recently a woman claiming to be his first ex-wife "annie" with whom he has a single daughter appeared on pawn stars selling some of his old jerseys for money. She claimed they were dating for 5 years and married for 3 (yet in wikipage it stating like a 1 year tops of marriage). and someone please verify that is it 1 year not 3 years as she is clamiing. It was on the most recent pawn star episode that airred on the 21st of january 2013. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.231.72 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm looking into it. So far, I can't find anything else to verify the 1992 date. Zagalejo^^^ 22:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, this is giving me a headache. Every article I find seems to give a completely different timeline for things. Zagalejo^^^ 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I give up. I just reworded things to avoid specific dates. Every thing I read says something different. This, for example, says they got married in 1991 and divorced in 1992. Both Rodman and Bakes have written books, although I don't know if any of the books would clarify things. Zagalejo^^^ 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi guys. Yes, I watched that episode of Pawn Stars where Annie Bakes said they were married "around three years." It was good. Haha. But her claim is simply not true; I knew it as soon as the words came out of her mouth. I'm sure she didn't want to admit she was married to him for such a short time. ;) And of course that can't be used as a reliable source anyway. A few days ago, after a lot of frustration, I finally found what I consider to be very reliable sources about the marriage start and end dates. I made the edit (again) a few minutes ago because I noticed someone had removed it. But I just noticed that Zagalejo reverted it, which I don't understand or agree with. My edit, which I made a few days ago, said: "Rodman married Annie Bakes in September 1992 on the fourth birthday of their daughter Alexis (born 1988).[26] They divorced on June 4, 1993.[62]" Zagalejo replaced that with the more vague: "Rodman's first wife was Annie Bakes.[26] They divorced in the early 1990s.[25]" First, the part I wrote about them getting married in 1992 on the daughter's fourth birthday is completely sourced from ESPN, and Zagaleojo even uses the same source. The ESPN story says, "Rodman's life encountered a tailspin in May 1992...That September, on his daughter Alexis' fourth birthday, Rodman had married Annie Bakes." So there was no valid reason to change that sentence. For the second sentence, the Lodi New-Sentinel article flat-out says they were divorced on June 4, 1993, and the article was written just seven days after that. And Zajalejo used that source, also! Haha. So my edits are not only reliably sourced, with the same sources Zajalejo used, so there's no dispute here. Zagalejo must've overlooked those statements in the sources. Therefore, I'm reverting to the correct, sourced content. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any other sources to support the ESPN and Lodi New-Sentinel claims? Besides the People magazine link above, I found other sources that say they were divorced in 1992, eg [4], [5]. One thing I found on ProQuest even says that Rodman was seeking a divorce in April 1992 (before September, when ESPN says they were married). (Sharp, Drew. "Rodman Files Suit for Divorce". The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press [Detroit, Mich] 25 Apr 1992: B3.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I left those sources in the article only to support the general claims that they were once married and then divorced. It's not an ideal solution, but I figured we needed something. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's possible that the 1993 date from the Lodi New Sentinel is correct, and that there were still loose ends to tie up after the proceedings in December 1992. But I'm pretty sure the September 1992 date is wrong. I found another source, from August 1992, that says, "Divorce papers were filed earlier this year, but Rodman has spent the summer trying to make the marriage work." (Corky Meinecke. "PISTONS' RODMAN CAN'T SEEM TO MAKE UP MIND". KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWS SERVICE. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 09 Aug 1992: D10.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, from March 1992: "He is married with a daughter. His courtship with Annie Bakes, a model from Sacramento, was turbulent, with Bakes publicly threatening him with a paternity suit before they married." (Heisler, Mark. "Never Out of Bounds No One Can Rebound Like the Pistons' Dennis Rodman,Who Uses His Desire and Quickness to Get the Ball". Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Los Angeles, Calif] 15 Mar 1992: 3.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Zag, I have to say... you're funny. You must be very sleepy. :p Both sources, which are very reliable and mainstream, give the specific dates I added, so there's no issue here. Of course there were "issues to tie up" after December 1992... that's only when Bakes left him. Divorces can take years, so this one was relatively quick. Anyway, we have a great source that gives the specific day which is what we as editors hope to find. Of course there are many articles that give a year only, or don't even give a year, but we when we have a reliable source being more specific, that's a gem source. Do you have a link for the Salt Lake Tribune info? They're wrong and I've never heard an other media say that, but I'd be interested in seeing it. Now I have a very important question for you: Are you really Ashton Kutcher, and trying to punk me? Haha. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find the Salt Lake Tribune article for free online; I got it through ProQuest. I could email it to you, if you don't have access to such resources. It does clearly call the September 1992 date into question. Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- You sound like a really nice guy (I assume guy), but it makes no sense to use the same two sources as me, yet remove the date content used in those very sources. And they're not weak sources; they're mainstream. So unless and until there's consensus that there are better sources, please stop reverting. Thanks. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The newspaper articles are just as "mainstream" as the other ones. I don't see why we should arbitrarily decide that some are correct while the others are wrong. My proposed edits to the article are a compromise while we try to work things out. Do you want me to email you the ProQuest articles? Yes or no? Zagalejo^^^ 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, there are many, many newspapers and other sources that are not mainstream; ones that are unknown and where the editorial oversight is in question. You cannot "compromise" when we are using the exact same sources and those sources verify the content being discussed. I am not comfortable providing my email address to someone I don't know personally. Sorry. You would need to provide reliable sources that can be looked at by other editors which would prove that the current sources are wrong. At this point, we have two reliable sources, that can be accessed by all editors, which verify the content. ESPN is about as good as it gets with regard to covering athletes. And the Lodi article gave a full date - day/year/month - which is very telling. They could've been vague, but they weren't; and they wrote the article right after that date, not months or years later like most of the other sources. So that sourcing is about as good as it gets for specific dating. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- All of those newspapers mentioned above are major, well-known papers, and would count as reliable sources. There's no requirement that a source be immediately available for free on the internet. The articles exist, and have been archived. If you go to a library, I'm sure someone can pull them up for you. (You might even be able to access them yourself, by checking your public library's website.) You can't claim to win an argument by refusing to look at additional sources. It is possible that ESPN or the Lodi article got something wrong; mainstream media sources do make mistakes from time to time.
- And again, I wouldn't have retained the ESPN and Lodi links if I had a better solution, but this is a complicated situation, and since those sources did still support the less-specific claims I was making, I decided to leave them in. Stop fixating on that part of my edits. Zagalejo^^^ 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but they're reliable sources and they fully support the content. IMO, the "unreliable source?" tags are totally inappropriate because they're being misused. I believe any experienced editor or admin will say those two sources are obviously reliable. I believe those tags are only supposed to be used for sources where there would surely be a lot of editors who'd question their reliability. And it makes no sense that you're using that tag for sources you yourself are using. And any opinions one has about reliable sources being wrong about the content they contain violates WP:OR. But, again, I think you're a nice guy; a nice guy that happens to be incorrect in his thinking on this. :p --76.189.109.147 (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if a source is generally reliable, that doesn't mean it is infallible. Major media sources do get things wrong. (For example, look at the whole Manti Teo thing!) I have found newspaper articles that clearly contradict the timeframe presented in the Wiki page, so someone got something wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, you're right... the reporting on the Manti Te'o debacle is mind-boggling because of the huge number of inconsistencies. It's one of the craziest stories I can ever remember. In terms of confusion, it beats the Rodman married/divorced issue 10 times over. :p Anyway, I'm glad we've resolved the matter via our own talk pages. I'll leave it in your hands. :) --76.189.109.147 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Moving forward
I've only quickly looked through this thread, and haven't actually looked at any of the sources mentioned. This appears to be the classic case described in the essay Wikipedia:Inaccuracy, where generally reliable sources may be unreliable for specific claims, as evidenced by the conflicting claims in these sources. Which one to believe? Unless there is consensus on which ones are more credible, I would suggest either:
- Wording it generically, with a footnote explaining the conflicts with relevant sources cited. See Steve Novak regarding his birthdate as an example.
- Explain the specific conflicts in the text itself with cited sources; no indirect explanations in footnotes.
