Talk:27 Club/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 27 Club. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Two sections into one
Having finally finished with the irrelevant debate of "is Winehouse 'good enough' for this club", can I suggest we resolve the issue of the arbitrary splitting of the club into two? There is no definitive "club", it is a notional club, a meme. So the idea that we can determine who is "usually" in the club, and who is not, is bogus. Even if we had some way of determining this through the sources, it would be a case of original research. Can we therefore have some agreement that Wikipedia does not attempt to rank the "members". All that should be required is a cite from a good, reliable source.
Equally, it is worth keeping in mind that this article does not have to attempt to list every "member" in order to adequately describe the concept to the reader. There is no real "club", so there is no real "membership list". It is therefore not a failing if Wikipedia does not list every possible, notional, member. The musicians mentioned can be limited to the better known examples, the ones that are most likely to mean something to the reader. There are more than a few people on the list currently who do nothing to better illustrate what "the club" is to anyone. This is particularly evident, I feel, in those cited to Forever27.co.uk and The27s.com. As websites devoted to the notion of musicians dying at 27, they do tend to be indiscriminate. Personally I think the article would be better without people solely cited from either.
What do you think? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- To paraphrase the article itself, the 27 Club consists of two related phenomena, both in the realm of popular culture. The first is a list of several famous musicians who died at age 27. The second is the idea that many other notable musicians have also died at the age of 27. So, when reliable third party sources talk about the 27 Club, they almost always say that it includes Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and, more recently, Kurt Cobain, and they often also say that it includes Robert Johnson and, now, Amy Winehouse. But the 27 Club is also the concept that a lot of other musicians have also died at age 27, hence the second list. This way of viewing the 27 Club is definitely not original research, the article is just reporting on what's said about this pop culture phenomenon. So in my opinion the two lists should be left the way they are now, as separate lists, and none of the musicians should be removed from either list. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea to have one long list, as long as the opening paragraph goes into a lot of detail about how the group "formed," and why some people think that Johnson, Cobain, and Winehouse should be part of the main list. Maybe we could make it say that Jones, Hendrix, Joplin, and Morrison were the original members because they all died within two years of each other, and were all 27. Then when people realized that Robert Johnson also died at 27, he was thought to be part of the "main club." Then when Cobain died at 27 he joined the club, and some people think that Winehouse joined it more recently. As long as it's clear that certain members stick out, I think it's a good idea to combine the lists into one. Woknam66 talk James Bond 01:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think there are two different questions here. One is whether or not the two lists should be combined into one list. The other is whether or not any musicians should be removed from what is now the second list. In my view the answers are no and no, as I explained in my previous post. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at what you are seeing you'll see the problem; "they almost always", "they often also say". Who has determined this? Who did the research among all the reliable sources to find this out? At what point does mentions of one musician promote them from "sometimes" to "almost always"? Who decided where this threshold lies? This is where silly arguments about who should be in which list start, because in essence we are not using hard facts, or even original research to determine facts; we are talking about opinions. Someone is of the opinion that Robert Johnson is "almost always" mentioned as being in the club. But we have absolutely no evidence of this. All we can say for sure is a number of good, reliable sources mention him. That's all. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- That means we would just have a page listing musicians who have died at age 27. And then in all fairness, we would have to create a page of musicians who died at age 26, 25, 24....28, 29, 30....and so on, or delete this page. Woknam66 talk James Bond 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, everyone mentioned on the article should be cited to at least one reliable source that describes them as a member of "the 27 Club". This article is not List of musicians who died aged 27. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have completely missed the point of what I said.... Woknam66 talk James Bond 16:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have I? Or have you missed mine? I guess we'll never know. If only there was some way of finding out..... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have completely missed the point of what I said.... Woknam66 talk James Bond 16:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before, and I think the answer is pretty clear. Since the 27 club is a phenomenon existing in reliable sources, for a second list to exist outside of the primary list, at least one reliable source should speak of the deceased in a way that suggests possible 27 club membership. Any other inclusions here are original research and synthesis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- But I don't know of any sources that suggest possible membership. The sources either have them in the club, or do not have them in the club. It is not up to Wikipedia to speculate what the source may be "speaking of in a way that suggests". We cannot create a two-tier membership based on nothing factual. There are no degrees of membership indicated in any of the sources. There are no "spoken of as possible members", no "suggested members", no "usual members", no "sometimes members". There are just "members". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If indeed sources talking about them shouldn't count for "possible" membership, or however you want to phrase it, then indeed the entire section should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If that's all that the cite consists of them we are in complete agreement. Unfortunately this division into two sections seems more based on an arbitrary, vague ranking invented by Wikipedia editors. There's an "elite" that Winehouse somehow had to demonstrate being worthy of being part of, and then an "others" that somehow have been deemed unworthy. All based on the spurious, unproven, unsourced research of the frequency that they are mentioned. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If indeed sources talking about them shouldn't count for "possible" membership, or however you want to phrase it, then indeed the entire section should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added an RfC (Request for Comment) below. I suggest that we continue this discussion there, so that any new comments are included in the latest discussion section. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
RfC: Should there be two lists of musicians or one, and who should be included?
Request For Comment summary: This article is about a pop culture phenomenon, having to do with rock musicians, and other musicians, who died at the age of 27. There is a long running discussion, or dispute, about the contents of this article. The discussion includes questions about how much of the current article, if any, is original research, and which sources should be accepted as references. We are trying to decide (1) whether there should be two lists of musicians -- a short primary list and a longer secondary list -- or one combined list, and (2) which musicians should be included. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Additional notes for those who comment on this discussion:
(1) Here are links to some of the previous discussion threads on this topic. You are encouraged to review them to see what other editors have already said about this:
- Talk:27 Club/Archive 2#Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article?
- Talk:27 Club/Archive 3#Unsourced entries need to be removed
- Talk:27 Club/Archive 3#Problems with this article
- Talk:27 Club/Archive 4#Two sections into one
(2) The article is currently locked because of edit warring about another argument -- whether or not Amy Winehouse should be included in the main list. We don't want to try to decide that in this discussion section. If you want to comment on that, please do so at Talk:27 Club#Discussion on whether to add Amy Winehouse to list. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This section listing citations from reliable sources will likely be useful in assessing this subject --ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:27_Club#Citations_from_Reliable_Sources
One or Two Lists
Picking up on Escape Orbit's last few comments on this subject in the section above, I can totally understand the difficulty with defining the two lists and it's tendency towards OR. However, there is a clear distinction between the 'core members' (I'm using that phrase for convenience, not to try and define anything) and others. To give a specific example, if you browse the citation list I posted further up the article, all of which are good quality references that directly address this subject, every single one of the lists the 'core members' as being part of the 'list'. Those people are without doubt in the 'club' and are universally cited as such. The vast majority of the 'second list' aren't referenced at all, which is perhaps a good criteria to remove them altogether. However, you have a couple of 'edge cases' as well. Richey Edwards of the Manic Street Preachers is mentioned in 3 of the sources, but not the others. Additionally, Roger McKernan of the Grateful Dead is mentioned in one cite, but none of the others mention him. So there is clearly some difference of opinion in what constitutes the 'club' and from a practical perspective there is both an 'always mentioned' and 'sometimes mentioned' group. However, while I can see that difference, I struggle to see how it can be described and referenced fairly in wikipedia without straying into OR or synthesis, both of which are rife on this page.
I think there are two general solutions to this (which funnily enough tend to map to the general inclusionist versus deletionist philosphies of wikipedia).
