Talk:Lori Mattix

Toxic Masculinity

The quote about toxic masculinity seems forced and agenda-driven--no evidence is provided to support it whatsoever. Given the artists in question are notable for their androgyny and edgy defiance of gender norms, filing this under Toxic Masculinity seems particularly bizarre. Men who intentionally dress up in women's clothing and act effeminately should not be regarded as the standard bearers for masculinity. Toxic masculinity ought to be defined somewhere with clarity if it is to be regarded as a useful descriptor of anything, anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

One of the sources for "Cultural impact" is Dr. Rebecca Hains' personal website. It's self-published, and after delving into some of her other articles, it's pretty clear that the site acts more-or-less like a blog. In any case, there's no editorial oversight since it's self-published, and should probably be removed. Meowmoose (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Her quote is both allowed and appropriate under the rules of Wikipedia. Self-published sources are acceptable when "The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Dr. Rebecca Hains is widely published by third parties and is an expert in the relevant field. Under Wikipedia guidelines, the inclusion of this source is appropriate. Et0048 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

I realize that given the nature of the claims made my the subject of the article, that maintaining neutrality as much as possible is important. I would like to highlight a few things I have included in the article in the hopes that anyone reading it can assume good faith in regards to the writing of the article, and not misconstrue the article as somehow being an attack on any individual or individuals.

• As many direct quotes as possible have been used, so that any claims or statements made by those named in the article can be represented as faithfully as possible;
• In regards to the statements regarding Mr. Bowie, I included a source with a counter-argument made against the claims, hoping to show two sides of the story and reinforcing the fact that the accusations made are merely that; accusations, and should be understood as such;
• I believe the main relevance of the article is the place the interview given by the subject of the article gave and its place in the Me Too movement. I believe that this is a person whose relevance is related to a shift in a societal movement, similar to how Emmett Till is relevant to the shift in the Civil rights movement, and as such I tried to keep the focus of the article related to the timing of the story provided my Ms. Maddix and how it relates to the overall movement;
• I tried to keep the tone close to matching that of the Sable Starr article, since they are similar in topic; in fact, both women knew one another. The lyrics included in Ms. Starr's article, although arguably inflammatory, carry enough relevance to be included, despite their incriminating nature. In a similar train of thought, I tried to ensure the only quotes that were used directly in this article were of significant relevance, enough to outweigh any potential bias their inclusion would bring.

As this is a website open to debate and conversation, I welcome any thoughts and suggestions for improvement on the article. With respect, Et0048 (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"this is a person whose relevance is related to a shift in a societal movement" - Except that Mattix seems to contradict MeToo's ideals: she doesn't see herself as a victim and she says her relationship with Jimmy Page was "the most beautiful pure love I thought I could ever feel". So, Mattix is relevant, but probably for defying the conventional MeToo wisdom. - Meowmoose (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If anything, this article should be expanded, I cannot see how anyone could think on good faith that this article should be deleted Thanks --Agustin6 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In the mid 1960s dateless that night, I volunteered to help the roadie of a multi-hit chart-topping band pack up after a show. Both the roadie and the band are still quite famous, so no names. We shot the breeze as guys will do. He told me that he'd seen the band's frontman have sex with over 100 women in a single night, on multiple nights in multiple cities. If you doubt these words, please watch the crowd shots of early Sinatra, Elvis, or Beatles concerts and ask yourself what percent of those screaming underage ladies would have declined a kind invitation from the singer. #MeToo ignores that the age of consent back then was 16 or even 14 depending on the state (including all of Canada). It paints too many young women as victims when they were clearly willing and eager and often aggressors. Perhaps especially Lori Mattix. --Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.153.186 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Major bullshit alert!!! Are you going to tell all the awestruck readers of Wikipedia that this unnamed "frontman" of a famous 60s band was able to have sex with a 100 women a night?!!!! No man can pull off such a feat, not even after snorting a megaton of coke and wired up to a fu.k machine powered by Viagra. Hell, even guys just out of prison only get in a good five fuc.s in the space of a few hours.Jesus, some people will swallow anything (pun intended in this case). Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blanking of critical content

