Jump to content

Talk:Ian Gillan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Blue Dragon

Should a note that Ian did the track Eternity for Blue Dragon on the XBOX 360 be added to the discography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.208.93 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Band members

In para 5, the article states: "Tony Iomi, Jeff Healey, Joe Satriani, as well as Jon Lord, Roger Glover, Ian Paice, Don Airey and Steve Morse (all of whom are either current or former members of Deep Purple) are featured on this CD and DVD". I don't think that Tony Iomi or Jeff Healey were ever in Deep Purple. Their respective Wikipedia pages makes no mention. Nor are they listed on the Deep Purple page. 84.130.103.231 13:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a badly worded sentence, agreed - it is referring to those artists mentioned after the phrase "...as well as..." Well spotted, and I will alter the article to more accurately inform the reader. Devious Viper 09:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal life - home

Pretty sure Ian still keeps a home in Devon/Dorset border he did a few years back (http://archive.thisisdorset.net/2004/5/28/66650.html) and I read in a recent interview how he wouldn't be back home in Devon until May 2007 - anyone have newer info? --C Hawke 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was claimed in an earlier edit today that this was copied from http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/ian_gillan/index.shtml/ someone else reverted it (rightly imho). I just had a look at the very 1st 2 sentences and you can clearly se a natural evolution in the entry here regarding his time with Black Sabbath. Initially saying 2 years, then "and for his two-year stint in Black Sabbath" then finally in 2007 the "During his career Gillan had a year-long stint" which is common on both entries. The one here, to my mind, shows a clear evolution and tweaking. --C Hawke (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

of course, if that other site has copied this one, it cannot be used as a cite for his vocal range (as it is now) as this is circular referencing.--C Hawke (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vocal range

I think he has lost most of his vocal range. Watch this

Rather irrelevant, and no, he hasn't. He can still get down to E2, and he's gone as high as A5 in recent times. At most he's lost a quarter of an octave on the upper end.

Judging from studio records his range is something like D2-B5. The D2 is from No more cane on the brazos, the B5 is from Fighting Man. On his site he claims that he had reached the soprano C(C6) on a good night - it isn't so hard to believe since it's only a semitone higher that the recorded B5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.120.240.251 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"In his prime he possessed a very wide vocal range, extending from the E2 to the G above soprano high C, or C6."

I'd like to know what songs and/or performances these come from, because as far as I can tell, he's only gone as far up as the B bellow C6 in falsetto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherick (talk • contribs) 20:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

His lowest note is a D2 in No more cane in the Brazoos as far as I know, his highes on any official record is a B5, the last two screams of fighting man or some live performaces of strange kind of woman, if anybody hears something higher, please comment before writing some something like a G6 which he never got close to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.178.201 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The "voice type" field in the musical artist infobox template is intended for classical vocalists. This position is supported by Voice type and Voice classification in non-classical music. In the rare instance when a reliable source exists to support a voice type for a non-classical vocalist (i.e. Maria Carey) the source must be provided for inclusion in the infobox. I will revert the entry in this field for this page, if you disagree please comment at the talk page for the musical artist infobox. The above comments and the information in the infobox may be true but is not verifiable, YouTube is not a verifiable source. J04n(talk page) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre in infobox

It's a minor-ish point but Ian isn't and never was a heavy metal vocalist, rather he's a rock vocalist (possibly even a heavy rock one). Of this fact I am certain. I did change this but it got changed back. I thought I'd mention it here as tit for tat editing is pointless.

