Talk:Bix Beiderbecke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bix Beiderbecke is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 29, 2011.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Iowa (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iowa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Iowa 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jazz (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:



Comment on relation with Armstrong[edit]

Previous version of this entry seemed to make Bix's relationship with Louis Armstrong it's main focus (I suspect influenced by the Ken Burns television show). While Bix admired the hell out of Louis (as did many musicians of the time), this was not the most important fact about his carrer; one of the things that sets Bix apart is that a time when many other trumpeters were styling themselves as best they could as imitators of Armstrong, Oliver, Keppard, or LaRocca, Bix on the other hand created his own unique style.

Also, Tram played C-melody sax, not trombone.

Ortolan88-- Mostly good additions and changes, thanks, except that "I Can't Get Started" was the signature hit for Bunny Berigan, not Bix.

-- Infrogmation

Wrong photo[edit]

I took the liberty of deleting the photo in this article, this since it was not a photo of Bix Beiderbecke at all but one of a schoolmate of his, Eugene Clinton Parker (Bix is present too in the full original photo but not in the excerpt published here).

For a discussion regarding this, see the Bixography discussion group at:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/27140/message/1143416736/Whoever+wrote+the+current+Wikipedia+Bix+entry...

/Fredrik Tersmeden, Sweden (user "FredrikT" in the Swedish Wikipedia)

_____________________________________________________________________ I put up a correct photo of Bix, and gave the appropriate reference/citations, but it was nevertheless removed.

--Gautam3 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

External links section[edit]

Hi to all. I have moved two non-hyperlinks contained within this section to a new section headed "References", as is the normal Wikipedia convention. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bix's Parents[edit]

If it's true that Bix's parents supported his music I would like to see proof. Every text I've ever read, including textbooks, and the PBS documentary state that his parents did not approve. Can anyone site this claim and let me know where it was found. I would be very interested to know.

67.63.99.53 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the Grove Dictionary of Jazz and Ken Burns's PBS Jazz television series support your version of this (state that Beiderbecke's parents were not supportive--at all), rather than the article's version as it currently stands. I've improved this section's ("Death") prose style and grammar slightly and added "citation-needed" tags. TheScotch (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the relevant passage in Grove (with context): "His [Beiderbecke's] family disapproved of his interest in jazz, and sent him in 1921 to Lake Forest Academy, but the opportunity to play and hear jazz in nearby Chicago caused frequent truancy and eventually his expulsion."

Someone I knew who grew up with Bix told me that his parents didn't let him play baseball with the other kids because they were afraid he'd hurt his fingers, and they wanted him to play the piano. Perhaps his memory isn't reliable, but is it possible his parents encouraged an interest in music, but not jazz? 69.118.29.171 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bix's real name[edit]

In the first sentence of this article, Bix's name is given as Leon Bismark (some places noted as Bismarck) Beiderbecke, but several supposedly definitive biographies (including, online, http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~alhaim/brief.htm ) list his name as simply Leon Bix Beiderbecke, the Bismar[c]k supposedly having been a circumlocution devised in the mid-20th century for those who felt the need to feel that "Bix" was simply a nickname, as so many other great jazz musicians have. If there is no disagreement, I will remove the "Bismark" (after waiting a couple of weeks to see if there are indeed any replies to this comment) and add a sentence in the body article stating that the "Bismar[c]k" was often assumed, in error, to be his real name. StavinChain (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops...finally looked down at the bottom of the article and saw that this topic had already been covered. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...or the paragraph above. StavinChain (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


how does one pronounce his last name? Three syllables or four? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.59.198 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the true facts are controversial, I think it's safe to use "Bix" in the lede - it was what he was known by. But the section on the name would be much improved by the use of inline citations - as it stands, I have a hard time seeing where I can go to check the references for each viewpoint. BTW, it's rare to call a web page without a stated author "definitive". --Alvestrand (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I was the one that added the paragraph regarding Bix's actual name; this since several convincing original documents confirming "Bismark" had been reported in Albert Haim's Bixography forum. The link to those postings later seems to have been removed by someone. However: the most recent major biography written about Bix, Bix - the definitive biography of a jazz legend by Jean Pierre Lion (which is partly available through Google Books) also confirms this: see this link. /FredrikT (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is wrong concerning Bix' name. His birth certificate says simply "Leon Bix Beiderbecke." His own sister was filmed for a documentary explaining that "Bismark" was never part of his name. This latest "source" arguing his name was "Bismark" is bad, and the information is completely false. It is unfortunate Wiki allows questionable sources with false information to be allowed with no further scrutiny by people who don't know any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.208.4 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on what Bix's given name was, and I think the article fairly states what the current scholarship says. If you think that "this latest 'source' . . . is bad," I would ask of you the following: 1) please be specific about what source you're referring to; 2) please explain why the word "source" needs to be scare-quoted here; 3) please explain more fully why the information in the source is wrong -- in other words, engage the source and what it says, don't just bring up different information; and 4) please sign your name or some kind of identifier, especially as you worry about Wikipedia's standards. Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a list of facts which were presented a few years ago by the late Bix researcher Rich Johnson in Albert Haim's "Bixography discussion group" and also (I believe) in "Bix notes" (the newsletter of the Bix Beiderbecke Memorial Society):
  1. Early First Presbyterian Church records has Bix’s name as Leon Bismark.
  2. Tyler School records show his name as Leon Bismark.
  3. His original birth certificate reads, Leon B. Beiderbecke.
  4. 1963, Bix’s birth certificate at Scott County Court House was altered to read, Leon Bix Beiderbecke.
  5. Question? If his original name was Leon Bix Beiderbecke, why was the birth certificate altered?
  6. When Mary Hill died, the following people were included in her will: Agatha, Mary Louise, Charles Burnette, and Bix. All signed the legal paper except Bix, who was a minor, so Agatha, Bix’s mother, signed his name on the legal document. She wrote, Leon Bismark Beiderbecke.
  7. "Bix" was a nickname for the name, Bismark.
The full posting from whicj these facts were taken can be found here as can the links to several interesting follow-ups. It should also be noted that the birth certificate provided by the Beiderbecke family in evidence aginst Bix' name actually being Bismark wasn't issued until 1963 (se here for a posting about that)! /FredrikT (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction / Early Life[edit]

