Talk:Fred Again

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. London This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Pop music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Fred again...jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fred Again's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UK":

• From Stormzy: Peaks in the United Kingdom:
  • For all except noted: "STORMZY | full Official Chart history". Official Charts Company. Archived from the original on 28 February 2017. Retrieved 4 March 2017.
  • For "Scary": "CHART: CLUK Update 10.09.2016 (wk36)". zobbel.de. Archived from the original on 23 September 2016. Retrieved 16 September 2016.
  • For "Hear Dis": "CHART: CLUK Update 30.01.2016 (wk4)". zobbel.de. Archived from the original on 6 August 2016. Retrieved 11 April 2017.
• From Slowthai: "Slowthai | full Official Chart history". Official Charts Company. Archived from the original on 1 June 2019. Retrieved 25 May 2019.
• From Little Mix: "Artists: Little Mix". Official Charts Company. 9 March 2013.
• From Octavian (rapper): "Octavian | full Official Chart history". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
• From M.O: "M.O". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 15 March 2015.
• From Ella Mai: "Ella Mai | full Official Chart history". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
• From FKA Twigs discography: "FKA twigs | full Official Chart History". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
• From Sampha: Sampha peaks in the UK:
  • All except noted: "SAMPHA | full Official Chart history". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  • "The Motion": "DRAKE | full Official Chart history". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fred Again's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GER":

• From Slowthai: "Discographie von Slowthai" (in German). GfK Entertainment charts. Retrieved 21 February 2021.
• From Swedish House Mafia discography: "Discographie von Swedish House Mafia". GfK Entertainment. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
• From FKA Twigs discography: "Discographie von FKA Twigs" (in German). Offizielle Deutsche Charts. Retrieved 19 February 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we comfortable with what is clearly people connected to him now airbrushing his early life and education? Jimjom (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the information that was removed lacked citations. I've added citations to support restoration of most of the scrubbed information in an edit request below. 161.11.160.39 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following to early life and education (this is a restoration of previously removed information, now with citations and amended to remove unverifiable information):

He is the son of Charles Anthony Warneford Gibson and Mary Ann Frances Morgan, members of the British peerage.

Your first source is deprecated. Also, this is block evasion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, Burke's Peerage is not deprecated. Wiki's list of perennial sources describes Burke's Peerage as "considered generally reliable for genealogy". The edition cited is the most recent edition (107th Ed., 2003).

Second, why on earth would this be block evasion? Check my IP, this is my first edit attempt of this page. Just because I'm IP editing instead of using an account does not amount to block evasion--it's not a if I'm using a VPN or a sockpuppet. I have nothing to do with the previous editors, and a simple IP inquiry shows as much. Since this was only a semi-protected page, I could have just used an account to edit. Instead, I sought consensus by making an edit request. Suggesting some malfeasance here is patently absurd. It's starting to appear that Blaze Wolf, the editor who removed the verified information, may be connected to the subject of the page, as was suggested by JimJom on Jan 15, 2023.

Since the information I suggested is accurate, verified, and cites to two reliable sources, I encourage others to weigh in so that consensus for this edit can be achieved. 161.11.160.39 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because I'm IP editing instead of using an account does not amount to block evasion" yes it is. If your account is blocked and you use an IP that's block evasion. Also the first source was showing as deprecated for me initially but it looks like that may have been a bug. "It's starting to appear that Blaze Wolf, the editor who removed the verified information, may be connected to the subject of the page" don't pull this BS on me. If I were connected i would declare it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

""Just because I'm IP editing instead of using an account does not amount to block evasion" yes it is. If your account is blocked and you use an IP that's block evasion"

- No, it would only be block evasion if I were the same person whose account was blocked. I am not. Again, run a CheckUser search, and that will be evident.

""It's starting to appear that Blaze Wolf, the editor who removed the verified information, may be connected to the subject of the page" don't pull this BS on me. If I were connected i would declare it."

