Talk:Mark Hollis

message: The note by the footnote advises us to "search for 'retired'". How? There's no search option on that site, and the word doesn't appear on the front page. We need a better reference than that, or at least a more precise one. 86.136.255.179 04:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the link. --Kvaks 07:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired? 

message: This page has been cut down more than is reasonable for an artist of this caliber. He may have quit a long time ago but he will always be recognized as one of the greatest vocalists and all-round songwriters in history.
The Talk Talk section is ridiculously short.
What's going on?
----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.169.35 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mark Hollis (musician). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palyniam.co.uk/content.php?page=interview-mark
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Hollis (musician). 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/20160427072152/http://www.withinwithout.dk/IntSUBAUDIO.html to http://www.withinwithout.dk/IntSUBAUDIO.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where did you get his death date from? The first mention I saw that he had died was on 24 February. https://twitter.com/jordmarley/status/1099779602363359235 Dorglorg (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting.  The date was left out of the article for some time as being uncertain - see the thread above - until it was noted that reliable sources like The Guardian and NME - and subsequently other sources - were stating the 25th.  They could be wrong, of course, but in my view we publish what reliable sources say until they are corrected.  Twitter isn't usually considered a reliable source, but in this case it may have been right.   What do other editors like  think?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

text: At the moment, I think if the date is removed, it will simply be added back in, as it is given in reliable published sources.  If and when those sources give a different date (or no specific date), we should change it in the article.  But I'm open to other opinions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I came across the same Jordmarley tweet which backed up with a family photograph of Mark Hollis back in 1998 does seem justifiable for his date of death being 24th.  If these matters are discussed amongst family of a family member passign then these days it is likely that the story will break in these ways.Slimby63 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic problem is that Twitter is not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, and those news sites that have reported 25 February are.  But perhaps we could try something like:  "Reports of his death first emerged on 24 February, and were confirmed by his former manager on 26 February..."  etc. - and take the specific date out of the lead and infobox.  Of course, it could have occurred before 24 Feb.  The tweet saying "just heard that Mark Hollis passed away today" could mean either that they heard "today", or that he died "today".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree on this. The only social media I cite is an official account (in Twitter's case, a blue checkmark). If we have sources that state 25th, we should use them, until there are cites to co-oberate 24th. Rusted AutoParts 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I've also sent messages to the NME and Guardian, asking them to check their sources on the date of death.  No response so far.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we are not here to determine the truth. The policy WP:VER states: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I think the only thing we need to do is to provide an overview of dates mentioned by the various sources. I propose something along the lines of: "While 25 (with refs) and 24 February (with refs) have been reported as Hollis' death date, (ref) reported it to have occured on 18 February." Mark in wiki (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, we should provide the reader with an account as accurate as possible. If a date is disputed, we shouldn't display the disputed date just because two other sources reported it first. I find the note solution acceptable, but outside the note we should only put "February 2019" as the death date. This is, of course, unless we find a definite answer through sources still to be published. Lordtobi (✉) 09:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

text: (e/c) This is why I think it is best simply to state "February 2019", without a date, until we see some definite confirmation.  We know it was certainly not 25th.  The "Death" section reports what we do know.  I've messaged Sebastian Zabel at Rolling Stone to see if he can provide any information on why he gave 18th in his article, and will report back if I hear anything.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

text: More than a year later, I still think this needs to be addressed. The infobox and lead show "25 February 2019" as the death date, while the body reads "It was first reported on social media on 24 February 2019, ...". The tweet is ambiguous, but clearly older than the reported death date. We also have two reliable sources (as I pointed out above) mentioning an 18 February death date, outweighing NME. I simplified the mentions to "February 2019" in the article for now, but we should see whether the 18 February date should be used. IceWelder [✉] 00:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A source called "GreyPower Deceased Data", run by Wilmington Millennium, gives 24 February 2019.  It's used by Ancestry.com (subscription-only access here), but I'm far from convinced it should be treated as accurate, let alone as a reliable source.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm confident that 24 February is correct, both from the Companies House source and (after some further thought) the Wilmington Millennium source.  Their site says that they have "the UK's leading deceased data files used for compliance, mortality fraud and identity theft prevention", and I'm reasonably confident that they wouldn't be able to claim that without good reason.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Date