I have significantly expanded the introduction to better cover the full scope of Beiderbecke's life, influence, and legend. I've tried to cite it appropriately, pointing readers to a variety of sources. I have also begun to expand the "Early Life" section of the article. I have added reference to Beiderbecke having (perhaps) met Louis Armstrong in Davenport (making sure to note that historians disagree) as well as reference to Beiderbecke's 1921 arrest in Davenport on the charge of "lewd and lascivious conduct." Beiderbecke's arrest is a highly controversial issue among scholars, many of whom have chosen not to mention the incident at all when writing about the musician. There is no argument, however, that the arrest happened and that the charge was subsequently dropped. I have done my best here to remain neutral on what it might have meant (if, indeed, it meant anything). Beiderbecke's most recent biographer, Jean Pierre Lion, seems to think that it had some personal significance for Beiderbecke. He may or may not be correct, but his status as a Beiderbecke authority warrants his quotation. My hope is that this marks the beginning of revision and expansion of the entry so that it more thoroughly reflects Beiderbecke's career and music.

Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Margo&Gladys - keep it up! /FredrikT (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have included a phrase to note that the charges were hearsay. I think this is necessary as the evidence amounted to such. In short, regardless of what the father said about why he dropped the charges, the point is that there was no evidence that would be presented. If you think about it, it is rather odd to include the father's statement on why he didn't press further (which may or may not be fair; he may have said it to save face, or whatever). In other words, why give the father the last word and not note that there was no evidence? Or better yet, just say the charges were dropped for lack of evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.98.209 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to have an opinion regarding the validity of the evidence presented in the public documents associated with Beiderbecke's arrest; as noted above, this is a controversial subject. However, an expression of personal opinion -- your determination that the charges were hearsay -- while illustrative of the controversy surrounding the arrest, does not appear to constitute the kind of scholarly, published source required by Wikipedia guidelines. The phrase "and others" in your edit would not fit those criteria, either. I'm going to have to undo your edits unless you can provide a better explanation for them than your opinion and speculation on the motivations of the father. Graupooten (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not expressing an opinion and I don't include speculations of the father in the edits. You are being tendentious . See Wikipedia:Tendentious. The evidence available to the public (us) indicates very strongly that the only available evidence was hearsay as the child was not going to testify (regardless of the reasons the father gives which may or may not be accurate, but are fine include although I think not truly relevant). That is a statement of fact. I can try to write to read more like this, but I don't see it as opinion at all. If I misunderstand what the word hearsay means please let me know (even if it is something a judge rules on like "discrimination" other technical matters, we can use these terms generally and it applies here). Note: User name unknown
Edits undone. See Wikipedia:Verifiability page regarding questionable sources and burden of evidence. My quibble is not with the documents themselves or their location, it is with interpretation of those documents by an Internet forum and/or that forum's owner. Graupooten (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Your problem with the owner is not important unless you can state why it is biased and why that bias is relevant. If the documents are not in doubt, as you say, then conslusion that the evidence remaining was only hearsay is substantially not in doubt either. It is a fair statement of the facts not requiring judgement by the owner of the website. Note: User name unknown
Including the sentence "He dismissed the seriousness of the charge, but speculated that the arrest nevertheless might have led Beiderbecke to "feel abandoned and ashamed: he saw himself as suspect of perversion." is still questionable. Why include Mr. Lyon's speculation? If Mr. Beiderbecke was a living person, I think this sentence would be deleted.Sandcherry (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Lion's speculation is worth inclusion here because his is the most important (and only full-length) biography of Beiderbecke still in print. And it is the first biography to include information about the arrest. Lion's opinions matter regardless of whether we agree with them. That Beiderbecke is dead is a determining factor in how we write about him (as it would be with any historical figure); what good does it do us, eighty years after his death, to imagine him to be alive? Margo&Gladys (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that the website by Haim and his presentation should be dismissed and that of Lion given priveledge. I think any reading of Haim's comments are balanced and scholarly. I have no connection to him. His comments and presentation of the evidence are not just some "internet forum." In any case, if we leave in Lion's judgement I think Haim's is fair game to include, too. It is certainly more closely verifiable than Lion's speculation on BB's state of mind (which is a perfect example of speculation). Please bring discussion here and do not edit war. Thank you. Note: User name unknown
If you care to scan through the Feature Article review, I, too, argued in favor of giving Haim and his forum the authority you seek. However, it was denied, and it was denied by people who know the various policies and styles of Wikipedia far better than I. Regardless, Lion, as the author of an award-winning biography, does deserve that authority. And his claim ought not to be that controversial. He is suggesting that someone accused of a crime might later have been affected negatively by that accusation. The wording of the article emphasizes that this is speculation. I'm not sure what more to say about this, except that it is not acceptable, by my lights, to delete sections of the article without discussion or without adequate explanation. To undo such edits is not engaging in an edit war. It is upholding the consensus view, as judged by the Good Article and Feature Article reviews, that the entry is well sourced. Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Haim presents documents and the facts are that there is nothing other than hearsay. This is not opinion. Please note that I am not cutting anything by Lion. But I appreciate your points about the degree of latitude allowed to various writers. Ultimately I don't know why we stress Lion's status as "first" or the father's statement as this is not an aritlce about Lion, nor is there reason to stress the father's statement as to why he withdrew (which hints that the child could identify BB, see?). The emphasis should be on: 1) charge made and x,y, and z were done about it, 2) charges were dropped was no evidence was forthcoming, 3) Lion believes this to have x,y,z meaning in BB's life. As for edit warring, I'll check the link you provide, but I don't think that means that no future edits are allowed. That would be a strange reading of the article's selection (that it is infallible in it's previous state). No? Instead, the arguments made, which I'll see if made before, should be judged. The argument is simple: the case was apparently dropped for lack of evidence...or more accurate: the only evidence available was hearsay: some children fingered BB to the girl's dad not the girl. (Again, I am open that I am misuing the term hearsay). See what I am saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.122.177 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the relevant parts of the Feature Article page about this page. It doesn't rejec the points I am making. If the point should be made without reference to Haim, that is fine. But I still don't see why it is not correct to simply state that the charges were dropped as there was no witness. I also think that the father's reasoning for why there is no witness is not needed (who cares why unless it is really relevant?), but it's fine to have it there as trivia. We are talking, after all about a rather nasty charge. Simply pointing out that the case or investigation collapsed for lack of anything other than hearsay is an objective discription. Like "that car is red." No? I think people are protecting to much here and assuming that I am making an edit that I am not. I'm open to suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.122.177 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
