unless you want to challenge AP as a citation, or if they needed to do something different, I'm all ears. By at this point references have changed. We need to either fix the birthdate and hometown, or we need a good reason not to. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time for "The Editors" of this page to change the date or update their position as to why not. I dont understand the fury a birth year has caused. I have seen way more controversial topics on Wiki get no debate, yet Laura's birth date stems a debate that seems like we were editing a political page. Her last name is Branigan not Trump or Clinton LOL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.75.112 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that her date of birth in the lead and infobox has been changed to 1952 - which I think was the correct course of action - we need to update the text of the explanatory footnote, which currently still states:

Branigan's year of birth is disputed. Although most contemporary sources give her birth year as 1957, at least two sources indicate a birthdate of 1954–1955,^[1][2] and some sources state that she was born in 1952.^[3][4][5][6]

I propose changing it to read:

Branigan's year of birth has been disputed. Although most sources at the time of her death gave her birth year as 1957, it has subsequently been accepted by reliable sources that she was born in 1952.^{[7][8][9][10]}

What do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

No comments? OK, I'll do that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also now remove the "Disputed accuracy" tags? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with your rewording. Not sure about the others on the other side of the argument though. The "Disputed accuracy" I would assume will always be a thing considering that the official Laura Branigan isn't changing their date. Devilmanozzy (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too am in agreement with your updated footnote. (sorry for late response, a bit under the weather or circumstances). I have no problem with removing the 'disputed' tags because the footnote explains / supports what the dispute was. My hope would be that eventually these talk page discussions will be archived and no one will resurrect the chaos this was. See, even I took a couple of weeks to notice this. Be bold and remove (try and see). Just when they are removed, leave a comment in the edit summary to refer to talk page. Disputed tags, especially two, do hold some import and weight...but we maintain resolution. Fylbecatulous talk 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering that at least once a month someone is trying to knock it back to 1957, and that the official website gives the 1957 date, there really wont be a end to it for awhile. Probably years after the official website finally goes down. Any time folks research this, they will (like me) find those newspapers and the official with the 1957 date. That is pretty much never going away. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also agree I was right from the very beginning? Like Philip Martin from Arkansas Democrat-Gazette wrote: Stig-Ake Persson of Halmstad, Sweden, and he is the world expert on Laura Branigan. He’s also a remarkable researcher. He can show you Branigan’s hand-written application for a Social Security number, filled out on Sept. 29, 1970, when she was 18—not 13." Justice for Laura Branigan. Swedish fan reveals the truth about Laura Take your time and read and feel ashame how you treated me. Haha loosers! It is ok if wikipedia wants to warn and ban me like wiki once did. I am only making this comment to show you who the Laura expert is. It is not wiki contributors, it is an old man from Sweden! Don't write any personal message to me though I am not interested and I will not even answer anyone. By from Sweden --Born53 swe (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Information if someone will make the change. "In 1985, she won the Tokyo Music Festival with the song "The Lucky One". The correct year is 1984! Laura Branigan wins Tokyo Music Festival, Sunday, April 1, 1984. This is just a proposal, so wiki contributors can decide if 1984 is correct or let 1985 stay. There are more wrongs which should be edit, but that is not my problems. Read and you will find them.--Born53 swe (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Branigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004838/http://www.byramhills.org/files/filesystem/Spectrum_Summer09.pdf to http://www.byramhills.org/files/filesystem/Spectrum_Summer09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard magazine states soprano https://books.google.fi/books?id=FRMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=laura+branigan+soprano&source=bl&ots=oIRzYL8Z96&sig=vbYrk8Mjtkdq2tK3CpRGEh7EBfg&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbmYH7tZXYAhWENJoKHdSzB38Q6AEIUDAK#v=onepage&q&f=false. Probably timbre of her voice can be compared to famous opera singer Anna Netrebko. more of dark timbre, but still soprano. --Hartz (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Scott of South Africa's Independent Online (IOL) Magazine states that Laura's voice was "officially described as a dramatic alto with a four octave range" ("alto" being a commonly mistaken abbreviation for "contralto", as contralto is a solo vocal type/range and alto is a choral part that both contraltos and mezzo-sopranos can sing).

Notice the objective phrase "officially described as..." Sally was obviously quoting an official publicity release from Laura's record company some time in the past, while Chuck Taylor of Billboard arbitrarily tossed out the alliterative phrase "soaring soprano" upon her death in 2004 because it sounded bold--likely borrowing The New York Times' Stephen Holden's subjective "soprano" classifications in his two articles from 1982 and 1983.

Fact is that her voice was anything but soprano and sounds absolutely nothing like Anna Netrebko, in neither range nor timbre. Anna is a lyric soprano. Laura was a dramatic contralto. 180 degrees difference. Sally Scott is a reliable source who actually did her homework and quoted an official publicity release. For all intents and purposes, her description is the official designation of Laura's vocal type.

https://www.iol.co.za/entertainment/music/cd-review-shine-on-the-ultimate-collection-984612 FreeSpirit80 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "16 her senior" bout her husband. Has no importance anyone but ageists, age would not have been mentioned if the gap had been smaller. There is clear subtle prejudice (and therefore discrimination!) putting special attention on it in this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.100.249 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]