Talk:Robbie Robertson/Archive 1

Reversion of own research


Hi Jerry, my name is Anna Robertson. Robbie Robertson is my father's cousin. He was not born to a Jewish father, he was born to a Scottish/Canadian father named Jim Robertson. James (or Jamie) had a troubled relationship with his father and told the media for years that he was instead born to a Jewish father and took his "step-father's" name. If he were to take a dna test, even though his real father is dead, you would find him the son of Jim. Take my word for it! I am his family. Thanks! I was not trying to spam the website, I'm trying to explain the truth. Please feel free to correspond with me,

Sincerely, Anna Robertson


 * Hello,
 * Please tell me which article you are talking about. I have edited  over 500
 * recently, and your description does not ring a bell.


 * Thanks,
 * - Jerry


 * This is for Robbie Robertson, sorry forgot to mention that!
 * Thanks,


 * Anna Robertson


 * Hi, I have reviewed the edits to "Robbie Robertson" on the English Wikipedia in question.


 * In order for your point of view to be published in our article, you would need to cite a source. If you are providing the information as a first-hand source, then it is unlikely to be allowed.  You would first need to have the information published elsewhere, then use them as the source.  This is the "no own research" policy, and can be found at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy, and mandate the provision of sources. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.


 * Thanks,
 * Jerry

Jerry lavoie 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
other wikipedias tell: born in 1943...

Copied from Requests for comment/Request board
Maybe someone who knows about this more than I do can handle this:
 * In the biography of Robbie Robertson (a one-time member of the group "The Band"), it states: - Birth Name, Jaime Royal Robertson. In the article it states that Robbie took his stepfathers name Robertson when his mother remarried. So his birth name was not Robertson. Please can somebody insert Robbie's true birth name in the article. Thanks

