Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 6

Edit request on 5 January 2012
72.160.1.209 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No request-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger from "Hendrix chord" to this page (Jimi Hendrix)
Hi, I propose merging the page/article Hendrix chord with a section of this page (under perhaps Music, Legacy or Electric Ladyland ?), since the subject of that article is ultimately Hendrix and his specific use of this particular chord.

The article as it stands is misleading, biased, and overly specific, as it deals almost exclusively with defending the notion that the chord in question (7#9) should be called the "Hendrix chord," and currently any google searches regarding this tonality lead to the page "Hendrix chord." This is problematic, since the chord in question has a wide variety of applications and a history that far predates Hendrix and his use of it, and continues to be used and voiced in ways that are beyond the scope of what the "Hendrix chord" colloquially refers to. Moreover, the "Hendrix chord" is one specific application of the 7#9 within very narrow and definable parameters. Namely, a chord played on the guitar, in the key of E (doubling the root), omitting the fifth, with a very specific voicing, and used as the tonic.

However, the thesis of the page does have a place within the context of Hendrix's music, and thus, I would argue, has a place within this article, which could frankly do with just a little more music geekery (as has been proposed here in talk.)

I'm new here, but I will attempt to place "merge to" and "merge from" tags on both articles, and create a stub of an article for a more generally useful discussion of the chord in question.

Any help or suggestions in facilitating this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, JFdove (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't tag 'merge from' on this page because it is protected. I will tag 'merge to' on Hendrix chord and attempt to point conversation here. JFdove (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC).


 * I don't think merging it is the solution. I would think creating a better-defined section here with a link to that article would be better. There's only one mention of the Hendrix chord here in a somewhat inappropriate place, and the article certainly stands on its own. Just my 2p. Doc   talk  07:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that it doesn't, or shouldn't, stand on it's own. Serious, specific searches lead to an article on a colloquial term that is essentially a dumbing down of something of import to many--a tonality and it's applications. At the same time, the material in the article is trivially relevant, and certainly relevant to those interested in Hendrix and his music. Thus, the thesis of the page has a place here, however abbreviated. JFdove (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly neutral enough to be swayed either way; and your initiative to take this on your own accord is more of what we need from the good editors that are attracted to this site. Be bold. The best way to get things done is to do it yourself. If what you've done improves things, there will be no reasonable objection. Doc   talk  07:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement, Doc. I would have been so bold as to attempt the merge myself, but (a) I'm new, and (b) this is a protected page. JFdove (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In a couple more days (literally 2) your account will be WP:AUTOCONFIRMed, and you can edit more freely, so the protection thing will be moot. Preparing yourself for any possible arguments raised by others against your edits is a worthwhile activity in the meantime. I can help you out on your talkpage if you need it. We were all new at one time or another. Cheers :> Doc   talk  08:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Actually, as the article says the chord pre-dates Hendrix, and the term is merely a colloquialism, therefore the "Hendrix chord" article should probably be renamed, but left within music theory and chords where anybody would expect to find information regarding musical voicings. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, guys. I've removed the "suggested merge" tag and am now proposing a move/rename and cleanup of the page in question. Cheers. JFdove (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger complete
✅ All information from Electric Church has been merged into this article. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Fact: Hollywood Walk of Fame Star placed in 1991 not 1995
I photographed the star in 1991, the Hollywood chamber of commerce also list the star being placed in 1991. URL to date http://www.walkoffame.com/jimi-hendrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmikey63 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi! I would like to add info about the biopic on Jimi's life being made right now. I think it should go under legacy or under a new section titled 'Jimi Hendrix in popular culture'. The article I want to use as a source is this one http://www.unsungfilms.com/5507/all-is-on-my-side/ Thank you!--Georgia1943 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Georgia
 * Keep it brief (a sentence or two) per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Put it in the Legacy section. Don't create a Popular Culture section; they tend to attract huge amounts of useless, unsourced trivia. Be sure to use inline citations. See WP:CITE. Cresix (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like sources conflict/misunderstanding re Jimi's paternal grandparents
Hi, I was double-checking this section:


 * Hendrix's ancestry was of mixed African American, European, and Native American origin. His paternal great grandfather was Bertran Philander Ross, a wealthy white grain dealer from Urbana, Ohio, who was of Irish, German, and English descent. Out of wedlock, Bertran Philander Ross and his slave Fanny Hendricks produced Jimi's paternal grandfather Ross Hendricks (Hendrix).[22]

I'd already referenced The Blood of Entertainers: The Life and Times of Jimi Hendrix's Paternal Grandparents in the para I added about Nora Hendrix's influence on Jimi. My question is about the para above. It looks like in her lead para in the reference, (Janie Hendrix), "As I reflect..." she uses "grandfather" referring to Nora and Ross' son instead of "father." All to say, Bertran Ross was Jimi's grandfather - not paternal great grandfather from the sources I can find, including the one already referenced. Here's another one, fyi, The Essential Jimi Hendrix and this one, The Intimate Story of a Betrayed Musical Legend.

As a new editor to this page, out of respect for the editors watching the page who've been working on it much longer than me, I'd be grateful for your thoughts/confirmation. I don't want to change it unless I'm 100% certain. Thanks! :D --Charlie Inks (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've been digging around a little more, and for your info, here's another reference that confirms Bertram Philander Ross Hendrix was Jimi's grandfather, not his great-grandfather. Please note, it also quotes Janie Hendrix, Jimi's stepsister. Cheers :) --Charlie Inks (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hendrix quote on Rory Gallagher: true or rock myth?
Hi! I deleted the second citation for the alleged statement made by Hendrix about Gallagher to Rolling Stone magazine. The link went to a Gallagher Tribute site for a 2010 concert, with no link to the actual Rolling Stone article or anything else that proves Hendrix actually said this. I left the statement and the other citation in the wiki - although that citation also provides no direct verifiable proof. It simply restates the story. I did some extra research to try and find the RS article. From what I've seen, Hendrix was interviewed by RS several times. I'm not sure which issue this quote would be in. All respect to Gallagher, but from what I've found, it's unclear whether Hendrix actually said this, and that makes it contentious (truth or urban myth) - unverifiable by wikipedia standards, I believe. Rory's Loose Talk, plus to further complicate things, the sites I've found that refer to this, all seem to think Hendrix said this in different parts of the world. (Some say UK, some say States.) I'll keep trying to find a link to the RS issue. (Their archives are behind a wall.) If anyone has access to RS Archives, it'd be great to know, once and for all... Cheers, :)
 * --Charlie Inks (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay Guys - no one ponied up here. The citation that was in here was not a citation according to wikipedia's verifiable standard. No, I don't know where that rule is but if your fingers feel the itch to reverse my deletion or put this back in, please with respect, consider the following: - this alleged quote was deleted from Rory Gallagher's wiki in January 2012 and called "phony" - I have done a LOT of research to find this cos I know it means a lot to the "boys". There's Nothing. Can't find any evidence Jimi said this. - There doesn't appear to be a reference anywhere to the following: the name of the journalist Jimi's alleged to have said this to, where he said it, when, and an issue date for RS Mag Are you Still Itching to Put it Back In? Okay - Here's where, if there's a bullet proof reference to be found, you will find it: Rolling Stone Magazine and its archives. They have, since they re-tooled, reposted a lot of their archival content - it's great! But I could not find any interview with Jimi where he said this about Gallagher. Respect to Rory, Jimi and You, & cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft of Proposed New Section called "Awards"
Hello, I'm addressing this to everyone, but in particular to the editors who watch this page. As a new editor to this page, I've been going through it - as you know - and making additions, fact-checking, corrections, and so on. IMHO I found the intro and the Legacy sections somewhat of a jumble, especially the "legacy" with respect to awards. It was hard to get a sense of which awards Jimi received when. While I was looking up citations for some of the awards you had already added (I've added the citations I found.), I found a whole bunch more awards that weren't in the wiki - like, six more Grammys, all posthumously awarded, including one for Star-Spangled Banner(!). Because - as was already stated in the wiki itself - many of Jimi's honours were given to him after his death, I thought I'd put it all in a table. I've drafted something up, with some dimensions to the blue plaque and by way of comparison, his childhood home in Seattle, pulled out as well.

By way of placement, I only had two thoughts: before the Death section or before the Legacy section. Since some were given to him in his lifetime, I feel it's important to place it before the two sections that refer to his death and legacy.

What do you think? (I used the sortable table because it allows people with different interests to see the awards by year, type, or organization doing the awarding.).

