Talk:Prince (musician)/Archive 3

Minneapolis sound
Oddly, Minneapolis sound is mentioned (but not cited) in the lede, but there's not a single mention of it (much less a description/discussion or citation) anywhere else in the article. As far as I can make out, it was the type of music Prince played in the 1980s (and which he pioneered in the late 1970s). As far as I know he continued to evolve his sound and music and style and eclectism beyond the 1980s and beyond Minneapolis sound, so his music should not be defined as that, or as merely that. The first comma in the sentence

"He was the pioneer of Minneapolis sound, and his music integrates a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, psychedelia, and pop."

has been removed, leaving it as

"He was the pioneer of Minneapolis sound and his music integrates a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, psychedelia, and pop."

... thus equating the totality of his lifelong music and style(s) with Minneapolis sound, the style he had in the 1980s. I do not think this is accurate. Therefore I would like to request that that first comma be replaced in that sentence. Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The comma was incorrectly removed and should be replaced to achieve the correct tense. Further, unless something is in the body of the article describing and addressing the Minneapolis sound, it should not be mentioned in the lede.  That's basic Wiki-Stuff 101. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; personally I'd never heard of Minneapolis sound, so unless it's prominently mentioned in the current wave of media articles on Prince, I think it should be removed from the lede (since it's not in the body text even); particularly as without context it diminishes his accomplishment and total oeuvre (especially without that comma). If we could add something about Minneapolis sound was the sound/style he used in the 1980s, and then refer to his career/sound as a whole or his later work/sound, it might improve it. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Minneapolis sound is a thing, something he was known for, and it should be in the lede, but there has to be content in the body of the article on it for it to remain. As you already know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's "a thing". But it should not be in the lede unless it's mentioned in a significant number of post-death reliable sources. If hardly any of the coverage even mentions it, then clearly it's not important enough to be in the lede. For the body, just add a bit of content about it and use the sources from Minneapolis sound. Simple. Dirroli (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why post-death? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Minneapolis sound should not be in the lede at all. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's OK, I'm just going to remove it for now until we sort out what to do with it and how/where to cite and describe it. The main cite in the Minneapolis sound article isn't even working, unfortunately (I posted a plea about that on its talk page). Softlavender (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem from my perspective. It's not essential in the lede but should be mentioned if content in the body of the article exists and is well-referenced.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether certain that removing the comma produces a meaning where his musical legacy is equated with the Minneapolis sound; there is ambiguity there, even with the comma. Why not replace the first clause with the dependent "Along with pioneering the Minneapolis sound," and continue with "he integrated a wide variety of styles...into his music", or something of the like? JordanGero (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG, after I tagged that messed-up link as dead that lovely Cyberbot fixed and found the link on Wayback! (I swear to God I had tried every trick I knew to find it online via the title and author.) Here is the main source about Minneapolis sound, and it's very helpful and informative:. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Section layouts -- where/how to place the "Illness and Death" section vis-a-vis other sections?
Here are some sample layouts, plus people can add more samples from current FAs if they like (please add a number and bullet). Please opine on your preferred layout by number. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sample 1:
 * Sample 2:
 * Sample 3: Philip Seymour Hoffman
 * Sample 4: David Bowie

