Talk:John Coltrane

Saint categories

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not an expert on sainthood, and I've never edited the article on Coltrane or sainthood. I'm not here to judge. I'm just here to help. Regarding sourcing, I think it's better to use wp:rs third party sources to establish the fact of sainthood, rather then the using only the parish's website. From a quick Google news search on saint+coltrane+african+orthodox+church, it would appear to me that the African Orthodox Church beatified Coltrane in 1981 ("a dozen years ago" from a 1993 article in the Philadelphia Daily News). The beatification was not done by just "a single church". More expert editors should provide even better sources and verify this. Assuming this is true, then it would be appropriate to add him to the Category:American saints, since the AOC has 15 parishes and 5,000 parishioners, and appears to have established wp:notability in its own right (outside this isolated issue of sainthood). I think it's inappropriate to add him to Category:Anglican saints, since no reference provided (so far) states he was beatified by the entire Anglican church. If Coltrane was only beatified by the single parish, he doesn't belong in either category—Work permit (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

.

Agree with Work Permit. I won't challenge the American saints inclusion. I do believe that a section should be placed in his article concerning it. --Manway (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourced The categories Category:American saints and Category:Anglican saints are justified by the fact that Coltrane is canonized by the African Orthodox Church, which is a part of Anglicanism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, it is one church in San Francisco, the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church at [1], that has "canonized" Coltrane. Not the entire Anglican communion. I don't believe this qualifies him to be listed in Wikipedia as a saint. Third party opinion requested. --Manway (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the same thing we deal it in the spanish wiki about the god status of Maradona, because he has been praised by 10000 members congregation as a God. So the solution was to treat this thing like a Trivia or extra data. Coltrane is, of course, not an Anglican Christian or American Saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.134.170 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an Anglican Christian, but he is considered an Anglican saint. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Even so, although I think it's acceptable, I wouldn't personally promote it. No contest, I guess is my feeling on it. However, I strongly believe that the infobox repeating the same information as the Muisician's infobox right above it (i.e. birthdate, origin, etc.) should be removed. Perhaps there's a way to add it to Coltrane's template at the bottom of the article rather than the way it is now, since it will be mentioned thus far it seems, in the external links section, and in the text? It's overkill to have two infoboxes on the same page just as a matter of clarity. Can we not find a better way to display the information? Right now it looks like a brand-new user stumbled onto the page and erroneously put a box relating to some other article there at first glance. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Anglican Communion has only ever cannonized one person, Charles I of England, as a saint. However, certain churches celebrate people as saints on their calenders (i.e. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a saint in the Episcopal Church USA, and he is categorized under Anglican saints. Coltrane was cannonized by an independant Anglican Church, the African Orthodox Church, as a saint, and is venerated as a saint. Therefore, he is an Anglican saint. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What happens next?

• If the opinion misses the point

Explain why you think they have missed the point and give the respondent a reasonable time to justify or revise their opinion. The third party is unlikely to be an expert on the topic and may unintentionally overlook a detail.

• If the opinion needs clarification

The reply should be in Plain English but may include references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the response is confusing or you can not see which part of the referenced material applies, then ask for a further clarification. Please remember to remain civil.

• If the opinion is not accepted

If the opinion given is firmly rejected, it probably is not worth while going over the same ground again. Ask the non-accepting party to clarify their viewpoint and summarize the current situation. Remember to stay cool and give reasonable time for contributions from other editors who may act as local mediators.

Your next step is probably to consider one of the other dispute resolution options. The most common of these at this stage are:

1. A request for comment, a good solution for agreeing a proposed exception to the guidance, or rejecting it.
2. Raising a Wikiquette alert, a fair way of dealing with another editor who consistently shows what you think is poor etiquette. Going through the third opinion process should demonstrate that you have made reasonable attempts to resolve issues locally before raising the alert.
3. Requesting advice on a Wikipedia noticeboard. For example Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is particularly helpful in those cases where the inclusion of problematic biographical material for a living person is under debate.
4. Requesting advice on a Wikiproject talk page. Nearly all articles fall within the jurisdiction of a Wikiproject, and the members of that project can be helpful in further bringing about consensus on that page.

• If the opinion worked and resolved the dispute

Don't forget to express thanks to everyone involved. Positive feedback is encouraged as it shows that their contributions are appreciated which will help to ensure the future of the third opinion project. If the third opinion was especially sage or particularly helpful, you might consider awarding a Third Opinion Award on the talk page of the Wikipedian who gave the opinion.

Thesis in ext. links

I removed the following from the ext. links section and bring it here for discussion.

