Jared Diamond is being sued for defamation for $10 million, as I mentioned earlier, and now the plaintiffs have upped the ante by bringing in a professor of linguistics who, by the use of corpus linguistics, maintains that Diamond's quotations of Daniel Wemp, on which the story on revenge warfare is based, are highly unlikely to have been uttered in speech, but much more likely to originate from written english. Breathe.
The original story by Diamond is no longer freely accessible at The New Yorker; one now has to be a subscriber, which I'm not. If you are in possession of the full article, please let me know.
Here's the the report by the linguist, Douglas Biber.
Here's an article on StinkyJournalism.org also by Biber, in which he explains corpus linguistics and touches upon Diamond's quotes.
Here's an example from Biber's report of a quote atributed to Wemp:
“ ‘Soll did have a son, but he was only six years old at the time of his father’s death, much too young to organize the revenge,’ Daniel said. ‘On the other hand, my father was felt to be too old and weak by then; the avenger should be a strong young man in his prime. So I was the one who became expected to avenge Soll.’ ”
My comments: First, this particular quote doesn't seem so unlike to have been spoken. That doesn't make up for formal analysis, but I'm just saying... not convincing. Then, because I have not read the original article, I do not know if Daniel Wemp and Jared Diamond conversed in English. If they did, did Diamond say that these are the exact quotes? If not, Biber's argument falls apart. It is easily imagined (but I don't know) that Diamond edited the spoken words for the article to improve readability. On the other hand, it is well known that Diamond speaks 12 languages, and among those Fore - a New Guinea language that could have been the language they spoke together. I don't know. None of this is addressed in Biber's article.
It's going to be interesting if this corpus linguistic analysis will be refuted, and if not if it's even admissible in court, given that the case doesn't get thrown out long before that would take place (as it should be).
Field of Science
-
-
-
Political pollsters are pretending they know what's happening. They don't.1 month ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
-
-
Course Corrections6 months ago in Angry by Choice
13 comments:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Diamond and Wemp only spoke in English.
ReplyDeleteThe article says that all the quotes were spoken in the car during 2001-2002, but this untrue. The New Yorker and Diamond now admit that the only notes are from 2006 and all the quotations are back-dated.
Look up the AP Style book. Journalists are not allowed to use quotations unless the words were actually spoken. Otherwise, they should paraphrase.
Quotes are sacred and very little grammar changes should be done. This is the policy (well documented on the web)of The New Yorker magazine.
The "journalism excuse" will not hold up. Media ethics requires that if you are going to accuse people of crimes, or other wrongdoing they must be given an opportunity to respond before publication. As both Diamond and New Yorker admit, Mandingo and Wemp did not know, that they would be named as criminals in the international magazine.
In the case of Mandingo, he never even met or spoke to Diamond--ever. And yet Diamond writes that he is a Ombal killer when in fact, Mandingo is not an Ombal, never led any fight and was a village peace officer.
Diamond and New Yorker would not have done this injustice to a "John Green, from Holland."
Finally, you are wrong in your assumption that Daniel lied. You have no evidence to support this other than Diamond's reputation and authority, which this case has now reduced.
Ask yourself: Would you ever publish that a man (Mandingo) was paralyzed in a wheelchair from someone's hired killers (Wemp's killers) without darn well checking that it was true?
Diamond's reputation is clearly instantly reduced when seeing the photos of Mandingo we took (published on StinkyJournalism.org). They show him hale and hearty, walking around with no spinal injury and no wheelchair in sight.
Rhonda, thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I assumed that Wemp was lying to say that as long as we don't know for a fact that he did not, it's one man's word against another's. I did write this in the first post: "So Wemp exaggerated, gloated, and lied, and Diamond got some facts wrong." I should have said "So suppose Wemp exaggerated..."
Ask yourself: Would you ever publish that a man (Mandingo) was paralyzed in a wheelchair from someone's hired killers (Wemp's killers) without darn well checking that it was true?
I'm not a journalist, but...
I thin I would write that Wemp told me so. I would try to verify it, but if I could not, I would publish that Wemp said so.
Quotes are sacred and very little grammar changes should be done. This is the policy (well documented on the web)of The New Yorker magazine.
I understand. The 16 quotations in Biber's published analysis - I am guessing there's many more? I'm no expert here, but those 16 I could easily imagine was uttered in speech. The fact that you yourself went to Wemp to test if he speaks like that is, from the point of view of scientific investigation, a bad idea, because you aren't impartial in this. And now Wemp will know not to speak like that in case someone else tests it.