harej 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

✅..This has come up before...and find it odd i cant fins the old topic..may have been deleted or was talk about somewhere else...You are correct Birth name is  Jaime Robert Klegerman ...I will change this, however GOOD references are hard to find!! ...Moxy (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Robertson's birth certificate reads Jaime Royal Robertson. Not Kelgerman. That was his birth father's last name but it was NEVER his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrophelia (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Image Not Considered Flattering
When I inserted one of two images in the infobox of this article, it was to replace the one of him in 1971. It was replaced with a promotional image, which I certainly don't have a problem with: but it was just removed without comment. Besides the image not being in crisp, clean focus there is absolutely nothing "unflattering" or "not representative" about it. It's a candid shot of him speaking at an interview. Because it's not a posed headshot it's somehow "horrible"? I am bewildered at the reasoning behind removing this image from the article. This is an encyclopedia, not People magazine - but even People has images of celebrities that are truly unflattering. I would like to hear some actual arguments as to why this image doesn't belong here at all. Doc  talk  22:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has plenty of images in the article that don't suffer from any of the weak points of this one (it's blurry, poorly lit and excessively cropped), and this particular photo isn't illustrating anything specific in the text of the article. It's too poor quality to enlarge and with its tiny size it is not adding anything to the article. I recognize the difficulties in getting a good grab shot—the last image I uploaded was the only one I thought good enough out of over 130 that I took at a recent concert—but it looks out of place in comparison with the others, and the description takes up almost as much space as the image itself on my screen. Particularly in an article this short, and with professional-level images present in the article already (including one taken this year), I'd be inclined to pass on this particular one. Risker (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are ten references for this "B"-class article. Ten. The tag at the top of the page says it all (and I didn't add it). Why is the promo image not in the Commons? Because it's not free. The "unflattering" and not "representative" aspect is a serious and project-wide implication, and this has now unwittingly become a Poster child case for it. It doesn't have to illustrate anything specific in the text of the article: this isn't a freakin' NFCC #8 situation here. It's him, it's not the lead image in the infobox (like the "professional" image from 1971, which looks nothing like he does today and was improperly caption-credited), and it's neither unflattering nor WP:UNDUE. If Robbie Robertson himself (as the original deleter of the image contends) doesn't like it: so what, really? It's not his "best side"? If it were not slightly blurry or less cropped, would that make a difference? How? Doc   talk  04:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, I'm sure you did the very best you could under the circumstances, but it's just not a very good photograph, I'm sorry to say. It's not adding anything to the article that isn't already there. If, for example, this radio interview contained some important statements by Robertson (and was available to be used as a reference source), the inclusion of that information would justify the photograph, even with its limited quality. But he didn't say anything that wasn't already known or had any particular importance, I assume. And yes, I appreciate the "free" part, but just because something is free doesn't make it encyclopedic. Risker (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no standard that I am aware of that requires images to have any textual corroboration other than NFCC ones. Could you point me to that, please? This seems like one of those arguments. Yes, I took the picture and am obviously a bit biased, but I would argue for its inclusion even if I had not. Doc   talk  06:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And not to "wax" here or be redundant but: wow. Also a "B"-class article. In the danged Infobox, no less. If you can explain to me how that blurry image can remain there while the one I uploaded cannot, I won't bother to look for other examples. ;> Doc   talk  06:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am arguing along the same line as the deprecation of "in popular culture" sections in articles. Sure, they're information. But they're not quality information and they add nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. A blurry, badly lit, poorly cropped grab shot that takes off the top of his head (even a free one) is not representative of the subject and is not helpful to the viewer's visual understanding of either the subject or the text of the article, which is the purpose of images in an article. Myself, I stay away from article ratings generally, but I have no idea what makes this article rate a "B" class; you'd have to talk to those who did the rating, and I'll lay odds it was done long ago. I'd say, though, that the Van Halen image actually does convey some information, such as the physical activity during the live performance. Out of curiosity, I note that your description says March 13, but the metadata says March 12 - not sure I understand the discrepancy. Could you add a bit more detail about the interview? What city and radio station, perhaps? Risker (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again: this is not a NFCC image deletion debate. The same arguments for deletion of a non-free image do not apply to a free one. We need all the images we can get in this visual age. The Van Halen image could be a cover band based on the ability to see the performers' faces. The Robbie Robertson radio interview was at Fordham University for WFUV. I was there, I took it, and I could prove it easily through station personnel who were also there that know me. The interview is surely interesting, and he talked about Scorcese, his new album featuring Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood, and many other things (it was an hour-long interview). Doc   talk  07:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I add this too: the lighting was hideous. The two images I uploaded were the only ones that were not completely out of focus from the outdated camera I had (with the fact he was moving around constantly and the soundproofing backdrop made that camera go "pixel-crazy"). There was a professional photographer there snapping away with a flash-equipped professional camera; but he didn't donate his images here because he's probably selling them for a profit. While the tip of his hairline is cut off in the image, it was not in the other one. File:RobbieRobertson2011.jpg He probably looks too "ethnic" in that one, though ;> Doc   talk  07:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you did your best to take a good photo in the circumstances; unfortunately, your best efforts didn't produce the result you had hoped for. Adding poor quality photos to articles *just because they're free* is putting "free" before "useful" or "informative" or "encyclopedic". It's a sign that the project is more focused on the *free* part of the mission than the quality of it. This is a worse article with the image than without it, in my opinion. But you'll note I have not thwarted your desire to show off your work: the image is still there. I'll just move on, since you've decided that anyone else's