Talk:27 Club

Changing of picture used besides Jim Morrisons place on the 27 Club graph

Jim Morrison himself is reported to have been disdainful of his appearance near the end of his life, this picture being an example of the said late-era Morrison. Not only was he in-part immortalized for his "Dionysion" good looks but to have this picture used in particular, as opposed to the numerous others flooding the internet is unfair to his legacy and career from a journalistic ethic as well as from the perspective of those attempting to discover, admire, or reminisce about the legendary artist. Its also a very minor edit to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.7.71 (talk) 01:04 (UTC), 20 August 2011

Nat Jaffe

Jaffe was a swing pianist like Earl Hines, not a "blues musician" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleepimp (talk • contribs) 05:16, July 24, 2011

Amy Winehouse should not be on the main list, if anything Pig Pin should be up top, founding member of the Grateful Dead? Amy may be good but she did not spawn a genoration of follows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.108.234 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse I think you will find did inspire a generation of followers. Lady Gaga, Adele, Paloma Faith, Duffy, Jessie J, La Roux, Kate Nash, Florence and the Machine, quite a lot, please just do a little bit of research before you post ignorant comments and maybe they wont be so ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobloi (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced entries need to be removed

As there are too many unsourced additions in the second list. I propose that a period of one month is given and afterward any remaining unsourced entries are removed from this article.RaintheOne ^BAM 11:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nix 'em on 4 October if they can't be linked to an individual article on Wiki or cannot be linked to a verifiable source. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As this issue was discussed at #Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article? and noone has presented a reason to include unsourced individuals, I agree. However, I think a month is too much time to wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's make the deadline 9/20. I'll send notifications to any contributors who have made five or more edits in the past year, linking to this talk page discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're going with the criteria that each person included should have a source linking that person to the 27 club, contributors should simply search for said source material for each entry, and add an inline reference to each artist name. Any artists without a reference by 9/20 should then be removed. Seems like the best way to me. EzraZebra (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to this, and to show I'm serious, I'll even do some of the searching, in addition to removing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Muboshgu, you say that no one has presented a reason to include unsourced individuals, but that's not the case, I for one did state a reason in the section you refer to. To paraphrase, part of the 27 Club is the idea that many notable pop musicians have died at the age of 27, and therefore it's appropriate for the article to simply list such musicians. However, the second list in the article should be limited to notable musicians, i.e. ones with their own Wikipedia article, or at least ones who were in a band with their own article. It seems that some editors disagree, and think that to be part of the second list, a musician must have been mentioned, in a reliable source, in conjunction with the 27 Club. Okay, there is disagreement, but that's not the same as no one having presented a reason. As for the time period before removing the unreferenced musicians -- if that's the consensus, and I'm not sure that it is -- I don't know if September 20th is enough time or not. That would depend on the progress made in adding sources. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid and nonsensical. You want to remove certain musicians just because they don't have an article? That doesn't make sense, especially those that were in a band. I say don't touch the article. It's fine for now. B-Machine (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The non Wiki-linked members need to have a reference provided showing birth date and death date to be included. If they're already linked on Wiki, this information is likely already sourced in their individual article. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that what editors such as Muboshgu, ThePaintedOne, EzraZebra, and possibly Raintheone are saying is that each musician in the second list should have one or more third party references showing that they are sometimes included in the 27 Club. According to this idea, it doesn't matter if the musician or their band has their own Wikipedia article, it's the references associating them with the 27 Club that are important. As I've already explained, I don't really agree with them. With that being said, actually providing such references for a lot of the people on the list would not be particularly difficult. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a what I have been saying, and I think that adopting such a policy would instantly resolve the current inclusion/exclusion argument by basing the decisions on citations, which is exactly how wikipedia is supposed to work. I find this article in it's current state to be an oddity in that the large part of it is not based on citations, but rather some kind of inherited notability from other articles. I don't really see how we can set a deadline for citations to be provided when the whole premise of the second list is uncited. IME, any time an article starts wandering away from citations this sort of challenge of interpretation crops up. Frankly it's often hard enough to build consensus WITH citations, never mind without! :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing all of the unsourced entries right now. I assume that the deadline was set as a compromise, to give people who want to keep entries listed time to find a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Go for it...If sources are later found for a member who was removed, they can easily be added again. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't agreeing with this idea, I was simply proposing a way to implement it. -EzraZebra (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added many references for the musicians in the second list. More can be added later. I presume that these are the types of references that have been discussed in this talk page section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What are The27s.com and Forever27.co.uk? They look like blogs to me, which would mean they fail WP:RS and WP:ELNO. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

They're not blogs, they're web sites about the 27 Club. The27s.com is the web site for the book, The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll. I'm not sure who runs Forever27.co.uk, but it's clearly not a blog. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone else weigh in here? Are they reliable sources? Maybe I'm wrong in being skeptical. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

they probably aren't brilliant sources, but they are the phenomenon that this article is disucssing so directly relevent. The are I suppose primary sources, which would exclude them on other grounds, but personally I think that for the less well known articles like this you have give a bit of leeway otherwise you end up not being able to cite anything. I've been a strong advocate of putting in citations and following policy, and personally I think these are good enough.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron "Pigpen" McKernan

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I really think that Ron "Pigpen" McKernan (original keyboardist for the Grateful Dead) should be added. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, I think he should be moved to the main section of the article, instead of the "Other Musicians" section. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The main list is the very small group of musicians that are almost always listed as part of the 27 Club. According to what I've seen, that's Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Kurt Cobain, plus, maybe, Robert Johnson and Amy Winehouse. Admittedly however determining who should be on the "A List" is unscientific and a gray area, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be listed if they're particularly notable for something, or if the band they were a part of was particularly notable for something:

Robert Johnson was ranked by Rolling Stone Magazine as the fifth greatest guitar player of all time, and Eric Clapton called him an influence.

Brian Jones was a member of the Rolling Stones, who are one of the best-selling artists of all time.

Jimi Hendrix was ranked by Rolling Stone Magazine as the greatest guitar player of all time.

Janis Joplin is probably the best and most influential female rock singer in history (I have no source for this, but seriously, who has been more influential than her?).

Jim Morrison was the lead singer for The Doors, a legendary psychedelic rock band.

Kurt Cobain was the lead singer for Nirvana, a band which popularized a whole new genre of music.

Amy Winehouse, in my opinion, shouldn't be on this list. I wish she could have waited two more months before she died.