• John Coltrane, Avant Garde Jazz and the Evolution of "My Favorite Things" academic thesis

Is this thesis notable? I have no idea, but I would like to hear other's opinions. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not written by Coltrane. I don't see how it is notable. It simply discusses his performances, in rather involved and esoteric musical terms. I can't see how the average reader would glean anything from this, let alone understand half of it. --Manway (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sainthood in lede

Recently, I have been having a slow-paced edit war with an anon. editor who keeps removing Coltrane's canonization from the lede. The discussion above relating to the saint category seems to prove that the church that canonized him and the canonization are both notable. I see no reason it cannot be mentioned in the lede and then elaborated upon in the section on his legacy. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This user has been at this for several years now. Protection might help. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I did not realize that! I will make a request for page protection. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it should be mentioned in the lead section, and I don't understand why they keep removing it. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you were to try to best represent the argument against inclusion in the words of the editor against adding it to the lead, what would you say? In other words, why should it not be added to the lead? Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. Since this is a part of his legacy, it should be mentioned in the lead, but since it is a small part of his life story, it should be mentioned briefly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it actually has nothing to do with his life. Bishop King, the Church, and "Sainthood" came much later, and it should appear at the end of the lead. The body of the article should also go into more detail about the legacy of Coltrane and the Church, and mention the importance of "Uplift! The Music of John Coltrane", a three-hour radio program broadcast on KPOO from noon-4 every Tuesday, and part of the Church's "outreach". The show is a San Francisco tradition, and familiar to most residents. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure That is much more sensible: the lead should follow the strcuture of the article; maybe something like four paragraphs about his early life, career as a sideman, initial ensembles, and musical experimentation before his death, with one paragraph discussing his legacy in terms of slaes, critical reception, and beatification. Anything added to the section on the church should be sourced, of course. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The one thing the anon. user has said that makes sense is that the lede should mention how many albums he has sold, and this should come before mentioning that he is a saint. That, and the other comments made above, make sense to me. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we start editing the lead section? I don't mind who does it, but I think we should get started. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it be bold. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to do so, but I was hoping RepublicanJacobite would have the honor. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than day-to-day editing, vandal reversion, etc., I am currently working on a bigger project in user space and offline. I would not have time to devote to this for a month, at least. You should go ahead and do it, if you like. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the sainthood sentence from the lead. I have not been doing it for years, only the last few days. I am on a shared IP and prior edits from years past are not mine. A brief look at the Coltrane page edit history reveals that multiple other users have independently felt the lead sentence was an inappropriate place for this. First, his being made a saint was by a single 5000 member church, not by any mainstream religious organization that represents a substantial number of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or other entity. Placing this item in the lead sentence only serves to raise the eyebrows, if not offend, many religious and secular readers.

Second, only 1% of the article (verified by word count) is about this beatification event. It makes no sense at at all, in terms of good writing, to place this in the lead. It also obscures and belies that Coltrane had a fairly diverse set of religious experiences himself, ranging from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. There is far more on this topic in the body of article than the beatification. In the first sentence why not list him as the leader or sideman of albums A Love Supreme, Blue Train, Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, Ascension and John Coltrane Live at the Village Vanguard, topics that far better represent the spirit of the article.

An aspiration to fairness and proportionality is one thing that demarcates Wikipedia from Conservapedia. If summarizing a mainstream religion, should the lead include a sentence on a small fringe sect? There is so much to say about Coltrane in terms of his life history and impact that the beatification by a single church really amounts to trivia and ought be treated as such in an encyclopedia until there is far broader acceptance of the idea. Wikipedia shouldn't be used a tool to promote this agenda; it ought report on what is generally accepted as his impact and backed with citations for that impact. 14-Oct-2010, 15:36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.28 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Short and sweet and in order of the points made: 1) I apologize, but your edits reminded me of another editor 2) As for raising eyebrows or offending someone as a result of calling Coltrane a saint, that kind of argument isn't supported. We write based on the sources, and follow the related biographical policies and guidelines 3) The sainthood occurred after his death, and while there is a connection to his spiritual life and music, it is part of his influence and legacy. 4) It is notable enough to mention in the lead, and more can be said about it in the body. For some reason, this addition personally upsets you, and we just don't edit from that POV. Use the policies and guidelines we have to argue against inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Regarding the good suggestions by 162.129.251.28 for improving the lead, I would be happy to implement them or encourage others to do the same. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to some of the points, above: 2) I was not challenging that Coltrane's "beatification" cannot be sourced as legitimate. I am simply challenging whether this is universally accepted enough to be in the lead. There are roughly 2.1 billion Christians (2,100,000,000). The AOC which considers him a saint is 5,000 members in size, amounting to 0.00024 percent of Christians.

