Talk:Ray Milland/Archive 1

Removed inaccuracy
Someone had added that Milland said nothing during his Oscar acceptance. This is not true as the clip is available on Youtube. Milland says to presenter Ingrid Bergman: "Thank you. Thank you very much. I am deeply honored." ZincOrbie (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And that is 10 words, which is 500% as many as William Holden's speech when accepting his Oscar for Stalag 17: "Thank you". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Milland derivation
I removed this sentence 'Former jockey turned romantic leading man of the 1930s, predominantly in light comedies and occasional mysteries.' which appeared in a paragraph to which it appeared to bear no relation. If anyone knows to what it refers, could they re-write it and insert it in its correct place? Also, there's a discrepancy over where his stage surname came from: and area (the "mill lands") of the town (Neath), or a street in the town. Jasper33 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no real discrepancy as Milland is the name of both an area of Neath and of a road running through it. -- Picapica 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives Milland's date of birth as 3 January 1907. -- Picapica 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Ray Milland's autobiography, Wide-eyed In Babylon, He was born in 1907. In the beginning of chapter four he states that he was one year older then his childhood friend who was ten in the summer of 1918. There does not seem to be a question about the month and day of his birth. I'll make the appropriate changes in the article.

BrianGV talk  01:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the US Social Security Death Index he was born Jan. 3, 1907. Go here and search for Ray Milland.Kentucho 03:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

His birth was registered in the march Quarter of 1907 (see here http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl) as Alfred Reginald Jones. The 1911 census confirms it is him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorsam (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Peter 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorsam (talk • contribs)
 * The Encyclopedia of Wales also has him down as 1907. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, is there any support for the 1905 date? Is there a competing reference claiming this, or is the insertion of the 1905 just an error or some sort of trollery, or what? Herostratus (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that IMDB gives his date of birth as 1905, and we have falsely linked off that. IMDB is not a reliable source so we are using other sources. They appear strongerFruitMonkey (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes I agree that IMBD is not very reliable in these matters and 1907 appears to have much stronger references. Since IMBD says 1905 this problem will probably continue to come in indefinately. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The 1905 birth date is completely false with no competing reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorsam (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * His New York Times obituary says "Ray Milland was named Reginald Truscott-Jones when he was born on Jan. 3, 1905, in Neath, West Glamorgan, Wales." However, this date (and birth name) seems to be over-ruled by all other published sources. There is a long tradition of actors and entertainers tweaking their ages (albeit usually to make themselves appear younger), which may be the source of the confusion. I've added proper citations for the 1907 date, which does appear to be the most likely one. Muzilon (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography
He wrote a book "Wide-eyed in Babylon: An Autobiography" 1975. Maybe there will be a reference in it to his wife's name. Online I have seen Muriel Webber, Muriel Weber, Malvinia Warner and a reference to Mal. --User:Brenont 02:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Milland listed her as "Muriel" in his 1938 naturalization papers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Milland's naturalisation papers are primary source, but this is probably allowable as a source for the name of his wife. Can you add a citation? Is this available online? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Shortest acceptance speech?
I think that needs better sourcing. I've read that Humphrey Bogart has the shortest, at one word. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship
Milland is a British citizen. Legal definition. A link to British nationality law and Welsh people clarifies the option of the home countries for non Briton.  Barliner  talk 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing nationality with citizenship. The Oxford English Dictionary, defines nationality as: 1. The status of belonging to a particular nation 2. An ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations. That Ray Milland is Welsh is verified by numerous reliable sources, including the BBC, the New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, Wales on Sunday and the Daily Telegraph. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS, particularly with regard to changing an existing nationality. Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article”. The article says Ray Milland is Welsh. Therefore, so should the infobox. I will now reinstate Ray Milland's nationality as Welsh in the infobox. Please discuss here rather than edit war and please respect WP:BRD. Daicaregos (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * He became a US citizen, he filed his petition for naturalization in 1938, and it was most likely granted the same year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Most likely" doesn't cut it. Verification would be needed (Sellpink (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC))

Milland was an American citizen who became such in the 1940s. His previous British citizenship doesn't supersede this. He may have been recognized as a dual national, but this is a separate point.(Sellpink (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC))
 * MOS:OPENPARA (Context) states: The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Milland first became notable in 1929, long before he was naturalised as an American citizen, so his nationality at that time should be noted in the opening paragraph. Numerous reliable sources define him as Welsh. I amended to reflect MOS and added his American citizenship to the Personal life section, cited by the Chicago Tribune reference. I've also amended the Infobox and added a Citizenship field. Daicaregos (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

He was a Welsh speaker, I think. Seadowns (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have him as "Welsh-American"? Humbledaisy (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No original research
I recently made an edit to move text from a citation to a footnote, leaving a footnote that renders as:
 * Milland's birth was registered in the England and Wales Birth Index in 1907.$[4][non-primary source needed]$ His Petition for Naturalization and the California Death Index and the Social Security Death Index use 3 January 1907.$[citation needed]$ His New York Times obituary uses the year 1905.$[5]$

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has reverted both of the tags in this text. His edit summary for reverting "non-primary source needed" with the edit summary "of course it is a primary source, that is the whole point of using it trumps trumps". This is contradicted by No original research. The Primary source inline template indicated that the freebmd.org.uk source is a transcription of an official birth register, which is clearly a primary source.