Has there been any reply from Diamond to Biber's analysis?
One more comment:
ReplyDeleteIf, as it appears, it is established that either Wemp or Diamond is lying, there are two reasons to assume that it would be Wemp. First is the integrity of Diamond. This can be called into question, indeed, but we may wonder why, after winning Pulitzer's etc., he would jeopardize his reputation by writing an article in The New Yorker. Did he have any motives to lie about Wemp and Mandingo at all? This has not been established, as far as I can see. On the other hand, Wemp has a huge incentive. $10 million. (Incidentally, why are you suing for that much money?).
But, we must of course wait to hear what Diamond has to say in his defense. Not that we can expect it to happen here, even though I would gladly lend my blog as a third-party location for informal discussion. ;)
"On the other hand, Wemp has a huge incentive. $10 million." (Incidentally, why are you suing for that much money?).
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am not suing. It is Wemp and Mandingo that seek justice for themselves which is their right.
When you say Wemp has a huge incentive of the 10 million lawsuit--this would mean that in 2001-2002 when he told Diamond lies (false stories)it was because he planned to later on sue him for 10 million for libel in future years? With all due respect--this makes no sense.
At the time he talked to Diamond in 2001-2002, Diamond himself says he did not record or take notes because there was no book in his mind. That came about in 2006. So in 2006 he went back to get name spellings and ask questions of Wemp about the 2001-2002 stories. He claims he then told him then in 2006 that there was a book.
The 10 million is a standard number filled into the forms--a rubber stamp amount having to do with what is required for filing in NY State Supreme Court (the 10 million is the limit of judgment so lawyers indicate that limit).
Since New Yorker and Diamond won't apologize and correct and had 9 months to do so, this is why they are sued.
Diamond reaps big bucks for his lectures and books--likely millions. By May 2008, his agent was even already using Wemp's name and the New Yorker tall tale to market Diamond's $25,000 per lecture fees.
Diamond says that Wemp was one chapter of a forthcoming book on revenge. A book advance for someone like Diamond, even in a bad book market would be at least $250,000 to $500,000.
1. Diamond claims Wemp knew about the book (not the New Yorker article), moreover, suggesting that Wemp knew he and others would be featured in it.
2. Yet Diamond also writes that it is extremely dangerous to use names of killers in general and that Wemp was in specific danger at one point.
How can both 1 and 2 be true at the same time? Why would Wemp endanger himself and for no benefit?
He was, in fact, shocked to find out that his name was in a publication and attributing to him things he never said. He claims Diamond did not tell him about any publication and that Diamond inaccurately used names he told him and worse, that Diamond messed up all the facts (like saying Ombals and Handa are Nipa and from Nipa and raped Huli women along a highway. All untrue. Wemp told him Nipa raped Huli along the Highway--Not Omabls and Handa. Diamond mixed it all up and now these tribes blame Wemp for libeling them).
There was no benefit for Daniel to say Ombals and Handa raped Huli women. This is obviously an error on Diamond's part).
Diamond can have number 1. above being true (Wemp knew a book was coming out) or 2. (Wemp knew it was a danger for him to be named and others to be named)--but not both. For why would someone lie about being a killer, knowing he would be named, and also knowing it was dangerous (which it is). This just does not make sense.
Diamond, I imagine, never thought someone would fact check his claims--that is why he took the risk. He is 71 years old not thinking how small the Internet makes the world and that New Yorker is discussed in Papua New Guinea university classrooms and is in their library data bases.
When you say Wemp has a huge incentive of the 10 million lawsuit--this would mean that in 2001-2002 when he told Diamond lies (false stories)it was because he planned to later on sue him for 10 million for libel in future years? With all due respect--this makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteNo, that sounds implausible. Rather, it could be that Wemp exaggerated, and then later when he found out it was published didn't want to stand by those. I'm not saying that Wemp would have a lawsuit in mind when he made the statements.
1. and 2. Wemp's person is the question here, and I know nothing about it (again, I haven't even been able to get my hands on the original article). I could think of some reasons why a person would exaggerate, and why both 1. and 2. could be true. But look, I am not arguing that they are, just that we cannot know this without more information.
When you say "All untrue," then that's based on Wemp's testimony. Again, one man's word against another's. Who knows what was said - maybe it was Wemp who mixed it up. We don't know.
You write: I understand. "The 16 quotations in Biber's published analysis - I am guessing there's many more? I'm no expert here, but those 16 I could easily imagine was uttered in speech."