1. We acknowledge that there is a difference between the 'core group' and the wider list, which broadly maps to the two current lists, and find some mechanism to descibe and maintain it. I can see the distinction, but I'm not sure how it can be reflected in wikipedia policy without forming sythesis. Crucially none of the individual citations demonstrates this distinction, we are infering the distinction from the differences between different citations, which sounds very much like synthesis to me. It also tends towards a sprawling list, and the sometimes mentioned third list, which I think is becoming absurb.
2. We more ruthlessly apply the standards of citation quality, specifically we exclude the various self published and fan site refs and also any ref that doesn't directly address the 27 club (as opposed to just confirming that person X died aged 27), sticking to high quality, non primary citations (so the various 27 club books are out as they are part of the phenomenon and therefore primary sources). That would give us a vastly reduced list, which I think would largely negate the need to have two segregated sections. As a futher suggestion, if the list is ordered by the date of death, it will tend to put the 'core members' towards the top, without giving them any particular inferred notability, so we preserve some of thier 'status' without doing OR and with an NPOV mechanism for doing so. The major downside to this solution is that I can forsee a long running continuation of the current Amy Winehouse edit waring, as people try and get thier pet favorite included. Yes this can be controlled via citations, but it could be an exhausting process. Whereas if we had a secondary list to drop the lesser names into it would reduce this. But should we formulate articles just for editor convenience?
In the past I've generally favored the first approach above, as by reading citations I can see a clear distinction between the 'founding entries' and the others and it seems logical to try and reflect that. But the more I think about it, the more I think this is OR or synthesis, so my !vote today would be for option 2. We reduce to one list, then strictly apply wikipedia citation policy to trim the list down to something more manageable. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good summary, which I am broadly in agreement with. It's also worth noting that, if we were to accept reference counting as not "research", then very few sources claim to be all-inclusive lists. Richey Edwards' absence, for instance, from one source does not necessarily indicate that that source believes he is not in the club. Assuming this would be just one more way that this would be OR.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Criteria for inclusion
Seperate from the discussion above, I've long held that the criteria for inclusion on the article should be a citation which directly links a particular person's death to the phenomenon of the '27 club' itself, and not just any random person who happened to die aged 27. This removes all the irrelevent faff about each persons relative artistic merits, we just look to which artists have been included in this group by independant good quality secondary sources, and list those, just as we do for every other article on wikipedia. There is of course a secondary discussion about the relative quality of those sources, but I think I've addressed that above. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I very much think that, in this case, the primary sources are valid references, and that anyone mentioned in any of them should stay in the article. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Clearly this article is one of the times when it would be appropriate to use primary sources, since there is no interpretation involved -- it's just to show that someone has been listed as a member of the 27 Club. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The difficulty here is what are you defining as a primary source? Only ones I can think of are official websites of the artists (which generally will inflate the significance of the artist, and their death) or an official Club 27 website, of which there is none, nor can ever be one. So all we're left with is non-official list websites, which have an interest in maximizing numbers on the loosest of criteria, and so are poor quality sources. Far better would be secondary sources that are not officially in the business of talking up the concept of there being a club. These are a much better indicator of whether it is generally felt that someone should be considered in the club. (I know that sounds vague and weaselly, but it's the best we can do for something that doesn't actually exist.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think the various websites would fail WP:RS anyway as they are largely self published fan sites. However, there is at least one published book of I think suitable notability, which is probably good enough. This I think is still a primary source and I'd personally not use it, but it can be argued either way. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The difficulty here is what are you defining as a primary source? Only ones I can think of are official websites of the artists (which generally will inflate the significance of the artist, and their death) or an official Club 27 website, of which there is none, nor can ever be one. So all we're left with is non-official list websites, which have an interest in maximizing numbers on the loosest of criteria, and so are poor quality sources. Far better would be secondary sources that are not officially in the business of talking up the concept of there being a club. These are a much better indicator of whether it is generally felt that someone should be considered in the club. (I know that sounds vague and weaselly, but it's the best we can do for something that doesn't actually exist.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The primary sources are books or web sites devoted to the 27 Club. Looking at what is currently the second list in the article, there are 43 musicians listed, 34 of whom have at least one reference. For those 34, there are a total of six different sources. Two of the sources are primary sources -- The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll and Forever27.co.uk -- and the other four sources are secondary sources -- StarPulse, Ranker, BuzzFeed, and Yahoo Music. But more sources can be added -- for example, the Telegraph article about Amy Winehouse lists Richey Edwards as a member. So, yes, both primary and secondary sources should be used for this, and anyone with a reference should be left in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Seperate from thier status as primary/secondary, I'm not convinced that sites like forever27.co.uk meet WP:RS--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The primary sources are books or web sites devoted to the 27 Club. Looking at what is currently the second list in the article, there are 43 musicians listed, 34 of whom have at least one reference. For those 34, there are a total of six different sources. Two of the sources are primary sources -- The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll and Forever27.co.uk -- and the other four sources are secondary sources -- StarPulse, Ranker, BuzzFeed, and Yahoo Music. But more sources can be added -- for example, the Telegraph article about Amy Winehouse lists Richey Edwards as a member. So, yes, both primary and secondary sources should be used for this, and anyone with a reference should be left in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is pop culture we're talking about here. I'd prefer to source the article from the Proceedings of the Royal Society, but they've never taken up the question. Yes, a bit of lighthearted sarcasm, but my point is that in this context both primary and secondary sources should be used. The goal of the sourcing is to show that a particular musician has been listed as a member of the 27 Club, which, we all agree, is not an official designation but a "notion", and I think that's a good word for it by the way. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing my point, seperate from the question of whether we should use primary sources, I don't think those websites meet the quality criteria to be considered reliable. If a source is not reliable it is not a source. For very marginal subjects where sources are hard to come by, there can be an argument to use some latitude with dubious sources in absence of anything else (although equally it could be argued that the subject simply isn't notable). However, that clearly isn't the case for this subject. We have a lot of very good quality reliable sources, so I see no reason to include dubious ones. Frankly the same argument goes for primary vs secondary. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that primary sources shouldn't be used, and since we don't need to here why make an exception?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm prepared to discuss, or let others discuss, which of the sources are very good quality and which are dubious. So far I haven't seen any compelling arguments on that subject, and in my opinion all of the sources currently in the article are good enough to be used there. But you say that "Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that primary sources shouldn't be used..." On the contrary, the guidelines are very clear that they can be used, carefully and without editorial interpretation. For links to the relevant guidelines please refer to my post above, dated "12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)". We "need" to include these links to document which musicians have been listed as part of the 27 Club. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- My point was it is questionable whether these even qualify as primary sources. Anyone can go make a website that lists names of musicians. I could go do that right now, and have a source to cite by the end of today. If you look at, for instance, http://www.forever27.co.uk, it's pretty clear that it's just some guy's website. http://www.the27s.com/, on the other hand, is simply about advertising a book on the subject. That doesn't qualify them as primary sources, and doesn't necessarily make them reliable sources. That's not to say I am totally against their use, but I don't believe Wikipedia should simply be a mirror of their content, with inclusion purely on their say-so. Part of what makes the 27 Club is that it's musicians that you may actually have heard of and their death might actually have been reported in reliable sources. Otherwise we have no real criteria for inclusion other than "died at 27, had been seen to strum a chord/sing a song on occasion". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:25, 2 November 2011
- I'm prepared to discuss, or let others discuss, which of the sources are very good quality and which are dubious. So far I haven't seen any compelling arguments on that subject, and in my opinion all of the sources currently in the article are good enough to be used there. But you say that "Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that primary sources shouldn't be used..." On the contrary, the guidelines are very clear that they can be used, carefully and without editorial interpretation. For links to the relevant guidelines please refer to my post above, dated "12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)". We "need" to include these links to document which musicians have been listed as part of the 27 Club. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing my point, seperate from the question of whether we should use primary sources, I don't think those websites meet the quality criteria to be considered reliable. If a source is not reliable it is not a source. For very marginal subjects where sources are hard to come by, there can be an argument to use some latitude with dubious sources in absence of anything else (although equally it could be argued that the subject simply isn't notable). However, that clearly isn't the case for this subject. We have a lot of very good quality reliable sources, so I see no reason to include dubious ones. Frankly the same argument goes for primary vs secondary. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that primary sources shouldn't be used, and since we don't need to here why make an exception?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is pop culture we're talking about here. I'd prefer to source the article from the Proceedings of the Royal Society, but they've never taken up the question. Yes, a bit of lighthearted sarcasm, but my point is that in this context both primary and secondary sources should be used. The goal of the sourcing is to show that a particular musician has been listed as a member of the 27 Club, which, we all agree, is not an official designation but a "notion", and I think that's a good word for it by the way. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So far three of us have been dominating this discussion -- ThePaintedOne, Escape Orbit, and myself. I'm hoping that a lot more editors will be giving their opinions. I posted a Request For Comment four days ago, in hopes of getting some new views from editors who haven't posted here before, and so far exactly zero of them joined the discussion. This article gets between five thousand and ten thousand hits a day, so it's certainly a subject that Wikipedia readers are interested in. Anybody out there? — Mudwater (Talk) 12:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I've stepped back from the discussion. I think we've all clearly stated out positions in this section, we need more opinions to help move things along. Right now me and Escape Orbit seem to be in broadly the same place, but I'm not remotely happy that 2-1 amongst just three editors constitues consensus.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggested Compromise
As we don't have any further input; can I suggest a compromise that hopefully everyone may be satisfied with?
