Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Regarding the mugshot

Given the expanded rational that BDD provided at my request for the no consensus close on the mugshot image (File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg), I would agree that the image could be kept if its rationale on the file page shows that this was tied in with the discussion of Jimi's drug use and various arrests. I'm personnally not 100% convinced the image is needed, but this is a completely valid point as to keep the image for now, but the rationale should reflect that better than it does now. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why pick on Hendrix? If all the Wikipedia articles contained mugshots of people, dead or alive, that have been arrested then lots more space is needed. It is gratuitous to have his mugshot up. No.
Nobody is "picking" on Mr. Hendrix. His high profile arrest, booking, indictment, trial, and subsequent acquittal were all significant and impactful events during his relatively brief public career, and to ignore this complex seven month long episode in his WP biography would be unencyclopedic, not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello friend, not. If you are going to comment on what I wrote you need to either read it again or put on your thinking cap. It blew past you. No suggested anything like you are saying about ignoring anything. What was said that why include a mug shot when its not needed to detail the story at all. This is not a post office wall in the u.s. either, or a memorial post office wall. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Article split

Okay, this is a terrible solution from all counts. You do not massively restructure prose and articles to allow the inclusion of non-free. The trial article is incredibly undue weight and reads like newsline, as just to meet NFCC goals - and for all purposes the image use still fails NFCC#8 (again, the mugshot itself is not the subject of commentary, and a free image works just as good there). Ask yourself this - if that mugshot did not exist at all (might have been one but never published widely), would it make sense to have the separate article on the arrest? At this point, absolutely not. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I haven't participated in this conversation until now (I GA reviewed the article, and didn't take particular notice of the mugshot), but it is getting so ridiculous that I have to chime in. I'm a fairly big Hendrix fan, and I've never encountered this photo outside Wikipedia. I don't care much for either its inclusion or exclusion, and it is pretty much a matter of opinion, and either choice has nothing to do with FA criteria. But there are undue weight issues to consider. I do think there are many other images that warrant inclusion over this one, so please, poor Gabe wrote the damn article, if he doesn't want it in, let it go. And again, since the image is pretty superfluous, including it is a matter of taste, and irrelevant to FA criteria, so Gabe should get the last word, since he did the job. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Again I must disagree with the Masem's argument here. The high profile public arrest, booking, seven months of being under indictment, and subsequent three day trial were clearly not "trivial" to Mr. Hendrix or his career, and this incident and subsequent associated events were then the subject of extensive published media coverage and have since also been discussed in books and biographies of Mr. Hendrix. While this may not be as prominent as the OJ Simpson arrest and murder trial, for instance, it is certainly far less inconsequential than many other similar events which have their own WP entries. The booking photo (mugshot) is the only available identifiable contemporaneous image of Mr. Hendrix made at the time of and directly associated with this incident and therefore is a relevant, appropriate, and illustrative augmentation to (and documentation of) the drug arrest article. Just because it may not be of interest to some readers (or editors) does not mean that it is not of interest to others. Centpacrr (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Your last sentence is key: it is a matter of taste, not FA criteria. Therefore the writer should get to decide on its inclusion. It is a non-free image, so the rationale for inclusion has to be a lot stronger than "it is interesting to some people". The image is by no means essential here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the NFCC issues with the image aside, per Wikipedia:Splitting there is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting off an article when this one is at 69 kb, and the new sub-article is already 1500 words.

> 60 kB Probably should be divided

Masem, maybe you should nom Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial for deletion! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been considering it. The article is clearly written to try to justify the NFCC that still fails NFCC#8. That's been the problem that I've address earlier - all this effort to write more about the arrest and trial - which again, out of Jimi's short live consumed only 4 days of his time - is undue weight. It's the larger story about Jimi and drug use and non-use that's important, the trial being a necessary part of that discussion but to a point that only a short paragraph or few sentences are needed. The only reason the trial was ballooned out was to try to justify the NFCC without focusing on the article structure , and that is a terrible way to approach NFCC. As I started this section, if that mugshot was not available (as in, never existed), would that article be needed? --MASEM (t) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The article is clearly justified, Masem. So go ahead and nom it for deletion; it won't be deleted. If the image is inappropriate there, then it was certainly inappropriate here, so this is a solution in terms of this article. You might know more about AfD then I do, but I've seen articles of one paragraph and two sources that weren't deleted, so good luck deleting this one with both primary and secondary sources and 1500 words! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Again "essential" (like "need") is an absolute making it an unattainable and thus essentially meaningless standard. The appropriate standard for an image is its being illustrative of, and relevant to, the topic. The purpose of images is to augment the understanding and/or appreciation material in the entry, not replace it. This image meets all of these tests. Centpacrr (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
What applies for inclusion of any free image does not apply for non-free content. The criteria for inclusion are much stricter than mere decoration purposes. Seems like no one read the guideline. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
" I agree with Centpacrr. There is no need to have any articles at all, so the proper approach would be to frame this in terms of WP:NOTABILITY. Is this incident notable enough to justify its own article? Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG it certainly is. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You are still missing the point FunkMonk. As "need" or "essential" (i.e. "absolutely necessary; indispensable; to be under a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation") is an absolute, then no non-free image can possibly meet that standard as there is no such thing as an "essential" image. That being the case, every image by definition fails NFCC#8 thus making it an unatainable and meaningless standard. Centpacrr (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You are creating a slippery slope that doesn't exist in non-free. There are clearly non-free we allow, but we don't allow all non-frees, even those that editors say help enhance an article. This is because we have to also consider free alternatives, the number of other non-frees used and if the article cannot be understand at the same encyclopedic level if the image was removed. This prevent frivolous use of non-free. We have no such requirement as you keep claiming on the standard for non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The article might meet notability guidelines, but it was created under very pointy terms and at the cost of weaking this article from its established FA status. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you keep saying that as if you want its FA status to be jeopardized. Hmmmm. Look, with all do respect I don't think you should be giving content advice on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. When the article passed FAC there were 87 words devoted to the Toronto bust, now there are 179. Please stop crying FAR at every turn when you don't get your way, or just revenge nom it at FAR; it will pass with flying colours!!! You are out of your element here, and I am starting to lose good-faith regarding your motivations. Its almost like you don't like for disputes to get settled. Like I said, nom the Toronto article for deletion if you must and start another FFD for the mug shot, but otherwise please stop stirring the pot. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that this is all tied together; at this point, you can't break down "oh, just FFD the image and AFD the article". For one, the AFD would have to be a "merge and delete" nomination, because this was information taken from this article, and the new article is not searchable. So the state of this article would be involved. In the same manner, since that would be a merge and delete, the image would have to be brought back here. This mess is not inseparable as you think. The "best" solution is to go back to the as-passed FA version, remove the booking image, and then add in everything else that has been added since not specifically about the arrest and trial (this would be like the Burning Guitar image). It's the mess that those trying to argue for retention of that image somewhere despite it failing NFCC at every point is what is causing the problem. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No, the problem is that your advice is absolutely horrible. Nom this article at FAR and open an FFD on the mugshot, but please just stop with the constant terrible advice. You do not know what you are talking about and we are not going to roll-back ANY content here at your request. Go ahead and try to merge a 2,000 word article in with a 12,000 word article. Good luck and cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD notice

There is a deletion discussion occurring here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328's recent suggestions

Cullen328, re your recent comments:

  • the arrest and trial can be better integrated into a biographical narrative about his drug use (which alone didn't seem to cause him serious problems), his drinking (which he had a real problem with when combined with drugs), and the general pressures of stardom.
As it is now, there is an unbroken chronology from his birth to his death, with no material occurring out of chronological sequence. The only way to "integrate" all this info would be to add disconnected datums to sections with headers that don't apply. E.g., the story about spending $400 at a bar in 1962 would have to be tacked-on the end of the section Military Service, which would seem as a non-sequitor. The stories about experimenting with LSD would have to be moved to the section The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Where would the summary detail fit into a chronological narrative? E.g., "After 1967, he regularly smoked cannabis and hashish, and used amphetamines, particularly while touring.[263] According to Cross, by the time of his death in September 1970, "few stars were as closely associated with the drug culture as Jimi."[264]" I don't think this will fit into the existing sections, and to be honest, if you want clear details about his drug use then scattering the individual points throughout a 12,000 word article will only dilute the clarity. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that for chronological reasons, this material should precede the section on his death, as it seems unusual to me to have this material about his life come after his death.
Its quite common to have an unbroken narrative that is followed by several summary sections. I have written all of my FAs like this, and this is generally expected by FAC reviewers. If we integrated the trial info into the chronology we would have a seven month gap where we don't mention it, then we would have to change gears and re-focus on the incident in the sections on Woodstock and Band of Gypsys. The main focus of the article as I wrote it is his music career, which I see as far and away the most central theme to his life. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, I am not going to press the point, but please let me make the following observations for your consideration: I did not mean to say that every episode in his life should be presented in strict chronological order. That would be more a timeline than a biography. I understand the need to organize the article into broad topic subsections. So, all the material regarding Axis: Bold as Love should be clustered together. I get that. But certainly you would agree that it would be wrong to present the material regarding Band of Gypsies before the content about The Jimi Hendrix Experience. That is why I think that the material about "Substance abuse and violence" and "Canadian drug charges and trial" belong before the section about his death. Simply because those things happened before his death. Your thoughts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, in general, its expected that FA bios have an unbroken chronology from birth to death, indeed several respected FAC reviewers have basically required that of my FAs. Anyway, I like it that way. First comes the unbroken story of his life, then a few summary sections that jump around while making the important points that would be difficult to make in the timeline. IMO, it doesn't make sense to have a chronology, then a summary section or two, and then to jump back into the chronology before his death, before going back to several more summary sections. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have a concern regarding prefacing the section on his death with a section about substance abuse. This would imply an WP:UNDUE connection between the two points, which although superficially plausible, its well-known that his recreational drug use was only a tangential factor in his death; I.e. he died trying to get some sleep, not trying to get high. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not persuaded that placing this content before the section on his death somehow implies that recreational drug use caused his death, but am not interested in pressing the point at this time. It still seems jarring to me to have those sections after the section on his death. Do other biographies commonly have such content after the section on the subject's death? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for all Wikipedia bios, but I've written all of mine so that there is an unbroken chronology from birth to death, which is followed by summary sections. I think this is the proper format. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you see what I mean about going from chronological → summary → chronological → summary? As it is now its chronological → summary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