Among musicians, the distinction between hard rock and heavy metal is not a minor one. Hard rock still shows its origin in blues while in contrast heavy metal has no such origins. Though some of Ian Gillan's music is touched by folk and jazz, by and large, his music, whether in Deep Purple or in his own band, "Gillan," is indeed unmistakably hard rock. Jeff Mincey (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, in the seventies (Deep Purple's heyday) there was no distinction between hard rock and heavy metal. Bands like Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult, and even The Who were classified as heavy metal. The distinction really was made around the time Metallica and Bon Jovi were on the rise, since it was clear the same genre couldn't have both of them. Hondo77 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh... WHAT?! You must be joking. Bon Jovi, metal? Dude, what have you been smoking? He was glam, at best. And, you're saying that the Who were no different from Black Sabbath? A reviewer called Sabbath heavy metal as early as 1973. The Who is just rock n roll. 68.211.207.6 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again. Does anybody consider Deep Purple heavy metal today? I doubt it--they're more hard rock by today's standards but they were definitely metal back in the day. Were you around back then? As for Bon Jovi, again, back then they were considered heavy metal by the mainstream. We're talking the mid-eighties here, remember. Slippery When Wet came out just a few months before Reign in Blood. Things were different twenty and thirty years ago. Does that mean The Who are the same as Black Sabbath? No more than Metallica being the same as Dimmu Borgir, yet they're both metal. Hondo77 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's quite possible that in its earliest usage, the term "heavy metal" was meant as a synonym of its predecessor, "hard rock." But quickly the terms began to diverge in meaning. Heavy metal came to characterize rock music marked largely by power cords and sheer volume, while hard rock maintained its roots in the original "rock and roll" and blues, albeit with a much harder edge. So today, to describe the music of Gillan and Deep Purple as "metal" is misleading if not inaccurate outright. Jeff Mincey (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a problem here is that Deep Purple is undeniable important in the formation of what became heavy metal, and they have some pure heavy metal songs from back in the day or and more recently, but largely their output is hard rock. (This is why I think it's questionable to put any band into a single genre). Luminifer (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources say?--Alf melmac 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ian Gillan did sing for Black Sabbath, so I think it's hard to argue that he has not been a heavy metal vocalist. Luminifer (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Luminifer. He was the vocalist for the Black Sabbath album Born Again which every source calls heavy metal, here's one link. For someone with such a long and varried career as Mr Gillan it is certainly appropriate to include >1 genre. Luminifer makes the point that it is questionable to put a band into a single genre, it is more difficult for an individual who has been in several bands. J04n(talk page) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the YouTube references that have been recently added are a WP:COPYVIO and need to be immediately removed. I also believe that the interpretation of them constitute WP:OR. I would appreciate feedback on this so a final consensus can be reached. I similar issue is also occuring at Ozzy Osbourne and Ronnie James Dio. J04n(talk page) 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis

I think the bulk of Gillan's contribution to popular music was made in the short period of Deep Purple MkII. I was surprised that in the rather extensive writeup, this whole period is covered in just one and a half lines: "Gillan was a member of Deep Purple from 1969 through to 1973, appearing on such now-classic Deep Purple albums as In Rock, Fireball, Machine Head, Made In Japan and Who Do We Think We Are." It seems that the article would be improved if there were a bit more emphasis on this period, and what was distinctive about his work that made the DP MkII period so important.

In general, Wikipedia entries on old rock stars seem a bit heavy on the spats with former band members and very recent but un-notable stage appearances. Don't forget what made them famous! Leave the trivia to the fan sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phytism (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinionated

Who exactly considers Ian Gillan to be one of the 'foremost' rock vocalists. Also, where is the evidence of him introducing the vocal belting technique to music? It's also an opinion that he was able to move from one range to another 'effortlessly' with 'fluid' movement.

Me. Hondo77 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a section describing his stage mannerisms and other activities, in which I have referred to a concert I was at, and many live DVDs, which are commercially available - deleted twice.

Consistency is required from whoever keeps editing this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomGreen (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Why do most Wikipedia articles about hard rock and heavy metal bands and musicians read as if they were written from the point of view of the artist's biggest fan rather than a neutral and encyclopedic point of view? How in the name of all that's holy can you include such a blatantly opinionated statement like "Ian Gillan is considered the greatest vocalist of all time" or something to that effect, and with no citations whatsoever? And then have that statement based primarily on his range and technique, as if that is the only criteria anyone could possibly have for a great vocalist? And why are all these hard rock/heavy metal articles allowed to get away with such awful grammar, hyperbolic statements, and barely literate sentence structure? What the hell is the "belting" vocal technique, and where did you find out that he "invented" it? If you have some insight into this, can you please create an article on the "belting" technique, because I'd like to know exactly what the hell it is. And I thought we were in the 21st century, not the 21th! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.46.146 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can't we get pictures of Ian Gillan during his heyday in the early 70's, or when he was with Episode Six or perhaps even as a kid, instead of strictly elderly shots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engines On (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

added the tag simply as a reminder to myself to come back and fix this one up a little, add a little more detail and find some citations(right now there's only 1). Anger22 13:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy and private life

Do we really need to know this : "In 2004, he was banned from driving for 16 months and fined £500 for being twice over the legal alcohol limit.[15][16]" ?