I would suggest #1, as specifics about dates of his marriage are minor to his overall notability. Finally, a gentle reminder to all to avoid edit warring, especially the three revert rule.—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bagumba, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I understand what you're saying; however, the other editor has provided no sources that we can look at which disprove the reliable sources currently being used; ones that both of us are using. WP:INACCURACY, as you acknowledged, is an essay and, frankly, has quite a bit of nonsense in it. But the good parts allude to extreme or clear-cut examples of innacuracy. I realize that reliable sources don't necessarily need to be visible to editors, but when there are visible reliable sources available that verify specific content, then ones that cannot be seen by other editors should not override them. However, if consensus can be obtained for using one of your suggestions instead of the current content, I would of course be happy to concede to that solution. Finally, as I said previously, I think it's very convincing that the two reliable sources give "extremely" specific start and end dates for the marriage. One says they were married in September 1992, on the daughter's fourth birthday. And the other says they were divorced on June 4, 1993, not 1993 or even June 1993, but the complete date. So both are as specific as a reliable source can be, whereas all the sources alluded to by the other editor are vague, not specific, which is a good indication of uncertaintly in their information. So for now, we have very reliable sources (inappropriately tagged to imply they're unreliable) which verify the specific content. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Without knowing if the specific dates were retrieved from court records or from a quote, even exact dates can be questionable. Though your facts are verified to be from a source, the question per WP:RS is whether they are reliable in the context that they being used. Zagalejo did provide some conflicting sources in the discussion above, though they may not have been added to the article yet. For what it's worth, I've never had a problem in the past with the accuracy of Zagalejo's edits. As you don't have the same benefit of my past experience, I can only ask that we all assume good faith. We all want an accurate article, but we may have different ideas on how to achieve it. Hence, the need to discuss to reach a consensus. As for offline or subscription sources, WP:CITE is clear that they can be as good, even if not as convenient, as free online sources. Perhaps use of the quote parameter in {{cite news}} would address your concerns?—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have just posted a comment on Zagalejo's talk page, which you'll see will resolve this matter. Thanks so much for your great input. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've just self-reverted my preferred content and replaced it with Zagalejo's preferred content. Whatever you guys think is best is fine with me. My big hesitation in making any changes was the fact that those two reliable sources were so extremely specific about the dates, where as all/most other sources are much more vague. Thanks. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just an update. I took a look at Rodman's book Bad As I Wanna Be, and he does say the marriage took place in September 1992. He also said it only lasted 82 days, although I'm not sure exactly what he means by that. (Did she simply leave him at that point, or were they officially divorced?) I haven't been able to look at Bakes' book, Worse Than He Says He Is, and it might take a while before I get a chance. But I'd be interested in her version of events. If the thread starter is correct about what she said on Pawn Stars, she seems to remember things differently. We can't just dismiss what she says and assume Rodman is correct until more research is done.
- The fact also remains that there are newspaper articles about a divorce that predate September 1992. I considered the possibility that ProQuest got the dates wrong, but that is not the case, since the articles do reference things like the Pistons playing the Knicks in the playoffs and the Dream Team being selected. There's still a chance that the writers misunderstood something, but I can't say anything for sure at this point. Zagalejo^^^ 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work on your research. Yes, the talk about his "82-day marriage" was famous, but that's the number of days they actually lived together as a married couple. The divorce wasn't finalized until several months later, in June 1993. Also important is the fact that many people falsey assumed they were married long before they actually were. This is because they had been a couple for five to six years prior to getting married, and both of them have mentioned that fact. I've seen more than a few articles that incorrectly refer to them as being married prior to September 1992. The reporting on his marriage to Carmen Electra is extremely similar, where it's very often referred to as a nine-day marriage. It's just not true. Yes, that's the amount of time they were physically together and when Rodman filed for an annulment, but the divorce wasn't finalized until five months later, in April 1999. On a personal note, I know a couple that separated in the early 2000s after several years of marriage. Their divorce proceedings lasted for eight years before it became finalized! Haha. But when someone asks either them, "How long were you married?" they do not include all they years after they separated. Good luck on your continued research! --76.189.109.147 (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just read the verifiability guidelines. There's something very important to consider. In the lead of the policy, it says "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." In this matter regarding the Rodman-Bakes marriage/divorce dates, the policy clearly instructs us that if there are other reliable sources that contradict the ESPN and Lodi News-Sentinal stories, then those can also presented. However, because the content about the couple being married in September 1992 on their daughter's fourth birthday, and divorced on June 4, 1993, is indeed reliably sourced, it should not be removed simply because other sources say something different. The only option, per the policy, would be to merge in what the other reliable sources say, and cite them. For example, it could say something like: "Rodman's first marriage was to Annie Bakes, which ended in divorce in the early 1990s.