ReplyDeleteCheck out the 16 quotes in Biber's full report that is linked at the top of his article that you mention See http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/content/II6_report.pdf
You write: "The fact that you yourself went to Wemp to test if he speaks like that is, from the point of view of scientific investigation, a bad idea, because you aren't impartial in this. And now Wemp will know not to speak like that in case someone else tests it."
My understanding is that your brain can not generate speech that is in the form of academic writing--even if you wanted to and practiced. It is an unknown and impossible feat from what I know. Therefore, Wemp can not have spoken "academic writing" but later fakes normal speech.
The big data base, Biber refers to reveals patterns unique to speech versus writing. The fact he can make accurate predictions--that can be verified-- makes it an accurate and accepted science. No one has challenged Biber's report.
We did not go out to test Wemp's speech but to check actual facts against Diamond's claims. But even if we had, this is still a sound scientific approach. One has to have an hypothesis in mind and built into one's experiment in order to do science. One is testing assumptions and facts as part of scientific method.
Diamond's quotes attributed to Wemp include Wemp saying "and hence..." It is common sense that this is not everyday speech and that a Pidgin speaker whose third language is English, with a high school education, does not say "and hence."
I do not think that Diamond, as a World Wildlife Fund board member, ever thought for one minute that Wemp, his World Wildlife Fund driver, was really a secret killer and that he felt no legal or moral duty to report this "fact" (that could endanger World Wildlife Fund and create liability). So we are to believe that Diamond didn't report these crimes to police or to World Wildlife Fund? (Like his claim that Wemp personally sponsored the murder of Mandingo that resulted in Mandingo's spinal injury, paralysis and being wheelchair bound for 11 years). Instead Diamond writes about it where he can make piles of money.
Meanwhile we find Mandingo walking around--no spinal injury, no paralysis, no wheelchair.
This and many other facts convince me that Diamond has mislead and deceived the public at the expense of indigenous peoples to enrich himself.
You write "When you say 'All untrue,' then that's based on Wemp's testimony. Again, one man's word against another's. Who knows what was said - maybe it was Wemp who mixed it up. We don't know."
ReplyDeleteThat is why the linguistic analysis is important. If Diamond fabricated the quotes --why not the whole thing? The lack of Diamond's interest in knowing the truth--so unlike any scientist I know let alone a top tier one, also speaks to what is going on here.
I know only one reasonable explanation of why a trained scientist would not double check any facts and then go ahead and publish what one person tells him (when that person is not an expert but your paid driver).
Worldly wise and savvy about Papua New Guinea, Diamond was not tricked or duped but did not check facts and was incurious because he made it up. Why would someone fact check a story that they fabricated? They wouldn't and he didn't.
Here is a university web site that has the article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/war/diamond-vengeance.pdf
Rhonda, I did read all 16 quotes. Wasn't that clear?
ReplyDeleteLet's take just the two first:
1. “ ‘Soll did have a son, but he was only six years old at the time of his father’s death, much too young to organize the revenge,’ Daniel said. ‘On the other hand, my father was felt to be too old and weak by then; the avenger should be a strong young man in his prime. So I was the one who became expected to avenge Soll.’ ”
2. “ ‘The original cause of the wars between the Handa and Ombal clans was a pig that ruined a garden.’ ”
Again, not being an expert, I don't see it as unlikely that someone could utter the first in speech. Same for the rest of them. But I understand that Wemp may speak some pidgin English. Could it not have simply been that he said something like "The cause of the wars was a pig. It ruined a garden. Handa owned it, the garden. It was an Ombal pig. That was the first reason for the war."
If we imagine that, then it could be that Diamond wrote down this quote later from memory (the quotes being back-dated), getting the exact quote wrong, but the meaning correct? I agree that that is also a problem. Paraphrasing is then better, but the point here is that it need not call the whole story into question.
Anon, thanks for the link to the full article. I will be reading it with interest.
Dozens of witnesses including educated members of the Handa tribe (lawyers, economists); rank and file members of tribes, police, missionaries and an anthropologist who were there in 1993 during the fight, all testify to the same basic facts:
ReplyDeleteThere was only one fight between the Ombal and Handa in the history of the tribes. It was in 1993, 3 months long, caused by a fight over gambling. The Ombals were only allies for the Solpaens. The war was between the Solpaens and the Handa. 4 died--two Handa (including Soll)and two allies of Solpaen [no Ombals died].
Diamond misreported that the total dead was 47 in an endless war. He falsely claimed the fight was over a pig in a garden, 3 years long, 6 battles between the Ombal and Handa.
