Talk:Ronnie Hazlehurst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ronnie Hazlehurst article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
  • I have reformated the page to make it easier to follow the SClub7 debate, please do not revert. Please try and keep all debate together! SouthernElectric 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Comment

The list of themes Ronnie has written speaks for itself. These tunes are embedded in the psyche of every British person over the age of 30. The mans an unsung genius! If he was some obscure itailian movie theme writer everyone would falling over themselves to praise him. There should be more info on this page! Supermatch Game Supermatch Game....Supermatch Game02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obituaries within External links

I've actually removed the Obituaries from the External links section. I normally do this, as I believe that there is no reason to have them there. All notable people have obituaries and I feel its superfluous to have them as External links. All are linked as they are references. Is this alright with everyone?--UpDown 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are already cited then there really isn't any point in listing them again IMO, that would go for any subject or article. (SouthernElectric 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))


[edit] The SClub 7 Hoax

Please, please, please don't keep adding the dubious "fact" that he co-wrote "Reach" by S Club 7. He didn't. All of the obituaries referencing this sourced their information from Wikipedia, so don't think because they say it makes it true- because it isn't. James2001 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, whilst I'm leaning to your side of the argument the problem is that there are now citations (probably incorrect but citations never the less) that says he did, so unless you can cite proof he didn't write the song could you not reach a compromise to the effect of a short sentence stating that there are un-cited rumors etc. etc.... ? (SouthernElectric 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
James2001, where is your cite that the obituaries copied it from Wikipedia. Seems a very odd things for these papers to do.--UpDown 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Find me some proof he DID write it then. He's certainly not listed in the song's writing credits. It had never been claimed anywhere until someone added it to Wikipedia last week.
Four indepedent and reliable sources. I can't honestly believe they all copied from Wikipedia, as most newspapers would not think of Wikipedia is a reliable source (especially how this page looked, and still does look). --UpDown 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, can you find any proof whatsoever, that pre-dates the entry being added to Wikipedia which states he wrote the song? Because I can find none. None whatsoever. I (embarrasingly) own a copy of the single, and Ronnie's name is mentioned nowhere.James2001 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Believe it, User:UpDown. They shouldn't, but they do. If you want to see something equally absurd, take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/15/tom_melly_wikipedia_comment/ and then look at the references on George Melly (ref number 5 in particular). Tomandlu 10:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaps!
UpDown; It's common knowledge within the media that Wikipedia is used to obtain info, it was even admitted to in an interview last week were a presenter cited the very problem James2001 is complaining about. The problem is that copywriters just don't have the time to research their sources anymore in this 24/7 'rolling news' age, if one media source runs with it then it's likely others will.