- I didn't suggest this, previous user Jimjom did. I only suggested that it appears credible, given your unwillingness to restore the deleted information despite the fact that you've admitted your claims of deprecation were false. 161.11.160.39 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a bug. The link has been changed from thepeerage.com which is self-published but references Burke's Peerage to burkespeerage.com. Trignis (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, run a CheckUser search, and that will be evident." I can't do that. Not only am I not a check user but that also goes against checkuser policy. I'm only guessing that you are a sock because the editor who was blocked stated they had sources now and then you pop up. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Wolf: "I'm only guessing that you are a sock" -- spurious accusations have no place in a conversation about valid cited content. I imagine you'd know that since you took such offense to being accused of having connections to the subject of the page. Also, it doesn't go against CheckUser policy, it's exactly what it's used for. The wikimedia meta page for the policy reads as follows: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project" [emphasis added]. You're accusing me of sockpuppetry, so I suggest you make a Steward/CheckUser request. Again, I'm not the user who made the initial edits, the information in question went viral the other day, and I found it here like everyone else. The only difference is that when I saw the page had been scrubbed, I went looking to verify whether the scrubbed information was correct. It was, and should accordingly be restored.

And Trignis: now that the url in the citation has been corrected -- no longer linking thepeerage, now linking the online version of Burke's Peerage (the hardcopy citation was always a valid citation to Burkes, but the url initially linked to thepeerage by mistake) -- there should be no remaining issue about the validity of the citation, or the information cited. Consensus should dictate that the information is restored. Subtleache (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and at your suggestion, Blaze Wolf, I made myself an account, so my future edits won't be accused of sockpuppetry. Probably about time. Subtleache (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't check the original site, but since I can't prove it, there isn't really anything I can do about it except to ask you not to cite sources you didn't read. Trignis (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reason would I have not to check the original site? Burke's Peerage offers a free search function that shows images of the original pages, which is how I verified the information in the hardcopy cite that I found. Search for Gibson using that search function, and after some tedium, you arrive at a screen grab of the paywalled page (and that page url is the url I added). I just copied the wrong url initially; I never claimed to not have used thepeerage to arrive at Burke's, but the relevant citation is Burke's, not thepeerage--which as you mention, does itself provide a citation to Burke's.

Your sarcasm aside, I'd sincerely ask you to follow citation trails for more than 2 minutes before accusing the citer of not having read them or attempting thorough research. I honestly don't understand why this issue is even controversial at this point. Subtleache (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What name did you search for? A search for "Gibson" returns result 151 on page 2981 and result 152 on page 3059 (except for the first few ones, the results are sorted by page). Trignis (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you already replied that you searched for Gibson. In this case: No, you didn't. Trignis (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is really off-putting, and inappropriate in this forum.

Nonetheless, I'd urge you to be a bit more thorough in your research. The search was indeed Gibson. If you keep going past the first couple of hundred results, you'll find the indices. Within those results, both of the Gibsons referenced in the information proposed for restoration appear (Charles Anthony Warneford Gibson and Frederick John Phillip Gibson, the subject here -- as well as the siblings referenced on the thepeerage site). Both entries point to page 3012, the cited page. Searches for O'Neill and Morgan reveal the same, respectively.

After establishing this, it was a question of finding page 3012. On the initial Gibson search, you'll find the entry pointing to page 3148 (which you may have skipped, since it looks like you got to result 152 and went no further). This entry has all of the family members referenced in the indices pointing page 3012. As it turns out, the search function catalogs pages with a 136 page error margin, but stores the images the pages themselves correctly (I'll save you the time of accusing me of malfeasance here, and just say, I poked around for an hour or so to find other page results that showed printed page numbers). So yes, I found page 3012, listed on the search as 3148, but stored on the site with the url corresponding to page 3012. I read the cited page, and verified the lineage discussed. Since you're so eager to verify that I'm honest, though unwilling to do the work yourself, see the screen grab here: [1]https://imgur.com/a/EF2IH9H Subtleache (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd suggest adding a note on the search in the citation to make it easier to verify. The first name "Charles" and the great-grandparents are missing in the preview. How did you verify these parts? Trignis (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be better to cite the page from the search results, since combining multiple pieces of information can be considered original research. Trignis (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything against citing the pages from the search results, per se, but it seems less accurate, since the actual source pages are perfectly available. Also, how would I add a note on the search within the citation? I've never done that, but I'm not against it, just don't know quite what you mean. Subtleache (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- "Charles" seemed like a reasonable inference in context, since there were no other "___ Anthony Warneford Gibsons" in the index, and the index for Charles Anthony Warneford Gibson also pointed to p.3012.