The article page has shown me that there is too much control by several people with Admin. friends. This edit for instance [1] was removed with the editor saying GabeMc (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 595390313 by GabeMc (talk): Restore last clean version before the prose was degraded. Prose was degraded?. Not good and not accurate. So I see there may be an unhealthy possession by well meaning people here and I suggest they either stop editing for a while, or allow other people to edit the article. To top it off that editor then included part of my edit with no edit summary or you could say a false edit summery by readding my edit after reverting it en masse, acknowledging in that way that my edit was better after, just having blanket reverted my edit. That pretty much sucks. Too much control by too few people on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your allegation of people "controlling" the article is unfounded and in extremely poor taste. Some of us disagreed with your edits, and my status as an administrator has no bearing on the situation. Administrators have no extra day in content disputes; we just have extra tools for dealing with vandals and other unrelated situations. Your edits are simply poor, and we disagreed with them. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Your edits introduced clunky sentences, repetition, and generally broke the flow of a well-vetted article. I also predict that you will not stop until this is a full-blow drama. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
As I thought. Then why did you immediately add my edit material after mass reverting, and incorporating my other edits after mass reverting as your own? I see the article is controlled in a negative way. Its off my watch list as of now. Stupid insults aside by you two. Bye bye. Its people like you that drive people off Wikipedia Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Take an article or two to FAC, and then you'll get more respect when you come in on a newly promoted FA acting like you think its garbage. Your edits were either intended to degrade the prose, or you aren't that great at editing yet. Yes, a few changes were okay, but overall you made an excellent lead worse. FTR, its people like me that make Wikipedia articles worth reading, and its people like you that drive us away; not that you'll do that. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So you can't get your way, so you're taking your crayons and going home. That's a great attitude. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Your what hurts? It was convoluted poor writing which you improved by adopting my edits, but you are not gonna fess that one up. So yeah. I happened to see your comment because I forget to take the article off my watch list last edit. Take a mental health break. Also your edit summary? Weird. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Point me to a better article on Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The guideline at WP:Featured article criteria says any Featured Article (such as this one) should be "well-written" such that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". If we are trading clean for clunky prose in the lead section then we are taking a step backwards. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that the prose is clunky? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I find this edit by Earl to be clunky. One of its glaring problems is that the word performing is dropped twice into the same sentence, then followed by performed in the next sentence. Earl clearly thought he was improving the article by increasing its "simplicity and directness", but I think the effort reduced its quality. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, there is no point in continuing this line of inquiry, really. Earl King Jr. is not a very good writer, and his changes were reversed. I would say the same thing to you as I did to him: If you think material changes need to be made, be bold. If you get reverted, let's discuss them here. In my limited interactions with GabeMc, I've found that he responds to reason with reason. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a basic problem with a closed circle of people here. I already acknowledged that I made an error when I reintroduced that edit in question. Other wise no one here is admitting that an editor adopted and accepted all of my edits nearly except that one. I won't touch the article with a ten foot pole now but might comment on the talk page. Someone take a look at the verbiage in the lead before my edits. The big improvements were done by me. And saying find a better Hendrix article? That is childish. There are probably 10. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
If you think that there are "probably 10" better Jimi Hendrix articles available, Earl King Jr., then it should be an easy matter for you to link to two or three here. I will be waiting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • FTR, re: "no one here is admitting that an editor adopted and accepted all of my edits nearly except that one":
  • In this edit, Earl removed the word widely from "is widely regarded as", which I think breaks the flow and reduces the amount of information conveyed. They also introduced three variations of performing in two sentences. The edit also introduced a dangling modifier at the end of the second paragraph. Lastly, this text string: "Hendrix died accidentally in 1970 from a barbiturate-related asphyxia overdose" is awkward; it puts the modifier on the wrong side of the verb and feels like a run-on.
  • In this edit, Earl introduced a link to a disambiguation page; there is no genre roots music. Also, this is an unsourced addition to the lead of an FA.
  • In this edit, Earl changes "one of the most celebrated musicians of the 20th century" to "and a celebrated musician of the 20th century", which breaks the flow. Also, discharges from military service are granted not given. Earl changed "Hendrix had earned three UK top ten hits" to "Hendrix had three UK top ten hits", removing the verb and degrading the prose. Also in this edit, he changed "He achieved fame in the US after his performance" to "He achieved fame in the US also and performed", which is awkward and clunky. In this edit Earl changed "Hendrix's most commercially successful release and his only number one album" to "Hendrix's most commercially successful release and became a number one album". This extremely clunky revision made me wonder if this wasn't covert vandalism. There are more problems with this edit: Earl changed "The world's highest-paid performer, he headlined" to "Hendrix became the world's highest-paid performer. Hendrix headlined", which made what was flowing prose jarring. Then he introduced "Jimi Hendrix died in 1970 accidentally", which is poor-quality prose. Also, we don't need to use Jimi again at this point. Lastly, in this edit he changed "He helped to popularize the use of a wah-wah pedal" to "He helped to popularize the use of the wah-wah pedal", swapping out the correct article for the incorrect one.
  • In this edit, Earl removed "of popular music, and a", leaving "he is regarded as one of the most influential electric guitarists in the history."
So, Earl's assertion that the only issue with his edits was the one that Binksternet pointed out is patently false. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What you refer to as 'prose' I would refer to as 'preciousness' and making comments about another editor like this This extremely clunky revision made me wonder if this wasn't covert vandalism tells me one thing. You are obsessed with this article and probably should take a mental health break. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It was mostly your super-aggressive approach and your relentlessness that reminded me of trolls. Sensible editors don't often jump right to making accusations of conspiracy theories about secret cabals and mental health diagnosis; that's all stuff that trolls say. See WP:DUCK. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Some clarification would be helpful

"He favored overdriven amplifiers with high volume and gain...." Even with the links provided, I am still unsure what this means. Can this be quickly explained for the general reader using non-technical language? SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's how the sources word it, and its been in the article for years without complaint, but yeah its maybe a little jargon-esque to non-guitarists. Still, how does one re-invent terms for overdrive and gain? Any suggestions? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that point for non-players. Maybe allowable samples somewhere in the article so that non-players can hear the difference between a clean amp, and an overdriven one? Like "Little Wing" vs. something really loud from the stage. Best wishesLearner001 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
See Distortion (music). Maybe with just a link? Descriptions with words alone fail (distortion, square-wave, clipping, vacuum tubes / valves). - Neonorange (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, via redirect, it was already linked to that page. IMO, this is akin to asking what is meant by calling Pavarotti a tenor, which to some is a technical term. Or that Manet was "a pivotal figure in the transition from Realism to Impressionism." Many readers will not understand either of those terms, but we don't "dumb it down" to the lowest common denominator so that there is no chance of misunderstanding. Some terms are the exact right ones to use and link. If someone reads a Wikipedia article and doesn't understand a word or two that should motivate them to self-educate. I don't see it as an inherent flaw in the article to use a few technical terms that musicians understand, but others might not. How are any mathematical or technical articles written? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Singing?