3) I agree with Viriditas that the sainthood represents his influence upon a seemingly well-intentioned church. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, as Sagan suggested, or at least more widespread acceptance before this ought to be in the lead. What if the AOC were 2,000 members in size, or 100 members in size, or just two persons? Where is the cutoff at which point one should be accepted as a saint, let alone the broad appreciation that merits mention in the few sentences summarizing an extraordinary life?

There are some preachers who have suggested that J.S. Bach should be made a saint. Should Wikipedia alter Bach's biography to denote this (with the rationale that it is part of his impact and legacy)? Ditto for Beethoven. Anyhow, these are my thoughts. The current state of the article, in which this event is listed near the end of the lead is far more acceptable to me than being the second sentence. 162.129.251.28; 16-Oct-2010, 17:00

Semi-protection

Semi of this article seems heavy-handed given recent history. 220.100.22.19 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

After having read the diffs and the section above, I also happen to agree with the arguments put forward by the IP, but this is not my point.

Their initial edits perhaps could come across as confrontational (they weren't IMO - just bold and a little insistent), but he then amply demostrated (1) not to be a vandal and (2) to be perfectly capable of civil discussion.

Suppressing individual POV of unregistered users in an unwelcoming way is not what semi-protection is for, even if short-term. This matter could have easily been resolved by bringing it in the Discussion page. Please unprotect. 220.100.22.19 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 6#File:John Coltrane 1960.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

i see images in loc are copyrighted [2]

google images [3] you might use the album cover "Blue Train (album)", or "blue note years" [4]. Slowking4 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ΙΩ/ΑΝ/ΗΣ

If the article is going to include this Orthodox-style icon under "Sainthood", then shouldn't the Greek be made comprehensible?
The second word is ΙΩΑΝΗΣ, that is, John. But the first word?
And why does it say Will.I.AM?
Varlaam (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Flute

What about the flute? He played well on it. Why not have this information in the article? Luudi1 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all the critical write-ups I've read about JC's flute playing was rather unenthusiastic. And I would never categorize Coltrane as even a fair flautist, let alone a good one. Someone who was splendid on jazz flute like Eric Dolphy or Roland Kirk will be remembered for their accomplishments on the instrument; Coltrane seemed interested but it was little more than noodling on it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Discography

Could everyone who keeps adding to the discography section here please note the heading

Discography below lists albums conceived and approved by Coltrane as a leader during his lifetime. It does not include his many releases as a sideman, sessions assembled into albums by various record labels after Coltrane's contract expired, sessions with Coltrane as a sideman later reissued with his name featured more prominently, or posthumous compilations except for the one which he approved before his death. See main discography link above for full list.

Coltrane, as much as any recording artist of the 20th Century, suffered from a deluge of outtakes at recording sessions assembled into albums, some while he was still alive and now signed to a new record company. While containing fine music, both Coltrane Plays the Blues and Coltrane's Sound were recorded at the sessions for My Favorite Things, these tracks assembled into albums by Atlantic Records AFTER COLTRANE HAD LEFT THE LABEL AND WITHOUT HIS INPUT. They belong in the main article for his discography, but not here. The discography section within the body of the biographical article serves a useful function in differentiating the releases Coltrane actually worked on and approved against the flood of releases made without his approval while alive or assembled after his death. If you go to the online catalogue index, you can tell by company catalogue number the sequence in which titles were released and/or renamed. Similarly, Live at the Half Note: One Down, One Up, Sun Ship and Cosmic Music are posthumous releases on Impulse Records, and do not belong on this list. Although the cover art of the current compact disc indicates a later vintage, Kulu Se Mama carrying an Impulse early 9100 series catalogue number was released in 1965 and belongs here. Please make no further edits to this list unless omissions are found in the Prestige catalogue - it covers all the Blue Note, Atlantic, and Impulse! releases authorized by Coltrane himself. Thanks.PJtP (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had to revert the discography again. Do not make any alterations to the discography within the body of the article. I've already asked politely - do not change it again.PJtP (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Instruments in infobox

'Trane's three main instruments were the tenor, alto, and soprano saxophones. Flute and bass clarinet were minor instruments which I do not believe need to be mentioned in the infobox. Any thoughts or opinions on this? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

. . . actually, just the tenor and soprano saxes - he never consistently utilized the alto saxophone.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I actually never heard Coltrane playing anything except saxophone.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

However, looking at the "Instruments" section, there is written he played clarinet at the early age and the flute toward the end. He also played the horn. I must say that I never heard his "very early" music, where he, as a teenager, was just a band member in a very small band. I also never heard his late music. Reading the last unreferenced sentence, he just "experimented" some music with the flute.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:John Coltrane plays Soprano.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:John Coltrane plays Soprano.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)