- One list.
- Sorted by date. This has advantage of listing the "founding members" towards the top.
- Including all of the cited persons currently there, who have their own personal Wikipedia article. This helps establish a notability thresh-hold.
- No photos. Giving everyone one, (if we have a licence-free one for each), is over-kill. Giving one only to some is messy and suggests a hierarchy that we cannot adequately demonstrate in good sources.
- Specific mentions of "founding members" and "usual members" in the body of the article, as part of a cited and sourced discussion of what prompts mentions of inclusion, and what publicises "the club" to the general public.
Sound ok? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- To me that actually seems like a reasonable compromise among the small number of opinions that have been expressed. However I suggest that any of the cited persons be left in the list, whether they have their own Wikipedia article or not, because (1) everyone currently in the list either has their own article, or at least was in a band that has its own article, and (2) notability in the Wikipedia sense becomes less important if we are listing people strictly on the basis of citations. So for example Sean Patrick McCabe, who happens to have four citations, would stay in the list. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a sensible structure, however, I think we still need to define the criteria on citations. Specifically, are we talking citations that just show someone died aged 27 (as was the practise in the past), or do we need citations that specifically link a person to the concept of the 27 club? Secondly, some judgement around the primary/reliable sources issue is needed and in particular whether the 27 club websites and books should be used as citations as whether or not we include them will make a substantial difference to the makeup of the final list.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- My understanding of the proposed compromise is that (1) the citations should link the person to the 27 club, and (2) the 27 club websites and books are considered valid references. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cites definitely need to establish link to "Club 27" (or similar name). Simply citing that they died aged 27, and then suggesting that they should therefore be in the club is original research.
- My purpose of limiting the list to just those with a Wikipedia article is that we need some kind of threshold, otherwise anyone who ever played in a band of any sort can arguably qualify, and we are obliged to list everyone who may appear in the "27 club list websites". As I've said before, these websites are not great, and have an interest in inflating numbers. A cite from a third party source not dedicated to the club is a far better indication that the person's death is notable and is considered by third parties as a "27 club" matter. One of the more obvious aspects of being in the club is being an relatively well-known musician, with perhaps some of the lifestyle choices that can go along with that. A report of their death in a reliable source helps establish that, I couldn't say the same of the list websites.
- Personally I would remove all that are sourced just to these websites, but I thought limiting it to people who have a mention in Wikipedia was a fair compromise. If you think that's too strict, we could go with those who were members of bands with articles, although I'm not sure if that would actually whittle the list down any. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that we are all agreed that citations should be specific to the 27 club, so I think that can be put asside. With regards the quality of ciations, I don't think the 27 club websites meet WP:RS, as they don't seem to have any professional editorial control, but are rather run by fans seeking to put up as much content as they can, and therefore shouldn't be used to support this article. However, taking on board Mudwaters line on primary sources from before, I think a formally published book on the subject is an acceptable source. Checking the primary source policy I think it doesn't exclude those books and in pretty much any other subject a published book is accepted as a source, so I think it would be peculiar to say differently here. That would leave us with normal third party citations (web or otherwise) and the 27 club published books. I think that given the inherant notabillity of those sources, the issue of having a wikipedia page becomes moot. If you are notable enough to have third party sources link you, or for someone to put you in a published book linking you to the club, odds are you are notable enough to have a wiki page even if it hasn't actually been created yet (those same sources would likely support such an article). If the odd marginal person creeps in that way, c'est la vie, no system is going to be perfect. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's a bit of confusion in this talk page sub-section, because we're mixing together two related but different things. One thing is our own positions, and the other thing is the suggested compromise. My own position hasn't really changed. I still think that the article should be left pretty much the way it is. None of the musicians should be removed. Because part of the 27 Club concept is that a lot of musicians have died at age 27, it's okay to list notable or semi-notable musicians, without references, and that's not original research. Also it's better to keep the two lists separate. When I said that references should show that a musician has been associated with the 27 Club, I was talking about the suggested compromise. As far as the compromise itself, there's confusion just about that, at least for me. Escape Orbit, when you posted that, here, you said, "Including all of the cited persons currently there, who have their own personal Wikipedia article. This helps establish a notability thresh-hold." One thing about this is that, as I said in an earlier post, I think that a better compromise is to not require that they have their own article. But another thing is that I took you to mean that any of the current citations are valid, because you said "including all of the cited persons currently there". Is that what you meant? In later post, here, ThePaintedOne started talking how 27 Club websites should not be used as sources. So, there is confusion or at least disagreement about the proposed compromise. If we're saying that anyone currently on the list with at least one citation would be left in, then I would agree to the compromise, including the other points such as one combined list and no images. If not, then I believe I would not agree. As far as the other point in your most recent post, ThePaintedOne -- that among primary sources, "a formally published book on the subject is an acceptable source" -- I'm rather sure that the 27s.com web site lists the exact same musicians as the book The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll -- the web site is directly associated with the book -- so that would seem to mean that, in your view, anyone cited on that web site, and therefore the book, would be acceptable. There's only one other primary source currently being used, which is forever27.co.uk. There are a few musicians cited with forever27.co.uk and not with 27s.com, but all of them also have secondary source citations, except for Richard Turner. So if we accept 27s.com but not forever 27.co.uk -- and I think we should accept both, as I've said -- only Turner would be taken off the list. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is confusion, the compromise suggestion didn't address this issue which I think is important to clarrify. Personally I don't think an artist having a wikipedia page is relevent to this page, neither do I think the current list makeup should be set in stone. Once we decide the criteria we look at the list again, entries shouldn't be grandfathered into the new list. I think the published books are good sources, I think the various fan sites aren't. Not because they are primary sources, but because they fail WP:RS. You mention a particular website that directly supports the book, if the two have the same list of people then it's irrelevent whether we include the website or not. They are in effect one citation really, rather like an online copy of a newspaper article. As for what impact all this will have on the list, I've not actually checked how many entries are supported by any given citation source, so I've no idea what impact my suggestion here will have. I don't think the effect on the list is relevent, we should decide the correct way to apply wikipedia policy and let the list reflect that. If that means it stays exactly as it currently is, I have no problem with that. Equally if half the entries were removed as a result I would agree with that too. We should decide the policy application in the abstract, not based on how many entries it supports. Moving forwards though we'll have a clear and objective criteria to apply for any new entries that are suggested.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- How about I start by implementing the following, then we can see how things stand?