I think that Ron "Pigpen" McKernan should be added because the Grateful Dead performed more free live shows then any other band in history (the source for that is a book, so I can't directly link to it), and their followers were so numerous that the even had a name. Honestly, the main reason I think he should be added to the main list is because I was going through the "Other musicians" list, looking for names of people/bands that I recognized, and when I saw "Grateful Dead," I couldn't believe he wasn't on the main list. I mean the whole idea of following a band around for weeks and going to every concert of that band was was started by the Grateful Dead. While they didn't sell very many albums, that was simply because nobody had to buy them because tickets to their concerts were so damn cheap! And seriously, Amy Winehouse? Really? If she hadn't died when she was 27, nobody would remember her in ten years. People would still remember Robert Johnson, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and Pigpen McKernan because of their influence and their contribution to music. People look up to Jimi Hendrix as a guitarist and to Pigpen McKernan as a keyboardist, nobody looks up to Amy Winehouse as a singer. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If we start using subjective criteria of who is 'good enough' to be on the A List, it will sprawl all over the place. The list definition is clear 'musicians usually included', so the citations you need are people talking about the list, showing that they nearly always talk about them. This is clearly the case for the currernt list (although time will tell if Amy stays there), but I haven't seen lots of list talking about this guy. Which is no slight on his achievement, it's just how other lists have happened to state the list.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay listen to me User Wokam you know nothing about music if you think Amy Winehouse was a nobody. Back to Black is the biggest selling album of the 21st century in the united kingdom it also sold over 13 million copies worldwide. Amy winehouse also won five grammies more than any other British artist has ever won in a single award ceremony and in the past five years there have been a ton of female artists who have cited Amy Winehouse as a huge influence and the main reason for their success including Adele, Lady Gaga, Duffy, Paloma Faith, Kate Nash, Florence Welch, Jessie J, oh and these are some of the other people who have thought she was incredible as a singer and a songwriter, George Michael, Diana Ross, Ringo Starr, Paul Mcartney, Debbie Harry, Alice Cooper, Bette Midler, The Rolling Stones, U2, Quincy Jones, Tony Bennett and Brian May. Now I am not saying that Ron Mckernan shouldn't be in there as he is a member of a major band which to be fair is all Brian Jones was but I am so sick of these ignorant dicks trying to get Amy Winehouse taken off. Honestly if a member of a band, not even the front man is on then a solo artist as popular as Amy Winehouse certainly should be on it. I would say she had a huge impact on her time not only was she one of the most popular but all of the other most popular artists of her time Lady Gaga Adele etc were directly inspired by her that not enough impact? Its also ignorant and conceited to assume you will know what people will be talking about and listening to in ten years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.155.160 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore that comment by 86.177.155.160, especially seeing as he's never made an actual contribution to Wikipedia. So, ThePaintedOne, here's the problem with that statement: like it or not, the Wikipedia list is the official list. Want me to prove it? Google "27 club". The first result is the Wikipedia page! The second and third results are clearly both pages made by "just some guy". The fourth result is the first one by a reliable source, The Washington Post. And if you click on the link, you'll find that about halfway down the article, it links to the Wikipedia page! And the fifth result (Forbes magazine) also links to the Wikipedia page about 2/3 of the way down.

Please cut the crap about someone having to be "usually included on the list." Do you know what someone does when they want to know who's in the 27 club, they Google it and go to the Wikipedia page! Still don't believe me? Ask someone who's in the 27 club, and see how they find the answer. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, can you please try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL on the talk page. Secondly, if wikipedia is actually creating the 'official list' whihc others are then citing, then you've just made an almost policy perfect description of Original Research and the entire article should be taken down. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should ignore the comments unlike you I can actually provide sources to all the stuff I was saying about Adele, Diana Ross and george michael saying Amy was great and I will if it will stop this crap about getting Amy Winehouse taken off the list, unlike you I actually have reason to include her on the list and can say who she inspired I don't just come out and say this person shouldn't be on because I don't like them also Billboard included Amy Winehouse in the 27 club as well that seems to me like a usually included in the list if billboard along with many other websites include her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.155.160 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There is a fundamental problem with this article in that it approaches the subject as if it was an actual organised association, rather than just a popular meme. The "club" was not "created", and no-one (and most especially not any Wikipedia editors) is in any position to decide who is, or is not, a member of it.

The ongoing argument on this page over whether Winehouse should be a member is therefore totally pointless. No one cares what individual editors think about Winehouse's significance to popular music, or whether she should, or should not, be listed in "the club". No one cares how she may be compared with the other listed "members". The only sensible criteria we can work to is; does a good reliable source list mention a person in relation to the "27 club"? If Winehouse is mentioned like this, then she is a member of the "club". End of discussion.

The attempt to split the article into two sections of those "usually" included in the club, and those "others" who died at 27, is a flawed one that is never going to be satisfactory. The ongoing arguments on this page are proof enough of that. For a start, who is defines "usually"? What does that mean? What makes someone only an "other"? It appears to be a purely opinion based division that is always going to be disputed and does not belong in an encyclopaedia.

I propose that no-one should be listed here unless, as I say above, they are mentioned by a reliable source in connection with the "27 club". Otherwise all we have is a trivia list of random musicians who died aged 27. That is not what this article claims to be. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources were recently added for most, but not all, of the 27 Club members in the second list. The same sources could easily be used for all seven members of the first list. So my first question for you is, could you please review the footnotes for the second list, and post back here with your opinion on whether or not that covers things for those members? My second question is, if it does, are you saying that the two lists should be combined? I agree that the 27 club is unofficial, but if you look at a lot of the sources, either referenced in the article or just by searching the internet, you'll see that there generally are two "tiers" of members -- a small group, including most or all of the first list, and then everyone else. The article is about the pop culture phenomenon, so it seems to me valid for the article to reflect that, even though there's not a hard and fast rule about it. "P.S." I do agree that any discussions about whether or not a particular musician is worthy to be on the list, based on their talent, accomplishments, or influence, are irrelevant. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at #Unsourced entries need to be removed, but I believe we all agree that there has to be secondary sources specifically backing up the listing of everyone listed. That said, I asked a question about whether the sources used on the "other folk" is sufficient for Wikipedia standards. I don't know who created those websites, and a website created by a random doesn't meet our criteria. I believe Mudwater said one of them is written by the author of the 27 club book, but again I'm not sure about it and want others to weigh in. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't agree that there needs to be sources for everyone listed. Part of the pop culture phenomenon is the idea that a lot of musicians have died at age 27, so in my view it's legitimate to list any such musicians in the article, as long as they're marginally notable. But certainly some editors have said that references should be provided for each musician, so, let's pursue that for the moment. In short, I agree with your request for other editors to look at the references that are there now, and give their opinions on whether or not they are appropriate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how there can possibly be 'generally' two 'tiers' of members. Either the musician died aged 27, or they did not. Either we have a cite that connects the person to "the club", or we do not. Anything else is indulging in categorising by opinion and original research. Hedging things in weaselly phrasing such as "usually" or "generally considered" doesn't disguise this.

Of course, most sources discussing the meme will tend to mention the more famous examples, and we should equally mention the more famous examples in the article lead, as the best examples to aid the reader's understanding.