Survey

 * Sample 1. I think this reads well for the reader and is logical and chronological. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sample 3, because of its clean layout and the fact that all sections are close to equal in length (exempt for important ones, which are divided into subsections). --Proud User (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * You really need to stay calm and be patient. We just started a discussion above about this and haven't even received input from any other editors yet. But you're aleady starting a poll? Dirroli (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did this upon your comment in your thread "Let's see what other editors have to say". Other editors can't opine if they can't see the two options that are being discussed above; plus there are further options as well. Please don't alter the section heading here. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What other's have to say... in the discussion that was already started for that purpose. What's funny is that you didn't even name a singer/musician so we can have an apples to apples comparison. (Then you came back and added Bowie.) But, hey, if you want to play this game, fine; here are some famous musician deaths from the 2010s: Teddy Pendergrass, Rich Cronin, Teena Marie, Clarence Clemons, Amy Winehouse, Etta James, Davy Jones, Donna Summer, Scott Weiland, and Natalie Cole. Dirroli (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To repeat, other editors can't see the two versions that we were discussing (especially considering the rapidly changing state of this article) unless they are posted on this talkpage, so they couldn't say anything informed in what you call "the discussion that was already started for that purpose". David Bowie is a "singer/musician". None of the articles you linked just now are WP:FAs, which I requested in the OP (or even WP:GAs except Amy Winehouse). Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "To repeat"? Again, you need to calm down. Anyway, all you had to do was make a comment in the existing discussion and include diffs, not start an entire new section about the same dispute. Simple. Bowie's FA status had nothing to do with having those particular sections being merged. It was the article in its entirety that earned that honor. Per MOS:BODY, there is no set layout for sections You understand that, right? And you didn't add Bowie until about an hour after you used only Hoffman as your example, and after I had already replied to it. You know damn well you did that, so why would you mislead others by subsequently saying to me: "David Bowie is a 'singer/musician'" when you know it wasn't there in the first place? Great, you provided one example. Like I said, you provide an example and I'll provide two more. Fun. Interesting how you completely dismissed the 10 great examples I presented since they are completely contrary to your position. Your argument: since they're not FA, they don't count. Right. Dirroli (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPO, please stop changing the header to this section; I already asked you once. David Bowie was there ahead of your statement that "What's funny is that you didn't even name a singer/musician so we can have an apples to apples comparison", plus a bio is a bio (especially for creatives); I only added Bowie because he was the last major death I could think of and his article is a FA and has a different choice of layout from the three choices I had already listed. As I mentioned in my OP, people, including me, are welcome to add FA articles as additional samples if they substantially differ from the options so far (but there's no need to clutter the samples with nearly identical choices as that just creates confusion). This is a survey/poll, to gather consensus, and needed a fresh thread, like an RfA, not an overlong and repetitive discussion; thus this separate thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not create a brand new section (and poll) regarding the exact topic that's already being discussed elsewhere, especially when it just started recently and zero other editors have yet to comment. Patience is definitely something you need to work on. Dirroli (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(moved from Survey section);
 * How many different threads, subsections, and polls are you going to start before even one other editor chimes in to give their opinion on the overall topic? Dirroli (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to get a consensus. The way to do that is through a poll/survey. A poll/survey cannot happen without a structured thread or subthread. You have already edit-warred and violated WP:BRD by changing the existing article layout and reverting to your change four times in one hour. I don't wish to report you for edit-warring now and I'm not going to edit war, so we need a poll/survey to gain consensus. (Technically the layout previous to your changes should have stood per BRD until consensus is reached otherwise, but I have no interest in violating 3RR.) I've now moved all of the discussion to this separate Discussion section to avoid clutter and to avoid needing to collapse that discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, "We need to get a consensus". So calm down and wait for other editors to reply to the original discussion. You don't start creating surveys and polls before even one editor has commented in the original discussion. Dirroli (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors could not comment without choices in the form of samples/examples or links to what is being discussed. And the way to form consensus on a simple question is via RfC or Survey/poll, not a lengthy discussion. This is the standard form of dispute resolution, although I can make it into an official public WP:RFC by adding an RfC template if desired. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't need choices; they need you to calm down and give people a chance to come here and give their opinions. It wouldn't be a lengthy discussion if you would stop talking. Look at this talk page. You're all over it! Take a breath. Arguing your point endlessly will not help your cause. Dirroli (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss how to improve the article and edits, rather than editors. Lord knows Softlavender and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but on this I agree with her.  Further, she's trying to achieve consensus, which is the Wikipedia way.  Can't understand why you would object to that.  Comment on the topic, please, and leave out the other personal commentary, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hypocrite much? Take your own advice, Winkelvi. Stick to the topic and eliminate the lectures. Your editing history shows you're extremely infamous for fighting with an endless number of editors, spending a lot of your time at various noticeboards reporting people, and getting blocked. Dirroli (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If the "Illness and death" section doesn't belong in chronological order of events, then what is the rationale for the "Early life" section? Mitchumch (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; I personally think you can go ahead and replace it like it was (especially since the editor was not following WP:BRD); your edit and opinion push the current consensus to the chronological order it used to be. The other editor has been blocked for edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited info without consensus
, please stop removing cited information without gaining consensus beforehand. I've replaced your removals several times, as the information was pertinent cited, valuable, and accurate. It's up to you to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus on this talk page before removing cited information. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Actually, it is up to you to justify here why this poorly written fancruft is important to you. Go for it.--John (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how BRD works, especially if you are repeatedly removing pertient cited information, or removing pertinent cited information with little or no rationale. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not everything citable needs to be included. Less is more. This article was a disgusting mish-mash of fancruft before I started trimming it. Again, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify this material, every character of it. Again, this is your opportunity to do so before I remove it again. --John (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * John, you know exactly how BRD works. If your BOLD edits are reverted/contested, the status quo ante remains until you establish consensus, especially if removed information is cited and accurate. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's interesting to have your opinion. WP:BRD is an essay, and WP:ONUS is part of a policy, so I am standing by my position that it is you who need to justify your poorly-written and verbose fancruft. If there is no consensus to keep it then it goes. --John (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't written any of the cited material that you have deleted and I have replaced. I only started copyediting the article on April 22. WP:ONUS says that "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." If you can demonstrate via consensus that cited material you wish to repeatedly delete does not improve the article, then you are welcome to do so; however one editor's simply not liking something is simply not sufficient rationale for repeated deletion of informative pre-existing cited material. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmm. What does the next sentence say? --John (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, what content did John remove that you object to? How are other editors supposed to comment without knowing exactly what you're talking about? For the record, just because content is cited doesn't automatically mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. Most facts in reliable sources are actually not encyclopedic. So please provide diffs so we know what you're talking about. By the way, the missing sentence in WP:ONUS you forgot to include says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Why did you leave out that vital part? Dirroli (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There was nothing controversial/disputed about the material he deleted, therefore the onus is actually on him as far as removal; his only rationale (stated in various ways) was that he didn't like it. He is welcome to post the material here and get consensus on whether to remove it. If he had given detailed, cogent, and policy-based rationales for deletion, that would be one thing, but personal dislike of informative cited information is insufficient rationale to repeatedly delete the material without other reasoning and without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your continued misunderstanding of our basic norms and policies is noted. If you get a chance to read the sentence after the one you quoted, this may help you. If there is no argument to keep this excessive material other than "it's cited", we can safely remove it. John (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, your behavior is on the verge of becoming disruptive. You misstate clearly written guidelines or policies, or present them out of context, and also ignore direct questions. I asked you to provide diffs so that editors will know what the hell you're objecting to in terms of John's deletions. And I also asked you why you did not include that last sentence of WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") when you were quoting that section. If you don't want to show us specifically what deletions you object to (with diffs), then this thread should be closed. By the way, my observation of John's edits in general show very good judgment. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he/she has even changed a few things I've done, and I had no problem with them. And John is right, using only "it's cited" as an argument for inclusion carries no weight. Content must be cited and worthy of inclusion in an enyclopedia. Dirroli (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm reading the above as consensus to reinstate these copyedits. Remember, we are not being paid by the word, and not everything that appears in a reliable source needs to be in the article. --John (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Duly done, for now. The article is still in a dreadful state, badly written with poor structure and way too much fannish stuff, but I believe it is a little better for this modest copyedit. It would be great if anyone wishing to reverse these edits would discuss it here first, as our policy suggests. --John (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Good article
After sufficient stability resumes after his death (maybe 2-3 months?), this article is good article material. TeacherA (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Worth a shot. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that this has the potential to be a Good Article after it stabilizes. However, I'd like to see a better 1st photo. A few additional photos of him would be nice to see. - SeaBeeDee 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)


 * This would be premature at the moment I think. With a lot of work (basically a complete rewrite) and after the fuss around the subject's death has died down, this might be possible. For now I say leave it. It wouldn't be too early though to start trimming out all the insignificant garbage about individual concerts and TV appearances though. --John (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

photo?
Photo to migrate:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nico7martin/8794917623/in/photolist-epbfAK-mJTwmF-fdPuRe-5bhTHn-fdPr5K-fe4HW3-mmLCH5-6v6JDb-5ANR6s-fdPoTP-fdPpjX-6PUaCn-fe4QU7-4psdrX-83oihy-fdPqCx-fe4EC7-2HsbUd-95aJ6N-dVPD6e-fHo6F-fdPrVM-hwSpNX-q2zspa-7PucGo-fdPu6M-fHo6g-fe4Lrd-fe4RMh-fe4Mh9-e5Z8U2-2HnUYB-fe4KU9-6imnFf-qbnKzz-fe4Np7-6jXi6W-DmKwHV-2HspZh-fdPspg-fdPwN2-djq87Q-fe4Ems-eVhS9M-bDNaE9-qquQCR-83okTU-5AJAhc-8vtF4S-7kmeU1