James; This is becoming a citation war, there are works that (for example) Paul McCartney had involvement with but are un-credited to him, I think you need to work to-wards a compromise if this isn't going to get into a revert war or similar.
(SouthernElectric 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I will do more research into this later. In the meantime I would ask James2001 to leave the verifiable version of the page intact. 3 sources support my side of the argument, none his. Can we leave the page as it is until a conclusion on this is decided on this page. We do not need an edit war!--UpDown 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added sources to prove that Cathy Dennis and Andrew Todd are the writers. I think it's fairly clear from the rogue edit being made only a few days ago that Hazelburst had nothing to do with the song. Davidbod 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources. Due to these sources, which of course I trust, I believe the whole thing can be excluded from Wikipedia article. It is not notable, and we also have no evidence (however likely) it was copied from Wikipedia. I think it is a far better idea to not mention it at all. If it is ever added again we can then remove it.--UpDown 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I vote that we should keep a note of it on the article, otherwise we're going to see it repeated as a "fact" forever. Anyone else? Davidbod 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Can I just remind people of the Three-revert rule.... If there are no citations to the effect that he did contribute then there really should be no mention of the song, As for the apparent errors in the media, again there doesn't seem to be any facts or citations that the media got the information here - it's possible that the 'rouge' editor got their information from the same place as the media. IMO leave this off the article page for now. (SouthernElectric 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It's clearly not true, but it's now been in several reliable and verifiable sources, and under Wikipedia rules it makes no difference whether it's true or not. -88.110.106.100 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But nor is there a rule that says every 'fact' needs to be recorded, anyway, unless someone can cite proof that he did contribute and not just reports he did then surely it's just recording rumor? Perhaps we should all wait a week or two on this, just to see if any corrections need to be printed...(SouthernElectric 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Here is a definitive source for the composers of "Reach" by S Club 7. Sourced from EMI Music publising and backed up by MCPS, (via www.theregister.co.uk) A couple of seconds in Google takes you to a real, primary source, EMI Publishing, where the correct credit for 'Reach' is hidden in plain view: Cathy Dennis and Andrew Todd. The MCPS confirmed to us that the royalties are split 50:50 between the two composers. [1] 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, but we're now linking to obituaries that we now know are wrong. Wouldn't it be best to include a note to clear things up? Davidbod 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can cite/prove that these obituaries are wrong, doing so in an encyclopedic way, then do so, the problem before was that rumor was contesting here-say. A warning is not encyclopedic, citing legend or fact could be. (SouthernElectric 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Yes, but we not responsible for external links. We link to IMDb, TV.com etc etc, they are not always right. --UpDown 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Err if the MCPS get these things wrong than there are going to be a lot of unhappy musicians and singers! If the MCPS can be cited via a definite document the that should be OK to prove that Ronnie wasn't taking any royalties although it does not prove one way or the other that he had no involvement in the song. (SouthernElectric 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
To be honest I don't really understand what you talking about and how it relates to my comment! All I was saying if that there is no need to say something isn't true. We are not responsible for the content of external links. If Hazlehurst didn't write the S Club 7 song, we don't mention it in article. Just because 3 other obituaries did doesn't mean we need to mention it. --UpDown 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I thought you were questioning the notability of a MCPS document. As for your comment above, I agree - at the moment, but if the rumors become 'urban legend' then this is a place (IMO) were that legend can be recorded and the record put straight. (SouthernElectric 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Let's not be nitwits here. A) It's not going into the article. B) There will, however, be a commented-out note explaining the situation. DS 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats good, I like the commented-out note.--UpDown 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was on Newswatch on BBC news 24 this morning about the hoax, and the BBC had cited an anoyomous edit from Wikipedia on it's news story! Lugnuts 08:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The Times printed a retraction yesterday. --UpDown 07:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It probably should be mentioned, actually;

I think the Reach debacle should be mentioned in the article. Yes, it's something of a self-reference, but given that it was mentioned in The Register and - as mentioned above - on BBC Newswatch, surely that makes it notable in itself, not just to us Wikipedians. Newswatch, at least, is a solid and reliable source. Why shouldn't the error be mentioned, other than to avoid making Wikipedia look a bit silly, which is not a good reason? 86.132.138.205 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No it should not be mentioned, and why;

It's tangentially related to the life of Ronnie Hazlehurst, yes. However, given the relatively little material on that for which the subject is notable (ie. decades of being a composer of well-known television themes etc), a whole paragraph on the cock-ups of Wikipedia editors and newspaper researchers would give undue weight to what is a minor blip in the chap's life (and death). --Scathlock 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If every hoax was mentioned, Wikipedia would be full of nothing else, if this 'debacle' is a notable it's more to do with the gullibility of the media than anything to do with Ronnie Hazlehurst. If it's to be recorded it should be elsewhere, perhaps within the history of the BBC, recording the facts relating to 'Their year of fakes and hoaxes' which could then be wiki linked back here! Sorry, I know it happened and I know it centered around this article but it doesn't belong here, in this article, it belongs in an article about 'infamous' Wikipedia hoaxes or media history. (SouthernElectric 14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] re On-article warning

Please leave the on-article warning up, the editors warning is still being ignored. It's not doing any harm to 95% of the article, it would be different it it was at the top of the article. (SouthernElectric 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry I didn't discuss here first before removing for second time, I didn't see the comment. However, as I said in the edit history, since we agreed on this page on 3rd Oct. that the S Club bit was needed and the pasted comment was put on, only 1 person has added it. This was reverted and has no been re-added. There is no dispute, there was but its been discussion and settled. --UpDown 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As per below, I've put the commented out warning back in, as there's been atleast one IP editor in. And it made [Have I Got News For You] as well... --RedHillian 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