opinion on the image has no value. Risker (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not nearly as poor quality as it's being made out to be: at all. "Horrible", "dreadful", making it a "worse" article, "not encyclopedic". These are simply extreme over-reactions, really. My RL friends (who think WP is a joke, incidentally, and berate me all the time for working on it) whom I have showed both this image and the resulting discussion literally shake their heads at the stir this has caused. Take every blurry picture out of every article and make it policy across the board and we'll have something to talk about. Tom Waits - out-of-focus and looking like a simpering idiot in this image. It's not flattering at all: but it's there as it should be. I could find so many other examples if I needed to, really. The arguments raised for deleting this image from the article are simply not good enough or based in policy, and I've already said that I would defend the right for this image to be here no matter who took it. You don't seem to believe that, and for that I am sorry. Every opinion counts, and I don't appreciate being told that I'd simply ignore them. What happens in this case should be applied to all cases. Cheers... Doc   talk  08:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, you started this section asking for opinions of Wikipedia editors. So far, you've had zero support for adding this image to the article. You have ignored the opinions that editors have expressed, either by posting here or by their actions. You have countered every criticism with, basically, "well,I don't think it's that bad" or "hey, at least it's free!" - neither of which are good reasons to put an image in an article; those are simply reasons to not delete the image. Crummy photos in other articles is not an excuse for having one here, and each article is decided independently; we don't delete stubs because they're not complete and so on. Would you be trying to pull this line if it was a featured article? Risker (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can cross that bridge when we come to it, as FA's have slightly more than ten references for the content. There's a very long way to go, and this image does not "drag it down" as you have quite plainly stated. I started this section because both images were deleted twice initially: first with no reasoning given at all and then with "I Don't Like It" reasoning. Freaking out over an image that I uploaded in good faith to replace one from 40 years ago shouldn't be met with the arguments I've been seeing: especially from an Arbitrator. Trying to justify the Van Halen image with it being an action shot context compared to this one is literally grasping at straws. I've responded to Mrophelia on my talk page, and we can work it out between us, I feel. I'll point him to appropriate policy since he's asked, so you don't have to worry about it. "Crummy" indeed. Thanks... Doc   talk  00:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I'm not talking about Van Halen images, you are. And the image that you put into the infobox, which has now been replaced by something much better, is not the one you're defending now. (That one was even more problematic, and I can certainly understand why people might think it was added to disparage the subject, although I am absolutely certain that was not your intent at all.) I'm sorry that you're ticked off that someone has given you an honest assessment of this particular image. I'm sorry that you're offended that editors who are also arbitrators try to focus on improving the project the same way as everyone else does: one word, one sentence, one image, one page at a time. My being an arbitrator has not yet dulled my senses to the point that I will think that blurry, poorly lit, poorly cropped images are likely to help an article. Let's not make this any more personal, okay? I've gone out of my way not to make it personal about you. This is about the image, the quality of the image, and whether or not it adds anything to the article. What, exactly, do you think it adds? You've not really explained that at all.  Risker (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A better question, actually, is why aren't we using file:RobbieRobertson2007.jpg in this article? It's relatively recent, shows him performing, doesn't make him look like a glamour rocker, is nice and clear and its only significant weakness is a bit of blur around the left hand. It's free, too. It's not a brilliant image, but it is perhaps a more realistic depiction of him than either the one in the infobox now, or the one you are promoting. So, since we're talking about images for this article...what about this one? Risker (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should use that one too: there's no limit of images for articles that I'm aware of. Why on Earth would I be opposed to that one either? The one I'm deemed to be promoting adds additional visual information about the subject of the article. Maybe to some it adds that he likes to wear purple-tinted glasses, or that he gives radio interviews where an audience is allowed: but I don't think it's necessary to add that to the text of the article. It adds additional visual imagery of the subject as he appears in 2011. If it were so focused that you could see every pore of his skin, would it still be considered "crummy", "horrible" and "dreadful"? One inch higher of cropping, maybe? If I tracked down the transcript of the interview and found something particularly interesting he said and captioned the photo as the interview in which he said it, would that make a difference? I don't know. It's virtually impossible to not draw on examples in other articles when generalizations about other articles are invoked. Doc   talk  05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when images start to overwhelm the article (as they would if another one was added), that's not a good thing; it makes the text more inaccessible to the reader, and the text in this article is already somewhat challenging due to formatting and sparseness of information. The 2007 image has the added feature of being taken at one of the performances already mentioned in the article. What would really be helpful to this article would be a more fully developed discussion of Robertson's professional relationship with Martin Scorcese, which has been one of the major focuses of his post-The Band career. If he did much discussion of that in the radio interview, yes, that would help to give the image a better anchor in the article; it would be an image *about* something the reader can connect to, rather than just a random photo. (Or maybe he talked about his work with native musicians, or some other significant current focus that can be written into the article?) If you are able to recrop the image, I'd really urge you to do so; though it wouldn't make it a great picture, the cropping is one of its significant weaknesses now.  Perhaps also see if you can dig up someone who has some Gimp or Photoshop skills to see if it can be brightened up a bit. There's probably a userbox that says "this user knows his way around Gimp" or something like that, which might help track down somebody with the needed skills.  I'd not looked at your talk page until just a few minutes ago, and I think I understand a little better why you would really like to have this image in the article. It might also be a good idea to work with Mrophelia to get the proper clearances/licenses for either the current infobox image, or possibly an image of Robertson performing with the Red Road Ensemble. He might also have access to print articles that could be used to build and reference the article.  