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgrams/5474199008/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickfarnhill/166505426/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgrams/5474198530/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2449973469/in/photolist-4JuKKT-8PHsdV-qLKbk3-a9hhBF-nFe4ca-7e9KcA-8ihRQh-2DXYbu-bDJA8c-bs4Yig-8Bf8YM-bSGTgT-5bncNd-di6jBN-r8b7UK-jCTzZK-fe4JNQ-46cVW-2HnZg8-C826p-e5Z9ya-7ynFzk-GdZ7h-6Kqy8K-qoDdPQ-bWuhR1-2DM1cq-5ANR43-5bhVFP-4pwgny-ehjQiA-3a97Hg-fe4NZu-cGcfUN-fe4Q9w-8HnpYj-aKxThF-epbfAK-mJTwmF-fdPuRe-5bhTHn-fdPr5K-fe4HW3-mmLCH5-6v6JDb-5ANR6s-fdPoTP-fdPpjX-6PUaCn-fe4QU7

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2449968395/in/photolist-4JuJfp-eitYUv-dzvN67-dx31KK-4FrWn8-7e9JBd-DLMo-oR8134-dAfoKt-dTxypY-4JyYam-4Fw97y-4kn3Qn-btwoGg-f4H1u7-9CaaxZ-75Gbum-9Cdc9Y-5z3KRp-mQWYs-8kcSDA-sfN2Dq-91uia3-acCCNW-6k19xr-6KeN-C2Ewso-9kQi68-fHogd-717HUV-CsuHtB-71bHcs-9kJGvh-4KyjU5-3Y7Zt-9Y1Xd5-dVKpxH-4Fw9dy-ekABHf-9pBWCG-csDMtf-4uFQ9L-gFwhRg-edShq-5ANRcj-evfVsa-7Mzzhk-j8Qp4-G94rR-4Ku4DD

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2450795646/in/photolist-4JyYam-4Fw97y-4kn3Qn-btwoGg-f4H1u7-9CaaxZ-75Gbum-9Cdc9Y-5z3KRp-mQWYs-8kcSDA-sfN2Dq-91uia3-acCCNW-6k19xr-6KeN-C2Ewso-9kQi68-fHogd-717HUV-CsuHtB-71bHcs-9kJGvh-4KyjU5-3Y7Zt-9Y1Xd5-dVKpxH-4Fw9dy-ekABHf-9pBWCG-csDMtf-4uFQ9L-gFwhRg-edShq-5ANRcj-evfVsa-7Mzzhk-j8Qp4-G94rR-4Ku4DD-9kJGrN-aczPZD-4DNQZS-bSGSG4-9XPL3a-5zWZMD-iDABxF-4KyiJb-52SYVM-nfQrYu

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Quotations from music critics
The following statements by music critics have been removed from the article.

1. From this: "In 1980, Prince released the album Dirty Mind, retrospectively described by Stephen Thomas Erlewine as a "stunning, audacious amalgam of funk, new wave, R&B, and pop, fueled by grinningly salacious sex and the desire to shock"; Erlewine concluded "It's a breathtaking, visionary album, and its fusion of synthesizers, rock rhythms, and funk set the style for much of the urban soul and funk of the early '80s.""

... this has been removed:

"Erlewine concluded "It's a breathtaking, visionary album, and its fusion of synthesizers, rock rhythms, and funk set the style for much of the urban soul and funk of the early '80s.""

2. From this:

"Critic Simon Reynolds called him a "pop polymath, flitting between funkadelia, acid rock, deep soul, schmaltz—often within the same song", adding that "Prince doesn't so much build bridges between categories as create music that exceeds each category simultaneously"."

... this has been removed:

"adding that "Prince doesn't so much build bridges between categories as create music that exceeds each category simultaneously""

Should either of them be replaced? -- Softlavender (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * IMHO those edits are fine. Karst (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction
We have: "On February 12, 2011, Prince presented Barbra Streisand with an award and donated $1.5 million to charities."

then later

"As a Jehovah's Witness, Prince did not speak publicly about his charitable endeavors."

They can't both be true, can they? --John (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Someone else connected to the Streisand incident released the information. I mean to say, Prince might of not talked about the donation, save what ever he had to say on stage.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, thank you. The article needs a total rewrite to get away from the nit-pickingly chronological record. --John (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mlpearc ( open channel ) 21:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead
I think the lead should note that Prince became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely it's one of the most important things he ever did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's one of the least important, and most obscure, things he ever did. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Clearly Prince's religion was important to him: that should be enough to show that it is objectively important. Also, the article dedicates a significant amount of space to this matter. I believe it would be appropriate for the lead to briefly note, perhaps in one sentence, that Prince became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Religion was always publicly important to him, many of his songs and their themes obviously as well as ambiguously mentioned something spiritual. That said, I don't think his spiritual beliefs and the evolution of them are lede-worthy but certainly should be addressed in the body of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * May I suggest adding a line about his religion in the infobox? SlowJog (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with doing that. We've already had an RfC that ended up with a consensus that the Religion parameter in infoboxes should not be filled out unless it is/was a very publicly prominent part of the person's public life. This wasn't. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death
"'The mysterious circumstances of his death, and the withholding of autopsy results until toxicology tests were completed,[180] encouraged speculation. A few days before his death an online gossip site had published a blind item stating that a very popular celebrity had ceased taking HIV medication due to the belief that he had been cured by God, and was expected to die soon.[181] When, shortly after his death the National_Enquirer alleged that Prince had been ill with AIDS,[182] the story was picked up by mainstream media.[183][184] Despite this, the allegation has not been confirmed by any official source.'" Hello. The source does not say that anything "encouraged speculation" thus the rest of this does not follow. An hour ago the lead said he died of a drug overdose, and now he died of AIDS. Kindly refrain from speculation. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

is this really CC-licensed?



 * No. The Arsenio Hall Show is owned by CBS Television Distribution and Tribune Broadcasting. It is in no way copyleft. Clip should be deleted. dissolve  talk  06:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The official Youtube channel for the Arsenio Hall Show, which is where this was originally uploaded, has it tagged as CC. I wonder if this is an exception to their general rule of not copylefting things. Zell Faze (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Yes it is tagged CC on the YouTube channel and I notice many of the other interview clips on that channel are also tagged CC so it seems to be properly licensed. dissolve  talk  23:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mother was Italian-American -- NOT African American
Mother was Italian-American --not African American

Source:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.159.134 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tabloids are no good here. Do you have anything more reliable on this? --John (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * non-sense, and the photos of her, is that an Italian American?--169.1.126.37 (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In some early interviews, notably with Rolling Stone, Prince said he was biracial. The reasons for this were complex as pointed out by Time magazine (Why Prince Triumphed With Gen X) having to do with the cultural climate and music business practices of the 1980s. The source points out however that his parents were indeed African American. dissolve  talk  23:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mirror is a tabloid. And it's already been debunked that Prince was partially Italian. Both of his parents are listed as African-American. There are pictures of Prince's mother that prove it as well. Don't trust the words of 1985-era Prince and what was seen in Purple Rain. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brace for impact
See:. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw it. WP:AGENDA, particularly point #2, comes to mind.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2016
Prince was born June 5, 1959