The latest issue of Private Eye (issue date 12 October) has laugh at the expense the newspapers which reported the SClub7 "fact". I suppose this might lead to an upsurge in people trying to reinsert it - suggest a quick WP:RFPP if it comes back. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats a good idea. Hopefully it won't come to that though (fingers crossed).--UpDown 07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Or just reinstate the on-article template that was removed... 99% of these edits are being made in good faith, they are not vandalism, protecting a page that is not subject to vandalism will look like censorship. The on article warning template gave a heads up to those who wish to make good faith edits but are unaware of the issues. (SouthernElectric 10:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
I don't doubt that most of edits so far were in good faith; however press articles about Wikipedia vandalism have a tendency to encourage copycat vandalism (see also Stephen Colbert), so if there's a sudden upsurge now there's a good chance it will be from Private Eye readers having a laugh (the report clearly stated that the story wasn't true). However, it's not really an issue unless it actually happens - hopefully Private Eye readers are more mature than that. I just saw the article last night and thought I'd drop a note here quickly. Best Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This nonsense has also just been mentioned on Have I Got News For You - by Ian Hislop. However, he was having a go at lazy journalists rather than WP itself, so that's no bad thing. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And we've had one, from [Talk:212.137.53.1]. I've reverted, and put a note on their talkpage. I've also put the note back in. --RedHillian 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

iv just edited the article to include infomation about the hoax, its a fantastic example of why if your going to publish a piece of infomation double check it elseware on the internet. I havn't referenced my bit on the s-club hoax, if somebody could do that it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan and the Troubadours (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just deleted the above edit by User:Tristan and the Troubadours. It was quite NPOV, and badly written. I wasn't aware of the discussion on this talk page when I erased it. I think that the hoax should not be included, it's bollocks, let's not be intimidated by references in popular culture. Gareth E Kegg 22:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For posterity

90.202.68.194 (talk · contribs) added the s-club information on 20 September (so the incorrect information was on the page for under a month). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, should I remove the {{Content}} tag SouthernElectric put in, or is that still under discussion? --h2g2bob (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Leave it for the moment, this issue's just had a fresh burst of publicity in the past day or so. When things quieten down and everyone oves onto the next source of lulz, it can come out again. --RedHillian 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes leave it in, it shows that we are attempting to control the situation locally should we end up needing to ask for a full or semi locking of the article (which is a serious thing to ask for if you think about it, admin should not just place them lightly), as I said before where it's placed is not affecting 95% of the article. (SouthernElectric 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Where to mention the Hoax

I've added a two-sentence mention of the hoax here , which I think is a more logical place for the material to sit - I agree with other editors that it is not relevant material for this article. It could be included as a See Also wikilink, though, maybe, partially as a deterrent to editors wanting to add the material here. What do others think? SP-KP 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all sure about even mentioning it as a 'see also', that might actually give more credence to having a full textual reference, this hoax is not a notable fact of Ronnie Hazlehurst's career or life, this hoax belongs in the article you cite above with a link back here - not an out going link from here. Taking that on board I'm renaming this sub-section. (SouthernElectric 10:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
I think it should be mentioned in the article as a 'see also'. I think it is relevant - if not to the article, then to Wikipedia itself. It amazes me that journalists at esteemed organisations like the Gruaniad, Times and Beeb do not check what they find here further. So I think its kudos to us for how highly they obviously rate us. No? --Kylemew 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's relevant to some things like WP in general, but not to this article. Therefore for the purposes of this article, it's not relevant, and should not be added/linked. --RedHillian 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. ok then. Leave as is?

Where's a good place for stuff about WP in the news etc? There's loads of stuff out there. Private Eye never goes an issue without mentioning us. --Kylemew 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OUTDENTING FOR LAYOUT Well, SP-KP put a link above to History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies, where it's mentioned. But it's not really part of WPs main purview, reporting on itself surely? --RedHillian 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good there, as it is with its pesky bedfellows, in context, rather than confusing the reader on the main article. Gareth E Kegg 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment − Doesn't the fact that nearly every national newspaper published their obituaries for Ronnie Hazlehurst verbatim from Wikipedia demonstrate a certain laziness on behalf of the press - a lack of checking and confirming facts? It demonstrates the importance of Wikipedia and I certainly won't pay attention to obituary sections in the press in future, I'll just refer directly to Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.155.106 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 October 2007