Consensus at the David Bowie article was that we didn't need the disupted Mattix content as it was covered here. But now Horse Eye's Back is taking out all of the content that questions Mattix's account: [1] pinging @Zmbro, Sideswipe9th, Liyahvsps, Lordladybug, Chiraix07, and Someguy53386383884: - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally had no choice, this is a BLP and the sources either did not support the content or weren't RS. If you think the content was appropriately sourced you need to demonstrate that... I think you might have a hard time demonstrating that the medium blog is a RS in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

zmbro and Sideswipe9th I get, they were among the regular editors involved in that discussion... But why ping the SPAs? What purpose does canvassing like that serve? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: do you intend to participate in the discussion you started? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@87Fan: this is where you would need to get consensus for that inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, but I do not understand your statement at all. The section I restored contains no less than 7 sources, one of which is used earlier in the article. All are published books on the subject, quoted correctly. How can these be considered "unreliable sources"? @CorbieVreccan/@Zmbro/@Sideswipe9th can you chime in with your opinions? This section had previously been part of the article, but removed a while ago, and I restored it because I felt it was appropriate.

The specific section that Horse Eye's Back is reverting is this:

Mattix's allegations regarding her experience with Bowie have been called into question due to timeline issues; she is documented, by her own statements, statements of others, and photographs, as having already been in a relationship with Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page by the time she claims to have first met Bowie, as Led Zeppelin's 1972 North American tour came to Los Angeles in June, several months before Bowie's Ziggy Stardust Tour arrived for the first time in October 1972. Mattix's account is contradicted by fellow groupie Pamela Des Barres' 1987 memoir I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie, in which Des Barres recalled Page being in an relationship with the then 13-year-old Mattix by late 1972 and before February 1973, therefore before March 1973 when Mattix claimed to have lost her virginity to Bowie. Mattix also previously claimed that she had lost her virginity to Page. Furthermore, unlike the numerous photos of Page and Mattix together, and the "heavily corroborated and well-documented evidence of their relationship", no photographic evidence of Bowie and Mattix together exists.

A confirmed factual error in Mattix's account of her experience with Bowie is that although she claims to have met John Lennon and Yoko Ono with Bowie at the Rainbow Bar during the alleged encounter in March 1973, Bowie and Lennon never actually met until September 1974.

87Fan (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of those are WP:RS here, are you aware of the requirements for WP:BLP? What is the source which is used elsewhere, likely we will need to remove that as well. What you need to go is go section by section and show 1: that the source is reliable and 2: that it supports the given text Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

HEB while I can understand the blog entries on Medium by Gates not being reliable, could you expand briefly on why you think the biographies by Case, Jones, Davis, and Pegg are not reliable sources? We discussed those sources extensively at NPOVN back in May and no-one other than you raised any issue with them. If there's a policy or guideline reason for why you think these are unreliable sources, could you please link to the exact section? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are mostly OR issues or examples where the source doesn't back up the text. If you look at the revision history you can see the reason given for each removal. Note that there's also a difference between sources discussing Bowie and sources discussing Mattix because Mattix is living, lots of sources which can be used for Bowie can't be used for Mattix. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time you appear to be making an OR argument. Taking your removals from 26 August to today in order:

1. You removed 1 paragraph for failed verification, cited to an article from Mattix published in Thrillist, and separate biographies by Pegg and Griffin.
2. Removed the Medium blogs as not an RS
3. Removed the Case biography as failed verification. Despite the content being verifiable [Mattix] has also claimed (in Pamela Des Barres's Let's Spend the Night Together) that it was none other than David Bowie who deflowered her, though the chronology is problematic, since her Page affair likely began in June of 1972 and Bowie's first tour of the US was not until ater that year.
4. Removed content sourced solely to one of the Medium blogs as not an RS
5. Removed a sentence fragment from Des Barres' memoirs as undue, and then attributed the start of the paragraph to Dylan Jones
6. Removed content sourced to the Davis biography as "not sure if the sources are usable at all for BLP"
7. Removed more content sourced to the Davis biography as "source doesn't appear to be BLP quality"
8. Removed Mattix' birth date as "not a RS"

In summary, you made removals based on failed verification, disputed source reliability, and made an argument based on NPOV.

