Talk:Bettye Swann

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bettye Swann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419052332/http://www.lasvegascitylife.com:80/articles/2005/03/03/cover_story/cover.txt to http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2005/03/03/cover_story/cover.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419052332/http://www.lasvegascitylife.com:80/articles/2005/03/03/cover_story/cover.txt to http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2005/03/03/cover_story/cover.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see there's an edit war going on with users adding/deleting death information. To be clear, Facebook is full of posts denying that she has actually died, including Kent Records, her family and friends. It appears that the death of a woman in North Carolina by the same name may be responsible for the mix up. As such, it's pretty irresponsible of Soul Tracks to issue a news piece on her alleged death, but the fact that they even speculate as to whether she has really died is enough to keep her in :Category:Living people in my opinion as WP:BLP must be respected. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that she had died was on this page for 26 days - from 27 January until 22 February, unchallenged by anyone (including myself) - so it is likely that others (such as record companies) picked it up from here.  They, and we, obviously should have checked more carefully.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We are blameless. SoulTracks remain to be blamed, as they insist on leaving some kind of "obituary" (they call it "tribute") to her work on their published page, which should have been removed by now. (I myself have asked them to remove it.) I was the main sucker for this inaccuracy, so I apologise for that, but was convinced the previously reliable source would have checked their facts deep as can be. Their future position as a reliable source should really be called into question after this. Ref (chew)(do) 14:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not "blameless".  We failed to pick up an unsourced death claim for 26 days (long before Soul Tracks picked it up).  Could do better.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We rely on reliable sources - we don't go double-checking their work. That's too far into the realms of original research. I have no guilt in this. If SoulTracks got dumped as a reliable source, I wouldn't make that mistake again. Their fault. Ref (chew)(do) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only assume that you are misunderstanding me.  The fact that her death was reported on this page for 26 days was nothing to do with Soul Tracks.  It was unsourced.  It had no source.  Soul Tracks, and the record companies that they used as sources, may well have got the information from Wikipedia.  Soul Tracks was only added as the source after it had already been reported here for 26 days.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So it was "sourced", but by a Facebook link - which is as good as unsourced. We failed to inspect the source link, but were fooled because it appeared to be sourced, given the small print number within squared parenthesis at the end of the subject line. I agree with you on that point. Ref (chew)(do) 23:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  This edit on 27 January was entirely unsourced - not from Facebook, not from Soul Tracks - and remained in place, still unsourced, for 26 days.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denials of death