While I understand that Hendrix is mostly known for his groundbreaking guitar work, his voice is also very distinctive. Shouldn't the article say something about his singing style? Brutannica (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think that the most commonly expressed position is that he wasn't a great singer, but he somehow pulled it off. I've read every source used in the article and none of them devote more than a few words to mention his vocals, but this is usually in the context of affirming that he did sing. I'm not sure that there is much notable about his singing, except that, particularly during live performances, it wasn't all that good, which seems like a silly thing to go into; his drumming wasn't any good either, but we don't explicitly mention that. I would be more inclined to develop a section devoted to his songwriting then to his singing, but alas the article is already near the point of being a bit too long for Wikipedia. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow. That's a little surprising. I don't think he was that bad... Brutannica (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't either, but our opinions are not what count here. What counts is what the preponderance of reliable secondary sources say. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I liked his vocals and they were distinctive (as was his appearance etc.). However, as Gabe is saying, if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources then it may not be appropriate for the article. Are there some sources that discuss his vocals?-- KeithbobTalk 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird link

Can someone please change the 'lighter fluid' link to target the "naphtha" article rather than the butane article? It would look rather silly and anticlimactic on stage had Hendrix actually tried setting his guitar on fire with butane. At most, butane would only have lightly toasted some tiny spots on the outer surface of the guitar (like a torch) wherever Hendrix happened to be throwing a 14 inch flame from the nozzle of a can. 142.68.206.121 (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the [lighter fluid] page tells us that butane is easily liquefied and used in cigarette lighters so the link may actually be correct (I don't have access to the source given). We could link to the lighter fluid page instead, but since this is a disambiguation page that may not be an improvement.Ineverheardofhim (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding that butane can maintain a liquid state if kept extremely cold (i.e: on dry ice) or compressed, but it does evaporate very rapidly (almost instantly) as a gas when exposed to the normal air pressure we live in. It clearly would not be an ideal product for setting a guitar on fire... unless that guitar was cooked over a butane burner, which we know is not what Hendrix did. "Lighter fluid" as it applies to this article, is clearly referring to the liquid fuel used in tank-less cigarette lighters such as the classic Zippo. A common brand name for Zippo-type liquid fuel is "Ronsonol", but that of course redirects to 'naphtha' (as mentioned above)... or more specifically, section "Naphtha#Other_applications" mentions Zippo lighters. Zippo lighters however, should not be confused with disposable lighters or refillable butane lighters which are an entirely different animal, and use a different type of fuel altogether. My only concern is to remove the funny and make better sense of the article, if indeed that link is truly germane to the topic. 142.68.149.140 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The closest thing we have is Charcoal lighter fluid, but that's not accurate either, since that is not the same thing that one uses to refill a Zippo, which is what Hendrix used. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL, well if Hendrix was using the stuff we put in our Zippos, he was using naphtha. Charcoal lighter fluid on the other hand, would produce a much more suitable flame than naphtha for stage use, and probably more typical of the flame seen in Hendrix photos. I know, I know, we need references... but I also know we'll never find anything reliable that specifically says he used butane. 142.68.149.140 (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I seem to recall a source mentioning the brand, so I'll take a look and see if the sources are more specific. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be excellent Gabe... as I'm really just trying to be helpful. Until then, the second last paragragh @ Lighter#History basically says exactly what I've been trying to explain above. Lighter fluids came in at least two different brand names that I know of, but really, it was just naphtha packaged with a brand name. Thank you for taking time to look into this! :) 142.68.149.140 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
After looking at a few sources it seems that you are correct. I've changed the article to reflect this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very kindly Sir! I'll have to put you on my list of "truly good guy" Wikipedians :) 142.68.149.140 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

More up-to-date language in the paragraph on ancestry?

Hi gang! I hesitate to charge in and edit on a FA that no doubt a lot of people are watching and hacking. But I'm tempted by some of the language in the paragraph on JH's ancestry. Expressions that were "normal" a few years ago border on racist and sexist in tone today: I'm referring to "full-blooded Cherokee" and "African-American girl". "Illegitimate" is also passé, I'd say. Wegesrand (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I used the word girl because of her age, not her race. Can you suggest good alternatives to "full-blooded Cherokee" and/or "Illegitimate"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Tribal membership in the Cherokee nation is based on bloodlines,[2]; the term "full-blooded Cherokee" in common usage has no racist overtones. Carlstak (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, if that's the way it is, I don't expect my objection to be understood. I would limit the use of "girl" to prepubescent females; I would simply drop "full-blooded" because it is inseparably linked to racist theories (is there a half-member or quarter-member status in the Cherokee nation?); I would drop "illegitimate" completely or substitute language meaning "the person's parents were not married to each other, in case that interests anybody". Illegitimate implies a lack of legal rights or recognition and is hence archaic. (See also Illegitimacy#Nomenclature.) By the way, shouldn't the section mention that Hendrix was 0.75% Neanderthal? Wegesrand (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Do I detect an attitude here? "Illegitimate" has been dropped. Justified or not, "full-bloodedness" is an important baseline of identity for Cherokee people, although there are inconsistencies in who is accepted as a member of the nation. I am one-eighth Cherokee—one of my paternal great-grandmothers was a full-blooded Cherokee who lived in her own Cherokee-style cabin on the family farm, and practiced Native American herbal medicine quite effectively, so I feel somewhat invested in the subject. Carlstak (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Some nitpicking, but should the heritage immediately refer to Hendrix as "mixed ancestry?" That is technically true, but most African-Americans are not pure African. Both of his parents had African ancestry and were considered "Black" in society. Was Hendrix regarded as "mixed" in society? I think not. It's not the same situation as Halle Berry or Tiger Woods, who clearly refer to themselves as "mixed." Each of them had one parent with no African ancestry. Muhammad Ali is an example of an African-American with lighter skin who identified with his African side, and his article says he's "predominantly of African-American descent, with Irish and English ancestry." This is kind of confusing in itself I suppose, as the statement seems to imply that "African-American" is pure African. Should Hendrix's article say something similar, like that he was predominantly of African descent? Hendrix showed interest in his Cherokee side, but it was 1/16th of his ethnic background. It's certainly worth mentioning, but as far as I can tell, no one in the mainstream considered Hendrix to be anything other than African-American. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Wegesrand (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We pay deference not only to how others view people, but to how they self-identify. Hendrix self-identified as part Native American, and that distinction was very important to him, and that's all we need to justify the material's inclusion. Also, several of his peers have made statements about his not really being a black person in the sense that most people who knew him thought of him as mixed, or not entirely of one ethnicity. E.g., "I never thought of Jimi as black; he was a member of the universe", and similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Above, I said the reference to his Cherokee ancestry should be kept, I wasn't arguing for deletion. His White ancestry should be kept as well. It just seems deceptive to start, very early in the section, with the term "mixed." Both of his parents were "African-American." His situation was not the same as Halle Berry or Tiger Woods, for example. Out of curiosity, where did that quotation come from about being of the universe? It almost sounds like a statement on his being able to appeal to (and get along with) many audiences, and not on his actual ethnic breakdown. He formed the Band of Gypsys, described in the article as an "all-black power-trio." Was this to ward off accusations of turning against African-Americans? Biographers have speculated this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the right track, but let me fix it some and see what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this? If this is ok, please add it in. To me, it seems more sensible to mention his parents early on.

Jimi Hendrix was born to African American parents James Allen Ross “Al” Hendrix (1919-2002), and Lucille Jeter (1925–1958). He also had Cherokee and Irish ancestry. His paternal great-great-grandmother Zenora was a full-blooded Cherokee from Georgia who married an Irishman named Moore. They had a son Robert, who married an African-American girl named Fanny. In 1883, Robert and Fanny had a daughter whom they named Zenora "Nora" Rose Moore, Hendrix's paternal grandmother.[3][nb 1] Hendrix's paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix (born 1866), was the result of an extramarital affair between a black slave woman, also named Fanny, and her white overseer, a grain merchant from Urbana, Ohio, and one of the wealthiest white men in the area at that time.[6] Bertran Hendrix and Moore were the parents of Al Hendrix.[7]

In 1941, Al met Lucille at a dance in Seattle... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The section is chronological, so no, it doesn't make any sense to me to first mention his parents, then his grandparents, then go back to his parents. I think that you are making an issue where none exists. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Very few articles start immediately talking about a person's great-great grandparents. In fact, I can't think of one. The way it reads now, it's giving equal weight to all three ethnicities, which makes no sense. The Irishman Moore is also 1/16th of his background. So you're saying all three ethnicities should have equal weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Elvis Presley article is a good example. Parents are mentioned first, and his Cherokee ancestry is mentioned later. There may even be too much information in this section...