First, I never said, nor did I intend to say, that no further edits are allowed. What I meant was that this issue regarding Haim's authority versus Lion's has already been discussed and decided. In other words, when consensus has been reached on a subject, and you provide nothing new to the debate, your edits should be rejected. (See WP: HEAR.) Lion is quoted not because this is an article about Lion, but because he is the only author of a full-length biography of Bix Beiderbecke to include this information and to suggest what consequences it had on his subject's life. The girl's father's statement is included because his statement is on the record and because it's obviously relevant to the issue at hand. To be clear: we do not know if the charge against Beiderbecke was dropped because there was no evidence (or only hearsay evidence) or if the charge was dropped because the father did not want his daughter to testify. (When you say that the case "collapsed for lack of anything other than hearsay," you are stating an opinion that is contradicted by the father's on-the-record statement.) What we do know is what the father told the police, and that's in the entry. And there are links in the notes to Haim's forum and a mention of Rich Johnson's disagreement. All in all, this strikes me as fair and thorough. Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I know you didn't say it, but it is the result and my opinion that a minor and factual change is being resisted. "When you say that the case "collapsed for lack of anything other than hearsay," you are stating an opinion that is contradicted by the father's on-the-record statement" That is not an opinion and it is backed by what is know. Please tell me how this is opinion. People keep saying that but it is not an opinion. Once the child's testimony was withdrawn (for whatever reason and it is slightly prejeducial to only includ the father's reasoning, but I guess that is all we have) there was nothing else left. True or false? I don't think it is fair to label arguments opinion when they are not. There needs to be another reason to exclude this. What is it? (Also, it is not fair to include some comments in text and others in footnotes. It should be clear why.) Also, note that my arguments here are not the same as the very, very modest change I suggested. Please try to work with me and not just reject changes that I am not making. (I.e., I'm not talking about Johnson, etc.). To more forward in good faith, can you review the last edit I made and suggest a change to it that you find acceptable? Or I can re-enter it here if you wish. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm absolutely trying to work in good faith here. When you write, in the entry, that "others note the fact that the only publicly available evidence against Beiderbecke amounts to hearsay," you don't cite who these "others" are, and if they are Albert Haim and/or contributors to his forum, then we've been down that path. They are not adequately authoritative sources. If, on the other hand, one cites the girl's father's affidavit, then you can, in fact, cite that information. (You worry about it being prejudicial, but I don't understand that concern. When one is citing the public record, then readers can draw their own conclusions. Bix Beiderbecke doesn't care what those are. Bix Beiderbecke is dead.) Anyway, the father asserts that the charges were dropped because the girl would not testify. The assumption, then, is that without the girl, there was no case. But that is not the only conclusion you can draw. It could be that the father convinced the authorities not to move ahead with the case, despite whatever other evidence they had. It could be that the father made a deal with the Beiderbecke family, which included withdrawing the charges. I don't know, and I don't have an opinion. But what's in the entry now relies not on assumptions but on the public record. That's why I think the current edit is superior to your suggested changes. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by including some comments in the text and some in the footnotes. Can you give me a specific example? Haim and his forum are in the footnotes because they are not authoritative sources; therefore, they are extra information, rather than citations of information in the text. Johnson is in the footnotes because I believe that people who want to investigate this further would be interested in this source. However, the arguments he makes regarding the arrest are not supported by anything resembling scholarly citations. It's very poor history. Lion is the most authoritative source on the arrest, his opinions matter for the reason explained above, and they add something to the entry, even if you disagree. That's why they're there. I will be on the road the next couple days, and I may or may not have a chance to immediately respond if you have further comments. I'm happy to continue the discussion, however. Margo&Gladys (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's ignore Lion, Johnson, Haim. Debates about them (which I sense are a hot bed for some people out there) are not central to what I am discussing. Here's the facts: What we know from the public records are the accusation, the arrest, the withdrawal of the witness, and the case ends. Yes? Correct me if I am wrong. There are always lots of possible alternatives to anything (an infinite number if you think about it), but that is not an argument. What we do know is that without a witness the case falls apart because of....what? If you want to modify it by saying first "based on the known extant records" that is fine. As for who to cite, I would cite the same people for the records that you do. I assume there is no problem with that. Again, forget debates about Lion vs Johnson...I'm not discussing that (sorry if I went off on them as an aside and clouded things, but the point is NOT related to issues people have with them). I will look back at my past entry edits and see if the wording can be made that doesn't rely on "others note" since who notes the fact doesn't matter...what matters is that the case was dropped, based on extant records, once the witness withdrew...meaning the charges only stood on hearsay. Please note, and this is important: I agree with you that why the father/child withdrew doesn't matter, that they withdrew meant that the charges were left standing only on hearsay...see? The point isn't to denigrate the witness but to make a factual statement about the case. The kid wasn't going to or couldn't for whatever reason (settlement with family, child didn't want to do it, child admitted it wasn't BB or changed her story somewhat, etc.). Doesn't matter why; I'm not suggesting putting in why. The witness pulls back and there's no evidence, based on what we have. Not opinion; fact. Maybe the word hearsay isn't the right word, but I've not heard a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
One additional point, the current page says "...the charge was dropped because, according to an affidavit submitted by the father, "of the child's age and the harm that would result to her in going over this case."" However, that is not true. The charge was not dropped because of the child's age and possible harm. It was dropped because the child wasn't going to testify or do whatever, etc. The reasons she didn't testify (given by the father) are not why the charges were dropped, although they led to it. See the difference? Very important distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You'll need to explain to me what you mean. How do you know the father is not telling the truth? In the meantime, I'm happy not to discuss Lion and Haim, but you brought them up and you suggested changes to the article based on your opinions of their relative authority. Regardless, the article as it stands does not contradict your version of events as laid out above, while having the virtue of citable sources. We know the witness withdrew because of the father's statement, so why not quote from the statement? Readers can judge for themselves what it means. The article says what is known and allows the reader to see how it is known. Your suggested changes make a general statement (the case collapsed because the witness withdrew) at the expense of explaining the particulars (the charge was withdrawn at the behest of the father because, he said, he did not want his daughter to testify). The only reason (as far as I can tell) that you've given for wanting to make this change is because quoting the father is prejudicial. But you haven't said to whom it is prejudicial. If to Bix Beiderbecke, then I say again: he's dead. He doesn't care. And those of us who are alive and who do care about this incident are better served (I think) by the citation of the specific facts based on the police reports. And that's what this entry does already. If you feel strongly about the arrest and how it is portrayed, perhaps you want to create a separate entry for that. I'd be happy to contribute to it. Margo&Gladys (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say the father is not telling the truth!! Where did I say that? Also, you write: "The only reason (as far as I can tell) that you've given for wanting to make this change is because quoting the father is prejudicial." That is also simply not true. The point is this: clearly stating why the case ended. It didn't end because the girl would come to harm or because the father said the girl would come to harm, or whatever the reason for the withdrawal (you gave the alternative reasons argument, not me, I gave them to point out that it is off point). It ended because the witness withdrew and there was nothing else. I don't think it's fair to say the readers have to decide what you mean. Even if you think it's clear, why not make a slight adjustment? I'm not suggesting opinion or falsehood, etc. Also, you again bring up the credible sources issues. I'm not trying to change any sources! I've stated that repeatedly (although I've also stated some doubts about how they are treated, but I've clearly pointed out that I don't see a need to change them as the evidence is out there in the sources cited (page 26 of Lion's book it seems is fine, I just looked it up on google books). You are repeatedly making claims about my argument that I am not making even after I have pointed it out. That is tendentious. You keep running back to argruments I don't make as central to the minor change. I.e., you bring up the sources, the father's truthfulness, etc. You don't say anything about the need for simple clarity that the case ended due to lack of witnesses. Good faith requires a slight adjustment be discussed at least, even if you think it minor. Instead you are trying to tie my change to some other arguments (I suspect arguments that people are having or have had over something else entirely); just protecting the current writing beyond what is fair is not...well...fair. My argument is based on the leap in logic in the sentence and the request to say (and I've modified this from the start to show I am open to edits) that the case was closed for lack for evidence or because the evidence remaining was hearsay. Take your pick, but your arguments here are repeatedly distorting my simple request and the basic logic under it even after I've offered clarification. And I don't know what BB's status as alive or dead has to do with any of this, either. Just focus on the simple argument I am making, please. Should I suggest language? Or do you want to? I'm not interested in writing a separate entry on the portrayal of the arrest (but others can if they want). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.114.123 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
How's this for a revision? (New text in all caps.)