Risker (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool :> I'll see if I can get a transcript from WFUV, as he not only talked about Scorcese a lot, he talked about his former band-mates and tons of other things from his earlier life up to his new album (the first in 13 years). Mrophelia certainly would have an interesting take on the subject and a real interest in improving the article. I wish I could uncrop the top of the picture but that's the only shot I got of the two I uploaded: I'll look into enhancing it. The way it happened was: first I found out I was going to the interview, then I looked at the article and noticed that it seriously needed a photo update and thusly took the opportunity. I had no idea the events would've unfolded as they did, and I apologize to you and the others if I sounded like it was getting personal. It happens sometimes ;> Cheers Doc   talk  06:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (Groan). Hey, don't look at me - I had nothing to do with that on or off-wiki. Maybe we should put file:RobbieRobertson2007.jpg in the infobox until we see if we can get permission for the other one. What do you think? Doc   talk  07:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an excellent idea. Risker (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Doc   talk  15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guys- Why was the most recent image i uploaded removed? I have complete and total permission from the photographer. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrophelia (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An administrator deleted it here and ImageRemovalBot removed it here. Apparently it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of an image from his website. I mentioned this on your talk page: check it out. BTW, WFUV has an exclusive listen of the entire new album here; I'll find out tonight if the interview I was at is available, but I don't see it on their website as of yet. Doc   talk  23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Any idea on how i go about fixing this? I have all the information I need I simply think I filled out the upload form improperly. Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrophelia (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Image uploads (especially the work of others) are tricky. I actually have to go right now for a while (going into NYC to see a show), but if you carefully read WP:Requesting copyright permissions it's the best start. It's not rocket science, but it's a more complicated process than uploading a free image of your own work; it's all about obtaining the legal permissions to protect WP from potentially getting sued for copyright infringement. Hopefully Risker is watching and can assist you until I get back. Cheers :> Doc   talk  23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
Hey gang. I'm just wondering if anyone would be opposed to me using the 1971 image of Robertson in the info box, instead of the one that's there. I feel that the 1971 looks better in the infobox. It takes up less space and makes the infobox look much cleaner, in my opinion. There is no policy saying that the infobox must contain the most recent image availible. I feel that the 1971 image is much more exciting and adds more to the initial impression of the article. Cheers. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be opposed to that idea. Doc   talk  22:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Because a more recent picture should always be preferable to one that was from forty years ago. It's a good picture, don't get me wrong. But he doesn't look like that anymore at all, and we have free images to show more accurately what he looks like today. It's the infobox - the first image someone sees of someone. Unless Robbie had died in the 70's, it would be most irregular and unusual (in any article, really) to see this image in the infobox vs. a far more recent one. Doc   talk  03:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You say this like it's policy or a guideline. It isn't, as far as I can tell. I don't see why a more recent image is preferable for the infobox. I understand what you are saying but don't agree with it. What does it matter what he looks like now? This is an encyclopedia. Presenting information in terms of how current it is is subjective and not NPOV. In a hundred years, no one will care about having the most recent picture first, they'll want the most suitible picture. The older image of Robertson is a better one and it fits more cleanly within the infobox, not taking up so much real estate. An infobox is for quick and concise information and such a large image, the one that's there now, gets in the way of that. What does it matter that it's unusual to have an older picture? There are plenty of examples of infoboxes where more suitable pictures are used over more recent ones: Jimi Hendrix, Maria Muldaur, Jimmy Page, The Rolling Stones, Grant Morrison, Hayao Miyazaki ... - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that your insistence that the 1971 photo is "better" coincides with the fact that you are the uploader of that photo. You are perhaps a bit biased in your assessment of this photo being the best, most suitable illustration of Robbie Robertson for the infobox. Hopefully some others will give their opinions. Doc   talk  07:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to understand how me being the uploader might make me more biased, if you'd care to explain. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I mean, if it wasn't your upload and you felt as strongly about it as you do, it would appear that you were coming from a more neutral position. But since it is your upload, naturally anyone would take that into consideration. Haven't you been following the recent history of the images on this page? I uploaded the most recent of all the images (the one I took of him at WFUV radio interview) and put it in the infobox because the picture you had there is 40 years old. When the quality of the photo was brought up as an issue, I agreed to a compromise where the current image (which was taken by neither myself nor you) was a perfectly acceptable one for the infobox. Your other examples of artists are good (except maybe Hendrix, as he died within a few years of that image anyway); but we're going to need to hear from more people on this. You're for it and I'm against it - and that's certainly no consensus. Doc   talk  21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the image because it was availible and free. It's not like I took the photo. It's not like having a photo I'd uploaded in an infobox is going to get me more pizza at the next annual Wikipedian Pizza Party. I just honestly feel that having the older picture in the infobox serves the article better. It's a much more dynamic photo, IMHO. Also, I feel that landscape images work better for infoboxes. Also, placing the 1971 image in the infobox would make room in the The Band section for another photo of him, one where he's actually playing with The Band. You removed the image because it'd old and that isn't a valid reason. Anyhow, you're right about concensus being the best way to decide this. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The current image in the infobox is there after a few different things happened, and we know this is true. I originally wanted to replace the infobox image not only because I had an opportunity to take a more recent free photo (which wound up through compromise being further down in the article), but also because the '71 image is not iconic enough to identify Robbie for this article. It's a B&W profile shot of him from a time when he looked unlike he did for the vast majority of his career. I will never waver from that opinion: but it is just my opinion. Doc   talk  03:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