If you would like it added, after your changes/amendments, there's a couple of other notes here. The last four paragraphs of the Legacy section in the existing wiki would be deleted. I used those as part of the basis for my research, and all those awards are included in the table. I did try to find citations for the VH1 awards - and I couldn't. So if you know of a source, please add it in.

Thanks!

Cheers, :) --Charlie Inks (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Great work! A few quibbles: things like the National Registry and the Blue Plaque aren't exactly awards, but they are recognitions and achievements. Maybe this could be reworded. And you cannot use "incredibly" unless it is well-sourced. And "virtual abject poverty" is not a good phrase. Simply "poverty" might be stronger. "Number Six, 100 Greatest Artists of All Time" might be rephrased as "Sixth greatest artist of all time". &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Goethan! Thanks for this! I really appreciate the feedback. Those quibbles can easily be taken care of. I'll make the changes (is that how it works - since it's not part of the article yet? Just asking so I know for future reference). I see your point about the title of the section. How about all three? "Recognition: Awards and Achievements"? That covers all the concerns that you raise. Your point about blue plaque is an important one, but I guess a couple of things here: 1. He was the first pop/rockstar in the UK to be given a BP (They were an incredibly stuffy organization and in the BBC2 doc (Hallelujah Hendrix - I added it as an external link ), the committee even references this - and the horror some Brits may have that Jimi's plaque is next door to Handel's! 2. The fact that he was multiracial and living in the UK during a time of such racial turmoil (internationally), it's even more remarkable that he's the first to get one. 3. Pete Townshend's thoughts and his face at the unveiling (don't know if you had a chance to see the video I sourced part of that with) - they were all totally knocked about by Jimi. Lastly, I understand your point about poverty. I've been reading quite a bit about Jimi's childhood the last few days, and without his broom/ukulele and his brother, Leon, honestly I don't know how he would've survived. The power was cut off in his home, fairly regularly, and he and Leon were fed by neighbours or he'd be stealing bread from the supermarket in slices(!) so he wouldn't get caught. No parents around. It all just kinda hard to overstate - it's the contrast with what happened later(highest paid performer at Woodstock I believe). Regardless, I'll make these changes tomorrow and look out for more feedback/additional thoughts. Cheers, :)

--Charlie Inks (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the BP isn't a remarkable achievement, I'm just saying that it's not exactly an award per the wiki article, it's a commemoration. Your rewording will satisfy my concerns. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all good Goethean. I made your changes, except: on 2nd thought, no, "Sixth" is not an award - it's an adjective. An award - which is what ringing in at #6 of All time Greatest Artists is - is a number, a place, a spot, which is a noun. I left in "abject" on the poverty description but I did remove "virtual". Jimi did live in abject poverty - the sources I've used for the destruction of his childhood home clearly indicate that. I did remove "incredibly," re Grammy awards/nominations in his lifetime, but honestly, are you for real about how this word has to be "well-sourced"? Got it. I'll try not to use the word "incredibly" anywhere on wikipedia without sourcing it well. BTW have you noticed how many entire paragraphs in Jimi's article don't have a single inline citation? Just wondering. Hopefully User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix/awards works for you. Respect & Cheers, :) Charlie Inks (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Goethean. I've been reflecting on your thoughts about Jimi's childhood, and I've realized that of course, all the reading I've been doing and the impressions that's formed, they're all in my head - not on a page or necessarily reflected in the recognition page I drafted (It wasn't the theme.). I know it's obvious - but sometimes it's like the forest and the trees. As I'm sure most people appreciate, poverty can become stigmatized in in biographies of artists, maybe particularly around race? I'm not sure. All to say, your feedback inspired me to find another way to reference the wretchedness of Jimi's childhood somehow in that sentence - I do feel it would be very hard to overstate how all-encompassing it was (Neglect, abandonment, physical material deprivation, sexual abuse are just a few of things he endured.). So I have added in two citations which actually use the words "abject poverty" to describe Jimi's childhood. User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix/awards I only found these now - not when I was drafting! Also I found out a few days ago about a reference to a social worker from Jimi's days in elementary school who saw that he would be "psychologically scarred" without a guitar. I'll be adding that to the main article soon too. Thanks again for your feedback and inspiring me to dig a bit more. :) --Charlie Inks (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Imbibed?
Imbued, not imbibed. Jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.129.146.226 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! This is great! Glad to know someone's double/triple checking my contributions because mostly I'm focused on the ideas and the content - so I'm probably making all kinds of mistakes like this. Thanks unsigned! And thank you Evanh2008 and your colleagues (the editors watching this page, I guess?) for correcting it! :) --Charlie Inks (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Violations, fyi
Hi Guys, I wanted to let you know I've removed the first of at my last count five copyright violations on Jimi's page. (haven't gotten round to getting to the others yet). Sadly, this sentence is about Jimi's role as a producer - which is so important. We all know how under-rated he was.... If you want to put something new in here about this, please please do. FYI, here's wikipedia's policy on removing material that violates copyright copyright violation. The material I deleted was lifted from here. Look, we all care about what's said about Jimi Hendrix here for one reason or another. But please try not to cut and paste because like "castles in the sand...it will fall into the sea...eventually" or remember to put quotation marks around what you're lifting along with a citation back to the source. :D Hope I can find the others in the forest of Hendrix bookmarks I have here, but wanted to let you all know. Cheers and Respect, --Charlie Inks (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Guys, I've deleted a total of five copyright violations from this page today. In addition to any other work I'll be doing here, I'll be continuing to look for more. If you have done research and can bridge the gaps created by the deletions (with citations, please!), please do. Respect & Cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Guys! I wanted to let you all know, especially the editors watching this page, that I continue to find copyright violations in Jimi's article (Four more, I think, that I haven't gotten round to yet?). I did get additional advice from two other experienced editors on how to handle this. Where it's possible, I will try to reincorporate the information based on its importance, time and any other constraints notwithstanding. But with respect, the onus is on the people, who, perhaps with every best intention, put this stuff in here in the first place. Musicologists watching this page in particular, please note: gaps have been created by editors copying and pasting copyrighted work, and their work being deleted. If you can bridge the gaps with the missing information (with citations, of course), I'm certain your efforts would be very much appreciated . :) In Purpleness and Respect, Charlie Inks (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In some cases, if not most, all that is required is a proper paraphrase and citation. There is rarely any need to out-right delete the copy-pastes, so long as you can properly paraphrase and source the content to a WP:RS. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey GabeMc! Thanks for this! There must be so many viewpoints on how to deal w/ copyviols on wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to comment here. It's fascinating to me how you've turned the tables here and made this about whether "you can properly paraphrase and source the content" - instead of it being about the people who created this mess. Three experienced editors to date have instructed me quite clearly: the first thing to do is to delete the text that violates copyright. As I'm sure you know, properly sourcing things does take time - I've spent all kinds of time on this page properly sourcing other peoples work, eliminating errors and doing new research (errors of omission). With respect, I'm not the "cleaning lady" here to mop up and "make nice" after editors who perhaps in all good faith or perhaps with complete disregard, violated copyright laws. I'm just letting you all know - there are gaps. Please feel free to source information yourselves and rewrite appropriately. I'm sure everyone's efforts here are very much appreciated. Respect & cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One last thought here, GabeMc and any other editor watching this page, if you would like to rewrite and re-source, every copyviol I've deleted, I listed the place where the violation was found - by title and page number. So if you would like to be part of the solution, you can certainly find your first citation and begin your rewrites by checking the revision history. I labelled each edit with the words, "Deleted. Copyright Violation." Cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, well, I wasn't trying to put you on an assignment or anything Charlie, it looked like you were in the process of cleaning-up the article, so all I meant was, in terms of deleting unsourced copyvios, look at WP:QUOTE: "Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE)." I assume this applies generally to copyvios as well, since an unattributed quote (if not made up) is also a copyvio. I do hear you if the amount of work is too much for you alone, and I agree that this article is currently a bit messy. If three experienced editors told you to delete the info then I would go with that, but as the policy above seems to imply, we typically make an attempt to retain as much info as possible. Having said that, I do appreciate your efforts and I understand if paraphrasing and sourcing is too much effort for you right now. However, I assume you already know the sources if you know the material was a copyvio, so really, paraphrasing and perhaps directly quoting portions of the source is an alternative to wholesale deletion of quality material, assuming any of it was high-quality or important to the article. Bottom line, I appreciate your efforts, thanks. Cheers. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey GabeMc! Thank you for clarifying further - glad I'm not being put on assignment, but yes, you are quite correct. I am in the process of cleaning up the article b/c as you say, it's a bit of a mess. I appreciate the nuances you make here, I do. Mostly for me at this point, it's about time. FYI, there's four other copyviols that I've noticed & not deleted yet. And fyi, I won't get to them likely till later next week (won't have time). I believe, if memory serves, I've made 7 copyviol deletions so far. It is a bit heartbreaking b/c I see you guys have worked very hard on all this (and as I mentioned earlier, maybe these copyviols were done in innocence? I don't know.). How about this? I could delete - as instructed - and paste what I've deleted in special sandbox with the citation I found that demonstrates copyviol. I'll link to it from here and that way Anyone who would care to be part of the solution, can rework the material whenever they have time. After someone else has done the initial work, I totally don't mind reintegrating all of it, once you guys are done (including, if necessary suggestions on wording, citations, etc.). How does that sound to you, GabeMc? Reasonable? You are right - I do have tons of sources now, but I'd like to be able to get on with the clean up and not get sidetracked by this - I've kind of devoted myself to it at this point. That said, there's also new material to develop that's missing from Jimi's article. It sure would be nice to have some help from you guys - would the sandbox for copyviol be a first step? Please do let me know what you think of that idea. Finally, thank you for your appreciation. It means a lot to me. I'm not a musicologist or even a hardcore fan, but I do care about how Jimi gets represented here, just like so many of you. Big Respect & Cheers Charlie Inks (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Charlie, your proposed solution sounds sensible to me, and to clarify, I was referring only to high-quality material important to the article, as I havn't gone through the deletions, I'm not even sure this applies to some or all of them. If its weak material not worth saving then by all means just be bold and delete it. I just noted that you seemed to think at least one was kind of important. I would love to help out, as this article has been on my list for a while, and being a massive Jimi fan myself, however I have a couple projects in the works right now that will limit my time greatly. Maybe I'll order a few of the highest-quality sources and start to chip-in when I can. Thanks again for your efforts, Jimi deserves a higher-quality article then we currently have here, so every bit helps. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GabeMc, I really appreciate you getting back to me about this. I'm glad it sounds like it will work for you. I also appreciate your qualifying statement. Anyways, I will post when ready under a new heading and open it up to anyone to contribute (I'll probably get to this late next week, fyi & for all others who are interested.). I do understand - your time is limited. But any time, thoughts, suggestions would be very much appreciated. Once again, Best & Cheers!Charlie Inks (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds great Charlie! I'll help out as much as I can, thanks again for all your hard work! ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Just as a general matter of principle, deletion of material that violates or is suspected to violate copyright is standard; the first thing it says at the bottom of the edit screen is "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Copyrights notes "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed." General recommended handling is further set out at Copyright violations; as a matter of practice, "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known"; if the content cannot be excised, the page may be reverted or deleted. Under WP:PRESERVE, it explains in the section on "Problems that may justify removal", "Libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published." In this particular case, I'm very happy that Charlie asked for my input because as I've noted above I have little doubt that the content was published here first. The book purports to have been published in 2006, but some of this content has been in our article as early as 2004 and the material seems to have evolved naturally. The process of removal pending further investigation is appropriate when there is strong reason to believe content is copied, but I'm very happy to say that in this case it looks like other factors can prevail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pullquote in Jimi's "Fashion" section
Hey Guys! I wanted to let you know, I added this pullquote from an unattributed speaker - but the published source is there. Based on the Google Book, I can't be certain who Exactly is being quoted here, so I think it's better to say, "As Yet Unnamed Person." (I can find the "notes" section, but I'm not absolutely certain which chapter's #30 footnote I've found, yeah?)

