Talk:Miles Davis/Archive 1

60's quintent
I don't understand why the most important group led by Miles and in my opinion one of the best ever, the 60's quintet with hancock and shorter, is the least developed in this article. I certainly don't have the expertise to do it myself, but think that it could be very much improved by a knowledgeable addition. -Salvador
 * I concur, I shall look to develop this section. They played some of the most surreal, moving jazz I've ever heard, and Shorter's compositions of this era are stunning.

"[Miles Davis'] recordings, along with the live performances of his many seminal bands, were vital in jazz's increased artistic acceptance" - could somebody explain the word seminal in this context for me? I am translating the article for the Dutch Wikipedia, but the definitions in dictionaries do not seem to help here.--branko

Well, when we say "the seminal work" in science, it means the work that everyone looks to as a reference, being first and/or best on the topic. I presume that the usage above is meant to convey that the bands were considered the models for others to emulate. I could be wrong. -- April


 * Sounds good to me. Thanks. (And if somebody thinks April's definition is wrong or skewed after all, please drop a note at http://nl.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=Miles_Davis/Overleg )--branko


 * That was pretty much what I meant. Where Davis led (re: electrification, modality, "free" jazz, pretty much everyone else followed. They were usually (amongst) the first, and frequently the best (at least till '72, or thereabouts)

When User:Gareth Owen entered info about Kind of Blue, he added the following comment:

"What can you say about KoB. Well, I can only gush. Let someone else impose NPOV. (How can you be neutral about genius? Hamlet: has its moments, Relativity: quite a good idea ... I'm babbling)"


 * Well, to begin with, you do not have to talk about the moments of Hamlet, nor about the merits of the idea of relativity. Rather, you can speak of their (perceived) influence in their respective fields and outside.
 * Hey, I was babbling...


 * Also, my copy of KoB has got this big yellow sticker on front that enthuses: "Perhaps the most influentual and best-selling jazz record ever made" -- if marketing drones can use words like 'perhaps', I bet so can you. :-)


 * yeah, well I could. But I don't wanna :)


 * And third, you could just gush and let someone else impose NPOV. That is the Wikipedia thing to do (well, _a_ Wikipedia thing to do). :-)--branko

There's nothing wrong with reporting on gushing; our NPOV policy just says that the article should avoid expressing its own value judgments, but if many people believe that KoB was the most influential jazz recording of its time, it would in fact be contrary to Wikipedia's goals not to report that "many people believe that KoB was the most influential jazz recoding of its time." -- Lee Daniel Crocker


 * 'Many' of course being any number higher than 1 that resonates with your own subjective impression. :-)


 * I understand the rules: an article is worded well enough if its audience stops rewording it at least once a week.--branko

The following sentence seems to me vastly overstated:
 * "In terms of importance to the history of jazz, his legacy is equalled only, perhaps, by Louis Armstrong" That "perhaps" is pure nonsense, and the rest is dubious. Miles Davis was important, but he wasn't as important as Charlie Parker; it was Charlie Parker who did what Louis Armstrong did, changed the way people listened and the way people played.
 * Thats simply unjustifiable. Davis changed the way people played and listened just as much as Parker did.  Furthermore, he did it 3 different times in three different ways between 1955 and 1975 (cool, modal, fusion), whereas Parker's drug problems and early death curtailed his influence to one area -- bebop.  As to the lasting effect, bebop musicians are few and far between these days (like serialism, hard bebop was essentially a fad, a necessary and wildly inventive fad, but a fad none-the-less).  By contrast, you can't throw a rock without hitting a fusion musician, even now.


 * Miles, as this article goes on to say, did what Duke Ellington did, put everything into a comprehensible context. Miles was not one-tenth the horn player that Parker and Armstrong were, even if he was smarter and more enterprising and tried more things out musically. Ortolan88 21:22 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, but when I listen to music I'll take intelligence, enterprise and adventurousness over technique, everyday of the week, and twice on Sundays. -- User:GWO
 * Yeah, but you have to have some technique. I agree that what Davis played was far superior to what the other trumpeters of his day played, and I'm grateful he was around to keep jazz trumpet from going down a dead end of solos consisting of endless running of scales, but I have trouble listening to him because his tone makes my skin crawl. But I suspect his genius was in large part due to his not being a virtuoso -- he concentrated on what he was playing rather than how -- so maybe I shouldn't want to have it both ways. John FitzGerald


 * Well, better than debating unquantifiables (I hold both Parker and Armstrong in emphatically low regard personally and/or musically, so you can see that opinion won't get us far towards writing an encyclopedia), how about we stick with what can be proven, not what some supposed author maintains? In other words, remove it or attribute it?  --KQ


 * I'm going to remove it. There's ample praise (all deserved) for Davis in the article.  I already wrote here that he belongs in the line with Bolden, Armstrong, Eldridge, and Gillespie, and that he compares with Duke Ellington. I don't have anything better to say than that about any musician.
 * I think thats fair. Good point, well made.


 * As for the doughty rejections of Armstrong and Parker, my own personal preference is for a blazing brilliant original solo over any amount of brainy noodling. :=). Ref: "West End Blues", "Parker's Mood", and those two use nothing but the blues changes, the most conventional jazz there could be.   Ortolan88 10:29 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)
 * That's fine. "to each his own," and all that.  :-)  I'm really not trying to convince anyone; I'm usually not confident I'm "right" anyway.  I just wanted to illustrate that opinion is not fact, which you certainly would agree with.  Cheers, --KQ

I have my doubts about the value of Other Musicians Who Played with Miles Davis. There were hundreds, dozens on his albums alone. There should be something about Live-Evil (which I don't have) in this article and if Hermeto Pascoal's contribution is noteworthy, it should be noted (and there should be an article on him, he seems interesting, I added a bit and capitalized Brazilian), but another endless list of everybody's favorite musicians tacked on to the end of this article is not the best way to honor significant contributions to Miles's work. There are no articles on John McLaughlin or Joe Zawinul either, but not much would be accomplished by adding their names to this list. My thoughts, that particular guy Ortolan88


 * I agree. The Other Musicians... section should be removed. Cribcage 08:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Miles Davis was born May 25, 1926 and died Sept. 28, 1991 - should we use these dates?