Although Beiderbecke was briefly taken into custody and held on a $1,500 bond, the charge was dropped because THE GIRL WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY. According to an affidavit submitted by HER father, THIS WAS BECAUSE "of the child's age and the harm that would result to her in going over this case."

My apologies if I've misunderstood your arguments or requests. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This looks very reasonable to me. Graupooten (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies accepted; sorry if I mixed issues together. I would suggest two very slight changes:
1) ..."AFTER THE GIRL WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY." [changes "because" to "after" as a nod to your prior concerns.]
2) Insert after the father's quote new sentence: "It is not clear from the father's affidavit if the girl had identified Beiderbecke." [See p. 26 of Lion's book (which one can find on google books). The best that we can tell, Beiderbecke was picked up because of what some boys told the father about seeing the girl and Beiderbecke together. Since people seem to not want to use the word hearsay, we should at least just say that it isn't clear what the girl said about Beiderbecke, if anything. This seems a fair and very slight addition and in line with Wiki's principle of adding clarifying info. Otherwise, readers are left with the strong impression that the girl's charges fingered Beiderbecke when we don't have that. This is essential information (more important than the father's statement, which adds texture or color to the story but doesn't clarify if Beiderbecke was picked up for any reason beyond the father's statement about the boys' claims).] Thanks for working with me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.98.209 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Those edits work for me. Margo&Gladys (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. You want to make them? I don't know where you want the ref's to Lion (who's book, BTW, is either horribly translated, or horribly written...he may have his facts right but his psychologizing and writing is really poor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.98.209 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'll make the changes. And with all respect, Lion's book is one of the better biographies about Beiderbecke, and to suggest that Bix -- who killed himself with drink, after all -- may have been personally affected by a police charge of this nature is hardly "psychologizing," as you put it. It's pretty much stating the obvious. But since this isn't a forum for the discussion of Beiderbecke's life, I'll leave it at that. Margo&Gladys (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making the changes. That Lion's book is better than most about BB says nothing of the quality compared to standards for a biography. And that BB was an alcoholic says nothing about the family relations re: this arrest or BB's thoughts about this event. There is nothing obvious in the reasons behind drinking oneself to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.147.182 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You just keep going over the same thing over and over again..give it a rest..you sound like a bunch of lawyers arguing over procedure..no one knows what happened..we all know he probably did it or people wouldn`t still be talking about it..who knows..why do you care? it`s ancient history and its irrelevant..listen to his music..i`m sorry but this is how I feel about it..all these talk discussions that go nowhere are stupid..you go on paragraph after paragraph about how one line or one word should read instead of really presenting anything new Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Full Revision[edit]