That said, I have tracked this book down in my local library system and will be able to add the name of The Person who actually said this about Jimi's completely (It's obvious to me) Cultivated "Look". I appreciate your patience while I'm trying to find the name of the person. Thank you! Here's what got me to stay here - I'm just trying to round out who Jimi Hendrix truly was, as a person, as a human being - not an object, not A Rock/Pop/Blues Star. Who was he, as a man. And this is a little quote that helps to round out our understanding of the clothes and "look" that he selected while he chose to be a "Rock Star". Hopefully, this works for you? If not, hey. I understand. Cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it to simply "quoted in P. Braunstein,...". I think that's better. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Goethean! Thanks for this! That makes complete sense. Once again, I'm grateful to you for your thoughts and suggestions. Cheers :) Charlie Inks (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding the Seattle Jimi Hendrix mural
Jimi Hendrix is one of Seattle's most loved sons. They even made a painting in his honor. ( not one made in a Gum Wall :) ). I think wikipedia should add this to its page and a picture of his mural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.83.163 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Charlie's swamping of the page with innacuracy and POV
Before wrecking the Hendrix page he might have tried reading some of the authorative works written and the major Hendrix authority on him, Glebeek's Univibes publication. Much of the flood of innacuracy and POV he has swamped the page with is from publications not dedicated to the study of Hendrix, that are clearly only using his story to fit in with their chosen theme/agenda, without much attention paid to the source. We can all flood the Hendrix page with cited rubbish revision from dodgy publications if you want. I suggest reverting back to where he started his vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs)
 * I suggest you think twice before making baseless accusations. She has been making edits that have been supported by numerous other editors.  I admonish you for labeling her good faith (and supported) edits vandalism.  That is clearly not vandalism and you should know better. Ryan Vesey 04:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it quite ironic that Charlie's last post to this page served to thank another editor for their opinions and show a willingness to compromise, and this message came from an editor known to be disruptive. If the OP wants to be constructive, he will point out specific problems and work with the other editors to fix them. The article was absolutely rife with problems before Charlie arrived, and included numerous unambiguous copyright violations that Charlie diligently rectified. Any time an article is given a massive revision, there are going to be problems with the added content before it is addressed by the community, but to actually imply that the article was better in its previous state is laughable. To use the word vandalism is indefensible.  hajat  vrc  @ 06:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying her intention was to wreck the page, vandalism is probably not technically correct, but that's what the results are. The "numerous other editors" that blindly encouraged her are guilty of wrecking as well as they obviously don't have a clue about Hendrix' history.Jameselmo (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One example from the wholesale, mess of innacurate new edits
"Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, his paternal grandfather, a wealthy white grain dealer from Urbana, Ohio, was of Irish, German, and English descent. Out of wedlock, Bertran P. Ross Hendrix and Zenora "Nora" Moore, who "may have worked in the grain mill owned by Bertram" and been a slave, had a son, Al Hendrix (Jimi Hendrix's father) and three other children."

Now that is laughable, it would be slanderous but for Bertran, Nora and Al being deceased. A Philander B. Ross was was the "wealthy etc." Bertran Hendrix was his illegitimate offspring (it is claimed) through a Nora Hendricks, it is unknown how Bertran's name changed from his mother's Hendricks to Hendrix. Nora/"Zenora" Moore(unrelated to Hendricks), a vaudeville dancer, married Bertran (a stagehand with her troupe). They gave up vaudeville and emigrated to Canada, settling in Vancouver and had several children including Al.

A wee note about one of the many bits of bull spouted by non specialist, poor quality "fan books", non-specific books about rock music in general and generally unrelated "single issue" pubs. that use factoids and invention to further their agenda, that are frequently cited from on the Hendrix page:

Following his management's marketing of him as "grandson/son" of a "red Indian" grandmother/mother, it has dubiously been claimed that Zenora claimed that her father's mother, ie one of Jimi's great, great Grandmother's was "Cherokee". There is no evidence for this grandmother's ethnic background, all we know about her is her first name was Fanny and her husband's family name was Moore and he was "Irish or English" (ethnic background not mentioned either) and, apart from hearsay (ie dodgy Jimi interviews and a eighty year old Al Hendrix's ghost written book), that she ever even claimed this. "Cherokee" could be anywhere up to 100% African descent ex-slaves. Many Cherokee were slave owners and following the civil war their free'd slaves were classed as "Cherokee". Following his management's promotion of him as a grandson/son of a "red Indian", Hendrix falsely/tongue in cheek? claimed (as well as other rubbish) that his grandmother was living on a reservation ha-ha-ha, The family lived in an ordinary, respecable, detached house in Vancouver's small black section, where Zenora, at least was a moving force in the establishment of her local "black" church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo  (talk • contribs)  12:38, 5 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Example of the swamping of the page with innacuracy
"Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, his paternal grandfather, a wealthy white grain dealer from Urbana, Ohio, was of Irish, German, and English descent. Out of wedlock, Bertran P. Ross Hendrix and Zenora "Nora" Moore, who "may have worked in the grain mill owned by Bertram" and been a slave, had a son, Al Hendrix (Jimi Hendrix's father) and three other children."

