Talk:Richey Edwards

External links all dead

Time to remove them. 150.143.128.65 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Many if not all can be recovered from https://archive.org. General Ization ^Talk 00:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

pontypool station telephone

in the section describing the disappearance, there part about a cab driver taking a passenger to Pontypool train station and there is this sentence "It was later ascertained, according to Jovanovic's account, that Pontypool did not have a telephone." I do not understand why it is important to point out the lack of telephone at the train section, am I missing something? it doesn't seem to be a reference to anything else included in this section. thanks in advance for any help understanding this Jtppg (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing unsourced claim (no independent sourcing; appears based on primary material) per WP:V and WP:NOR

Sourcing for How I Left the National Grid

The statement that How I Left the National Grid (2015) by Guy Mankowski was ‘heavily informed by’ the disappearance of Richey Edwards may require stronger sourcing.

At present, I have not been able to locate independent reliable sources explicitly making this connection. The claim appears to rely primarily on author statements rather than independent secondary coverage. A search of major news outlets and book reviews has not identified sources that directly support this link.

In addition, the phrasing ‘heavily informed by’ is quite interpretive and may constitute editorial synthesis unless it is clearly supported by high-quality independent sources. Per Wikipedia’s verifiability and no original research policies, claims of this nature should be attributed to reliable secondary sources rather than inferred from primary material.

Wikipedia also discourages the inclusion of loosely related cultural references unless their relevance has been clearly established in independent sources.

Where a connection relies primarily on author statements or closely associated material, Wikipedia’s guidance on the use of primary and self-published sources may apply. Such claims are generally expected to be supported by independent secondary coverage, particularly when establishing a relationship between a work and a notable individual.

It may also raise considerations under Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidance, which emphasises the importance of independent sourcing when establishing such connections.

Finally, unsure if Wikipedia is a platform for promotion, and should editors use it to advance their own work, reputation, or interests? ~2026-18746-66 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Further Sourcing issues - ‘How I Left the National Grid.’

The current sourcing does not appear sufficient to support inclusion of this claim, and it may be reaching the limits of what the available sources can substantiate.

In summary, the sources break down as follows:

• 3:AM Magazine interview - Primary source/reflects the author’s own view.

• Huffington Post article - Opinion/blog source /uses speculative language (‘perhaps’)

• Triptych - Thin secondary source, but limited to single passing sentence describing the novel as ‘inspired’ by Richey Edwards’s disappearance.

The only clear secondary reference is therefore Triptych, and even here the connection rests on a brief, isolated mention -a passing sentence - without further explanation, analysis, or contextual development. It supports only a narrowly attributed connection, and not a broader or more substantive claim.

The remaining sources do not materially strengthen this. The 3:AM piece reflects the author’s own framing, and the Huffington Post article is both speculative in tone and limited in editorial weight. Neither provides strong independent secondary coverage.

Even taking the sources at their strongest, this raises three issues:

•Verifiability (WP:V): Any wording stronger than the limited ‘inspired by’ phrasing would go beyond what the sources explicitly state.

•No original research (WP:NOR): It would introduce synthesis by making a stronger claim than any source explicitly supports.

•Due weight (WP:UNDUE): More fundamentally, the only connection rests on a single incidental mention, with no broader coverage, repetition, or analysis across reliable sources.

This is not simply a question of whether the claim can be sourced, but whether it is sufficiently significant to include at all.

It’s also worth noting that attribution alone does not resolve this. Even if phrased cautiously (e.g. ‘described as inspired by…’) the underlying issue remains that the connection is not discussed with enough depth or prominence in independent sources to carry encyclopaedic weight.

Wikipedia generally reflects relationships that are covered with some degree of substance or consistency, rather than isolated or passing references. On that basis, the inclusion here risks giving disproportionate weight to a minor or incidental point.

Unless more substantial independent secondary coverage can be identified, omission would therefore appear to be the more policy-aligned outcome for an encyclopaedic entry. ~2026-19495-84 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Re my edit it’s fair to say ‘there was media speculation as to if How I Left The National Grid was influenced by Edwards, and there’s no risk of (WP:V) with that. It’s not (WP:UNDUE) nor synthesis (WP:NOR) to add clarification but it’s not cooperative with previous edits to just keep deleting either when secondary sources are extensively cited. I’ve added yet another source to that end and where the author discussed it. The deleter says 'the connection is not discussed with enough depth or prominence in independent sources to carry encyclopaedic weight.' It is in the 3:AM interview and in my added reference, both of which are clearly secondary, and they'd have independent editorship. I don't think it reasonable for the deleter to dismiss the book citation used as the sole source for the Howard Mark interview, which is just as slim as the Triptych link shows, when Marks also didn’t apparently outright say his book was influenced by Edwards. Authors are probably not going to outright say ‘I am depicting Edwards’ for legal and sensitivity reasons, Benjamin Myers being the only exception. So I'm suspicious as to why this deleter isn't wanting to add further citation to the Marks reference? Why are they determined to remove one book with extensive citations but glaze over the depth of citations for another? I frankly don’t see promotional language and curious readers can get a balanced view on the book from its own Wiki page which is linked. I don't think it's a great book from the little of it I read but it warrants inclusion. From these deletions it looks like the only consistency is them wanting to delete one pretty well-sourced reference. It is difficult to assume good faith when they just keep deleting edits and not working on how to build on the input of others on here, who’ve offered thoughtful edits and citations. The Gillens graphic novel is demonstrably ‘not about Edwards’ yet they seem to have no issue with that either. So- personal grudge? If so, not what Wiki is for. I’d invite others to judge on this. But I have a WP:AGF concern about these tiresome deletions.

