DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Ricky Hatton

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2025

[edit]

Died 14th September 2025 Boyson2012 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current source says that he was found dead today, 14 September, not that he died today. But probably better to use this date than to have none. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky did on Died 14th September 2025

[edit]
The discussion has been thoroughly exhausted and is no longer productive. Roundabout disagreement with nothing being accomplished. Rusted AutoParts 07:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ricky did on Died 14th September 2025 - not 15th as on his page. Please check the dates when updating the page. 2A00:23C6:494:1B01:75C6:A5DB:FDF3:41CB (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems unlikely that he died tomorrow. But what is your source for his date of death? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Bunce's comments suggest he may have died as early as Thursday (11 September). There'll be more clarity in good time. U-Mos (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: "Bunce said training for a contest had been Hatton’s salvation but that he had not gone to the gym as planned on Friday and then failed to appear at a boxing match he was due to attend." It might be useful background to add in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His body was discovered following a call from a concerned neighbour on the 14 September, much of the commentary at this stage is unsubstantiated speculation. All we know today is that the police are not treating his death as suspicious. Adding speculation surrounding his death or anything not confirmed by the police or the Coroner is not that helpful. Dotsdomain (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is rather unlikely that a broadsheet national newspaper such as The Guardian would simply invent the content of a conversation with Steve Bunce. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a boxing journalist having a conversation with a Guardian journalist is still speculation. I'm sure concrete information from phone, banking and ANP records will surface over time but why add to rumours so early in the process? Dotsdomain (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These look to me like reported facts, not rumours. But yes, an exact date of death and circumstances will probably need to be established by the coroner by means of an inquest. Until that happens, a date of death of 14 September is in itself speculation and there is a strong argument for making this clearer somehow in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fairly clear from the Death category, "On 14 September 2025, it was reported that Hatton had been found dead at his home"
It doesn't imply a date of death in the Article, nor should it, it reports discovery and not much else, which is not unusual in these type of incidents. Dotsdomain (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the opening sentence and the info box clearly state that he died on 14 September. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the opening sentence associates the police discovery of his death with the 14 September and uses the term "reported" to convey the announcement of his death rather than the (currently unknown) date of his demise.
I just checked the info box and it doesn't mention 14, it says "September 2025" which seems fair, given what we know so far. Dotsdomain (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the opening sentence and the infobox were recently changed here, which seems to better accord with what we curently know (and don't know). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC article says "As of his death on Sunday 14 September, Ricky Hatton's boxing record stood at a remarkable 45 wins to three defeats" (my emphasis). What other sources do we have for the precise date? Should we cherry pick a single source that gives specific information, ignoring those that don't corroborate it? While this is no longer a breaking story, WP:RSBREAKING guidance seems pertinent – "seek multiple independent sources which independently verify". Are we able to do that with what the sources currently say? MIDI (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral notice