- The grandparents involved a similarly tedious processes.

(a) Page 3012 is part of the O'Neill section of the book, so I dug through the O'Neill search results, and pieced together a few more sections of page 3012 that allowed me to verify the great-grandfather O'Neill. (additional screen grabs linked here)

(b) Grabs of page 4124 can also be found using essentially the methods I've described herein. Suffice to say, I did find that page, ultimately by using the name Rothermere, which was Ann's name as a Countess while married to O'Neill. (screengrab here)

- I suppose all of this might have been avoided by just paying for temporary access to the site, but the price is a little steep for my blood, and ultimately that wouldn't be verifiable for others without access. This is all despite the facts that: (a) proof of reading the full text of a source is not explicitly required by wiki policy, only that the source is verifiable and reliable, which the perennial source list already considers Burke's to be. And (b) The policy actually does allow for deprecated sources (like thepeerage) to be cited, under the consensus model. But nonetheless, if I was able to do the research using so-called green sources, others can too. Subtleache (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had initially removed a reference to Charles Anthony Warneford Gibson being a King's Counsel Barrister, as Burke's made not reference to Gibson's employment. However, there appears to be a solid source for this information as well. https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/C44956278032EF6BE9B850AA2048C009.html -- while not referenced in the list of perennial sources, The Bar Standards Board is the regulatory body that oversees the licensure of lawyers in England and Wales. I'd suggest this information also be restored to the page with the aforementioned citation, along with the rest of the scrubbed information (and the citations discussed in this thread). @Eejit43 -- now that the page as been unprotected, who determines when consensus is reached? Subtleache (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has been unprotected, and based on the conversation in this thread, I'd say go ahead with your edits- if they are contested, further discussion can occur. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Subtleache (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I have with the requested edit is that it does not summarize the literature about Fred Again. None of the peerage sources say that the named person is a deejay and music producer. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: it's common for peerage sources to provide no employment details for younger people listed within them, and the absence of that information doesn't affect the appropriately-sourced information on Gibson's family.

In the aim of finding consensus, in my opinion @Subtleache's carefully and appropriately sourced contributions should be re-added to this article. Smells like content (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that @Binksternet has reverted my edits, without coming to the talk page to discuss doing so. I don't want to just get into a back-and-forth edit war, so I'm laying out more of my thinking here in an attempt to form some kind of consensus.

The peerage sources cited by @Subtleache are reliable, as detailed extensively in the conversation above, and add relevant, accurate biographical detail to the article. So what if those sources don't explicitly state that Fred Gibson is a record producer?

The only way that omission becomes relevant is if @Binksternet is arguing that the "Fred Gibson" listed in those peerage sources isn't actually the same person as Fred Again. If so, then he should make that argument clearly, rather than just removing properly-cited information from a reliable source.

If that is the argument behind removing the information, then it's flawed: there's plenty of evidence that the Fred Gibson referenced in @Subtleache's sources is indeed the same person as Fred Again.

For example, both Freds have exactly the same date of birth, 19 July 1993 (as evidenced by this video from Fred Again's record label which confirms the date of 19 July and this interview which confirms his age) and a younger sibling called Benjamin Gibson (as evidenced by this interview where he speaks about working with his brother and these credits which confirm his brother's name).

All of this should be discussed clearly, so we each understand each other's position and form a consensus on whether the information in question should be included in this article: I believe strongly that it should be, for the reasons above. I hope that the people who feel it should be removed explain their reasoning too. Smells like content (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet appears to have removed the information in question because of privacy concerns, though they also mention the same reasoning as above (i.e., Burke's doesn't contain employment information) in a subsequent scrub. They initially reference WP:BLPPRIVACY as a reason to remove the information, but their deletion is clear misuse of that policy.

WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY are intended for use in narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable here:

-- First, WP:BLPPRIVACY references use of personal information that is not otherwise publicly shared, such as a birth date or contact. As explained by @Smells like content, Gibson's record label shared his date of birth publicly in the linked video, and no attempts have been made to remove that information here anyway (much less a complaint by Gibson or his representatives, as described in WP:BLPPRIVACY). No contact information was shared. Consistent with policy, information that is passively endorsed by the subject--like the use of his full name or birth date by his record label--is not subject to the privacy policy ("sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public"). Familiar relationships have also not been kept private (not that those relationships would count as personal information under this policy to begin with) -- as evidenced again by the references to siblings in the public interviews cited by @Smells like content.