Now that is laughable, it would be slanderous but for Bertran, Nora and Al being deceased. A Philander B. Ross was was the "wealthy etc." Bertran Hendrix was his illegitimate offspring (it is claimed) through a Nora Hendricks, it is unknown how Bertran's name changed from his mother's Hendricks to Hendrix. Nora/"Zenora" Moore(unrelated to Hendricks), a vaudeville dancer, married Bertran (a stagehand with her troupe). They gave up vaudeville and emigrated to Canada, settling in Vancouver and had several children including Al.

A wee note about one of the many bits of bull spouted by non specialist, poor quality "fan books", non-specific books about rock music in general and generally unrelated "single issue" pubs. that use factoids and invention to further their agenda, that are frequently cited from on the Hendrix page,

Following his management's marketing of him as "grandson/son" of a "red Indian" grandmother/mother, it has dubiously been claimed that Zenora claimed that her father's mother, ie one of Jimi's great, great Grandmother's was "Cherokee". There is no evidence for this grandmother's ethnic background, all we know about her is her first name was Fanny and her husband's family name was Moore and he was "Irish or English" (ethnic background not mentioned either) and, apart from hearsay (ie dodgy Jimi interviews and a eighty year old Al Hendrix's ghost written book), that she ever even claimed this. "Cherokee" could be anywhere up to 100% African descent ex-slaves. Many Cherokee were slave owners and following the civil war their free'd slaves were classed as "Cherokee". Following his management's promotion of him as a grandson/son of a "red Indian", Hendrix falsely/tongue in cheek? claimed (as well as other rubbish) that his grandmother was living on a reservation ha-ha-ha, The family lived in an ordinary, respecable, detached house in Vancouver's small black section, where Zenora, at least was a moving force in the establishment of her local "black" church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs)  12:31, 5 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Rotumi ogunjobi has plagiarised his entire book from Wiki
The bit Charlie removed as copyright violation supposedly written by him is original to Wiki it was discussed a couple of years back on the talk page, now all those talk entries have been removed by someone!! at least I can't find them now. It is a self published book and has been republished using new material from this page, the page on Greenwich Village was plagiarised as well last time and others. It's up there on the heading of this page not to edit out anything that's written in his "book" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 September 2012‎
 * No one has "removed" those entries. They've been archived, standard practice for talk pages which have grown very long. The older posts on this topic are available here in the archives. Note that the archive search box and index are prominently displayed at the top of this talk page. In future, please sign your comments and do not re-factor those of other editors. You can read about the appropriate way to participate in talk page discussions at WP:TALK. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hendrix was also a blues man
In the genres, 'Blues' on it's own should be added as well as 'Electric Blues'. Hear my Train a comin or the posthumous 'Blues' Album are good examples of the style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An infobox can't be overloaded with genres. That's a problem in articles for a lot of musicians who have multiple genres. Only the most typical genres are included. Genres can be discussed in more detail in the text of the article, but not in infoboxes. Cresix (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Ancestry
"may have worked in the grain mill owned by Bertram"

"Bertram" should read "Bertran."

98.253.56.19 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning
This article needs a very good sweep with a hard brush.--andreasegde (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

One guitar which he did not burn
The article does refer to the iconic burning of guitars on stage of Hendrix, but it was announced on news on Radio Four tonight that there was one guitar which he did not burn. If any one knows about this, it could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimi's new album
I am hoping for someone to edit this page and include how Jimi Hendrix is comming out with a new album called "People, Hell, and Angels". and i also wish they would include "Black Gold" and put it as N/A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzcoolj21 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone might do so if you provide a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Serious Death Section Source Problems
The Death section has huge problems. First of all the opening paragraph quotes Monika Dannemann's version of events without citing the source or context. Serious doubt has been brought against Ms Dannemann's version of events by researchers and authors like Tony Brown who exposed, in his 1997 book 'Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days', that Monika concealed a visit by herself and Jimi to Phillip Harvey's townhouse. This impromptu visit is where the wine and food were consumed. Later on road crew members like Terry Slater would say that there was no food at the Samarkand nor were there any facilities in which to prepare it. Monika covered-up the Harvey party because an event happened there that she did not want to admit. Harvey testified under sworn deposition that Monika had a screaming fit towards Jimi in the mews that Harvey was worried neighbors would call the police over. Yet whoever wrote this entry ignores the more credible published source and enters Monika's thoroughly-discredited version without designating the source or the issues with it. Furthermore, 'Final Days' reveals that the majority of the undigested rice that was evidence of a death closer to 5:30am, as told by Dr Crompton, was consumed at Kameron's near 3am.

If Harvey's version is correct then Monika drove Jimi back to the Samarkand at 10:40 as Harvey swore. This makes sense because Jimi wanted to drop Monika off before going to the Kameron party. Even Monika admits in this Wikipedia version that she dropped Jimi off at Kameron's because he wanted to go there alone. The more likely reason is he didn't want any repeat of the Harvey incident. Monika lied about the times as witnesses at Kameron's testified. Those present at the Kameron party said Jimi arrived much earlier than the 2am Monika claimed. Monika lied about the fish sandwiches. In her investigation Kathy Etchingham revealed Jimi did not like tunafish. Seeing she was caught in a lie Monika quickly altered her story saying Jimi only took a nibble of the tunafish. Again, whoever wrote this entry did not mention the more reliable source of Kathy Etchingham's book 'Through Gypsy Eyes' and once again referenced notorious prevaricator Monika Dannemann's book 'The Inner World Of Jimi Hendrix'.

In another example of using only Dannemann's discredited source the author quotes her version that she declined sleeping pills to Jimi. Yet if one references the Bild Magazine issue in the week following Jimi's death Monika told the German reporter Freiheit that "I gave Jimi the pills". In fact that private admission was the headline of the story. When asked Monika denied the interview, however Freiheit published a photo of Monika and Jimi with the article that friends said could only have come from Monika.

This Wikipedia entry is deceptive because it gives Monika's version without conveying serious context. In Eric Burdon's 1986 book 'I Used To Be An Animal but I'm All Right Now' he admitted Monika called him as the "first light of dawn came through my window and maybe even earlier". The London Almanac puts that around 5:45am on September 18. Monika was obviously reacting to an incapacitated Jimi - and, if all the evidence is accurate, most-likely a dead Jimi. Truth is those Vesparax sleeping tablets were the strongest on the market and were later withdrawn due to the amount of overdoses associated with them. It's high-unlikely to the point of unbelievable that Monika took a full tablet as told and woke up 3 hours later after drinking some wine. So this Wikipedia entry provides a story that is fairly provably untrue without disclosing all the credible sources that reveal this. In fact there's strong evidence to believe Monika never slept that morning and that her, Burdon, and other road crew members cleaned the flat for 5 hours before calling the ambulance. In several newspaper articles, including the London Times, Dr Bannister was quoted as saying Jimi had cyanosed tissue indicating a period of death before arriving at the hospital.

I cannot reveal the source due to proprietary issues however there was another witness to the wine. Also, Sharon Lawrence's published book 'Jimi Hendrix: The Intimate Story Of A Betrayed Musical Legend' quotes Monika as citing wine she poured on Jimi's face. Once again, whoever wrote this article omits a serious published source in order to, once again, rely on Monika Dannemann's completely-discredited, misleading work. The London Coroner's Office autopsist Dr Teare did find some remnant wine but labeled it "free fluid" at autopsy. As to the ambulance attendants, there was enough food mixed in with the wine to simply label it "vomit". The reason Dr Bannister isolated it as pure wine was because he suctioned that wine from Hendrix's lungs where it wasn't mixed with food. A forensic juncture all those other cited witnesses were not exposed to. Finally, the autopsy could not mention any wine that Dr Bannister had removed 3 days earlier.

What's clear here is the clean-up of the flat would not be likely to have included a struggling, choking Jimi Hendrix laying in bed while they cleaned. In the proper context, aided by all those uncited sources, the most-likely scenario is that Jimi lay dead while they cleaned and explains the need for a lengthy 5 hour clean-up. This also explains Monika's flimsy, discredited cover-story that appears to be the main source for this entry.