❌ You need to provide a citation for this kind of data change. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC) partly ✅ There is no citation for the current listed date so that is a problem. Many entertainers lie about their age so citations and careful analysis is needed. Whiskeymouth (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking Done as it was not done per the request and placing "done" here is not procedurally correct. A citation has now been placed inline with the birthdate already stated in the article.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Vegan or vegetarian?
Since I'm sure someone will revert my edit... in the Prince interview on Lopez Tonight that was listed as a source for Prince being vegan, he very clearly states that he is a vegetarian. Watch starting at 4:21, when Lopez asks "You're a vegan?" and Prince responds "Vegetarian." Based on his own self-description, I believe it is inaccurate to label him as a vegan, unless a more recent interview surfaces where he uses that label for himself. (I do not deny that he spoke out for animals, and it's entirely possible that he was a vegan for some period of time before that interview, or possibly after it.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are an overwhelming number of independent, non-vegan-promoting, reliable sources that confirm he was a vegan, . So it seems that statement on Lopez Tonight was simply perhaps to avoid alienating the audience of the moment. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the text of those sources - and I did look at quite a few of them before first posting here - most of them simply say that he was vegan without any confirmation of that from the man himself. Why should we assume that he replied how he did in that interview in order to avoid alienating people? He certainly wasn't shy about supporting animal rights. Again, it's entirely possible that he was vegan for some period of time prior to 2011, but when the man says "Vegetarian" in response to "You're vegan?" in that interview, we should take him at his word. In fact, when I first came to this page after Prince died, that specific interview link was used in support of him being vegetarian; the sentence was only sometime later changed to say that he was vegan, with that same source still cited!


 * Seriously, is the "What's in Prince's frig?" article, which many have stated is mostly likely an April Fool given the posting date, a better source than the words of the man himself on a nationally televised talk show? And if that article isn't a satire, then that just lends more evidence to him not being vegan, as he admits to drinking yak milk (an animal product).


 * Another tidbit: In this 2014 Arsenio Hall Show appearance, beginning at 26:45, he mentioned cooking omelettes, and from his joking remark about cholesterol he did not appear to be talking about a vegan version of these (plant products contain no dietary cholesterol).


 * Full disclosure: I am vegan myself, but as I wrote in my blog (which I am not citing as a reliable source, but is one of the first links that comes up in that first search you linked to), I admire Prince's talent and activism regardless of his actual diet. Funcrunch (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * All right, I think you have a point with two separate quotations from him, and one as late as 2014. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An interview with Prince's personal chef from the last 3 years of his life states that he was vegetarian and not vegan. An interview with his chef circa 2008 stated that he ate fish. A number of sources state that meat was banned from the entire Paisley Park complex. There are sources stating spaghetti & meatballs was a favorite dish in the Purple Rain era. As pointed out there are also sources stating he was vegan. The article should point out that he was a vegetarian later in life and also ate vegan at times. The emphasis on veganism isn't supported by the majority of sources imho and seems to be POV pushing as it's a political topic. dissolve  talk  19:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the original source, The Vegetarian Times Oct 1997, cited by other sources stating that his veganism (at the time) was largely influenced by Mayte and his evolving spiritual beliefs. dissolve  talk  22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that source. I've added it to the article with a clarification that Prince was vegan at one time but later vegetarian, by his own words (in both cases). Funcrunch (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Death of Prince
There was a "Death of Prince" article but a non-administrator closed it and merge/redirect it to this article. We should keep a separate list of things that have happened since the merge because if there is a significant change in facts, the death article can properly be restarted. If there isn't, then the case is not as strong. So if you oppose a death article, keep going about your life. If you think there might be a possible case for a "Death of Prince" article (like there's a Death of Jimi Hendrix, Death of Aliyeah, Death of David Bowie, etc. articles) then tabulate a list of new changes. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Updates of the death of Prince

 * http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/prince-hit-rehab-percocet-addiction-heavy-duty-rx-diet-article-1.2619277 On April 29, 2016, the Chanhassen Walgreens was subject of a search warrant.


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36159802 Same day,Prince's house was served with a search warrant.


 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/04/29/princes-death-day-9-drug-probe-museum-talk/83693054/ Los Angeles City Hall is holding a public memorial service for Prince.


 * http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/princes-vault-reportedly-drilled-open/story?id=38766251 Prince's vault drilled open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskeymouth (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

more material


 * http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/04/30/prince-outpatient-rehab-treatment-program-drugs-before-death/ One month before death, Prince enrolled in a rehab program. The article notes that enrollment does not always mean addiction but that he could have had chronic hip pain and was concerned about addiction. Also http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/prince-entered-outpatient-treatment-program-before-death-report-w204711


 * http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/white-house-correspondents-dinner/helen-mirren-sports-prince-tribute-white-house-correspondents-dinner-n565441 Tribute to Prince by Helen Mirren at the White House Correspondence Dinner 2016, purple Prince tattoo. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/entertainment/prince-death-latest/ CNN article about the Death of Prince even though it is 3 weeks after his death. This show staying power and reason for separate article


 * http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-family-planning-memorial-service-near-future/story?id=38938646 Memorial service planned for the public

Whiskeymouth, if you oppose the closing of the AfD, you are welcome to contest it at WP:DRV. Otherwise, the close stands and should not be violated. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dispute result, should be keep There is good reason to keep the article and bad faith behavior by several of those wanting to delete. They abused the process. Wikipedia is too confusing so please copy my vote to the proper place. Thank you very much wiki (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with above I looked for info and it is not in the article so must be expanded like suggested. Malucker (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC) 07:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't dispute the result here. If you want to do that, go to WP:DRV and open a case. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Give it time. Search warrants have been issued, but as of this writing not even a posthumous subsection in the Legal Issues section has been deemed relevant enough to stick, and for that matter the coroner's report hasn't been issued. There's a lot of legal stuff going on behind the scenes, and Wikipedia procedure just has to wait on the actual, cited results thereof, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have to wait. There is already an article about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 even though there is no proven cause of the crash. No bodies have been found. Proven death count is zero. There is a Wikipedia article, as should be. Whiskeymouth (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I would wait until the cause of death is revealed. But it definitely merits an article. Prince was way bigger than David Bowie and just as influential (if not more), yet Bowie has an article and he doesn't. The double standard makes no sense and does not reflect well on this site. It was a global news story that preempted almost all other coverage for the rest of the week, including crucial moments of the 2016 election. The President of the United States quickly released a statement and made multiple references to it. MTV altered its programming to pay tribute. Saturday Night Live aired a retrospective. The man was one of the biggest celebrities ever, and he died mysteriously. It was not just a pop culture story but one that touched on the social state of the world at the time. He may not be as 'big' as Michael Jackson, but it is still nearly as important. It will be remembered decades from now like those of Elvis and John Lennon. 66.214.85.70 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016
Under section 3.1 - rememberances add: Fans from all around the world flocked to Paisley Park in Chanhassen, MN and left t-shirts, albums, paintings, and even guitars along the entire 1300 feet of fence line surrounding Prince's home. A walking virtual tour of the entire memorial can be viewed, and tagged by fans who couldn't make it in person along with their condolences, stories, or thoughts. (see link) http://giga.me/paisley

