Talk:Janis Joplin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Ugliest Man

While in college, a frat house voted her "ugliest man" on campus. This can be sourced, and I think should be added to the article, because it adds to the poignancy of her Ugly Duckling-like rise to fame. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mama Cass says "Wow" Citation

This has "citation needed". Will a link to the video of the actual performance and Mama Cass mouthing the words count? It can be found on youtube searching for "ball and chain janis joplin". It's her 1967 performance at the Monterey Pop Festival. Not sure if that's the kind of thing that can be cited, though. 82.69.214.14 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, YouTube isn't an acceptable source, as the clip shown on there is from copyrighted material, used in violation of it. I've seen this clip on a VHS or DVD somewhere, though I can't recall where. The tape or DVD would be an acceptable source, using the Wikipedia format for that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the clip again, you never see Janis and Mama Cass in the same shot so that could actually be from any part of the the festival, or even from another location altogether. So it may not be a reliable source anyway. 82.69.214.14 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you really serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.154.103.157 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citations and reference list

The reference list seems to be scrambled. Could it be sorted, please? (83.13.39.98 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Recent changes

There have been some heated and hearty battles over this article over the past year and the changes reverted tonight were done in consideration of that. I have returned some of the wording that was changed in edits tonight, including the change of the formerly contentious section title, which was ultimately titled "Contemporary concerns." The editor changed it to "Philosophy," which, similar to issues with earlier section names, implies much more regarding Joplin's viewpoints in life than what the section covers. This is also basically the reason I removed the phrase "believed in informed choice on drug use" because, essentially, it assumes facts not in evidence. We don't have material that supports what Joplin believed regarding informed choice. Our sources only say that she objected to dosing, but not specifically why she did. The only other change was to return the Wikilink to the gatecrasher disambiguation page, because although the specific use of the word is redlinked on the DAB page now a forthcoming article is possible. It doesn't need to be defined in this article since the DAB page gives the definition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Contemporary Concerns"

My eye kept catching on what I considered weak and disjointed narrative flow through this particular section, and that's what I was trying to improve with my edits here. I understand and accept the reasons for your reversions on the gate-crashers link and informed choice, and as a newbie editor, I appreciate the clarifications here and have learned from them. With regard to the informed choice addition, I understand now that writers/editors can't "invent" material just so it improves narrative flow, without specific evidence to support the addition. As an aside, I'd add that I personally don't agree with the Wiki stance that it's useful to link to articles that haven't been written yet, but I'm sure that battle's been fought at length elsewhere and it's one of those things that newbies should best just roll with at first.

The change I'm still not happy with is the reversion to the previous title of this section. I understand why you're not satisfied, Wildhartlivie, with "Philosophy", and struggled with it myself for the same reason you identified, but "Contemporary Concerns" is the kind of thing our strictest, tightest-bunned high school English teacher would have taken a red pen to in a split second glance. IMO, it adds nothing to the article as a linked subhead (because I doubt that a reader would click on that at the top of the article to see what Janis was "concerned" about), and I think particularly with the modifier "contemporary", it reads as meaningless, confusing jargon. I looked through the archives here and only found two brief references to this subject heading, with no illumination that I saw as to what the issues were; I did not go through all the old edits where perhaps some of this controversy was stirred. I see in the discussion Archives that you "like the title as it is now". But if others have expressed a problem with it, I'd encourage you to revisit the issue.

Is there another term which better summarizes what this section is about?... we could try brainstorming it... and if there isn't one, is perhaps the article better off without any heading there at all? For me, this one weakens it. Runnoft (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)RunnoftRunnoft (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I do appreciate your response. You have no idea what uproar something like this relatively minor change would have caused in the past. Without being too specific, versions of this article from six or eight months ago were rife with conjecture and speculation and it was very difficult to accomplish anything. My comment of liking the section title as it is now was mostly in comparison to some earlier titles for the section, including Very Different From Hippies And Grateful Dead Fans, Belief In Freedom With Responsibility Despite Others Saying "Without", and Belief In Freedom With Responsibility. This was also where arguments about facts not in evidence began. Points of view was my initial preference. I'm quite open to discussion about it, in fact, I welcome debate and discussion (as opposed to contention :) ). Another option would be to remove the section entirely, something I'd probably support. The article is quite lengthy and in some cases, overly detailed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re: the earlier versions of this section title, LOL, now I like the title as it is now!! Seeing my edits, you must have thought, Oh boy, here we go again! Sorry I wasn't hear awhile back to help offer support for good editing. Your reversion of my informed choice due to facts not in evidence was right on target. That edit was only an interpretation of facts on my part to help the flow, but that makes it not "encyclopedic" (nor necessary)-- lesson learned. As to taking down "Contemporary Concerns", you might leave the idea open for a week or two and see if others jump in and offer a dissenting opinion, but I think that's a reasonable way to go here. The narrative part of this article is up near 4500 words, getting close to the rough Wikipedia guideline of limiting articles to a maximum of 5000 words. Other recent additions IMO seem more important to me than this material. This paragraph still sticks out to me as "not fitting in", and as the most expendable of the sections. Sure, it's of some interest, and sure, it could fit well in and flesh out a 250 page biography of Janis Joplin, but if one is limited to 4000-5000 words, my vote is to make the article stronger by pruning this relatively weak, non-essential section. Runnoft (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)runnoft