1) See WP:OSE; this article is not bound by any other article's style. 2) Mentioning all three gene pools is not giving equal weight to them all or any of them, because as you said he is 1/16th Irish, which is obviously made clear in the text to anyone who cares to figure that out. Anyway, I'm no longer interested in this thread, but if you can build a consensus for your proposed changes I'll comment further at that time. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not giving equal weight, because you say so? I'm curious what others think. You shouldn't be averse to having a level-headed discussion, as these subjects are all debatable. I'm merely pointing out an article that handles ancestry better than this one. Also, I agree with the assertion above that "girl" should probably be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And with regard to #1, it's not bound to another article, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit section: "Drugs and alcohol"

Should be changed for "Drugs" only, since alcohol is also a drug. "Drugs and alcohol" is redundant and only confuses the correct term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.66.231.136 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Genres in the infobox

I would like to reach a consensus on changing the genres in the infobox to "Rock, blues". Wikipedia's policy, after all, dictates that they be as general and concise as possible. More info on what specific genres Jimi Hendrix played can be fleshed out in the musical style section. Twyfan714 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To which policy are you referring? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Right here under Content, second bullet. Twyfan714 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with genres or infoboxes; its referring to "Policy and guideline pages should", which is stated before the first bullet point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, lol! I didn't look at it carefully enough. Objections about this sort of thing have been raised before. See here (under Genres) for my reasoning. Twyfan714 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Its fine the way it is and we don't need to waste anymore time debating a couple of words in the infobox. Hendrix was a complex and versatile musician and there is no need to reduce his musical output down to one or two generic labels. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GabeMc. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Oversimplification of genres is as pointless as overcomplication of genres. We exercise editorial judgment here, and the middle ground is usually the best stance to take. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gabe. Sometimes less is less, as Twyfan714 demonstrates. Levdr1lp / talk 05:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Just so you guys know, Wikipedia's template on this suggests to "Aim for generality". However, that obviously does not take precedence over the consensus on individual articles. I just want to make sure everyone is aware of it. Fair enough. We'll leave it alone then. Twyfan714 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@GabeMc - Your counterargument raises some good points. If you are interested, you can bring them up on the Queen and Beatles talkpages. They have this simplified approach that I was suggesting, and I think you could be good at explaining your side of the argument. Twyfan714 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If that works for the editors who work on those pages then more power to them, but I don't feel the need to push my point of view on every article. I think local consensus is better at determining these things than a project-wide push for consistency. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

Please change 'His paternal great-great-grandmother Zenora was a full-blooded Cherokee' to 'His paternal great-great-grandmother Fanny was a full-blooded Cherokee'

[1] MontereyPop (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the name of his paternal gggm is unknown, though it is thought to be Zenora. Fanny was his ggm's name. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSLQ

  • 20:38, 12 May 2014‎ PBS (Logical punctuation at the end of quotes (See the WP:MOSLQ).) (undo)
  • 20:47, 12 May 2014‎ GabeMc (Undid revision 608277148 by PBS (talk) please re-read LQ, if the full stop was in the original text and the reproduced text is a full sentence then the stop should stay inside)
  • GabeMc (this one should be outside the quotes marks because the quoted portion is not a complete sentence)

Lets discuss the first example in the text (which is currently):

Holly George-Warren of Rolling Stone commented: "Hendrix pioneered the use of the instrument as an electronic sound source. Players before him had experimented with feedback and distortion, but Hendrix turned those effects and others into a controlled, fluid vocabulary every bit as personal as the blues with which he began."[2]

In the construct you favour the Wikipedia editorial sentence (which surrounds the quoted sentence has no full stop, so if you insist in including a full stop inside the quote then another is needed immediately afterwards: "... fluid vocabulary every bit as personal as the blues with which he began.". to terminate the Wikipedia editorial sentence, but it is more common to construct it this way: "... fluid vocabulary every bit as personal as the blues with which he began".

What you write makes sense if the sentence that is quoted is not placed at the end of the Wikipedia sentence eg "... fluid vocabulary every bit as personal as the blues with which he began.", a quote attributed to Holly George-Warren of Rolling Stone.

-- PBS (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion about LQ, but I will say that if its not easy to apply then its not logical. Per MOS:LQ: "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside."
On May 24, Hendrix's platoon sergeant, James C. Spears filed a report in which he stated: "He has no interest whatsoever in the Army ... It is my opinion that Private Hendrix will never come up to the standards required of a soldier. I feel that the military service will benefit if he is discharged as soon as possible."
Per MOS:LQ: "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not, irrespective of any rules associated with the variety of English in use." But you moved the full stop after "discharged as soon as possible." to outside the quotes. Why? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Because the Wikipdia sentence needs a full stop, if the full stop inside quotes then the Wikipedia sentence has not full stop. As I said above if you really think the full stop inside the sentence is needed then one also needs another after the quote "if he is discharged as soon as possible.". so that the Wikipedia sentence has a full stop to terminate it (see my last comment). -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
You have that wrong; I've never once heard that one. Which articles on Wikipedia use that system? Please seek guidance on what LQ means, because its as though you don't understand the guideline. I suggest Ssilvers, Tim riley, Cassianto, Brianboulton, Curly Turkey, Rothorpe. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gabe. He has quoted the relevant guideline for you above: "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have heard that, and I've actually seen some people write that way—not in a Wikipedia article, though!. Part of it stems from the unfortunate choice of "logical" in "logical quotes". The most important aspect of the spirit of LQ is that you never put punctuation inside the quotes that wasn't in the original, in order to maintain the integrity of the original quote. Thus, both
Curly Turkey is noted for "his fowl mouth".
and
Curly Turkey is noted for "his fowl mouth."
are acceptable and within the spirit of LQ, assuming the original quote ended in a period. Curly Turkey is noted for "his fowl mouth.". would also be "logically" correct, but barftastically ugly, and so is avoided. If the original did not end in a period, though, the second ecample would be unacceptable. I persoanlly think it's best to stick to the period being outside the quotes in all such instances, because otherwise the article has the appearance of inconsistency, as some quotes would have the period inside and some outside, depending on the original sentences. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood—when it's a lengthy quote, particularly when it's a multi-sentence one like the one above, and especially when it's introduced with a So-snd-so stated, or an according to So-and-so:, then if the quote ends in a period it should be within the quotes. This is a matter of style rather than "logic", though. Of course, if the original doesn't end in a period, neither should the quote one option would be to end in leaders ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I would add that in LQ we never include the terminal punctuation in the quoted fragment unless its a complete sentence. So, there really are two criteria: 1) It was in the original text, and 2) the quoted fragment conveys a complete sentence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:LQ: When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence.

Correct: Martha said, "Come with me", and they did.
If the sequence of juxtaposed punctuation marks seems distracting or untidy, try an acceptable alternative.
Correct: Martha said, "Come with me" (and they did).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talkcontribs) 21:12, 17 May 2014‎

I am not suggesting using "if he is discharged as soon as possible.". I am suggesting that the logical format is "if he is discharged as soon as possible". The problem with the suggestion above "The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence" is that logically it makes no sense whether the quoted sentence is at the start, the middle or near the end. If at the end it makes more logical sense to write Martha said, "Come with me". if indeed one thinks that Martha said, "Come with me", and they did. is correct. If not then presumably one would prefer Martha said, "Come with me." and they did. if one thinks that Martha said, "Come with me." is better than Martha said, "Come with me". -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit which placed this section into {{archive top}}, under the rule mentioned in the lead of the template's documentation. To address the comment added to the page along with the template:

This is off-topic for this talk page. Please take this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This section is not off topic this is section is specifically about altering the quotes in this article so they follow logical punctuation. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, Ssilvers and I disagree with you. LQ does not require or suggest that all terminal punctuation need either be outside the quote marks or accompanied by a redundant full stop. So consensus here is that your interpretation of LQ is not in keeping with the broader community consensus. I urge you to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, to get another opinion regarding your interpretation. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@PBS: It's clear that the article conforms with the examples given in the MoS. Your beef is with the MoS's interpretation of "logical quotes", not ours, so as Gabe says, take it up there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You wrote above "I persoanlly think it's best to stick to the period being outside the quotes in all such instances, because otherwise the article has the appearance of inconsistency, as some quotes would have the period inside and some outside, depending on the original sentences." and because you say later "I think I misunderstood—when it's a lengthy quote, particularly when it's a multi-sentence ..., then if the quote ends in a period it should be within the quotes", you have introduced an inconsistency: if it is a short quote you support placing the full stop outside quotes, but if it is a long quote you do not. So what about this example from the text "I really need it now." or "I really need it now".? -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The difference being (as has been pointed out) whether the quotation in and of itself constitutes a complete statement or not. Complete statement? Punctuation in the quotes. Incomplete statement? "Judgement is required", and my preference is to put them all outside the quotes for the reasons stated above. For complete statements, no "judgement" is either required or allowed---the MoS is clear the punctuation must go in the quotes. Thus "I really need it now". is unacceptable (if it's not part of a larger statement, such as His face exuded the aura of "I really need it now".---in which case the MoS allows either in or out ("judgement"), but I personally believe the punctuation should be outside. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree with you on the interpretation of the MOS is clear and of course judgement is needed for complete sentences (see "or its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary" -- which it is when it is followed by a full stop of the parent sentence). I am confused by your answer, and I have no idea from your reply whether you think that in the specific example extracted from the text you think the full stop should be inside or outside the quote. What about this one ...upon leaving the stage, Hendrix "graduated from rumor to legend." -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that example was incorrect so I've fixed it. Are there any others? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think is incorrect, as in my opinion all of the quotes should have the terminating full stop placed outside the quote mark, and in not doing that we now have the situation where "the article has the appearance of inconsistency ...". Why don't you do a search on ." and ," and see if there are any more that you think are incorrect and fix them? -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this article is perfectly compliant with MOS:LQ. You're interpretation of LQ has been refuted by three editors here, so beyond this minor point I'm not sure what your agenda is. If you can bring any more specific examples to my attention I'll address them, but at this point I suggest that you re-read MOS:LQ and WP:DEADHORSE. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Make that 4. Wherever the place is to carry on the disagreement over WP:LQ, it isn't here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Fowler, Quotation marks 2.(V) "The quoted words may be a complete sentence which ends at the same point as the main sentence: He said curtly, 'It cannot be done.' Logically, two full points would be required, one inside the quotation mark belonging to the quoted sentence, and one outside belonging to the main sentence. In such cases the point should be set inside the quotation marks (as ! or ? would be) and the point closing the main sentence omitted."(Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd Edition, edited by R.W. Burchfield, 1996. ISBN 978-0-198-61021-2. Page 647)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

Second paragraph of the Wikipedia introduction text states (at the time of lodging this request):

"...his accidental death from barbiturate-related asphyxia on September 18, 1970".

