Talk:Sky Saxon

sky saxon and the seeds, 1967, hullabaloo nightclub, hollywood, ca[edit]

i saw them there once. they were great. pushing too hard, farmer on the other side of town. from the web album. seeds were really popular in los angeles, ca. only arthur lee of love was more popular. stones were mildly popular. humble harv. diamond mind. since its a 1967 40 year reunion i'd thought i'd rap it down. me and my high school wife, d.c. saw janis joplin at hullabaloo too. that was more 1968ish though, or was it 1969? legends of los angeles, ca. i was assigned to dig ditches for the laborers union the rest of my life and stay married to d.c. and live in an apt. forever and ever. with the little tykes coming along. i opted for a different script. i go north, undercover as a g-man to uncover murder plots against detainees at marin county jail in san rafael. team up later with compadres ala zorro and the lone ranger and tonto. bernardo, my horse. when i was allegedly murdered by marin county sheriffs while in custody, it was time for the f.b.i. to go into action. it was mysto dude. the chess game was great. checkmate with doug mcclure and sebastian cabot. i was a special child guest star on that show years ago. don't mess with hollywood children. screen children's guild. special commendations to agents davis et al. how the winds do change direction. and you thought an ill wind always blows no good. bucky, bucky beaver. seeds were cool. bad for your eyes though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.242.175 (talk) 05:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're okay. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.skysaxon.com/Biography.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year and other information[edit]

There is obviously a discrepancy about Saxon's actual birth date, reported variously as 1937, 1945, 1946. Sites like IMDb and RateYourMusic really do not qualify as WP:RS. Until an actual reliable source is found to establish a definitive date, the birth date should be removed. (I found that many of the sites reporting 1937 are Wikipedia mirrors and this article has only contributed to the confusion). This goes for any other information, as well, because of the WP:BLP issues. Saxon appears to have done a lot to promote himself, so his own websites and fansites contain some dubious claims. I've spent some time finding sourcing some of this article -- and anything which is not properly sourced, will need to be removed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know all that - but my personal opinion is that it is more useful to highlight the uncertainty, rather than leave a void which others will fill with their own information. I won't stand in your way though, because I know what the guidelines say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken -- and I am also torn on this issue. It is nice to clarify these things for readers, but on the other hand, raising the discrepancy about the various birth dates begins to venture into original research. I am going to think about it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a footnote, as here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea, except: Do you think this perpetuates the problem because readers won't look at the footnote (believing it only provides a source for that single date. And WP mirrors often don't include the footnotes, as well. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and there's no "preferred date" here either - I'll leave it to your discretion! Ghmyrtle (talk)

The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll has circa 1946 as year of birth - that was the only worthwhile source found from a Google Books search. There should be several newspaper obituaries over the next couple of weeks, and those from the better quality newspapers should be useful here.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately -- a sad way to obtain a reliable source. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see whether the obit writers will come here - any false leads we can insert....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - I'm very reluctant to state so clearly that his birth year was 1946. Other sites clearly give different years, and if there was certainty over 1946 they would not do so. I'm prepared to accept that the RS Encyclopedia is the "best" source we currently have (although as they don't have any date I wonder whether their sources are actually any better), but it's not infallible, and the other sites must have reasons (which we don't know) for putting in their alternative dates. I just think that we should, at least, indicate that some uncertainties and differences of view exist, perhaps by including a footnote to the effect that "This year of birth is disputed by some sources, which suggest alternative years of births including 1937 and 1945". Would anyone object to that? - it's done on other pages, although perhaps not so high profile ones as this one may become over the next few days. Hopefully, as stated above, it will be resolved soon anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to trust the press release stating he was 63-years-old which would have been issued directly through family sources. I have some experience with that. I don't have problem if you want to return to the multiple dates -- however, I always doubted the 1937 date because it made him much too old when he first started out as Little Richie Marsh -- it would place him in his late twenties. And, yes, I saw some sources directly attribute info to the Wikipedia article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but 63 could still give a birth year of (later) 1945 - happy to leave as is for now. Not sure about "family sources" - the quote comes straight off Facebook. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's his wife's page. But, you're right that the date could be 1945. The mortuary will release a prepared statement to the press soon enough, and I expect the Austin American-Statesman to have it first. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a bit of WP:OR and put this NY Times obit and this wholly unreliable but plausible blog entry - "Richard Elvern Marsh is 71. I've seen his passport." - together, you get not only a full birth name, but also a date of birth of August 20, 1937. Just awaiting the moment when this can be added without being reverted as "unreliable". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A guy touring with him in Europe last year might defintely know -- no reason to make anything up back then. But... eventually there will be an official reliable source that we can use. It's strange to me that he is reported to have gone to LA straight out of high school for a music career, but if he was born in '37, that puts him there in '55, eight years before he became known as Little Richie Marsh. Anyway, I am glad that you stuck with the multiple dates for his birth year, given all the uncertainty -- even from his wife. You made the right call there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the name Richard Elvern Marsh through several public records search engines, and the only one to turn up was listed as age 73 (or with a birth date of 1937) on all of them. Richiestern (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just want to confirm that Sky (Richard) was born in 1937, making him 71 years of age in June of 2009 the date of his death. I know this because Sky and I were a couple and lived together in Seattle in the late 80's and early 90's. I know all his family and children as well. Sky and I remained friends for life although we split up after moving to San Francisco. We had a difficult time finding housing and an ex GF of his gave us shelter, which led to our break up and their marriage.

Sincerely, Karen Wilson

p.s. I have had mixed feelings about adding my name and affiliation to his Wikipedia bio. Any thoughts or comments? K.a.wilson01 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

Due to the continued attempts to add copyrighted text by multiple user and IP accounts, in violation of WP policy, this article has been placed under semi-protection. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Saxon Blues Band[edit]

Is there any documentation that Sky recorded this with members of Muddy Waters' band? There is a liner note supposedly written by Muddy Waters and Luther Johnson is credited as the writer of one song, but I've always been under the impression that it was recorded by The Seeds, probably augmented by session musicians. (Taj Mahal and Ry Cooder are possibilities, but that's original research) Also, I think it came out after Future, but this article implies otherwise.71.190.94.240 (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference to validate the statement that it was recorded with Waters' band, and the catalog numbers {Future was #2038, "Seedy Blues" was #2040) suggest that Future came out first. I'll tweak the article - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sky Saxon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301145202/http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/pages/news/2906 to http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/pages/news/2906

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sky Saxon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]