[cite] While some publications reported that the wedding was on their daughter's fourth birthday in September 1992 and they divorced on June, 4, 1993,[ESPN cite][Lodi News-Sentinel cite], other reports gave different start and end dates for the marriage.[cite][cite][cite] It was stated in Rodman's autobiography, and widely in the media, that the marriage lasted 82 days,[cite] but that was only the amount time that Rodman and Bakes actually lived together." --76.189.109.147 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The issue with reporting "both sides" is that there are multiple different timelines floating around, and lots of vagueness, so anything that really gave justice to the contradicting claims would be very wordy. It would also be tough to decide how much weight to give to each claim. The wording in the article right now isn't wrong, it's just non-specific. I'd still prefer to leave things as they are until someone gets a chance to look at Bakes' book. I am committed to figuring things out; it just might take a bit of time.Zagalejo^^^ 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Zag. If there are "multiple different timelines floating around, and lots of vagueness", then simply summarize that fact, just as I did in the example text above. But you need to cite those differences. And if you're not ready with the cites yet, and are still doing research, then I feel you should just put back my content until you are ready because what you're essentially doing is editing based on your personal preferences rather than adhering to the Wikipedia policies. Your strategy is to wait until you have all the data and then add the content. But you're not supposed to do that. We edit based on what we have at the moment. My reliable sources are not vague at all; they're very specific. Simply removing the specific dates given in very reliable sources (ESPN and Lodi) and replacing them with very vague information should not be done, per WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:SOURCE. Those policies tell us to leave the sourced content in place; not to make them more general while you look for other sources. The bottom line is that it does not matter one bit whether the September 1992 and June 4, 1993, dates are wrong because that information is reliably sourced. Therefore, by policy, those are appropriate to include in the article. Remember, "Verifiability, not truth". This situation is no Dewey Defeats Truman; far from it. And for the record, from everything I remember those marriage and divorce dates are indeed correct. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- By the way, I don't understand why you say it would be very wordy to explain the contradictions and difficult to give due weight. I already told you how to do it, with this example: "Rodman's first marriage was to Annie Bakes, which ended in divorce in the early 1990s.[cite] While some publications reported that the wedding was on their daughter's fourth birthday in September 1992 and they divorced on June, 4, 1993,[ESPN cite][Lodi News-Sentinel cite], other reports gave different start and end dates for the marriage.[cite][cite][cite] It was stated in Rodman's autobiography, and widely in the media, that the marriage lasted 82 days,[cite] but that was only the amount time that Rodman and Bakes actually lived together." We don't need to write a book about it; after all, it's just one tiny piece of Rodman's life. I think my suggested text is a reasonable way to address the contradictions without giving too much attention to this brief event. It incorporates my text with yours; read the first sentence, it's your version that's in the article right now! All that my example does is add on the ESPN and Lodi info, along with a good, general explanation of the contradictions. Simple. Problem solved. Just put it in and move on. If you need to alter it a little, go for it. If you find more specific info later, it can always be merged in. ;) --76.189.109.147 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest explaining the conflicting sources in a footnote. Presenting viewpoints would be more appropriate for a debate where there is no right or wrong per se (e.g. politics). In this case, they married and divorced on specific dates, there are official records to prove it somewhere, but nobody is claiming to have cited them.