- * One list
- * Sorted by date
- * Only those cited (regardless of the source)
- * No photos
- --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is confusion, the compromise suggestion didn't address this issue which I think is important to clarrify. Personally I don't think an artist having a wikipedia page is relevent to this page, neither do I think the current list makeup should be set in stone. Once we decide the criteria we look at the list again, entries shouldn't be grandfathered into the new list. I think the published books are good sources, I think the various fan sites aren't. Not because they are primary sources, but because they fail WP:RS. You mention a particular website that directly supports the book, if the two have the same list of people then it's irrelevent whether we include the website or not. They are in effect one citation really, rather like an online copy of a newspaper article. As for what impact all this will have on the list, I've not actually checked how many entries are supported by any given citation source, so I've no idea what impact my suggestion here will have. I don't think the effect on the list is relevent, we should decide the correct way to apply wikipedia policy and let the list reflect that. If that means it stays exactly as it currently is, I have no problem with that. Equally if half the entries were removed as a result I would agree with that too. We should decide the policy application in the abstract, not based on how many entries it supports. Moving forwards though we'll have a clear and objective criteria to apply for any new entries that are suggested.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's a bit of confusion in this talk page sub-section, because we're mixing together two related but different things. One thing is our own positions, and the other thing is the suggested compromise. My own position hasn't really changed. I still think that the article should be left pretty much the way it is. None of the musicians should be removed. Because part of the 27 Club concept is that a lot of musicians have died at age 27, it's okay to list notable or semi-notable musicians, without references, and that's not original research. Also it's better to keep the two lists separate. When I said that references should show that a musician has been associated with the 27 Club, I was talking about the suggested compromise. As far as the compromise itself, there's confusion just about that, at least for me. Escape Orbit, when you posted that, here, you said, "Including all of the cited persons currently there, who have their own personal Wikipedia article. This helps establish a notability thresh-hold." One thing about this is that, as I said in an earlier post, I think that a better compromise is to not require that they have their own article. But another thing is that I took you to mean that any of the current citations are valid, because you said "including all of the cited persons currently there". Is that what you meant? In later post, here, ThePaintedOne started talking how 27 Club websites should not be used as sources. So, there is confusion or at least disagreement about the proposed compromise. If we're saying that anyone currently on the list with at least one citation would be left in, then I would agree to the compromise, including the other points such as one combined list and no images. If not, then I believe I would not agree. As far as the other point in your most recent post, ThePaintedOne -- that among primary sources, "a formally published book on the subject is an acceptable source" -- I'm rather sure that the 27s.com web site lists the exact same musicians as the book The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll -- the web site is directly associated with the book -- so that would seem to mean that, in your view, anyone cited on that web site, and therefore the book, would be acceptable. There's only one other primary source currently being used, which is forever27.co.uk. There are a few musicians cited with forever27.co.uk and not with 27s.com, but all of them also have secondary source citations, except for Richard Turner. So if we accept 27s.com but not forever 27.co.uk -- and I think we should accept both, as I've said -- only Turner would be taken off the list. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think those are uncontrovercial changes and I support them. However, I don't want this to become the new status quo and the citation question never be resolved.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Uncontroversial" means that we all agree. I've been disagreeing all along with removing any of the musicians from the current list, so that's very much not uncontroversial. I've also been disagreeing with combining the two lists, so that's not uncontroversial either. So I think we're at somewhat of an impasse. The three of us have been unable to agree on how to proceed, and ThePaintedOne does not agree to accept Escape Orbit's proposed compromise. We've also been unable to get more editors to participate in this discussion, even with a Request For Comment, despite the fact that this article gets a lot of page hits. But since two out of three of us think that some changes are called for, one approach would be to implement the changes that Escape Orbit suggested in this post. As I've said repeatedly, I don't agree with them, but maybe by changing the article we will get more editors to participate in this discussion. That often happens on Wikipedia, I've noticed -- a few editors will have a lengthy discussion, but then more people join in once they see changes in the article. It's worth a try. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The edits Escape Orbit most recently lists above, and which I described as uncontrovercial, are the same as the originally suggested compromise. I've pointed out that the citations issue is still to be addressed, but said we can proceed with these interim changes anyway providing we come back to the citation question later. You previously described this proposal as a 'reasonable compromise' and EO has specifically said that for now we would leave in all cited entries, including from websites, which is what you previously agreed to. This is why it seemed uncontrovercial as of three editors talking here, one had proposed it and the other two agreed. To be honest I don't understand what issue you are still objecting to i the current proposal? Neither is it accurate to say I have blocked EOs compromise, I accepted all of it but posed a further question about citation quality which had not been addressed in the proposal. I still stand by that, I agree to all these changes, but I do think we should also agree a position on citation sources at some point. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- By saying that not all the current citations should be accepted, you did not agree to the proposed compromise, which was to keep all the currently cited musicians. And in fairness, I didn't completely agree to Escape Orbit's proposed compromise either, because I said that a musician having their own Wikipedia article should not be a requirement. So, we have not agreed, either on the compromise or on how to proceed in general, and the changes are not uncontroversial. But, rather than talking more about who said what, or who misunderstood who's talk page post, why don't we proceed as I suggested in my previous post -- to implement, for now, Escape Orbit's proposed changes. Not because we all agree -- we don't -- but because we're at an impasse, and we want a lot more editors to join in this discussion, so that we can try to form some kind of a consensus, or at least get more editors to comment. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I already agreed to that. To prevent this one point being either forgotten, or lost in an ever expanding indent here, I'll create a new section below to specifically discuss the citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I'll implement this as soon as I have the time in the next 24 hours. I hope it doesn't come to it, but if they're really unpopular, none of the changes preclude rolling back to what we had before. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done. What do you reckon? Still need to check some of the cites to make sure they actually mention the club, and aren't just confirmation of their death. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I'll implement this as soon as I have the time in the next 24 hours. I hope it doesn't come to it, but if they're really unpopular, none of the changes preclude rolling back to what we had before. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I already agreed to that. To prevent this one point being either forgotten, or lost in an ever expanding indent here, I'll create a new section below to specifically discuss the citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that if anyone "satisfies the criteria" but whose inclusion is "contested", or who are excluded because there are no citations... Well, I think there should be separate section for them. |\\~//| 05:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- the only grounds for contesting an entry is if there is no citation, in which case there is no grounds for keeping them on the article. It's hardly normal wiki practise to have a separate part of the article for uncited--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Or rather, notability. That's the threshold. And yes, if it isn't notable then it doesn't belong in the article. Sebastian Garth (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Notability isn't the criteria to apply. If the person's death can be found in a reliable source, and that source mentions it in connection with "the club", then we have both a cite, and an indication of notability. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Or rather, notability. That's the threshold. And yes, if it isn't notable then it doesn't belong in the article. Sebastian Garth (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I meant citations. Per WP:CITE "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article". So if you post up that $musician who died at the age of 27 is in the club and someone disagrees, a citation is required to demonstrate that they have been listed as a member of the club independantly of wikipedia. The notabillity standards are for articles as a whole, not individual facts within an article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I mean, if a page exists for the subject then no is citation needed. Otherwise, yeah. Sebastian Garth (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- having a page just means a person is notable, it doesn't mean they are considered a part of the 27 club. The citations needed here are specifically to show that link, not to establish general notability. Conversely if decent reliable sources show someone is included, but they don't have a page, they should still be included. (although odds are such citations would support an article anyway so it's a bit moot). Including here notable people who have never previously been linked to the club is WP:OR --ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Which Citations meet WP:RS
To discuss the existing citations and whether they meet wiki standards. I'm only looking at these briefly, so will put any I'm not sure about down below so they can be discussed further. This is not meant to be a final statement on them.
