Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 12

Zappa should be a disambiguation page.
Francesco Zappa is easy to confuse with FZ.
 * But who is the WP:primary topic? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Zappa. 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/20120825231941/http://www.emusician.com/eqredirects//article/exclusive-outtakes-from/sep-06/23282 to http://www.emusician.com/eqredirects//article/exclusive-outtakes-from/sep-06/23282

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frank Zappa. 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/20150411012948/http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nasopharyngeal-radium-fact-sheet to http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nasopharyngeal-radium-fact-sheet
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308055438/http://mixonline.com/recording/business/audio_mothers_sound/ to http://mixonline.com/recording/business/audio_mothers_sound

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Relevant content
With this edit user removed content, part of a literal quote, and partly non-redundant information. I undid the removal. User Ilovetopaint removed it again. This is removal of relevant and sourced information, so I restored it again, pending discussion here (WP:BRD). User Ilovetopaint is free to discuss here before removing again. - DVdm (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Zappa categorized himself as a "'Practical Conservative'."
 * "Politically, I consider myself to be a (don't laugh) 'Practical Conservative'"
 * "I want a smaller, less intrusive government, and lower taxes. What? You too?""
 * "He favored limited government and low taxes"
 * ??? What does the italicized content tell us that's different?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Currently in the article:
 * Zappa categorized himself as a "practical conservative". He favored limited government and low taxes]


 * The repeated content is in a sourced footnote, and clearly supports the text of the article. So it is not redudant. Furthermore, the "(don't laugh)" phrase in the footnote is part of the full quotation and i.m.o. relevant, showing the state of mind in which it was said. - DVdm (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In other words, "there is no difference except for the parenthetical disclaimer indicating that he isn't joking". So what's the point of summarizing the quote when we can just present the quote itself?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See MOS:QUOTATIONS: It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement. Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes). Note that this is a featured article, and if I'm not mistaken some of the quotations have been paraphrased in the very process of "featurising" this article. - DVdm (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Now what you're saying is that we should excise the quote altogether? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: the literal quote is there in a footnote to support (with the source) the paraphasing in the article text. I think it is perfect the way it is—an example of top-notch sourcing. - DVdm (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Tours
Regarding the repeated attempts to add tours information. User, please note that Frank Zappa is a wp:featured article that requires decently written, relevant content, backed by proper wp:reliable sources. There seems to be no consensus to take your addition on board. Your edit was undone by users, , and. Please stop re-adding it. You can discuss here. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mother was short for motherfucker that can denote a skilled musician.This is already written in the page of FZ. The souces are already used in the page, and are in the film written from FZ. So the vandalism is to delete, and don't change as you think better. WP must be built and not destroyed or will end who read, build and support it. I changed the text as suggested, you can do the same. The timeline gives an idea of how FZ has changed and built the artists for his music and is also the reason why timeline exists in WP. You have to destroy all the timeline of musicians presents in WP. --Pmacchi (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if the timeline looks interesting, remember that Wikipedia is about wp:CONSENSUS first. We need to agree that this is worth getting added here. - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As DVdm wrote, Wikipedia generally, and featured articles especially, require material that's properly written, relevant to most readers, and reliably sourced. The edits discussed here are none of that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "motherfucker", the band was called the Mothers (capital M) and then "out of necessity" was renamed The Mothers of Invention. They were never referred to, either as a group or individually, as motherfuckers. Re. "So the vandalism is to delete, and don't change as you think better. WP must be built and not destroyed or will end who read, build and support it." That is not a valid argument. To reach a consensus you have to persuade the wider community, explaining why you think something is a good idea, not just state that you think it is. nagualdesign 07:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that you feel pleasure to be like napalm and is the main reason that nobody want to discuss more in WP and so there is no more consensus but people now use google and don't choose WP but other sites. You find very poor generic reason and delete ALL instead of change only one word!!! WP is also for who want to know what FZ has done and the choice of the artists is a normal information that you find for a musician. If you go to The Who page you can see the Tours voice that you all don't answer me why don't like it. If some of you think that timeline looks interesting why destroy it ? With it people can choose the film to see Terry Bozzio or Steve Vai. From The Who page for example you can arrive to a Timeline where you can see when there was Keith Moon (that was in 200 Motels with Ringo Starr) and that the actual drummer that I saw in concert with The Who some months ago is the son of Ringo Starr. I was at the concerts of FZ in 1982, 1984 and 1988 and with this timeline and the list of the films of the tours I like use WP. --Pmacchi (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding "that you feel pleasure to be like napalm", no, really, we most certainly don't. If we would feel such pleasure, we couldn't have survived here. And I was at the concerts too. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Although there are several editors here I only speak for myself. The reasons I reverted your edit were twofold. First, the phrase "Timeline about the main motherfuckers of the tours" is not encyclopaedic. We don't refer to the members of a band as "motherfuckers" for reasons that ought to be blindingly obvious. Second, you had already been reverted more than once. You have to follow WP:BRD, especially with a Featured Article. The fact that you didn't do that, coupled with the "motherfuckers", made it look like you were a vandal.
 * If you are willing to accept that the word "motherfuckers" was highly inappropriate and use something else instead, and you are also willing to engage in civil discussion, I don't have a problem with adding the timeline to the article. That said, you might want to drop the attitude. WP:AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and accusing other editors of being spiteful or sadistic (assuming that's what you meant by "I understand that you feel pleasure to be like napalm and is the main reason that nobody want to discuss more") is totally unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with WP practices and try to understand why other editors react the way they do, rather than assuming bad faith. nagualdesign 21:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Zappa vs The Mothers of invention lawsuit
Please try to contribute info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Mothers_of_Invention#The_Zappa_vs_The_Mothers_of_invention_lawsuit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.139 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Frank Zappa Baltimore.jpg