The fact that a large percentage of citing in the article is sourced to one website, which is in turn derived from, and publicity for, a self-published book, is a cause for concern. It doesn't negate what the cite says, but raises questions about notability. There should be better cites from a greater spread of sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One possible option that I think at least should be considered would be including the "original four", Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison, in one section, and everyone else, including Robert Johnson, Kurt Cobain, and Amy Winehouse, in the "other" section. The 27 Club wasn't "established" simply because a lot of musicians died at the age of 27, Keith Moon and John Bonham both died at 32 and Bon Scott almost also did, but there's no "32 Club". I would bet that if someone did a statistical analysis of ages that famous musicians died at, 27 would only be marginally higher that any other age, and would probably not be statistically relevant. The 27 Club was "established" because the original four all died at the age of 27 within 2 years of each other, and people thought that was weird. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, if you have can cite somewhere the "original four". If they are indeed the "original four", I would guess this would have to be from a source dated to, or in reference to, the early 70s. This would be as good as identifying where the idea for "the club" originated, a key point that the article currently steers well clear of. Do any sources have any theories? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any sources (yet). I could find some, but I'd rather come to a consensus on whether or not this is a good idea first. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. If the "27 Club" was first devised because four famous musicians died at 27 in such a tight timeframe, that should be the major focus of this page. Then, we can find some way to expand it for the "next group" of Cobain, Johnson and Winehouse. Whether or not we include the "other group" is still under discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think that the 'usually' and 'sometimes' concept is valid if perhaps worded to be a bit clearer. there is a small list of musicians who are always associated with the 'club' and this can be easily demonstrated in reliable sources (if you look in the archive around the time Amy Winehouse died you'll find a bunch of them). This is the original four, Kurt Cobain and more recently Amy Winehouse. This 'always' list can be easily shown from citations like the BBC, Billboard magazine, Rolling Stone magazine and I think is pretty solid. For everyone else, you have two cases. The first is that they have been mentioned in one of the 'forever 27' type websites, which are of perhaps dubious notabillity and in any event primary sources. This is where I think a second list could be formed, but equally it could be deleted if the sources are deemed too weak. I'd probably take an inclutionist line on this but could be persueded. You also have a few that are maybe mentioned in one proper reliable source, but not all of them, they could go either way between these two lists. Beyond that you have some that have never been mentioned in relationship to the list anywhere except on this article, under the premise that any notable musician who dies aged 27 should automatically be listed here, that third list I think should be eliminated.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that the section heading of "usually" is not supported by any source. Has anyone done any such research to determine who are "usually" mentioned as being in the club? (And when I say "anyone", I mean some reliable source, not a Wikipedia editor performing their own original research.) If we do not have this then it's a huge red flag indicating categorisation simply through unattributed opinion.

It also remains a problem where people's listing within this "club" is either uncited or sourced through a single website of dubious notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cited the "usually" list. If anyone on the "others" list can be cited then I suggest they be added to a single list, and the others removed. As I stated above, this article is not List of musicians who died aged 27, but specifically those who can be cited as being in the club. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations from Reliable Sources

To help with the ongoing work to clean this page up, I think a section collating the reliable sources that could be used to support this article would be of use. Lots were posted on the talk page around the time of Amy Winehouse's death, but most didn't make it to the article and they are hard to find in the general chat and archiving. Please feel free to add any more, which don't have to be Amy focussed that's just what is to hand, but try to keep them to good quality reliable sources, rather than the primary sources of 27 club websites. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

UK Telegraph newspaper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8657314/Amy-Winehouse-joins-the-Forever-27-club.html
Washington Post (refs this article though) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/amy-winehouse-jimi-hendrix-kurt-cobain-and-the-27-club/2011/07/23/gIQAiLAhVI_blog.html
Entertainment Weekly http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-forever-27-club/
Time http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-becomes-the-newest-member-of-the-forever-27-club/
Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblakeley/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-joins-unfortunate-27-club/
BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14264609
Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-and-the-curse-of-27/?mod=google_news_blog
CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20082553-10391698.html
Billboard http://www.billboard.com/#/features/dead-at-27-nine-artists-gone-too-soon-1005290792.story
Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/not-fade-away-rockers-lost-before-their-time-20090203

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Come on seriously amy winehouse what the heck! she doesnt deserve a catagory with kurt and jimi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWillFixThisError (talk • contribs)

Jesus Christ I thought we were past this sigh, just do some research on Amy Winehouse before you call her a nobody even just read the previous arguments about her. PS I personally don't think Kurt Cobain measures up to Amy Winehouse. Listen to Love is a Losing Game and then Smells Like Teen Spirit and honestly tell me which was the better singer and songwriter. Also Kurt never inspired anyone as big as either Lady Gaga or Adele the two biggest stars on the planet right now like Amy did. However unlike how you feel about Amy Winehouse I don't think Kurt Cobain should be taken off just because I don't think he measures up to others as it is not about whether you think they were great its just about whether they are usually mentioned as being part of the 27 club, which both are, READ PREVIOUS POSTS. --Yardoj (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Bility (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The separation between members of the 27 club and musicians who died at the age of 27.

I do not understand why there is a subdivision in this article. The only real criterion necessary for "admittance" is to be a musician of a certain repute and to have died at the age of 27 of which the repute required to be on the list is not considerably grand, only that someone familiar with their certain subsection of music should know of them. I find it very biased that some people are listed ahead of others on this list. It is true that the people I think about when I hear the words "27 club" are all of those in the "Musicians usually included in the 27 club" section with the addition of a few of the people categorized by "other musicians who died at 27" namely Alan Wilson, Ron McKernan, and Dave Alexander; but popularity or appearances in media are not viable ways to categorize people into this so unaptly named club. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is expected to lay out factual information in a non-biased and efficient manner. Segregating the musicians into different categories is unnecessary and biased towards the zeitgeist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.201.253 (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest you take the time to read the long and involved discussions on this topic on this page, including the various archive files linked above. I'm not saying you are wrong, but there are multiple views on this and reading those will explain why there is currently a division.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Amy Winehouse should be added to the list as well. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, have you actually read the article, or indeed the massive and ongoing debate on this subject above? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What list if you mean the bottom list of musicians not usually included in the club I think I am going to scream. I am beginning to think some of you guys who keep wanting her taken off the main list have some weird ulterior motive as you can't all be that ignorant. Why do you people keep trying to get her taken off, when it has been stated about one billion times that there is virtually a universal agreement to include her on the main list and its obvious to anyone that she was a major figure in modern music. To say someone who has the best selling album of the 21st century, who worked with some of the biggest names in music such as the rolling stones, Quincy Jones, Tony Bennett and who inspired some of the biggest names in modern music, Adele, Lady Gaga, Jessie J and who has a whole category on wikipedia to themselves is the same as the artists on the bottom list many of whom don't even have a wikipedia page is just Bullshit. --Yardoj (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please try and stay civil, I don't think this person is even suggesting what you are infering, she is not being removed, and the long arguments you keep making about her fame are irrelevent anyway. She is in because the citations show she should be (see section above), end of story. No need to get worked up.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that I only keep bringing up her fame because other users (maybe not Leahtwosaints) are coming out with comments like "is this someone who has left a truly lasting contribution to modern music the answer simply is no" or "no one looks up to Amy Winehouse as a singer", "she will be forgotten". I appreciate that she may not be everyone's cup of tea but to make out that she never had any success or impact is ridiculous. And whilst it is true that the only reason she or anyone else should be included is if there are citations saying they should be, a lot of these users who go on about her being a nobody say that still say that she should be taken off even despite all of the discussions and links you've posted. At this stage its almost as if they are trolling now. --Yardoj (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith, but even failing that the best way to deal with trolls is to not feed them. Just point to the citations, which makes the case really clear. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

" im sorry that American Trolls who belive that they are entitled to thier own facts have smudged this page. Amy Winehouse had no particular impact on American culture because she was in the jazz blues corridor. One largely scorned by the rock n roll appetite of American culture. We do not value this type in our popular culture. Also at play here is a sense of "entitlement" by american culture over the 27 club itself. I guess some Americans are so closed minded that they actually believe that the only country in the world that can make music is in fact america. never mind ABBA , Queen , Led Zepplin etc.. . For those who believe that Janis Joplin has more wieght then Amy Winehouse I ask why when Joplin won SIGNIFIGANTLY less grammys that Winehouse. WIne house won more than two grammys sorry joplin fans.