[edit]
I think we all know that the BBC is not infallible. I think we should wait for the conclusion of the inquest, or at least until multiple RS sources agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement of the funeral details contains an image of the Order or Service which clearly shows a date of death of 14 September: Ricky Hatton's funeral details released by family - BBC News, so I have restored that date to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "Order of Service" carry any official weight? The BBC doesn't give the 14th as the date of death. The image reads, "Celebrating the life of
RICHARD HATTON MBE
6th October 1978-14th September 2025
FRIDAY 10ТН ОСТОВER 2025
12pm at Manchester Cathedral
A route will be published soon for anyone wishing to pay their respects
Entry into Manchester Cathedral is by Invitation only."
The notice doesn't confirm date of death, instead it uses the phrase "Celebrating the life of" at some point the Inquest will decide on the format of the death certificate, once a verdict and probable or exact date of death is arrived at. Logically we should record that he was found dead by the police on the 14th at his home in my opinion. Dotsdomain (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Looks like we have to revert. But not sure that Order of Service will be sent back to the printers in the next 11 days. We simply don't know the personal circumstances - he may have been in touch with family or friends on the day before he was found. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They would not be publishing an order of service/funeral home notice without the input of the family. This is his in regards to his funeral after all. This is more than sufficient to corroborate, otherwise we would just enter territory where every report is being quibbled with. Rusted AutoParts 16:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you. But I'm not wholly convinced that image counts at WP:RS, even if published by the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hosted on a reliable source, I don't see why only pieces of an article would be usable while other pieces are overlooked. It's akin to reliable sources including a social media post within their article about it. They're showing fully what they're citing. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the image is from the funeral directors, and in their announcement when posting it, they explicitly state "The family have requested we post the following on their behalf". Rusted AutoParts 16:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still not sure. Can't recall any exactly similar case. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sinéad O'Connor comes to mind. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing Compares 2 Ricky? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The family expect a large turnout and an expected route once approved by the police will draw large crowds. They have made clear that the service is by invitation only. Everybody is managing expectations, which will inevitably attract mourners from far and wide.
The BBC is not always reliable, Gaza is a prime example. Dotsdomain (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there's an ocean between reporting on the passing of a boxer and the ongoing/evolving reporting in regards to world conflicts. I find that comparison in regards to this situation a bit much.
The BBC haven't confirmed the date of death, they've just published an image of the Order of Service. It seems more the reliability of the family and the funeral director are being questioned here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which, I don't get why they're being questioned? Like, if the cause of death was in dispute, and they were pushing back on the how and asserting it was or wasn't something, perhaps questioning is fair as they'd be biased in not wanting a potential negative thing about their deceased love one out there or something. This discussion is in regards to the date of death, something I just don't see why they'd lie about that? Or if the DOD was not definitely known amongst the family/funeral home/coroners, why they'd publish a DOD in the funeral notice. I understand the first reporting about his death were clear he was found, but we're now seeing the funeral details and the funeral home would be in connection with both the family and coroners office coordinating things. We get belated information via obituaries all the time when death dates are unknown, I find it a slippery slope to be seeking "a fuller confirmation". Like, if reliable sources saying it by themselves isn't sufficient, the obituary/funeral notice is seemingly insufficient, why does the coroner report make it more sufficient? We're not even guaranteed to see that report anyway, unless it is given permission to be put out there. The point is, we have the funeral home coordinating the funeral given a date of death, which is published within a reliable source. I see this as case closed. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to wait for the inquest. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mandatory though. Since we have reliable sources saying the 14th, and now the funeral home saying the 14th. We can include the date of death with those, because there's no good reason not to, outside of "but are we sure?" Rusted AutoParts 20:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which are these other "reliable sources saying the 14th"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? The BBC. You and Dotsdomain may have individual quibbles with it, but it doesn't make them an unusable or unreliable source. No reporting has emerged that distinctly or directly contradicts their reporting to allow for a broader concern about their specific reliability here. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for multiple RS sources which say categorically that he died on 14th. Not just one image of a family Order of Service. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Given it's an order of service produced in conjunction with the family, it doesn't require a slew of sources all saying it to make it valid. Rusted AutoParts 16:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect to the family, but I think Wikipedia might regard that order of service as bordering on WP:SPS and WP:OR. But again, I must ask you to present these "other RS sources". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly. They aren't the funeral home, so it's not self publishing. Even then, funeral home obituaries in general do not fall under SPS. It's also frankly OR on your part to assume they're just assuming the date. All of this hemming and hawing is just so unwarranted. There is no valid reason to disqualify the order of service, and in conjunction the BBC source including it. Rusted AutoParts 17:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what they are assuming. We simply don't know for sure when he died. Perhaps they do know... but we don't know. And the funeral director is hardly a reputable publishing house - they will simply print whatever the family wants? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about. We have the funeral notice explicitly saying 14 September 2025. You have no compelling evidence as to why this notice has to be second guessed and discarded, there is NO reason. They don't articulate anywhere that "While we don't know when he died, since that was the day we found him it's what we personally decided was the day", or indications that he was deceased for far longer, or anything to warrant this "but, we are sure?" quibbling. You are making assumptions about the family by making these assertions they're just guessing. Where's your evidence for that? I'm sorry, at this point it feels a smidge you might be trolling because saying we don't know when he died, when a reliable source is publishing that exact information, and the reservations around it are "The family MIGHT have made the date up" or "reliable source BBC were wrong about this one other unrelated thing" is just....bonkers to me. Rusted AutoParts 18:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "trolling", thanks. I'm very sorry if my reasoning here looks "bonkers" to you. I suspect other editors here feel the same caution as I do. The BBC have still said nothing themselves about the date of death. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They wrote an article about the funeral. They included the funeral notice. They are including the information of his date of death through that. It's the same when the reliable sources we need to use to mark people as deceased write about the death and include that it had been announced via Facebook, and include the details like DOD/cause/place/etc. I don't feel other editors would look at this and then apply and OR assumption the family is just guessing when there's no evidence to back that claim up and thus allow for a reliable source to not be used. Perhaps you prefer having a coroner report in hand but it's not required if the info being sought can be reliably sourced already. Rusted AutoParts 18:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again (for the fourth time, now). Do you have any other source that supports a definitive date of death? And I really don't think that accusing another editor of "trolling" does much to advance your argument. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, what valid reason do you have for disqualifying the reliable source BBC from being used here? Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 18:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC say nothing, in their own voice, about 14th September. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They include the funeral notice. You have not articulated why the funeral notice is not sufficient. Rusted AutoParts 18:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a self-published source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could ask at WT:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martinevans123 stance.
The DOD will be announced at some point in the future and in the meantime we do not need to preempt whether it could be 12, 13, or 14 September.
We do know that the BBC and Manchester Police have said the body was found by a neighbour on the 14th. When the Corporation publishes a funeral order of service, it is not endorsing the information as 'gospel' it is merely providing information in the public domain as it would do, when a tweet is published that might be racist or sexist, they do not condone the contents that they are sharing.
I am uncomfortable that the info box says that Hatton "died" on the 14th, that is plainly wrong, and it should say, 'circa 14 September'. Dotsdomain (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a sourced funeral notice saying the 14th, this is not "plainly wrong" despite your guys's misgivings and assumptions. Rusted AutoParts 01:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What for? A funeral home website is not a personal web page, they aren't people claiming to be experts (they are experts in their fields anyway, in regards to funeral direction). They aren't open wikis, blogs, content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, or social media posts. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An undertaker will print whatever you want them to print for the funeral of your family member. As long as you pay. I just thought it might be more useful to get a third opinion, at WT:RS, rather than to engage is a useless round of contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're still enforcing your argument with the assumption the family is just guessing and guided the funeral director to say it. Funeral homes coordinate with coroners, they would be given access to the pertinent details. It's besides the point because your assertion funeral home obituaries are SPS is flatly wrong and a wider discussion is not needed just because you for some reason have strong reservations against using the BBC's article about it. It's ridiculous to go "well the source is reliable, but the content inside it is not so no". You should rather collect better rationale to bolster there is reasonable doubt in regards to when he actually died or not. Because the immediate reporting of his death saying he was just found was supplemented with this followup detail surrounding his funeral, and in so we were shown the 14th was determined the DOD. I find it wild personally you with great ease took Dotsdomain's word about details in a burial certificate, a statement fuelled with the assumption it didn't include a DOD btw, but yet it's going in circles to even get you to believe the reliable source BBC is in fact a reliable source. Rusted AutoParts 18:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm enforcing nothing, I'm merely offering my opinion. I'm really not sure the funeral director has any duty to "fact check" the date on any death certificate, if indeed one has yet been issued. It's quite obvious that the main purpose of that BBC article is to inform about the date and location of the funeral. If you think User:Dotsdomain is mistaken about the "burial/cremation permission certificate", you need to take it up with them. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to obtain a burial/cremation permission certificate without specifying the date of death. Inquests can often take a year or more to pronounce a verdict. Dotsdomain (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. We might be waiting a while, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an open and adjourn Inquest very soon, if the date of death is known, they will surely release the information, if it is not contentious. Dotsdomain (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a thought that might act as a stop-gap. In the USA, the Wikipedia profile of Gene Hackman prefaces his date of death with a "c." presumably an abbreviation of circa,it has dots below the c, I'm not sure exactly if they signify anything extra.
