Jump to content

Talk:Sondra Locke/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sondra Locke's date of birth

I graduated from Shelbyville Central HS in 1965 at age 18. My birthdate is Jan 15, 1947, three months BEFORE the listed birthdate for Ms. Locke. Sondra did graduate in 1962, but to have been born in 1947, she would have been 15 years old. I'm pretty sure she was 18, making her birth year 1944.67.72.98.115 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke's birth year in both Clint: The Life and Legend[1] and The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly is listed as 1947. Intellius searches and other public records searches are not reliable sources and do not respect Ms. Locke's privacy which is paramount in a WP:BLP. The current consensus is that Intellius is not considered a reliable source. That being stated, using the age listed one of these sites and then subtracting it from the current year to obtain a birth year is not only an inconclusive source, it falls within the guidelines of WP:SYN and would constitute WP:NOR. While I can appreciate an anonymous editor claiming that he/she attended high school with Ms. Lock, that too falls under WP:NOR and does not constitute a reliable source per WP:IRS. The three sources that are being used to currently list her year of birth as 1947 are two published books and AllMovies, which has been deemed a reliable source. Per WP:BLP, All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Unless someone can produce additional published works that are verifiable, the two currently cited books should be given weight here. Erikeltic (Talk) 03:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate the points above; Intelius is not a reliable source. Subtracting the year in which a person went to college in order to find their birth year is a perfect example of WP:SYN and contrary to Wikipedia policies. As this is a WP:BLP a higher standard for sources must be maintained at all times. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Locke's birth year is listed as 1944 on IMDb. See for yourself : http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0516800/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfmnn8 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
IMDB is not currently considered a reliable source at Wikipedia. I suggest you take it to the reliable source discussions if you have an issue w/ that, but currently IMDB is not a source you can use for citation. In addtion, see my notes above. Those are reliable sources. Erikeltic (Talk) 01:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In this 1989 People magazine article [2] Locke's age is given as 45, correlating to a 1944 birth year. Many printed publications incorrectly list her birthdate as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [3] appearing in a college production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Her year of birth is listed as 1944 on the Internet Movie Database [4] and the Notable Names Database [5]. It is reported that Locke turned 67 on 28 May 2011 in this entertainment article [6]. As of July 2011, her age is stated as 67 on PublicRecords [7] and Intelius [8], correlating to her being born in 1944. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Public records searches are not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, the 1989 People magazine does not give a birth year; subtracting to get the year is WP:SYN. The only current reliable sources that are verifiable are what is within the article. In addition, these constant sock puppets you're using to change these dates (and others) is why you have been banned from Wikipedia in the past. Erikeltic (Talk) 11:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Who gives a shit about Locke's 'privacy'? She put herself out into the public eye. And it's simple addition/subtraction which allows one to calculate her birth year. It seems like Erikeltic is simply pushing his POV. But, really, who cares? (Personal attack removed) GeneralZukov  10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to ABC News [9], Yahoo! News [10], the Associated Press [11][12], Leigh Valley News [13], and The Boston Globe [14]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. These are "reliable sources" and have more merit than the two you have provided.PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
To reinforce the truth, Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies [15]. All of these sources have more merit that what you are using to argue against them (an unathorized biography of her former boyfriend and one website). Locke was born in 1944. If you persist to change her birthdate back to the incorrect one, I am going to report this to the administrators.PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Erikeltic is absolutely correct that neither public records, nor your own analysis, nor IMDB are allowed, per WP:RS and WP:OR. However, Eikeltic is wrong in one point: simple subtraction does not constitute original research--it is, in fact, very common to determine birth years by matching up printed ages with the date of publication of a reliable source. As such, we should be including both birthdates; one based on the book, and one based on the 3 different reliable news sources that all confirm an older age. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure whether or not you have seen all the sources I have provided, due to the fact that Erikeltic deleted some of them without merit. See below for all of the sources indicating and/or stating that Locke was born in 1944.
Subtraction is very common to determine birth years by matching up printed ages with the date of publication of a reliable source -- this does not appear to be the current consensus within WP:BLP. Case in point, Michelle Thomas. In addition, this conversation is taking place with a sockpuppet of Excuseme99. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to Yahoo! News [16], ABC News [17], the Associated Press [18][19], Leigh Valley News [20], and The Boston Globe [21]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies [22], the Internet Movie Database [23], and the Notable Names Database [24]. Many printed publications erroneously list her birth year as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [25] appearing in a production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Locke's age is stated as 45 in this 1989 People magazine article [26], correlating to a 1944 birth year. As of August 2011, Locke is 67 years old according to public records [27][28], correlating to her being born in 1944.