 * The 'official' Miles Davis site (run by his estate) says he was born on May 26th. That's usually good enough for me. People (and their family) usually know when they were born. OTOH, both Louis Armstrong and Nat King Cole claimed incorrect birthdays, so perhaps we need to do more research. --SeanO 00:45, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * The birth/death dates in this article came from the Guinness Who's Who of Jazz. I'll the biographies I have and get back to you. GWO 07:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Frustratingly enough, if you google for "Miles Davis" "May 26" and "Miles Davis" "May 25", May 26 just edges out May 25. But barely... -- SeanO 13:15, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * A couple of guys (Jack Woker and Ron Hearn) in rec.music.bluenote maintain an exhaustive list of jazz musicians' birthdates. They've discussed the issue several times, and concluded that May 26 is the correct birthdate. As much as possible, those fellows are the jazz community's "experts" on birthdays, so I would defer to them. My two cents... Cribcage 03:45, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The original 1982 edition of Ian Carr's biography gives 25 May as his date of birth, but the edition sold on Amazon.com has ammended this to 26 May. --Ferdinand Pienaar 19:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"understanding" recorded/live difference
My point is simple: WHO are the so-called "authorities" who claim that miles was the "first" person to "understand" the difference between live and recorded music? and secondly, WHAT are the differences? interestingly, none are given, no sources, no citations, and no description of what the "difference" is. so the sentence seems pretty nonsensical and ill-conceived, in fact it's pretty much "journalistic fluff" that has no meaning and is internally contradictory. IF ANYTHING, davis must have defined the difference, or somehow created a difference, if nobody else "understood" it yet. Is the writer trying to say somehow, a distinction existed between live and recorded music, but it just hadn't been put into practice, just hadn't ever been realized by any musician? this is absurd. i'm going to change the passage to say something more sensible.


 * That sentence went in on the 20th of July, and you're right, it needs to come out until it's referenced. --  ajn (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Miles and electric period, etc.
This is a good piece. I see a few stylistic things I'd consider refining. For example, wouldn't it be better to say that Davis was "freed from" rather than "stripped of" the rhythmic constraints he'd been under earlier? Seems the music itself would be stripped of, the man would be freed from.

As to the question of Davis' ultimate importance, I think perhaps it could be stressed that Davis was a real star of jazz, with money, influence and mystique (and clothes and cars), and that this is an important part of what made him a major figure. Also, the parallel with Ellington is interesting and might be elaborate upon beyond the fact that neither were "great" instumentalists (although I'd rate Ellington higher as pianist than Davis as trumpeter). Both were great bandleaders, synthesizers (and, perhaps, users of other's ideas?). I think Davis is as great a figure as any in jazz, but not for the usual reasons jazz figures are great--virtuostic instrumental styles and so forth. And I don't quite get this from the piece, and it's really a critical commonplace these days.

Finally, the electric period (which has come under increased scrutiny and whose value, once low in critical works, has increase dramatically)  seems to me to be given short space. The period from '68 to "Agartha" in '75 is seven years, a long time--certainly as long as any period in Davis' career. I think there needs to be more about these records, and most critics now cite "A Tribute to Jack Johnson" and parts of "Get Up with It" and all of "Agartha" as the major Davis electric works. So, could there be more here?


 * All good points. Put 'em in GWO

All in all, though, nicely done.


 * Thanks GWO

I added a bit about the reassessment of the electric period, and a sentence about the "Jack Johnson" album, as well as about the release of the "Jack Johnson Sessions." Did a little tinkering with the piece. As I say above, it's a good 'un, and I certainly hope I helped it a bit.

Myself, I love Armstrong and Charlie Parker but can certainly see how opinions might differ...eddhurt

It's pretty clear that Kind of Blue is the "greatest selling jazz record ever", and I've removed some of the other hyperbole about Bitches Brew (which is an album I love, and very important in Davis's development, but not the pinnacle of his career). --Andrew Norman 14:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that whilst John Scofield is singled out as one of Miles' guitarists during his "comeback" period in the 80's, no mention is made of that other great guitar player, Mike Stern.--194.51.11.113 14:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Peter L.

Miles Davis Catagory
Is there a reason this article isn't in the "Category:Miles Davis"? It seems like such an obvious one, right? I'm asking first, because I'm betting there's a good reason that I'm just not thinking of. -- TomPreuss 13:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pre-fusion
I've chopped the article about, to make more sense of the chronology and remove some inaccuracies. I think there's still work to be done. I'm not a musician, just a fan, and I think it would be good to get some informed musical input about the various styles. --Andrew Norman 09:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Break up Discography
Since Miles has such a prodigous discography, why not break the discography into a 'featured' or 'highly recommended' section (w/ Kind of Blue, Bitches Brew, Miles Smiles, 'Round About Midnight, Aura, A Tribute to Jack Johnson, Pory & Bess, Miles Ahead, The Birth of the Cool, etc.), and a complete discography.

While the Major Discography is a good list, in terms of what a fan might own, I think it might be slightly intimmidating to someone who wnats to delve into his music, and a complete discography (a la the end of his autobiography) is useful for a superfan.

Might help improve accessibility.

Another option might be to break up a complete discography by musical period (modal, fusion, bebop, w/ Gil Evans, etc.) and have a couple representative albums from each set out in some manner.


 * I agree. The discography section is expanding into an almost complete discography, and if people want that then they can go to Peter Losin's excellent Miles Ahead site, the first thing in the links section.  Perhaps a "top ten" with some reasoning would be a good idea?  Trouble is, any fan would have a different list ("top twenty"?).  I'd suggest: Birth of the Cool, Milestones, Miles Ahead, Kind of Blue, Miles Smiles, In a Silent Way, Bitches Brew, Jack Johnson, On the Corner, Tutu.  --Andrew Norman 09:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * A good approach that has worked on other pages is to create a new page, like "List of Miles Davis albums", and link to that as a "see also" at the top of the discography section. Having that page exist will make people less tempted to keep adding albums to the major discography section. --Arcadian 17:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done that. I've moved the lot to the new page, which also now attempts to categorize the various albums.  I'm in two minds about whether we need a recommended albums list - it's pretty clear to anyone who reads the article that some (Milestones, Kind of Blue, Porgy and Bess, etc) are standouts. --Andrew Norman 10:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sexism and Racism of Miles Davis
I have no idea why people have ignored this subject or have completely put it off the map. Miles Davis, while a significant force in music, was also a cruel man toward women and also a racist against whites. He made this quote in regards to whites "If somebody told me I only had an hour to live, I'd spend it choking a white man. I'd do it nice and slow." (Jared Taylor (Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America -- 1992, pg. 233)


