http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments.
I've cleaned it up.
... and, it's been reverted back into its crufty revisionism. Good job, Tenebrae.
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her
own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement
because
the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments.
Except for common sense.
Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has been multiply repeated.
Someone on BLPN is actually arguing that WP:IAR *doesn't allow you to ignore sourcing policy*. Of course it does.
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments.
Except for common sense.
Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has been multiply repeated.
Someone on BLPN is actually arguing that WP:IAR *doesn't allow you to ignore sourcing policy*. Of course it does.
I sent a reply to her twitter, telling her about the discussion. I probably should log in an look for a reply, but, yes, common sense, and courtesy, might rule in this matter.
Fred
Ummm... common sense says that if someone says what their birth name is, about 50 years after they were born, when decades of documentation -- including interviews -- says something different, that someone is making up the new info.
Either Demi Moore was incorrect in 1996, or she is incorrect now.
Either People Magazine, Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, and the World Almanac are incorrect, or Demi Moore now is incorrect.
Both common sense and Wikipedia policy should give weight to reliable sources, especially when Demi Moore has conflicting statements.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that
her own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement
because
the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments.
Except for common sense.
Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has been multiply repeated.
Someone on BLPN is actually arguing that WP:IAR *doesn't allow you to ignore sourcing policy*. Of course it does.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Exactly right.
And the issue is further confounded/compounded by the medium that the alleged new "source" was reported in. Even if Demi Moore is perfectly reliable on the truth surrounding her birth name, common sense tells you that a 140-character tweet (or two) is not the sort of place where you can make nuanced distinctions between "I was born Demi, which is to say, that's what everyone always called me, even though it says 'Demetria' on my birth certificate" versus "I was born Demi, and it even says that on my birth certificate, but my parents always said it was short for 'Demetria', and I always believed that, and told the story in a People Magazine interview, too, and I only just recently learned the truth."
(Common sense should also tell you that revisionist history is rampant when it comes to these sorts of aspects of the personal lives of celebrities.)
The Cunctator wrote:
Ummm... common sense says that if someone says what their birth name is, about 50 years after they were born, when decades of documentation -- including interviews -- says something different, that someone is making up the new info.
Either Demi Moore was incorrect in 1996, or she is incorrect now.
Either People Magazine, Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, and the World Almanac are incorrect, or Demi Moore now is incorrect.
Both common sense and Wikipedia policy should give weight to reliable sources, especially when Demi Moore has conflicting statements.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that
her own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement
because
the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good arguments.
Except for common sense.
Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has been multiply repeated.
Someone on BLPN is actually arguing that WP:IAR *doesn't allow you to ignore sourcing policy*. Of course it does.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Even if Demi Moore is perfectly reliable on the truth surrounding her birth name, common sense tells you that a 140-character tweet (or two) is not the sort of place where you can make nuanced distinctions between "I was born Demi, which is to say, that's what everyone always called me, even though it says 'Demetria' on my birth certificate" versus "I was born Demi, and it even says that on my birth certificate, but my parents always said it was short for 'Demetria', and I always believed that, and told the story in a People Magazine interview, too, and I only just recently learned the truth."
The trouble with this reasoning is that BLP subjects who are not specifically experienced with Wikipedia won't make statements with lawyer-like precision. If you reject the BLP subject's own statement on the grounds that there could be some nuance which makes it say other than what it seems to say, you end up with an excuse that pretty much lets you ignore all BLP subjects whenever you want.
Furthermore, I can hypothesize that People Magazine left out a similar nuance. Of course they are not limited by the length of tweets, but it is routine for the news media (especially gossip-type media like People) to paraphrase, summarize, reword, etc. in ways that ignore nuances. The People interview doesn't say "birth certificate" either, after all, so by the "maybe they missed a nuance" argument it could still mean Demi is on her birth certificate.
Ken Arromdee: wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Even if Demi Moore is perfectly reliable on the truth surrounding her birth name, common sense tells you that a 140-character tweet (or two) is not the sort of place where you can make nuanced distinctions...