I also have to protest the removal of the Murder Allegations section. That section is wholly relevant and has a proper place in any Wikipedia entry on Hendrix. Indeed it is one of the most important sections regarding that subject and indicative of a major murder scandal. To remove it is to unjustly excise what is probably the single-most important matter involving Jimi Hendrix that could possibly be related. And this isn't a source or rules issue because the current entry pretty much solely depends on one of the most uncredible persons to ever be associated with the matter, Monika Dannemann. Exiles800 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. There is absolutely not enough evidence to include a section about Jeffery having Hendix killed (see WP:FRINGE), but I will look into this matter in as thoroughly as the sources allow. FTR, I own all the books you mentioned above, so my research will include the sources you've mentioned. GabeMc  (talk 20:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I totally disagree on that (comment partially redacted by an oversighter). Much of which I can't show due to spoiling proprietary evidence currently under development. Actually the problem I'm having with both the Death entry and your explanation of it is that the entry's obvious source, Monika Dannemann, is the one for whom the "Fringe" source edict most accurately applies. Your response indirectly cites the 'Fringe Source' nature of Tappy Wright's claim. However my Death section protest is meant to show that the main source for the Death entry is actually more in violation of that Fringe Source rule than anything else. Like I said, if you are using objective measure of reliable sources as the rule here it can be objectively said that Monika Dannemann's version fails more than any other source. Yet, while using the accusation that Tappy's claim failed the reliable source measure as your sole criteria you fail to recognize the Death entry's main source, Monika Dannemann, is the single-most unreliable source on the subject. Yet for those educated on the topic it is obviously being used as the main framework for the death information. As my Talk entry shows, when you weigh all sources objectively those other publications I cited and their Death content constitute a much more credible body of information regarding the subject. If you compare the exposure given to Kennedy Assassination evidence vs Hendrix the Hendrix case is much more obvious, however it lacks in 'reliable' sources simply due to disinterest. If the same level of exposure were shown towards the Hendrix case it would have been easily solved years ago.


 * I'm flattered because I'm fairly certain the information on Dr Bannister located in the Death entry was taken from some of my internet writings on the subject since it mirrors wording only used by myself. So whoever wrote the article has already referenced me whether they knew it or not. Exiles800 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Death of Jimi Hendrix article
I've created a sub-page called Death of Jimi Hendrix so that this matter can be dealt with there in the appropriate amount of detail without being excessive for this Hendrix article. GabeMc (talk 02:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo
There is an incomplete sentence in the 4th paragraph of First Recordings.22yearswothanks (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't see one; which paragraph/sentence are you talking about? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence in the 4th paragraph seems to be missing something just before the comma: "played with the Turners briefly before returning to the, but there is no firm evidence to support this." Also later in the section it is a little confusing by not making clear that Randy California is the nickname of one of the members of The Blue Flames.22yearswothanks (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

New Jimi Hendrix Music
If you were hoping to hear some never released songs from Jimi Hendrix you are in luck. There is a song called “Somewhere” that was released by Hendrix just last night (1/9). Also get this, it’s all part of a new album called “People, Hell and Angels” that will be released on March 5th. WODZ out of Utica has the full story, and the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.166.18 (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy and Childhood says that his paternal grandmother Nora was the offspring of a Cherokee woman and a man of Irish descent. The photo of Nora (with husband) on the right is clearly the photo of a woman who is at least partially of African descent. Something is obviously incorrect. If that is indeed Nora's picture, and if historical records have her as being half-Native American and half-white, I understand that you are relaying the facts as they have been documented. However I think it is worth the time and effort to confirm that this is Nora's picture, and if so, research whether there is anything published anywhere about doubts or uncertainty over Nora's lineage. Afterall if ancestry is important enough to include it in the article, then the ancestry should be as correct as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.6.36 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good eye 173.63.6.36. Thanks for the catch. A generation had been missed, which I've now added. Thanks again. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Album release dates
I thought it would be helpful to put the album release dates right in this article to save some time. Like it calls Axis: Bold as Love His "2nd 1967 album release" but it doesn't give the exact date. And Are You Experienced? says "First released in the UK in May 1967" instead of with the day of the month too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.39.156 (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity
The statement 'he is widely considered the greatest electric guitarist in the history of popular music' is questionable. I don't know of many artists in popular music who are 'widely considered the greatest in history'. To say 'he is widely considered to be among the most influential guitarists in the history of popular music' might have been more objective.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.14.55 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

155.100.201.74 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013
With regard to the sentence: "His paternal great-grandmother Zenora was a full-blooded Cherokee from Georgia who married an Irishman named Moore. They had a son Robert, who married a black girl named Fanny. In 1883, Robert and Fanny had a daughter whom they named Zenora "Nora" Rose Moore, Hendrix's paternal grandmother."

However, Zenora (the full-blooded Cherokee) would be Jimi's GREAT-GREAT-grandmother, whereas you show GREAT-grandmother. No sources needed, just go backwards from Jimi.

71.188.17.184 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch, thanks and fixed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First recordings
In the penultimate, poorly written paragraph, there is no connection from Randy Wolfe to Randy California. There were two Randys with Jimi, Palmer and Wolfe. Jimi dubbed Wolfe, California and Palmer another state name which I don't remember. If you can find Palmer's 'state' name, you could rewrite the paragraph and make it clearer.Dcrasno (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Randy Texas" according to this book. There must be better sources though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2013
There is contradicting information:

In November 1962, fellow servicemen Billy Cox walked past the service club and heard Hendrix playing guitar inside. Cox, intrigued by the proficient playing immediately checked-out a bass guitar and the two began to jam.[39] Soon after, Cox and Hendrix began performing at the base clubs on the weekends with other musicians in a loosely organized band called the Casuals.[40] On June 29, 1962, Captain Gilbert Batchman granted Hendrix an honorable discharge on the basis of unsuitability.[41][nb 9]

There is no way he was discharged June 29, 1962, but met Billy Cox in the army in November of 1962. One of these two dates (the latter, I believe) is incorrect.

Jessanders1211 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. Fixed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Heritage
It was proposed that someone change Jimi's ethnic origins from part Mexican, to only indicate Black and Cherokee. First off Mexican, as has been covered in great lengths in other places, is not a race, but rather a nation. Thus it's conceivable that he is a Mexican of African descent or even a Mexican of Cherokee descent, or of Spanish descent... although it's historically relevant to note that most Spanish have Moor (North African) blood in them. Also, it would be easier to prove or disprove his Mexican roots from birth records than it would to verify his Cherokee roots. It's very difficult to prove native American roots. Plus stating Jimi was Cherokee is like saying he was of unknown Native American heritage, since the Cherokee Nation became a conglomerate of various Native American peoples. And while it's no smoking gun, the BBC also reported Jimi's ethnic heritage as Black, Cherokee, and Mexican. In time, I'd imagine that Chinese and Russians, Iranians, et. al., will also join that group of ethnicities who will attempt to claim the master.
 * First, I see nothing in the article about Mexican heritage; if I missed something, let me know. Second, please give us a reliable source for any changes you propose. Cresix (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Burnt Fenders
The paragraph under the "Guitars" subheading dealing with the Fenders that Hendrix lit on fire needs to be rewritten. Apparently, the provenance of burnt guitars is complex. For instance see these pages from the Michael Heatley book, Jimi Hendrix Gear:    and. Evenrød (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. Will do! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hendrix, Army discharge and homosexuality
This article only briefly mentions Hendrix's army career and discharge. It is linked to two footnotes; one crediting Roby and Schreiber. The other is broken into two refences: the first to page 25 of the R&S book and the other to page 94 of the Charles Cross book.

It makes no mention of the account in the Cross book of citations to his "homosexual tendencies". If you are going to discuss his Army service and his discharge, it is only fitting to detail the circumstances of that discharge. It is not saying that Hendrix was homosexual, only that he faked homosexuality to get a discharge.

Here is a reference to part of the book discussing this:

Roomful of Mirrors on Google Books If this is not corrected I will edit the article myself. But since someone else seems to be actively caring for this article I will allow them the honors. Rantedia (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Randio, 1) Hendrix was in the Army for 13 months, so the article "only briefly mentions [his] army career" due to the brevity of the career. 2) According to Roby and Schreiber (2010) page 25, "It has been erroneously reported that Jimi [was discharged] ... for 'homosexual desires'." However, in the 98 pages of documents on Jimi's military history, the word "homosexual" is not mentioned, not even once. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hendrix, Army discharge and homosexuality
I find it somewhat suspicious that the previous talk section has been archived after I brought up the issue Hendrix, Army discharge and homosexuality. It was the last Content discussion(#33) of Archive #6. There I posted:

"This article only briefly mentions Hendrix's army career and discharge. It is linked to two footnotes; one crediting Roby and Schreiber. The other is broken into two refences: the first to page 25 of the R&S book and the other to page 94 of the Charles Cross book.