 * He was very angry on the subject of race, but I don't think that quote is representative - he loved to wind people up, especially on this subject, and in fact took some stick throughout his career for having white people in his group (I think Dave Liebman talks about this in the Miles Davis Story DVD). Women are another matter, and he was undoubtedly extremely cruel and sexist, as several of them testify in the DVD.  I think it's worth mentioning - in fact, the article says very little about his personal life.  It doesn't need to turn into "Miles Davis - wifebeater who also played the trumpet", but there ought to be something in there.  --Andrew Norman 06:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's several things you can write about both. Whether he was a racist or not, I am not convinced.  Miles always said that he could always be able to tell what a white saxophonist sounded like and what a black saxophonist sounded like.  Conversely, Miles was quite pro-integration on the subject of the "Crow Jim" phenomenon in jazz.  He was vituperated for hiring Bill Evans into his group, yet he responded: "I remember when I hired Lee Konitz, some coloured cats bitched about me hiring an ofay in my bands when Negroes didn't have work.  I said if a cat could play like Lee, I would hire him.  I couldn't give a damn if he was a green and had red breath."  In contrariety, Miles stated quite a militant approach in 1963, "When it comes to human rights, these prejudiced whites keep acting like they own the damn franchise!".  As regards women, he was rather perplexed by them, "I don't care what a bitch does, as long as she doesn't lie about it.  I can always tell when they're lying, and I hate that.  I hate the lies."  There's some jump-off points.--Knucmo2 18:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

--

The 'Miles Myth'
This article states that Miles was 'largely responsible' for the developments of fusion and modal jazz. Nothing could be more discrediting and denigratory to the other musicians in jazz who were equally vital in these developments. For instance, the use of modes in jazz was George Russell's innovation as seen in his work from the early fifties and his academic essay "Lydian Concept of Tonal Organisation". Brubeck, Mingus, and even Ellington were using modes in the early fifties too. This was just a movement which Miles happened to focus on because he was sick of the harmonic jumble of chord changes that jazz was becoming. Fusion is another instance, for example musicians such as Larry Coryell, Seventh House, even Tony Williams and his group Lifetime, a member of Miles' group & John McLaughlin a future Miles employee, were experimenting with rock and jazz before Miles decided to. In both cases, Miles came to define and popularize these movements, but he did not actually invent them per se. This is fictitious and it is characteristic of the vacuous nonsense wrote by rock journalists with no grasp of what jazz really is who write in Mojo, and Uncut who write stuff like 'Miles had already changed jazz three times blah blah invented cool, blah invented fusion'... et cetera, et cetera.--Knucmo2 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

--  test

Trying to Remove Childish B.S.
Some punk put the following at the bottom of the Miles page:

"Miles sucks.

Everyone who reads this will die in 7 days muhuhaha"

For the life of me, I can't see where it is on the 'edit' page, in order to remove it. My thanks to anyone who can do this - the sooner the better.

URGENT - this featured article is messed up - please fix
Hello, this article is messed up, the references and links are gone. I reverted the last edit that blanked it, but there was quite a few previous edits that really messed up the article. Isn't anyone monitoring this article while it is featured on the main page? Please fix as soon as possible.--CrazyTalk 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Miles as Artist
somone should include Miles' stint as an artist. Seeing as how it is evident on his official website, it seems significant enough to include. --ch The electric recordings and live performances with electronic equipment began in 1968; hence the periodization was revised to 1968.

"understanding" recorded/live difference
My point is simple: WHO are the so-called "authorities" who claim that miles was the "first" person to "understand" the difference between live and recorded music? and secondly, WHAT are the differences? interestingly, none are given, no sources, no citations, and no description of what the "difference" is. so the sentence seems pretty nonsensical and ill-conceived, in fact it's pretty much "journalistic fluff" that has no meaning and is internally contradictory. IF ANYTHING, davis must have defined the difference, or somehow created a difference, if nobody else "understood" it yet. Is the writer trying to say somehow, a distinction existed between live and recorded music, but it just hadn't been put into practice, just hadn't ever been realized by any musician? this is absurd. i'm going to change the passage to say something more sensible.


 * That sentence went in on the 20th of July, and you're right, it needs to come out until it's referenced. --  ajn (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
A Statement such as, "For the first part of that decade, although he gigged a great deal and played many sessions, they were mostly uninspired, and it seemed that his talent was going to waste" does not seem to be coming from a NPOV. This should be reworded.theomanno 15:17 11 December 2005 (EST)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Any source on this? Or link to complaint?
He tried to pursue the case by bringing a suit against the New York City Police Department, but eventually dropped the proceedings[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.130.22 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Like what?? Newspapers of the day covered it, and if you don't want to count his autobiography then you can look at the sources the biographer Ian Carr used.
 * He was assaulted by a NYPD police officer while he was taking a cigarette break outside one of his performamces. There is plenty of information on this, from press and biographies.Dogru144 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like what?

Miles: the Autobiography
is there a page for his Autobiography, written with Quincy Troupe in 1989? https://www.amazon.ca/Miles-Autobiography-Davis/dp/0671635042

I certainly cited it enough times in the discographical pages I added content to, but I don't see any mention of it at all in this main page. Even if there is no page specifically for the book, a sentence about it should be added to this page, in between whatever albums or other projects he was working on at the time. It's probably of more interest to Miles fans than those 80s albums! J Edward Malone (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would you use it as a source and even mention Troupe's name once in the article without telling who he is? I had to look at the footnote to see who the hell he was because, yeah, it's mentioned but never says who he is! Amateur, man, and kinda shitty. Chances are nobody has proofread the entire article, just their little "sliver.' This is the primary problem here: nobody gives a shit enough to make sure the whole article is good. "But I added the footnote!!" Idiot. And people love the 80s Miles album. You sound like a Wynton fan. Ugh.

I have to agree - probably a Wynton fan. The 80s albums are underrated.

Miles Davis's boorishness toward whites
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ta-nehisi-coates-and-the-politics-of-contempt-1505861888 Column by  Jason L. Riley, WSJ

"The great jazz musician Miles Davis was known for his boorishness, especially toward his white fan base. Davis would play his trumpet with his back to the audience and curse at people between sets. “If somebody told me I only had one hour to live, I’d spend it choking a white man,” he once told a newspaper reporter. “I’d do it nice and slow.” His admirers ate it up."

-This is morornic NONSENSE! What idiot wrote this? A racist? Miles had his back turned to the audience so he could communicate with his fucking band mates!! He and others have publically stated this! Not everything is about you!

SInce I've never edited this article, I'll leave it to the regulars to find a place for it. I'm a fan of his music. His anti-white perjudice is news to me. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * An opinion column, such as the one you cited, is not considered a reliable source for facts, only for the opinions of its author. See WP:RSOPINION. If it were a significant aspect of Davis's life, we could look for a reliable source for the fact that he said it. See WP:PROPORTION. I haven't read any book-length biographies of Davis, but if his attitude toward white people were significant enough to warrant a mention in such a biography, it should be included here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Too long
This article is too long. It starts okay, then becomes a month by month account of his life. What's the point of knowing the day, month, and year of a particular recording session? Or the details of those sessions which go even further? Esp. when that information is repeated in the discography or on album pages or both. When you include detail indiscriminately, you bore the reader, because readers like variety. Sentences accrues with little indication of why that sentence ought to be included. The result is tall and flat, like a skyscraper, and every bit as boring. The repetition is monotonous. I realize this is an encyclopedia, so it isn't going to have the hierarchical shape of a story or essay. I realize that objectivity, disinterest, and impartiality remove some of the pizzazz from prose. Nevertheless, the delete key is the editor's most important tool. I'm not picking on this article. I see these mistakes all over Wikipedia and elsewhere. Perhaps they are a sign of the Facebook age. Vmavanti (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those sort of precise details belong at the articles for the albums themselves, which Wiki has for any of his recordings.104.169.18.0 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal life
No section on this? Nothing on spouses or children?Dogru144 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is interspersed throughout the body of the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to get juicy you can mention he was bisexual.