Disregarding #8 as unrelated to this discussion, I somewhat agree with removals #2 and #4. Medium blogs fall under self published sources at the best of times. I'm unsure about your removal for #1 as from memory of when we last discussed this, the approximate date for Bowie meeting Lennon was verifiable to at least one of the biographies, though I can't recall if it was those exact sources or another set. I disagree completely with #3, as the quote above very clearly mentions Mattix. I disagree with #5, as this is clearly due, based on the other sources that are available. And 6-8 do not elaborate upon why you believe the sources are not reliable in this context.

So again, I have to ask, could you please expand briefly on why you think the biographies by Case, Jones, Davis, and Pegg are not reliable sources? If there is a policy or guideline reason for why you believe these to be unreliable, could you please link to the exact section? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Lets go one by one, #1 fails verification... None of those sources say that there is a "A confirmed factual error in Mattix's account of her experience with Bowie" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There's three citations in that paragraph. The first directly supports Mattix' claims that she met Lennon, Ono, and Bowie, at the Rainbow Bar in March 1973. That claim is disputed by other sources, as was discussed at NPOVN in May, which assert that Bowie first met Lennon in September 1974. The text about it being a "confirmed factual error" is editorialising, and would likely be better phrased as something in the form of "this is disputed by other sources X/Y which state Z". Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Still not there, "this is disputed by other sources X/Y which state Z" would by OR because none say that it was disputed (unless I'm missing something and one of them does say that, in which case yeah kosher). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing something. I would suggest that you maybe refresh yourself of the discussions we had on this back in May at NPOVN, and the related discussions on Bowie's talk page. There are several sources that dispute pretty much everything Mattix claims happened between her and Bowie, including first hand sources from her fellow groupies (Starr and Des Barres jump to mind), which are cited in several of the biographies that discuss Mattix' involvement in the groupie scene in the early 70s. Those sources are linked, and page numbers are given, in the NPOVN discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes... And you can say a lot more in a NPOVN discussion than you can say in an article because WP:OR does not apply to a NPOVN discussion but does apply to an article. OR: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

OR only applies to the article space, per the final paragraph of that policy's lead; This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.. We can say just as much on an article's talk page as at a noticeboard discussion. A noticeboard discussion is only really for getting fresh uninvolved eyes on a discussion, typically from editors who don't have a specific article on their watchlist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Yes... Which is why you can say it here on the talk page but we can't say it there in the article. We can't put OR into the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now that is sorted, and while you're refreshing yourself on the previous lengthy discussions on this issue, perhaps you could answer the two questions I have asked above? Namely, could you please expand briefly on why you think the biographies by Case, Jones, Davis, and Pegg are not reliable sources? If there is a policy or guideline reason for why you believe these to be unreliable, could you please link to the exact section? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, so Case is a cultural critic who wrote a pop biography of Led Zeppelin, he does not appear to be an academic or subject matter expert and the standard for BLP are high. I don't believe I questioned Jones qualification, did I? Stephen Davis (music journalist) has a mixed history when it comes to the accuracy of their writing and the publisher Boulevard Books appears to be a self publishing house so thats a no for a BLP. Pegg is not a subject matter expert and Titan Books Ltd is a pop publisher, that doesn't seem to stand up to BLP. Does that satisfy you on #3? Moving on to #5 Des Barres themselves is not reliable for statements about third parties, especially living ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is Case's viewpoint invalid in this section, but not earlier in the article? Saying he's not an "academic or subject matter expert" when you quote him earlier seems very disingenuous. And Pegg is almost literally the source of all things Bowie, and was even when Bowie was still alive. He is considered a very reliable and important source. Dismissing entire publishers as "pop publisher" is not how Wikipedia validates BLP, is it? This whole discussion seems like an attempt to paint Mattix in the most favorable light, and others in the least. You had a discussion about this on the Bowie talk page, lost to consensus, and now you're trying again here. 87Fan (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 

