Talk:Wayne Gibson

Death
has twice added to this article a death date of 1 April 2004, latterly with the edit summary "He was my father and I have death certificate as evidence if needed." That clearly does not meet our verifiability standards and I have asked the user to provide published supporting references. However, online searching of the England & Wales, Civil Registration Death Index via Ancestry.com confirms that an Edward William Allen, born 15 December 1942, died in April 2004, and a date of 1 April followed by cremation in Greenwich on 15 April is supported by the Burial and Cremation Index, 1838-2014, again accessed via Ancestry but partly available here. I suggest that in the circumstances we should assume good faith, rather than simply reverting the change and adding a standard template to the user's page - which is what has done, somewhat insensitively in my view. I have added a template to the date in the article, pending a better source becoming available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: The COI template should be used "to alert readers that the article may be biased by a conflict of interest... Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement."  The issue here is not one of neutrality or bias - it is one of finding sources that meet WP's reliability criteria. Those issues are already flagged up in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well he's not neutral is he? He is purporting to be his son and turning an article on a BLP into one on a deceased person (without any evidence). This sort of involvement negates any claim to being neutral.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I say above, there is direct evidence - albeit from a subscription-only site - of Gibson/Allen's death, on the date that his son added. Personally, I think that source is unimpeachably accurate and reliable, but I'm aware that the use of subscription-only sites like that is not ideal in terms of WP guidance on verifiability.  But, in any case, the issue is not one of neutrality, it is one of sourcing.   Adding the template to the article suggests that the article is biased because of that editor's contribution.  It isn't biased - it's imperfectly sourced, which is a different issue and does not justify the template.   His son may not be "neutral" in a personal sense, but that is not relevant - his edits are neutral, and the article is neutral.  As the guidance on using the template states: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As per WP:V - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. But that does not explain, in any way, why you added an inaccurate template.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple - I don't think it is an inaccurate template.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The issues in the article are to do with the sourcing, not with the actions of any editor leading to bias.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he is a major contributor. He has already had at least four attempts ( with several usernames!) over the years at adding this date, all without any verification. One of which you rejected in 2016. Perhaps you can explain why you rejected the 2016 addition and accept the 2017 addition of exactly the same unsourced and very important information on a BLP?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because he's now given an explanation which it is absolutely reasonable to accept in good faith; and because the date is now supported by the independent sources I have cited above. Those sources should be added to the article, with a caveat that improved sources should be found (something I have asked the editor to address), and the misleading template - placed there for the wrong reasons - should be removed.  If it's still a "BLP", by the way, why did you do this?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And your sources for his death pass WP:BLPPRIMARY?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, which is exactly why I haven't added them. But, it would be clearer and more accurate to add them to the article with a  template, than to continue with the incorrect template at the top of the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Gibson
While I am a frequent visitor (and financial contributor) to Wikipedia, I am not a frequent poster of articles, and therefore am unclear what is necessarily needed in respect to evidence in such circumstances. Egghead06 is correct, I have tried to amend the article on several occasions, and forgive me for daring to have more than one username, I’m sure Egghead06 only has the one username for everything in his/her life. But, with every intention of responding to the previous rejections, I simply forgot and other life pressing matters took precedence. The purpose of amending the article was, naturally, to inform those whom have an interest in my father that he has since assed away. I am not trying to “make a person dead” but to be informative of the truth.

I am very grateful for the research undertaken by you Ghmyrtle on my behalf to verify my alteration and for the good faith shown. As stated, the only evidence I can provide is a death certificate which I have, but it sounds that this may not be enough in any event. I also agree and find that Egghead06 has shown a complete lack of sensitivity and respect in this regard, and the comments are somewhat disappointing.

Thank you

Richard Allen Inspector73 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll not dwell too much on my level of sensitivity. I've buried both my parents, I know what it's like and editing an online encyclopedia doesn't really count much compared to those life events. However, as a long term editor of Wikipedia I have evidenced dozens of editors saying "I know this as I am his friend/brother/dad" etc only to be found wanting when verifiable references were asked for. It would be oh so easy to always assume good faith but susprisingly there are folk out there trying to add rubbish to Wikipedia. How can we tell them apart from the good guys? Simple by asking for supporting, verifiable references! Was his death not reported in the press, the musical press, by his music company etc?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the answer to the last question is "no". Though Wayne Gibson is clearly "notable" in Wikipedia terms, he doesn't seem to have had much of a lasting fan base, and after his music career he seems to have retreated into private life quite successfully.  The best way forward for Mr Allen may well be to contact a different site - such as Allmusic, by using the button there marked "Submit corrections" - and persuade them to update their information.  (I don't know what their process is, as I've never tried it.)  Other than that, there are various websites devoted to 1960s beat music, Northern soul, etc., who would welcome contact from a knowledgeable source, and, perhaps, could be persuaded to publish a well-informed biographical article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Gibson
I thank you both for your advice and I will do just that. My father, despite his singing talents, was not a big star and was unlucky in other respects. Inspector73 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)