I am all for removing the section, I too feel like it sticks out like a sore thumb. My vote is to prune it out as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Lose it. The section is odd to begin with and I don't understand why any of it is relative to Joplin's notability. I really don't understand why it's titled "Contemporary Conerns" either, but that's neither here nor there. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added Her 1965 Fiance And Her Fear Of Relapsing In 1966

What do people think of the edit I just made? I added stuff including her 1965 fiance (who visited her family's house wearing a suit and tie) and the fear she had of relapsing into drugs immediately after she arrived in San Francisco for the second time in her life. The only stuff that was already there that I changed had to do with sentence structure and spelling. For example, the word interviewed was missing an "e." The sentence about the end of her relationship with David Niehaus in 1970 was a bad sentence. I fixed a bad footnote for source # 12 (David Dalton) in the "Solo career" section. Sorry if you don't like it. Revert it if you must. Maybe the article has become too long. Nyannrunning (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of it is okay. Please bear in mind that the article is nearing size capacity and we are making an effort to shorten it somewhat. I again streamlined some of the article, and removed the phrase "drug-fueled lesbian relationship" on the basis that it is sensationalistic phrasing mostly based on Caserta's oft-refuted book. It wasn't a bad sentence. I also removed the quote from Friedman, because it's just too much fluff. The goal is to make it more encyclopedic and less novelized and unnecessarily detailed. I also don't know why you moved the last public appearance back before other appearances, which makes it achronological.
However, what footnote error was there at source 12? It was fine before your changes, but at the moment, before I fix it, you've removed the original anchor Dalton footnote and left a huge gap in the article with an error in a subsequent footnote. There are reference condensation links already established, those need to be used. No one is asking for page numbers on this article. Dooyar, you've been on WP too long for errors like that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you check your version dated March 22, you will see that one of the Dalton footnotes, including "St. Martin's Press," was part of the text. It's in the section "Solo career." The footnote was for the quote "... with 'Is she gonna make it?' in their eyes."

"Dooyar" needs a reference. Nyannrunning (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring The Section Titled "Contemporary concerns"

I'm restoring this section to see whether it actually makes the article too long. It is footnoted carefully. It is vital because it illustrates Joplin's brutal honesty, even when she preached against the then-popular belief that "everybody must get stoned." Just because she died from an overdose doesn't mean she supported all the behavior of other drug users.

To balance the restoration of "Contemporary concerns," I tried to retain the same approximate length by removing the paragraph about tattoos in the "Legacy" section. I am proposing the idea that Joplin's objection to dosing people with LSD without their permission is much more important than her being one of the first famous women to exhibit tattoos. Have you ever heard of someone being forced against his or her will to get a tattoo? Other than the Nazi Holocaust, of course. Tattooing is always voluntary, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s tripping on LSD was not always voluntary.

The Friedman book Buried Alive includes a tragic story that this article does not have room to add. Friedman claims that Joplin's anger about forced dosing rose sharply after the African American saxophone player in her Kozmic Blues band, Cornelius "Snooky" Flowers," was dosed without his permission at a Grateful Dead concert he attended with Joplin. Joplin was horrified to discover what was happening to him. She accompanied him to a hospital emergency room where she spent five hours holding his hand during negative hallucinations he suffered through. Though the article does not have room for this story, it illustrates why Joplin's anger about forced dosing was important. She made the remarkable statement that the dosers were hypocritically using the same tactic that the Leave It To Beaver culture of the 1950s had used to brainwash people. How does Joplin's death from heroin undermine this remarkable statement? Heroin, which is very different from LSD, does not cause horrifying hallucinations. In 1970, most heroin users did not brag about their use and did not walk up to strangers at concerts to stone them on this drug. Nyannrunning (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the diatribe about Snooky Flowers, your action completely ignores the earlier established consensus that this section did not fit in with rest of the article and the very clear consensus that it be removed. You don't have the right or authority to ignore consensus in this way. The length of the article was only secondary to the rest of the issue, which was that to the rest of us, the section didn't fit in. It is being removed once again as consensus determined for it to be removed. If you don't like that, open a dispute. The tattoo material has nothing to do with this section in any way and is perfectly acceptable in the legacy section, and your reasoning about forced tattooing is irrelevant. Dooyar, you know better than to buck consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time you have mixed me up with another editor named Dooyar. The other instances happened in other articles. If you can't keep someone's screen name straight, why should anyone believe your claim that there is a consensus about removing "Contemporary concerns?" What are the screen names of the editors in this consensus? The tattoo section is not part of "Contemporary concerns," but it is part of the Joplin article. It has only limited relevance because everyone who gets a tattoo consents to it. At the time Joplin died, not everyone consented to tripping on LSD. Joplin expressed anger about that. Let's see if anyone other than Wildhartlivie joins in here.