Further more, Kurt cobain the great band leader they spoke of only won two grammys as well. one after his death. all of Winehouse's came DURING her lifetime. I argue also that Joplin's place in 27 may have been furthered by the media in the fact that Jimi hendrix died only 13 days prior to her. This fact has be talked about for decades in relation to the club. I'm sorry to say to my fellow Americans , Amy Winehouse deserves to be in and had you not been such a closed minded patriot act loving socitey your artists may have had the fertile soil to grow in to this infamous spot , in the end your culture not having the next 27 member is not the worlds fault it is your own.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.127.49 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 

Agreed she should be in but she did have a big impact on American popular culture as she kicked off a third british invasion over there. Adele the biggest british artist over there said amy both inspired and paved the way for her, whilst Gaga the biggest american artist over there was also inspired by her too --Kobloi (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

None of you have touched the point here. The original "27 Club" existed because of two factors: a) they all died within a relatively short period of time, b) they were all 27. Kurt Cobain was included in this list, many years later, because of the global impact that Nirvana had. He is the only young musician to have made the impact he did and die at 27 in many, many years. I have no problem with Amy Winehouse, but she needs to be moved to the "other artists who died at 27" list because in a factual sense, that's where she belongs. Wikipedia is not about opinions. It's an encyclodpedia. Even if Winehouse was a game changing musician - and I'm not suggesting she isn't -, the consensus would not change until a long time after her death. This is a not a forum for crazed Winehouse fans, it is an encylopedia. There is difference between opinion in fact, I think we should be focussing on fact on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I love this crap about how its winehouse fans that are the "crazed" opinionated ones here who aren't providing the facts, all anyone who wants winehouse included on the list does is use facts but all of you people who don't want her on the main list do is just ignore them and then say why you don't think she should be on because apparently she didn't have enough impact which is purely an opinionated statement not a fact. Amy Winehouse had every bit as big an impact as Nirvanna did, for goodness sake the biggest stars around now (Lady Gaga, Adele, Jessie J) were DIRECTLY inspired by her. Her album is the best seller of the century of the united kingdom (okay it will eventually be topped in that respect, but its still the best seller of the 00's) of course none of that matters all that matters is if there are many outside citations linking her to the main list of which there are many, you only have to type in Amy winehouse 27 club on google to see. In fact several have already been posted to this page already for goodness sake, do you all just ignore them, are you trolling? --Kobloi (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You make a number of bold claims, Lexxxicide. Can you support any of them? Among others; why Cobain was included, why Winehouse is not included, the time it takes to become a member, the time it takes to change consensus on membership (And whose consensus??). Any cites to back up any of those facts? Or are they your opinions? You're just illustrating why Wikipedia policy is based on what can be verified, because we could debate opinions for months. Fortunately we don't need to, and should not do, because they are irrelevant. The cites are there, membership verified. It's that easy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a single bold claim. Read the article. "The notion of a "27 Club" arose after the deaths of Jones, Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison.", a cited part of the article. I'm not a fan of Nirvana, but it would seem that unlike many of the people who are posting here, I can actually remember the furore that surrounded Kurt Cobain's career and death, and as such I was shedding some light on why he was included in the list. He is, without much dispute one of the most infamous musicians of all time and by that measurement, along with the fabric of the generation to whom his band appealed, right at home within the list. Anybody with knowledge, experience or memory of that time is will testify to that, however misguided some of the behaviour and rhetoric of young people at the time and in the years that followed may have been. The term also resurfaced in many publications including Rolling Stone at the time of his death and in fact, it may not be unfair to suggest that the term became popularised once again because of his suicide. One article has been cited that lists Robert Johnson and Amy Winehouse along side these musicians and at no point does that article suggest that either of them are "usually included" in that list, because they aren't. Johnson for a start died three decades before the term was coined and until recently was never included in the main list in this article. Neither is that article from a credible source, if it was from a highly distributed or accredited publication the argument may have more weight. In fact it appears to be little more than a series of syndicated blogs. It sort of stands to reason that neither of those two have been or are generally considered to usually be included within the list and in the case of Miss Winehouse, who's death has barely seen the dust settle, a great deal more time is needed before anybody can suggest what her legacy will be or how she will be remembered. It may have been a little callous to suggest that her fans are "crazed", but certainly much of the debate on this page regarding her is ill-formed and I'd suggest that much of it can be attributed to upset following her tragic death. All of that aside, I haven't edited the article I was merely trying to add some sensible and informed commentary on a rather heated and so far undecided debate. Perhaps you should try and step outside the box a little before you begin editing on this website and making accusations about other people being opinionated.

Because the sources include him.

I'm very calm, thanks. I'm asked you to provide sources for your claims, and you don't have any. You have a number of notions regarding some kind of unwritten set of rules of the club, but the sources appear unaware of them. Who do you think Wikipedia should use for its information?

There are a number of inaccuracies and fallacies in your argument, but I don't see any value in raking over them. Your 'accusations' don't add add up to much, other than you just don't like Winehouse's inclusion and a failure to assume good faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided to revise my comment as I wrote the first quickly and made mistakes. I'd also like to add that the article cited was written less than twenty four hours after the event of her death and thus, to include Winehouse as "usually included" is even more dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} remove: Heart failure (although no autopsy was performed)

add: Since his death we thougt Morrison died form a Heart failure (although no autopsy was performed)

In fact Morrison had died of a heroin overdose

because: People should know about the truth, he was against heroin, and ironically died of an overdose ( he didnt like needles so, maybe snorted or smoked, do anyone know ? Is it accidental or suicidal ? )

---

Sources:

- the web.. anywhere

-http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-07-11-morrison-questions_N.htm -http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-03/entertainment/29753808_1_jim-morrison-heroin-overdose-doors-singer -http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/jim-morrison-died-at-nightclub/story-e6frfn09-1111113945856

Tralzhek (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done exactly what you asked; in this article, I'm not happy putting refs to drugs directly; such hypothesis belongs on the article on Morrison. However, I changed it to Reported as heart failure (no autopsy performed, disputed) - I believe that conveys the essence of the fact it is disputed, without going into excess detail; I also added a reference to support that.

Others (including the user requesting the edit) may well disagree with this, and are welcome to discuss it below, and form consensus to request some alternative. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"epitomic"

The 27 Club—also occasionally known as the Forever 27 Club, Club 27 or the Curse of 27—is the title for an epitomic group of influential musicians who all died at the age of 27. Their names are synonymous trademarks of the "rock and roll" lifestyle.