Please change this to "his death in September, 1970".

There was considerable confusion in the press at the time of Jimi Hendrix's death. Media reports from the time compared with evidence (collected and reviewed by journalists and media researchers in retrospect) demonstrates inaccuracies and inconsistencies in original reportage. Original reportage suggested drug abuse as the cause of death. It is now understood, based on coroner's reports and subsequent contact with an ambulance crew who arrived at the scene and who took Hendrix's body to a hospital, that the death was more consistent with drowning. An unusually large amount of red wine was found in Hendrix's lungs. The actual alcohol content of Hendrix's blood was low after death. Some people believe red wine was forcibly poured down the man's throat while he was held, resulting in suffocation (or drowning) and subsequent death. Other reports indicate such forced alcohol consumption could have induced vomiting and subsequent choking to death.

While Hendrix was known to be a frequent sleeping pill user, as a result of frequent use it is likely he developed a level of natural resistance to sleeping pills or barbiturates. For this reason some who have researched the circumstances of his final days and death believe barbiturates are unlikely to have caused the end of his life. They cite evidence that levels of barbiturates found in the man's blood after death were too low to have caused death, particularly in a frequent user, and are consistent only with an average sleeping pill dose (one or two pills, being insufficient to cause death).

The introduction of the Wikipedia text also states day of death as September 18. However, September 18 was only the day that media reports about the death were published.

Some evidence points to a potential earlier time of death. The specific time and day are difficult to evaluate due to conflicting accounts. The account of one witness who claimed to be present conflicts with the statement of a small medical team to arrive at the scene. The medics who claim to be the first to arrive at the scene (in retrospective contact with them) say nobody else was at the scene. They say they found only Hendrix's body, and considered him to have been dead before they arrived. The body was then taken to a hospital for examination. (The retrospective statements of these people also raises the question of who called them to the scene, and why the caller was not later present).

For all off these reasons, it is better to avoid introducing speculative text that the death was either "accidental" or "barbiturate related". It would be better to simply state the month and year death in the introduction paragraph.

A more detailed account of other circumstances, including an account that significant contradictory statements concerning Hendrix's death have been made and reported, could be included in a later section or paragraph. This should be comprehensive to remain unbiased, and include well referenced content and citation for a variety of statements and claims provided by others.

The death was considered mysterious, shocking and disturbing by many at the time.

The documentary "Jimi Hendrix - the Last 24 Hours", produced by Mike Parkinson and directed by Ray Santilli, explores earlier reportage and investigations surrounding Hendrix's death. This comprehensive documentary presents interviews with those who knew Hendrix, as well as other forms of evidence collected by Hendrix enthusiasts and information uncovered by the documentary makers themselves. It is a good start for anyone wishing to further edit and expand a section surrounding the later life (and last days) of Hendrix. As well as being good citation source material in itself, the video provides strong leads to other authentic source material.

Please uphold Wikipedia standards and allow this article to be updated. To be the best it can be, this article must record that sourced accounts of Hendrix's death contain significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies, resulting in subsequent uncertainty about the cause of death.

203.211.80.73 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to type this up, and for providing a pointer to the documentary. We have a source in the article (the Moskowitz book) indicating he was declared dead on September 18, not that the media reported his death on September 18. Do you have any sources indicating that the Santilli documentary should be taken as authoritative, or be taken more seriously than the Moskowitz book? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reliable sources that disagree that Hendrix died on September 18. In fact, though some details of his last day are disputed, nobody contends that he died before 12am on September 18; several people talked with him at a party at 2am; by 1pm he had been pronounced dead, so there is no doubt that he died sometime between 3am and 1pm, on September 18, 1970. Also, beware of these types of docs that really only want to resell a myth for their own profit, not to enhance the knowledgebase of Hendrix. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

On the main Wiki entry for Jimi Hendrix Please amend the date for his arriving in England from 23rd Sept. 1966 to 24th Sept 1966. Confirmation of the information can be found 17 seconds into the attached link (a BBC documentary) which has a still photo of Jimi's passport and shows the relevant immigration stamp. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01k8pf4 Thank you Wiki. 86.155.203.168 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Mlpearc (open channel) 16:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

In the section “Military History” at footnote 41 it states that Jimi wrote to his dad and asked for his guitar to be sent to Fort Ord. At the time of the request, Jimi was at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Please change Fort Ord to Fort Campbell to agree with the timeline of events. 2601:B:5800:D48:3DF4:8821:4036:BA49 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be a discrepancy, but which is right? the timing of the letter? or where the guitar was sent? Both the sources of note 41 are printed books, so I cannot check them. Arjayay (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
On page 19 of the book preview, it says Hendrix went to Fort Campbell on November 20, 1961. He had been at Fort Ord since May 31 that year. But then on page 26, where the Silvertone Danelectro is discussed, there is no mention of either Fort Campbell or Fort Ord. It just says he "eventually" asked his father to give it to him. Since both locations appear to have been where Hendrix stayed at in 1961, I'm going to give this edit request the benefit of the doubt and implement it, assuming good faith. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for removal as vital article

I just nominated Frank Sinatra to be added as a vital article, and since nomination entails that one should also nominate an article for removal off that list, I had to nominate this one. See how it evolves at: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Induct_Frank_Sinatra.2C_remove_Jimi_Hendrix.MackyBeth (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC) It's a vital article for a reason and I vote against removal; I mean, his death has many details to it and he's one of the most influential guitarists to musicians. True, he OD'ed, but he's also a member of the "27 Club" (besides Janis and apparently Jim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.56.222 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

So...could the infobox be changed to 'infobox person' with the 'musical artist' embed into it? I feel like his main page should at least have his death in there. LADY LOTUSTALK 12:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the WP practice to use Template:Infobox musical artist for persons known primarily as musicians (Miles Davis, Ray Charles, James Brown, et al.) Hendrix wasn't also an actor, businessman, or known for his high-profile public persona or relationships (Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, John Lennon, et al.) There is a section about his death in the article (accessable through the TOC) with a note about a separate Death of Jimi Hendrix article. I'm not sure that the extra parameters would be useful (resting place, alma mater, net worth, political party, religion, children, etc.) —Ojorojo (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable to use {{Infobox person}} in the manner described, for such people, particularly when that template's parameters, which are not replicated in the more specific infobox, are useful. The very fact that there is a separate article bout Hendrix's death indicates that it is an aspect of his story worth noting in his main article's infobox. Talk of parameters such as |political party= are straw men. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

recommend add facebook page link

Recommend: Add the facebook page link: https://www.facebook.com/JimiHendrix Add the link or photo of Jimi Hendrix in the US Army https://www.facebook.com/JimiHendrix/photos/a.263560406087.142172.38858586087/10152451116201088/?type=1&theater Jcardazzi (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)jcardazzi

We don't add Facebook links to articles in general. See ELNO#10. Doc talk 04:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Should he be described as a "guitarist" instead of as a "musician"?

The infobox specifies that the only instrument he played (besides his vocals) was the guitar. The term "musician" seems too vague. I think it would make more sense to call him a "guitarist, singer, and songwriter". Reverse polish (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that you bring it up, why is he described as "an American musician, singer, and songwriter", highlighting his singing without even mentioning his guitaring? Also, is a "singer" not a "musician"? I do think not mentioning his guitar playing in the first line is a major oversight. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverse polish: Hendrix was a musician. In addition to being a guitarist, singer, and songwriter, Hendrix also played keyboard instruments on several recordings, including piano on "Are You Experienced?", "Spanish Castle Magic", and "Crosstown Traffic", and harpsichord on "Bold as Love" and "Burning of the Midnight Lamp". (See Shapiro Glebbeek, 1995, pp. 526). He was a musician, not just a guitar player. That is why the article stated that he was a musician, before you reverted that to guitarist. Please gain consensus here at Talk before modifying an article such as this one. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

he influenced mick thomson,zakk wylde,freddie mercury,ace frehley,phil lynott,matt shulze Truthzz09 (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Add prose, genre

I'd like to add to #Legacy American writer [[Frank N. Magill]] credited Hendrix with creating [[acid rock]] and pioneering the [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]] and [[jazz fusion|fusion]] styles of rock music.{{sfn|Magill|1998|p=1478}}

...and in #Bibliography * {{cite book|ref=harv|last=Magill|first=Frank N.|authorlink=Frank N. Magill|year=1998|title=Chronology of Twentieth-Century History: Arts and Culture|publisher=[[Fitzroy Dearborn]]|isbn=1884964664}} --> [3]

...and in the infobox ..., [[acid rock]] Dan56 (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Genres were discussed at Talk:Are You Experienced [4]. I think this sums it up pretty well (emphasis added):