External links is not a parking lot for sources. They belong here, on talk pages
Please place unused sources here, on the talk page where they belong. Warning-- I moved these links from External links but didn't look them over to see if they are acceptable for use. Thank you!! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Robbies page on The Band web site, a definitive fan-site


 * Interview with Robbie Robertson KUOW Radio
 * Maple Music: Robbie Robertson
 * on Myspace
 * Robbies page on The Band web site, a definitive fan-site
 * Interview with Robbie Robertson KUOW Radio
 * Maple Music: Robbie Robertson

Jewish Father?
Why no mention of Robbie's Jewish Father? Robbie is very proud of the fact that his Father was Jewish and that he self-identifies as a Jew himself as well. Why no mention of this important fact? (120.149.122.57 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Here, "facts" are presented using reliable sources. Unless you have a reliable source clearly stating that he is "very proud of the fact that his Father was Jewish and that he self-identifies as a Jew himself as well": do not add it. Doc   talk  09:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Robbie Robertson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517172648/http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com:80/inductees/03_robbie_robertson.xml.htm to http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/inductees/03_robbie_robertson.xml.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Birth name
Just curious…how could he have been born Jaime Royal Robertson if he didn't take the surname Robertson until he was adopted later in life? Is there a better way to present his name, since he clearly was not born with it? Gaiole (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be odd indeed to give a child surname that belonged to neither of his parents, and it would be a remarkable coincidence if his later adopted father just happened to have that same surname. I think we can reasonably assume until we have actual evidence demonstrating otherwise that Robertson was not born Jaime Royal Robertson. Yes, there are many better ways to present Robertson's name (and no worse way). We might say, for example, that Jaime Royal Robertson is Robertson's full name. TheScotch (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I fixed this based upon this source: Ulmanor (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I had found a source and changed this, but it was reverted. I'll change it back because that doesn't make sense to me. Does anyone have other thoughts? Ulmanor (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey there everyone, this is Keyboard warrior killer, the fellow who has been putting up the new info in the Robbie Robertson page. I've been talking with the Robertson family (i.e. Robbie's kids) and they have talked to me extensively about their and Robbie's shared concern about the portrayal in Wikipedia and elsewhere of Robbie's birth name; apparently this has been a pretty frustrating issue for them.


 * My understanding is that Robbie is going to explain that his birth name is Jaime Royal Robertson, and explain how it happened that his biological father was named Klegerman but his birth name is Robertson (his adopted dad's last name), in his autobiography Testimony, which is coming out in November. I've been asked to keep the way this happened quiet for now, but I will say that there is one highly unlikely but plausible way that it can happen, and amazingly enough, it did indeed happen.