Uncontrovercial Citations
I think these are no-brainers for keeping as reliable sources.
1.^ After Nirvana Show airs on Saturday 3rd April 2100 - 2200". BBC. Retrieved 29 August 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/r2music/documentaries/nirvana_27.shtml) 2.^ Weiss, David. "Amy Winehouse & The 27 Club". Life Goes Strong. Retrieved 18 August 2011. (http://play.lifegoesstrong.com/amy-winehouse-27-club) 3.^ McMartin, Pete (2011-07-26). "The short foregone song of Amy Winehouse". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 2011-07-27. (http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/short+foregone+song+Winehouse/5158532/story.html) 5.^ a b Cross, Charles. "P-I's Writer in Residence Charles R. Cross explores the darker side of 'only the good die young' Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/P-I-s-Writer-in-Residence-Charles-R-Cross-1229072.php#ixzz1WQD7ympT". seattle pi. Retrieved 29 August 2011. 8.^ "Before I Get Old: 'The 27s' Made Early Exits". NPR. Retrieved 29 July 2011. 10.^ a b c d http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8657314/Amy-Winehouse-joins-the-Forever-27-club.html 11.^ "All about Brian Jones, by Anthony Bruno — "Death by Misadventure" — Crime Library on". Trutv.com. 1969-07-10. Retrieved 2011-07-23. 12.^ Wyman 2002, p. 329 14.^ a b http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amy-winehouse-27-kurt-cobain-214643 15.^ The Washington Post. May 11, 1998. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/joplin.htm. 16.^ Walt, Vivienne (July 19, 2007). "Postcard: Paris". Time. Retrieved April 23, 2010. 17.^ Walt, Vivienne. "How Jim Morrison Died". Time. Retrieved August 24, 2008. 18.^ van Gelder, Lawrence (March 3, 1998). "Footlights". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 August 2011. 19.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Blair, Kevin (24 July 2011). "The Forever 27 Club — Music's Growing List of Stars Who Died at 27 Years Old". StarPulse. Retrieved 9 September 2011. 20.^ "Amy Winehouse inquest records verdict of misadventure". The Guardian. 26 October 2011. Retrieved 26 October 2011. 21.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab "The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll". The27s.com. Retrieved 9 September 2011. 24.^ a b c d e f g h i j Stopera, Dave. "The 27 Club: 15 Other Musicians Who Died at Age 27". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 9 September 2011. 25.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t O'Connor, Rob (23 July 2011). "Twenty-Seven Members of the 27 Club". Yahoo Music. Retrieved 9 September 2011. 26.^ Smith, K. Alexander. "Richard Turner of Friendly Fires: 1984-2011". Retrieved 29 August 2011.
To be discussed
4.^ Sullivan, James (2011-05-27). "Robert Johnson Founds the '27 Club' With Devil Pact -- Twisted Tales". Spinner. Retrieved 2011-07-27. (http://www.spinner.ca/2011/05/27/robert-johnson-crossroads/)
and
9.^ http://www.spinner.com/2011/05/27/robert-johnson-crossroads/
Spinner is described by the wikipage as a blog site but looks ok to me.
6.^ "The 27 Club: Musicians Who Died Young". UpVenue. Retrieved 29 July 2011. (http://www.upvenue.com/music-news/blog-headline/1026/the-27-club-musicians-who-died-at-27-years-old.html)
Looks like a user publication site (e.g. like Cracked.com or IMDB), which are specifically excluded by WP:RS
7.^ "Heavier than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain". HyperionBooks.com. (http://www.hyperionbooks.com/book/heavier-than-heaven-a-biography-of-kurt-cobain/)
Cite doesn't mention the 27 club. This maybe means to cite the book, but at present is referencing the website.
13.^ The Final Days, Tony Brown excerpt quoted in http://woodstockhendrix.gobot.com/about.html
Looks to be a personal web page?
22.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t "Forever 27 Hall of Fame". Forever27.co.uk. Retrieved 9 September 2011. (http://www.forever27.co.uk/forever/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
Personal web page
23.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r "Members of the 27 Club". Ranker. 31 July 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2011.(http://www.ranker.com/list/members-of-the-27-club/famous-celebrity-deaths-list)
User published list site, definitely not an RS
Additionally, based on looking at the website, I'm not convinced this site is RS either
http://the27club.the27s.com/Forever27.html (Cite 21)
However, it associated with the book and I'm happy to take it on faith that it's content matches the book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePaintedOne (talk • contribs)
- I'm pretty much in agreement with the above.
- 6 - Borderline. I think the user generated content is the photos. The articles, including this one, appear to be written by staff members.
- 7 - Difficult to call without the book.
- 13 - Free website. Not a reliable source. Would be better cited to the actual book it claims to quote.
- 21 - Borderline. One of the problems is it appears to be mostly pretty fluff aimed at plugging a work of fiction that isn't, it actually says, a reflection of list.
- 22 - Another nice website, but I seriously think it's just some guy's hobby.
- 23 - Apart from being user generated, a large part of this website is sourced from Wikipedia, and possibly even the list cited is sourced from here. Wikipedia cannot act as its own source, so a definite no.
- --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd managed to miss the disclaimer on the 'The27s' website cite. For me it only stands up if it's a mirror of the book, or rather it's the book which is the quality citation and the website was a convenient way to reference it. But in light of the disclaimer I think the citation should be switched to the book itself and restricted to just what the book includes. Looking at the rest of the cites I put up as questionable, I'll dig a bit into the upvenue one to see if it stands, then remove all the non-RS cites and in turn any list entries that are only supported by them. With regards the Kurt Cobain book, I'll just take it out as it's not needed anyway and I'd need to get a copy of the book to carry on using it properly. If someone has a copy and can put in the proper ref though that would be fine.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Protection
Any chance we can have the semi-protection put back on again? Every time it drops off we get IP editors ignoring consensus and vandalising the article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just requested that the semi-protection be restored, here at WP:RFP. By the way, several editors have been reverting the removal of Amy Winehouse from the main section with edit summaries such as "revert vandalism", but edits by IPs removing Winehouse are not vandalism in the Wikipedia sense, which, per WP:VAN, "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." A better edit summary would be something along the lines of "Reverted edit by [IP address]; by consensus in multiple talk page sections, Winehouse should be included in the main list", or perhaps "Reverted edit by [IP address]; see Talk:27 Club#Discussion on whether to add Amy Winehouse to list. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's arguable but I see your point. There is a clear consensus on this subject, but we also have IP editors who have said on this talk page that they will wait for protection to expire and then take her out again regardless, so they are knowingly and deliberately ignoring consensus which I think becomes vandalism by dint of the intent. Of course we can't say for certain that these IP editors are the same as those IP editors, so we should assume good faith that this is someone genuinely editing in ignorance to consensus. However, we are making an effort to assume good faith and as such I wouldn't be too hard on anyone who calls that quacking thing a duck.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I reckon that the edit protection on this page should be permanent, per my post on the InkTank forums. — Korax1214 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's arguable but I see your point. There is a clear consensus on this subject, but we also have IP editors who have said on this talk page that they will wait for protection to expire and then take her out again regardless, so they are knowingly and deliberately ignoring consensus which I think becomes vandalism by dint of the intent. Of course we can't say for certain that these IP editors are the same as those IP editors, so we should assume good faith that this is someone genuinely editing in ignorance to consensus. However, we are making an effort to assume good faith and as such I wouldn't be too hard on anyone who calls that quacking thing a duck.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Janis Joplin seen on the street..png Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Janis Joplin seen on the street..png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
Is this a joke?