I don't understand how this could be disputed. It is quite obvious that Ms. Locke lied about her age when she began her Hollywood career in order to get roles. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Subtraction arguments are WP:SYN and public records searches are neither within the guidelines in WP:BLP nor are they reliable and verifiable sources. IMDB is not currently considered a reliable source either. The only verifiable and reliable sources that give a date of birth of Ms. Locke are those that have been previously cited. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
While your claim is incorrect to begin with, MSN movies directly states that Locke was born in 1944 and that site is far more reliable than the unauthorized biography of Locke's ex-boyfriend that you continue to cite for her year of birth. MSN movies, for example, is a reliable source and I have provided it. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec--this replies to Erikeltic) Subtraction is not synthesis--in fact, WP:OR explicitly says, in WP:CALC "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources" (emphasis added). If you insist, we can raise the issue at the original research noticeboard, but to me the plain language of the policy very clearly explains this exact case. You are right that IMDB and public records cannot be used. Now that you are aware of WP:CALC, may the info based on the reliable articles be added? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Reply to PlaceboComp: we're going to have to include both birthdates, since we have reliable sources that say both. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree strongly and inclusion is not the current consensus. I would urge you to wait until other editors can add their voices here. In addtion, which of the "reliable" sources from Excuseme's sock are you suggesting we use here? Erikeltic (Talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Qwyrxian: I'll settle for that now. However, even though wiki does not consider imdb, her yearbook, and public records reliable, don't you at least give them the benefit of the doubt? It's fairly obvious that Locke lied about her age in order to get younger roles decades ago. As for Erikeltic, he is continuing to remove and revert my responses without merit and should be banned from wikipedia. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Erikeltic: Probably MSN movies [29], which states she was born in 1944 and is just one of the far more reliable sources than the unreliable source that you continue to cite for your erroneous claim. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't give public records or open wikis any benefit of the doubt. Duplicate names appear in public records all of the time. IMDB is like Wikipedia, but without a strong set of policies and editing community. The yearbook is purely your analysis (i.e., WP:OR). I haven't looked at MSN source yet, so no comment. But so long as there are reliable sources that state 2 different things, we must state those different things. Erik, as I explained on your talk page, if you think PC is a sock puppet, take it to SPI; since the person you claim is the master is not banned, xyr responses may not be removed by default. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If you look on Intelius [30], there is only one Sondra Locke listed, so the "duplicate names" statement does not apply. Her legal name is Sondra Locke Anderson (in case you were not aware, she uses her maiden name only professionally, I can also provide a source for this if asked to). Under "relatives" it states Gordon Leigh Anderson (Locke's husband, whom she has been married to since 1967 in name only; this is common knowledge). So I don't understand how one could not be certain that the Sondra Locke on intelius is the subject of this page. Also, in Locke's autobiography, she states that her (maternal half) brother Donald Locke is two years younger than her. If you search a Donald Locke in Shelbyville, TN (where, according to her book, he still resides), only one name comes up; it states his relatives Alfred and Pauline (his parents names) and Teri Locke (his wife's name, see Locke's autobiography and the 1989 People article in which Teri was briefly interviewed, for proof) and states his age as 65 [31] - making Locke 67, just like her intelius search says. I am not saying that this should be used on the page, I am merely using it to enforce my point and possibly give you some benefit of the doubt. I realize that you have considered some of my provided sources reliable. However, I still don't think agree with putting both birthdates on the page. I don't think any faith should be placed on the 1947 birthyear, because it is such an obviously false birthdate. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that you cannot use public records searches as "proof" and that none of what you've written respects Ms. Locke's privacy, as required per WP:BLP? Erikeltic (Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a shit about Locke's 'privacy'? She put herself out into the public eye. And it's simple addition/subtraction which allows one to calculate her birth year. It seems like Erikeltic is simply pushing his POV. But, really, who cares? (Personal attack removed) GeneralZukov  10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am using the public records merely to increase the benefit of the doubt of those who have power on wikipedia. The only things that the Intelius page lists are her name (that is not private, as she is a famous actress), her residential city (Los Angeles - duh, that is not private), her husband's name (again, it is common knowledge and not private at all), and of course, her age (the one thing that has been consistently lied about over the years). Your argument that it does not "respect her privacy" is rubbish and has no merit. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Would both of you please drop the public records? PlaceboComp, the records are irrelevant, both on the article and here. Intelius cannot be used, period. This is a widely held consensus, there is literally no argument you can make here that will change that. WP:PRIMARY is extraordinarily clear on this issue--unless you intend to fundamentally change how Wikipedia treats primary sources (something you need to do on the policy discussion page), that source cannot and will not be used. Second, your "faith" in the birthyear is irrelevant. Please read WP:V, which clearly explains that we only care about reporting what can be verified, not about finding the "truth". Once we figure out what is reliable, we will report all info given in reliable sources; WP:NPOV even tells us specifically that we have to report multiple sides when there are apparent contradictions.
Having said that, Erikeltic, can you explain why WP:CALC does not apply here to the use of the magazine articles? It seems completely unambiguous to me that calculating birth years is explicitly allowed by that policy. There's no BLP violation in reporting this (just as there is none in reporting the 1947 birth year)--the two are identical. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Quwyrxian, just to confirm, you do consider MSN movies [32] (which directly states her date of birth as 5/28/44), Yahoo! News [33], ABC News [34], the Associated Press [35][36], Leigh Valley News [37], and The Boston Globe [38] as reliable sources, correct? Because I am using all of them to prove that Locke was born in 1944. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, full disclosure. I am entering this discussion because Erikeltic suggested I take a look. Ze and I have had a prolonged back and forth on Michelle Thomas that ze feels is similar. I disagree. In the case of Thomas, there were attempts to take an age as of a certain date to definitively establish a year of birth, when such actually supports it being one of two years. In this case, the sources I'm seeing are stating that Locke turned a certain age on a given date. The simple calculation gives the birth date. To clarify: Someone who is 10 years old on July 1, 2011 was born in 2001 or in 2000. Someone who turned 10 on July 1, 2011 was born on July 1 2001. Slight caution: there are not as many sources as are being presented here: "according to ABC News [39], Yahoo! News [40], the Associated Press [41][42], Leigh Valley News [43], and The Boston Globe [44]" The first four sources are clearly the same AP report (they label it as such). The Lehigh Valley source carries some of the birth dates (same order, same language) as the AP and uses portions of the language (compare [45] "In 1959, the U.S. Army launched Able, a rhesus monkey, and Baker, a squirrel monkey, aboard a Jupiter missile for a suborbital flight which both primates survived.") but does not label it as such. The Boston Globe (copyright NY Times) report has the same language, again not attributed to the AP. Whether one of the papers is the AP's source or all are merely running it is immaterial. It is one rock solid reliable source, not six. Public records are a moot point. That, FWIW, is my opinion. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Summer. Just to clarify one point you made in supporting the simple calculation, are you saying that if a person is 10 on July 1, 2011 and that same person was born on June 30, that said person could still have been born in two possible years? Erikeltic (Talk) 04:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If the same source says she was 10 on July 1, 2011 and was born on June 30, yes. Otherwise, you are bumping up against synthesis. It is entirely possible (as we have repeatedly seen) for two sources to be working from differing dates. If one source say she was 10 on July 1, 2011 and another says she was born on June 30, no, as you would have to assume the two sources agree and combine them to reach this conclusion. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Again - Who gives a shit about Locke's 'privacy'? She put herself out into the public eye. And it's simple addition/subtraction which allows one to calculate her birth year. It seems like Erikeltic is simply pushing his POV. But, really, who cares? (Personal attack removed) GeneralZukov  10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fyi