RfC: Should my addition of verified material to this article have been removed?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should my addition of verified material to this article have been removed? (See for details) Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * No - The source is reputable, and the content was attributed to the source, unlike the material I replaced. Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, of course, even Wikipedia is not a voting club. Rationale: Way too much wp:primary sourced, wp:UNDUE weight on Geoffrey Himes. This is an article about Zappa, not about Himes. - DVdm (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. There should be something from Christgau and Himes, tho perhaps not so much.  So the edits should be further edited, but the sources should remain. DougHill (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it, no. And here is another writer: Jon Pareles in the New York Times which I think isn't in this article: "his pieces were widely criticized for juvenile humor and for a cold, mechanical quality". So why not include it? We aren not the Frank Zappa Fan Club here. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No The Himes quote effectively summarizes a wide range of opinions of Zappa's music, and in that sense is essentially a secondary source. Additionally, the quote length was acceptable for a section of this length. signed,Rosguill talk 04:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No Disagree that this is undue weight. I will point out that we are nto required to dispel any rumor of us being FZFC by including negative content. I am judging that content on its own merits. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  02:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No As above, it is reliably sourced. It would violate NPOV to only present one range of opinions on a matter such as this. I see the content has been re-added a few days ago, so this RfC probably could be closed early. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No as above --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes as per WP:BRD aka "Bold, Revert, Discuss." You suggested substantive changes, giving RS. Reverting those changes is a correct response when somebody feels a bold change needs more work and discussion on the talk page, rather than immediate, wholesale inclusion in the article. Both you and the reverter were doing productive, Wikipedia-valued actions. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
I came across this article and the material in question by happenstance; I was researching newspaper articles on Rock Albums of the Seventies, and found a 1993 Washington Post article by Geoffrey Himes discussing Frank Zappa.

So I added content to this article discussing the artist's critical reputation during his lifetime, attributed to Himes' article in which he gives a brief overview of said reputation; I added this while tidying up the section--merging related paragraphs of one-or-two sentences together--and removing the unsourced statements "earning widespread acclaim from critics and fellow musicians ... Zappa earned widespread critical acclaim in his lifetime and after his death".