I agree, it looks like an editor with a specific and persistent issue given other issues with this page. Now this issue of books about Edwards has been raised, one topic that arguably requires further citation is the misreporting of sources and errors the authors of Withdrawn Traces made in their Edwards biography. I’ve found a link on Waybackmachine from the author detailing these issues in their own words in their own published article, but there is an entire website dedicated to how the authors 'misquote or deliberately removes context' in their reporting of Edwards' life which could be considered here- https://jesuisgourde.wordpress.com/ The person doing the deleting as above would also presumably need to take issue with the blog https://227lears.com/author/anarchitect94/ being cited three times on this page. Either the use of 'A MANIC BODY POLITIC' is insufficient, as it's a blog, and those sources requires deletion too, or a blog is sufficient for a reference and so the wordpress just shared, with additional context about the issues with Withdrawn Traces need reporting? A 3:AM Magazine interview with the author of Withdrawn Traces is also cited here, so if 3:AM is not a source does that need deleting too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19764-32 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The argument that authors may avoid stating influence explicitly (for legal or sensitivity reasons) does not strengthen the case for inclusion; if anything, it highlights the underlying issue. Where sources only refer to a connection briefly, tentatively, or by implication, this indicates that the relationship is uncertain, not clearly established, and of limited prominence in the literature.

As such, it does not meet the threshold for encyclopaedic weight (WP:UNDUE). This remains a content dispute about weight and sourcing, not verifiability alone.

The point is not whether an author did or did not explicitly acknowledge an influence, or whether there may be reasons for avoiding doing so. The issue is whether reliable, independent sources have themselves made and discussed that connection in a clear and substantive way.

In this case, they have not. The cited material does not present this as a recognised or developed point, and certainly does not characterise it as ‘media speculation.’ Instead, it appears only as a single isolated and explicitly tentative remark.

As such, the connection is not established in the literature to a degree that would support inclusion, and presenting it as ‘media speculation’ would go beyond what the sources themselves clearly state (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR).

Even where a statement can be attributed to a source, it must still meet requirements for due weight and independence to merit inclusion (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR).

The issue is not whether sources exist, but whether they provide sufficient independent, secondary coverage to justify inclusion.

Once more, the sources cited here appear to consist of:

• a brief or passing secondary mention

• an author interview (which is primary or borderline-primary in nature)

• a single speculative comment

The presence of multiple sources does not in itself establish due weight; what matters is the depth, independence, and prominence of coverage, not the number of citations.

While multiple sources are cited, they do not provide sustained, analytical coverage of the connection, but instead reference it only briefly or indirectly. Taken together, this does not constitute substantive, independent coverage.

In particular, the 3:AM interview reflects the author’s own discussion of influences and is therefore self-referential (primary) in nature. Even if treated as secondary, it does not provide independent analysis or substantive coverage sufficient to establish encyclopaedic weight.

The opinion piece cited does not characterise this as ‘media speculation,’ but instead contains a single explicitly tentative remark (‘perhaps’), which is not sufficient to support that framing or to establish a recognised or recurring discussion in reliable sources (WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE).

Inclusion on this basis would risk giving disproportionate weight to a marginal or incidental connection.

Arguments based on comparisons to other material on the page (e.g. other authors or works) fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and do not affect the assessment of this specific claim. Any concerns about other material can be addressed separately.

With regard to blog sources, self-published material (e.g. personal or WordPress blogs) is generally not considered reliable for contentious or interpretive claims, particularly where it involves criticism or disputed interpretations (see WP:RS). Introducing such sources would not strengthen the case for inclusion.

If stronger, more substantial secondary coverage exists, that would change the assessment; however, based on the sources presented so far, the connection appears too limited and incidental to include. The current sourcing appears to be approaching the limits of what can be supported without synthesis or undue weight.

This is a content dispute to be resolved through policy-based discussion; repeated reintroduction of challenged material without consensus does not establish inclusion.

Unless further independent sources can be provided that establish this as a clearly recognised and discussed point, there does not appear to be a basis for inclusion under current Wikipedia policy. ~2026-19495-84 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn’t a consistency issue about whether blogs are allowed or not. Sources are evaluated case-by-case based on reliability, independence, and how they are used (WP:RS).

