Talk:Ronnie Hazlehurst

The list of themes Ronnie has written speaks for itself. These tunes are embedded in the psyche of every British person over the age of 30. The mans an unsung genius! If he was some obscure itailian movie theme writer everyone would falling over themselves to praise him. There should be more info on this page! Supermatch Game Supermatch Game....Supermatch Game02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

S Club 7

Please, please, please don't keep adding the dubious "fact" that he co-wrote "Reach" by S Club 7. He didn't. All of the obituaries referencing this sourced their information from Wikipedia, so don't think because they say it makes it true- because it isn't. James2001 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, whilst I'm leaning to your side of the argument the problem is that there are now citations (probably incorrect but citations never the less) that says he did, so unless you can cite proof he didn't write the song could you not reach a compromise to the effect of a short sentence stating that there are un-cited rumors etc. etc.... ? (SouthernElectric 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

James2001, where is your cite that the obituaries copied it from Wikipedia. Seems a very odd things for these papers to do.--UpDown 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me some proof he DID write it then. He's certainly not listed in the song's writing credits. It had never been claimed anywhere until someone added it to Wikipedia last week.

Four indepedent and reliable sources. I can't honestly believe they all copied from Wikipedia, as most newspapers would not think of Wikipedia is a reliable source (especially how this page looked, and still does look). --UpDown 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you find any proof whatsoever, that pre-dates the entry being added to Wikipedia which states he wrote the song? Because I can find none. None whatsoever. I (embarrasingly) own a copy of the single, and Ronnie's name is mentioned nowhere.James2001 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it, User:UpDown. They shouldn't, but they do. If you want to see something equally absurd, take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/15/tom_melly_wikipedia_comment/ and then look at the references on George Melly (ref number 5 in particular). Tomandlu 10:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaps!
UpDown; It's common knowledge within the media that Wikipedia is used to obtain info, it was even admitted to in an interview last week were a presenter cited the very problem James2001 is complaining about. The problem is that copywriters just don't have the time to research their sources anymore in this 24/7 'rolling news' age, if one media source runs with it then it's likely others will.

James; This is becoming a citation war, there are works that (for example) Paul McCartney had involvement with but are un-credited to him, I think you need to work to-wards a compromise if this isn't going to get into a revert war or similar.
(SouthernElectric 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I will do more research into this later. In the meantime I would ask James2001 to leave the verifiable version of the page intact. 3 sources support my side of the argument, none his. Can we leave the page as it is until a conclusion on this is decided on this page. We do not need an edit war!--UpDown 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added sources to prove that Cathy Dennis and Andrew Todd are the writers. I think it's fairly clear from the rogue edit being made only a few days ago that Hazelburst had nothing to do with the song. Davidbod 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Due to these sources, which of course I trust, I believe the whole thing can be excluded from Wikipedia article. It is not notable, and we also have no evidence (however likely) it was copied from Wikipedia. I think it is a far better idea to not mention it at all. If it is ever added again we can then remove it.--UpDown 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I vote that we should keep a note of it on the article, otherwise we're going to see it repeated as a "fact" forever. Anyone else? Davidbod 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just remind people of the Three-revert rule.... If there are no citations to the effect that he did contribute then there really should be no mention of the song, As for the apparent errors in the media, again there doesn't seem to be any facts or citations that the media got the information here - it's possible that the 'rouge' editor got their information from the same place as the media. IMO leave this off the article page for now. (SouthernElectric 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It's clearly not true, but it's now been in several reliable and verifiable sources, and under Wikipedia rules it makes no difference whether it's true or not. -88.110.106.100 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But nor is there a rule that says every 'fact' needs to be recorded, anyway, unless someone can cite proof that he did contribute and not just reports he did then surely it's just recording rumor? Perhaps we should all wait a week or two on this, just to see if any corrections need to be printed...(SouthernElectric 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Here is a definitive source for the composers of "Reach" by S Club 7. Sourced from EMI Music publising and backed up by MCPS, (via www.theregister.co.uk) A couple of seconds in Google takes you to a real, primary source, EMI Publishing, where the correct credit for 'Reach' is hidden in plain view: Cathy Dennis and Andrew Todd. The MCPS confirmed to us that the royalties are split 50:50 between the two composers. [1] 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, but we're now linking to obituaries that we now know are wrong. Wouldn't it be best to include a note to clear things up? Davidbod 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite/prove that these obituaries are wrong, doing so in an encyclopedic way, then do so, the problem before was that rumor was contesting here-say. A warning is not encyclopedic, citing legend or fact could be. (SouthernElectric 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but we not responsible for external links. We link to IMDb, TV.com etc etc, they are not always right. --UpDown 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Err if the MCPS get these things wrong than there are going to be a lot of unhappy musicians and singers! If the MCPS can be cited via a definite document the that should be OK to prove that Ronnie wasn't taking any royalties although it does not prove one way or the other that he had no involvement in the song. (SouthernElectric 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

To be honest I don't really understand what you talking about and how it relates to my comment! All I was saying if that there is no need to say something isn't true. We are not responsible for the content of external links. If Hazlehurst didn't write the S Club 7 song, we don't mention it in article. Just because 3 other obituaries did doesn't mean we need to mention it. --UpDown 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I thought you were questioning the notability of a MCPS document. As for your comment above, I agree - at the moment, but if the rumors become 'urban legend' then this is a place (IMO) were that legend can be recorded and the record put straight. (SouthernElectric 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Let's not be nitwits here. A) It's not going into the article. B) There will, however, be a commented-out note explaining the situation. DS 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats good, I like the commented-out note.--UpDown 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was on Newswatch on BBC news 24 this morning about the hoax, and the BBC had cited an anoyomous edit from Wikipedia on it's news story! Lugnuts 08:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Obituaries within External links

I've actually removed the Obituaries from the External links section. I normally do this, as I believe that there is no reason to have them there. All notable people have obituaries and I feel its superfluous to have them as External links. All are linked as they are references. Is this alright with everyone?--UpDown 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are already cited then there really isn't any point in listing them again IMO, that would go for any subject or article. (SouthernElectric 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It probably should be mentioned, actually

I think the Reach debacle should be mentioned in the article. Yes, it's something of a self-reference, but given that it was mentioned in The Register and - as mentioned above - on BBC Newswatch, surely that makes it notable in itself, not just to us Wikipedians. Newswatch, at least, is a solid and reliable source. Why shouldn't the error be mentioned, other than to avoid making Wikipedia look a bit silly, which is not a good reason? 86.132.138.205 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's tangentially related to the life of Ronnie Hazlehurst, yes. However, given the relatively little material on that for which the subject is notable (ie. decades of being a composer of well-known television television themes etc), a whole paragraph on the cock-ups of Wikipedia editors and newspaper researchers would give undue weight to what is a minor blip in the chap's life (and death). --Scathlock 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)