A few hours later, completely reverted my edits, claiming "Way too much wp:primary source, wp:UNDUE weight on Geoffrey Himes. This is an article about Zappa, not about Himes." In sum, this is the section as I revised it, and here is the section now. Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One odd thing about is that there seems to be a lot of "Zappa was criticized by some..." which kind of raises the question "who?". I mean Jon Pareles has standing to opine on this stuff I guess, but he doesn't. He says "his pieces were widely criticized for juvenile humor and for a cold, mechanical quality". He doesn't say "his pieces had juvenile humor and a cold, mechanical quality" which I guess it would be reasonable for us to report what Jon Pareles thinks (he is an expert after all). But all he's doing is reporting that some other people had these criticisms. So that's odd. However: 1) Journalists all the time say "many think..." when what they mean is "I think, but don't want to baldly say..." and that's possibly whats going on here. And 2), if that's not it, it is Jon Pareles so I assume by "some" he means "other experts with erudition and standing whom I read and talk to" and not "my neighbor's kid". So I wouldn't worry about it too much. Although it'd be much better if he'd tell us who the "some" were. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you show that there is actual widespread criticism of his music skill? Multiple reliable sources would be useful. desmay (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think a more important question is what sources are there in this article currently to verify that he's been widely acclaimed... But I'll indulge the request: The first two paragraphs of the Himes/Washington Post article give an overview, with a few specifics, most notably his rejection by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, twice, and a quoted example of detractors in Robert Christgau. This A.V. Club article does the same. According to Spin: "His highly satirical aesthetic was often criticized as being cold". J. W. Curry in the Canadian art magazine Rampike said: "One of the characteristics of Zappa's lyric writing is a theory of excess that results in dramatic (& often criticized) verbal confrontations." Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So let's get some of these sources on the page. Christgau is an important critic who should be cited; Himes seems to be quoting him from: https://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=8196.  But let's not overdo it:  the page should be more about Zappa than the critical reaction to his work.  DougHill (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing the page as a whole, but the section in question, which is dedicated to Zappa's critical legacy ("Acclaim, honors", and such), and had nothing but points of praise before I attempted to edit it. It was not overdone in my original revision, and was merely meant to rectify an unverified claim, that Zappa had been widely acclaimed during and after his lifetime. Himes appeared to objectively summarize Zappa's critical reputation up to the time of his death, without giving his own opinion if I remember correctly; he was merely reporting, even contextualizing both points of praise and points of criticism, as opposed to the entirely one-sided tone appears to favor and reverted back to. As an aside, Christgau's website reprints the Christgau's Record Guide books, which Himes credits while quoting him. Dan56 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was too one-sided before. So then, let's put this back on the page.  If it gets reverted again, we'll have to put a POV tag on the section. DougHill (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK I've put some of this back, as discussed. Please edit this further.  But if Himes is removed entirely, we'll need to put a POV tag on the section. DougHill (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genres
This is just an opinion, but the second sentence of the first para. in this section is a bit unwieldy. It lacks some punctuation ( a comma before "but") and it describes "Jazz From Hell" as marking a departure from Zappa band performance and the beginning of an orchestral pahase. The album itself is comprised of compositions performed on (by?) a Synclavier with a single "live" track St. Etienne. It's true that there were some orchestral works released after "JFH", but I don't see this as related to JFH either. A citation is needed. It's a former FA so I'm not touching it any more except to add the word "and" after the last comma and revert obvious vandalism as I find it. It really is convoluted phrasing there and should be edited for better copy. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's get a source, or let's just remove the entire sentence. No harm would be done. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with you up to deleting the sentence altogether... I think a citation is important- crucial- because there is a specific claim being made there (whatever the hell it is!) I'd edit it for copy but it's a non-starter for me with out a cite. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On further consideration... Zappa and a full band (The Best Band You Never Heard In Your Life) did extensive tour in 1988, which negates the claim made in the first para. that Zappa was moving away from band work... I remember several interviews at the time where he described his fingertips as "marshmallows" from years of not actively playing. But that happened after JFH. Then the Boulez/Zappa collaboration and additionally my understanding was Zappa spent most of his time editing old concert tapes into cohesive things for release in the months before his death. So, I guess what I'm saying here is that that little section contains a factual error, and at this point I agree that maybe it should be removed without a verifiable cite. Go ahead... you first! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the line of away from TBBYNHIYL towards The Yellow Shark and such. Let's wait a few days, perhaps someone will find a source. Otherwise I'll delete it by the end of the week... - DVdm (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're getting at... The section needs to be more specific. Also, and I might be missing it, but Zappa is often overlooked as a "prog" artist. I don't really know why that is, but his music was often "progressive." Maybe it's because he did so much "do-wop" and R & B stuff that the prog gets negated. I have all my old Guitar World, Guitar Player, Guitar, etc etc. from before his death and I'll make the effort to go into my "stacks" and see what I can find. There was one issue in particular that was all Zappa, and that one had a fantastic interview where Matt Groening interviewed him. Very candid Zappa (as if there were another version!) Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * just beat me to it . Thx! - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Moi oci! Merci! Regardez, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Frank Zappa for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Frank Zappa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