-- Second, no misuse of primary sources (see WP:BLPPRIMARY) has occurred either. None of the forms of problematic primary sources described in that policy have been relied upon here (e.g., public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses; trial transcripts; court records; etc). Only Burke's peerage has been used, which is not only reliable according to Wikipedia standards, but is used extensively on the site to verify familial relationships, as was done here. Verifying familial relationships using an acceptable source with that very purpose is a far cry from a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY.

-- Third, and maybe most importantly, WP:BLPPRIVACY is intended to prevent identify theft, particularly as used against subjects who are "borderline notable" -- given Gibson's rising star and awards record, I think its safe to say he crossed that threshold some time ago. The information in question is also not the kind of information intended by the policy, as it would have little use for an identity thief.

-- Fourth, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, a violation of the policy should also include contacting the oversight team -- not just an edit. At this point, I would welcome some administrator involvement, as this is clearly a controversial topic, that appears to have attracted at least a few parties with emotional responses to the sharing of information related to a music star's family ties. It seems clear to me that this is relevant encyclopedic information, and I believe I've made a strong case for the reliability of the sourcing, but I welcome more input from new editors. I would also suggest @Eejit43, @Trignis, and other previously involved editors might weigh in again on the recent arguments made by @Binksternet.

-- Finally, two asides --

1. It's a very weak argument to say that a peerage site ought to include employment information to be usable. Again, peerage sources are relied upon frequently on wikipedia, and they almost never contain that kind of information. That's not their purpose. As @Smells like content points out, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Fred Gibson identified in Burke's is Fred Again.. (exact birthdate, all four names identical include spelling, known sibling, peerage would be consistent with his educational history, etc.) and @Binksternet appears to be the only person here that is even suggesting otherwise.

2. I hesitate to share this, but I would be remiss if I didn't, as I'm worried that @Binksternet may have an emotional investment in this issue (not saying it's subterfuge or anything, just maybe not motivated by informational clarity and encyclopedic benefit). I noticed that Binksternet appears to have viewed my edits on other pages, and undone one of them immediately following undoing my edits here. I will grant that the criticism they made there was a reasonable one, but it's still a bit fishy that they appear to have followed the bread crumb trail that direction in the first place. Incidentally (or perhaps relevantly), that edit also involved a familial relationship of a famous musician. It may be coincidental, but mentioning it anyway.

I've undone @Binksternet's deletion again, but I don't want an edit war either. @Binksternet, I suggest if you feel strongly or have additional arguments, please discuss them at greater length here, as the rest of us have -- or refer to DRN, RfC, Village Pump for more editor involvement so that a new consensus can be sought. ~ subtleache ^talk 03:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always look at the other edits of users who I think may be misunderstanding policy, to see whether the problem is localized or spreading.

I don't have any horse in this race. I had never heard of Fred Again until very recently when his connection to Brian Eno was described in a news item.

It was my impression that the general concept of BLP was to defend living persons, to prevent Wikipedia from harming them. I imagine that the livelihood of Fred Again could be harmed by Wikipedia editors doing private eye work to "out" a member of the peerage who has the temerity to work in entertainment. I don't see the topic literature properly represented here when absolutely none of the literature connects Fred Again the deejay to his position in the peerage. This is a major leap, made entirely by Wikipedia editors rather than the media.

BLP concerns trump other arguments. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically replying to this message, but I see no reason to not accept the recent edits, and I really don't see any BLP violations, especially as the source is clearly reliable. I also don't see any valid reasoning behind questioning whether or not the mentioned person in the source is Fred Again, nor do I see any reason to be concerned about the subject's privacy. I think this might be an appropriate case for an RfC (or DRN), as @Subtleache said, to get a proper third opinion and outside involvement. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad to hear you say you don't feel you have a horse in this race @Binksternet, but currently you seem to be the only one here to see a BLP violation, or to question the reliability of the sources used. As @Eejit43 reiterates, I welcome an RfC or DRN.

I suggest you're perhaps misinterpreting the purpose of BLPPRIVACY -- in most discussions I see about it (and its own description), it seems to be meant to protect otherwise private information, or information that might make someone unduly vulnerable, particularly to physical harm or identity theft. It seems pretty clear the information here is neither.