I do not think this word means what you think it means. --Thnidu (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconceivable --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Janis Joplin

The pictures for both Robert Johnson and Janis Joplin were both recently removed from the page for being unnecessary, non-free images. I was wondering what people would think about using this oil painting of Janis Joplin until someone can find a free image of her. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 18:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to add Amy Winehouse to list

Winehouse is generally considered to be famous for her personal life and not her musical career. Although she did have some average record sales, she did not make a historically relevant musical contribution as it relates to the impact of the other artists listed in the article. The community must come to a consensus and provide data which proves that Winehouse's musical career had a significant, culture-changing, and historically relevant impact on society before she is added. Feel free to discuss your thoughts here. Thank you. And please stop the edit warring. It is not appropriate to add Winehouse just because you like her music or feel bad that she died. Sympathy is not one of the things which can get a person on this list. G90025 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• That is a really, really strange comment. Amy Winehouse was not noted for her music? A ridiculous proposition. Why do you think she won five Grammies? Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Silly enough to not merit further discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, well, I will agree that she is a notable musician with measurable success. But however, for reasons on which I went into detail further down, she still does not belong on this list. G90025 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye or Nay

• Let's take this to the people and establish a community consensus while the article is protected. All those who think that Amy Winehouse was a notable musician, say aye. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Aye. Really sticking my neck out on this one. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Nay LOL, really. She is in a class with Jim Morrison for cultural-changing contributions to music? Keep dreaming. She was famous for being a drug addict; end of story. G90025 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Five Grammies, best-selling album in the UK of the century, wide recognition of her voice and songwriting...you're the one who's dreaming. Besides, are there reliable sources placing her on the list? Yes. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • A lot of people win Grammys. Take a step back and look at the other people on the list. Those people literally changed society and the way people live by their influence. Styles of dress, styles of music, cultural impact. I'm not trying to rain on the parade of the Winehouse fans on here but she simply has not had the type of societal impact of the others on the list. G90025 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• What? We don't determine inclusion criteria for a list based on personal preference or arbitrary assignment, but by sources and referencing. If a reliable third-party source says that Amy Winehouse is in the 27 Club, then we add her and cite it. It's irrelevant if any of us think that she's "in a class with Jim Morrison for cultural-changing contributions to music." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I exactly agree with you. She was previously added by people with preference for her music. G90025 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How did you know what their preferences were, and what difference did it make? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What Justin (koavf) said. And I have said already, a number of times. No one cares what Wikipedia editors reckons makes them notable. The chief problem on this article is not Winehouse's inclusion, it is the division of those listed, unsupported by any reliable source, into two sections. There should be one list. If they can be cited from a good source they're on it. If they're not, they're not. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this guys problem? his comments are laughable "average music sales" what is best selling album of the century over thirteen million albums sold worldwide average music sales. Five grammies in a single night yeah everyone wins that except for the fact that it was the first time any British artist won that many. At this point he has got be taking the piss. --Kobloi (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye Clearly she should be on the list 33,200,000 Google results for "Amy Winehouse 27 Club"

Three good references here, there are many hundreds more.

• http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/870203-who-is-in-the-27-club-amy-winehouse-joins-stars-who-died-at-27
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8657314/Amy-Winehouse-joins-the-Forever-27-club.html
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblakeley/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-joins-unfortunate-27-club/

Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Those are articles that were written immediately following the singer's death. There is an obvious suggestion because of her age at time of death that she be related to this list. But those articles are reaction pieces that don't take into account any of the other issues that I and others have raised. I think one major criteria that everyone PREVIOUSLY on this list meets is that they all had a worldwide, cultural and societal impact which significantly changed views and standards of the populous. I will agree that Winehouse is a notable musician, but when you try to weigh her notoriety by variables which would compare to the other people on the list, there is no cohesion. There is nothing that ties her into that grandiose type of impact on people. It would be like comparing Bill Clinton to Abraham Lincoln. Do some people think that Clinton was the best president ever? Sure. And millions of people are *still* crazy about him. They love him. So he is a relevant subject who many people consider to have been a great president. But if I were to compare him to someone like Abraham Lincoln, I would be laughed out of the room. Think of it that way. When you think presidents, you think George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, etc. If you look at the musicians previously on this list and consider their extremely notable and actually epic impact on music and society, and then compare that to Winehouse's contributions, it is so much of a clash. I'm sure that musicians who are 27 die every day. Most of them are nobodys that we've never heard of. Winehouse was a successful singer and notable. But she doesn't fit on this list, IMO. G90025 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

G90025's claim that Winehouse's inclusion should depend on her notability as a musician is ridiculous and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Her inclusion should depend on whether reliable sources regard her as being part of the 27 Club. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, what? Her notability as a musician should not have an effect on her inclusion or disclusion? LOL. Speaking of ridiculous! Then by what do you intend to go by? If you're not judging based on her musical notoriety, I'd like to know exactly by what you are judging on. G90025 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above her inclusion should depend on whether reliable sources regard her as being part of the 27 Club and they most certainly do.Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We are judging by whether reliable, secondary sources say she was a member of the 27 Club, and nothing else. Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions of whether her personal life was more important than her musical life, or vice versa; it's about writing an encyclopedia based on what the sources say (WP:PSTS) and nothing more. We have seen 3 sources cited on this talk page, and another one on the article page itself, which state that:

She was a musician

She died aged 27

She is a member of the 27 club

Whether or not she is *deserving* of inclusion based on subjective views of her historical/sociocultural impact is not up for debate, and is not a rationale for her in/exclusion. We have reliable, secondary sources saying she is, therefore we should include it. I'm failing to see how User:G90025's suggestion of "press overreaction" overrides our core Wikipedia policies, or is even a relevant argument. Likewise, the analogy to the presidents is irrelevant, because the parallel list here is Presidents of the United States -- which does not place any requirements of merit upon it. While we do have Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, it is a collection of secondary sources' lists. Nowhere has there been a SINGLE source provided which claims that Winehouse was not a musician, did not die at age 27, or that she is not a member of the 27 club.

Notability is criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, from WP:N: "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". It is not, and has never been, a criteria for inclusion in this list.

For me, this article absolutely should include her, so chalk that as an aye !vote. The complete lack of reliable sources to attest her non-eligibility to this club is pretty damning. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye This discussion was put to bed a long time ago in favor of her inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye The Google search numbers for "Amy Winehouse 27 Club" cited earlier speak for themselves. This debate should not be determined by G90025's apparent vendetta against Winehouse, people should remain objective.12bigbrother12 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye Everyone else on the list died at least 15 years ago, so we know that their contributions to music have been remembered. Amy Winehouse just died. For now, she should be on the list, but if in 15 years everyone has forgotten about her, we can remove her then. For now, we'll just have to wait. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 19:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye Of course she should be on the list. When you have musical giants like Alexandra, Wallace Yohn, Bryan Ottoson and Orish Grinstead on it, it would lose all credibility not to include her. And as one of the earlier posters says, it's not a real club just a collection of musicians who died aged 27. Amy was a musician and she was 27. Ergo, she is in.--Shylocksboy (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Two sections into one

Having finally finished with the irrelevant debate of "is Winehouse 'good enough' for this club", can I suggest we resolve the issue of the arbitrary splitting of the club into two? There is no definitive "club", it is a notional club, a meme. So the idea that we can determine who is "usually" in the club, and who is not, is bogus. Even if we had some way of determining this through the sources, it would be a case of original research. Can we therefore have some agreement that Wikipedia does not attempt to rank the "members". All that should be required is a cite from a good, reliable source.