Seems that the precedences set for Hackman and others would allow us to use c. for Hatton. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I object. With Hackman it was stated there was lengthy time between his death and when he was found. This is not the case here, especially when reporting is now giving a set date of death. Again, your guys' need for this unrequired police report should not be a block on applying the reliable sources giving the date of death, just because individually it's not sufficient for you. You haven't articulated why these particular BBC reports are inaccurate, or why they should be questioned. Their reporting on other topics isn't relevant here, and their listing at perennial sources does not articulate that it's a source that should be second guessed when applied. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the funeral notice say it is a "celebration" of his life from his birth date to the date he was discovered? If the police or Coroners Court had released further details, the media would have been quick to publish. Sometimes in these matters, patience is not only a virtue it is a requisite. It was reported he had an unexplained absence from an engagement in the lead up to his death but that could be speculation too. Dotsdomain (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm...not sure how you're reading the celebration of life info, but that image is basically boilerplate formatting for any funeral program's cover. It says nothing about September 14 being only when he was found, it shows the day as being the DOD. I don't get why you're making more work and being so second guessing, but these are the things we look for when hoping to fill in info gaps about passings. Particularly so obituaries/funeral home notices when things like the date aren't immediately known, or even place or age or middle name, etc. We can't go deciding "well, what if the funeral home/the family is guessing", the specific date wasn't published with various potential days like we sometimes see (Yvette Mimieux, Cloris Leachman), it was noted he'd been found on that date but we gradually got followup sources stipulating the 14th was the DOD, and we now have his funeral notice saying the same thing. Rusted AutoParts 01:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite an official source that confirms his date of death? As far as I can see, the funeral date image states it is a celebration of his life (between his birth and being found) You seem to be in the minority and removing c. before 14 September is potentially vandalism without a consensus to do so. Dotsdomain (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The literal BBC source used in the article. You and Martin's quibbling doesn't disqualify it. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "quibbling". I'm saying there is still an element of doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt fueled by original research. A funeral notice is published, and you say "no, coroner's report MIGHT have not included a DOD", or "the family is guessing/assuming", that is not usable reason to cast doubts on the reliability and verifiability of the notice, and in turn the BBC article about it. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC said he was FOUND dead on the 14th. NOT that he died on the 14th. Anything else is speculation on your part
Ricky Hatton's family releases funeral procession route - BBC News
29 September 2025
Boxer Ricky Hatton's family has released the procession route ahead of his funeral next month.
The former world champion was found dead at his home in Hyde at the age of 46 on 14 September.
His funeral will be held at midday on 10 October at Manchester Cathedral. Dotsdomain (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just not seeing the funeral notice image within the BBC article? Rusted AutoParts 20:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The funeral notice is not at all factual. The family is in shock and probably went along with the funeral directors advice to quote "celebration" of Hatton, that doesn't confirm life existed on the 14th, after all the driver could have found the body at 12.01am. It is speculation until we have sources quoting official records or announcements.
His driver, who had a key found him in darkness with music playing and arrived at Hatton's home, to take him to the airport on route to Dubai, according to the Liverpool Echo.
Both the BBC and the Independent say he was found dead on the 14th
https://bbc.com/news/articles/c5ykw0ljn8do
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxing/ricky-hatton-funeral-procession-route-manchester-b2835893.html Dotsdomain (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You understand information updates, yeah? You're saying the BBC has to be disqualified, but then use another BBC source from a few weeks ago to support this. "The family is in shock and probably went along with the funeral directors advice to quote "celebration" of Hatton, that doesn't confirm life existed on the 14th, after all the driver could have found the body at 12.01am. It is speculation until we have sources quoting official records or announcements" is textbook WP:OR. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"BBC from weeks ago"?
Are you ok? Both citations are from Monday 29 September when the funeral route was first published. I can provide another dozen or so but why should I? You're the BBC fan so I served up what you expected. Dotsdomain (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the BBC is a perennial source makes me a "fan" of them? My meaning was that they were citing to their individual site's articles published from when he was announced as having died, as per the hyperlinks to said articles. It's a brief subject line to remind people of what's happened. That in itself doesn't discount the content the BBC article is supplying with the funeral notice stating a date of death. Rusted AutoParts 01:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims

[edit]

Currently the claim that Hatton died on 14 September is not mentioned in the main body. But both the first sentence of the lead section and the infobox clearly show 14 September as the exact date, with no supporting sources. Whatever the views which individual editors may have on what is factually correct, this inconsistency is unacceptable and should be resolved in some way. The report in the Daily Mail here suggests that long-time manager and friend Paul Speak, who found Hatton dead at his home, thought he had "overslept" and that he had not intended to kill himself, but that is not a WP:RS. The circumstances suggest that an inquest into the death must have been opened by now, but I have not yet been able to find any report of that online. Note that a separate discussion, over the date of death, has been proceeding at Talk:Deaths in 2025#Ricky Hatton. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just clarify the standard procedure in the UK, can we? As far as I know, it's like this:

A "burial certificate" is actually called a Certificate for Burial or Cremation (or the "green form") in the UK, and is a document issued by the registrar after a death is registered that legally authorises the burial or cremation to go ahead. The funeral director, crematorium, or burial authority needs this certificate before the funeral can take place. A separate death certificate can also be issued at the same time and is used for legal and administrative purposes.

All the funeral director, crematorium, or burial authority needs is the burial certificate. Dotsdomain has told above that it's possible to obtain a burial/cremation permission certificate without specifying the date of death. I did not know that bit. The essential part is that the burial authority (whoever that is) does not need to see the death certificate. None of us know whether or not a death certificate has been issued, or what date it has on it. None of us know whether or not a green form has been issued, or if it has a date on it. The family are at liberty to ask the funeral director to produce an Order of Service, with whatever dates and details they choose. The publication of an order of service, by the BBC online, does not have any legal standing. Both the green form and the death certificate are required before 10 October, not any sooner.

