Talk:Norman Kaye

Start classification

I have classified this as a start rather than a stub as it is 12 sentences and reasonably sourced. It hadn't been tagged as a stub. Capitalistroadster 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Death Date

There's been a mini revert war about this.

It was reported in The Age obituary that Kaye died on 29 May, which formed the basis of what went into the article.

On 25 June, 84.154.38.126 changed it to 28 May, with the edit summary "Changed the date of Norman Kaye's passing from 29.5.07 to 28.5.07, as it wrongly reported in the Philippa Hawker article in the Age. In actual fact, he died in the evening of 28 May". I reverted this on the basis of lack of citation, being merely the unsupported assertion of an anonymous editor.

On 3 July, anonymous editor 195.4.88.104 (possibly the same person as 84.154.38.126) changed it back to 28 May, with the summary "Changed the death date again. JackofOz, if you check the tombstone in Melbourne when the inscription is in place, you'll see I'm right". My response to that is that tombstones have been known to be wrong, and even if they're right, they're essentially uncitable.

The documentary "The Remarkable Mr Kaye", which was re-screened recently by the ABC in Norman Kaye’s memory, was prefaced with "In memory of Norman Kaye: 17 January 1927 – 20 May 2007" (I know because I videotaped it). So we have a third possible date. I must say, though, that this latter seems to be a typo (somewhat surprising in itself under the circumstances), but that doesn’t resolve the issue of whether the real date is 28 May or 29 May.

In the meantime, if anyone wants to change the date, they MUST provide a reliable reference otherwise they’ll just get quickly reverted. No matter how well connected to the late Mr Kaye an editor may be, nobody is immune from Wikipedia rules, particularly if they choose to remain anonymous. -- JackofOz 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

While I understand that Wikipedia might have certain rules, the fact is there is no reason why a misprint in the Age should be the final word on this issue. The Philippa Hawker piece was the first article to refer to his death and provided the incorrect date, after which the "worm" was in.

I think the tombstone is strong evidence, unless my psychic powers were such that I could anticipate that it would bear an "error" (my last amendment having predated its inscription). There is nothing more final than a tombstone and to reject this kind of proof out of hand is surely questionable practice. If you consider the relative likelihood of a slip of the key as against a slip of the chisel, I feel it would be fair to assume that there are a lot more "misprints" in print media than on tombstones.

Moreover, the programme for Norman Kaye’s memorial service on 16 June 2007, which was compiled by Elke Neidhardt personally, also states 28 May as the date of death. I don’t know whether this qualifies as a "publication" under Wikipedia rules, but it would for copyright purposes.

In addition, Norman Kaye’s music publisher, Move Records, offers 28 May 2007 at http://www.move.com.au/disc.cfm/3316 and reproduces the Age obituary at http://www.move.com.au/artist.cfm/341.

Finally, if still in doubt, you are welcome to ring the Amity Home in Roseville, Sydney, which is where Norman Kaye passed away on the evening of 28 May 2007. They will have the date on record and confirm it.

Just how they made such a whopping mistake in "The Remarkable Mr Kaye" is indeed inexplicable, although Paul Cox was not in Australia at the time and therefore had no influence on the version that went to air.

As this basically seems to be developing into a dispute between JackofOz and the "anonymous editor", I would welcome a contact address and I will settle this matter with you personally in the event of further questions. It may be a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules, but I have no desire to "out myself" in this forum.

Thanks. I'm certainly aware that mistakes in obituaries are not uncommon. Are you saying the tombstone now has an inscription showing the date? A photo of it would certainly help. A photo of the program for the memorial service would also help to settle this. Both of these would be satisfactory as "published references", I believe. Your statement that these both say 28 May (not that I personally disbelieve you) is in itself not enough to qualify as a source of information. The Move Records website is also of interest, and if this is corroborated by the other evidence I've asked for, that would be more than enough to satisfy me. (Mind you, I'm not the "owner" of this article and any other Wikipedia editor is entitled to an opinion about this, too.)

I won't be ringing the Amity Home, as this would breach the Wikipedia rule of No Original Research.

If you'd like to contact me personally, you're welcome to go to my user page (just click on my user name), and find the link that says "Email this user".

Finally, under Wikipedia rules it's perfectly OK (in most cases) to contribute anonymously if that is your wish. I just have a preference for communicating with a name, any name, even if it is merely a made-up user name that does not reveal the person's actual identity (as mine doesn't) - but that's just me. It's a bit like when the office phone rings, I pick it up, and the anonymous voice at the other end says "May I speak with Joe Bloggs?". I say "No, he's not here at the moment". The voice asks "Can you tell me where he is?". Then I respond with "Who's asking?". Cheers. -- JackofOz 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy if it is changed as long as there is verifiable evidence for the 28th rather than the 29th. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

How can the "External Links" be called "links" when only the imdb entry actually links to anything? Signinstranger 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)