Equally, it is worth keeping in mind that this article does not have to attempt to list every "member" in order to adequately describe the concept to the reader. There is no real "club", so there is no real "membership list". It is therefore not a failing if Wikipedia does not list every possible, notional, member. The musicians mentioned can be limited to the better known examples, the ones that are most likely to mean something to the reader. There are more than a few people on the list currently who do nothing to better illustrate what "the club" is to anyone. This is particularly evident, I feel, in those cited to Forever27.co.uk and The27s.com. As websites devoted to the notion of musicians dying at 27, they do tend to be indiscriminate. Personally I think the article would be better without people solely cited from either.

What do you think? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase the article itself, the 27 Club consists of two related phenomena, both in the realm of popular culture. The first is a list of several famous musicians who died at age 27. The second is the idea that many other notable musicians have also died at the age of 27. So, when reliable third party sources talk about the 27 Club, they almost always say that it includes Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and, more recently, Kurt Cobain, and they often also say that it includes Robert Johnson and, now, Amy Winehouse. But the 27 Club is also the concept that a lot of other musicians have also died at age 27, hence the second list. This way of viewing the 27 Club is definitely not original research, the article is just reporting on what's said about this pop culture phenomenon. So in my opinion the two lists should be left the way they are now, as separate lists, and none of the musicians should be removed from either list. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have one long list, as long as the opening paragraph goes into a lot of detail about how the group "formed," and why some people think that Johnson, Cobain, and Winehouse should be part of the main list. Maybe we could make it say that Jones, Hendrix, Joplin, and Morrison were the original members because they all died within two years of each other, and were all 27. Then when people realized that Robert Johnson also died at 27, he was thought to be part of the "main club." Then when Cobain died at 27 he joined the club, and some people think that Winehouse joined it more recently. As long as it's clear that certain members stick out, I think it's a good idea to combine the lists into one. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 01:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two different questions here. One is whether or not the two lists should be combined into one list. The other is whether or not any musicians should be removed from what is now the second list. In my view the answers are no and no, as I explained in my previous post. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at what you are seeing you'll see the problem; "they almost always", "they often also say". Who has determined this? Who did the research among all the reliable sources to find this out? At what point does mentions of one musician promote them from "sometimes" to "almost always"? Who decided where this threshold lies? This is where silly arguments about who should be in which list start, because in essence we are not using hard facts, or even original research to determine facts; we are talking about opinions. Someone is of the opinion that Robert Johnson is "almost always" mentioned as being in the club. But we have absolutely no evidence of this. All we can say for sure is a number of good, reliable sources mention him. That's all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That means we would just have a page listing musicians who have died at age 27. And then in all fairness, we would have to create a page of musicians who died at age 26, 25, 24....28, 29, 30....and so on, or delete this page. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, everyone mentioned on the article should be cited to at least one reliable source that describes them as a member of "the 27 Club". This article is not List of musicians who died aged 27. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have completely missed the point of what I said.... Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 16:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have I? Or have you missed mine? I guess we'll never know. If only there was some way of finding out..... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and I think the answer is pretty clear. Since the 27 club is a phenomenon existing in reliable sources, for a second list to exist outside of the primary list, at least one reliable source should speak of the deceased in a way that suggests possible 27 club membership. Any other inclusions here are original research and synthesis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

But I don't know of any sources that suggest possible membership. The sources either have them in the club, or do not have them in the club. It is not up to Wikipedia to speculate what the source may be "speaking of in a way that suggests". We cannot create a two-tier membership based on nothing factual. There are no degrees of membership indicated in any of the sources. There are no "spoken of as possible members", no "suggested members", no "usual members", no "sometimes members". There are just "members". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If indeed sources talking about them shouldn't count for "possible" membership, or however you want to phrase it, then indeed the entire section should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's all that the cite consists of them we are in complete agreement. Unfortunately this division into two sections seems more based on an arbitrary, vague ranking invented by Wikipedia editors. There's an "elite" that Winehouse somehow had to demonstrate being worthy of being part of, and then an "others" that somehow have been deemed unworthy. All based on the spurious, unproven, unsourced research of the frequency that they are mentioned. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added an RfC (Request for Comment) below. I suggest that we continue this discussion there, so that any new comments are included in the latest discussion section. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be two lists of musicians or one, and who should be included?

Request For Comment summary: This article is about a pop culture phenomenon, having to do with rock musicians, and other musicians, who died at the age of 27. There is a long running discussion, or dispute, about the contents of this article. The discussion includes questions about how much of the current article, if any, is original research, and which sources should be accepted as references. We are trying to decide (1) whether there should be two lists of musicians -- a short primary list and a longer secondary list -- or one combined list, and (2) which musicians should be included. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional notes for those who comment on this discussion:

(1) Here are links to some of the previous discussion threads on this topic. You are encouraged to review them to see what other editors have already said about this:

• Talk:27 Club/Archive 2#Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article?
• Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed
• Talk:27 Club#Problems with this article
• Talk:27 Club#Two sections into one

(2) The article is currently locked because of edit warring about another argument -- whether or not Amy Winehouse should be included in the main list. We don't want to try to decide that in this discussion section. If you want to comment on that, please do so at Talk:27 Club#Discussion on whether to add Amy Winehouse to list. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This section listing citations from reliable sources will likely be useful in assessing this subject --ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:27_Club#Citations_from_Reliable_Sources

One or Two Lists

Picking up on Escape Orbit's last few comments on this subject in the section above, I can totally understand the difficulty with defining the two lists and it's tendency towards OR. However, there is a clear distinction between the 'core members' (I'm using that phrase for convenience, not to try and define anything) and others. To give a specific example, if you browse the citation list I posted further up the article, all of which are good quality references that directly address this subject, every single one of the lists the 'core members' as being part of the 'list'. Those people are without doubt in the 'club' and are universally cited as such. The vast majority of the 'second list' aren't referenced at all, which is perhaps a good criteria to remove them altogether. However, you have a couple of 'edge cases' as well. Richey Edwards of the Manic Street Preachers is mentioned in 3 of the sources, but not the others. Additionally, Roger McKernan of the Grateful Dead is mentioned in one cite, but none of the others mention him. So there is clearly some difference of opinion in what constitutes the 'club' and from a practical perspective there is both an 'always mentioned' and 'sometimes mentioned' group. However, while I can see that difference, I struggle to see how it can be described and referenced fairly in wikipedia without straying into OR or synthesis, both of which are rife on this page.

I think there are two general solutions to this (which funnily enough tend to map to the general inclusionist versus deletionist philosphies of wikipedia).

1. We acknowledge that there is a difference between the 'core group' and the wider list, which broadly maps to the two current lists, and find some mechanism to descibe and maintain it. I can see the distinction, but I'm not sure how it can be reflected in wikipedia policy without forming sythesis. Crucially none of the individual citations demonstrates this distinction, we are infering the distinction from the differences between different citations, which sounds very much like synthesis to me. It also tends towards a sprawling list, and the sometimes mentioned third list, which I think is becoming absurb.

