Talk:Riley Martin/Archives/2017

DOD thread continued
, I'm trying to not fly in hotheaded but it's hard when I'm still not getting any communication. I can't just go off the basis of you saying "wait" as a reason to not include the new source. I've been asking you to provide a more concrete reason why we can't use it. I'm not sure if you're taking my "ignore me" remark in regards to my rudeness to mean flat out ignore any of my comments, but either way it's frustrating.

I'll reiterate again, I'm not needing to gain consensus when new info comes to light. We didn't agree to hold off adding new sources when found, we agreed to leave as is at the time as nothing was really getting accomplished. I didn't readd the Legacy source as per that. Despite still feeling that assuming the sources used us as reference was not a reasonable reason to not include them as you didn't demonstrate that the sources actually did so, I decided to wait until a different source could be found. It may be a weird source to use, but it provides us with the information we need. The book is specifically catered to cataloging obituaries, and it's a book that's been utilized numerous times before, sometimes even being the first mention of someone's passing. It's fine to question something, but if you can't prove the suspicion to be true, then we can't just keep holding off adding his death date that's being cited by plenty of people.

For all we knew the original IP who slotted December 22 onto the page was a friend/family member who didn't know to source that. But thinking that is me assuming, and we can't use assumptions we can't prove to fuel a stance. So please respond. If you have solid proof to bolster your stance, I'll accept it, but if not we can't keep holding off adding info. Rusted AutoParts 03:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's been a week. It seems you have taken to ignoring me flat out. Fair enough. But I'm readding the sourced date. This isn't the Legacy source, so it doesn't not pertain to our prior discussion months ago. There was no agreement to block any new sources from being used. I do not need a consensus as, like there being no agreement to block new sources, there was no mention that consensus was needed either.
 * It's all down to you now. To provide sufficient evidence to disprove the date of December 22 as well as prove the source saying December 22 derived from Wikipedia. I've asked you for this for months now, and you've yet to produce it. If we cannot fully determine that this date was Wikipedia generated, there is no viable reason to withhold the information being added outside of assumption. We can't operate on assumptions. We need fullproof evidence to back them. A news site publishing an article about his death 21 hours after the date first appeared here is not fullproof evidence. In the same way I can't assume that the date was added by family/friends as I have no way of proving so, you can't assume the source automatically read Wikipedia and garnished the date from there.
 * I'll ask you to come here first before you do anything else in regards to this matter once I reinstate the info. If you can come back here and lay out evidence, I'll be more inclined to see your POV. But aside from that, it's still stands as an unverified assumption, and thus cannot be used as reason to keep this info from being added. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 05:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Rusted AutoParts: "ignore me. I'm a prick, I have a problem with my temper." I did as you requested. Per WP:CYCLE, I am reverting your addition of an unreliable DOD and wish the discussion to be moderated by a third party, as your attitude and insults, listed above, overshadowed my attempts to have a reasonable discussion with you. The source you've added is unreliable and I'm not debating you; that has proved fruitless. Rockypedia (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I had clearly stated in one of my earlier comments I meant to ignore me in regards to my temperament, not in regards to the conversation itself. And I find it very insulting that you blazingly ignored my request to not revert. I figured you wouldn't stoop to my level of responding by reverting before discussing as you seemed to be above that, unlike me. I had waited a whole week for you to respond, and you didn't. In normal circumstances that would mean the info that wasn't proven incorrect is reinserted. Guess this doesn't apply this time. You state it's unreliable, and yet you continue to refuse to provide the sufficient evidence to support you. I find this highly unfair as its always expected of me to provide sufficient evidence whenever I need to prove something true, yet somehow it's fine for others to just not. I think you take my way of discussing too personally or you just have no proof to bolster your stance, now you're just blocking the information because you don't want to be wrong. It's not proved fruitless to debate me at all, I asked you three very simple questions starting from over six months ago near enough.

1) prove December 22 to not be the date of death.

2) Prove Legacy used the New York Daily News as their source for their obituary

3) Prove the New York Daily News viewed Wikipedia and obtained the death date from there.