75.72.118.232 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Prince (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090505210657/http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090427.html to http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090427.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090205091550/http://www.discogs.com:80/artist/Prince+%26+The+New+Power+Generation to http://www.discogs.com/artist/Prince+%26+The+New+Power+Generation
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130825053717/http://www.discogs.com:80/artist/Starr+%2A+Company%2C+The to http://www.discogs.com/artist/Starr+*+Company%2C+The

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Archive links checked. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Minnesota need its own link?
We've got three editors who believe that we should link only to Minneapolis thereby avoiding overlinking and one who thinks that Minnesota should get its own separate link. The MoS only shows city, state as a single link and that's what most articles do - even articles with links to Minneapolis. So... who all supports Minneapolis, Minnesota - one link for this article? Rklawton (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that there doesn't need to be a link to Minnesota because Minneapolis links to it. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Subsection in Illness and death
The subsection in Illness and death is currently named "Remembrances". Wouldn't it be a better alternative to rename the section to something along the lines of "Aftermath" or "Impact", since the section isn't only about reactions to his death and remembrances, but also impact on sales, the Internet and music in general?  κ  ατάστασ   η  01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it even needs a subheading -- it's only 1.5 paragraphs. But if it is to retain a subheading, I actually prefer Remembrances to "Aftermath" or "Impact" -- both of which one associates more with a major physical disaster like a major earthquake or war, rather than the acknowledgement of fans following a celebrity's death. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd prefer to remove the subsection and just leave the integral text in one section. I suggested the change because the subsection isn't only discussing remembrances from fans and fellow artists, but the impact on the industry and the media as well. I don't see "Impact" as a negative word, as a physical disaster like you suggest; Prince's death did cause an impact. I suggested "Aftermath" because it's the similar subsection's name in Michael Jackson, but it's not my favorite term.  κ  ατάστασ   η  17:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

On the death of Prince, it should be noted that all over the internet are circulating rumours that Prince's death was AIDS-related. (Links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/prince-suffered-from-aids-and-had-expected-to-die-for-a-while-us/; http://www.yourtango.com/2016288244/did-prince-die-aids; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3562640/Prince-diagnosed-AIDs-six-months-died-refused-treatment-believed-God-heal-him.html) I know the internet goes wrong all the time, and this may be just a rumour, but there is always the possibility that some hidden truth can be placed in it. Nevertheless, I think the article should mention the fact that there is rumours all over the web, about his death being AIDS-related, and that there is several facts to think that these statements could be true. Wagner Johns (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". As I understand it, Wikipedia is a place to report facts, not rumors. The articles which you cited are reporting that the National Inquirer is saying that Prince had AIDS, but the National Inquirer is not a reliable source. Let's wait until reliable resources state as fact that Prince had AIDS. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Prince's church in Minnetonka memorial service
Need consensus for inclusion. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel ) 21:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Aliases
In the "Also known as" section of the infobox, it's a bit strange to see obscure pseudonyms like Joey Coco and not widely-recognized nicknames such as The Purple One. I have listed some of the most popular and well-attested monikers Prince was actually "known as", separating them from the pseudonyms he used to obscure his songwriting credentials for others (thereby deliberately seeking the opposite effect of being "known as"). The template documentation for musicians says we should not list nicknames but this strikes me as a case where we should WP:IAR in order to make sense for puzzled readers. Opinions? — JFG talk 21:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like conflating stage names and pseudonyms with nicknames. The former were his creative choices, the latter fans and media's. Unless he actually was billed (for an album, concert or show) as The Purple One or His Royal Badness, in place of Prince, it seems dishonest to lump them in with the symbol or Camille as "as performer". It's definitely not how it's done with wrestlers, and Madonna and Michael Jackson don't swing that way, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The distinction is important, and I feel the best solution would be to have a nicknames parameter in the template (names assigned by the press or the public), besides the alias. We could also think of adding pseudonyms (names chosen by the artist to hide their identity). This distinction would be useful beyond the Prince case, see for example James Brown whose top nickname "The Godfather of Soul" is not listed (per policy), or Elvis Costello who has plenty of aliases (I'm not sure they were all his choosing). — JFG talk 10:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Madonna's infobox says "Other names". Would that work better than "also known as" for you, regarding the deliberately seeking opposite effect thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Her page is using Infobox person, for which the alias parameter is displayed as "Other names", whereas in infobox musician it yields "Also known as". I prefer the a.k.a. designation but that would be a debate to raise about the respective infoboxes. — JFG talk 10:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know more about the name change to the "unpronounceable symbol," and home someone will expand the article on that. The reasons in the current article seem to be vague. First, what was the scope of the name change? Surely, a U.S. Court would not have granted such a name change for government purposes. The IRS, Social Security, and other government computers and recording systems would not have been able to use it. How did this protect Prince in his contracts as an artist? SlowJog (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal life
Prince's son is referred to as "Ahmir Gregory" in this section with no citations. I have only ever seen his son as being named "Boy Gregory". Can someone provide proof of this other name or remove it from this page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.181.24 (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3600030/Prince-s-ex-wife-Manuela-Testolini-honours-late-singer-purple-leather-jacket-month-death.html added to article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Prince (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discogs.com/artist/Prince+%26+The+New+Power+Generation
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110427023704/http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/070611/340/h9t0h.html&e=l_news_dm to http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/070611/340/h9t0h.html&e=l_news_dm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate addition of memorials
We have done very well to keep this article from filling up with horrible kludge about the "tributes" to Prince's death. Let's remain vigilant; WP:NPOV and WP:NOTMEMORIAL continue to apply to this article. --John (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a story from the St.Paul Herald Ledger stating "Herb and Marge Hornpecker paint their labradoodle purple in honor of Prince" is kludge. Something from Prince's hometown having a celebration, that, to me anyway, is not kludge.  It takes up one line.  It's interesting to people who are baseball fans, such as myself.  It shows the importance of Prince to the community.  I just don't see how it's violates NPOV - it's just a reporting of fact.  Anyway, in all honesty, in the end I really don't care and will consider this the end of it.  However, I do find there is a fine line between vigilance and peremptory imperiousness. Terry Foote (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For any further discussion, here is the material in question:

"Target Field, home of the Minnesota Twins (who were playing in Milwaukee), placed a message honoring Prince on the scoreboard and switched all the stadium lights to purple. (Fittingly, it was raining in Minneapolis that day.)"