2. We more ruthlessly apply the standards of citation quality, specifically we exclude the various self published and fan site refs and also any ref that doesn't directly address the 27 club (as opposed to just confirming that person X died aged 27), sticking to high quality, non primary citations (so the various 27 club books are out as they are part of the phenomenon and therefore primary sources). That would give us a vastly reduced list, which I think would largely negate the need to have two segregated sections. As a futher suggestion, if the list is ordered by the date of death, it will tend to put the 'core members' towards the top, without giving them any particular inferred notability, so we preserve some of thier 'status' without doing OR and with an NPOV mechanism for doing so. The major downside to this solution is that I can forsee a long running continuation of the current Amy Winehouse edit waring, as people try and get thier pet favorite included. Yes this can be controlled via citations, but it could be an exhausting process. Whereas if we had a secondary list to drop the lesser names into it would reduce this. But should we formulate articles just for editor convenience?

In the past I've generally favored the first approach above, as by reading citations I can see a clear distinction between the 'founding entries' and the others and it seems logical to try and reflect that. But the more I think about it, the more I think this is OR or synthesis, so my !vote today would be for option 2. We reduce to one list, then strictly apply wikipedia citation policy to trim the list down to something more manageable. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Good summary, which I am broadly in agreement with. It's also worth noting that, if we were to accept reference counting as not "research", then very few sources claim to be all-inclusive lists. Richey Edwards' absence, for instance, from one source does not necessarily indicate that that source believes he is not in the club. Assuming this would be just one more way that this would be OR.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Seperate from the discussion above, I've long held that the criteria for inclusion on the article should be a citation which directly links a particular person's death to the phenomenon of the '27 club' itself, and not just any random person who happened to die aged 27. This removes all the irrelevent faff about each persons relative artistic merits, we just look to which artists have been included in this group by independant good quality secondary sources, and list those, just as we do for every other article on wikipedia. There is of course a secondary discussion about the relative quality of those sources, but I think I've addressed that above. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I very much think that, in this case, the primary sources are valid references, and that anyone mentioned in any of them should stay in the article. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Clearly this article is one of the times when it would be appropriate to use primary sources, since there is no interpretation involved -- it's just to show that someone has been listed as a member of the 27 Club. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty here is what are you defining as a primary source? Only ones I can think of are official websites of the artists (which generally will inflate the significance of the artist, and their death) or an official Club 27 website, of which there is none, nor can ever be one. So all we're left with is non-official list websites, which have an interest in maximizing numbers on the loosest of criteria, and so are poor quality sources. Far better would be secondary sources that are not officially in the business of talking up the concept of there being a club. These are a much better indicator of whether it is generally felt that someone should be considered in the club. (I know that sounds vague and weaselly, but it's the best we can do for something that doesn't actually exist.) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the various websites would fail WP:RS anyway as they are largely self published fan sites. However, there is at least one published book of I think suitable notability, which is probably good enough. This I think is still a primary source and I'd personally not use it, but it can be argued either way. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources are books or web sites devoted to the 27 Club. Looking at what is currently the second list in the article, there are 43 musicians listed, 34 of whom have at least one reference. For those 34, there are a total of six different sources. Two of the sources are primary sources -- The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll and Forever27.co.uk -- and the other four sources are secondary sources -- StarPulse, Ranker, BuzzFeed, and Yahoo Music. But more sources can be added -- for example, the Telegraph article about Amy Winehouse lists Richey Edwards as a member. So, yes, both primary and secondary sources should be used for this, and anyone with a reference should be left in the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Seperate from thier status as primary/secondary, I'm not convinced that sites like forever27.co.uk meet WP:RS--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is pop culture we're talking about here. I'd prefer to source the article from the Proceedings of the Royal Society, but they've never taken up the question. Yes, a bit of lighthearted sarcasm, but my point is that in this context both primary and secondary sources should be used. The goal of the sourcing is to show that a particular musician has been listed as a member of the 27 Club, which, we all agree, is not an official designation but a "notion", and I think that's a good word for it by the way. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point, seperate from the question of whether we should use primary sources, I don't think those websites meet the quality criteria to be considered reliable. If a source is not reliable it is not a source. For very marginal subjects where sources are hard to come by, there can be an argument to use some latitude with dubious sources in absence of anything else (although equally it could be argued that the subject simply isn't notable). However, that clearly isn't the case for this subject. We have a lot of very good quality reliable sources, so I see no reason to include dubious ones. Frankly the same argument goes for primary vs secondary. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that primary sources shouldn't be used, and since we don't need to here why make an exception?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm prepared to discuss, or let others discuss, which of the sources are very good quality and which are dubious. So far I haven't seen any compelling arguments on that subject, and in my opinion all of the sources currently in the article are good enough to be used there. But you say that "Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that primary sources shouldn't be used..." On the contrary, the guidelines are very clear that they can be used, carefully and without editorial interpretation. For links to the relevant guidelines please refer to my post above, dated "12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)". We "need" to include these links to document which musicians have been listed as part of the 27 Club. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My point was it is questionable whether these even qualify as primary sources. Anyone can go make a website that lists names of musicians. I could go do that right now, and have a source to cite by the end of today. If you look at, for instance, http://www.forever27.co.uk, it's pretty clear that it's just some guy's website. http://www.the27s.com/, on the other hand, is simply about advertising a book on the subject. That doesn't qualify them as primary sources, and doesn't necessarily make them reliable sources. That's not to say I am totally against their use, but I don't believe Wikipedia should simply be a mirror of their content, with inclusion purely on their say-so. Part of what makes the 27 Club is that it's musicians that you may actually have heard of and their death might actually have been reported in reliable sources. Otherwise we have no real criteria for inclusion other than "died at 27, had been seen to strum a chord/sing a song on occasion". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:25, 2 November 2011

So far three of us have been dominating this discussion -- ThePaintedOne, Escape Orbit, and myself. I'm hoping that a lot more editors will be giving their opinions. I posted a Request For Comment four days ago, in hopes of getting some new views from editors who haven't posted here before, and so far exactly zero of them joined the discussion. This article gets between five thousand and ten thousand hits a day, so it's certainly a subject that Wikipedia readers are interested in. Anybody out there? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I've stepped back from the discussion. I think we've all clearly stated out positions in this section, we need more opinions to help move things along. Right now me and Escape Orbit seem to be in broadly the same place, but I'm not remotely happy that 2-1 amongst just three editors constitues consensus.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise

As we don't have any further input; can I suggest a compromise that hopefully everyone may be satisfied with?

• One list.
• Sorted by date. This has advantage of listing the "founding members" towards the top.
• Including all of the cited persons currently there, who have their own personal Wikipedia article. This helps establish a notability thresh-hold.
• No photos. Giving everyone one, (if we have a licence-free one for each), is over-kill. Giving one only to some is messy and suggests a hierarchy that we cannot adequately demonstrate in good sources.
• Specific mentions of "founding members" and "usual members" in the body of the article, as part of a cited and sourced discussion of what prompts mentions of inclusion, and what publicises "the club" to the general public.