BLP requires that source be high quality in addition to reliable, that does in general exclude pop bios. We are all required to adhere to BLP which requires us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." which is what is happening here. If we use Case elsewhere we shouldn't be. You don't appear to have edited much outside of the music topic area but I can assure you that this is how BLP works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm still considering what you've written here, as some of this may be best addressed at WP:RSN, however I do have one immediate question. WP:BLP is one of the few policies that apply everywhere on enwiki, not just in biographical articles about living or recently deceased people. Back in May you were advocating for including some of this content in Bowie's article, using some of these sources and other similar biographies. Why are you now wanting to exclude source biographies that you were previously happy to use for this content, despite BLP unambiguously applying regardless of where this content appears, as Mattix is still a living person? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be mischaracterizing my position in that discussion. Also note that on many of the sources I took it on trust that they were high quality reliable sources, that would appear to in some cases to have been a mistake. For example Stephen Davis (music journalist)'s Led Zeppelin work is clearly not BLP (or even reliable) if Zeppelin themselves have said its inaccurate. If an author is known for fabricating stories they aren't a reliable source, especially when the publisher brings nothing to the table reliability wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The publisher is an interesting point that was going to go into my fuller reply. However, Boulevard Books are not the original publisher for Hammer of the Gods, they are instead the publisher of the 1997 reprint of the book. The original publisher appears to be William Morrow and Company per Worldcat, which as I understand it would not be considered self published. There are also several other publishers involved for the various reprints over the years, with the most recent reprint in 2018 being published by Pan Macmillan.

That Zeppelin dispute the content is not in and of itself a conclusive mark of unreliability. There are many reasons why the band members may have disputed the book, and the reliability of it can only truly be understood in context alongside other Zeppelin biographies.

Now with respect to the content that HotG was being used for in this article, there are other biographies that assert a relationship between Mattix and Page, and that Mattix' first sexual encounter was with Page at some point in 1972. Some of the biographies like HotG use interviews with Mattix as a source, while others rely on third parties and analysis of contemporary sources.

Of course, as we discussed previously, Mattix herself has given conflicting accounts with who, when, and where her first sexual encounter occurred, and that naturally complicates things. This is why, when we discussed this in May, that I said that we could not include this in Bowie's article, because to accurately document the conflicting accounts would consume far more space than is editorially due, and that we should instead document it here, which you seemed to agree to at the time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Zeppelin book is the only one to be criticized as making stuff up, its just the one relevant to this discussion. That the original pop publishers didn't republish the book isn't a good sign at all reliability wise. Continuing on #5 are we in agreement that Des Barres' book is not a high quality reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many reasons why a book may change publishers after its initial printing. Assuming that it's because the book is unreliable is a rather large logical jump to make.

Des Barres' memoirs are no more or less unreliable than the multiple conflicting statements that Mattix has made. It would in and of itself be a primary source, but the reason we were citing and including content from it is because of a secondary source (the biography by Jones) mentioning it in context. In line with WP:BLPPRIMARY we were relying on Des Barres' memoirs to augment the secondary source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Mattix is the subject of the page and as such falls under WP:SELFSOURCE. BLP primary says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Note that generally it is not acceptable to use the primary source, why should this be an exception? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not the primary citation for the claim. The primary citation was Jones' biography, which quotes extensively from Des Barres' memoir, and would in and of itself support the content you removed.