The family may know the date Hatton died. The funeral director may know the date he died. The family GP may know the date he died. Or the police pathologist (if there was one) may know the date he died. The green form and the death certificate may both have been issued. All I am saying is that we don't know these things and we can't assume anything until we see more RS sources that report a date. I am not an expert in these matters, and I am perfectly willing to be corrected by anyone who is. This is just the way I read the situation at the moment, i.e. there is still room for doubt here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proof that Hatton's family or the funeral director didn't see his death certificate, I am still needing a response to this. Just because it can SOMETIMES happen, doesn't make it that it happened here. Assuming so is original research. We have what we have, and as it stands we have a funeral notice, a notice published about and included in a BBC article, giving a definitive date of death. We do not have any evidence to suggest they're just inferring, or guessing, or the certificate didn't include a date. Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be leaving this discussion now. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The date will remain in the article. Rusted AutoParts 20:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So much for leaving the discussion. Rusted AutoParts 23:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the date of death is unsourced, the 14th is speculative until officially confirmed. Dotsdomain (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is genuinely not unsourced, the BBC source including his funeral notice is literally in the article, you two personally declaring you don't like the source does not render it unreliable, untrue, a lie, inaccurate, etc. There's no speculation at all, and it frankly just feels like this is tailored to be intentionally irritating on your end. It's in the article, you can clearly see it. It's not unsourced, this is done. Rusted AutoParts 02:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like, I don't how else to explain this. Here are screengrabs showing where the source is in the article AND the details of the source. The notice is right there, date included. BBC, being a reliable source, has reported on it and it's inclusion allows for the contents to be noted here because it's right there. Rusted AutoParts 02:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The celebration notice proves nothing and the BBC has long been criticised for biased reporting. That aside, reprinting the funeral director's assumptions is not an an endorsement of the shared contents, merely a public service that they provided in the absence of verification. Dotsdomain (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence the BBC is being biased in this story and no evidence the funeral director is assuming the date. The very fact the BBC and other sources have written articles about the funeral service being announced endorses its authenticity. All you have is an ax to grind against the BBC and an I don’t like it approach to your objections. They don’t hold water of any kind. Pretending it’s unsourced doesn’t change anything either. Rusted AutoParts 04:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until a reputable source confirms the actual date or dates of death, the circa 14th (body found date) remains the realistic description and is not definitive.
Whether the BBC can be trusted is not the issue here,as they haven't claimed he died on the 14th. Dotsdomain (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is a reputable source, stop acting like they aren't just because you don't like them. They reported on his funeral service and cited the notice stating the date. It's featured clearly in their article. This roundabout is exhausting. You've yet to bring forward a compelling argument about the funeral notice being based on an assumption/lie, thus asserting the funeral director is guessing with no proof. Nor any evidence to suggest they were given a burial certificate without a death date. You may've managed to convince the other guy somehow without evidence this was the case here, but not with me. Until then, I strongly suggest you drop the stick. Rusted AutoParts 05:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion but yours is no more valid than other contributors and disputed edits require consensus. Clearly you are unfamiliar with UK rules on the lawful disposal of the deceased. If you were acquainted, you wouldn't make unfounded claims. Dotsdomain (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is surrounding the fact you refuse to get the point. Funeral notice, published, gives date of death, gives funeral information. Reliable source reports on it, includes notice in the article, we can now cite that to prove DOD. Your assertions of "oh sometimes the burial certificate doesn't give a date", "BBC is biased sometimes" do not bolster any points. You choosing to prize your feelings about the BBC and whether or not the funeral director and family are just guessing the date of death is not compelling argument or useful rationale to disallow a reliable source publishing information we were seeking from being used. Show your work, demonstrate evidence to suggest the date for the notice is an assumption. demonstrate they didn't have a date on the certificate. If you can't, then stop. We can reliably source the 14th as the date of death. It is not being removed, nor put as "circa". Rusted AutoParts 07:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of death, post-inquest opening (16 October)

[edit]