How come some were removed? Lily Tembo, Orish Grinstead, and Stretch died at the age of 27 as well. Where are they? Put them back. B-Machine (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you can provide citations showing that they are included in the list in independant reliable sources then you can put them in the list.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have honestly never heard of any of those people. Musicians of age 27 die every single day. That doesn't mean they are relevant to be on this list. G90025 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just because they were musicians who died at 27 does not automatically put them on the list; some type of press sources identifying them with the 27 club are necessary. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Holy cow
What happened to this page? Where is the nice list with pictures of the generally accepted 27 Club people? This is perhaps the most tattered article on Wikipedia now. Formatting? Who needs it?! G90025 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- See above discussion regarding weaselly "generally accepted" and galleries. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Statistics study shows no peak mortality among famous musicians at age 27
I can't find the link to the article commented here (quite possibly it's ntot online yet), but this deserves to be noted:
http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2011/12/20/27-really-dangerous-age-famous-musicians-retrospective-cohort-study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.141.91 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nice. I'll add that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Valentin Elizalde shant be here
This guy was not even a rock and roll musician and sadly a very bad singer in a very low-taste genre as Mexican 'banda'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.26.77 (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Musical genre or opinions about the quality of singing do not figure in determining whether someone should appear on this article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Alexandra should be added
A star in Germany in the 60ies. Her life data (May 19, 1942 - July 31, 1969) are well known and beyond controversy 78.49.12.46 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Jazmín de Grazia
Jazmín De Grazia (Temperley, 4 de julio de 1984 - Buenos Aires, 5 de febrero de 2012) fue una modelo argentina, reconocida por ser una de las 3 finalistas del concurso televisivo de selección de modelos SuperM 20-02. Más adelante se desempeñó como conductora y panelista en diferentes ciclos televisivos.
El 5 de febrero de 2012 es encontrada sin vida en la bañera de su departamento en el barrio porteño de Recoleta por su novio. Su pareja había acudido en su ayuda luego de que la modelo lo llamara para decirle que se sentía mal. Los motivos de la muerte no han sido dados a conocer al momento. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.202.176 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to Google Translate, the above in English is:
- Jazmin De Grazia (Temperley, July 4, 1984 - Buenos Aires, February 5, 2012) was a model of Argentina, known for being one of the three finalists for the game show model selection SuperM 20-02. Later he served as host and panelist at various cycles television.
- On February 5, 2012 is found dead in the bathtub of his apartment in the Recoleta neighborhood of Buenos Aires by her boyfriend. His family had come to his aid after the model called him to say he felt bad. The reasons for death were not released at the time.
- I'm dubious about this, as this person doesn't sound like a musician. — Korax1214 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- As discussed at length above, inclusion in the article is determined by a reliably sourced cite that places the person in the 'club'. Nothing else matters. Do we have one? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article about just Kurt Cobain
For fucks sake why is just all about his death and why is their no mention of Amy Winehouse or Robert Johnson. There should be mention made of their deaths as their deaths helped establish the 27 club the way its thought of today. They were added to the club by the media that added Kurt Cobain and there are plenty of online sources for them being in the club. Type in 27 club into google image and virtually every picture has got Amy Winehouse on it and most have got Robert Johnson too. You can't leave out the massive media attention that was paid to the club around Amy's death the fact that the club was mentioned everywhere from newspapers, magazines and websites round about the time of her death its ridiculous just to focus on Kurt Cobains death and say it all started with him and not make any mention of the huge media sensation around Amy Winehouse's death. I really think we should add stuff in about the attention paid to the club after Amy's death and the fact that Robert Johnson was added too, if I don't get a response saying why not then I will just add them myself. PS I don't want to hear any shit like "Amy Winehouse was a nobody who never had any impact in her lifetime whatsoever, she can't be mentioned alongside Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison" seriously that is just ignorance plain and simple and I really don't want to have write all of the huge record breaking successes she had in her lifetime or the hugely successful artists she has inspired again (Adele, Gaga, Jessie J, Duffy, Rebecca Ferguson) but trust me I will if anyone comes out with that ignorant shit. You also can't say Robert Johnson doesn't deserve to be here considering his impact on music. --86.171.26.183 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- So why don't you add further cited material about Winehouse and Johnson in relation to the 27 Club? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- And why is Cobain's suicide listed as disputed?Czolgolz (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I would just go ahead and add them but last time I did (when I had actually logged on under my username) it was taken off right after. Also I must admit I am np=ot to sure how to add links. Obviously there are hundreds of outside sources linking them to the club though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.103.238 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Origins section of the article does focus on Cobain a lot. But both Winehouse and Johnson are mentioned in the lead section, and they're both listed in the table of members in the Members section. P.S. Check out the Wikipedia:Tutorial for a very good overview of how to edit articles . — Mudwater (Talk)
11:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Musicians only?
I've seen lists (like http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/slideshowajax/179768/the-27-club-celebrities-who-died-at-age-27.slideshow and http://www.ndtv.com/album/listing/entertainment/celebrity-deaths-at-age-27-10981?trendingnow/slide/1) that include non-musicians like Jonathan Brandis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.228.142 (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Two and a half centuries?
"It was not until the death of Kurt Cobain, about two and a half century after the lattest occured, that the first idea of a "27 Club" was spread in the public perception."
lol173.57.172.129 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. A mistake in a recent edit. Perhaps it just seemed like centuries. Fixed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- :) it was a big mistake, but everyone make one. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 09:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Courtney Love sure does look like she's 2.5 centuries old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.129.231 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Who took Amy Winehouse out of the top paragraph
I am so fucking sick of this crap from people that Amy Winehouse doesn't deserve to be part of the list. Its so monumentally ignorant its literally just people who don't like her saying "well I don't like her never mind what millions of other people think differently including world famous musicians like Adele and Lady Gaga, my opinion is the only one that matters so take her out" I don't like Janis Joplin (don't dislike her) but just because I don't know her or couldn't name you one of her songs that doesn't mean that millions of other people haven't heard of her or been inspired by her and that she doesn't belong here. Here are some facts you people who want Winehouse taken out because you think she wasn't iconic or successful enough should know.
1/ She has sold 17 million copies worldwide for one album in the past few years only Adele has sold more copies than that for one album
2/ She won 5 grammy's in a single night more so than any other British artist had won at that point (she made the 2009 guiness book of records for that achievement) and about as many as any female artist had ever won. Even today five or so years on only one British artist has one more and only two female artists have won as many as her. She also won shit loads of other awards including Brit awards, Ivor Novello awards etc.
3/ She had 15 charted singles in a career spanning only nine years, many of which were international singles such as Rehab, You know I'm no good and Valerie. To think some people arguing for her to be taken out here actually are saying she was a one hit wonder, ignorance, ignorance, ignorance.