Dan56, it's clear that you have found sources that refer to the album as acid rock. There are many, many sources that also don't call it acid rock. The reason was explained in the RFC by GabeMc. The thing you seem to be missing from your personal criteria for including genres in an article is that you have to critically assess not only the quality of sources but what is said in the preponderance of sources. It's easy to find an article that supports some point. What you really have to do is review all of the sources in use and get an idea of what they say as a whole. This is how GabeMc is able to write quality articles on much larger topics than this—he has the ability to grep a large body of knowledge and translate that into an article. I really don't understand why you are so excited and insistent about this. I'm against the inclusion of the term "acid rock" based on the body of knowledge currently being used to source the article. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

How does Magill support his statements? Musical analyses of specific songs, guitar techniques, etc.? If he identifies Hendrix as a pioneer of heavy metal and jazz fusion, it seems he's prone to making broad overstatements. The existing four genres in the infobox went through GA and FA reviews; I don't think adding to/changing them is warranted unless there is very good reason to do so. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No need for acid rock in the infobox. Magill's statement may be appropriate for the article body, but his unique conclusion does not belong in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you have held the inclusion of "rhythm and blues/R&B" to the same standard--where is the musical analysis to support "hard rock" as well? "There are many, many sources that also don't call" him R&B, so I don't see your point since it's not being applied consistently in this article. Furthermore, "acid rock" is not a unique conclusion; there are other sources that hold a similar interpretation of Hendrix's music--the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is used in this article as a source, says "acid rock" was an influence along with blues and jazz ([5]), history professors Timothy P. Maga in this reference book on the 1960s and Neil A. Hamilton in his reference book on the 1970s both characterized Hendrix's unique sound as acid rock ([6], [7]), as does music professor James E. Perone ([8]), and even a contemporary sources in Ebony and Jet magazine ([9], [10]), and music critic Clinton Heylin ([11]). According to writer and musician Michael Campbell, Hendrix was associated with acid rock ([12]). Here is a source that does include musical analysis and guitar technique in songs after verifying "acid rock" ([13]). There are much more--"preponderance of sources"--but I'll open an RfC if you need me too--you say it's a preponderance of... whatever, I feel you're using a blanket statement to justify excluding a genre you personally feel doesn't describe Hendrix appropriately. Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Newquist & Maloof (ref [11]) is a good example of misinterpretation. They only say "His acid rock was appropriately frenetic; his ballad playing melodic and gentle". They are discussing some of the different guitar techniques he used, not that the overall body of his music is "acid rock", just as it isn't overall "melodic and gentle". Their following analyses of techniques in songs include "a 12/8 slow blues", a wah-wah muted/scratch pick riff ("Voodoo Child"), "R&B guitarist Curtis Mayfield [techniques] Hendrix borrowed for many ballads" ("Little Wing"), and the Hendrix chord. These examples are not "verifying 'acid rock'"; they show a variety of styles. Should I waste my time going through the rest? —Ojorojo (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC opened. Dan56 (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First Usage of Wah

"The album also included his first recorded song to feature the use of a wah-wah pedal, "Burning of the Midnight Lamp", which reached number 18 in the UK charts."

If you listen to Up From the Skies, there is an earlier usage of wah. Not sure why Burning of the Midnight Lamp is cited as the first recorded song of his to use wah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.141.46 (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Shapiro and Glebbeek's biography Electric Gypsy says that Burning of the Midnight Lamp was the first recorded use by Hendrix, as discussed in that article. Do you have a reliable source to the contrary? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

Jimi Hendrix Was born in Vancouver, BC, Canada but raised in Seattle, WA. Camquatch (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox

Should the infobox include acid rock in its genre parameter? Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Proving this to be a non-controversial addition, numerous sources say acid rock is a style Jimi Hendrix played or was known for, some of which are:

  • Writer Frank N. Magill: "Rock music was changed when the heavy psychedelic blues and guitar virtuousity of Jimi Hendrix became a huge success, creating 'acid rock' and pointing the way to fusion and heavy metal." ([14])
  • the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is used in this article as a source, says "acid rock" was an influence along with blues and jazz ([15])
  • history professors Timothy P. Maga in this reference book on the 1960s and Neil A. Hamilton in his reference book on the 1970s both characterized Hendrix's unique sound as acid rock ([16], [17])
  • music professor James E. Perone ([18])
  • contemporary sources in Ebony and Jet magazine ([19], [20])
  • music critic Clinton Heylin, who called Hendrix one of the "uncrowned kings of acid rock" ([21])
  • According to writer and musician Michael Campbell, Hendrix was associated with acid rock ([22]).
  • HP Newquist wrote , "[Hendrix's] acid rock was appropriately frenetic" ([23]).

There are many more sources that do the same, but to verify it for the purposes of this article, I would suggest adding to this article's Legacy section some version of: American writer [[Frank N. Magill]] credited Hendrix with creating [[acid rock]] and pioneering the [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]] and [[jazz fusion|fusion]] styles of rock music.{{sfn|Magill|1998|p=1478}}, which is from this source: Magill, Frank N. (1998). Chronology of Twentieth-Century History: Arts and Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN 1884964664. 

Votes
  • Support as the editor proposing this change. Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. None of the sources discuss what specifically in Hendrix's musical style, playing, or songs is "acid rock". They only mention acid rock in passing and several of the sources are misrepresented. The R&R Hall of Fame lists acid rock among several influences: "Free jazz, Delta blues, acid rock, hardcore funk and the songwriting of Bob Dylan and the Beatles all figured as influences". Listing a musician's influences is not the same as characterizing him; no one suggests that Hendrix is a free jazz or Delta blues musician. Likewise, Newquist is addressing his guitar techniques; the sentence reads "His acid rock was appropriately frenetic; his ballad playing melodic and gentle". Again, a single element of style doesn't define the musician; no one calls him a balladeer. Campbell's discussion points to the musician's roots as more important to his identity than the drug "overlay": "both Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, who were also associated with acid rock, had deep blues roots" (genres for the Eric Clapton article don't include acid rock). A quick look at WP Hendrix song articles (Category:Songs written by Jimi Hendrix) lists only "Fire" as "acid rock" (along with "Blues rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock"). If acid rock describes his music, then this would also be reflected in his songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article body can talk about how observers have placed Hendrix relative to "acid rock" but I don't think it is appropriate to elevate the connection to the infobox genre parameter. Frank N. Magill's expertise was general; he was not a musicologist, and I don't think he is particularly authoritative here. Nobody who is an expert on acid rock says that Hendrix created it, or was a primary example of it. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Binksternet and Ojorojo that "acid rock" developed in San Francisco in the year before Hendrix started recording as a rock star. I am against loading up musician articles with excessive genres. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I saw Hendrix live in the 60's. Of course he played acid rock. Who cares if he invented it or not? Tunes like 'Are You Experienced' and 'Purple Haze' are about taking acid. Assertions to the contrary are ludicrous, and absurdly pedantic, no matter what anyone says or writes. Put it in the info box that it was a genre he played, or be wrong. Jusdafax 02:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per numerous sources, and no rational counter argument. Dlabtot (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion/comments
  • Hendrix was not responsible for "creating 'acid rock'". This is an error on Magill's part and is unsupported. Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead, two groups that are usually identified as acid rock, were well established before Hendrix went to England to begin his rock recording career. Campbell writes "The band that first directed the spotlight to the San Francisco sound and to acid rock was Jefferson Airplane". (p. 213, emphasis added). They released two albums Jefferson Airplane Takes Off (August 1966) and Surrealistic Pillow (February 1967), before Hendrix's first album Are You Experienced (May 1967 UK, August 1967 US). The Grateful Dead debut album (March 1967) also preceded the Experience album. Tom Wolfe, author of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, wrote "Through the Dead's experience with the Pranksters [at acid tests] was borne the sound known as 'acid rock'". Hendrix biographers do not mention that he performed at or attended these events prior to his return to the US in June 1967 for the Monterey Pop Festival. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd support per the number of reliable sources on it but there are already 4 genres in the infobox. The information should be in prose, written from a neutral point of view of course, and not given undue weight (if, as suggested above, it is a somewhat of a minority view or not contextualized enough, relative to other style/genre info in the article). Agree with Fitzroy Dearborn. --Lapadite (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry - clarification needed