 * It was the horrible cutesy parenthetical that made me excise it. Stuff like this never belongs on Wikipedia. Are there better sources than Fox Sports for the (seemingly very ordinary) act of putting purple lights on? If there are, maybe we could spare a sentence, would be my view. --John (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the cutesy parenthetical sentence, but that's remedied easily enough by just taking it out. I think the hometown making of the lights purple, in conjunction with the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower being lit up in a purple light, exemplifies how deeply Prince's death affected people around the world.  I didn't see the San Francisco Giants change anything about where the Giants play when Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane died.  Not that this matters in the grand scheme of things, but for what it's worth, I wondered what the Minnesota Twins would do, and I think that purple lights are pretty cool and IMO more artistic than what I expected from MLB.  My underlying point is that someone went through the trouble to make a good-faith edit to Wikipedia - we owe it to that user and the project itself to not just summarily reject their edit out-of-hand - the project is losing editors.  To reiterate, the cutesy, non-encyclopedic sentence could've been edited to something less cutesy, or just removed, and the gist of the edit would've remained.  That's the kind of thing that has made me personally quit editing all together for years at a time, and I know that I'm far from alone in this.  Alright, enough on what is admittedly much ado about nothing, in life's grand plan.  Terry Foote (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here's a link from MLB.  My apologies if I screwed up how the link appears.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Foote (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I suggested in my comment below, which I've moved to before the footnote, the article already talks about bridges etc. being lit up in purple light. Purple stadium lights is more of the same—already covered. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, the edit note could've said "Already covered in article" rather than "er, no thanks." I'll admit that I am not civil to trolls, sockpuppets and vandals, but such snark to a good faith edit is entirely uncalled for. Terry Foote (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, no I disagree with you about purple stadium lights being "more of the same." Maybe in Denver that's a repetitious, but Target Field is relevant because that's Prince's hometown.  I think you both could figure out a way to reword the edit so that it isn't cutesy or more of the same.  Anyway, this is extremely tedious and boring.  I think you're both wrong and doing an injustice to a good faith edit.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Foote (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others think. I don't think anyone has disputed that your edits have been in good faith, i.e. you aren't trying to vandalize the article, but not every good faith edit needs to be accepted. There comes a point where less is more. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't it covered by this sentence, already in the article: Cities across the US held tributes and vigils, and lit buildings, bridges, and other venues in purple. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I thought Saturday Night Live was getting way too much play for their tribute, and I cut it down. Then I removed D'Angelo because it singles him out. Beyonce's concert was in Minneapolis and so were others like Paul McCartney. We don't need to catalog every tribute. The sentence above speaks louder and more eloquently than the chatter. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Civility, class, respect, a total lack of snark - thank you. Terry Foote (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Performances at Galladet University in the 1980s
Does anyone have credible sources for his performances that he did at Gallaudet College in the 80s where interpreters throughout the audience would sign the lyrics which were probably a shock to some of these students as some of them were at the time sheltered from the average life of a college student since they were living in a deaf environment.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Prince is not of "mixed heritage"
His grandparents were born into slavery on both sides, he is African-American. Please stop spreading falsities to "exotify" this artist, it is ludicrous. Willnusucggd (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the link sourced does it mention he is "European and Native American" those are untrue. The huffing ton post as well as other credible sources note him as the African American that he is. Willnusucggd (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Until the DNA test comes through at best you will have to say that he is alleged to be African American. Being descended from slaves is not a guarantee that someone can exclude native Americanism or European or even Asian roots from their make-up. Sally hemming was a slave yet she was predominately European. And the Harvard African American professor is 51% although for some his "look" may be enough for some to substantiate that he is not European.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Date of Death?
CNN reports that Prince may have been dead for hours before his body was found. While chances are he died on April 21, it isn't certain. We won't know until the autopsy results are released. So, should we change it to "April 20 or 21" until then? SlowJog (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that but, we use what the citations say which is April 21. When citations say something else we will use that. Anything else is WP:OR Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to Remove an Unsourced Citation and Contentious, Dubious and Unverifiable Statement
Now that things have settled down and the facts have come in, I would like to make an official request for consensus to remove an unsubstantiated statement in the article based on the grounds that the article cited presents no factual evidence for the claim, but is merely rumormongering. The erroneous statement is as follows: "but would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products." Jehovah's Witnesses reject whole-blood products, but Prince would not have rejected surgery on those grounds, and in fact no quote is ever provided of Prince or anyone representing him making such a claim in any article anywhere. The erroneous citation is as follows: "Michaels, Sean (June 11, 2009). "Prince refuses hip surgery because of his faith". The Guardian. Retrieved May 5, 2016." This claim in that article is directly counter to the facts in such professional peer-reviewed medical studies as Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Jehovah’s Witnesses (2012), Total Hip Replacement Surgery Without Blood Transfusion in Jehovah's Witnesses (1992) and Total hip replacement in Jehovah's Witnesses under spinal anesthesia without transfusion (1987) Corjay (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your second and third references both point to Transfusions kills patients, say doctors (1999), which isn't relevant to the question of whether Prince had the hip operation. Your first reference says "Jehovah’s Witnesses will not accept transfusions of blood or blood products", which appears to be consistent with the statement in the article that Prince "would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products". What remains to be settled is whether Prince had the operation or not. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I must have copied the wrong page link. I've corrected the links. The question isn't whether Prince had the operation or not. The question is why he didn't. There is no proof whatsoever that he didn't get it because of his beliefs, and there is ample proof that there is no reason why he couldn't regardless of his beliefs. This link does not conform to the Wikipedia citing guidelines as I understand them. All it does is pose a question without ever making a claim. One is forced to ask if this is an encyclopedia or a tabloid rumor mill? Corjay (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting the links. The article doesn't say that Prince didn't get the operation because of his beliefs, it says that he wouldn't get the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, which apparently is correct. I agree that the source cited in the article isn't very impressive: "according to reports", "allegedly", "a source told the Hollywood Report's Showbiz 411 blog". Unlike the Wikipedia article, the Guardian article does say in its headline that Prince refused hip surgery because of his beliefs, going on to say "The Purple One's Jehovah's Witness beliefs prevent him from accepting blood transfusions – making an alleged double hip replacement operation impossible". The references which you provided show that the operation can be performed without a blood transfusion. Of course it's possible that Prince wasn't aware of that, but the information provided in the Guardian article is second or third hand and does appear to reporting a rumor rather than solid fact. I agree that the sentence and citation in the Wikipedia article should be removed unless a better source can be found. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Apparently is correct?" I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is not correct. He needed that surgery long before he became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. So what was the reason then? Likely it is because if he got the surgery, he would end up having to move like an old man which would ruin his stage presence. "A source" could mean a person off the street or one of our apostates. Look at all the articles claiming "sources" that said he had HIV. Anyone could claim a "source" and lie. The source is not named, thus there is no proof the claim is true. This is from the horse's mouth: Jehovah's Witnesses do not refuse hip surgery because we refuse blood transfusions. I gave you the links to prove it. What does this reporter for the Guardian have? Anonymous, unverified "sources". The article infers a conclusion from too little facts. One of the facts it is missing is that hip surgery does not require blood transfusions as I proved with professional medical articles going back to 1987. My question to you is: Why is it so important to you for this false implication to be propagated on Wikipedia? And what facts do you have to verify the claim besides an unsubstantiated rumor? By your own words the article "isn't very impressive", which is an understatement. By insisting on its inclusion, what you're saying is that Wikipedia should treat everything written by a tabloid as fact just because it is printed, though not citing its sources. Why even bother citing articles as proof if the article itself has no proof? Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, so yes Jehovah's Witnesses will not have surgery unless it is bloodless. Hip surgery does not require blood transfusions. Therefore, Prince did not reject hip surgery on the claim that it would require a blood transfusion.Corjay (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my last reply to you. I'm not insisting on the sentence's inclusion. As I said, I agree that the sentence and citation in the Wikipedia article should be removed unless a better source can be found. As for your statement that "I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is not correct", I don't see a difference between [Prince] would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products as stated in the article (before your edits, which I haven't read yet) and your statement that yes Jehovah's Witnesses will not have surgery unless it is bloodless. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I missed the part where you said you agreed. It looked otherwise. Also, I wasn't suggesting to include a quote from me. Corjay (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear to those interested in this discussion: This is not disputing whether Prince had hip problems. This is not disputing whether Prince needed hip surgery. This is not disputing whether Prince would not have surgery that wasn't bloodless. This is disputing the implication that Prince did not have hip surgery because he refused blood transfusions.Corjay (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to this story Prince had hip replacement surgery in 2010. The source may not be reliable enough for a citation since it's quoting an anonymous source "very close to the situation", but the same could be said of the Guardian source currently being cited. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, an ET report should shoot any Guardian report out of the water. ET is 99.9% reliable. They are an entertainment news agency that every entertainer in the world trusts more than anyone. When an entertainer wants to be fairly reported on, ET is the first call they make. The Guardian is a gossip rag that you couldn't trust to report on Prince's shoe size. Corjay (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article with direct quotes from Prince's Bible teacher, Larry Graham: 'We lost a spiritual brother' in Prince Note this statement: "Graham also denied claims that Prince couldn’t have hip surgery because his faith prohibited blood transfusions." You can't get a better source than that. Larry Graham is an elder and has been a member of the organization since the 70's, and having been his Bible teacher and appeared in nearly every interview with Prince about his beliefs, no one is more qualified to state what Prince's opinions on the subject were. I think we can consider this matter settled. Corjay (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC) I agree that this "Request to Remove an Unsourced Citation and Contentious, Dubious and Unverifiable Statement be removed. The erroneous statement is as follows: "but would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products." be removed. Abergoust (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