 

A blog may be used in limited circumstances for attributed opinion, but not to support substantive claims or analysis (WP:SPS, WP:NOR).Crucially, the other blog sources cited here appear as standalone commentary and are not being used to support specific claims about a published work. That is a different use case from introducing a blog as a source for analysis or critique of a book, which requires stronger, independent secondary coverage.

 

The issue here is not whether other blog sources exist on the page, but whether this specific source meets the threshold for inclusion. Pointing to other uses falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and does not justify inclusion.

 

If there are concerns about other sources, they can be discussed separately, but they don’t determine whether this one is appropriate. ~2026-18746-66 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Hi, I wanted to flag some edits by Special:Contributions/2026-19495-84 that may be disruptive on this page. They have continued removing material that has been reinstated by various editors after previous warnings, including reverting your undo ([diff]). The concern seems to focus on a specific entry despite it being supported by sources (if it was merely a debate about weight and sourcing they wouldn’t just keep removing the whole citation). The 3:AM interview is not primary and the magazine has its own editorship, no matter how often this is refuted. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. ~2026-19810-86 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Very often I am in the habit of removing stuff that doesn't help the reader understand the topic. I like to pare things down to the essence. But this bit about the book How I Left The National Grid seems appropriate, especially since the author mentioned Edwards explicitly, and the media talked about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I would like to add my final clarification more clearly, due to a previous issue with spacing. This is not an issue with 3:AM magazine as it’s being presented above, nor did I realise @Binksternetwas not another alias being used by what seems the author or someone connected to the author?

 I will however always respect Wikipedia’s final decision.

 

As it stands, the Guy who originally disputed this appears to have largely sidestepped the substantive points raised, instead introducing a range of tangential arguments that divert attention from the core issue: the underlying evidential and sourcing concerns that prompted the dispute in the first place. These remain unresolved and continue to warrant careful, critical scrutiny.

 

Again, if stronger, more substantial secondary coverage exists, that would change the assessment; however, based on the sources presented so far, the connection appears limited and somewhat incidental to include. The current sourcing appears to be approaching the limits of what Wiki tends to support with regards synthesis or undue weight

 

The argument that authors may avoid stating influence explicitly (for legal or sensitivity reasons) does not strengthen the case for inclusion; if anything, it highlights the underlying issue. Where limited sources only refer to a connection briefly, tentatively, or by implication, this indicates that the relationship is uncertain, not clearly established, and of limited prominence in the literature.

 

This remains a content dispute about weight and sourcing, not verifiability alone.

 

The point is not whether an author did or did not explicitly acknowledge an influence, or whether there may be reasons for avoiding doing so. The issue is whether reliable, independent sources have themselves made and discussed that connection in a clear and substantive way.

 

In this case, they haven’t. The cited material does not present this as a recognised or developed point, and certainly does not characterise it as ‘media speculation.’ Instead, it appears only as a single isolated and explicitly tentative remark.

 

As such, the connection is not established in the literature to a degree that would support inclusion, and presenting it as ‘media speculation’ would go beyond what the sources themselves clearly state (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR).

 

Even where a statement can be attributed to a source, it must surely still meet requirements for due weight and independence to merit inclusion (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR).

 

The issue is not whether sources exist, but whether they provide sufficient independent, secondary coverage to justify inclusion.

 

Once more as I laid out above, the sources cited here appear to consist of:

• a brief or passing secondary mention

• an author interview (which is primary or borderline-primary in nature)

• a single speculative comment

 

While multiple sources are cited, they do not provide repeated coverage of the connection, but instead reference it only briefly or indirectly. Taken together, this does not seem to constitute substantive, independent coverage.

 

In particular, the 3:AM interview reflects the author’s own discussion of influences and is therefore self-referential (primary) in nature. Even if treated as secondary, it does not provide independent analysis or substantive coverage sufficient to establish encyclopaedic weight.

 

The opinion piece cited does not characterise this as ‘media speculation,’ but instead contains a single explicitly tentative remark (‘perhaps’), which is not sufficient to support that framing or to establish a recognised or recurring discussion in reliable sources (WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE).

 

Finally, further independent sources can be provided that establish this as a clearly recognised and discussed point, there does not -usually- appear to be a basis for inclusion under the usual Wikipedia policy.

 

Other arguments brought up by the user that deviate from the original post:

 

Arguments based on comparisons to other material on the page (e.g. other authors or works) fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and do not affect the assessment of this specific claim. Any concerns about other material can be addressed separately. One such attack seems deeply personal against a competing author/book? Could this be the mention of the ‘grudge’ that keeps being mentioned by author?

 

With regard to blog sources, self-published material (e.g. personal or WordPress blogs) is generally not considered reliable for contentious or interpretive claims, particularly where it involves criticism or disputed interpretations (see WP:RS). Introducing such sources would not strengthen the case for inclusion. ~2026-18746-66 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)