First sentence of lede
The first sentence of the lede describes Frank Zappa as being a "musician, composer, activist and filmmaker". In the lede, we are supposed to be presenting a summary of the entity, briefly describing the important things about the entity, so that a reader absorbing only the lede (as many surely do) will come away with a basic understanding of what the entity is.

So we're saying the basic thing you need to know about Frank Zappa is that he was a "musician, composer, activist and filmmaker, all of these describing his activities, notability, and interest as more or less equal. (He was also an autobiographer, businessman, producer, and so on, and we talk about these in the body of the article, but we don't include them in the lede as being essential to a basic understanding of who he is, on the same level as being a musician or filmmaker.)

Let's think about the "filmmaker" and "activist" part, as well as a missing part: "bandleader".

Filmmaker
According to the box at the bottom, his filmography is 200 Motels, Baby Snakes, The Dub Room Special, Video from Hell, Does Humor Belong in Music?, The True Story of Frank Zappa's 200 Motels, The Amazing Mr. Bickford, Uncle Meat, The Torture Never Stops, A Token Of His Extreme, Roxy The Movie, and Eat That Question: Frank Zappa in His Own Words". So let's see. I'll go mostly on what the Wikipedia articles say.


 * 200 Motels is a legit movie that he made.
 * Baby Snakes is "a film which includes footage from Frank Zappa's 1977 Halloween concert at New York City's Palladium Theater, backstage antics from the crew, and stop motion clay animation from award-winning animator Bruce Bickford". Except for the claymation, it's a concert film/home movie I guess, and it was never shown or distributed in any meaningful way, since no actual distribution company was interested. (I mean, yeah, you could order it from Zappa himself, but home movies for the fan club don't really count to make you a "filmmaker".)
 * The Dub Room Special "combines footage from a performance at the KCET studios in Los Angeles on August 27, 1974, a concert performed at The Palladium, New York City on October 31, 1981, some clay animation by Bruce Bickford, and several interviews". Ditto: concert film / home movie, also not distributed.
 * Video from Hell. "It is a compilation of pieces of music and video from a series of projects that Zappa presumably planned to finish and release for home video". Whatever it it, it was apparently never finished, and never released.
 * Does Humor Belong in Music? is "a one-hour Frank Zappa concert video composed of live performances at The Pier in New York City (August 26, 1984) along with a few interview segments". Never shown theatrically or on TV, it was' released on VHS by MPI Home Video, which is a legit business. Their catalog is composed of D-list films that nobody's heard of or wants to watch, and old TV shows like Here's Lucy''. But they are legit. It's still just concert footage.
 * The True Story of 200 Motels "takes and rehearsals discarded from the original edit plus interviews made during the shooting", also never distributed theatrically (may have been distributed on home video, not sure).
 * The Amazing Mr. Bickford is "a video released by Frank Zappa in 1987, containing orchestral pieces by Zappa set to the clay animation of Bruce Bickford." There's no dialogue, lyrics, or (I think) storyline. It's really a Bruce Bickford film with soundtrack by Zappa, but it's a legit film with Zappa's name on it, and it's almost an hour long. Was not shown theatrically or anywhere. Don't know if it was distributed via mail order.
 * Uncle Meat is "a film written and directed by Frank Zappa, released direct-to-video in 1987. Principal photography having never been completed, the videocassette is a 'making of' documentary showing rehearsals and background footage from 1968 and interviews with people involved with the uncompleted production". More of the same. Home movies.
 * The Torture Never Stops does not have a Wikipedia article, which doesn't speak well of its notability. IMDb has never heard of it, and they have everything, so I'm skeptical it even exists.
 * A Token Of His Extreme, also no article. IMDb has heard of it. It's hard to tell much. The cast is all "[Name of person] as himself" so I guess it's a home movie or something.
 * Roxy The Movie, also no article. It's a film of a concert (IMDB has "A concert movie showing a performance by the much-loved 1973 incarnation of the Mothers of Invention. An incredible cast of musicians treat us to a selection of blistering, pointillist jazz rock, hilariously funny asides and lyrics, audience participation and freaky behaviour.")
 * Eat That Question: Frank Zappa in His Own Words is a film about Frank Zappa. He didn't make it.