Placebo and a couple of others have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Excuseme99 who is blocked indefinitely. If he returns to this discussion, it will be through yet another of his dozens/ hundreds of sockpuppets. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC: birthdate 1944 or 1947

Should Sondra Locke's birth be listed as 1944, 1947, or something else? Please see discussion above. Gerardw (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Both - I still maintain all of my earlier comments because I believe in valid citations that are both verifiable and reliable. However Ms. Locke's marriage license [46] to Gordon Leigh Anderson on September 25, 1967 (available publicly through the state archives or Ancestry.com) lists her birthdate as 5/28/44. I am not opposed to creating a DOB listing similar to that like the one on Audrey Tautou since we have two valid sources that list 1947 and two sources that list 1944 as her birth year. I am however, totally opposed to using any type of WP:SYN using math by "guessing" how old she "must have been" when she starred in a play at college. I also oppose the citation of any public records search like Intellius--especially when the source does not give a DOB. I am also opposed to using IMDB or using the same AP story as six separate sources, as Summer noted. Erikeltic (Talk) 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Her marriage license is just as much of a WP:PRIMARY public record as her birth certificate--you're not recommending we use that as a ref, are you?
No I am not, especially since there are other sources available. Erikeltic (Talk) 13:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Both. I would personally leave the infobox blank, or with a "See below"; but you could also list 2 dates. In the text, I would rely on the bio for one page, and one of the magazine sites for the other (not all 6 just as Eirkeltic and 2 others have said). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1944, and mention 1947 in footnote - My reading of the reliable sources listed in the section above shows that 1944 is the birthdate, and that - like many Hollywood figures - a "younger" birthday was sometimes used for PR reasons. WP should not be used to perpetuate PR gimmicks. The 1947 date can be mentioned in a subsidiary way (footnote), but 1947 should have a caveat explaining the discrepancy. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Both, according to sources. I don't see justification for suppressing one to a footnote, let alone omitting one entirely. To suppress or omit what reliable sources say would typically require, in my opinion, a verifiable statement by the subject (or a qualified expert about the subject) saying what is correct and why sources have divergent dates. In this case, I don't see such an explanation in a reliable source. We may speculate why sources have divergent dates to some degree of probability, but it's still speculation by wikipedians. This case seems comparable to the cases of a few other bios. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1944, with 1947 in a footnote I'm participating here because of Wikipedia:Feedback request service. I'm not familiar with the actress at all. There is evidence of her being in college in 1963. In order for her to have been born in 1947, she would have been in college at 16. It seems extremely unlikely to me that this would not have become part of her biography.--Banana (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Banana04131, we are specifically forbidden from making analyses like "it seems extremely unlikely to me..." per WP:OR. All we care is what reliable sources say. If someone wants to challenge the reliability of one of the sources, that's fine, but we can't ourselves judge which theory is more correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that I really disagree, but be careful with what you call "OR". Editors make editorial decisions as a normal part of the editing process. If the sources leaned strongly one way, that might justify, as an editorial decision, putting the other options in a footnote. I just don't consider alleged digital records to be very persuasive in this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I'm familiar with the policy on original research. I disagree that I cannot say "it seems extremely unlikely to me", but I think that is more of a fundamental disagreement on how editorial decisions should be made rather than anything related to this RFC. --Banana (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe me calling out OR is a bit too strong. We do make editorial decisions, but I just worry when we make those decisions based on what "seems" true; I feel like doing so sets us up in the wrong judgment over our sources. I do understand how, in this case, there is a strong reason to believe the deduction of "16 in college is probably not true" (assuming you also believe in the reliability of those sources), but I also know that I've seen plenty more cases where editors insisted that we should edit in a certain way because any right-thinking person would obviously see that their side was correct. Maybe a better way for me to say what I said above is that I don't find the <"16 in college" problem, when linked up with concerns about the source plus the fact that we have another seemingly reliable source with the younger date> to be so overwhelmingly compelling that it means that we should relegate that claim to a footnote. To me, that would be like deciding that the younger age is undue, but doing so based not on looking at the sources, but based on our own analysis. It's a subtle distinction, and, in fact, none of us really make decisions based on a dispassionate analysis of sources (there's no such thing), but one worth attempting to make when possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1944, with 1947 in a footnote In Tennessee State Marriages 1780-2002 her date of birth in the original image is 5/28/44. "Gordon Leigh Anderson, Sondra Louise Locke". Tennessee State Marriages, 1780-2002. Ancestry.com. Retrieved August 7, 2011. Date: 9-25-67; Name of Female Applicant: Sondra Louise Locke; Born: 5-28-44; Age:23(subscription required) GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a primary source and IMHO should not be used when there are perfectly good secondary sources available. Erikeltic (Talk) 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The more reliable sources show 1944 as the birthdate, but 1947 is only mentioned by a couple of Hollywood memoirs. We should give the readers some clue as to which date is more reliable. --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 1944, with 1947 in a footnote Surely a birth certificate is the most reliable document. It is hard to see how it can be incorrect. I see no objection because it is a primary source in this case, there is no need for interpretation the certificate states a simple fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Because we have no way of verifying that the document in question actually belongs to this person, nor to verify the authenticity of the document. Its the same reason we never get to rely on primary sources where there is any doubt about their veracity or authenticity. Thus, by Wikipedia rules, the birth certificate is not only not the most reliable, it's not reliable at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks since this RFC was started and the consensus appears to be to include both dates. We have sources for each. How many more days should we wait until the dates are included? Erikeltic (Talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically RfC's can run to 30 days (or longer if the discussion is continuing productively). While this is somewhat stalled, it's only been 2 days since the last new comment. Plus, I can't figure if there's a consensus here...I mean, there's definitely a consensus to include both, but not about whether or not to use a footnote. If we can find a way to figure out where to fall on that issue, it can go in immediately. Any thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