Something doesn’t jive here. Ohio became a state in 1803, and has always been a free state. (For those of you not from the US, “free state” means slavery was illegal in that state.) Therefore, the grain merchant from Urbana, Ohio who fathered Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix was unlikely to have been a slave owner, unless he lived in a different state. Also, if Bertran was born in 1866, that means that slavery was most likely to have been outlawed everywhere in the US (at least legally) by the time he was conceived, and certainly by the time he was born. The Civil War officially ended on June 22, 1865, and the Emancipation Proclamation was enforced throughout all remaining regions of the South yet to free their slaves. Slavery did continue for a couple months longer in 1865 in some isolated areas in the South, but overall, this section may be inaccurate. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the reference doesn't use or imply "slave" and "overseer". It states, "How their path's cross is unknown. The most likely explanation is that Fanny was in Mr. Ross's employment when she was raped or seduced." (Shapiro p. 7). Another reference shows Fanny Whitefield born around 1826 in Ohio and there is no mention that she was a slave (Brown p. 6). Ross is identified as being from Urbana, Ohio, and Urbana, Illinois, (both in counties named Champaign) and there is no mention of him as a slave owner (Brown pp. 6–7). However, in Room Full of Mirrors, Cross identifies Fanny as a former slave and that Ross once owned her (Cross p. 16). Cross' book has many unique conclusions and lists only persons interviewed by chapter as support. Propose to re-word as: "Hendrix's paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix (born 1866), was the result of an extramarital affair between a black woman, also named Fanny, and a grain merchant from Urbana, Ohio or Illinois, and one of the wealthiest white men in the area at that time. (Shapiro & Glebbeek 1990, p. 7; Brown 1992, pp. 6–7)" And add as a Note: "Author Charles R. Cross in Room Full of Mirrors writes "He [Hendrix's paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix] was born out of wedlock, and from the biracial coupling of his mother, a former slave, and a white merchant who had once owned her. (Cross 2005, p. 16)." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply Ojorojo, but thanks for looking into this. I agree with the changes. Until more detailed information is published, this is about as good as could be expected. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FW little OT IW, slavery actually lasted somewhat longer in the "North" than in the South; the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the Union slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia, and slavery only ended there with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1866. Solicitr (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the wiki article on the 13th, the ratification was on December 6th, 1865, many of those states (including Missouri and Maryland) did ratify it earlier - though I guess in this case all we care about are Illinois and Ohio - the former, being Lincoln's home state, was the first to ratify the 13th. Ohio was always a free state, and Illinois was as well, though there was some slavery taking place there illegally in the 1820's. This was of course quite a bit before 1866. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Electric Lady: First?

"Electric Lady was the first artist owned and operated recording studio." I don't doubt the source cited makes this claim, but it can't be true; the Beatles' Apple studio was in operation a year and a half earlier, in January 1969. Solicitr (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual quote reads "Certainly the studio broke new ground as the first ever artist-conceived, owned, and operated studio." (Heatley 2009, p. 139.) It sounds like the type of throwaway quote that unfortunately finds its way into WP articles. However, Apple Studio had a shaky beginning and it seems that it wasn't really functional until later. Although The Beatles Encyclopedia[24] says it became operational in January 1969, George Martin, George Harrison, and Alan Parsons found major design and equipment problems (apparently only some rehearsals that later appeared in Let It Be (1970 film) were recorded there in 1969). After an eighteen-month renovation by Geoff Emerick, it opened in August 1970 and to the public on September 30, 1970, about the same time as Electric Lady. Frank Zappa ran his Studio Z around 1964–1965 and there are probably others. Since it doesn't really add much to the article, maybe just remove it or add it as a footnote? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox

Should the infobox include acid rock in its genre parameter? Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Proving this to be a non-controversial addition, numerous sources say acid rock is a style Jimi Hendrix played or was known for, some of which are:

  • Writer Frank N. Magill: "Rock music was changed when the heavy psychedelic blues and guitar virtuousity of Jimi Hendrix became a huge success, creating 'acid rock' and pointing the way to fusion and heavy metal." ([25])
  • the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is used in this article as a source, says "acid rock" was an influence along with blues and jazz ([26])
  • history professors Timothy P. Maga in this reference book on the 1960s and Neil A. Hamilton in his reference book on the 1970s both characterized Hendrix's unique sound as acid rock ([27], [28])
  • music professor James E. Perone ([29])
  • contemporary sources in Ebony and Jet magazine ([30], [31])
  • music critic Clinton Heylin, who called Hendrix one of the "uncrowned kings of acid rock" ([32])
  • According to writer and musician Michael Campbell, Hendrix was associated with acid rock ([33]).
  • HP Newquist wrote , "[Hendrix's] acid rock was appropriately frenetic" ([34]).

There are many more sources that do the same, but to verify it for the purposes of this article, I would suggest adding to this article's Legacy section some version of: American writer [[Frank N. Magill]] credited Hendrix with creating [[acid rock]] and pioneering the [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]] and [[jazz fusion|fusion]] styles of rock music.{{sfn|Magill|1998|p=1478}}, which is from this source: Magill, Frank N. (1998). Chronology of Twentieth-Century History: Arts and Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN 1884964664. 

Votes
  • Support as the editor proposing this change. Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. None of the sources discuss what specifically in Hendrix's musical style, playing, or songs is "acid rock". They only mention acid rock in passing and several of the sources are misrepresented. The R&R Hall of Fame lists acid rock among several influences: "Free jazz, Delta blues, acid rock, hardcore funk and the songwriting of Bob Dylan and the Beatles all figured as influences". Listing a musician's influences is not the same as characterizing him; no one suggests that Hendrix is a free jazz or Delta blues musician. Likewise, Newquist is addressing his guitar techniques; the sentence reads "His acid rock was appropriately frenetic; his ballad playing melodic and gentle". Again, a single element of style doesn't define the musician; no one calls him a balladeer. Campbell's discussion points to the musician's roots as more important to his identity than the drug "overlay": "both Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, who were also associated with acid rock, had deep blues roots" (genres for the Eric Clapton article don't include acid rock). A quick look at WP Hendrix song articles (Category:Songs written by Jimi Hendrix) lists only "Fire" as "acid rock" (along with "Blues rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock"). If acid rock describes his music, then this would also be reflected in his songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article body can talk about how observers have placed Hendrix relative to "acid rock" but I don't think it is appropriate to elevate the connection to the infobox genre parameter. Frank N. Magill's expertise was general; he was not a musicologist, and I don't think he is particularly authoritative here. Nobody who is an expert on acid rock says that Hendrix created it, or was a primary example of it. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Binksternet and Ojorojo that "acid rock" developed in San Francisco in the year before Hendrix started recording as a rock star. I am against loading up musician articles with excessive genres. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I saw Hendrix live in the 60's. Of course he played acid rock. Who cares if he invented it or not? Tunes like 'Are You Experienced' and 'Purple Haze' are about taking acid. Assertions to the contrary are ludicrous, and absurdly pedantic, no matter what anyone says or writes. Put it in the info box that it was a genre he played, or be wrong. Jusdafax 02:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per numerous sources, and no rational counter argument. Dlabtot (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion/comments
  • Hendrix was not responsible for "creating 'acid rock'". This is an error on Magill's part and is unsupported. Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead, two groups that are usually identified as acid rock, were well established before Hendrix went to England to begin his rock recording career. Campbell writes "The band that first directed the spotlight to the San Francisco sound and to acid rock was Jefferson Airplane". (p. 213, emphasis added). They released two albums Jefferson Airplane Takes Off (August 1966) and Surrealistic Pillow (February 1967), before Hendrix's first album Are You Experienced (May 1967 UK, August 1967 US). The Grateful Dead debut album (March 1967) also preceded the Experience album. Tom Wolfe, author of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, wrote "Through the Dead's experience with the Pranksters [at acid tests] was borne the sound known as 'acid rock'". Hendrix biographers do not mention that he performed at or attended these events prior to his return to the US in June 1967 for the Monterey Pop Festival. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd support per the number of reliable sources on it but there are already 4 genres in the infobox. The information should be in prose, written from a neutral point of view of course, and not given undue weight (if, as suggested above, it is a somewhat of a minority view or not contextualized enough, relative to other style/genre info in the article). Agree with Fitzroy Dearborn. --Lapadite (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox

Should the infobox include acid rock in its genre parameter? Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Proving this to be a non-controversial addition, numerous sources say acid rock is a style Jimi Hendrix played or was known for, some of which are:

  • Writer Frank N. Magill: "Rock music was changed when the heavy psychedelic blues and guitar virtuousity of Jimi Hendrix became a huge success, creating 'acid rock' and pointing the way to fusion and heavy metal." ([35])
  • the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is used in this article as a source, says "acid rock" was an influence along with blues and jazz ([36])
  • history professors Timothy P. Maga in this reference book on the 1960s and Neil A. Hamilton in his reference book on the 1970s both characterized Hendrix's unique sound as acid rock ([37], [38])
  • music professor James E. Perone ([39])
  • contemporary sources in Ebony and Jet magazine ([40], [41])
  • music critic Clinton Heylin, who called Hendrix one of the "uncrowned kings of acid rock" ([42])
  • According to writer and musician Michael Campbell, Hendrix was associated with acid rock ([43]).
  • HP Newquist wrote , "[Hendrix's] acid rock was appropriately frenetic" ([44]).

There are many more sources that do the same, but to verify it for the purposes of this article, I would suggest adding to this article's Legacy section some version of: American writer [[Frank N. Magill]] credited Hendrix with creating [[acid rock]] and pioneering the [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]] and [[jazz fusion|fusion]] styles of rock music.{{sfn|Magill|1998|p=1478}}, which is from this source: Magill, Frank N. (1998). Chronology of Twentieth-Century History: Arts and Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN 1884964664. 

