Talk:Peter Grant (music manager)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed disambig page

This particular Peter Grant doesn't seem to be particularly more notable than the others. I'm proposing to move it to a new article name and change this page to a simple disambig.

Comments please. --Dweller 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It states that while he was driving to his house, Horselunges Manor, he had a heart attack. This cannot be true as he had sold Horselunges several years earlier and had moved to Eastbourne.

Peter Grant JP?

The assertion:

he was offered the civic position of local magistrate for the town council

demonstrates a complete lack of knowlege of the English legal syste. Magistrates in England and Wales are NOT appointed by town coucils. It is my understanding that Grant was a magistrate (JP). He would have applied for the position himself - you are not invited. After criminal record scrutiny and other factors to establish good character, a period of training ensues before being formally allowed to sit on the bench of a magistraites court. Magistrates are unpaid volunteers - they are paid out-of-pocket expenses only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.60.30 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

April 2016

What happened during the infamous Oakland incident is contested, and few if any reliable sources say as fact security guard Jim Matzorkis assaulted Peter Grant's son. The source at the end of the sentence simply says Matzorkis "apprehended" him. This Rolling Stone article simply says Matzorkis took the sign from him. [1]. We need to be as cautious as these sources. There is no evidence that Matzorkis was convicted or arrested for assault, or even that authorities believed it to be true. It's a possible BLP issue and good practice regardless. 2600:1001:B02A:C7F0:35C1:421F:D636:5AD5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a published reliable source, in line with WP:BLP. Last night on IRC I was told by an admin you were a banned user. 177.8.163.66 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Take a gander at your own IP. 2600:1001:B028:795D:E0AE:40D9:3050:FB23 (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Grant biography includes a quote from the security guard denying assault [2]

This source does not mention an assault. [3] 2600:1001:B003:7684:C5BA:68AD:20E6:BB07 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Chris Welch book on John Bonham states: "John Bonham, who was taking a break from his drums during the show, claims he saw the incident." Also there is another source, a magazine called Electric Magic: The Led Zeppelin Chronicle (May 1992, Volume 2, Number 10) which has numerous eye witness accounts of the incident, and a transcript of the court case. Bonham's drum technician Jeff Ocheltree said he saw Matzorkis "strike the back of Warren's head with his right hand, after the kid had asked for the trailer sign". Under WP:BLP guidelines, contentious content is allowed provided it is cited with a published source. Also Wikipedia is not censored. 186.47.46.106 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

From your own sources, Bonham claims he saw the guard hit the kid, and the guard denies it. Several sources are inconclusive on this point. No evidence show indicates the guard was convicted or indicted, or even that investigators believed it happened. Assault is a crime, and we need to be certain this is the case before allowing it. "Censorship " is not relevant as that hasn't been argued — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B013:EDC7:D437:8D9:B34C:969E (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out, under BLP, contentious information is allowed provided it is cited. There are plenty of sources and witnesses however at this point in time, the constant removal of cited content has become nothing more than trolling. If you were really here to be constructive, you would have added with a citation "but this was denied by Matzorkis" and left it at that, but you refuse to do anything other than delete. That's not the Wikipedia way. 80.34.223.19 (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A proxy hopper accusing someone else of trolling. How interesting.

What you ignore is that simply by inserting that phrase to the end of the sentence it would remain stated as fact that the security guard "assaulted" Grant's son. The only thing all source concur on is that there was some kind of confrontation, that could have been verbal or physical. Furthermore, in US English 'assault' can be read as a criminal act. Before we accuse someone of striking another person, particularly a child, using any language, we need to be certain. 2600:1001:B013:BFF7:5C7D:F4A0:AA6D:CA8 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Other source that don't mention an assault. [4],[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B013:BFF7:5C7D:F4A0:AA6D:CA8 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an absurd piece of logic - that some sources don't mention it, therefore it didn't happen. Not every source, in every publication, will mention every tidbit that went on. Besides which I don't think you have any claim to complain since according to an admin you are in fact banned user User:IHeardFromBob. 80.34.223.19 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and maybe the kid insulted the guard's mother, threatened his job and pulled a knife. It might have happened since the sources don't mention it, and since assaulting a kid is evidently a 'tidbit' not every source has to mention.

I've noticed your tendency to accuse. Guilty conscience, maybe? 2600:1001:B013:BFF7:9864:1266:A0A7:6DD9 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I have changed it to 'allegedly slapped' as that is supported by sources and a factual description of the incident, rather than 'assaulted' which I cant see is. It does have legal issues, striking someone is not necessarily an assault. But if someone can provide some reliable sources that describe it as an assault, rather than just describing the act... It is highly unlikely in the 70's someone would be convicted of assault for giving an 11 year old a clip round the ear for doing something he shouldnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Single Release & Recall Incident

I note that while it is mentioned in the article that Peter Grant never allowed record companies to release singles of Led Zeppelin's work, nothing is mentioned regarding the events surrounding the one single release that did occur (which is why some people still posses the 45rpm single "Stairway To Heaven / Whole Lotta Love"). It was reported that Peter grant had a furious showdown with the record company boss who released the single against his and the band's express wishes in which the boss told Grant that no-one would tell him what he can and cannot do with his own business. Three days later all singles were recalled. Who knows what kind of Godfather shenanigans went on - neither party has ever revealed the reasons for the volte face. Clearly an incident such as thing should be worthy of mention, but while this tale was widely known when I myself worked in the industry, I find I cannot turn up any reference to it with a cursory Internet search. Can anyone shed any more light on this actual event, provide any source at all for it that would warrant the inclusion of this incident?Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)