I've completed a full revision of the article, rewriting and expanding all sections, including the introduction, "Early Life," and "Career" (the latter was actually scrapped in favor of three separate sections: "The Wolverines," "Goldkette," and "Whiteman"). I took information from a section on Beiderbecke's name and another on popular culture and worked relevant information into the main body of the article. I added a section on Beiderbecke's death and another on his legend and legacy. I did my best to thoroughly cite the writing and use a wide variety of sources. I may add a "Further Reading" section at some point to highlight the various books available on Beiderbecke, but for now, the "References" section serves the same purpose. I also added citations to the "Honors" section. It's impossible to cite the sections on cover versions of "Davenport Blues" and "In a Mist," and I'm not convinced such lists provide the sort of value one associates with an encyclopedia, but I'm happy to defer on that call. I think the entry needs more media, but there seem to be copyright concerns -- an image of Bix and the Wolverines was recently deleted from the Wiki Commons site.

Margo&Gladys (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted two external links that do not conform to Wiki policy: 1) a Bix tribute album link that seeks to sell a product; and 2) a link to the site for the Bix 7 road race, which does not provide any useful information about Beiderbecke or his legacy. I have mixed feelings about the QC Memory link in that it accesses an article with disputed information that is not labeled as such and, in a few cases, bad facts (e.g., Whiteman, not Whitman or Wittman). I also have mixed feelings about the Bix Beiderbecke Memorial Society link; there is little if anything there that is not already in the article.

Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold - you are doing a great job!Sandcherry (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I created a "Style" section under "Music" to better explain Beiderbecke's musical distinctiveness. I deleted the covers sections for the reasons mentioned above as well as two external links -- QC Memory article and BBMS -- because they are unreliable (former) or do not provide substantial information about Beiderbecke that is not already in the article (latter).

Margo&Gladys (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who User 69.127.31.149 is, but this person has made a couple of edits that needed to be undone. Is it vandalism? Is there a reason, an objection to the entry? Maybe this person could identify him/herself. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice on handling edits from individuals that have 1) an IP address, 2) very few edits, and 3) edits like User 69.127.31.149 is to revert the edits without hesitation. This may not be Wiki policy, but it seems to work. I have never had a reversion meeting these criteria challenged by the editor. Although reverting these revisions is annoying, it is the price to pay for an open system which gives you and me an opportunity to edit this and other articles IMHO.Sandcherry (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks, Sandcherry. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see Sandcherry's point, but doing so "withouth hesitation" sounds unfair. The hesitation should be the same as for anybody otherwise the page becomes "owned" by a clique. I do believe in sweat equity of course, but the "hesitation" (i.e., consideration) should be very close to equal (note that I am not commenting on a particular edit, just in general). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent point. The "without hesitation" bit was rhetorical flourish. Additions by contributors with IP addresses and user names should be given equal consideration. Sandcherry (talk)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bix Beiderbecke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Start of review[edit]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). While I intend this review to develop this way in time, my initial read-through suggests other issues need attention first - see "General comments" below.

Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what. When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Yes check.svg Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it X mark.svg Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • Currently the lead has content that is not in the main text, which is contrary to WP:LEAD - one sign of this is the number of citations in the lead. Please check careful through the lead and copy to the appropriate main text sections any point that are currently only in the lead, plus any citations that accompany these. Then remove the citations from the lead - so re-check that you've copied the citatons to the main text! --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing to review the Bix article. I've reread Wiki's guidelines on writing leads, and I don't see where it prohibits mention in the lead of content that is not in the main text. In this case, the lead mentions bebop and cool jazz, and that point is not mentioned again, an oversight I'm happy to correct. Lester Young is not taken up again in the main text, but once the point about him is made, there's not much more to say. Because, as I read it, the Wiki style guide doesn't prohibit such a point to be made in the lead, I'm inclined to let it stand. Perhaps, though, I'm reading that style guide incorrectly. And maybe there is more to say about musicians influenced by Bix later in the article. Anyway, if there is specific content you are concerned about, please let me know. Re: citations: The style manual also does not say they are a bad thing in a lead; in fact, it suggests that citations are necessary except where they would be obviously redundant. I think 2 and 3 fall into that category. But the guide also says that the lead should stand on its own as a helpful primer. Toward that end, citations 4 through 8 are intended to point the interested reader toward more information. 1, 9, and 10 are necessary because they point the reader to the source of information, but they aren't redundant. Am I on the right track with this? Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Lead#Relative emphasis - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations." The 2nd part of that sentence lists a few small exceptions, but the major point is the first part of the sentence. The first example that I noticed was "His turns on "Singin' the Blues" (1927) and "I'm Coming, Virginia" (1927), in particular, demonstrated an unusual purity of tone and a gift for improvisation". The comment about "Singin' the Blues" is fairly close to the longer comments in section "Style". But "delivered two of his best known solos a few days later on "I'm Coming, Virginia" and "Way Down Yonder in New Orleans"" was the only text passage of this song (its in section "Goldkette"), and does not support ""I'm Coming, Virginia" (1927), in particular, demonstrated an unusual purity of tone and a gift for improvisation." --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you giving me a specific example. I think this would be easily fixed. We could say, instead of "in particular," "among others." Or we could just delete reference to "I'm Coming, Virginia" altogether. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The article currently has a lot of content that would be better placed in other articles - for each members of bands for which Bix Beiderbecke played, and other bands that influenced Beiderbecke and/or had rivalries with Beiderbecke or his bands. My impression is that there is a lot of such content, too much to re-locate while doing this review - Beiderbecke is an important subject, and you've compilated of material. So before you start, I recommend that you save the surrect of the artcile in a sub-page of your User page, so you has improved the other artciles after this review. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, but I don't understand this comment. There isn't any huge amount of information in the Bix article about his fellow band members that would be better off in articles of their own. People are mentioned, sure, but not gone on about at length. And where there are Wiki links for these folks, I've provided them. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Some examples:
  • "the second number was marred by the alcohol consumed by the musicians, who included Tommy Dorsey on trombone and Beiderbecke's best friend, Don Murray, on clarinet". Does this implies that Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray contributed to the alcoholic mistaken in the 2d number? Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray contributed to Beiderbecke's life or work at last, except as members as the same band for a while? If these 2 musicians NOT contributed in at least of one of these aspects, they are irrevelant - just name dropping. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for the examples. Re: "consumed by the musicians, who included ..." I think that sentence is pretty clear in that "musicians" is plural, so yes, they all consumed alcohol and all were in part responsible, according to the source, for making it an imperfect recording. But again, I'm confused: "Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray contributed to Beiderbecke's life or work at last, except as members as the same band for a while?" With all respect, I don't know what this means. Then you write, "If these 2 musicians contributed in at leasy of one of these aspects" -- in other words, if they contributed to Bix's life or work? -- "they are irrevelant -- just name dropping." Again, I'm confused. What is name-dropping about mentioning musicians Bix recorded with, especially when a Wiki link can take readers to an article that can tell them that, for instance, Tommy Dorsey was a significant figure in the history of jazz? I hope you don't think I'm being defensive here. I appreciate the feedback, but I can't respond to it unless I fully understand what you're saying. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a huge typo - show have been "If these 2 musicians NOT contributed in at least of one of these aspects". --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In "(Henderson featured Coleman Hawkins and Rex Stewart. In addition to Trumbauer, Beiderbecke, Goldkette boasted trombonists Bill Rank and Spiegle Willcox along with the slap bass pioneer Steve Brown)", your own parentheses hid the game away - it's a superfluous aside. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On the other side, the Pee Wee Russell quote ""He more or less made you play whether you wanted to or not," Russell said. "If you had any talent at all he made you play better"" shows how uses other musician can provide real enhacements. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right that a parenthetical comment can easily be cut, and I have no problem with doing that. But I'm not sure what the problem is with trying to provide readers the names (and in many cases, link to Wiki articles) of musicians who recorded with Bix. I feel like that's a good thing. But if the article is just too name-heavy for the uninitiated reader, then I'm happy to edit that stuff out. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see Tommy Dorsey and Don Murray were just in the same band, and their names would be better removed. Part of the problem is that if you include all the names, that dilutes the effect of the names that really matter, e.g. Frankie Trumbauer was Beiderbecke's closely friend, Paul Whiteman supplied musical information that Beiderbecke was short of. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll remove them, but I heartily disagree with you. It's simply not mere "name-dropping" to note that Bix made one of his most famous recordings with Tommy Dorsey, who went on to become one of the most important figures of the Swing Era. Trumbauer was, indeed, "Beiderbecke's closely friend," but so was Don Murray. And yes, "Paul Whiteman supplied musical information that Beiderbecke was short of" -- well, actually that's arguable, but I don't think a reader of this article would confuse Dorsey's importance in the Bix story with Whiteman's. Re: Fletcher Henderson, again, I can cut the parenthetical, but here's why I think it's important: when the Jean Goldkette Orchestra played opposite Fletcher Henderson and "won" the Battle of the Bands, Henderson was not a group of unknown hacks. It featured jazz legend Coleman Hawkins and renowned cornetist Rex Stewart. One doesn't need to hit the reader over the head with this, because there are Wiki links to fill them in. Those links help provide what I think is very useful context to that moment in Bix's career. You write above that the Russell quote "show how uses other musician can provide real enhacements" -- I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I want to say that certainly this is a helpful quote. But I don't think that it should preclude mention of other musicians in other contexts for other purposes. Thanks again for the feedback. Margo&Gladys (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Coverage[edit]

There seems to be enough. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

  • As the top level, I see only one issue. At a ignoramus about jazz, I think I might find it simpler to learn about Beiderbecke's style before his legacy, which still seems to be unsettled. One of the points about his style is how he played both hot jazz and the more eclectic numbers liked by audiences. To jazz "purists" this was "derided", but to Beiderbecke this mixture seems to been both a education and a means to define his own style. For ignoramuses, it might help to clarify the elements in Beiderbecke's mixture. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (comment) There will also be comments about points inside specific sections, which I'd comment at the relevant sections. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life[edit]