She couldn't have been born in both years

Until we find out which sources are accurate or reach consensus on which year she was born in there should be no year on a BLP. One year could be caused by a typo that some sources are using. To leave both years implies that she may have falsified her birth year. This implication without proof is libelous. Please reach consensus and add only one year. Thank you in advance.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's true sources have reported different years, so those so go intot the article as agreed previously. To infer that she lied about her birth year requires synthesis, which we don't do. As long as we don't write "Locke lied about her birth year.." it's not a libelous statement. Nobody Ent 01:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I put a note about it at the admin notice board and the WMF legal dept. Can we agree to leave both years out until they have advised? It also makes us look like squabbling kids if we can't reach consensus on which year to include.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Half dozen of one or six of the other -- let's leave both in for now, which is the current consensus here. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
That's just wrong. If reliable sources have two different dates, the article can show both dates, per the prior consensus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely. There are several other BLP that do the same thing. Erikeltic (Talk) 12:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be the same as saying she was born in Kansas or New York. Two wrong facts to not make one right fact. One of them is wrong. Unless we decide which one is correct, then we should definitely not include both. It just makes us look like a joke because we either can't do research or decide which research is more correct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not "decide" which data are correct. Instead we report the data that are verifiable. Both dates (though at least one is wrong) are verifiable. We report both. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are statements, not facts. Did anyone think of emailing them in the last 3 years that this crap has been going on and simply asking where they think they got their facts from?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Suppose, for one second we did email all of the sources. We get a response that says, essentially, one side screwed up. The other side doesn't respond. Is the side that didn't respond right? No, we just don't know if they are wrong or not. How do we verifiably report that one is wrong? There is not a published source to point to. Yes, the sources disagree. At the moment we have no way to demonstrate which one (if either) is correct. We report -- as we always should -- what reliable sources report. In this case -- as in several others -- we report two birth dates. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't believe how lazy some people are. I easily found emails for all three sources and asked them to either verify, correct, or remove their 'facts'. I can't believe this wasn't dealt with over 3 years ago. Just linking to bullshit on the internet and then adding it to more bullshit here is not a way to find the actual truth. It just spreads the bullshit further.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you asking why wikipedia should have accurate facts? I can't believe that.
Your statement about other editors being "lazy" does not reflect an assumption of good faith and is unnecessary. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Lazy is the correct term. Just pasting inaccurate links from the net and then arguing like children for over 3 years is not research. I didn't see anywhere above where anyone even thought to look on the websites for even a feedback-your information may be bullshit link. The same arguements were just squabbled over for three years and still no consesus was reached as to the correct year so it was decided to just put both in and move on. Come on people get with it. I have since sent two more emails to a book publisher and API which is the actual feed to the ABC site.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you should review WP:NOR. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What does original research have to do with it? I don't really care which year she was born in. All I have done is ask wikipedia sources to check their sources to see which is fact and which is not. Listing both as facts is not only impossible but shows that we either can't do correct research as they have done or reach consensus on which research is factual.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the #RFC: birthdate 1944 or 1947 section, consensus was for going with the 1944 birth year and formatting 1947 as a footnote. That is what I did before it was reverted by Kww because of a WP:Sockpuppet having contacted me and others. See here for details. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to be reading the same RfC I am, because I see about equal support for "both in text" and "both, 1947 in footnotes". I also don't see any policy based arguments for using a footnote, while I would argue that doing so violates WP:NPOV--using a footnote highlights one thing as more valid than another, and we can't make that call (especially since people are trying to use the primary document, explicitly forbidden by WP:BLPPRIMARY). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition, we have reliable sources for both years and a vote is irrelevant anyway -- Wikipedia is not a democracy. Erikeltic (Talk) 12:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we must be reading different RfCs, because I see the majority of support for "1944, and mention 1947 in footnote" or just "1944." Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but we do go on strength of arguments to reach WP:Consensus and the argument for using only 1944 is stronger in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Then I recommend that you ask for an uninvolved admin to try to read the consensus at WP:AN, because, to me, putting one in footnotes is a direct violation of WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. I'm not saying that I might not be wrong, but I am saying that I still believe I'm right, and thus it seems we need some outside opinions to help us figure out what to do next. Either that, or we need to seek mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it as a violation of WP:NPOV, and I do know that there are various cases where two different birth dates have been given for an actor or other type of entertainer, or creator, and the community decided to go with the most prevalent and/or reliable one, as was the case when figuring out what to do for Agnes Nixon's birth date a few years ago (see Talk:Agnes Nixon). But as for resolving the matter about Locke's birth date, editors will surely need to go with one or all of your suggestions...although I'm skeptical that things will turn out much differently than they already have. I'm not much interested in this debate, though. As stated above, I was contacted to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to state, however: Since the more reliable sources turned out to be wrong in Nixon's case, I am now thinking that listing both birth dates for Locke may be best...until we know for sure which one is correct. Still, there are times when WP:PRIMARY sources are fine to use, and the marriage license source is one of those times in my opinion. I don't see why we should doubt that it's valid. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We do not decide which one is "right" or which one is "wrong". Obviously one of them (or both of them) is incorrect. We have reliable sources for both, so we should include both. Also please do not forget to disclose that you were "contacted to weigh in" [47] by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked editor who has repeatedly restarted issues here. Erikeltic (Talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
@Flyer22: No, no, no: WP:BLPPRIMARY is exceedingly clear: we never ever use primary sources like government docs for BLP info. Ever. The quote from policy is, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The word "not" is emphasized in the original. Rarely are our policies so strict and direct. The license is not an option, period; no local consensus can override this policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Erikeltic, it is not about deciding which one is right or wrong. It's about deciding which one is more reliable, and, as I've stated before, that is done on Wikipedia all the time with regard to birth dates where two or more have been presented. And I've already stated that I now feel that presenting both, in this case, is best. Also, do show me where I did not disclose that I was contacted to weigh in by a sockpuppet, when I clearly linked to that fact in the RFC: birthdate 1944 or 1947 section above and specifically mentioned it higher in this section? I certainly don't feel that I should have to mention "sockpuppet" every time.
Qwyrxian, I'd forgotten about the rules specifically relating to BLPs when it comes to primary sources. I appreciate the reminder. Flyer22 (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". We have two dates, each with enough reliable sources to be listed. NPOV does not give anyone permission to decide which is "more reliable". When you have more than one reliable source, it is not our job to decide which is "more reliable." More reliable doesn't exist. That's the point. As for the sock puppet stuff, no I didn't think it was very clear at all. That being stated, I did not mean to suggest, however, that your presence here was for illicit means despite the fact that you have taken up defending Excuseme99/Placebo/etc.'s positions, just as he/she asked you to do. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Erikeltic, you aren't going to convince me that concluding that something is more reliable is violating NPOV, when I see it done without any objection all the time on Wikipedia....whether at article talk pages, noticeboards, or some form of dispute resolution. And I mean that with regard to various things on Wikipedia, such as sources being more reliable than others. There's a reason that WP:FRINGE exists, for example, although it of course does not apply to this case. There's a reason that the WP:Verifiability line Verifiability, and not truth has repeatedly been under dispute there on the project talk page for some time. "More reliable" certainly does exist on Wikipedia. Two different birth dates being listed isn't even two different viewpoints to me. And as for the sockpuppet stuff not being clear... No, you must have forgotten that I mentioned it. Stating "That is what I did before it was reverted by Kww because of a WP:Sockpuppet having contacted me and others. See here for details." is abundantly clear. And I already explained my position on this matter at my talk page and here. And, again, "I've already stated that I now feel that presenting both [birth dates], in this case, is best." So why are you dwelling on my previous stance? Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in some cases, one source may be found to be more reliable than another--for example, we often find academic sources to be more reliable than mass media sources like newspapers and the like. Also, if there is a majority of sources that support one thing while a minority support another, the article will generally stand with the majority (I'm thinking here of things like our coverage of climate change and the Shakespeare authorship question) What we do not do is say, "X's argument is more convincing than Y's, so we'll highlight X's." As far as I know, no one has ever provided any policy compliant argument for one set of sources being more authoritative than another. This is the point that Eriktlc is making above: we are not arbiters of facts. We do not look at debates and pick a side. We only pick a side when there already is a clearly demonstrable "dominant" side in the sources, or when the quality of one set of sources is demonstrably better than another. Until such time as someone does that in this article, both positions must stay, and both must stay equally. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Although my latest point was that I don't view the birth dates as being arguments, and that I did believe that "the quality of [the 1944] set of sources is demonstrably better than [the 1947 set of sources]." I'll look over the sources again, but let me again make clear: I am now in agreement with keeping both sources explicitly in the lead or in the Early life section if someone moves them there. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Break