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with citation
I read in Cicely Tyson's newly released book information that I think should be included in the article:

"In the months since I’d last seen Miles,(that's in 1988) I’d heard the talk of his health status. Word at the salon was that he’d contracted HIV. In fact, though the US press hadn’t broadcast that news widely, it was all over Europe that he’d sought treatment there. He’d apparently begun a course of AZT, the antiretroviral drug then used to treat HIV and AIDS. Rumors also swirled that Miles and his longtime male hairdresser, Finney, were lovers. Frankly, I’d heard that gossip for years and had tuned it out for just as many, in hindsight because believing it would’ve crushed me beyond repair. "

Don't know how to cite the reference though.

Mightbeaquarian (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen similar reports of rumours elsewhere, but we should have more concrete information than rumours before including it. EddieHugh (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that Ian Carr's biography of Miles briefly states that he was bisexual, but I'm speaking from memory as I don't have access to the book just now. If someone can find it a reference might be added.  Also, it wouldn't necessarily be connected with HIV/AIDS, as Miles might well have been infected in other ways, if in fact he did have HIV.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:B5C4:85EA:C8F:C62 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (Added to my previous comment) I have been re-reading Ian Carr's biography of Miles (2nd edition).  He briefly discusses Miles and bisexuality towards the end of chapter 22 'Tutu'. (It won't be in the first edition, which was published while Miles was still alive.)  I can't give a precise page reference, because I am reading the Kindle edition, which doesn't give original page numbers, but it must be soon after page 480, where Carr mentions the death of James Baldwin.  In the Kindle edition it is around location 8068.  Carr is quite matter-of-fact about Miles being bisexual, and implies that it was well-known in jazz circles.  He speculates that it may have influenced critics' responses to Miles's work. He also mentions the rumours about Miles and AIDS, but describes them as 'baseless'.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:202D:2160:D3F4:6701 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I question the Knighthood source.
While there are many sources to verify that the Knighthood was bestowed on him by The Knights of Malta in 1988 they appear to be all later references - none from the period. There are sources that say the knighthood came from France's 'Legion of Honour' in 1991. https://dangerousminds.net/comments/miles_davis_bores_us_miles_gets_knighted_in_france_1991. I think this may be confusion for several reasons: The Knights of Malta are a Catholic military organisation, Miles not Catholic as far as I can tell and probably would not swear obedience to the Pope. I have not heard of them honouring artists and their website seems to suggest that they do not - they have humanitarian priorities. Nothing rings true about it, despite the press repeating it - I can't believe it. I never heard him called 'Sir Miles' in the years after 88. The photo of his grave was the first I knew of it - explained by the fact it was bestowed just before his death. Miles was loved in France where he gigged a lot and France would most definitely honour a musician. There should be citation from 1988 if the Knights of Malta story is correct.