4/ She had worked with some of the biggest names in music, the Rolling Stones, Tony Bennett, Quincy Jones all of whom sought her out and said she was the best of her generation.
5/ Other famous musicians praised her including George Michael, Ringo Starr, Bette Midler, Sade, Kanye West,- Alice Cooper, Paul Mcartney, U2, Coldplay, Debbie Harry, Beyonce.
6/ She has been cited by Adele who is currently the most famous artist on the planet as her single biggest influence, as well as paving the way for her "Amy made everyone excited about British music again whilst paving the way for me and being fearlessly hilarious and blaze about the whole thing, although I am incredibly sad about her passing I'm also reminded of how immensely proud of her I am as well and grateful to have been inspired by her" That is a direct quote from Adele whose opinion I think we should trust more on popular music than anyone here don't you. She also inspired and paved the way for Lady Gaga, Rebecca Ferguson, Florence Welch, Duffy, Paloma Faith, Emeli Sande, Lana Del Rey, Bruno Mars, Azaelia Banks, Jessie J. Quite a lot of hugely successful artists to have inspired or at least paved the way for in the last five years.
7/ Back to Black is the best selling album in Britain of the 00's.
8/ Back to Black was until very recently the best selling album in Britain of the 21st century.
9/ Back to Black is one of the top 20 best selling albums of all time in the united kingdom (in fact I am not sure but I think Amy Winehouse may be the only artist from the 27 club to have an album in the top 20 best selling albums of all time in Britain)
10/ Both of her albums were huge critical hits as well and her songs have been covered by artists ranging from George Michael to Prince to Eddi Reader to Ronnie Spector to Florence Welch to Coldyplay. Green day have even written a song about her too.
11/ Her death which happened five years after her last album was released was a top news story all over the world.
12/ Also there are literally thousands of sources linking Amy to the 27 club. Just type in 27 club on google images and you will see millions of pictures of Amy Winehouse pop up not joking millions of them. Billboard also added her as a member of the club as did millions of websites papers, magazines and other sources to actually act as though there are no outside sources linking her to the club is beyond ignorant, its actually moronic.
So tell me something is all of that not enough for her to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the others? inspiring the biggest stars of your generation as well as being one of the biggest stars of your generation and breaking numerous records all that not enough to be considered a musical legend. I am putting her back with the main ones because that is where she belongs and anyone who doesn't think she does there at least say why you think she shouldn't as I have given more than enough reasons why she should.--Zolfianyarvelling (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- As has been observed before on this page, it doesn't matter at all what Winehouse did, and how anyone here evaluates her career. What matters is if reliable sources mention her in connection with the club. There are plenty of these, so she's included in the article. There is nothing further requiring any discussion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know but you shouldn't really be telling that to me (don't mean to sound rude). I mentioned that there were plenty of outside sources linking her to the club. The reason I keep going on about her achievements is because that is the reason she keeps getting taken off by people is because they think she is not influential or successful enough. Its so annoying I know you and other users must have said about a million times that she should be included because there are sources linking her to the club. But these people still don't seem to think that matters so they take her off saying "she shouldn't be here with Jimi and Kurt her sales aren't equal to theirs, she never influenced anyone or had any impact on music equivilant to Kurt Cobain" so that's why I posted all of her achievements to provide these people who clearly know nothing about her with information (not that they will probably read it LOL) that in fact she is a hugely successful game changing artist. You should block anyone who takes her off to be honest, its unprofessional editing just taking someone off because you don't like them or don't know anything about them, it's ignorant too.--Zolfianyarvelling (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Jonathan Brandis
I think you should add Jonathan Brandis to the list here He is an actor who was found hanged and he was dead at the age of 27! Leafericson (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Request to add
Could anyone please add to the list Nicole Bogner, the first vocalist of Visions of Atlantis, who was announced to have passed away on January, 6th 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.2.230 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why meme?
hello,
can someone explain why it is a "meme"? Do you have any source stating this? And why was the lead reverted? Mine summarized the content I will work on in the next days; the currect one has unreferenced statements, such as that the list is called "Curse of 27". Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 09:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I used meme because it aptly describes what it is. It's an idea. A concept. There is no actual club. There is no list somewhere that people are added to when they die. Happy to hear other ideas of how it can best be described. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, why there is only one list? There should be one including the actual members, and the last should contain any other famous musician died at 27.--♫GoP♫TCN 09:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because there are no "actual" members because there is no "actual" club. No-one is in a position to say who is a member, and who isn't. And the article is not List of Famous Musicians who died at 27. See above for extensive discussion on this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, well, then I am withdrawing. I planned to bring it to GA-status, but now, as there are so many disagreements, I have no desire to do so, especially as user are editing their own original research or reverting my edits. The German article is a good article, is well-referenced, and does not have only one table. But this article is a chaos. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, as this article is far better than it was 6 months ago, but could still do with improvement. There were disagreements, but I think they have been settled to bring the article into line with policy.
- But you might ask those who edit the German article what basis they are using to create a hierarchy of two lists, if not their own value judgements? My (very) elementary German would suggest that this is causing queries in the German article as well. Why has the German Wikipedia taken upon itself to be the arbiters of who is on "usually" on the list and who is not on the list? Where is this mythical list? The factual content of Wikipedia shouldn't be determined by the opinions and original research of contributors, so I don't understand how it could have been judged a good article.
- But instead of casting aspersions on the quality of the article with vague mentions of original research, could you indicate any one place where where it exists? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, well, then I am withdrawing. I planned to bring it to GA-status, but now, as there are so many disagreements, I have no desire to do so, especially as user are editing their own original research or reverting my edits. The German article is a good article, is well-referenced, and does not have only one table. But this article is a chaos. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because there are no "actual" members because there is no "actual" club. No-one is in a position to say who is a member, and who isn't. And the article is not List of Famous Musicians who died at 27. See above for extensive discussion on this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am un-archving this talk page section, as it relates to the section below -- "Meme, part 2" -- where there is some current discussion of the lead sentence for the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Meme, part 2
Continuing the discussion, from the #Why meme? talk page section above, about the use of the word "meme" in the lead sentence of the article: Escape Orbit said, "I used meme because it aptly describes what it is. It's an idea. A concept. There is no actual club. There is no list somewhere that people are added to when they die." That's all true, but "meme" is really not the best word to use here. The original meaning of meme is "Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another." That's a useful concept when studying culture or philosophy, but it's so broad that it covers just about anything. The meaning of "meme" that's usually used nowadays is "A thought, idea, joke, or concept that spreads online, often virally." For example, LOLcats, or funny subtitles for Hitler's rant in Downfall. That's how most people will read it, and the 27 Club is not a meme in that sense. So, I think the article should use a different word or phrase, and there are several good candidates, including: concept; idea; notion; pop cultural phenomenon. I'm going to change it to "concept" for now, but I'd encourage other editors to give their opinions here. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- After changing the word "meme" to "concept" with this edit, I've reworded the lead sentence further with this edit, to state more directly what the concept is, and also added a paragraph break later in the lead section, to emphasize the British Medical Journal study a bit more. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- You might be on to something. If we give the whole "it's a club" idea a complete body-swerve, and don't even refer to the subject as such, we get closer to the actual basis of it all. It's all based on the idea that many have died aged 27. Calling it a "club" is just a useful name, nothing more. It also puts an end to problematic references to a non-existent list. I would still argue that there is an element of meme to it, but I am not set on it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
There's been some recent activity in this area, and I'm going to continue this discussion in a new section below, called #Lead sentence. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Lead sentence