I then asked when you objected to this new source to prove its unreliability. None of this you've have done because you chronically use me as an excuse to not do so. So I guess I'll just state this more clearly: ignore my behaviour, and please answer those questions. I've been waiting for you to answer that for six months. I find it incredibly rude you keep not answering. Rusted AutoParts 14:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:CYCLE is also an essay, not a policy. So in essence you ignored three very clear requests to not revert the edit. This behaviour method of yours where you state it's not reliable than not prove so is what got me angry to begin with. You didn't give any evidence to support your assumption and continually did not do so. And then expected me to go along with it without anything resembling proof. You'd think after awhile of constantly asking one would answer, considering we're having a discussion about it, one you seem to really not want to continue with. For what it's worth I apologize for my shittiness, it wasn't called for, it didn't help things and has clearly made this more difficult than it should have. But please, I'd really like to get something that illustrates your view outside of your assumption it was Wiki generated. Rusted AutoParts 14:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it to a third party. Rockypedia (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Third party doesn't have the answers I seek. Only you do. You're the one questioning the sources validity, I'd ask you please provide proof to support that. It's all I really wanted to know since day one. I want to resolve this, will you please converse with me? Rusted AutoParts 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We both just want to make sure accurate information is being added to the page. You're saying the date's not accurate, ok. Offer more evidence for that. If not for me, for a third party that might see this. I'm not wanting to discuss this with one, I'm wanting to discuss it with you. It's your doubt of the information that's the reason the discussion started. I just want something more substantial than news sources using it a day after it showed up on Wikipedia. I've apologized for my conduct, and I don't expect to be forgiven for it, but I least want to conclude this discussion on a better note than how it began. I want to conclude it either way because I refuse to leave the discussion as is. I'm practically begging at this point. Please respond. Rusted AutoParts 14:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The haggling on this has become ridiculous. The date of death has been clearly established as Dec. 22, 2015, as verified in new links posted today. If the reverts continue, an administrator should be brought in to the discussion. O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "haggling" was settled to the satisfaction of both parties. Your sources suffer from the same deficiencies that were discussed extensively above. If you have a copy of the actual death certificate, I'd like to see it. Nothing would make me happier than to definitively establish a DOD. Until definitive evidence is provided, however, we will err on the side of caution, which in this case means not contributing to the further spread of a fake death date that was initially put forth by an anon IP with no source. Rockypedia (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources provided were the same ones I cited. Both were published after an anonymous IP edit listed December 22 unsourced. Rockypedia followed up with a source that used December 22 and the publisher couldn't say where they got the date from. They likely inferenced the date from the sentence "few days before Christmas". So we cannot use those sources because the origin of that information is undetermined. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable. I will ask a third party to step in to help decide. O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are not reliable. The New York Daily News itself published 2 different dates of death in two different articles, so there's no way you can call that source reliable. In addition, the first article that used the "December 22" date was published hours after an anon IP added that date to this page with no attribution. That, in turn, happened hours after a phone caller named E-ron called into the Howard Stern Show to announce Riley had died "a few days before Christmas." Last I checked, a pseudonym-using caller into a radio show doesn't count as a reliable source. Legacy didn't publish that date until January 6th as well, and they describe their own database as being pulled from newspapers; ie they're just an aggregator that collects data, and it seems very likely they got their data on Martin from the NYDN article. I even contacted the NYDN during the previous discussion to ask where they got their information from; they stated they didn't know, and the writeup was done by an intern that no longer worked there, and they wouldn't give me the intern's name.
 * Trust me, I want to see a definitive date put here, but as with many deaths, we don't have one that's reliably sourced, and I don't like the idea of perpetuating a made-up WP:OR date through citogenesis, because this site gets enough flak for being unreliable as it is. I refuse to add to that. That's my reason for erring on the side of caution here. December 2015 is fine; what's your problem with leaving that there? Think about that for a second. What difference does it make to you if there's no numeral after the month? It's correct, and it's not based on a guess - which December 22 is. Rockypedia (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)