The above talk section was inappropriately closed by an involved user (WP:DISPUTE resolution or requesting input from WP:BLP would have been appropriate steps). Looking at the discussion, there is no consensus for listing a firm death date. Reporting on today's inquest has not included any more information on the timing of death at this point. Adding circa was suggested as a reasonable compromise, which seems fair, so I have implemented that in the article. U-Mos (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors refusing to provide evidence as to why a funeral notice that clearly establishes a date of death is dubious and should be ignored isn’t grounds to work on a “compromise”. It’s them rejecting a valid source that blatantly includes the information being sought. They failed to sufficiently bolster their points. “Sometimes the burial certificate doesn’t have a date” and then not showing that this was in fact the case here does not give reason as to exclude the BBC source. The assertion that the funeral notice was self published was not backed up. Why would a compromise be implemented if the content in question has not been sufficiently shown to be dubious and as a result be doubted or excluded? It’s the BBC, citing the official funeral notice that gives the date of death. There was nothing left to discuss because the conversation was going around in circles where the editors would reject the source and then not give a reliable reason why. Hell, there was an adjacent discussion about this same thing over at Talk:Deaths in 2025#Ricky Hatton, where other editors also stated it was original research on the editors points. Rusted AutoParts 15:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. The source at some point got sneakily deleted so now it’s appearing as though the date of death isn’t supported. I’ll restore it. Rusted AutoParts 15:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the by @U-Mos:, the Manchester South Coroner's Court, the one conducting the current inquest into his death, also states the date of death as the 14th. Rusted AutoParts 16:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This was discussed at length, you're right, and multiple users disagreed with your interpretation. If you believe this consensus is against Wikipedia policy, feel free to pursue dispute resolution. Until then, the rough consensus - and the wider principle to not include contested information, particularly in spaces where wider context is not possible - should hold. U-Mos (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No? The Manchester South Coroner's Court, the one conducting the current inquest into his death, DIDN'T also state the date of death as the 14th? That's odd. Anyway, this point about is crap now, the inquest literally gives a date of death. Rusted AutoParts 16:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this once, and then leave you to proceed or not as you see fit: there are multiple, reliable secondary sources, including from today, which clearly describe a timeline where the exact day of death is not currently certain. MIDI summarised the pertinent questions very succinctly above, which remain valid. The subsequent discussion shows you WP:BLUDGEONing multiple editors and failing to achieve a consensus. That situation has not changed, and until it does the article should remain as is. U-Mos (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still with making bad-faithed accusations, I have never claimed ownership of this page, nor is it bludgeoning when a dispute goes in a circular motion. I was standing firm on my points, but then so were they. I am not the wrong party here. Martin and Dostdomain are utilizing assumptions and original research to fuel their arguments. This isn't me just accusing this, it's very clear that's their angle. From my understanding in my 15 years on this website you have to bolster your arguments to support why content should be included or excluded from a page. They both did not do that. You clearly don't understand the discussion.
Martin and Dotsdomain assert that the BBC source, the one reporting on the funeral notice that gives a date of death, isn't sufficient. Their arguments included: that sometimes, apparently, burial certificates don't include a date of death, that funeral home notices fall under self published sources, and even sometimes apparently the BBC is wrong and biased about other things. I countered all of this. 1) Even if burial certificates doesn't include a date of death, was this the case here? They didn't provide evidence. 2) Funeral home notices/obituaries don't fall under the rationale laid out at SPS. 3) The BBC is deemed generally reliable through the perennial sources table. Additionally, no evidence was included to suggest there was bias in BBC's reporting on the funeral, I don't see why that's relevant.
So then what is the argument then against using the BBC source reporting on the funeral? Just them going "no"? Why am I having to bolster my points to all degrees but they get to use OR and guessing? Even then, today we now have to the coroner inquest list, and on it they explicitly give a date of death. How then would it be sensical to still continue putting "circa" in when his funeral notice gives the date, and the coroner's office gives the date? Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RustedAutoParts will it be death by misadventure? Jp33442 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever endured. A discussion thrust back open and then they just…decline to discuss. We have the coroner inquest above now, something the other editors were coveting before, explicitly giving a date. Yet I can’t add it without concern an editor will accuse me of claiming ownership of the page. Rusted AutoParts 14:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I've said everything I wish to on this matter. U-Mos (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So say I take the circa out and use the coroner inquest as the source, would there be issues? If so then I struggle to see why you involved yourself in this situation and then decline to assert why these sources aren’t usable. Rusted AutoParts 15:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so would constitute edit warring and an escalation of the warnings you have been issued with. U-Mos (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean your crap accusations I’m trying to claim ownership of this article? What’s the proof of that exactly? Trying to source a death date with valid sources that others editors rejected by way of invalid rationales? You’ve repeatedly refused to engage in this discussion to actually discuss the content in question, instead using it as some kind of sanctimonious platform to scold and not actually participate. This isn’t a dispute over which picture of Hatton to use, or if the article should have an infobox, it’s about the DOD, to which we have a BBC source citing a funeral notice blatantly saying a DOD and now a coroner inquest, something the editors wanted, blatantly saying the same thing now too. And the arguments against the BBC source have no encyclopedic basis to disallow its use but yet for some reason you’re granting their original research stances oxygen in disallowing its use. If your not here to discuss, don’t involve yourself then. Rusted AutoParts 15:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dotsdomain: @Martinevans123: The coroner inquest was published, on it they note Hatton died on September 14. Is this sufficient? Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to get involved in this discussion per se, but I will point out that User:Martinevans123 has not contributed to Wikipedia at all since 8 October. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s what’s making this whole experience all the more dejecting. Two participants are currently not editing in general, the other participant who reopened this is rejecting to even discuss the thing they reopened. So nothings really feeling like it’s being done and I’m just twisting in the wind. Rusted AutoParts 00:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The circa date of death is the best compromise, until the senior Coroner concludes definitive rulings on the actual cause of death e.g. Intentional/Accidental and either a probable or exact date of death at the resumed Inquest in 2026. Dotsdomain (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly does the above coroner sheet not suffice though? It's the exact same office. We keep seeming to kick the can down further for a purported most definitive ruling that isn't guaranteed or owed. We have the coroner's office, the coroner assigned to this inquest, dating when the death happened. Are we really going to also say they're just guessing here too? Rusted AutoParts 23:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Coroner is clearly awaiting further evidence that should establish the full facts, in due course. There is no need to rush to a speculative conclusion when evidence is still being collected and processed. Their listing sheet is produced for administrative reasons and has no legal status or merit, apart from acting as an interim unofficial guide to the general public and the media, particularly when the inquest is open to the public. Dotsdomain (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be putting the facts surrounding the cause of death with the time of death together. It's irresponsible should the coroner's office directly attribute the date of death to a given day if that's indeed a fact that's still being investigated. That's not the case here. The filing is directly listing the 14th. We're still wading in original research territory with these rationales to disqualify the use. It's not speculating a date when the coroner is specifically stating one. Rusted AutoParts 02:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not persuaded by your claims that the Coroner has pronounced a verdict on either matter. Dotsdomain (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How am I claiming anything? It's blatantly in the document the date they're citing. This is ridiculous. Rusted AutoParts 07:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dotsdomain has since edited the article but is also not engaging in this thread. Rusted AutoParts 13:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dotsdomain: @Martinevans123: @U-Mos: at this stage I have submitted this to dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ricky Hatton. Rusted AutoParts 07:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Date of Death in Infobox