I would agree that 1944 is the best sourced year. 1947 should be a footnote or worded in such a way that it is the less likely year?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I of course agree, although I would simply go with the footnote. If we are going to have 1947 explicitly in text, it should be in the Early life or Personal life section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me as long as one year is dominant. I can see where the confusion may have started. This is a picture of a 7 than can look like a 4, and a 4 that can look like a 7.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to review WP:NOR. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but NOR has everything to do with you inventing some reason why two years got confused in that little diagram. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Erik's ass has nothing to do with it. We can, and we do, have more than one year, because that's what the sources say. Nobody Ent 14:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't deal in fact, it deals in claims, the validity of which must be solely judged by the validity of the sources. In the case of the Audrey Tautou article there were reasonable sources backing up both dates; this isn't exactly uncommon with actresses, many of which experience age fluctuations throughout their career. Both dates are valid, sourcable claims on the Tautou article, which is why both are included. Even though we generally favor secondary sources, there is a pretty compelling primary source in her marriage licence. It is very unlikely for someone with the same name to be born on the same date and to end up married to a guy with same name...personally I would use the marriage licence as a source, on the proviso that her husband's name is sourced through a secondary source so the marriage record can be tied to her. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
By comparing the marriage license with material found in a secondary source we need to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source", in direct violation of policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not so; any editing you do is interpreting to an extent, and it is not synthesis because you are not combining information from two different sources to draw a conclusion. You have a primary source that gives a date of birth, and in such cases it is reasonable to use a secondary source to establish the application of the primary source. If you dispute that interpretation of sourcing policy take it to WP:RS/N. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Untrue. Summer's assessment is 100% on target. Erikeltic (Talk) 03:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, the marriage licence is consistent with the secondary sources. If you dispute the marriage licence as an eligible source then get a ruling at WP:RS/N and then this discussion is over either way. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Look closer