For disambiguation there is a Sir Miles Hunt-Davis who is a Knight of Malta and a Brigadier. Please also see Sovereign Military Order of Malta -esp 'Name and insignia'Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Just to clarify - what raises the question is the assertion that the Title written on his gravestone is from the Knights of Malta where it also from the French government - I have altered the wording there to make clear it was (also?) a knighthood and added the minister's name. So "Sir Sir Miles Davis"?? Seriously - 'twice knighted' is the solution.78.146.169.164 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection I've deleted the reference to the Knights of Malta as being the reason 'Sir' is used on his gravestone. No one knows that. The honour made in 1988 was probably a fake, a joke, by an imposter. https://www.orderofmalta.int/sovereign-order-of-malta/knights-of-malta/ You can see this is wrong just by looking. Miles: "They told me I had class".Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you said it yourself - 'there are many sources to verify' this fact - so I don't see why you have any basis to doubt it or remove it from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I an also suspiscious of this knighthood and think it warrents further investigation. I note there was a Sir Miles Hunt-Davis, which adds further to my doubts. I have come across fake facts in the past where the sources merely fed off each other and were therefore questionable. I have not looked further into this myself yet though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you looked at the Order's website? They do NOT give out honours to musicians, they are a humanitarian organisation helping refugees. However as says it is a 'fake fact'. Davis mentions it in his autobiography but it is clear it did not come from a genuine source. It is in fact highly comical. Cardinals in red robes with Miles kneeling before them??? At Alhambra?? For 'Bitches Brew' and 'Live Evil'?? Come on laugh! I am taking it further than WP.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Davis mentions it in his autobiography? Why in the world are you doubting this then?
 * The Knights of Malta induct people into their ranks for humanitarian purposes. It would seem that the "honour" conferred is membership in their ranks. Is Miles Davis Catholic? He attended Catholic school. There is no other mention of his faith in this article. If he is Catholic then it is entirely plausible that he entered the SMOM. If he is not Catholic, then I would agree that it sounds fishy. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Knights of Malta induct people into their ranks for humanitarian purposes. It would seem that the "honour" conferred is membership in their ranks. Is Miles Davis Catholic? He attended Catholic school. There is no other mention of his faith in this article. If he is Catholic then it is entirely plausible that he entered the SMOM. If he is not Catholic, then I would agree that it sounds fishy. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again - No he's not Catholic and says people with religion are 'jive'. I'll be absolutely clear about what I assume happened. A copycat organisation stole insignia of the Order and played a practical joke in 1988 which few people recognised at the time. Don't ask me why. - no info sphere - who are these Knights of Malta? Is a Catholic military order really going to know anything about jazz? Miles says 'they told me I had class, I was a genius' the words of a cardinal not. I'll get to the bottom of this. By the way, it's worth reading that reference to the end! Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look around. Wasn't he awarded the legion of honour chevalier level (ie knight) by the French president. That might be where this has come from. How that became relates to the knights of st John I don't know. That might be where this has come from - a half truth? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes - I've added to the wording in the article about this and deleted the claim the the honour came from Knights of Malta without deleting the whole reference. I think it should read something like "there are reports that the Knights of Malta..... but this seems unlikely" Thoughts? I have phoned the knights of Malta! More later.Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello - I've now edited to quote the full title of this honour.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , per the secondary source, this clearly refers to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which I've restored. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , we can see you are trying to make a point but it is not appreciated. The sources contradict you. Leave it alone. Elizium23 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am seeking verification and accuracy that is all.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The only thing that is "clear" about "The Knights of the Grand Cross in and for the Sovereign Military Hospitaler Order of St. John of Jeruslaem of Rhodes and of Malta " is that it does not exist, no matter what secondary sources have interpreted. Please remove the sentence altogether, it is a false claim and should not be part of the article. Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , the other sources contradict you. We will need reliable secondary sources to prove what you are saying. Otherwise it is purely WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Not OR, not SYNTH - simply reading the citation I inserted and which is accepted.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible for a non-Catholic, non-religious, jazz musician to be a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta? Please see detailed discussion here User talk:Thelisteninghand and the post above.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , this is a very prejudiced RFC question. You need to state it neutrally. Elizium23 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well. Seems like a reasonable question, though I'm no expert either, which is exactly why the question sounds reasonable and the best way to attract expert responses. isento (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it basically calls for our own WP:OR and speculation and throws out our recourse to Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. Very poor form for an RFC. Elizium23 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not what original research is. Original research is the addition of content into an article for which no published reliable source exists, particularly statements that result from our own analysis or take on a published source. Exercising editorial judgement and common sense in asking questions about what sources say, possible inaccuracies, and similar conflicts is not OR (WP:NOTOR). Merely asking the question above is not OR. isento (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , nobody has discovered a "conflict" in the sources. Basically all the sources agree: he was inducted into... something... claiming to be the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. There is no source that claims he was inducted by a faker or misled into believing something false. There is no source which contradicts his biography and autobiography. Thelisteninghand is applying his own judgement to gainsay all those sources and cast doubt on the veracity of their claims. That is WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of sources or application of prejudice in the question. You're reading too much into it, and if I were to do the same (WP:BADFAITH), I'd say you're trying to suppress his voice here. isento (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you'd be 100% wrong. I think his concerns are actually valid, he just doesn't have any actual evidence to back up his OR. Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care. You are dulling my intellect with this repetitive OR accusation. isento (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a footnote next to the claim, saying he's not a Catholic while the organization is, or whatever. isento (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And you don't have to ping me every time. I have this article on my watchlist. isento (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The citation given to Gelbard says "the order of the Knights of Malta" not "Sovereign Military Order of Malta" turning one into the other is ORThelisteninghand (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * False: The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), officially the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (Italian: Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta; Latin: Supremus Militaris Ordo Hospitalarius Sancti Ioannis Hierosolymitani Rhodiensis et Melitensis), commonly known as the Order of Malta, Malta Order or Knights of Malta, is a Catholic lay religious order, traditionally of military, chivalric and noble nature. Elizium23 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's best we don't cite definitions from a C-class Wikipedia article? isento (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * well gee God forbid it be cited to the org's own website in accordance with WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You want to use your research skills to further effectiveness for the betterment of this article? How about incorporating some of Davis' explanation behind the knighthood into the article, so questions like the above one don't have to be posed? isento (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what of that account can be usefully incorporated, other than to say that it directly contradicts the narrative being attempted by Thelisteninghand here. Elizium23 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What narrative is he attempting? isento (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Davis explains, as does this biographical source, that this was an award in honor of his musical achievements, with no seeming connection to his religious or spiritual background. isento (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have much deeper interest in this article than this tid-bit item of the "knighthood", which mind you he was too sick to even attend and, err, be knighted. isento (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be reading the sources too closely, now, do you. He did attend and he was inducted and he was knighted. That's a fact. Don't try to twist things here. Elizium23 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. Because I'm too busy being distracted by your knee-jerk aversion to critical thinking... isento (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't accuse me of not thinking. I'd thank you to comment on content, not on contributors. Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't. isento (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems like a question better fit for WP:NORN or WP:RSN than RfC, and I agree with the procedural objection that the current RfC statement is not neutrally worded, as it comes off as a leading question. signed,Rosguill talk 18:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. What I am trying to get recognition of is the fact that this 'knighthood' is impossible. 'The capital of Paris is France' does not need citation, 'the SMOM do not have non-religious members' does not need me to prove it.

On the name - I am being very clear about every single citation verbatim because the pranksters that did this were very careful not to use the actual 'proper' name in full for obvious reasons. It is not used anywhere. They may be referred to as the "Knights of Malta" but it does not mean anything. There is song of the same name. I think the claim should be deleted completely as it is a piece of nonsense, a joke, a trick at the expense of the subject of the article. It also detracts from the actual knighthood in France. At the very least the wikification of 'Knights of Malta' should be removed and blocked.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elizium and Rosguill. This is not a neutral wording and this is not an RFC question (there is no proposal). Listeninghand's groundless conspiracy theory suppositions about possible reasons that the sources might be inaccurate, while clearly constituting (poor) original research, are not prohibited to be raised at talk (NOR does not prohibit original research on talk or for assessment of sources). Plainly they have no place in the article.
 * As to the question at hand, we have two major biographies which support the claim. The NYT and The Independent report it without comment (including that it is the reason for the honorific on his gravestone). A scholarly humanities journal discusses Davis' award of the order in an article about styles of honour (the author cites the Troupe biography). And the organisation which is the subject of this silly discussion says that "Most of the Order of Malta’s 13,500 knights and dames are lay members" So the question of Davis' religious leanings is irrelevant.
 * p.s. The gravestone issue is discussed at some length in the journal Names. The author concludes that the choice to add the title to his gravestone was made by his daughter on account of his membership of the order.Cambial foliage❧ 20:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove the purpose behind the induction? It was verified in Carr's biography, whose citation you inexplicably left. isento (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * because it's not in the source, as I already said in the edit summary. Wp:unsourced Cambial foliage❧ 20:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel very sad about this. Miles Davis is a Catholic. Paris is the capital of Germany. Thanks all. I will take this no further. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Me too. This discussion has not inspired much nuance... isento (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The joke is on those who don't get it and it too is nuanced: Knights of the Grand Cross are Protestant, Knights of Malta are Catholic and Alhambra is Islamic. Tidy.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you believe this shit? Just keeps getting better... isento (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is littered with opinions from other sources, but apparently fleshing out this inexplicable honor with commentary from the guy's own biographer is controversial... but hey, I guess this is the kind of rigidity and sadomasochism you get when you involve the Catholics. And that's not by no means prejudiced, just an observation, having been raised by one. isento (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it might disappoint you to know that the Alhambra hasn't been Islamic since 1492. Please try to keep up on the news. The Christians run Spain now, dude. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Catholics. So you know there's something perverse going on there. isento (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're not just an asshole but you're a bigot too? Fun! Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not bigotry if it's self-deprecating. Ask literally every Black comedian ever. isento (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "asshole" seem a bit hostile to you? Like over and over again...? isento (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the hostile one who's content to derail and cast WP:ASPERSIONS and edit-war to force in your useless opinions about me and my personality so until you strike your comments I will continue to opine on you, your motives for remaining here, and your aggressive off-topic worthless comments. Elizium23 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, well... doesn't matter. isento (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I have an extensive knowledge of Catholicism and I've seen Miles live. I'm simply astounded by how off-topic much of the discussion is and the fact that no-one seems to want to acknowledge the primary case that it is an impossible claim - you start from there, read the facts. The only source is Miles Davis. It is not widely reported, WP was the first I heard it and the claim does not belong in any encyclopedia. Where to take it for further discussion? I see the edit now has reverted to using the SMOM proper title, avoided by all other publishers. Surely that might have ramifications? Holy See v Wiki Foundation!! Actually the humour of this is the only thing keeping me going, Miles and the Pope go way back man. And it's me gets called the conspiracy theorist!