Sound ok? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To me that actually seems like a reasonable compromise among the small number of opinions that have been expressed. However I suggest that any of the cited persons be left in the list, whether they have their own Wikipedia article or not, because (1) everyone currently in the list either has their own article, or at least was in a band that has its own article, and (2) notability in the Wikipedia sense becomes less important if we are listing people strictly on the basis of citations. So for example Sean Patrick McCabe, who happens to have four citations, would stay in the list. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible structure, however, I think we still need to define the criteria on citations. Specifically, are we talking citations that just show someone died aged 27 (as was the practise in the past), or do we need citations that specifically link a person to the concept of the 27 club? Secondly, some judgement around the primary/reliable sources issue is needed and in particular whether the 27 club websites and books should be used as citations as whether or not we include them will make a substantial difference to the makeup of the final list.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the proposed compromise is that (1) the citations should link the person to the 27 club, and (2) the 27 club websites and books are considered valid references. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Cites definitely need to establish link to "Club 27" (or similar name). Simply citing that they died aged 27, and then suggesting that they should therefore be in the club is original research.

My purpose of limiting the list to just those with a Wikipedia article is that we need some kind of threshold, otherwise anyone who ever played in a band of any sort can arguably qualify, and we are obliged to list everyone who may appear in the "27 club list websites". As I've said before, these websites are not great, and have an interest in inflating numbers. A cite from a third party source not dedicated to the club is a far better indication that the person's death is notable and is considered by third parties as a "27 club" matter. One of the more obvious aspects of being in the club is being an relatively well-known musician, with perhaps some of the lifestyle choices that can go along with that. A report of their death in a reliable source helps establish that, I couldn't say the same of the list websites.

Personally I would remove all that are sourced just to these websites, but I thought limiting it to people who have a mention in Wikipedia was a fair compromise. If you think that's too strict, we could go with those who were members of bands with articles, although I'm not sure if that would actually whittle the list down any. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are all agreed that citations should be specific to the 27 club, so I think that can be put asside. With regards the quality of ciations, I don't think the 27 club websites meet WP:RS, as they don't seem to have any professional editorial control, but are rather run by fans seeking to put up as much content as they can, and therefore shouldn't be used to support this article. However, taking on board Mudwaters line on primary sources from before, I think a formally published book on the subject is an acceptable source. Checking the primary source policy I think it doesn't exclude those books and in pretty much any other subject a published book is accepted as a source, so I think it would be peculiar to say differently here. That would leave us with normal third party citations (web or otherwise) and the 27 club published books. I think that given the inherant notabillity of those sources, the issue of having a wikipedia page becomes moot. If you are notable enough to have third party sources link you, or for someone to put you in a published book linking you to the club, odds are you are notable enough to have a wiki page even if it hasn't actually been created yet (those same sources would likely support such an article). If the odd marginal person creeps in that way, c'est la vie, no system is going to be perfect. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of confusion in this talk page sub-section, because we're mixing together two related but different things. One thing is our own positions, and the other thing is the suggested compromise. My own position hasn't really changed. I still think that the article should be left pretty much the way it is. None of the musicians should be removed. Because part of the 27 Club concept is that a lot of musicians have died at age 27, it's okay to list notable or semi-notable musicians, without references, and that's not original research. Also it's better to keep the two lists separate. When I said that references should show that a musician has been associated with the 27 Club, I was talking about the suggested compromise. As far as the compromise itself, there's confusion just about that, at least for me. Escape Orbit, when you posted that, here, you said, "Including all of the cited persons currently there, who have their own personal Wikipedia article. This helps establish a notability thresh-hold." One thing about this is that, as I said in an earlier post, I think that a better compromise is to not require that they have their own article. But another thing is that I took you to mean that any of the current citations are valid, because you said "including all of the cited persons currently there". Is that what you meant? In later post, here, ThePaintedOne started talking how 27 Club websites should not be used as sources. So, there is confusion or at least disagreement about the proposed compromise. If we're saying that anyone currently on the list with at least one citation would be left in, then I would agree to the compromise, including the other points such as one combined list and no images. If not, then I believe I would not agree. As far as the other point in your most recent post, ThePaintedOne -- that among primary sources, "a formally published book on the subject is an acceptable source" -- I'm rather sure that the 27s.com web site lists the exact same musicians as the book The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll -- the web site is directly associated with the book -- so that would seem to mean that, in your view, anyone cited on that web site, and therefore the book, would be acceptable. There's only one other primary source currently being used, which is forever27.co.uk. There are a few musicians cited with forever27.co.uk and not with 27s.com, but all of them also have secondary source citations, except for Richard Turner. So if we accept 27s.com but not forever 27.co.uk -- and I think we should accept both, as I've said -- only Turner would be taken off the list. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is confusion, the compromise suggestion didn't address this issue which I think is important to clarrify. Personally I don't think an artist having a wikipedia page is relevent to this page, neither do I think the current list makeup should be set in stone. Once we decide the criteria we look at the list again, entries shouldn't be grandfathered into the new list. I think the published books are good sources, I think the various fan sites aren't. Not because they are primary sources, but because they fail WP:RS. You mention a particular website that directly supports the book, if the two have the same list of people then it's irrelevent whether we include the website or not. They are in effect one citation really, rather like an online copy of a newspaper article. As for what impact all this will have on the list, I've not actually checked how many entries are supported by any given citation source, so I've no idea what impact my suggestion here will have. I don't think the effect on the list is relevent, we should decide the correct way to apply wikipedia policy and let the list reflect that. If that means it stays exactly as it currently is, I have no problem with that. Equally if half the entries were removed as a result I would agree with that too. We should decide the policy application in the abstract, not based on how many entries it supports. Moving forwards though we'll have a clear and objective criteria to apply for any new entries that are suggested.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

How about I start by implementing the following, then we can see how things stand?

* One list

* Sorted by date

* Only those cited (regardless of the source)

* No photos

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Any chance we can have the semi-protection put back on again? Every time it drops off we get IP editors ignoring consensus and vandalising the article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just requested that the semi-protection be restored, here at WP:RFP. By the way, several editors have been reverting the removal of Amy Winehouse from the main section with edit summaries such as "revert vandalism", but edits by IPs removing Winehouse are not vandalism in the Wikipedia sense, which, per WP:VAN, "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." A better edit summary would be something along the lines of "Reverted edit by [IP address]; by consensus in multiple talk page sections, Winehouse should be included in the main list", or perhaps "Reverted edit by [IP address]; see Talk:27 Club#Discussion on whether to add Amy Winehouse to list. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's arguable but I see your point. There is a clear consensus on this subject, but we also have IP editors who have said on this talk page that they will wait for protection to expire and then take her out again regardless, so they are knowingly and deliberately ignoring consensus which I think becomes vandalism by dint of the intent. Of course we can't say for certain that these IP editors are the same as those IP editors, so we should assume good faith that this is someone genuinely editing in ignorance to consensus. However, we are making an effort to assume good faith and as such I wouldn't be too hard on anyone who calls that quacking thing a duck.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Janis Joplin seen on the street..png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Janis Joplin seen on the street..png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 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) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)