  • One source uses another source as a source that actually has the other year.
  • One source is actually just a feed from another source that isn't listed.
  • One source is an unauthorized biography of another BLP

Some editors should take a look at their sources closer. I have sent email to Rovi and the publisher of the biography and asked them to check and possibly correct their sources. It seems they all source each other at this point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"One source uses another source as a source" - Which one do you believe uses which one?
"One source is actually just a feed from another source" - Which source do you believe is "just a feed" from what source?
"One source is an unauthorized biography of another BLP" - Anything written about her with her explicit involvement is an "unauthorized biography". Whether or not she is involved does not directly make it reliable or not. I don't know what you mean by "of another BLP". The wording means you feel one source (again, which one?) is a biography of another biography. I do not understand your meaning. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • MSN sources the Rovi page and they both have different years. Click the full bio and it shows at the bottom with the same Rovi author. I may look for his email. ABC sources API, and I finally found a working email for API and sent one this morning asking for their sources. The biography is an unauthorized version of her ex, Clint Eastwood. I sent the publisher an email as well as Rovi back on May 26 and haven't heard back from either. It isn't rocket science and any editor could have looked at this, including you. I am used to teaching others how to do their tasks so it doesn't bother me to help others learn to read.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC

I am astounded by the self-imposed authenticity austerity of Wikipedia, which makes an entry like this look ridiculously "accurate", meaning to say, inaccurate by definition. My point is that every and any logical attempt of calculating Ms. Locke's BoD is refuted under such silly, I must say, excuses as this or other websites are or are deemed to be unreliable. And those sites, mind you, are such ones as IMDB or Intelius, or even, God forbid, artifacts like her own birth certificate. I tried to read and follow the arguments for the 1944 BoD and the counter-arguments, and in my opinion, the counter-arguments are edifices built on air, totally disconnected from reality. I, and many other people, consider the 1944 BoD the one and only true and authentic date. This article is simply ridiculously marched to the rule of measure defined by the rule owners, who, like in Sodom, cut the legs of the tall people to fit in the one measure bed or stretch them to fit it yet again. Astounded am I, would be an understatement, to put it politely. Wikitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitor (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Wikitor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. I have sent emails to all 4 sources. The two that use 1944 emailed back that they used government records or other very reliable sources. One source for 1947 is a book that can't be changed until they print another addition. The other 1947 source is Rovi and they may yet change the date on their site to 1944. If this happens we will be able to open discussion again on changing it in the article. I don't quite understand why wp doesn't allow the use of the marriage and birth certificates, but I do understand why we must seek consensus. In the case of consensus here, it seems that it has been read in different ways. Many believe that 1944 should be the primary year and 1947 as a secondary year with a footnote type thing, but every time that is done it creates wikidrama and edit wars by those that want to include both dates equally.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Wikitor. Please review our primary policies, especially verifiability. While you, Canoe1967 and "many other people"/"Many" disagree with the consensus, unless that consensus changes, there is nothing to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that other editors that were asked for input on BLPN and DRN seem to agree that the consensus was to use 1944 as the year and a footnote for 1947. The consensus should not be a vote so counting any socks won't matter. We are not in a hurry so I am waiting for changes from the two 1947 sources. It does seem odd that the 1944 sources responded promptly and the 1947 sources have not responded at all. Although they may just be being thorough in checking their sources before they make changes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well put Summer. It's worth noting that Wikitor's second and third edits ever (his first in more than three years) were to weigh in on this discussion. I only point that out because of the gross use of sock puppets here and I find these out-of-the-blue comments from a brand new editor extremely suspicious. As for you Canoe, you will need to change more than the consensus here. You will need to start with (as Summer pointed out) primary policies and verifiability. Until the rules change on sources, no amount of "votes" changes anything here. The bottom line is that there are two sources. Each is reliable. One or both of these dates may be incorrect, but the sources remain reliable. Therefore both dates are included. The end. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You could open an SPI on the new editor, I may show up and laugh at that one as well. This is not a discussion about changing the year. That will happen when the sources change their years. In the mean time others may weigh in on how the existing consensus should be read. When this new editor clears your SPI, then we may open it up again without the statements of the real socks and see how it goes then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You'd "laugh"... "right" vs. "wrong"... "talking out (my) ass"... this (personal attack removed) after the fact, original research, etc. Your antics, should you continue with them, are going to get you blocked. Maybe not now, but they will eventually get you blocked to prevent further nonsensical disruptions. Mark my words. So here we are (again), after how much back & forth later and you still do not seem to get it. I could care less which year is "right" or which is "wrong". The whole purpose of editing is to improve the article and to follow the policies that we've set as a community. Wikipedia is a group effort, not a battleground or a pissing contest. I suggest (again) that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Erikeltic (Talk) 13:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think you fail to understand my original point. If the sources change, then the article changes. That never had anything to do with OR. I never started any battle, but I can finish them well. I do wish you would stop threatening to have me blocked. That seems very childish to me. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the sources change, the article changes. Until then, there is nothing to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an editor nor do I intend to be one, this is the reason you see only 3 or so personal expressions in Wiki. It is just that Ms. Locke caught my attention and so, my curiosity, through one of her movies. Erikeltic: To utter the first off-the-sleeve blame of SP in order to explain the heresy of challenging Wiki's rules, is, excuse me of saying so, simply ridiculous. To reiterate: 1944 is the only logical authentic BoD, and as such, any other should be presented only, and only, as a footnote stating that this is just another date mentioned by so and so, and not as an equal-foot statement on the 'front-page'. That Wiki is not a court of justice in which a fact is judged but only stated as being there in the info-world, is a given, but even so it should not go to extremes, and this is what is being done here in this case. God help us of what is plausible of happening here in other entries more, far more important. And, minor remark but no less important, I asure all and sundry under word of honor that Wikitor is my one and only user handle here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is bananas

According to the article Locke was born before her half-brother and thus before 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.60.248 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if that is the reliable source you choose. Other sources differ, as the article explains. We have numerous examples of this on Wikipedia. We cite what reliable sources say. When reliable sources don't agree, we cite the varied reporting. (See also: Audrey Tautou, Michelle Thomas, Sharon Leal, etc.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The correct name

Fascinating as this discussion on Ms Locked date of birth is.. In her career section it states " In 1978, the couple co-starred with an orangutan named Clyde in that year's second highest-grossing film". In fact it is an orangutan named 'Manis' who played 'Clyde'.

Can an editor agree on that and modify please? :) 92.40.248.244 (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Roger Mosely?

Roger Mosely's wiki page states he was married to Ms. Locke in 1960, with (2) children from the union. Why no mention of that on the page of Ms. Locke? Larry Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.118.177 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it's bullshit. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Death Date

She died November 4, 2018, but it wasn't reported till December 12, 2018. Not sure the reason for the delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4001:8EB0:C07:4483:5444:4564 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Fox News said she'd fallen off the radar.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Her death was publicized on December 13, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it me, or does anyone find it very strange that they announced her death just as Clint Eastwood's The Mule hit theaters?75.128.82.247 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Posthumous Insinuation

"Former colleagues at the station insinuated posthumously that Locke was promoted to the department through nepotism," footnoted to a Facebook post by some guy.

I remember from my youth a bunch of Encyclopedia Britannica articles that contained insinuations, but never posthumous insinuations, much less footnoted posthumous insinuations. This is groundbreaking journalism. You're like TMZ, nearly, and I expect your Pulitzer is in the mail.

2603:7081:4F06:2869:B868:32C6:A69E:84B4 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) some guy on Facebook

I agree, you're right. The WP wording makes the insinuation sound much more reliable/honest/real than it really was in the actual FACEBOOK(!!!) post. Thanks for pointing that out. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sondra_Locke/Archive_1&oldid=1239859040"