I mean, except for 200 Motels, it's all a very slim thread on which to hang "filmmaker" as one of the four key things about Frank Zappa. Except for 200 Motel, none of this was ever shown in even one single theater or on TV (except for Baby Snakes which was shown at one theater, the Victoria Theater (New York City)).

Zappa is famous for other stuff, and likes to mess around with cameras backstage and sell the footage, and concert footage, on his website. That's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with anything, really.

Activist
Frank Zappa had had interesting and biting things to say about current issues and culture, and he said them often enough and in public, but as far I can find he never led, or even joined, any activist group. He never lead or (I guess) even particupated in any boycott, letter-writing campaign, or similar, never campaigned for a candidate, never organized or even joined a protest march or similar.

Nor did his music generally have a political point of view. I can't even tell what his politics even are, from listening to his songs. He is pretty much anti-union in The Real Frank Zappa Book (which doesn't mention politics at all I don't think, which would be kind of odd for the autobiography of a real activist). My guess is he's probably vaguely libertarian. But then it says he was a Democrat. So who knows.

Bruce Springsteen is much more focused on concrete political movements, and Bob Dylan at least wrote popular songs with a political message about current events, and they're not described in their ledes as activists. Joan Baez is. But she legit was a voice of the civil rights movement, marched, went South at some risk. Pete Seeger. Rage Against the Machine. N.W.A. They had a focused political slant to their music, at least. And even they are described as political musicians rather then activists.

Zappa does not fit in here. He was focused on music, and didn't spend a lot of time thinking "What can I do today to move the social and political elements of my society in a better direction", or if he did I don't see any evidence of that.

Zappa was a freelance critic and satirizer of American culture, this is true, and some of his songs show this (mostly obliquely, I think). But that makes him a cultural critic, not an activist. George Carlin is described as "social critic", and maybe that would fit. But after all that was Carlin's full-time job. It's a key core thing about Carlin, but not Zappa.

Bandleader
It is important for the reader to know right off that Zappa was a musician and composer. "Musician" can mean anything in music I guess, but it's usually taken to mean "instrumentalist". Separate from composing or playing guitar, Zappa's being a bandleader is very important I think. "Bandleader" is kind of archaic concept now, mostly associated with big bands of 20 musicians, like they had in the swing era. Glenn Miller is described in his lede as a bandleader. Tommy Dorsey, same. Bob Wills. And so on. You don't see that now.

But Zappa was a bandleader in this sense, though, I would say.