"It makes no mention of the account in the Cross book of citations to his "homosexual tendencies". If you are going to discuss his Army service and his discharge, it is only fitting to detail the circumstances of that discharge. It is not saying that Hendrix was homosexual, only that he faked homosexuality to get a discharge.

"Here is a reference to part of the book discussing this:

"[1] Roomful of Mirrors on Google Books If this is not corrected I will edit the article myself. But since someone else seems to be actively caring for this article I will allow them the honors. Rantedia (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)"

GabeMC, responded:

"  Randio, 1) Hendrix was in the Army for 13 months, so the article "only briefly mentions [his] army career" due to the brevity of the career. 2) According to Roby and Schreiber (2010) page 25, "It has been erroneously reported that Jimi [was discharged] ... for 'homosexual desires'." However, in the 98 pages of documents on Jimi's military history, the word "homosexual" is not mentioned, not even once. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)"

Thirteen months is over a year in a person's life. Not an insignificant amount of time. You seem to be bouncing between sources, and in that instance the controversy should be at least mentioned. I have not been through all of the documentation, but what I have been through explicitly states instances of Hendrix being caught masturbating.

It also seems to me that the article has been changed since, because mention of his military service is very brief. So, I will not press the issue, but I will periodically monitor any changes and if there are more elaborate descriptions of his military career, I will raise this issue again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.179.126 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ideally, there is no "whitewashing" of articles to censor things. Ideally: but on a case-by-case in reality. What specifically do you wish to include (with a reference)? If enough reliable sources support it... Doc   talk  07:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, IMO this IP is one of the Beatles trolls. They are obviously not here to help anyone, they are here to waste my time by running interference on articles that I edit. The word "homosexual" is not mentioned once in 98 pages of documents on Hendrix's Army service. So what if he was caught masturbating? This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. What encyclopedic value would be imparted to the reader by mentioning that a 20 year-old male was caught masturbating? He was granted a discharge based on unsuitability and that's all the more detail the article needs to cover. Nobody is whitewashing anything. The article is already about 2,000 words too long with several sections needing further detail. Also, FTR, according to the soldier who "caught" Hendrix masturbating, Private James Maddox: "I stood on the stool in the commode next to [Hendrix] and looked into his commode, there sat Hendrix masturbating himself."(Roby and Schreiber (2010) page 25.) So what exactly is notable about someone spying on him when he was in a private commode? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I defer to you, Gabe. Doc   talk  01:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowie re Hendrix
I don't understand the objection to adding a line about Bowie being introduced to Hendrix. It's a huge irony that Bowie was unknown at the time, and seems significant symbolically. It's from a referenced source, and should tie in nicely with the existing mention of the Saville Theatre, owned by Brian Epstein, who also managed Billy Ritchie's band, 1-2-3 (later Clouds). Perhaps you could explain the rationale behind deletion. Thank you Matthew.hartington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) This datum is much more relevant to Bowie then to Hendrix. Think of how many musicians Jimi met that we do not detail in the article. E.g., we don't mention his meeting the Beatles for the first time. That's what makes the proposed addition a WP:COATRACK point. 2) Your source is a CD liner note from Bowie, so its not really a secondary source. 3) Bowie attended Jimi's first performance in England and he wrote a rebuttal letter to Melody Maker insisting that Hendrix was a terrible guitar player and that at least one of the other groups who performed that night were much more talented an artist, i.e. Bowie expressed a strong dislike for Hendrix. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 2) I take your point about it being much more relevant to Bowie than to Hendrix, and also how many musicians are not detailed. Though I should mention that the source is not a CD liner, it's part of a programme and tour given by the V & A, which is on currently now, and how I found out. The article you mention was in Record mirror, not Melody Maker, but of course, that doesn't detract from the content of your comment. Personally, I still think it's worth a mention, given the eventual significance of both musicians, but I bow to your superior editorial knowledge and leave that decision to you. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.hartington (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Electric Ladyland
It says that it was his first album to feature the wah-wah pedal yet he used a wah wah pedal on up from the skies on axis: bold as love 92.26.74.135 (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Hendrix used a wah pedal on "Burning of the Midnight Lamp"(August 1967; included on EL), which was released 4 months before Axis(December 1967) even though the EL LP wasn't released until the following year(November 1968.) I'll take a look at the wording to ensure accuracy and clarity. 2) I have never in my Wikipedia life seen so many IPs with 5 or fewer edits interested in a talk page ... I wonder why this one is so popular among the "new" editors ... GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013
Hello. On the page of Jimi Hendrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix), please change this: "James Marshall Hendrix (born Johnny Allen Hendrix; November 27, 1942 – September 18, 1970) was an American musician, singer and songwriter. Despite a limited mainstream exposure of four years, he is widely considered one of the most influential electric guitarists in the history of popular music and one of the most celebrated musicians of the 20th century." to this: "James Marshall Hendrix (born Johnny Allen Hendrix; November 27, 1942 – September 18, 1970) was an American musician, singer and songwriter. Despite a limited mainstream exposure of four years, he is widely regarded as the best guitarist of all time aswell as one of the most influential electric guitarists in the history of popular music and one of the most celebrated musicians of the 20th century." Thank you!

Andyquerocks (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that wording is not supported by the sources used in the article, and is much too subjective. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:American people of Canadian descent
I removed this category for now because the article doesn't state that any of his ancestors were Canadian. All it says is that his paternal grandparents lived in Vancouver. If there is a source that says his father was Canadian or something, then it would make sense. But right now the article doesn't support it. ... disco spinster   talk  19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 7/27/2013
Please change "the court granted Al custody of he and Leon." to "the court granted Al custody of him and Leon."
 * Yes check.svg Done Carlstak (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 14/08/2013
In the section 'Drug use and violence', please can we change from: "Hendrix friend, Herbie Worthington, explains..." to "Hendrix's friend, Herbie Worthington, explains..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.201.223 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2013
Please add this link: The Jimi Hendrix Record Guide http://hendrix.guide.pagesperso-orange.fr/hendrix.htm

Purplejim (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Sorry, but the above website is not at all a WP:RS, and as such the article should not link to it. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"GOAT"
Would it be too difficult to change the lead to include a reliably sourced sentence that he is "widely considered the greatest rock guitarist of all time"? We have a similar sentence at Michael Jordan for basketball.Hoops gza (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot that there is the Rolling Stone mention at the end of the lead. However, I feel that such a statement should still apply in the first paragraph of the lead. Thoughts?Hoops gza (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Need to add another to his alleged children
Tamika Laurice James-Hendrix, daughter of Diana Carpenter and Jimi, born 1966. Jimi's son's paternity has been recognized by Swedish courts, so it is in the realm of fact, not allegation. Jimi died before he could prove paternity to Tamika, whose mother sued him for recognition in 1970. Obviously, DNA could be tested against his living relatives and children to confirm this as fact, but that has not been done, to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Until a WP:RS is provided for the above claim this will not be added. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First recordings
First of all, great work on bringing the article this far (although I miss the tidbit about living above Sally's Wig Shop in Nashville, or whatever/wherever it was). However, Hendrix's first recordings could use some more detail. Specifically, 1) the fact that he played on "Mercy Mercy" a well-known Top 40 hit in 1964 deserves more than a footnote; 2) likewise with his 1965 involvement in recording "My Diary" with Arthur Lee; 3) problems with exploitation of other early recordings (Little Richard, Curtis Knight, Lonnie Youngblood, et al.) — any casual look into Hendrix's catalogue over the years reveals a very significant number of gray-market and other questionable releases/re-issues of recordings from this time. No need to bloat the article, these issues could be handled with a few sentences and would clarify his recording legacy. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I'll get to work addressing your concerns! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recordings and posthumous releases edit: Are the page #s the same? I did use the 1990 ed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The 1990 and 1995 editions are a couple pages off each other. I've now copyedited the paragraph, and added some detail. What do you think? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Better. I have thought about a separate pre-Experience discography.  Do you think it would be worthwhile? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as it is now, this article is a bit too long for FAC. I don't think that adding more detail about his less notable releases would benefit this article. Maybe consider adding it to Jimi Hendrix discography, or even starting a stand-alone article detailing these unauthorized releases. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant by separate. Although these recordings are a very minor part of his legacy, it would be useful to try to remove the BS and see them presented properly. Plus, it would allow for trimming here. The Hendrix estate (West Coast Seattle Boy) and Roby (Becoming) have made a start; I'll check for more sources to see if there's enough for a stand-alone article/discography.  —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