Votes
  • Support as the editor proposing this change. Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. None of the sources discuss what specifically in Hendrix's musical style, playing, or songs is "acid rock". They only mention acid rock in passing and several of the sources are misrepresented. The R&R Hall of Fame lists acid rock among several influences: "Free jazz, Delta blues, acid rock, hardcore funk and the songwriting of Bob Dylan and the Beatles all figured as influences". Listing a musician's influences is not the same as characterizing him; no one suggests that Hendrix is a free jazz or Delta blues musician. Likewise, Newquist is addressing his guitar techniques; the sentence reads "His acid rock was appropriately frenetic; his ballad playing melodic and gentle". Again, a single element of style doesn't define the musician; no one calls him a balladeer. Campbell's discussion points to the musician's roots as more important to his identity than the drug "overlay": "both Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, who were also associated with acid rock, had deep blues roots" (genres for the Eric Clapton article don't include acid rock). A quick look at WP Hendrix song articles (Category:Songs written by Jimi Hendrix) lists only "Fire" as "acid rock" (along with "Blues rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock"). If acid rock describes his music, then this would also be reflected in his songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article body can talk about how observers have placed Hendrix relative to "acid rock" but I don't think it is appropriate to elevate the connection to the infobox genre parameter. Frank N. Magill's expertise was general; he was not a musicologist, and I don't think he is particularly authoritative here. Nobody who is an expert on acid rock says that Hendrix created it, or was a primary example of it. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Binksternet and Ojorojo that "acid rock" developed in San Francisco in the year before Hendrix started recording as a rock star. I am against loading up musician articles with excessive genres. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I saw Hendrix live in the 60's. Of course he played acid rock. Who cares if he invented it or not? Tunes like 'Are You Experienced' and 'Purple Haze' are about taking acid. Assertions to the contrary are ludicrous, and absurdly pedantic, no matter what anyone says or writes. Put it in the info box that it was a genre he played, or be wrong. Jusdafax 02:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per numerous sources, and no rational counter argument. Dlabtot (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion/comments
  • Hendrix was not responsible for "creating 'acid rock'". This is an error on Magill's part and is unsupported. Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead, two groups that are usually identified as acid rock, were well established before Hendrix went to England to begin his rock recording career. Campbell writes "The band that first directed the spotlight to the San Francisco sound and to acid rock was Jefferson Airplane". (p. 213, emphasis added). They released two albums Jefferson Airplane Takes Off (August 1966) and Surrealistic Pillow (February 1967), before Hendrix's first album Are You Experienced (May 1967 UK, August 1967 US). The Grateful Dead debut album (March 1967) also preceded the Experience album. Tom Wolfe, author of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, wrote "Through the Dead's experience with the Pranksters [at acid tests] was borne the sound known as 'acid rock'". Hendrix biographers do not mention that he performed at or attended these events prior to his return to the US in June 1967 for the Monterey Pop Festival. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd support per the number of reliable sources on it but there are already 4 genres in the infobox. The information should be in prose, written from a neutral point of view of course, and not given undue weight (if, as suggested above, it is a somewhat of a minority view or not contextualized enough, relative to other style/genre info in the article). Agree with Fitzroy Dearborn. --Lapadite (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Blue Flame

I changed the name of the band from "Jimmy James and the Blue Flames" to "Jimmy James and the Blue Flame". This is a common misidentification, but the reference to the correct name can be heard in taped interviews with Jimi. It would take a little work to find the right interview on YouTube, but it is there, and I distinctly remember him saying "Blue Flame". Here is the link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGtNzZSAs84. He clearly says "Blue Flame" at 18:15. Cougar2013 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The only instance of "The Blue Flame" (singular, not plural) in print appears to be in one newspaper advertisement for a gig. Hendrix may say "the Blue Flame" (along with "The Rain Flowers") in one interview, but he often used alternate names and spellings (First Rays [or Ray] of the New Rising Sun, "Gypsy Sun [or Sons] and Rainbows", "Voodoo Chile [or Child or both]", etc. A preponderance of sources identify the group as "Jimmy James and the Blue Flames":
  • Randy California (band member): "we did five sets a night as Jimmy James & The Blue Flames". Black 1999, p.43.
  • Pete Sandro (musician): "all the musicians were buzzing about this cat... Jimmy James & The Blue Flames." Ibid.
  • Jeff Baxter (sometimes band bassist): "Jimmy was playing... with a group called "Jimmy James & The Blue Flames". Ibid.
  • Paul Caruso (sometimes Hendrix harmonica player): "He was playing with The Blue Flames". Ibid.
  • Chas Chandler (producer/co-manager): "I... saw Jimmy James & The Blue Flames perform...". Ibid.
  • John Sebastian (musician): "Jimmy was working... as Jimmy James & The Blue Flames...". Ibid.
  • John McDermott (biographer/producer): "to join his planned group, Jimmy James & the Blue Flames". McDermott 1992, p. 6.
  • McDermott: "performances in Greenwich Village as Jimmy James & the Blue Flames". McDermott 1997, p. 3.
  • McDermott: "Billing his ensemble as Jimmy James and the Blue Flames". McDermott 2009, p. 17.
  • McDermott: "as a little known guitarist fronting Jimmy James & The Blue Flames". McDermott 2010, p. 17.
  • Steven Roby (biographer): "Jimi James and the Blue Flames [section heading] — Hendrix called his new band the Blue Flames for two reasons: it had worked for blues singer Junior Parker, and it conveniently rhymed with James. Every now and then Hendrix switched the group's name to the Rain Flowers, probably just for fun... Hendrix insisted on spelling his first name 'Jimi', not 'Jimmy'". Roby 2002, pp. 51–52.
  • Roby: "Jimmy officially became Jimi... his backup band, the Blue Flames, took shape...". Roby 2010, p. 160.
  • Charles R. Cross (biographer): "he decided to call the motley crew Jimmy James and the Blue Flames. He had picked the name because Junior Parker had a group called the Blue Flames, but he also called the group the Rain Flowers, based on his mood. Not long after... change[d] the speling of his first name to 'Jimi'...". Cross 2005, p. 139.
  • Keith Shadwick (biographer): "Hendrix chose the name Jimmy James & The Blue Flames...". Shadwick 2003, p. 76.
  • Harry Shapiro (biographer): "initially the Rainflowers and then, in honour of Junior Parker's band, Jimmy James and the Blue Flames". Shapiro 1990, p. 101.
  • Charles Shaar Murray (writer): "he formed his own band... Jimmy James & the Blue Flames". Murray 1989, p. 41.
  • David Henderson (biographer): "Finally he had fronted his own band: Jimmy James and the Blue Flames". Henderson 1981, p. 78.
  • Jimi Hendrix, quoted from Swedish radio interview May 28, 1967:
  • Steven Roby interviewing Randy California (band member):
Roby: "Jimi mentioned in a later interview that the group was also called 'The Rainflowers.' Do you recall that name? (Note: Carol Shiroky had further information on J.J. & the Blues Flames when I interviewed her later)".
California: "All I remember was that it was being called Jimmy James & The Blue Flames. Maybe it was changed for one night... just for fun". Roby 1994.
  • The Experience Hendrix official website biography [45] lists the name as "Jimmy James and the Blue Flames".

Ojorojo (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that secondary sources that could have been misquoting are better than the only printed advertisement for the group and the words out of Jimi's own mouth? Cougar2013 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hendrix himself is quoted as saying: "[I] got my own little group together named The Rain Flowers. We had two names, The Rain Flowers and The Blue Flames, any one of those names is all right, you know". Roby 2002, p. 50. (see above). So he is on record as calling it the Blue Flames. Randy California, a band member, remembered it on several occasions as "Jimmy James and the Blue Flames". Others who actually saw the band, recalled them as Jimmy James and the Blue Flames, including Paul Caruso, Jeff Baxter, John Sebastian, and Chas Chandler (see above for citations). Why should one interview (in which he also calls it Rain Flowers) take precedence? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I appreciate your impressive list of sources. Does not the only surviving advertisement of the band say "Flame" and not "Flames"? Jimi certainly used alternate names for things, but shouldn't the only print source and a recording of his own voice be the primary sources? I know this isn't such a great case, but do those things mean nothing?Cougar2013 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The actual ad reads "John Hammond & the Blue Flame" (the group backed Hammond at the Cafe au Go Go). This is all explained in the Jimmy James and the Blue Flames article, which is the more appropriate place for details about Hendrix's earlier group. WP:PRIMARY discusses primary vs. secondary sources. WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:BALASPS, and WP:ONUS may also be of interest. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, although Jimi's own recorded words seem to fall under the category of primary source. Why then is "The Blue Flame" not listed as an aka for the group in that article?Cougar2013 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's a referencing problem. Generally, YouTube should not be linked (see WP:ELNEVER. I believe this interview recording is copyright protected. Adding "the Blue Flame" to the infobox should be OK since it's already referenced in the text. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Added to that article infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Military Service

"and Major General C.W.G. Rich awarded him the prestigious Screaming Eagles patch on January 11, 1962.[42]"

This is silly and should be removed. There is nothing prestigious about a unit patch. Everyone in the entire Army has one. Not even a USASOC patch is prestigious, given how many support personnel wear it. Describing a divisional patch as prestigious is absurd. 68.190.209.63 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hendrix, James A. (1999). My Son Jimi. AlJas Enterprises. ISBN 978-0-9667857-0-8. (Page 12)