The trouble with this reasoning is that BLP subjects who are not specifically experienced with Wikipedia won't make statements with lawyer-like precision.
That's true, and remains so if you generalize it to "people who are not specifically experienced with formal reporting won't make statements with lawyer-like precision".
If you reject the BLP subject's own statement on the grounds that there could be some nuance which makes it say other than what it seems to say, you end up with an excuse that pretty much lets you ignore all BLP subjects whenever you want.
I think you've just proved that interpreting primary sources can be hard (and sometimes borders on OR), which is why when there's any doubt, it's correct for us to defer to secondary sources -- the more reliable and verifiable the better. So, yes, in this case, Encyclopaedia Britannica is more reliable than People magazine is more reliable than Demi Moore herself.
(I agree with you that this is a surprising result, and that it seems to defy common sense at first. Truth has a way of doing that, sometimes. :-) )
But it's not "whenever you want", it's "when there's reasonable doubt", which there certainly is here.
"...more reliable than Demi Moore herself."
Such a conclusion is nonsense.
To take a personal example, no amount of examination of my birth certificate, or publication of its contents, is going to result in me changing my name to what it says.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name
"...more reliable than Demi Moore herself."
Such a conclusion is nonsense.
To take a personal example, no amount of examination of my birth certificate, or publication of its contents, is going to result in me changing my name to what it says.
Fred
Or, to put it another way, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible because it is not susceptible to testing by cross-examination. But there are exceptions so numerous as to have led to comments that the "hearsay rule" no longer exists. As I understand it, one's name is whatever one wants it to be, unless it is changed for fraudulent purposes, so if Demi Moore wants to call herself Demetria *now*, she may do so; but that cannot change the name given by her parents, which would appear to be fixed by her birth certificate.
The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People Magazine as reliable sources is laughable. Where do you think they got their information? I have a hard time picturing them filing a FOIA for her birth certificate to fact-check a bit of information they almost certainly got (and garbled) from someone whose knowledge is certainly no more reliable than Demi Moore herself. Moreover, even the most reliable of references are notoriously horrible when it comes to simple biographical details (names and their spelling, dates and locations of birth, etc. etc.).
As for Encyclopedia Britannica... It, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary reference work. Almost any other reference is preferable.
~Nathan
Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi Moore.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People Magazine as reliable sources is laughable. Where do you think they got their information? I have a hard time picturing them filing a FOIA for her birth certificate to fact-check a bit of information they almost certainly got (and garbled) from someone whose knowledge is certainly no more reliable than Demi Moore herself. Moreover, even the most reliable of references are notoriously horrible when it comes to simple biographical details (names and their spelling, dates and locations of birth, etc. etc.).
As for Encyclopedia Britannica... It, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary reference work. Almost any other reference is preferable.
~Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Another little tidbit for the "common sense" grist: While her mother was still alive, Demi Moore stated her birth name was Demetria. Virginia Guynes died in 1998.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi Moore.
Heh, fact washed primary source.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People Magazine as reliable sources is laughable. Where do you think they got their information? I have a hard time picturing them filing a FOIA for her birth certificate to fact-check a bit of information they almost certainly got (and garbled) from someone whose knowledge is certainly no more reliable than Demi Moore herself. Moreover, even the most reliable of references are notoriously horrible when it comes to simple biographical details (names and their spelling, dates and locations of birth, etc. etc.).
As for Encyclopedia Britannica... It, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary reference work. Almost any other reference is preferable.
~Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates.
That's not true as a blanket statement. Conventionally FOIA refers to the federal open records law, but there are others (under many names, including FOIA) at the state level in most states. Whether birth records are included or not varies by state.
Back to People Magazine... First, I did say "no more reliable than Demi Moore herself." Which isn't contradicted by your assertion that she was the magazine's source for this bit of information. Second, I'd take the opposite track on your little decision tree. Which is more likely?
A) Demi Moore has consistently and correctly reported her own birth name. One outlet got it wrong, leading to a cascade of re-reporting in other outlets also getting it wrong Or B) Demi Moore from time to time changes her mind about whether to lie or tell the truth about her own birth name
I pick B.