Claiming the Des Barres' memoir is undue, as you did in the edit summary is where the real issue lies here, not the reliability of it. It's true that primary sources on their own do not contribute to assessing weight, however when reliable secondary sources (like the Jones biography) extensively quote or otherwise refer to them, those primary sources can become due for inclusion as a secondary or tertiary citation. It's perfectly normal to have multiple citations for a fact or assertion in an article, and citing a reliable secondary source (Jones) alongside the primary it quotes extensively from (Des Barres) is generally accepted practice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So what is the problem with attributing to Jones? Its actually not generally accepted practice, you can do it in some cases but the generally accepted practice is to use the higher quality source alone. I also don't see how the text "in which Des Barres recalled Page being in an relationship with the then 13-year-old Mattix by late 1972 and before February 1973." is due when it just repeats what the first part of the sentence says. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

it just repeats what the first part of the sentence says No, it doesn't. The first part of the sentence says that Mattix' account is contradicted by Des Barres' memoirs, without going into any detail as to how Des Barres' memoir contradicted it. The part that was removed gave the detail on the contradiction; that Mattix and Page were in a relationship at some point in late 1972.

We could source all of that, including the removed half of the sentence, to the Jones biography alone. But given how extensively Jones quotes from Des Barres' memoir, it seems due that we also should cite the memoir directly alongside Jones.

As for the intext attribution, we don't need to attribute this to Jones, as he is not the originating source for the contradiction. That is, among other unnamed individuals, Des Barres. Jones is simply relaying what others have said, and Jones considers Des Barres to be at least reliable enough to mention and quote from extensively.

There is also other content we could include from Jones here, from the same page. [Mattix] says that she met Bowie many times over a period of ten years, yet there appear to be neither photos of them together, nor as others (including M. Sullivan Gates) have pointed out, any contemporaneous materials corroborating any sexual encounters between them. If we were to include some of this, in particular the content relating to Gates, then it would behove us to find where Gates has said this, and use that as an another augmented citation (ie Jones as first citation, Gates as second). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We need to attribute this to Jones unless we have a second reliable source, if we only have one then we need to attribute. Consensus on Medium is "Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. A 2022 RfC also found that Cuepoint, Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author." Note that this is not in Cuepoint. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, that isn't something I made up thats consensus. Also note the OR problem that you can't use a primary source to say or imply something about an event which happened later than it was published, in this case Mattix's claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

On the OR problem, are you now asserting that the Jones' biograph is a primary source? Because that quite clearly states that Mattix' claims about her first sexual encounter being with Bowie are disputed, including by Mattix herself where she discusses her prior relationship with Page. As for the Medium blogs, even if those are what Jones is referring to, which is possible given the publication date of Jones' biography, those would still be primary sources and would only be of use to augment content that Jones (or any other biography that mentions them) has written. Because Jones has mentioned them in context relating to the disputed retelling of Mattix' first sexual encounter, then we also can include them with care. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Mattix and Gates are the primary sources. Jones doesn't appear to be the sort of academic source we would need in order to be able to do that, he is not a very high quality source... He barely gets over the bar himself, he doesn't get to drag a medium attack piece in the door after himself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

HEB, as we discussed in May, Mattix is a notoriously unreliable narrator with respect to the particulars of her life. As I sourced in this reply at NPOVN, there are no fewer than four different accounts from Mattix for her alleged first sexual encounter with Bowie. Each account is mutually exclusive with the others, as they differ heavily on the where, when, and who else was present. Several of these are also contradicted by Sable Starr's account of her and Mattix' first encounter with Bowie.

In additional, as we discussed in May, and as is currently sourced in the article, Mattix has also contradicted her own account of her first ever sexual encounter, where she has in the past interviews stated that it was with Jimmy Page, in June 1972. Accordingly, we cannot take Mattix' word at face value, as to do so would have us engaging in a dispute, and must per policy contain an accurate recounting of every version of the allegations by Mattix, and sources which contradict Mattix' accounting must be included as juxtaposition, in order to properly and fully describe a dispute between reliable sources.

I'm somewhat disappointed here that we're largely rehashing the discussion we had in May, and for which consensus was clearly against the points that you raised both then and now.