merge
Jimi Hendrix Experience is short and unsoruced and should be merged with main article.Cosprings (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. - 1) The Hendrix article is currently almost 11,000 words long, so there really cannot be any material merged into it at this point. 2) We would never think of merging the Doors in with Jim Morrison, the Jackson Five in with Michael Jackson, or Wings (band) in with Paul McCartney. 3) There are volumes that could be written about the Experience that wouldn't make sense at Hendrix, and vice versa. 4) We shouldn't merge articles because they are short and have not yet been developed. The Experience article should be improved, not removed. Think of it, we would have individual articles for each member, but not the band? 5) The Jimi Hendrix Experience is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but Jimi Hendrix has not been inducted as a solo performer. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Specific band, merge wouldn't make sense. See also John Mayall/John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers and Jon Spencer/Jon Spencer Blues Explosion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per GabeMc. A Barmy stupid suggestion.   Cassianto Talk   17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Idk what the heck "barmy" means, but the point is this: Every single thing written in the Experience article is also covered in the Jimi main article.  Every single sentence.   It's all doubled information.   It would be the easiest merge ever.  Funkmonk and Gabemc, your Doors/Jimi Morrison comparisons are just ridiculous.  Stating the obvious is completely useless.   Cosprings (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are volumes that could be written about the Experience that wouldn't make sense at Hendrix, and vice versa" That's just an absurd statement which is completely untrue.  Every single thing written about the Experience makes sense at Hendrix.   Why would you assert something like that?  Cosprings (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are all kinds of details about Mitchell and Redding that I would not include in an article about Hendrix, and vice versa. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why they have their biography articles.Cosprings (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and there's volumes of detail that could be written about the Experience that would not make sense at Hendrix, Redding or Mitchell. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hendrix is long as it is, and including the Experience information would simply bloat it. As a FAC reviewer, I would request this information be deleted from the article and put in an article of it's own.   Cassianto Talk   17:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Volumes of detail"???? That's just not true.   I don't know why you would make such a statement.   If its a detail of Hendrix' band, then it is relevant to his biography.  The Redding and Mitchell bios don't include Experience details because they were in the band, it wasn't their band.  It just makes sense.  Everyone knows the Experience was started just as a moniker used to describe Hendrix' backing band anyway.Cosprings (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merging the articles wouldn't make the main article any longer.  It would just combine the two and imrpove sourcing.Cosprings (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there really isn't any material in the Experience article that would be merged into the Hendrix article anyway (as most of it is poorly written and poorly sourced), why not start an AfD for the Jimi Hendrix Experience? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cosprings, why are you talking about the main page? Hendrix isn't even featured yet?! And when the time does come for TFA, I'm sure any Experience text would be limited to a brief sentence.  Sure, Experience can be mentioned in a line or two in Hendrix's article, but not at any length.  As per GabeMc, you wouldn't include the Doors in Jim Morrison's article would you? --  Cassianto Talk   18:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the main page i'm talking about the main JImi article! Think about it this way - BB king's backing band doesn't have an article.  You're thinking about this in the wrong way.Cosprings (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming that you are correct, I think the thing to do is to nom the Experience article for deletion, since nothing in that article will end up in this one anyway. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * " nothing in that article will end up in this one anyway."?????? Are you a real person or you just messing with me????


 * Cosprings, what about Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, or Alan Parsons and the Alan Parsons Project? They have separate articles for the band and the frontman, though I assume that you would apply the same logic to them, not? Why not merge Plastic Ono Band with John Lennon? There are articles for both Bob Marley and Bob Marley and the Wailers. Should they also be merged? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, per all above. It's a nice little article, with its own special emphasis. Rothorpe (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We're talking about a band that existed mainly in name only, for 3 years, led by a person who died at 27.  Not the same as Zappa, Parsons, or whoever.  Why would you assume that I would apply the same logic to them?  That's a really despotic way of arguing a point.  There's thousands of contrary examples.  Deleting it would be the same as redirecting it in the end.
 * Cosprings, may I suggest that the little personal attacks and insults are not helping? Can you please keep your comments about the content, and not the editors? At any rate, with four opposes already I seriously doubt that you will gain consensus for this merge, but yes; I realize that deleting it and merging it would both result in turning it into a redirect page. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GabeMc :  Where did insult you or attack you ?  Where?  Seriously.   Instead of accusing me of being insulting, why don't you just respond to the issue?  Instead of getting defensive and over reacting.  So sensitive.  The statement you made containing "nothing in that article will end up in this one anyway" is just so ridiculous and absurd that I've given up any hope of debating this issue with you in a moderate manner.  I give up.   Bye.Cosprings (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your use of hyperbole and rhetoric, such as: "Funkmonk and Gabemc, your Doors/Jimi Morrison comparisons are just ridiculous", "That's just an absurd statement which is completely untrue", and "That's a really despotic way of arguing a point". Cosprings, if my statement: "nothing in that article will end up in this one anyway", is patently false, then please provide an example of material that is currently in the Experience article that would be added to the Hendrix article, should we merge them. Can you please provide one specific example? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cosprings, a good example of details that would be appropriate at the Experience article, but not the Hendrix article would be descriptions of Redding and Mitchell's playing styles and musical influences. Mitch's pseudo-jazz drumming was a huge part of their sound, and any good article on the band will go to some length to make that point. Redding was really a guitarist that should never have played bass, and any good article on the band would discuss that point as well. However, neither point would make any sense in the Hendrix article. FTR, yeah, I realize that not every example I gave above is equally compelling, but surely the Plastic Ono Band is to Lennon what the Experience was to Hendrix, right? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The man does not equal the band and vice versa. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, obviously. We don't delete articles for being bad; we delete them only if their subject lacks notability. In this case, the Experience obviously has independent notability, despite its inextricable connection with Hendrix himself. The Plastic Ono Band/Lennon comparison seems most apt to me. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 20:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This article is too long and the JHE article is fairly well developed and stands on its own. I generally favor mergers but don't see the need or wisdom of it in this instance. PS I'm adding a merge tag to the articles per WP:MERGE.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Hendricks
Jimmy Hendricks is a real person, so there is clearly a reason I made the edit. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've re-reverted. "Jimmy Hendricks" just redirects to Jimi Hendrix; there's no other article to distinguish Jimi Hendrix from, so having the template there doesn't really make sense. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Writ Keeper. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the situation has changed now; it now directs to "Jimmy Hendriks" (note the lack of the "c"), which is indeed an article about someone other than Jimi Hendrix, so it's reasonable now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still say that this is needless and gratuitous. I also see this is retaliatory, since last week I asked HoopsGza to not clutter the lead with these kinds of unneeded links, and now this is of utter importance to "Bill". Nobody is going to confuse a 20 year-old dart player with the Jimi; that's absurd! If "Bill" is correct, then I suppose there are no issues with this edit or this one GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Hendriks is pronounced exactly the same as Jimi Hendrix. Whereas Adams is clearly not the same as Adamsky. You don't own this article. The edit is valid, per WP:HN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree, GabeMc. The thing is that, in my mind, it's plausible for someone to A) not know that Jimi Hendrix's other name is "Jimmy Hendricks", and B) to misspell "Hedriks" as "Hendricks" (one would naturally expect a 'c' there, at least from an English-language perspective), so, if Hypothesis types in a search for "Jimmy Hendricks", expecting the darts player, they might be surprised to be taken to "Jimi Hendrix", and would gain value from the distinguishing hatnote. Well, let me put it this way: I'm nto convinced that the hatnote is necessary, but I'm not convinced that it's unnecessary either. It's not strictly required by the hatnote policy that Bill links (technically, Jimmy Hendricks and Jimmy Hendriks are unambiguous), but I think it's close enough that it's not actually unreasonable. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since the guideline does not at all require this excessive hatnote, discussion here will determine if there is a clear consensus for adding it. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll
The purpose of this straw poll is to determine the current consensus regarding including a hatnot for, Jimmy Hendriks, the 20 year-old dart player. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support adding a hatnote for Jimmy Hendriks