  • The first 2 paras look odd, because the issue of who was called "Bix" jumped into the middle of a normal "Early life" section. One effect has made into an aside what looks like a defining moment - Beiderbecke's of his phonograph machine and several records, from his brother. So I suggest it might be clearer if:
    • The phonograph machine and records become a separated para about the origin of his love for jazz - para 3.
    • The para described the member of the family, without the "Bix" issue, but including the parents' lives, is 1st.
    • The name "Bix" is para 2. --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Need to defined "hot jazz". May help to note the other name "Dixieland", which I knew before this article - and WP seems to think ""Dixieland" is the more common name, see Hot jazz. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When did Louis Armstrong meet Beiderbecke at Davenport.
  • "Historians disagree over whether that's true" has no citation. And who disagree? --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No idea what illness(es) frequently kept Beiderbecke out of school? --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "He attended Davenport High School briefly" looks odd - there did he attended previously, and why did he move to Davenport High School? I meant know whether it is importal, but as present it looks puzzling. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neal Buckley's Novelty Orchestra has a long name but seems noted only for this incidince. Can we abbreviate this to e.g. "His and his friend were hired as members of a group for a gig in December 1920, but the boys were disqualified because they had no union cards and Beiderbecke failed a sight read test." --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The arrested can be more more consise. E.g. "On April 22, 1921 Beiderbecke was arrested for indecent behavior against a five-year old girl. ..." or worse if the source supported this. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear what "Presumably, they felt that a boarding school would provide their son with both the necessary faculty attention and discipline to improve his academic performance" means - please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "However, the change of scenery did not improve his grades, ..." could be more consise, e.g. "However, his grades did not improve ...". --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "In pursuit of the former, Beiderbecke began taking the train into Chicago to catch the hot jazz bands at clubs and speakeasies, ..." is fluff and the rest could be more consise - e.g. "Beiderbecke began catch the hot jazz bands at Chicago's clubs and speakeasies, ..." --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In "(The headmaster went so far as to inform Mr. and Mrs. Beiderbecke, about Bix, "that certain parents have objected strenuously to their sons' association with him.)"
    • The parentheses are dishonest - either you take responsibility their content and for the space they take in section.
    • If the item is retained, the headmaster's florid prose needs to be replaced with something consise. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Philcha, I'll say again that I appreciate you taking the Bix Beiderbecke article on for review, and I appreciate the time you've put in providing feedback. But at this point, I'm not inclined to make further changes -- not out of any stubborn unwillingness to accept criticism. I am a professional writer and editor, and I give and take such advice for a living. However, I've found your comments to be, at best, difficult to understand. They are so riddled with typos, misspellings, and garbled text as to be, in places, incoherent. They also don't speak well to your credibility as a reviewer.
It's fine to say that you want the article to be more concise. I happen to disagree with you in general, but that in itself should be no reason for an impasse. What's frustrating is that you don't provide any real justification for what you would cut or what you would rephrase. You say that a certain sentence isn't clear ("Presumably, they felt ...") without indicating what on earth is unclear about it. You say something is "fluff" without saying what you mean by that.
Finally, and most objectionably, you write that "The parentheses are dishonest -- either you take responsibility their content and for the space they take in section." I don't know what you mean here. Either I take responsibility or ... what? And what does it mean that I am not taking responsibility for the parenthetical content? It seems like a perfectly clear sentence with a perfectly valid citation. And here you write that if I keep the "item," I must lose the quote because it is "florid." That you think these words are flowery suggests that you and I are not even remotely on the same page.
To show good faith, I deleted another parenthetical statement you objected to despite disagreeing strongly with your reasoning. But here you use words like "dishonest" and "take responsibility," and it's hard for me not to get a bit out of joint. I'll try not to take it personally, but I don't appreciate it. Neither do I need Tony's tips on how to improve my writing; you'll see from the entry and from these comments, that it's perfectly clear, if not as concise as you would prefer. However, if you or any other editor would like to tweak the Beiderbecke article on your own, you'll get no interference or edit war from me. I'm happy to step away. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note on prose[edit]

Your first topic at WP is a long, difficult one - your history shows you began in Aug 2009. In a short topic you can relaxed a bit more, as I did at James White (author). But in a long article, you have to work as being consise - at Evolutionary history of life I did most of the content in a month, and then 2 months at make it more consise; although I start in a more consise than I usual use, as I know it would be a big article (and still wrote one section that I then cut as it was too detailed). Being consise is not about sadomasochism - the point is that long articles are more tiring for readers. I suggest you try the exercises at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Then work through all of Bix Beiderbecke, making it more consise - then to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing again, then make Bix Beiderbecke more consise again, for 3 to 4 iterations. I can wait. If you get stuck, or when you have really done, post me. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Links validity check[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Use of images[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead[edit]

(last, when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


Review by Geometry guy[edit]

Sadly, Philcha is unwell, and I have volunteered to take over this review until he recovers. Philcha raises many good points above, which I hope will be considered and addressed, but I am going to focus on the most important points as I see them. The GA criteria are not supposed to be too demanding, but they are uncompromising on some points of policy.

The first is that GAs should be verifiable, sourced to appropriately reliable sources, and contain no original research. The quality of the sources used for this article looks very high indeed. I may have time to go to the library and make some checks, but this is not a primary concern. The first point I have noted about the article is a tendency to end paragraphs with uncited editorials. Wikipedia does not have an opinion. If the sources are all wrong, too bad, we report what they say. If sources need interpretation, Wikipedia editors cannot provide such interpretation, unless they can cite a source which does so. Even then, there may be issues of undue weight.

