Jump to content

Talk:John Holt (singer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Wish I knew the years and more info about "Man Next Door." Written by Holt, but dunno if it was a Paragons song or solo for him. Redone by many including Dr Alimantado (Winston Thompson) as "Poison Flour," the UK chick punk band the Slits, and more recently by Horace Andy with Massive Attack. 82.95.194.147 (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death date

[edit]

These hopefully explain things: "The reggae star passed away in the early hours of Monday morning (Oct 20), aged 69" - The Voice online, "Holt died Monday morning (England time) from cancer" - Jamaica Observer. While it was still Sunday Jamaican time, it was Monday morning in London where he died. Clear enough? --Michig (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent reports that he died at 2:40am local time in London on the 19th. The Guardian also reports the 19th. The BBC also reports that he died on Sunday 19th. Also the Birmingham Mail. And Rolling Stone. These news reports were all published on the 20th. Clearly, the correct date of death is the 19th. Keri (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are early news items that state that he died on the 19th (probably based on the report from the Jamaica Observer, where it was still the 19th when he died), but later ones, including the Observer itself, state early hours of Monday UK time as time of death. The later ones are more likely to be correct. The Rolling Stone article states that he was both 67 and 69 at the time of death, which illustrates why we should look at a wide range of sources. --Michig (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you're not interested in discussing while youre version of the facts is reflected in the article, but here's what happened. John Holt died on 20 October at 2:40am UK time. This was 8:40pm Jamaican time. The news of his death broke on the Jamaica Observer website after 10pm (see here - "news of Holt's death broke on Sunday night") - it was Sunday 19th in Jamaica, but was Monday 20th in London. --Michig (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense; I just find it strange that the newspapers then used the phrase "Sunday morning" in their reports/obits. edit: Of course, I have no objection to your changing the date to the 20th. Keri (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I despair. This has now been reverted again. Why are so many editors unable to edit cooperatively and achieve consensus? I give up on this article. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have reliable sources giving both dates and as wikipedia cannot choose between them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources should not be removed, especially by users who cannot even be bothered to participate here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no idea why you find it necessary to make it so personal and lash out at me, but let me break this down to you as if I would to a five year old: The Jamaica Observer was the first to break the news. The article was published October 19. Now, according to this calendar, the 19th was a Sunday. Now, the most important piece is that Holt's agent for the past 8 years confirmed the death, with the information Holt's nephew gave him, that being "John died at 2:40 am English time".
Now, I'm no scientist, considering time travel doesn't exist and this article was published at 11:10 PM on Sunday, October 19, 2014, then it is virtually impossible for Holt's death to have occurred on October 20, 2014. Rusted AutoParts 18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone, BBC, Metro, Huffington Post, GQ, News One, ContactMusic, The Independent, Birmingham Mail, Royal Gazette, The Boom Box, Digital Spy and The Guardian all attribute the death to October 19. All others stating 20th are magazine tabloids. Even then, some of those magazine tabloids attribute to the 19th. Daily Mail, Clash Magazine and The Daily Mirror, for example. Rusted AutoParts 19:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though, let's be fair and round up who said the 20th: The Voice and Stabroek News. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You don't understand how it can be the 19th in one country and the 20th in another at the same time? The news broke with a brief piece on the Jamaica Observer website late in the evening on the 19th (in Jamaica). At 11:10pm in Jamaica on the 19th it was already 05:10am in London on the 20th - two and a half hours after 2:40am. The Observer piece is clearly what a lot of other sources picked up on and assumed the death took place at 2:40 am on the 19th in London. It seems extremely unlikely that he would have died at that time (which would have been 8:40pm on the 18th in Jamaica) and the news only to have filtered out 26 and half hours later. The Jamaica Observer has itself stated the 20th in subsequent related news items. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but what I believe is that Holt died in the early morning of the 19th, the family took time to prep a news statement, reported it to the Observer, then the Observer needed to write, edit and upload an article, which can take a few hours to upload, officially debuting online at 11:10 PM. And I know how times are different. I lived in England. Rusted AutoParts 19:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't believe outlets like Rolling Stone and the BBC would print something inaccurate, unless they were to amend it later, which they haven't. Compared to the two sources I found online stating the 20th, it seems like an open and shut case: John Holt died Sunday, October 19, 2014. Rusted AutoParts 19:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The initial news story was a very late in the day and very brief 'breaking news' item. The Observer would have put out something far more substantial if they had spent that much time on it. Most reports from the 20th were simply reporting on the Observer news item. You may think it's an open and shut case but five minutes ago you didn't understand how a death in London early on the 20th could possibly be reported in Jamaica late on the 19th. --Michig (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And on the note about The Jamaica Observer, the original article was written by Brian Bonitto. The other by Richard Johnson. There could easily been a miscommunication in info being delivered to two different writers on the same website, seeing as by the looks of it, a lot of them don't live in the Jamaica area. Richard Hugh Blackford wrote this one, and he lives in Florida. And seriously, you and SqueakBox seem oddly focused on making snide jabs. I know about time zones, I'm not stupid like you seem to think. Rusted AutoParts 19:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You stated "it is virtually impossible for Holt's death to have occurred on October 20, 2014" then it was explained to you that it was not impossible, or even particularly unlikely - you were certain about something that proved to be wrong. I didn't call you stupid, I just pointed out that your reasoning was incorrect. The fact is the story broke at a time when it was 5:10 am on the 20th in London after Holt's manager contacted the Jamaica Observer, not after any formal press release by the family or anyone else. The initial report was based on that initial contact and contained little detail beyond the fact that he had died at 2:40am in London. Holt was still a huge star in Jamaica - they wouldn't have sat on a story like that and I doubt that posting news stories at 11:10pm Jamaican time is something the Jamaica Observer routinely does. Personally I'm happy to go with consensus, and while I think it's highly likely that he died on the 20th we can't be certain whether he died on the 19th or the 20th in London - it's just a shame that other editors choose to revert first and discuss later, or not at all. --Michig (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're assuming that the family wouldn't want time to grieve before telling the world about his passing? That they wouldn't take time to collect themselves, prepare something to say, then report it? News like this isn't something that can always be immediate. It took the family of Elizabeth Norment a few weeks to announce her death. It's easy for media to get confused. But seeing as a majority of major outlets say 19th (BBC, Rolling Stone) and a very small collection say 20th (The Voice, Stabroek), it's fair to say the official death is October 19th. The Voice and Stabroek aren't exactly what I'd use as a reliable source anyway. And you and SqueakBox seem to feel people are against you. Constantly throwing a jab like "it's sad they choose to revert first" is unfair, as I (not sure about others) wasn't aware this was a issue strong enough to be discussed. We have small time outlets and semi unreliable sources saying the 20th. We have strong, very reliable sources saying the 19th. Which would you think the average editor would use? Rusted AutoParts 14:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything, I think it was you who assumed that they would have spent a day preparing a press release even though there was no press release. It's a bit odd to start by stating that media can get confused then going on to be certain that those that state the 19th are correct - the same Rolling Stone article stated the has was both 67 and 69 when he died - does that strike you as a source that can be relied on to have the correct date? The publication that first broke the story, and which most of the others used as a source, has since stated the 20th. It isn't a jab it's a fact - some editors in the past week have altered the death date without discussing here first when there was already a discussion taking place on that very issue. That's a shame. Move on. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea when he died. All I ever do on Wiki is go with reliable sources and on balance they show the 19th. I agree that some show the 20th and until a definite reference is found I believe that's what we should show (ie both). We also have some doubt as to his year of birth. Some say 1945 other 1947. Some refs say "Holts dies aged 67" other "69". This is also not clear as to any definitive answer.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Rusted AutoParts, you need to stop being patronizing, claiming I need explaining to like I am a five year old. That is called non-collaborative editing. You are obviously not an editor willing to co-operate with other editors and I dont see how I for one can work with you on this issue given your comments, either here or at deaths in 2014 where you perhaps have ownership issues, to compound the problem. Egghead, if we have different reliable sources we cannot just go on a balance of reliable sources, and I see you can see this. There is nothing wrong with us not knowing, what is harmful is pretending we know when we dont. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it doesn't mean that we don't have reliable evidence backing up enough to put it in. We have an abundance of reliable sources that state 19th. The few that don't could be scrutinized, or mistaken. We aren't pretending anything, we're going by what's stated. The BBC, a longtime reliable source, says 19. Rolling Stone, another reliable source, says 19. Yesterday I brought forth 16' sources stating an October 19 death. I found 2 that said the 20th. I'd be more than delighted to see anymore sources on side of the 20th. The thing is, you are claiming that I'm providing my own original research. I'm going by what many major (and once again, reliable) sources are telling us. As far as I see it, you read a few questionable source and then provided your own original research. Rusted AutoParts 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually saying wikipedia does not know is not original research. How did you work that one out? What precsiely is the original research I am being accused of. The sources that say the 20th dont seem any less reliable to me than those which say 19th. So I would have thought for the moment we should stay with not knowing. There is nothing wrong with us not knowing something based on contradictory but verifiable sources. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'm going to repost my response that you deleted off your talk page, which included bits that are relevant here too: Rusted AutoParts 23:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be the touchiest person I've ever encountered. You seem to have this idea that I'm bullying you, which I'm not. A discussion about a man's passing has devolved into an "experienced editor" pretty much sticking his fingers into his ears and shouting "LALALA YOU'RE PICKING ON ME GO AWAY LALALA" each time I attempt to steer the discussion back on topic. If you're an "experienced editor", honestly you're a poor example of one, as you can't seem to engage in a discussion without getting offended for no reason. You came off as being condescending in your first reply, so I responded in kind. I apologize, as it rubbed me the wrong way. But since then you've used that as your main talking point, and won't provide the reliable sources that would legitimize your claim. I can't see your point until you show me your reason why. I ask you to be civil as you've said I'm on an arrogant high horse, then used unnecessary foul language to support a belief that's false (me thinking you're an imbecile). I don't think that, I don't think you're five, but in all honestly you're ACTING like you are. Now, can we please get back on topic? Rusted AutoParts 23:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, you're using a maximum of four sources on your stance that the 20th is a possible DOD. Those sources, compared to the likes of the BBC and Guardian, whom are notorious for fact checking, as User:WWGB has stated over at Deaths in 2014. The BBC and Guardian would never report anything incorrect, and if so would submit a rephrasal, or even a retraction of the story. I've asked other editors to put forth their two cents here as I've said all I have to say, so please, don't lash out or get standoffish with them. Rusted AutoParts 02:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date in which country?

[edit]

On a related note, I have looked for guidance on occasions such as this whether we should go with the date as it was in the country where a person died or the date as it was in their place of residence/country of nationality or the date in their place of birth (for consistency), but didn't find anything. If, for example, an American citizen travelled to Japan and died at 3 in the morning Japanese time, would we go with the date in Japan or the day before, which it would still have been back in the US? Whatever the facts of Holt's death the date was different in Jamaica and the UK at that time. --Michig (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the role of some countries as guardians of the world, their applicable time zone is only applicable in their countries. If you die at 3am on 19 October in London then you died on 19 October, regardless of your citizenship.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a documented guideline anywhere on this? I'm not asking for opinions and debate here - this has surely come up before. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about a guideline of commonsense?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. You're excelling yourself here. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Time zones may be the only applicable guideline here. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How could it be anything else? If an event happened in London to an American citizen, how would we know which time zone in American was applicable? The date is always the date in the country where the event happened.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the we have a guideline covering this issue suggests to me that the question was worth asking. Thanks for your help. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we are simply reflecting what is in the world, newspapers, states, they all follow this principle. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Holt (singer). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Holt (singer). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Holt_(singer)&oldid=1200005489"