Put up or delete. This is an exceptional claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sourcesThelisteninghand (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim is self-published origin. There are zero citations that precede. There are zero citations from the SMOM. from my talk page: Miles Davis; "..I was knighted and inducted into the Knights of Malta - or to use their formal name, The Knights of the Grand Cross in and for the Sovereign Military Hospitaler [sic] Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta" This is not the formal name of the SMOM. The Knights of the Grand Cross are the British honorific order and not connected to the SMOM. The term 'in and for' sounds contemporary. Miles continues "I have to admit that I don't know what all those words in the orders name actually mean.." He is clear that he does not know what the order is. Then "I was also told that I was chosen for this honor because I have class, because I'm a genius. The only thing they asked of me is not to be prejudiced against any person and to continue to do what I do.." [3] so he swore no oath, and does not in any way conform to the requirements of honour, devotion and obedience required by the Order. He's not Catholic. 'Hospitaller' is misspelt. 'Saint' is abbreviated. Where does he get these words from?Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

😂😂😂 "the humour of this ..." I really felt that! isento (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Claim about Miles Davis and Knights of Malta
Is the claim about Miles Davis being inducted into the Knights of Malta an exceptional claim, and if so, what should be done? isento (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Poll

 * No - it is not an exceptional claim. Besides the sources (books) already in the article, Spin 1991, New York Times 1992, Dave Liebman who attended his funeral – they had gigantic pictures of him playing, of him receiving the medal from the Knights of Malta. It meets the threshold for inclusion, it's reliably sourced and verified. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I found from the 'Spin' so called RSS. I cannot get access to the NYT article unfortunately. The Spin source is not a RSS so it does not count. Even if it were a RSS where is there mention of a knighthood?

Davis: May I touch your hair? [I leaned over and my short hair fell forward.] This is the most beautiful part of a woman [touching the back of my neck. I sat up, feeling a bit awkward.] SPIN: [Noticing a small red medal on his sweater:] What’s this, Miles?

Davis: The Knights of Malta. They gave it to me.

SPIN: For what?

Davis: For my artistic contribution. ‘Cause I’m a genius. Jennifer, can I ask you something?

SPIN: What?

Davis: See this cream? Would you massage my feet for a while with it? They’re cramping, they hurt.


 * And the Liebman article, where exactly is the reference, or this photo?


 * Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you explain to us here why you believe Spin Magazine is not a reliable secondary source for biographical claims about musicians such as Miles Davis? Elizium23 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may access the NYTimes article, paywall free, at the Internet Archive. Elizium23 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to the NYT article. It says this:
 * "One was a Duke and the other was Sir Miles," said Vernon Davis, the trumpeter's brother. "That's now a corner of royalty. Two of the most famous musicians in the world, why shouldn't they be together?" Casting a Shadow Large and Cool