There have been some recent edits of the lead sentence, which until recently said "The 27 Club... is the concept that many popular musicians have died at the age of 27..." That was changed from "the concept" to "the observation", and I'm changing it back for now. The question of what the lead sentence should say was discussed most recently in the #Meme, part 2 section above. That's when it was changed from "meme" to "concept". In my opinion the lead should say "concept", or perhaps a similar word like "idea", because that's what it is, a concept, idea, or notion, found in popular culture. The word "observation" makes it sound like it's an established fact that a lot more popular musicians have died at the age of 27, but the British Medical Journal study cited in the lead section seems to have debunked that claim. I would encourage other editors to state their views here. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Observation" sounds like something said once by one person in passing. It's not an improvement. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- With this recent change, anonymous editor 190.44.158.38 (talk · contribs) has changed the lead to say that "the 27 Club is a term used to refer to popular musicians who have died at the age of 27". So instead of the article saying that the 27 Club is a concept, an idea, an observation, or a meme, it now says that it's a term, used to refer to the musicians. With this same change, 190.44.158.38 has also copy edited the rest of the lead paragraph. Perhaps some editors will be put off by the edit summary for this change, which might strike some as not quite as civil and friendly as one might wish for. I would request that we all ignore the tone of the edit summary and judge the edit itself on its own merits. I'll start. I want to think about it some more, but my initial reaction is that I kind of like it. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm almost tempted to revert this on principle. This IP editor appears to have a history of rudeness in edit summaries. However, there is something to be said for the modifications. I'm just not sure where stripping all the other terms from the lead will leave us. We have tried to be pretty strict about cites mentioning "27 Club" or equivalent. Will this make some of the cites appear to be irrelevant? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- With this recent change, anonymous editor 190.44.158.38 (talk · contribs) has changed the lead to say that "the 27 Club is a term used to refer to popular musicians who have died at the age of 27". So instead of the article saying that the 27 Club is a concept, an idea, an observation, or a meme, it now says that it's a term, used to refer to the musicians. With this same change, 190.44.158.38 has also copy edited the rest of the lead paragraph. Perhaps some editors will be put off by the edit summary for this change, which might strike some as not quite as civil and friendly as one might wish for. I would request that we all ignore the tone of the edit summary and judge the edit itself on its own merits. I'll start. I want to think about it some more, but my initial reaction is that I kind of like it. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at all the citations lately, but I'm sure the 27 Club is by far the most common name, and I'm guessing that they all at least mention it. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Criteria for inclusion
Recently someone added Simon Reyes to the article, and someone else took him back out with this edit, which has the edit summary "not notable". I just wanted to point out that that's not a valid reason for leaving someone out of this article, because, as it says at Wikipedia:Notability, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (Emphasis copied from the guideline.) That said, there were some previous discussions about who should be included, the main one being at Talk:27 Club/Archive 4#RfC: Should there be two lists of musicians or one, and who should be included?. While there is definitely not universal agreement, the majority of editors in that discussion seemed to be saying that, to be included in the article, a musician should have been specifically linked to the 27 Club by one or more reliable sources. (Doing a quick Google search, I don't see that for Simon Reyes, but there could be one out there that I missed.) — Mudwater (Talk) 21:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are right. Simon Reyes should have been removed because it didn't have a cite that mentioned his death in connection with "27 club" or similar. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Table formatting and footnotes
With this recent edit of the table, the references were moved from the Name column to a separate References column on the right. In my opinion, that's not bad, but I prefer it the way it was before. On Wikipedia it's normal for footnotes to be right next to the specific thing they're referencing, which in this case is really the name of the musician, for being included in the 27 Club. Also the edit summary says "so name column is easier to read when sorting", but I think it's easy to read with the footnotes included in the same column. For comparison, here are the two versions of the article: Footnotes with the names; Footnotes in their own column. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's been four days and no one has said anything about this, so I've put the table back the way it was before, with the footnotes in the Name column. But as always other editors are encouraged to give their opinions. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Johnson's Curse.
'Johnson's Curse' - Robert Leroy Johnson (May 8, 1911 – August 16, 1938) was an American blues singer and musician. His landmark recordings from 1936–37 display a combination of singing, guitar skills, and songwriting talent that has influenced later generations of musicians. Johnson's shadowy, poorly documented life and death at age 27 have given rise to much legend, including the Faustian myth that he sold his soul at a crossroads to achieve success. As an itinerant performer who played mostly on street corners, in juke joints, and at Saturday night dances, Johnson had little commercial success or public recognition in his lifetime. Johnson's turbulent life mimicked that, of the long list of other musicians who join the 27 Club's list. Johnson, it is said, sold his soul to the devil at dead night in the middle of the crossroads. As legend pertains, there's only one thing the devil wants, and that is your soul. The occurrence of deaths has only began since Johnson's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creaturecouture (talk • contribs) 11:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Some rumors about the Illuminati sacrifices those people.88.235.57.87 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 4 February 2013
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
you need to add Nicole Bogner from Visions of Atlantis as she passed away at 27 http://loudwire.com/nicole-bogner-death-2012/ 122.60.44.111 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice, but what this article needs is a source that specifically mentions the "27 Club" or similar. Not just that she has died aged 27. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
A new member?
Known as the first victim in a violent Vegas shooting. Dead, obviously. He was 27-years-old according to this article. His name is Kenny Cherry, Jr., and I think he was local (as in local Vegas) rapper Kenny Clutch.
Of course, maybe he doesn't deserve to be added to the article. Beats me. Not going to do it. (I don't really care to edit articles. Let somebody better do it.)
70.180.188.238 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- The criteria for inclusion in the article is principally a reliable source mentioning their death and the "27 Club". This is usually also reliant on the person being a recognised music artist. I don't think "aspiring rapper" covers this. But if you can find a cite... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hate's bassist Sławek "Mortifer" Archangielskij is dead
06.04.2013 [ close ] At night 5th/6th April near a German town of Munchberg, our friend, best comrade and longtime bass player unexpectedly passed away. After the show in Stuttgart last night he went to sleep and never woke up. We found him lifeless early in the morning and immediately called an ambulance. He was reanimated, but to no avail. Results of Sławek’s autopsy should be known soon. In this situation, we decided to cancel the remaining shows and return home. We gave detailed testimonies to the German police. We are shocked and shattered by his sudden, unexpected death. We mourntogether with Slawek’s family and friends.
Born on 10-04-1985 passed away on 06-04-2013 , only 4 days before turning 28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.166.42 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here's two references that I found with a quick google search, but neither mentions the 27 Club: Loudwire; Antimusic. Hate (band) has their own Wikipedia article by the way. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Jonathan Brandis
First of all: I'm a big fan of Jonathan Brandis. But he was an actor - even more important (for me), he was a screenwriter. He was not known for being a musician. The article and common sense defines the 27 club with "popular musicians who have died at the age of 27", not "famous people who...". Mentioning Brandis, there would be hundreds of more people to be mentioned. I know that there is a random, semi-serious source counting him into, but having a source doesn't make it right. I recommend to remove him from this list. Also I recommend to remove this useless sentence: "first British woman to win five Grammy Awards in single ceremony" from Amy Winehouse's description.--62.227.27.41 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be okay with both of those ideas. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Only notable musicians who died age 27 should be included in this list.- TheMalcontent 04:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I've updated the article, here. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 16 April 2013
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Robert Johnson, Brian Jones, Jacob Miller, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse all died at the age of 27, giving rise to the idea that premature deaths at this age are unusually common. Walac (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: As far as I can tell this is a request to add Miller to the second sentence of the article. The list of people in this sentence is redundant with the list below, and so I have instead removed the list altogether. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