I can see your argument about the lack of media literature connecting Gibson's musical work to his lineage, however, what led me (and I presume many others) to this page is the virality of exactly these claims. While not citable (social media, reddit, podcasts, etc.), none of this started here -- it was only verified by editors like me.

I would also suggest that your language about "out[ing] a member of the peerage who has the temerity to work in entertainment" tends to speak more about your personal feelings on the subject of wealth and music/nepotism in the arts than you admit to, rather than your quest for encyclopedic integrity. That's not intended as a slight against you, but that sentence does clearly imply you might feel that Gibson is being "wronged" by having his family status disclosed, despite the fact that there's no evidence to suggest he has specifically tried to hide it (again, he and/or his reps have spoken publicly about his siblings, date of birth, attendance at one of England's most elite schools, relationship with Eno, etc.; and he has not sought to invoke the request protections of BLP). Some of the less verifiable information I mentioned above also suggest that those family connections may have be instrumental in his success as an artist. I can't speak to that one way or the other, but it does tend to suggest that what portions of that kind of information that can be verified would be relevant to readers of this entry.

Yours or my feelings on the subject of nepotism in the arts aside, there's no denying the topic has journalistic and academic relevance. There's heaps of media addressing the subject, from both sides of the proverbial aisle. Accordingly, I think it's reasonable to expect that a successful artist's noble family background is something that belongs in the encyclopedia, so long as it can be reasonably verified under a consensus model. I expect that the virality of the story, and Gibson's increasing success as an artist, will soon enough lead to the development of media literature on the subject of his family background. ~ subtleache ^talk 05:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting the cart before the horse. You expect that after Wikipedia publishes the information, then reliable sources (not reddit and social media) will likely make the connection. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If the social media discussion is so vigourous about this issue, why not wait until it boils up into a reliable source? Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there are already several interlinking verifiable sources which provide compelling evidence that the Fred Gibson in the peerage sources is Fred Again!

As I said previously, if your argument is that these are two different people, in the face of the evidence that @Subtleache and I have provided, then present that argument so we can evaluate and discuss it.

I'd also agree with @Subtleache that your emotive language is not helpful here. No-one's being "outed" or threatening Fred Again's career, we're just trying to ensure that Wikipedia contains relevant, reliably-sourced information about a topic.

Unless you provide more detailed and / or compelling reasons why you think that information should be removed, then I agree that a referral to DRN or RfC is the best way forward. Smells like content (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are putting the cart before the horse. If we were only relying on rumour or speculation (from the likes of social media, etc.), then I'd agree. But to use another aphorism, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In this case, as @Smells like content emphasizes, we are relying on several reliable sources, not the rumours. Accordingly, we haven't restored speculative information about how Gibson's father's role may have contributed to his success, or whether Eno is Gibson's godfather.

That's the kind of detail that would need to be filled in by journalists asking the right questions. But we can omit the meretricious (and yet-unverifiable) rumours without also abandoning relevant and verifiable information.

The plain fact of a familiar connection to an aristocratic family is perfectly reasonable to source from a reliable peerage source like Burke's. It's common practice on Wikipedia. After all, it's not as if all members of the aristocracy who have pages on Wikipedia are also notable enough to have current media literature written about them. That they aren't quite that famous doesn't make them unverifiable (or unnotable). The same standard of sourcing should apply to someone who is that famous. ~ subtleache ^talk 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• removed external links per
  WP:EL
• formatted works per
  MOS:T
• removed redundancy
• added two Grammy nominations
• corrected the second Brit Award nomination
• moved up the DJ Mag award because it was awarded for the person, not for a work
• only linked DJ Mag instead of the whole name of the award because the article isn't about the award
• removed a citation which in this context only proves that there will be Brit Awards in 2023 but doesn't prove the nominations because that seems trivial to me
• changed the link "Brit Awards 2023" to "Brit Awards" for consistency

Trignis (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the pitchfork link say that he was born on 19 July 1992? The German wikipedia's source says he was born in 1993. 176.5.142.211 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) All the other wikipedias say it was 1993. The Russian one has a good source, I think, at least better than the current English "source": https://www.thepeerage.com/p66775.htm#i667747 176.5.142.211 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that