The same editor then removed the "citation needed" tag, with the edit summary "the Social Security Death Index is the reference, formatting with is not needed, what you are asking for is a link". A wikilink is not an alternative to citing a source. We need an indication of where these three registers may be accessed, and a URL if they are available online. Formatting citations with is normal practice in Wikipedia articles.

However, on considering this further I have concluded that the discussion of Milland's date of birth breaks Wikipedia's no original research policy. It is a Synthesis of published material, and the sources used are primary sources. We should not give material that is based on Wikipedia editors' analysis of primary sources, we should cite a reliable secondary source. The Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography both give 3 January 1907. We should cite these sources.

I will delete the discussion of Milland's data of birth along with the references to the primary sources. We should the birth date as 3 Jan 1907 citing the above sources, and add a footnote to say that the NYT obit gave 1905 and the birth name Reginald Truscott-Jones. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confusing WP:primary sources with WP:original research. There is no ban from using primary sources We are warned that they do not count toward notability and given a caution to use them carefully. WP:original research warns us not to "imply a conclusion [that is] not stated by the sources". So if we say being born in 1907 (as opposed to 1905) formed his sexual identity, or being born in that year was responsible for his acting abilities, we would be drawing a conclusion that is not in the original source. Also the rules are about information in the body of the work, not in footnoted material. Wikipedia is full of footnotes explaining contradictory source material. We actually have a category for them at Category:Age controversies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Short version
"Other sources give a different date of birth and birth name, Milland's obituary in the New York Times gives 3 January 1905 with the name Reginald Truscott-Jones."

Long version
"Milland's birth was registered in the England and Wales Birth Index in 1907. His Petition for Naturalization and the California Death Index and the Social Security Death Index use 3 January 1907. His New York Times obituary uses the year 1905."
 * ✅ This one is the most accurate and complete. There is no ban on using primary documents, in fact they are the most reliable for assigning accurate dates for events. By not explaining where the 1907 number comes from we go back to giving equal weight to IMDB and the other wrong sources. Readers will say IMDB says 1905 and Wikipedia says 1907, so I will flip a coin to see who is right. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Primary sources are often not the most reliably because they need to be interpreted, and where the information is not crystal clear this amounts to primary research. For example, Jones is an extremely common surname in Wales and it is possible that this birth record is for someone else. If he was born in 1905 then we are looking at the wrong records. Milland may have have had the wrong birth date in his passport because of an earlier mistake, and it would have been natural for him to use the same date in his naturalization petition to make sure it went smoothly. The date would have then propagated to the California Death Index. Maybe the NYT date is correct, we don't know their source. However, the balance of evidence appears to favor 1907, so we should use that date, and use the birth name from the same source.

The ODNB, the NYT and the Encyclopedia Britannica are top-rate secondary sources, and we should cite this type of source wherever possible. We should note that the NYT disagrees, but we should probably not use primary sources to criticize the NYT without knowing their sources.

I have also moved the mention of the Truscott-Jones name to the footnote, as it is another case of conflicting sources. Readers should not be relying on Wikipedia or on IMDb, but on the sources that they cite. I will add a citation of Encyclopedia Britannica to help them to make a judgement. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All those excuses you are making are the only original research that I am seeing. You are drawing conclusions not in the source when you say "Milland may have have had the wrong birth date in his passport because of an earlier mistake and it would have been natural for him to use the same date in his naturalization petition to make sure it went smoothly" it sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. In document research there is a rule: For the birth index to be wrong, you would have to show that there is another entry that is the correct one. Also the rule is "lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." All you did was remove my primary sources and substitute in your tertiary source. In document research primary sources trump tertiary sources. The document closest to the event is the most accurate. Your other ridiculous argument is that the birth of "Alfred Reginald Jones" recorded in the birth index may not be him because "Jones is an extremely common surname in Wales". There is only one "Alfred Reginald Jones" born in Neath, Wales in the 13 million names indexed, the same birth name and place of birth listed in his naturalization paperwork written in his own hand and certified under oath. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not attempting to make excuses or to push a point of view. I am trying to improve the article and to make it follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines; if I have misinterpreted these then please explain how. Our primary role as Wikipedia editors should not be to research primary sources. Consulting primary sources is useful to help choose between conflicting secondary sources and to seek out things that can be confirmed using better sources.


 * My postulation concerning Milland's passport was not a senario that I was promoting, it was an illustration of how inaccurate information can enter public records, and why we should not lightly discount the date and name in the NYT.


 * You have recently added the middle name Alton to the infobox without citing a source or mentioning it in the main text. As I understand it, an infobox should summarize the body of the article. A web search for "Raymond Alton Milland" gives several hits, most of which are unsuitable for citation. Milland's WorldCat entry may be citeable. Do you have a better source? Do you know when he acquired "Alton"? Please mention this name to the main text and cite a source. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm inclined to share the premise that the document closest to the event should be taken as the most accurate. We got to the bottom of Alfred J. Goulding's wildly incorrect DOB on wikipedia only by considering this. Even his tombstone was wrong - as was IMDB. I've come across this numerous times before - another example - Constance Worth's death certificate is incorrect by two years, while the newspaper reporting her birth and her birth cert are quite clear. It is certainly also the case that errors on Wikipedia seems to be copied across the web.Nickm57 (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)