 * To the best of my knowledge, the claim that Robertson was born with the last name Klegerman comes from the book Whispering Pines (2009) by Jason Schneider, and this was published in Wikipedia, and then repeated elsewhere in other articles because it was in Wikipedia. But according to Robbie and his kids, this information is incorrect.  If you look at the bio on Robbie's official website and in the book |Rock and Roll Highway (2014), the latter a children's book about Robbie that his son Sebastian wrote about him, both of these sources state in no uncertain terms that his name is Jaime Royal Robertson.  That said, I do agree that neither says he was "born" with that name, so that makes it a little more difficult.


 * I really like the idea suggested above by TheScotch, and I think that it would be a really good way to keep everybody happy until the full info comes out in the Testimony bio this November, and then at that time, we can source the information presented in that book. I hope reverting to TheScotch's suggestions will be a satisfactory temporary solution in the meantime.


 * I sure appreciate all you good people doing your part to get solid info on Robbie out! And I've got even more new and expanded info on Robbie's life and career coming to this Wiki article, so look for that. Cheers!


 * Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I just looked at the infobox for musicians and there are places for "birth name" and "native name", but not "legal name". So I thought it would just be best to remove the reference to "birth name" altogether in the infobox for now. I also reverted to the wording suggested by TheScotch in the "Early Life" section. Again, this is a temporary fix; we'll get the info as per The Man Himself when it comes out in the Testimony book in November. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been changed again on the page. Who's read Testimony and can chime in on any insight it might provide? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In Testimony - it is stated that he was born Jamie Royal Robertson (see page 27). The confusing story is elaborated upon in more detail on pages 62, 63 and 64. His mother Rosemarie "Dolly" Chrysler knew and committed to marry Jim Robertson before Robbie was born. When Jim was on a tour of duty a thousand miles away, the book claims that Dolly and Alex Klegerman "grew closer and closer." It was after Klegerman died that she discovered she was pregnant. Soon after, Jim returned and married Dolly. Robbie initially grew up believing Jim was his father, but at a later date, Dolly took Robbie to meet with Alex Klegerman's two brothers and tell them that Alex was Robbie's father. According to the book, the brothers accepted Robbie into their family and noticed a resemblance. At the same time, Jim Robertson claimed that he was Robbie's father and that Dolly was saying otherwise out of anger. There is no mention of a DNA test, but Robertson accepts Klegerman as his father.


 * Long story short, the birth name should be changed back to Jamie Royal Robertson. I'm not sure how much of this other detail (if any) belongs in the article. What do you think? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As of earlier today, the body of the article conflicted with the infobox as to Robbie's birth name. The body of the article said Klegerman, but the infobox said Robertson. A Google search reveals that there are conflicting sources. I have removed the birth name section from the infobox and tagged the Klegerman assertion in the body of the article as dubious. Tidewater 2014, would you be willing to add the information you posted above in December 2018 to the article? The best thing would be to get ahold of a copy of a birth certificate to resolve the question once and for all, but that is easier said than done. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Robbie Robertson is friends with Tom Hanks
I seem to remember reading a Rolling Stone interview from 2012 that mentioned that Rita Wilson and Tom Hanks had known Robbie Robertson since the early Nineties...could someone at least put that in the article? 2601:C6:8480:1F10:B4C7:7785:75D6:A84F (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Why? Robertson, apart from his career with The Band and other groups, has long been very much in the movie music business.  I'm pretty sure he has many friends both sides of the camera, so any friendship he may or may not have with Wilson and Hanks is not notable. Cross Reference (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wife & mother of three children
In light of how most biographical Wikipedia articles are written, it's peculiar that in the Personal section nothing more in said about Dominique Bourgeois, Robbie's first wife and mother of three of his children. As he explained in Testament, she was French Canadian from Quebec, they met in France, and she was an aficionado of poetry. Also, I believe she was some sort of counsellor or psychotherapist in her professional life.

As well, although Robbie's marriage date with Dominique is given in the Personal section, after that Robbie's marriage to his current wife is the next item — but no divorce year from wife number one. I'm pretty sure Robbie is not a bigamist.Joel Russ (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)