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Verifiability, not truth" is a controversial guideline and has been widely debated in recent years. (Ask Jimbo Wales himself: [6] - just as an example of a recent discussion.) Waiting until people have gathered all the facts is a good practice; there's no deadline to add the material to the article. Your proposed text does pose some problems. For one, I've only seen one source (the Lodi paper) that provides the June 4, 1993 date, so it's misleading to write that "some publications" reported that date. Also, the last part ("that was only the amount of time that Rodman and Bakes actually lived together") is little more than an educated guess. Zagalejo^^^ 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that discussion isn't exactly recent (late 2011), but what Jimbo said about "Verifiability, not truth" alluded to content that most people know to be false or impossible. Basically, he's talking about editors who choose to ignore the obvious. It doesn't have an apples to apples connection to this situation. And I'm sorry, but waiting until all the facts are gathered isn't the way Wikipedia works, unless it's a recent event. Most editors edit independently; most edits do not go through a lengthy discussion like this, or any discussion at all. As far as the Lodi paper being the only source that has the specific dates, that's fully to be expected. Complete divorce dates are not common. Further, there are relatively very few sources about any aspect of the divorce. So the fact that we do have a very reliable source which gives the specific date is what we as editors hope for. And my suggested text doesn't say "some publications" reported the divorce date; it says some publications reported the wedding date and the divorce date. But that's a red herring; the wording of any part of that text can be cleaned up. I just wanted to throw out a suggestion to end this. Exactly what you wrote is in my suggested text (combined as one sentence), and I added the contradiction statement after that. You said you've read reliable sources that address the contradictions, so just attach them. You're probably never going to find another reliable source that gives the exact divorce date, or even the daughter's-birthday-wedding-info, so let's just present what we have. No reader is ever going to look at those two sources and say... hey, those sources aren't reliable. In fact, they'll say those are really quality sources. But even if someone questions it, we'd have the additional text that addresses the very vague contradictions. That's the part that gets me, there are zero other sources that give even a specific date (for the marriage or divorce), yet we're allowing them to overpower two reliable sources that do give them. I think I've made an exceptionally reasonable compromise to solve this; it addresses the contradictions and provides good sources. Readers can judge for themselves. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- When the ESPN reporter wrote in that article that they were married on the daughter's fourth birthday, there's no way he pulled that extremely specific information out of thin air. He must've gotten that from someone very reliable source or ESPN wouldn't have published it. It's so odd in its specificity that it has to be accurate. And we have no reason to doubt a source like ESPN on something like this. It's not like they're predicting a future trade. And the same really holds true for the Lodi paper; they gave the exact date of the divorce; just a few days after that date. So, again, they must have had a very reliable source or they wouldn't have printed that. If the article was years later, maybe. But it was published a few days later. We have to use common sense and combine it with the fact that those two sources are indisputably reliable. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the reference about their daughter Alexis was removed when you reverted the parts about the marriage and divorce dates. I assume that was inadvertant on your part. There's no dispute about Alexis. And one funny thing is that on Pawn Stars, Annie Bakes was pawning one of Rodman's NBA game-worn jerseys that had an inscription to Alexis on it, which included something like "Daddy will always love you". I couldn't believe that Bakes was selling it. ;) She got about $4500 for four or five of his jerseys. Anyway, the content about them having a daughter named Alexis should be put back. Thanks. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is in the article currently is not perfect, but I also am not in support of the current proposal. It seems to give undue weight to sources arbitrarily because they give exact dates. Since there are conflicts, and none of the sources explain how they resolved the conflict, I treat them all the same, especially since there isn't one date that is dominant among the sources. That being said, the main issue is that there is currently no consensus to change the current wording. Persuasive discussion can still change that, but we are not there yet. I still propose a compromise to footnote a short summary of the conflicts.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- How can it be undue weight when I'm saying both sides should be included? All the other sources are very vague, so I'm giving them as much weight as possible for a source that isn't more specific. And keep in mind that we have yet to actually see any of the other sources, so it's hard to get perspective on what they indicate. My suggested wording is just that... a suggestion. It can be improved. But all I am suggesting is including what the sources are telling us. ESPN and Lodi say this... while these other sources say that. Nothing is being hidden or favored. I am treating them all the same. So there's no undue weight. For now, I agree with your proposal to footnote a short summary of the conflicts. And their daughter needs to be re-added. Thanks for your input, Bagumba. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bagumba, could you propose a wording for a footnote? I did add the daughter's name to the personal life section, but didn't say anything about her birthdate, because that's connected to the disputed timeline. To 76..., I do agree that we can't give undue weight to something just because it is precise. Something can be very precise but still completely inaccurate. Things get misunderstood, misinterpreted, etc. I've been monitoring NBA articles for several years, and there have been numerous debates over things like birthdates.