AIDS
Did he have AIDS at the time of his death? (109.158.178.173 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
 * No. The coroner's final report made no mention of AIDS. It was an unsubstantiated rumor spread by vicious gossip rags looking to make a profit from his tragic death while the coroner delayed. He died of a Fentanyl overdose, which has nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS. He had the flu, untreated it turned into walking pneumonia, and in this weakened state he was unable to endure the drug dosage and his heart gave out. The reality is that he just didn't stop moving in spite of the doctor's explicit direction to stay in bed. Corjay (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because the report didn't mention it doesn't prove he didn't have it. (109.158.178.173 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
 * There is no evidence he had HIV or AIDS. Only tabloids speculated on it, likely due to his gender expression. But you have your answer. This is not a forum for speculating on his medical history.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides that, the claim was that he acquired HIV in 1984 and that he never got it treated. If that were so, that would make him the longest living untreated AIDS victim in history, as he would have lived almost 3 times over the average life expectancy of those who acquire HIV/AIDS. Corjay (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's technically true that just because the coroner didn't explicitly mention HIV doesn't in and of itself prove that he wasn't positive — but without a mention in the coroner's report, we have no viable way of being able to verify his HIV status one way or the other. People's medical records are private, and tabloids are not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Would Death of Prince merit its own article now?
I'm opening this discussion on behalf of, who has petitioned for the article's recreation at DRV. This article has already gone through DRV once and the consensus was that the AfD close was valid at the time of deletion and that any discussion about recreation needs to happen here, as any argument for inclusion would now center around sources that were not existent at the time of the AfD. (Meaning that this is not a case for DRV, but a discussion that needs to occur here.)

I have no true opinion on this at this point in time and I'm opening this now because it seems like this is a good time to hold such a discussion. From what I can see, there hasn't been a discussion that included the news coverage on the cause of death and the various people who have come out of the woodwork to claim a chunk of his estate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion would be, no. I think the article would end up a tribute, fancruft, and be overly bloated and with insufficient eyes on it to keep it accurate, concise, and encyclopedic. I think it would be subject to someone nominating it again for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * INVALID, ARTICLE NEEDED Thank you for your opinion. The DRV only addresses whether there is sufficient new information since the Death of Prince article was blanked and redirected. If there is not new information, then according to the DRV, there is no article. If there is new information, the article is restored and improved. Conclusion: there is new info. Whiskeymouth (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No from me before, and 'no' from me now. There's nothing overly notable about his death that warrants a separate article.  What's more, there's nothing that would be in a separate article which cannot be covered adequately in the Prince article.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  05:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The volume of new information actually involved here would not be enough to tip the scales. Most celebrity deaths do not require a standalone article about the death as a separate topic from the celebrity's life and career — there are exceedingly rare exceptions where such an article is justifiable (namely situations on the order of Kurt Cobain, whose death two full decades ago is still to this day the subject of an active conspiracy theory that Courtney had him murdered), but the volume of what we're talking about here still does not add up to a credible case that Prince's death is one of those special circumstances. The coroner's confirmation of the cause of death is not, in and of itself, enough to tip the balance on whether a spinoff article about the death is warranted or not. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How do we know that is not enough volume unless we have an article. What does Wikipedia say? I think Wikipedia says if there is new information. If only 3 sentences, I agree, not enough. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for an article to already exist before we can evaluate whether an article should exist or not. There has not been a convincing case made as of yet that Prince's death warrants being spun out as a separate article from Prince's life — the consensus in the original AFD was that an article could be recreated if and when compelling evidence that his death had crossed over the extremely high bar that would justify a separate article from his existing biography, not that an article could be recreated again as soon as any new development had happened at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

improper closure by non administrator
I have no opinion about Prince but I wrote on the DRV that the non-administrator violated the rules that limit Non-administrators to close AFD only for non disputed. There was no opposition to my statement, therefore the DRV closes with this declaration.

