Jump to content

Talk:Alison Eastwood

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

July 2017 edit war

[edit]

As yet not a single reference has been provided for the changes being made. If they can be provided then fine but edit warring without providing sources is against policy. MarnetteD|Talk 01:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in LA, not Carmel. That is sourced, so why say this? The other changes are syntax and you give no explanation for reverting. Kas42 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again where is the source - you have not provided one. MarnetteD|Talk 01:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have too provided a source. You apparently aren't looking at what you keep reverting. Kas42 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI familysearch is a WP:USERGENERATED website and, thus, is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia articles. MarnetteD|Talk 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck this comment based on DrMargi's info below. MarnetteD|Talk 14:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you restore it to Carmel, which has no source at all? Kas42 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits also have WP:BLPPRIMARY problems. MarnetteD|Talk 01:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. What are you doing? I am actually trying to correct false content. All you are doing is reverting the corrections back to existing poppycock. Kas42 (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added four RS and fixed the NYT source, already in the article, all of which verify Carmel as the POB. Carmel was not uncited, as claimed above. It was supported by the NYT source but the link was not working. Dr. K. 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: I think FamilyTree is user-generated because there is a discrepancy between FamilyTree and the official California Birth index. Please see my comments below. Dr. K. 17:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking no position on the issue, but just for the sake of clarity, the source used by Kas42 is the LDS website, and accesses the California birth records database in Sacramento, not a user generated database, so it's actually highly reliable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the registry provides a different POB than the 5 RS, but the registry is a primary source, so the other RS take precedence. Dr. K. 08:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the registry is a secondary source. The primary is the birth certificate. Your other sources are arguably tertiary, and a bit iffy; they have her living two places. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 10:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The registry does not report by itself. It needs active input and interpretation by a user. This is very close to original research. In any case, the user who interprets the results of this active search, has to also know about how birth registration works. I am not sure, if someone can be born in one place in the same state, while the registration of official birth may be done in a neighbouring county. Also the FamilyTree registry has her born in Los Angeles while the actual California birth index mentions LA county as the POB. So we have to interpret this discrepancy between these two, supposedly identical, registries. The five sources, including the newspaper of Carmel High School (The Carmel Sandpiper), have her born at Carmel. I don't see the two places you mentioned, except if it is Pebble Beach, California. But Pebble Beach is in the same county as Carmel. Dr. K. 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The birth registry database you cite is an external commercial site (did you see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page?). It may access the CA birth registry, but is not the registry itself and only lists the county of birth (mine came up as Los Angeles County as well, whereas the actual database accessed through the LDS site lists my city of birth accurately), no doubt so that it can exact a fee to get more detailed information. The Mormon church site accesses the database itself. Let's be clear: the Mormon church online records accessible through Ancestry.com and FamilyTree.org are the most reliable available. You may want to familiarize yourself with Mormon church principles and practices regarding family history research, and the materials they make available in person and online to any and all comers.
In California, births are registered in the city and county in which the birth takes place (ie. the city and county in which the hospital is located) at the time of birth and is prepared by hospital personnel. The family home at the time of Alison Eastwood's birth, according to Eastwood's article, was Sherman Oaks, which is part of the city of Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley being a mass of unincorporated cities (but of course, the hospital was likely one of a couple celebrity families used, such as Cedars of Lebanon, which is in LA proper). Regardless, the LDS site is far, far more reliable than a high school (seriously?) newspaper with no fact-checking and three minor Hollywood websites that do not indicate how they fact-check; the reliability of the TCM database has been questioned a number of times before for factual errors.
As for geography, Carmel and Pebble Beach are adjacent communities in Monterey County; the Eastwood house is on the 17 Mile Drive between them, very likely in the city of Pebble Beach for the purposes of postal services, etc. But we don't know for certain. Moreover Monterey County is not a "neighboring" county; it's 300+ miles to the north separated by (by my count) at least four other counties. You have to understand that, unlike the UK, municipalities and counties have hard governmental lines drawn between them, and if the LDS-accessed California birth and death registry shows her born in Los Angeles, she was born in Los Angeles; regardless of how much time she spent living in Carmel or Pebble Beach subsequent to her birth (another couple details this article needs to get straight). ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You may want to familiarize yourself with Mormon church principles and practices regarding family history. No, I have no interest in that esoteric field, but since you seem to be an expert, go ahead and reinstate that source. Regardless, the LDS site is far, far more reliable than a high school (seriously?) newspaper with no fact-checking and three minor Hollywood websites that do not indicate how they fact-check; The High School article makes a rather definitive claim that she was born and raised in Carmel, and the piece looks like an interview with the actress. To me it looks convincing. A high-school newspaper from the area she was born, seems like a reliable source. I realise that we can cut it up, especially if we start comparing it to Mormon practices, and standards, and to other more professional news organisations, but I did not use this source alone; it is part of an additional four sources. In any case, I think this discussion has become politicised, and, also given your lecturing tone, I would rather not pursue it further, as it can only deteriorate from here. Moreover Monterey County is not a "neighboring" county; it's 300+ miles to the north separated by (by my count) at least four other counties. you have to understand that,... From your tone, you sound like you are trying to give a lecture. Again, I have no intention of being lectured. By the way, when I mentioned "neighbouring", I obviously used the adjective mindful of the scale of the US topography. So there was no need for the lecture on distance or the US municipal boundaries. The whole idea of Wikipedia is the use of reliable sources, and the expertise of the editors who add them is secondary at best, since the reliability of sources should be determined by consensus through civilised discussion. I don't feel that I have to be an expert on Mormonism or the US birth registration process before I edit this article. If you feel so strongly about the FamilyTree sources, then go ahead and add them. I am not interested on being lectured further, just because you seem more familiar with the US landscape and processes. My interest is much narrower: to avoid original research, and to supply what I think are reliable sources. I have an aversion for sources such as birth indices, where an editor has to vet the results manually, since this practice is very close to original research. Having said that, you are free to dispute the sources I supplied, and you are also free to add the Mormon index to this article. Hopefully, that should be the end of it. Dr. K. 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alison Eastwood. 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Question? A help request is open: goes to a generic homepage - not to any info to support its use in the article. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alison_Eastwood&oldid=1204876551"