- Again, the sources I have mentioned do exist, and are certainly accessible through a library. Lots of public libraries will let you access newspaper databases through their websites with a library card number, so you might be able to access some articles right now. Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's a January 1997 article from the Chicago Tribune that also backs up that daughter Alexis was born in 1988 (the other source says her fourth birthday was September 1992).[7]. It also says that Rodman and Bakes divorced three years earlier; it was actually three and a half from the date of the story, but they don't mention halves in newspaper articles. Also, here's an archive of the paper's stories in which Rodman was written about.[8] --76.189.109.147 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- Here it is... the best proof of all that Alexis was born in September 1988, again from the Chicago Tribune.[9] The story was written in mid December 1988 and says she's two months old. Perfect... she was born in late September (several fan-type sites say September 28) so she was 2 1/2 months old. No question she was born in 1988. I'll re-add the year (but not the month). --76.189.109.147 (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Proposed text
Zagalejo: Regarding your request for me to come up with the proposed text, I'll respectfully decline for now. I'm familiar with the high level issues being discussed, but don't want to dig into the details right now. I think you two are in agreement about what are in the sources, but just differ on how to present them. I do think I can help facilitate by laying out some suggestions, and one of you can come up with the actual text and citations. Here are some options for a footnote.
- Do Rodman and Bakes have their own version of the timespan? If so, just present both in the footnote and mention in passing that other sources are also not consistent.
- Provide ranges in the footnote, e.g. the earliest and latest they were married according to any source, along with the shortest and longest duration of how long the marriage lasted. Is it even consistent whether they got married or before their child was born?
—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- The answer seems to be yes, although Bakes has apparently said several different things, and I'm not sure how Rodman defines his terms.
- There are several different timelines that I've seen, plus other sources that implicitly contradict the others without giving a clear range. I do think the sources are consistent that the daughter was born before they were married. Zagalejo^^^ 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should we go with option 1 then?—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That might work. We could briefly say what each one says in their books. Zagalejo^^^ 05:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Divorce dates
What is the standard convention for stating when someone gets divorced. Is it the official date it was finalized, or the date it was filed? This is tricky in divorces that span years, which might have been the case here. Different interpretations might be the reason for the differing reports, not to mention people's divergent memories.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that, but it is a good thing to get clarified. It's possible that even the June 4, 1993 date is too early, and that the paperwork wasn't completely wrapped up until, say, 1995. Zagalejo^^^ 02:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- I am sure. Without question, it is the date it is finalized (by a judge/court in the U.S. and most other countries). Unfortunately, I know way too many people who've gone through the process. Until it's finalized, it's a legal separation, and the couple is only "going through a divorce" e.g. the divorce process. See divorce. The Rodman-Bakes divorce process took about five months before it was finalized. Also, in the U.S. there is a waiting period before either person can get married again, so it's not completely over until that waiting period ends. Haha. ;) --76.189.109.147 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- Found this page on the divorce process if you're interested. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- On this subject, I just found this, from a review of Worse Than He Says He Is: "Among the inaccuracies, she claims, is the length of their marriage. He wrote it lasted less than 90 days, and she says the divorce took 11 months to finalize." (Phil Rosenthal. "Ex goes from 'Bad' to 'Worse'". Chicago Sun-Times. April 22, 1997.) That does seem to contradict what she supposedly said on Pawn Stars (unless people were mishearing her.) It would also contradict a whole bunch of other things. Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a HighBeam link: [10] Zagalejo^^^ 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it just gets more complicated. Here's something from a USA Today review of the same book, which suggests yet another timeline: "They married in September 1991 and were officially divorced in August 1993." [11] (Rodman's ex takes her shot: [FINAL Edition] Oldenburg, Ann. USA TODAY [McLean, Va] 30 Apr 1997: 02.D.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought this thread was just about clarifying when a divorce is a divorce. It will be very difficult to discuss the content issue if it moves back and forth between different threads. Interesting info, though. Yeah, he said less than 90 days, which lines up with the fact that the "82-day marriage" theme was a huge gossip piece in the news back then. Rodman even put it in his book, specifically referring to 82 days. But of course that's just the amount of time they lived together as a married couple. And Annie Bakes was obviously fibbing on Pawn Stars when she stammered and said... uh, we were married about... three years. Haha. I doubt she would tell the store clerk that they were together for only 82 days and then she split. Haha. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