 * Oppose adding a hatnote for Jimmy Hendriks
 * 1) Strong oppose. - Jimmy Hendriks and Jimi Hendrix are unambiguous; nobody is going to confuse the guitarist with the dart player, so anyone looking for either will immediately know that one is far different from the other. Let google take care of this stuff; don't clutter the lead with these ridiculous hatnotes. What about James R. Hendrix, Hendrix, Oklahoma, or Hendrix College? Where would this end? Further, per WP:NAMB, a hatnote for Jimmy Hendricks is not needed and something that is not needed should be removed.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose – Surely this is a joke!  Please don't insult my intelligence by adding a hat note to a little-known darts player in the assuming event that I become confused over who is who! You don't have to be Krissi Murison to figure this one out! --  Cassianto Talk   19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I don't really care either way, particularly; I see the sense in both arguments. (I just didn't want it to be dismissed out of hand.) I'd like to add, though, that the point isn't that a reader will get confused conceptually between the two; that is, they won't see a reference to the guitar player and think that it means the dart player or vice versa. The point is more that, should someone come to Wikipedia looking for the dart player and mistake the spelling of "Hendriks" (which keeps happening in this very debate, so it's a legitimate thing), they will be taken to this article when they type in "Jimmy Hendricks", since Jimmy Hendricks of course redirects here, and without the hatnote, they will most likely think, "Oh, it just goes to Jimi Hendrix, I guess there's no article on the dart player, oh well". That's the scenario this hatnote is meant to address, not the case that someone doesn't know the difference between the darts player and the guitar player. Of course that's still a pretty small edge case, and I can totally understand saying that it's not important enough to warrant a hatnote, but let's not beat up strawmen here. And let's not have the slippery slope argument, please; there's no precedent being set here, so it's not like we'll be obligated to add one for Hendrix College, too. Finally, the idea that "anything that's not needed should be removed" is frankly ridiculous in the general case; if all we needed for an article was to follow precisely what we have described in our policies, then we wouldn't need editors at all, we'd just program a bot to rigorously follow the rules.  We're allowed to use editorial judgement here and everywhere else; we're not obligated to remove hatnotes just because they're not explicitly demanded by the policy, either. If the editorial judgement is that it's not needed, that's fine of course. It just shouldn't be a slavish devotion to the guidelines that causes us to dismiss this out of hand; after all, they're called guidelines for a reason. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) We sometimes falsely assume that readers use our search engine to find our articles, but many do not. I never use Wikipedia's search engine; I use google, which will bring-up any Wiki articles relevant to the search terms. Having said that, all one needs to do is enter Jimmy Hen, and the dart player's article comes up in the Wikipedia search engine. In fact, as long as they don't spell Jimmy as Jimi, they won't be directed to Jimi Hendrix's page. 2) How many other people spell Jimmy Jimi? That's what makes this unambiguous. 3) My point here is that let's not clutter-up the tops of articles because we are afraid that someone won't be able to find the Wikipedia article they are looking for. We don't write for a 5 year-old audience (which is about as young as you would need to go to find confused internet surfers), so why should we plan on the ignorance of our readers? If they are searching for the darts player are they really going to spell his name Jimi? If we assume the reader has even elementary internet and spelling skills, then we can safely assume that they will never come to the conclusion: "I guess Jimmy Hendriks doesn't have a Wikipedia article." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if it was just "Jimi Hendrix", then you'd be totally correct. But my point is more about the "Jimmy Hendricks" redirect (which redirects to Jimi Hendrix, as it should). What I'm saying is that, if they type in "Jimmy Hendricks" when they mean "Jimmy Hendriks", they get taken to the "Jimi Hendrix" article, and they might never realize the mistake (and again, given that people have made that exact mistake on both sides of the argument here shows that that misspelling is a common one). The point about the autocorrect is a good one, though; I have such things disabled, so it never occurred to me. In passing, I'd note that, when I try it logged out to get the autocomplete, the first result that I get for typing in as far as "Jimmy Hendri" is still "Jimmy Hendrix", but the point is taken. Again, I have no problem with removing the hatnote (and you are, in fact, beginning to sway me towards opposing the addition); I just like to explore all sides of the issue, is all. :) Also, I strongly object to the sentiment that only five-year-olds or below get confused on the Internet; I can provide multitudes of counter-examples. After all, you know what they say happens when you assume. ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When I type Jimmy Hen in the Wikipedia search engine, both logged-in and logged-out, I get Jimmy Hendriks as the fourth possible match after Jimmy Hendrix (redirect), Jimmy Hensley and Jimmy Henderson. So as I said above, the failing is in the Wikipedia search engine, and this is not something that we should try to fix by cluttering up the lead with hatnotes, IMO. Yes, the redirect Jimmy Hendrix pops-up as the first choice, but since there is no article named Jimmy Hendrix, this is a problem with the search engine. Who would search for the darts player and not know that he spells his first name in the most generic and common way possible? My point about five year-olds is that I cannot imagine anyone searching for info on the darts player to become confused and lost due to the similarity of his name to the guitarist's. I'm not saying that it doesn't ever happen, but we do not organize Wikipedia with the least informed reader in mind, do we? Should we add a hatnote to the Beatles page for beetles, lest a reader think that we have an article about the band, but not the insect? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this is what pops-up when you do a google search for Jimmy Hendriks. Also, User:Writ Keeper, while you say that this is not about confusion, the hatnote specifically renders "Not to be confused with", so yeah, it's implied that hatnotes are there so as to minimize confusion, not? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I suppose; I guess we just disagree on whether this is a failing of the Wikipedia search engine (admittedly far from the best search engine out there), or just an aspect of Wikipedia to be managed. My point is simply that they can spell the first name "Jimmy" and yet still get to the "Jimi Hendrix" article because of the redirects; knowing that the darts player spells his first mane as "Jimmy" doesn't help, because they still have a reasonable chance of ending up at Jimi Hendrix anyway via redirects. As far as "not to be confused", it did at first, but I think that's more a symptom of using a generic template to add the hatnote than anything else, and the most recent version of the hatnote said "For the darts player with a similar name, see Jimmy Hendriks", which is a bit more on-point. But whatever; I see what you're saying, and I'll stop belaboring it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There should be a hatnote pointing to Hendrix (disambiguation) since there was an agreement last year to redirect Hendrix to this article. On Hendrix (disambiguation) could be the two current Hendix hatnotes. People arriving here who are looking for Jimmy Hendriks would then be able to follow the link to Hendrix (disambiguation) and from there to Hendricks (disambiguation), and from there to Hendricks (surname) which is where a link to Jimmy Hendriks should be placed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Silk Tork, your advice is sound as always. In response, I've now made this edit, which I hope will resolve this hatnote business long-term. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that looks like an excellent solution. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add this to the Further Reading section

 * Further reading



Kllynnclntn (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No. You have been spamming this book over multiple articles. Wikipedia isn't here to provide free advertising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mercy, Mercy
How certain is it that Hendrix played on Mercy Mercy? There are differing accounts. Might it be more accurate to state that there is speculation that he played on the record (along with several other possible guitarists)?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , several sources say that he did, including Unterberger, 2009, p.21, McDermott, 2009, p.10, Roby, 2002, p.32, and Heatley, 2009, p.52. Shadwick seems to question this, but he offers no real proof that it isn't Hendrix; he just speculates that it might not be. In fact, after a re-read of Shadwick, I would say that he too thinks its most likely Hendrix on the track. Are you aware of reliable sources that confidently assert that it is not Hendrix with Covay on "Mercy, Mercy"? Apparently, Hendrix was sharing an apartment with Covay when the song was cut, and both he and back-up singer George Clemons told Roby that Hendrix played on the track, but who's to say for sure? Also, in 1968, Hendrix told Rolling Stone that he taught Steve Cropper how to play "Mercy, Mercy", Hendrix: "[Cropper] showed me how he played certain songs and I showed him how I played "Mercy, Mercy".(Roby, 2002, pp.34–35) In fact, years later Cropper confirmed that Hendrix told him that he played on "Mercy Mercy". If Hendrix didn't play on the track, then he, Covay, and Clemons lied about it for years. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Which source says this?
"In January 1964, feeling he had outgrown the circuit artistically, and frustrated by having to follow the rules of bandleaders, Hendrix decided to venture out on his own." I ask because the wording, "decided to venture out", feels a little vague, and I'd like to check what is in the original.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I intentionally left the actual date and location vague because the sources do not agree on the where or when. Some say he left the Isleys as early as August 1964 while in Georgia (Roby & Schrieber, 2010, p.85); others say he stayed with them until early November (Shadwick, 2003, p.54). Some say he was fired (R&S, 2010, p.85), others say he quit (Heatley, 2009, p.53) As far as I can tell, the sources piece together fragments of stories that are not really verified. I still think that the best bet is to keep the language there vague, since the actual documented facts are not available. BTW, I intentionally avoid Willet and Henderson because they are known to be low-quality sources, so please don't introduce them unless absolutely needed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)