Having worked for several newspapers and, as a regular reader, witnessed a mind-boggling array of errors in even the best and most prestigious news outlets, I have a pretty healthy doubt for the accuracy of any interview or news report. If you never read anything other than Wikipedia coverage, it would still make any reasonable person question whether journalists are capable of getting even the most basic information right most of the time.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates.
That's not true as a blanket statement. Conventionally FOIA refers to the federal open records law, but there are others (under many names, including FOIA) at the state level in most states. Whether birth records are included or not varies by state.
Back to People Magazine... First, I did say "no more reliable than Demi Moore herself." Which isn't contradicted by your assertion that she was the magazine's source for this bit of information. Second, I'd take the opposite track on your little decision tree. Which is more likely?
A) Demi Moore has consistently and correctly reported her own birth name. One outlet got it wrong, leading to a cascade of re-reporting in other outlets also getting it wrong Or B) Demi Moore from time to time changes her mind about whether to lie or tell the truth about her own birth name
I pick B.
C. She tried to register to vote and they demanded a copy of her birth certificate. She had lost her copy, or at least had not looked at it for many years, or she had to order a copy. When she received it she found that her actual birthname was Demi.
D. She has never seen her birth certificate, has always used Demi.
Fred
On 12/05/11 11:33 AM, Nathan wrote:
Having worked for several newspapers and, as a regular reader, witnessed a mind-boggling array of errors in even the best and most prestigious news outlets, I have a pretty healthy doubt for the accuracy of any interview or news report. If you never read anything other than Wikipedia coverage, it would still make any reasonable person question whether journalists are capable of getting even the most basic information right most of the time.
I think that many Wikipedians still believe in the myth that every question has a correct answer. Never mind Demi Moore, the birther controversy about Obama lasted much longer than it should have among people who certainly had the resources to track down the correct information. Asking for a birth certificate rather than a photocopy of the birth registration no doubt added to the confusion.
My inclination when somebody who should know contradicts usually reliable sources would be to add a note to that effect directly quoting what she says. Let the reader choose what he wants to believe.
Another factor that a reader should consider is that she was very young at the time of her birth.
Ec
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Except for common sense.
Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has been multiply repeated.
Well, no. Common sense here is that she changed her name and, in the interests of keeping a consistent public image, has no interest in promoting the old one. Common sense is that the fact checkers at People magazine double-checked the name they listed as her birth name.
- Carl
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote: ng that's probably misinformation but which has
been multiply repeated.
Well, no. Common sense here is that she changed her name and, in the interests of keeping a consistent public image, has no interest in promoting the old one. Common sense is that the fact checkers at People magazine double-checked the name they listed as her birth name.
- Carl
When you said "fact checkers at People magazine" I laughed. Just saying.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Nathan wrote:
Well, no. Common sense here is that she changed her name and, in the interests of keeping a consistent public image, has no interest in promoting the old one. Common sense is that the fact checkers at People magazine double-checked the name they listed as her birth name.
When you said "fact checkers at People magazine" I laughed. Just saying.
Ah, but our verifiability/reliable sources policy says that we use secondary sources because they do fact checking. This is a secondary source, therefore it must do fact checking. Considering whether the secondary source *actually* does fact checking is not Wikipedians' job--the policy says it does, so we have to assume it does!
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Ah, but our verifiability/reliable sources policy says that we use secondary sources because they do fact checking. This is a secondary source, therefore it must do fact checking. Considering whether the secondary source *actually* does fact checking is not Wikipedians' job--the policy says it does, so we have to assume it does!
Actually, I believe People magazine in particular actually does fact checking. If they aren't good enough, presumably the Independent is - it is also cited in the article.
But that's neither here nor there. Common sense in this sort of case is that we should expect celebrities to be constantly managing their public brand - particularly on a medium such as Twitter which is used explicitly for that purpose. There's no reason to give much weight to tweets like the one that is now footnote 1 of the article.
- Carl