Why would Wemp lie about this? He explained to us that he was talking to Diamond about fights in various areas of the country. He told Diamond he lived in Nipa but was from Magarima where the Ombal, Henep and Handa all live and this one fight happened, other fights in Nipa, Enga were desribed.
Diamond mixes it up and writes that the Handa and Ombal live in Nipa and Wemp and the tribes were Nipa. Diamond combines numbers of dead Wemp told him that happened in other areas--why would Diamond mix the facts up?
The disjointed real facts do not make as good and as a dramatic of a story.
Diamond is a recognized author and story teller not Wemp. I asked another scientist if Wemp told him stories when Wemp drove him around for some months and he said no. Others who know Wemp never heard him tell stories.
To believe Diamond, we are required to believe that Wemp, who is never known to tell stories, suddenly became a brilliant story teller when with Diamond. The story structure is classic. The hero tries and continually fails until one day he partially succeeds....
Given all the facts I believe Wemp told him true facts and Diamond, like a good fiction writer put them together to suit the best story thinking he would not get caught. Great story = big money.
Rhonda, again, thank you so much for laying out the facts as you know them. I hope you can understand that it is very hard for me (and many others) to believe that Diamond would fabricate a whole story in order to earn money publishing one story in The New Yorker (I'm sure his book would sell even without that chapter). If the story as you have presented it is true, then Diamond is a major fraud, which is difficult to reconcile with his other works. I wonder how much money the article earned him, compared to writing Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. Do you know?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day I hope the truth comes out, whatever it is. If it turns out that Diamond lied, then that wold seem to present a big problem in relation to his earlier anthropological work, and as a scientist that would sadden me.
Do you happen to know when we can expect to hear from Diamond about the linguistic evidence?
I don't know how much Diamond earned for the one story as yet. At about a dollar a word and considering what is usually paid by magazines for such length I would guess 5 to 7,000 dollars. But the lectures that were immediately advertised by his agent using Wemp's name were $25,000 each. The New Yorker piece promotes the future book that could generate millions more as a best-seller.
ReplyDeleteI think these kind of comment exchanges end up making arguments about causes appear too simplistic.
To boil the whole situation down to --Diamond fabricated the New Yorker story because of money--is incomplete. It is one possible motivation for Diamond. Money was always a future outcome for Diamond and not for Wemp.(Diamond did not tip Daniel. They were both working for World Wildlife Fund at the time).
So there was no motivation for Wemp other than to please Diamond or to make himself feel better by bragging to a famous man.
But are these two end results for Wemp big or good enough for a man to risk his life? (Everyone agrees, and it's right in Diamond's article, that Wemp was and is at risk for publicly naming himself and others as killers). For me this just does not make sense on its face.
The above paired with the fabricated quotes, and the type of errors (Why would Wemp lie that Ombal and Handa are Nipa and live in Nipa?), that no one knows Wemp as a storyteller, his shock when learning he was named as source in the story (they admit he did not know and was not contacted before publication--which is bizarre in itself)and Diamond's complete disinterest in speaking to Wemp after Wemp learned about the publication and asked him multiple times to speak with him on the phone(also bizarre in light of the fact that Diamond said he did not inform Wemp about the New Yorker publication as he claimed he could not find him--after easily finding him in 2006, and our easily finding him in 2008).
I see your point about Diamond's reputation. But who with that high of reputation as a scientist, would ever admit, as Diamond did to Science Magazine, that they only talked to ONE person from only one side of an unpublished war from 13 years ago when memories naturally fade and shade, and yet also expect that what they wrote was accurate?
Given the serious and sensitivity of the content (Diamond naming people he never met or spoke to and accusing them of killing -something he also admits in Science. He said he relied on Wemp's judgement!)--all the craziness here admitted to by Diamond, surly breaches the defense that he seemed so trustworthy and competent before.
Thanks for the exchanges and your openness to other views. Glad too you are going to read the essay.
So much does not make sense in the piece--like, how exactly does one steal 300 pigs in 3 years from enemies at night, as Diamond claimed, when they are valuable assets, squeal and leave footprints that lead to you? The expert on pigs in Papua New Guinea, who was also living in the Magarima area during the 1993 fight, Paul Sillitoe, told me this would be "an impossible plunder."
Even the New Yorker lawyer told me when I asked her, "How exactly does one steal 300 pigs? Where's the skepticism over there?" She answered, "Well, it is a lot of pigs,"
My thanks to Bjorn and Rhonda for this exchange. It may appear that this is a conversation just between the two of you, but this IS the internet. So people are reading.
ReplyDelete