Summary
I deleted "filmmaker" and "activist" and added "bandleader". If y'all want to roll back and discuss, I guess here'd be the place. Herostratus (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Homophobia
I've listed Thing Fish in the homophobic category. Does that mean the author should also be included? -ApexUnderground (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, on the contrary. I have removed the category from Thing Fish. - DVdm (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1993 Playboy quote
Zappa interview in Playboy 1993:
 * Playboy: "Is the irreverence and outrageousness in your music a reaction to being a good Catholic boy?"
 * Zappa: "Well, I think it was possible to do what I’ve done only because I escaped the bondage of being a devout believer. To be a good member of the congregation, ultimately you have to stop thinking. The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden story. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could still be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn’t asked any questions."

The point he's making here is that knowledge sets you free, but Christianity doesn't want you to have knowledge.

I feel that a recent edit misrepresented Zappa's intent. The recent edit, made by, was this: "For example, he felt that God wanted to punish those that wanted to gain certain knowledge, as was the case of Adam and Eve and the Forbidden Tree." Zappa wasn't assuming that God existed, and he wasn't talking about punishment. Rather, Zappa was throwing out the whole system. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel that is being too pedantic with the edit. While Frank Zappa was obviously anti-Christian and did not want to practice this faith, he was referring to what he saw as the essence of the Christian thought in this quote. His dismissal of the faith has no correlation to his idea that the Christian God, regardless of his existence, in Zappa's view did not want people to know certain things. Thus the edit only reflects this. Lightning in the sky (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's a better way to formulate it, closer to the actual quote. Perhaps something like, "He held the view that the Garden of Eden story shows that the essence of Christianity is to oppose gaining knowledge." - DVdm (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments from others are welcome too, but if users and  agree, I will put this in place.. - DVdm (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, your version neatly summarizes Zappa's expressed idea. It works better in that it doesn't first assume that Zappa believes there is a God. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept this. There's no use in arguing needlessly. Lightning in the sky (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: . - DVdm (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Main Photo
I'd like to change Zappa's main photograph at the top of the page. I feel there are better photographs that illustrate Zappa, namely the one attached to this post. This is because it is: 1: In colour, well lit and well-framed. 2: Clearly illustrates Zappa's most iconic look, i.e: long hair, goatee, and his signature Gibson SG guitar. 3: Taken at the scene of one of his more significant works, Roxy & Elsewhere. This album proved influential on Zappa and music of the period, and to a lesser extent his outfit and overall look at these performances is instantly recognisable to more dedicated Zappa fans.

Having attempted to upload the image and being prevented by Wikipedia's upload system, I cannot actually demonstrate it here. However it can be located as the header in an August 2020 article by UDiscoverMusic titled Frank Zappa: How The Hungry Freak Turned DIY Pioneer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourbillon1795 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to put the image from this source, provided the image is allowed here. If you are prevented to upload it, there might be a copyright related reason. - DVdm (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

McLaughlin's comment
I don't think it's particularly relevant, and it doesn't really say anything at all about his guitar style other than that McLaughlin thought his solos were too long. (Oh, and that he was a dictatorial band leader, hardly news.) Let's leave it out. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, even if I don't agree with it, I think this is a relevant opinion from a relevant guitar player, so I'd say, let's just keep it. - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Does Frank Zappa belong in category "American anti-fascists"?
After three reverts by LittleJerry (talk), he started a discussion on my talk page, and I started one on his. This note is to let other editors know where that discussion is happening. Gnuish (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Evidence:
 * ,, , : "The biggest threat to America today is not communism. It’s moving America toward a fascist theocracy."
 * : "For all of Frank Zappa's denunciations of the implicit and explicit autoritarianism of American life..."
 * That should be sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Someone using "fascist" as a slur is not enough to be labeled as an anti-fascist. The category should be used for people who actively oppose fascist/nazi movements or write against them. In addition, being generally anti-authoritarian isn't enough either. Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 15. That category was deleted and reinstated because people overused it to the point where the term "anti-communist" became broad and meaningless and so needed a fresh new start. LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever, probably. I myself belong to the category of people who find categorizing people counter-productive, if not pretty ridiculous - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * please discuss things here and leave my talk page alone. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Suzy Creamcheese?
Suzy Creamcheese redirects here, but there is no mention of her at all? Doesn't seem quite right. --Mwanner | Talk 19:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)