[edit]

How should the date of death of Ricky Hatton be shown in the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 14 September 2025
  2. 12-14 September 2025

Please provide your opinion with a brief statement in the Survey. The Discussion section is for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

As a user involved in the DRN, I just want to make clear that the only option I would not consider acceptable is the definitive "14 September" (option A). While I was personally happy throughout the discussions to seek a form of caveat as a compromise to acknowledge the further specificity we can reliably offer, Barnards.tar.gz's below point regarding a range is a valid one. U-Mos (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When was he declared dead? GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September, as he was found on that date. U-Mos (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • B for the reasons I have stated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ricky Hatton. Happy to shift from a "circa" caveat to a range, as suggested at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ricky Hatton. U-Mos (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: September 2025. (Summoned by SodiumBot). Infoboxes are for simple facts that can be consumed at-a-glance and which do not need a bunch of context and caveats to properly understand. Putting a range of days for a death just invites questions that the infobox doesn't have space to answer. If there is genuine uncertainty about the date of death, let's just put the month for now, and revisit when more facts are published. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: c. 14 September 2025. Also, I invite editors interested in this subject to review MOS:SUICIDE and to remember that cataloging all the nice things people say after someone dies is usually unencyclopedic. Editing articles about recent deaths can be difficult (sources are in a state of flux, sometimes emotions run high), so I want to emphasize that Wikipedia:There is no deadline, but that eventually it should read more like an encyclopedia article about his life and a bit less like a tribute website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on sources such as this one, which give a timeline of him being seen on the evening of the 12th, missing an event on the 13th, and found dead on the morning of the 14th, I wouldn't be surprised if the final inquest report sets the date of death as the 13th. But for now, I think that circa the 14th is a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or acceptable, but less specific would be one of the Cs. The only certainty at present is the range between when last seen and when discovered. Given the surrounding facts, it is very plausible that an 'about' or 'probable' date will remain the final inquest verdict, but pending that, we should state the range.Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: c. 14 September 2025. I think that's the most reasonable one to use as it avoids the dash issue and is much easier to read at a glance. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • c. 14 September 2025 would be my preference, though I would accept B as an alternative. Both are true: if you wanted to nail down a single date, you'd go with the circa, but if you wanted to give a range, B would be it. I don't like September 2025 because that gives (relatively) a massive range of when Hatton could have passed away. SWinxy (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]