The Death of Prince article stands unless users here can show that such article causes harm to the public. Tim Bosnia (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

IT IS SO DETERMINED. Tim Bosnia (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * AGREE Unlike you, I do have an opinion. I also agree with your order. Whiskeymouth (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Brand new users who just registered a week ago don't get to "order" Wikipedia outcomes. A consensus of established users, who are familiar with established policy, gets to make that decision, not a unilateral declaration by a newbie. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's be a little more clear, : Wikipedia users/editors, new, long-time, or anything in-between, do not get to "order" Wikipedia outcomes unilaterally. It's about consensus, as you noted.  Frankly, I'm having as much concern about the "I so order" attitude as the desire to create an article that isn't warranted.  The unwarranted article will make for more work (another trip to AfD with a bunch of needless back and forth that shouldn't have to happen in the first place) and dealing with a new editor who thinks they can "order" others and force changes in Wikipedia will also make for more work/time that could be spent productively in actually building the encyclopedia (why we are supposed to be here).  Both make for a unnecessary time sink and create untenable situations.  Ugh.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  18:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am glad both of you don't dispute that a non administrative closure is inappropriate in the AfD (unless you do).Tim Bosnia (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the closure, bring it up at AN/I, not here. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The non-admin closure has already been reviewed at DRV, and upheld — so it is no longer a productive or useful line of attack, or one that anybody even needs to respond to. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * DRV did not discuss non-admin closure. But I think it is now decided that non-admins can close discussions even if it is not unanimous. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

additional discussion
Depends Is there new info since the Death of Prince article was deleted? If so, a new article is permitted. If no, It would not qualify by that criteria. Tim Bosnia (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

prince's daughter
prince and mayte had a daughter too who they tragically lost, this should b added to the personal life section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.174.17 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Prince was a musical polymath
User:Mlpearc, I object to your change just made to the infobox. Prince was if anything, a musical polymath. Sorry, I am grateful for your trimming things down and I agree there is no need to list all 29 musical instruments he played, but I can't think of him as a "guitar player." That label does him injustice. Thus I reverted your edit. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying he's not, we have that need to be followed. Secondary instruments should be mentioned in the article body, not the infobox per the template documentation.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Read this again. It is possible to go strictly by the guidelines, and at the same time not strip away his life's work. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy melodrama, Batman! VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are free to gain consensus for the instruments you wish to include. I did read it again, and per WP:COATRACK I stand on my revert. Seems you're editing as a fan and not an Wikipedian. You can also discuss changing the template's documentation, on that talk page  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Secondary instruments should be mentioned .   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK gentlemen. I paste in the whole guideline for the "instrument" field right here.

"'This field is only relevant for individuals. General class(es) of instrument(s) played by the artist, e.g. guitar or violin. Include singing, rapping, beatboxing and/or scat singing if relevant. Separate multiple entries by using commas, flatlist or hlist. Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used.'"
 * Sorry I'm missing some formatting, but the idea is still there. "Separate multiple entries...." It is possible to do exactly that and keep a short list in the infobox where it belongs in this case. You and other people are most welcome to list other instruments elsewhere. I also take exception to your characterizing my edit as that of a fan and not a Wikipedian. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I would appreciate it if you would please revert yourself because I have reverted your edit twice today. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to flatlist or hlist two entries.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to correct your edit, User:Mlpearc. It is inaccurate and not fair to say Prince was a musician with two instruments, vocals and guitar. Just before he died he started a Piano & a Microphone tour in Australia. He is playing keyboards on the song How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore?. Yamaha delivered a brand new purple piano to Paisley Park during the same month he died. I really don't care how you punctuate it. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep arguing that he does play other instruments, I have never said that he doesn't, ofcourse he plays other instruments, he's a multi instrumentalist. The issue is that all the instruments you are bringing up are considered (at this time) secondary and they do not belong in the infobox.  Cheers,   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 04:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose to just omit the instruments section. The occupations section calls him a singer-songwriter as well as a multi-instrumentalist. This is perfectly correct. But an instruments section naming just two (or three or four) instruments this artist has played doesn't seem appropriate to me. --Toni am See (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can live with your proposal, User:Toni am See. (Even though I prefer instrument = guitar · keyboards · vocals .) Thank you again to User:Mlpearc whose edit saved this article from WP:COATRACK. He did not have consensus, however, for adding his HTML comment (asking for consensus from everybody else) and is still unaccountable for selective reading of the infobox guidelines. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It can not be selective reading, because I've read the documentation many times and have reverted many edits quoting that doc, it must be a different understanding of them. Cheers,   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we may have different understandings. The first three examples I looked at like David Bowie (an FA) have enough room for another instrument. This article does too. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Room ? you just don't get it, I'm done. Happy editing.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Mlpearc, there is no good reason to take offense at my figure of speech. If Wikipedia says David Bowie played guitar, saxophone and vocals, by gum, Wikipedia can say Prince played guitar, keyboards and vocals. I am afraid to say it but your construct of "secondary" instruments is not written in the guidelines. It's apparently something you created because you find it to be useful. Good luck! -SusanLesch (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha. I see now where you get secondary. "Primarily" is in the guidelines. But so is provision for a list of delimited instruments. In the case of Prince, omitting keyboards is inaccurate. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were you I would spend my energy seeking consensus (starting a new discussion would probably be best for your cause) for the inclusion of Keyboards, or try to get the template documentation changed, again happy editing. Also that was not a slam on your "figure of speech" my inference is "Room has nothing to do with what's included or not", actually there's room for every instrument ever conceived but, that's not the point.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 14:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. I've argued for two or three days straight in this thread. As far as I know you are the only person in the world who is arguing against keyboards being listed here. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, SusanLesch. I have been bold an just have done it. (Excuse for my maybe simple wording as English isn't my mother tongue). --Toni am See (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will fly, Removing the issue just to satisfy personal preference and not considering the template guidelines is a one-sided argument. I'm not going to revert your edit at this time as I'm sure it won't be there long.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mlpearc, for not reverting the omission. Let's see whether or not it is regarded as one-sided by more users. Greetings, --Toni am See (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Toni am See. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016
Can you fix the IMDb link?

"nm2239" to "nm0002239"

Thanks.

206.45.9.182 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

overdose and death: source of the fentanyl
I have added the following text, with inline citation from a reliable source: "It is not known whether Prince obtained the fentanyl by a prescription or through an illicit channel." This text should remain until the source is identified.DiverDave (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section
He needs a legacy section Brodywitta (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)