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a tabloïd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASDLR (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A6 on lead

I've had a look for sources on this, but the only things I can find are this and this, where in the latter source somebody says he can't. Of course, a Facebook page and a Youtube comments section are about as reliable as my postman turning up consistently every morning at bang on 8:30am (ie: not very). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ian Gillan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Review comments

This article is ready to pass, not requiring any changes. Since I just started the review a few hours ago I'm going to let it sit open for a few days. But I have a few things to note / suggestions; I think that they both relate to reading British English in the US.

  • "Perspex" (used in Black Sabbath section) does not translate to US English. Suggest tweaking.
I added an internal link. Maybe that's enough. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that "investment/investments" mis-translates into US English. (used in the lead and elsewhere) In US English, "investment" just means putting any amount of money into something in order to make money. If I buy $10 of stock in General Motors, it is a common meaning of the term that I have an investment in General Motors. From context in the article, I'm guessing that "investment" means something bigger in England such as having a larger role in the company. Suggest clarifying.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Final checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. See a few small suggestions above. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage :Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily struck passed criteria for "broad in coverage". Entire discography has just been deleted, and is dependent on a brand new sourceless article (which may or may not survive)for coverage of his works.North8000 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

:Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily struck "stable" .....maybe I wrote too soon. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The article should be quickfailed due to instability. Bits of the lead seem prone to various editors adding unsourced assertions again and again (eg: here, mini edit war here). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 6 images, all are free; no use rationale required. I would suggest adding another of the band (for variety) but such is not required to pass this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-pass

I am non-passing this article due to instability. I was ready to wait it out /see if it settled down, but the person who nominated it for GA has also recommended this and abandoned the article. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I haven't really abandoned it, more that I had nothing to add and started to question its suitability as a GA. I've informed editors who've changed the article, but tend to just get confusion over what GA is. In any state, I think the article is still better for me having worked on it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the poor choice of words. But I think we agree on the end result. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resubmit GA review

Since the editor who disrupted this has been blocked and has indicate he won't be contributing to the article, I'm happy to put this back up to GA review, having made a few improvements myself.

Regarding the discography, I've retained contemporary studio and charting live albums that were released roughly around the time they were recorded. So, Made in Japan is there, because it charted and is highly regarded by fans, but not any of the numerous live albums he's done in the last 20 years, which are, to be fair, a bit less mainstream. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ian Gillan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review #2

I am starting a review of this article. This is it's second review. I was the reviewer for its first review and, with the agreement of nominator, non-passed it due to instability, and am doing the second review with their agreement. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Review discussions

Under "Post-Purple" could you clarify what "including opening to the entire local village in November 1974" means? Thanks North8000 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  •  Done This is a bit in his autobiography where, sat in a hotel he owned, and feeling bored, he decided to invite everyone in the village, whoever was around, for a party. I can pull out a specific quote, or we can just remove it as being trivia. I'm easy either way. Edit: now removed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear what the bibliography section is. It appears to be two items that were not used as references and duplication of one item that is used and fully listed as a reference elsewhere, and so its first instances is a confusing partial description of that reference. Also the "dead links" to that in the short citations add to the difficulty of figuring it out. I think renaming it moving it to being a "further reading" section and leaving off that duplicate is one way to mostly fix. I'll do that. Advise if you'd like to handle differently, but I think that some clarification is needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • From what you've been trying to do with test edits to the page, the problem you've found is that when I went through and cited books, I used chapters in the book rather than specific pages or range of pages. I can go through and find the exact pages for the two book sources, but it will take some time. I just felt it wasn't particularly necessary to go to GA, as the information was verifiable, just not quite as easily. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel that page numbers are needed for this to pass GA at this time. I really don't know sfn very well and was trying to learn and fix at the same time. Didn't know the cause of the issue. At worst, it just a little unusual, as the sfn (vs. simple short cites) I think is specifically for that linking. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I asked at the help desk and they think that it might be because different handling is needed for 2 authors. First, just checking, is it co-authored, with Gillan being one of them? North8000 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's the Google Books entry. Gillan is the first author, Cohen is the second. I suspect (though it's not documented) that Gillan sat down and wrote everything he could remember about himself, and David Cohen copy-edited it to make it readable. It's a bit hard to find these days, and only goes up to 1993 (it doesn't mention Blackmore's departure, which hadn't happened yet), but it's about the best source you could have for him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I put them both in in the sfns and that fixed it. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In the discography section, comparing it with the discography article, this does not appear to be a full discography, so it's unclear what the reader is looking at. Could you add an intro sentencs or 2 saying what it is which says what it is (e.g. "studio albums" "albums that charted" etc. ) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote here, "I've retained contemporary studio and charting live albums that were released roughly around the time they were recorded. So, Made in Japan is there, because it charted and is highly regarded by fans, but not any of the numerous live albums he's done in the last 20 years, which are, to be fair, a bit less mainstream." Do you think that's a reasonable rationale, and if not, what improvements could we make? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
IMHO it's fine. Answering your question, the suggested improvement is to (roughly speaking) take what you just said and put it in as an into in that section. I'll take a stab at it. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
IMHO that minor title change I did takes care of it, if that is alright with you. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. If somebody wants to search out the bootleg-countering live albums from the 90s and 2000s, they can click on the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. During the last review it was unstable. An editor who made too big of changes in proportion to discussing too-little was roto-tilling it. Long story short, looks like that is resolved. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 6 images, all are free; no use rationale required. I would suggest adding another of the band (for variety) but such is not required to pass this criteria.North8000 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Added two more images, one from 1970 showing two other bandmates, one from 2009 showing 4/5 of them. I found a nice shot of him fronting Gillan in 1979 on Flickr, but the licence wasn't good enough for Commons. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice! Updating: Meets this criteria. Has 8 images, all are free; no article-specific use rationales required. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Updating: Meets this criteria. Has 10 images, all are free; no article-specific use rationales required.North8000 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, forgot to say I added two images that cover his non-Purple career. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations and nice work! I will implement the details shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer

Thanks for a good review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded.) This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations and nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Chapters

Good job on the article, but why chapters and not pages when using an inline citation? GeezerB (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was the first article I went through and mined an entire book source, but when I came back to my notes, I found I'd only listed the chapters. To put actual pages would involve digging the book out of my loft (again), finding the page numbers, and allocating them to each reference. When GA reviewing, we decided that was too much work and not necessary to pass the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar problems

Could Attilios (talk · contribs) and 70.119.228.126 (talk · contribs) explain what they mean by "problematic grammar" changes? The latter edit in particular looks to be another rehash of this debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Early life

Early life suggests that one of his earliest memories is his mother playing Blue Rondo Ala Turk on Piano. In fact this is a 1959 Dave Brubeck piece, so Gillan would have been 14 when it first appeared, so I don't believe this could count as an earliest memory. Far more likely that the piano piece being played by his mother was Rondo Alla Turca from Mozart Sonata 11 in A - this is a very typically favoured piano tune.194.74.0.10 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Jesus Christ Superstar?

Why is there no mention of Jesus Christ Superstar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.229.61 (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you see in the fourth paragraph of the sub-section "Deep Purple, 1969–73"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And there it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.229.61 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

GA problems

This was, I think, the first ever article I made a concerted effort to improve to GA status, and it shows.

There are unsourced paragraphs, and citations to questionable sources like The Sun (United Kingdom) which absolutely should not be used in a BLP. The whole thing needs some serious spit and polish, as I don't think it currently meets the GA criteria.

I'll dig out my original sources and see what can be done, but if I'm unsuccessful, I think this will have to go to GAR. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ian Gillan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ian Gillan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Gillan's reaction to this article

In a video on YouTube, Gillan is scathing about the content of this article.

He says the "same class as Pete Townshend" statement, for example, though sourced to Gillan's own biography, is false. Can someone with a copy of that book provide the exact wording, please? And check the other disputed claims? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: This was the first serious improvement I made to an article about six years ago; although it passed GA back then, I haven't kept as close an eye on it as I would have liked, and consequently it has deteriorated somewhat. Indeed, as you can see two threads above this one, last year I was concerned about the quality and factual accuracy and was contemplating sending it to GAR.
Anyway, I have the book sources and have gone through the article, taking out anything that is not obviously verifiable to them. I have also taken out a bunch of unsourced content and trimmed some bits I don't think are particularly suitable for a BLP anyway. Gillan's biography does say he went to Acton County Grammar, and he was there at the same time as Pete Townshend (although the source does not specifically say that), but there is no mention anywhere that they actually knew each other. The whole section on "relationship with Blackmore" is tabloidesque rubbish and I have thrown it out, replacing it with a more reasonable single sentence saying the pair are not at loggerheads with each other and, well, life is too short for that. The stuff about children is, as Gillan says, "bollocks", and without a good source it violates WP:BLP. Note - the fixes mean the text is VERIFIABLE to a source, not that it is TRUE, unfortunately without any other sources to hand, that's about all I can manage for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thank you. It seems the video is one of a series. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Gillan/Archive_1&oldid=1190294999"