 * So, Davis' brother said he was a Sir Miles. Is that it? A RSS? This is what I mean when I question the use of so-called RSSs on WP. Incidentally, based on this NYT article why should we not write that Duke Ellington was an actual Duke as well? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you misrepresenting the NYT source? Did you just stop at that passage and ignore this part: Davis, the pioneering and mercurial jazz trumpeter, was entombed last month in a sarcophagus engraved with a trumpet and notes from a composition of his, "Solar." The title before his name was bestowed by the Knights of Malta. And this - And the Liebman article, where exactly is the reference, or this photo? The photo was at Davis' funeral which Dave Liebman attended and saw in person, and then commented about in the book, Miles Davis: The Complete Illustrated History, (page 208) They had gigantic pictures of him playing, of him receiving the medal from the Knights of Malta, Authors: Ron Carter, Clark Terry, Lenny White, Greg Tate, Ashley Kahn, Robin D. G. Kelley, Publisher: Voyageur Press. Isaidnoway <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 23:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No - This is not a contentious issue nor is it an exceptional claim and there is reliable sourcing for its inclusion. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * YES Exceptional because Miles Davis is the only musician EVER to receive this alleged honour. If it happened at all it is unique.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this even matters. If the sources say that it happened, and Miles Davis is long deceased, this seems like an extremely minor footnote in his extraordinary life as an extraordinary musician in the history of jazz. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , you have zero evidence of that, and I'd wager you $100 that musicians have indeed been inducted into the SMOM, in fact I would imagine that many current members are actual musicians in real life. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - this seems implausible and fits EXCEPTIONAL “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources” - it seems surprising given the SMOM religious nature, and the only mainstream source seems to be a light one - an obituary piece sidenote.  That also seems to mean it is UNDUE.   Suggest removal, unless someone can meet ONUS with a report of the event at the time it happened, or SMOM records.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Markbassett - unless someone can meet ONUS with a report of the event at the time it happened - "In November of last year, Davis was knighted in Spain by the prestigious Order of Malta, an honor he shares with the likes of Frank Sinatra."21:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the organization’s religious nature, it says that "Most of the Order of Malta’s 13,500 knights and dames are lay members". There’s two major biographies by mainstream publishers. That’s not an obituary side note. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 05:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak. It is not coverage at the time it happened by multiple mainstream sources - this odd snippet is year later as a para 3 side note.  Again, for showing that an order of devout Roman Catholics who typically take vows would give such high honour to someone with his lifestyle and profanity ... exceptional claims need exceptional proof, and all I’m seeing is a very very few side remarks.   It makes a cute story, and maybe that’s all it is.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No This does not seem exceptional to me, yet somehow this is generating a great deal of discussion and controversy. If so many editors feel so strongly about this seemingly irrelevant issue, then perhaps it is best not to include. But then I worry that we compromise our established policies just to makes things easier on us. ---CranberryMuffin (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No It is not an exceptional claim and there are reliable source to support the inclusion. Sea Ane (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No per Isaidnoway and CranberryMuffin. Idealigic (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously no, and were it exceptional what should be done is nothing. The premises on which the arguments for this being exceptional are ostensibly based are either inaccurate, misleading, or directly contrary to the facts. Most members of the Sovereign Military Order are lay members (i.e. their religion is not a factor). Many other musicians and other artists have been inducted. Two major biographies and a number of newspaper articles report the event, and it is discussed in scholarly work; the claim that these depend on Davis' account is inaccurate and groundless. Given the significant body of reliable sources, were the claim "exceptional", the available literature represents, and therefore it would remain anyway. That said, again it isn't exceptional, and holding multiple RFCs is idiotic. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 14:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Broadly no. RSs including the NYT ("a gold standard source) among others goes with it, etc.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No This is not an exceptional claim. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
According to what I've read in the discussion above this thread, the claim seems to have its origins in Davis' own (dubious) account, without secondary sources reporting it at the time or before. It shows up in a few secondary sources (mentioning the honorific/knighthood title in passing) published later after his death, and in a few biographies that too depend on Davis' account. isento (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's exceptional or not. All the sources agree on the fact that it happened. We have no sources, no evidence, to the contrary, and that is how we write biographies: by summarizing reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it matters how you contextualize the content in the article. Like attributing it to Davis' account, that's an option... anyway, are you sure you guys aren't part of "the Order", vis-à-vis the Illuminati? This obstinance is quite suspicious. isento (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , what the fuck is wrong with you, mister? Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, I keep entertaining your comments. I feel very wrong about that. isento (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah, give it a rest, for crying out loud. Your WP:ASPERSIONS and accusations of WP:BADFAITH and outright b.s. here is poisoning a discussion. We are attempting to resolve a content dispute and you're throwing gasoline on the fire. I would invite you to strike your comments rather than edit-warring with me to force them down our throats, and get back on topic before I consult administrators about your behavior. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop projecting and get back on topic, buddy. isento (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been here a long time; when you first replied I expected much better of you. You should know better than to be a snide asshole, and you should know policy better than to pooh-pooh it when we cite that perhaps you're wrong and you should take that on board. But if you want to make this all about me then I can go there too. This is an idiotic dispute and you're making a fool of yourself. Get a life. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ouchh. isento (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will take your refusal to strike your comments as affirmation that you will continue to be an asshole in this discussion and don't actually care too much about the content or policies, or other editors at all. Thanks for being a net negative here and wasting editorial time and energy on your pointless arguments. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. isento (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Anywhoo... brought up an interesting and great point earlier about the fact that the Alhambra palace, where Davis claims to have been knighted, is Islamic and not listed as a site of the Knights Hospitaller. I'm no investigative journalist here. But maybe this smacks more of Stephen Glass than Illuminati... isento (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is risky to say that if a RSS says something then we do not have to question it. Often the RSSs used on WP are themselves the source of misinformation. I think the majority of so called RSSs used are not proper secondary sources, and even if they are they are often misquoted. Digging deeper still some RSS that do appear to be top rate can be chipped away at in some way or other. A interesting game is to work backwards and find out where a 'fact' came from. Often it turns out to be a off-hand comment by a person (O.R.) that is quoted somewhere; then misquoted somewhere else; then written somewhere else as a fact, not as a quote; then put into low quality published media; then entering a few better quality publications...and so on. We then end up with several so-called reliable sources going viral on the internet that do nothing but verifying something that never happened. I am not saying that has happened here but something somewhere is not quite right about all this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. We take people's assertions about themselves to be absolute gospel here on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it's complex medical diagnosis and history, or their religion, ethnicity, race, citizenship, or even the very scientific fact of their birth sex and identity, if they assert something about themselves in public, then we are duty-bound to believe them and repeat it in our encyclopedic voice as incontrovertible fact.
 * Now I have a big problem with this policy in general, because it is a very poor way to handle people who wouldn't know bipolar disorder from a hole in the ground, or change their "gender identity" every two weeks and demand exotic pronouns be used, and it's also subject to people who wish to game the system, for example by people who lie in interviews and everyone knows it, what happens when the subject turns out to be a media whore and fabricated a large part of their identity for likes and follows?
 * It seems that Occam's Razor is pointing us to some kind of situtation where Davis was credulously misled into thinking this big important ceremony was a real thing. But there are no sources, no evidence of fakery, no disavowal by the SMOM themselves, no investigative reporter who is willing to delve into the nuances present here, only Davis' very own words from beyond his grave, and numerous reliable secondary biographical sources which are dutifully reporting what he said about it.
 * On Wikipedia, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, but when it comes to biographies, our hands are tied in a unique and frustrating way. Elizium23 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, although your comment might be tongue in cheek, we do not take what the person say as gospel. In fact we take it as a primary source. When that is repeated as a quote in a secondary source, it is still primary. When it is stated as a fact in a secondary source we question the reliability of that source and very often that source is not particularly reliable. Even if it is a quality reliable source we need to check that we are reporting that source correctly, which often does not happen on WP. This rarely happens with biographies due to the lack of RSSs and what is stated is usually not contentious, but when something is challenged, as is here, we need to delve deeper. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is an idealistic pie-in-the-sky attitude to take about our ability for critical thinking, but is it actually what happens in reality? Can you--or anyone here--cite one case where an WP:ABOUTSELF claim was overturned, or even challenged, on the basis of contradictory WP:RS? In other words, has there been a case here on Wikipedia, where a living person, or even a dead one, made an assertion about himself, but Wikipedia editors found it inadmissible for inclusion in the article because of overwhelming evidence that the subject had lied or been mistaken?
 * I am asking this sincerely, because in my (14 years') recollection, I have never seen it happen, and I did not intend to place my tongue in cheek when writing the above. Elizium23 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, although your comment might be tongue in cheek, we do not take what the person say as gospel. In fact we take it as a primary source. When that is repeated as a quote in a secondary source, it is still primary. When it is stated as a fact in a secondary source we question the reliability of that source and very often that source is not particularly reliable. Even if it is a quality reliable source we need to check that we are reporting that source correctly, which often does not happen on WP. This rarely happens with biographies due to the lack of RSSs and what is stated is usually not contentious, but when something is challenged, as is here, we need to delve deeper. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is an idealistic pie-in-the-sky attitude to take about our ability for critical thinking, but is it actually what happens in reality? Can you--or anyone here--cite one case where an WP:ABOUTSELF claim was overturned, or even challenged, on the basis of contradictory WP:RS? In other words, has there been a case here on Wikipedia, where a living person, or even a dead one, made an assertion about himself, but Wikipedia editors found it inadmissible for inclusion in the article because of overwhelming evidence that the subject had lied or been mistaken?
 * I am asking this sincerely, because in my (14 years') recollection, I have never seen it happen, and I did not intend to place my tongue in cheek when writing the above. Elizium23 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am asking this sincerely, because in my (14 years') recollection, I have never seen it happen, and I did not intend to place my tongue in cheek when writing the above. Elizium23 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, looks like it does matter. isento (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the biographies and (at least) two newspaper articles (and Davis’ own daughter) simply take the autobiographical claim and repeat it without corroboration. It is not repeated as a quote. The notion that it seems to have its origins in Davis' own (dubious) account is made with no recourse to evidence. And there is no evidence that (in 1988, ffs) the organisation exclusively carries out its induction ceremonies at the sites… listed in a Wikipedia article. idiotic dispute is the best concise summary so far. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 05:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is a rout. I am shocked by the abuse and tone.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for Miles Davis to be a member of the SMOM period. Paris is the capital of France. Start from that UNDERSTANDING and WP principle:

Here is the only category of Knight of Malta that does not make the Promise:

"The Third Class consists of lay members who do not profess religious vows or the Promise, but who live according to the principles of the Church and of the Order. They are divided into six categories: – Knights and Dames of Honour and Devotion – Conventual Chaplains ad honorem – Knights and Dames of Grace and Devotion – Magistral Chaplains – Knights and Dames of Magistral Grace – Donats (male and female) of Devotion" (from SMOM website) So which is the one Miles Davis got - Honour and Devotion? Grace and Devotion? Or Magistral Grace? Also he must have received communion and be confirmed - that's part of the lay 'qualification'. Put up or delete. Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

OF COURSE the claim is exceptional. Exceptional means there is no other example. Show me one other Knight of Malta like Miles Davis. Any report will do - artists, singers, any other performer anywhere in the world with a 'knighthood' from the SMOM. I can save you the trouble, there are none. I also want ONE piece of evidence that Miles is Catholic - where and when was he Baptised, received Communion and was Confirmed? What is his Confirmation name? Or a citation from the SMOM about their interest in the arts. How would they even know about Davis? Why not Coltrane? (btw Shocking that no press checked their sources by going to the SMOM.) Textbook exceptional claim. 100% exceptional. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * – George Avakian - American record producer...known for his production of jazz albums at Columbia Records, worked with artists such as Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman...and many other notable jazz musicians and composers: received a knighthood from the Knights of Malta (1984) — his work as a producer earned him a knighthood in the Knights of Malta. Here's the thing, it doesn't require your belief about Davis being a Knight of Malta, and no one is obligated to show you anything, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to verify content (which we have), and if you want to challenge any of the sources that support the content in the article, then please visit WP:RSN. Thanks.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. That is a source of real and genuine fascination. It's a shame the claim not cited in either article, just stated. I also appreciate your very precise words. But here is another case from the same decade -four years earlier- which was also the subject of a later knighthood from France. A pattern of sorts. Yup. I don't think this is genuine either, for all the same reasons. Hell, this is interesting!Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

All recipients of order of Malta.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 22:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Richard Harris - Irish actor and singer...He appeared on stage and in many films
 * John McCormack (tenor) - Irish tenor celebrated for his performances of the operatic and popular song repertoires
 * Jimmy Savile - English DJ, television and radio personality
 * Paul Fitzgerald (painter) - Australian portrait painter
 * Robert Abplanalp - American inventor and engineer who invented the modern form of the aerosol spray valve
 * Wally Hickel - American businessman, real estate developer
 * Anthony Adducci - best known for co-founding Cardiac Pacemakers
 * Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. - American businessman
 * Alfred S. Bloomingdale - an heir to the Bloomingdale's department store fortune
 * William F. Buckley Jr. - American public intellectual and conservative author
 * Mike Campbell-Lamerton - Scotland rugby player
 * William J. Casey - Director of CIA from 1981 to 1987...oversaw the entire United States Intelligence Community
 * William J. Donovan - American soldier, lawyer, intelligence officer...regarded as the founding father of the CIA
 * Martin Thomas Conboy Jr. - United States attorney for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
 * Joe DioGuardi - American certified public accountant
 * Ashley Goldsworthy - Australian computer scientist and business executive
 * Emilio T. Gonzalez - former City Manager and Chief Administrative Officer of Miami, Florida
 * J. Peter Grace - American industrialist who was president of W. R. Grace & Co.
 * Alexander Haig - United States Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan
 * Vince Lombardi - Football coach
 * Michael Ancram - British politician

A note to say I've made a request at WP:RSN about the sources.

NB VOTE is underway above. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I posted at WP:RSN, I found an independent source close in time (23 Aug 1989) to the actual event. "In November of last year, Davis was knighted in Spain by the prestigious Order of Malta, an honor he shares with the likes of Frank Sinatra." And if you want to read about Sinatra and the Knights of Malta, see here. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks,, I've added that info to Sinatra's article, where I am sure people will also come out of the woodwork to bitch and moan about the event's veracity! Elizium23 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is more than one Papal Honour. Your list is very useful and I thank you. Saville for example received "Knight Commander of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great" not SMOM. In 2012 the Holy See was so concerned about the proliferation of copycat organisations that a clarifying statement was issued. It contains all the orders recognised by The Vatican. Thelisteninghand (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sinatra now. Here's a quote from the SMOM website "The Order of Malta remains true to its inspiring principles: testify the Faith and service to the suffering. Its members share the same vocation and strive together for solidarity, justice and peace. Based on the teaching of the Gospels and in the closest communion with the Holy See, they are involved in active and dynamic charity supported by faith. No Knight or Dame is such by privilege of birth or merits acquired, but for having answered to the call to be where there is a material or moral need, where there is suffering with its mystery." And here is a very suspicious website: theknightsofmalta.com I don't advise clicking. Of relevance because I am saying there are imposters using the name. The Sinatra story is fascinating, thank you.Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the debate on the exception question is over. Clearly the case is not exceptional and I am grateful for the contribution of Isaidnoway who has moved things on with a list of sveral SMOM knighthoods of DJs, performers etc I would be grateful for the source of this list if it's available. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's any merit to Catholicism, MD is laughing at us all from hell. isento (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Update - this is OR - an email from BASMOM confirms Miles Davis is not a member of SMOM, asks have I tried the Order of St John? Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello all. Miles Davis, according to press cited above, was inducted into The Order of Malta, NOT the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. They are different and I've edited for accuracy. See: https://orderofmaltaamerican.org Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

New live album (released June 2021)
https://www.allmusic.com/album/merci-miles%21-live-at-vienne-mw0003522147

Somebody should really write an article about this album (and add it to the discography and the template) ... I don't have the necessary skills to do it myself. 84.196.169.121 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added the album to the discography. Not inclined to create a page myself right now. That recording is awful!Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)