With this in mind, please revisit these unsourced commentaries at the ends of paragraphs, and either provide citations, reword, or remove:

  • (Early life) Historians disagree over whether that's true. (According to whom?)
  • Beiderbecke fans and scholars continue to argue over this incident's relevance and importance.
  • Largely free from the demands of parents and academia, Beiderbecke set out to pursue his career as a professional musician. (This is an example which could be reworded more factually rather than removed)
  • (Wolverines) In some respects, Beiderbecke's playing was sui generis, but it's clear that he listened to and studied the music around him: from Armstrong and Joe "King" Oliver to the Original Dixieland Jazz Band and the New Orleans Rhythm Kings to Claude Debussy and Maurice Ravel. (Clear to whom?)
  • Still, "Davenport Blues" has lived a long life, recorded by musicians from Bunny Berigan to Ry Cooder to Geoff Muldaur. (Editorializes)
  • (Whiteman) And it was precisely these characteristics that have alienated many Beiderbecke partisans over the years. (Blatant editorial opinion.)
  • By contrast, Louis Armstrong did not have any number one records in the 1920s, a time when his audience was much smaller and less mainstream than Whiteman's. (Do reliable sources make this comparison with Armstrong?)
  • (Style and influence) Armstrong was deeply influenced by the blues, while Beiderbecke was influenced as much by modernist composers like Debussy and Ravel as by his fellow jazzmen. (This may be easy to source.)
  • It may also indicate that Beiderbecke's contemporaries were struggling to describe a sound that was new. Eddie Condon, Hoagy Carmichael, and Mezz Mezzrow, all of whom hyperbolically raved about his playing, also saw Beiderbecke play live or performed alongside him. (Whose speculation is this?)

Opinions on Wikipedia must be attributed to reliable sources, otherwise they are original research. I suggest you address the above concerns, in order to meet GA criterion 2a-c. Please also look out for examples within paragraphs where the sourcing is unclear, e.g.

  • Presumably, they felt that a boarding school would provide their son with both the necessary faculty attention and discipline to improve his academic performance.
  • Historians have disagreed over the identity of the doctor who pronounced Beiderbecke dead.

Geometry guy 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The appropriate citations have been added.Margo&Gladys (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Concerning images, File:Young_Bix_Beiderbecke.jpg is problematic, because it is not clear that it was published before 1923. Also the identity of the woman concerned has been a subject of debate. I suggest removing the image. Geometry guy 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Image removed. I have no idea about when it was published or what the permissions are for it (I didn't put it there); however, I can say that while the identity of the woman has in the past been debated, it is no longer (see Lion, p. 6 and Johnson, pp. 218-221).
Thanks for stepping in and performing the review. Your work is much appreciated. Margo&Gladys (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. At some point attention may be needed to the level of detail in the article, and whether spinout articles would be helpful. I don't see this as enough of an issue to obstruct GA status, and have listed the article. Congratulations on the excellent work. Geometry guy 12:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

LA Times article about this talk page[edit]

There is an article in the Los Angeles Times about this present Wikipedia discussion page. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC?[edit]

Quite frankly, this article reads more like an FA than a GA to me. Certainly, it's as good or better than many FA's I have seen. I have only a few minor criticisms - that Whiteman is a little overemphasized in the intro I think, and that the famous phrase "shooting bullets at a bell" is missing - at least, I didn't see it. I'd certainly like to see the article nominated though, is there any reason why it can't be? Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is of a very high quality, and at a glance I can't see any issues with pushing it to FA status. It'd be best if it were nominated by Margo&Gladys (talk · contribs) though, as they seem to have done the bulk of the work on it and they clearly know the subject well enough to deal with any objections that might come up during the review. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC).
Agree CTJF83 chat 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Also agree. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Your encouragement is much appreciated. Margo&Gladys (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of audio sample.[edit]

The article would benefit from an example of Beiderbecke's playing. I have raised this question at Commons about some files putatively in the public domain here, because I don't yet trust the licence claim there. Just a note in case other editors want to follow this. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

With some help from a friend, I figured out the logistics and have uploaded an 18-second clip of Beiderbecke's solo on "Singin' the Blues" and placed it in an appropriate spot in the Beiderbecke entry. Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Those clips A) Need FURs for this article and B) should be limited to one, as we have a policy of minimal use. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Just curious to know if that policy changes according to the size of an article? Some music articles have more than one or two & btw could I have a link to that policy ? Thanks, Manytexts (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I hope contributors and reviewers don't mind a few edits I made to the article. I move two images up, as they were disturbing sections below, and made all four upright. This makes for a much cleaner look in my opinion. Also, I found the Compositions and Major recordings sections difficult to read, so I added bold text to separate ensembles. I wonder if these sections might read better as prose. Also, I found several instances of incorrect capitalization and punctuation, and I imagine there are more. Feel free to discuss if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I've wikified in good faith – numbers as it's wikipedia not book prose & replaced the B in eiderbecke left by a url (editing in conflict) for whatever reason. I amended the Elipsis as per accepted use, so that they continue from the break with a gap before taking up the quoted line. Manytexts (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Private Astronomy: A Vision of the Music of Bix Beiderbecke[edit]

This might also be worth noting.

Or not? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

In the "Death" section: "I looked under the vagina...." PurpleChez (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also "there were two Mexicans hiding under his bed with long daggers." The cause of death was listed as pneumonia or alchohol related - Is this part vandalism? If not this seems to need further explanation. 170.34.104.12 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the first, though it seemed to me the latter was just a hallucination Beiderbecke was suffering from at the time. GRAPPLE X 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lip[edit]

A Louis Prima song called, The Lip includes the line, "he's got a tone that's reminiscent of a boy named Bix" (referring to Beiderbecke). I don't think it's important enough for the article, but fans of both musicians might be interested in the trivia. 75.36.176.127 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bix and the Bucktown Five reversions[edit]

There is a reference given for these recordings at The Bucktown Five article. See here. If you're intent on repeated reversions of referenced information, you should set up your talk page so you can discuss it. Pkeets (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

These recordings appear to be fairly well referenced. Someone should add them to the discography. Pkeets (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)