Also, I started a new chapter for Seth Morgan. Heading is "Personal life." I added a detail from Myra Friedman's book about Joplin's desire for a reporter from Time magazine to attend their wedding. Nyannrunning (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We know why I "mix up" you and Dooyar. That isn't the issue at the moment. The discussion to remove this section is directly above this section and includes myself, User:Pinkadelica and User:Runnoft. The discussion was open to anyone who wished to be involved and was given two months, which is more than sufficient time for dissenting opinions. You don't have the authority to come in and overturn and undermine consensus decisions regarding this, or any other, article. Your contribution history indicates you were on Wikipedia on many occasions between March 19, when the discussion was opened, and May 22, when the material was removed. Please abide by Wikipedia guidelines and cease circumventing the process for article change.
The tattoo section is not in any way related to the contemporary concerns section and any attempts to connect the two in rationale for removing one section are essentially irrelevant. Finally, the rest of Joplin's personal life is interspersed throughout the article in all other matters, so there is no value in sectioning out one relationship. If Friedman doubted her source for the attempt to get married, then the reference to it doesn't belong. If you disagree with any of this, kindly DO NOT continue to change the article without discussing changes on this talk page, since the format of the article at present is what consensus determined. If you don't agree, open a dispute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which of the Wikipedia guidelines are you relying on when you say "we know" about your confusion? Okay, open a dispute. I don't have the Wikipedia authority to open it. Nyannrunning (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In looking back over the history of this article, it is apparent that this particular section has always been a source of contention, between User:Dooyar and User:Nyannrunning on one side, and everyone else on the other. I, too, find it curious that these two seemingly different users would argue for what is now called the "Contemporary concerns" section in the same manner, for the same wording, using the same arguments, use of grammar and same logical processes.
Be that as it may, Wikipedia guidelines dictate that sections in dispute be discussed and a consensus be reached regarding content. That has occurred on this article, and Nyannrunning, the discussion regarding this section was started on March 19 & 20, and continued to consensus on March 25. You were in fact present on this talk page on March 25, and started a new section, while ignoring the discussion regarding this section altogether. It's my opinion that you had opportunity to register a dissenting opinion but did not do so. It is not acceptable to ignore a discussion, offer no opinion or imput about it, then return two months later to restore the section, simply because you want to, especially when, in the process, you acted first and attempted to justify it second. The response above about the size of the article was regarding completely different changes you made that day, and not the "Contemporary concerns" section, so your justification based on seeing what it would do to the article size was invalid. Further, since you didn't take advantage of the opportunity to discuss it, it is not appropriate to take exception to the decision now. WP:Consensus states clearly "Silence implies consent." There is no need for a dispute to be opened to reinforce that consensus was reached. AndToToToo (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems to happen every few months with this user and it's getting very old. This issue has been discussed and a consensus was reached, that should be the end of it. A new debate shouldn't be opened because one user (or seemingly...two) insists on putting in sections that have no relevance in an encyclopedic article, especially when specific reasons were given as to why that section should not be included. User:Dooyar & User:Nyannrunning have used these same tactics on other articles that Wildhartlivie and I have attempted to source and/or keep within Wikipedia guidelines. It's the same MO and, I'll bet good money that if a debate is opened (by natch, Wildhartlivie or myself), the user will conveniently disappear before the debate can be properly discussed and a version can be agreed upon. A quick look at Talk:Johnnie Ray and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Johnnie Ray will show that we have played this game before. Unless both Dooyar & Nyannrunning would like to explain why they both keep popping up on the same articles and using the same diversionary tactics in a vain attempt to get what they think is so paramount to the article included, I don't think another debate or this discussion needs to go any further. If the user(s) can't leave well enough alone, I'll be more than happy to open yet another futile mediation, but I'll also be opening up another check user report. Pinkadelica 05:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Pie

Citation Don McClean has never confirmed that he intended it to reference to Janis Joplin in American Pie, therefore saying he does is arguable at best. I'm deleting it. Gripdamage (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one way to word this, since McLean also did not deny it. It has been returned and reworded to reflect that McLean has not confirmed or denied it. Also please note that new discussion belongs at the bottom of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)