Now, with regards to Jones and Gates, when we have a reliable source (Jones), who is citing others in their work (Gates), there is a limit to how far we can second guess why the reliable source is citing the sources that it does. At this time, it's unclear to me whether Jones is citing one or both of Gates' Medium blogs, or whether Jones is citing something else that Gates has written or said elsewhere. First of all, we should find out what specifically Jones is citing here, and try to figure out why Jones mentioned Gates by name. If it is the Medium blogs, then there must be a reason why Jones included it. Reading those blogs themselves, they seem to be well sourced, and I would not describe them as "attack pieces". Where they make assertions about Mattix' contradictions, they are all cited to sources we would ordinarily consider reliable, some of which we're either currently using, or prior to your edits were using directly in this article. However, if instead it is something else that Gates has produced and published, then we should see what exactly it is saying to help us put Jones into more detailed context. Maybe we'll include that in the article, and maybe not. Right now, without knowing for sure why Jones has mentioned Gates, we cannot know for certain. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the OR... But we can't put the OR on the page, even through implication. Please keep your comments concise, we're wandering a bit here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I was describing NPOV, not OR. In this case we do not have OR, as we have multiple reliable sources, some of which like Jones (see page 749 per the citation) have pointed out the contradictions in Mattix' accounts of her first sexual encounter, and some of which like Gillman, Trynka, and Davis give wholly conflicting and mutually exclusive accounts of that event. In short, we have a dispute in reliable sources, as well as from Mattix herself, as to where, when, and with who her first sexual encounter was.

Now if you want to assert that the biographies we've been discussing are not reliable, then that seems like a discussion for RSN. None of what you've asserted here seems to actually be backed up by policy or guideline. You've asserted a few times, both in this discussion and in the one in May, that pop culture biographies are prohibited due to BLP, yet when I've asked for a specific policy or guideline section, you have not provided one. If you are aware of a specific policy or guideline section for why we should not use biographies like the ones we have been discussing, can you please provide that now? My understanding is that no part of WP:RS, nor WP:SOURCES (a part of WP:V), nor WP:BLPRS (a part of WP:BLP) supports what you're asserting. SOURCES in particular states that books published by respected publishing houses, such as the biographies we've been discussing, are generally considered reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not asserted that pop culture biographies are prohibited due to WP:BLP, if so I would be against the use of Jones entirely. I have asserted that pop culture biographies are inferior to academic biographies. You're punching a straw man (especially as we currently note the contradiction in the article and include Trynka). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In this comment you stated that BLP requires that source be high quality in addition to reliable, that does in general exclude pop bios. (emphasis mine) Which, by a plain reading of what you've written would suggest that you're saying that pop culture biographies are generally prohibited due to BLP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Well it clearly does not mean that "that pop culture biographies are prohibited due to BLP" and I appreciate your correction but prohibited is still the wrong word as is pop culture, a completely different concept than popular (vs academic) press. Most pop bios are not high quality, thats not a controversial statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We're getting into the semantic weeds here, but prohibited and exclude are synonymous in this context. And I note that you have still to link to a policy or guideline section that supports your assertions. Will you please do so? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No they're not synonymous, and you can't assert that they are because I'm the one who used the word. WP:BLP: "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." and WP:SOURCETYPES "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources... Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually I can assert that prohibit and exclude are synonymous, because that's what reliable thesauri and dictionaries state. See Merriam-Webster, Collins, Thesaurus.com, among others.

SOURCETYPES does not prohibit the use of what you're calling pop biographies, and seems to have no guidance at all for handling non-academic subjects. Neither does the quoted section of BLP. And SYNTH has nothing to do with source reliability. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I never said it prohibited their use. What are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude and prohibit are synonyms. If you prefer, re-read all of my replies from here, substituting the word prohibit with exclude, and the meaning will be the same. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I never said it excluded their use either. I made no such statement at all about SOURCETYPES or anything else (you quoted me accurately above in green, shouldn't be too hard to stick to). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, I've left a note on Zmbro's talk page, as I'm not sure if he got the ping from Corbie or not. I figured that, based on his knowledge of the sourcing during the previous discussion, he would have some helpful insights here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a little late to the party here. Since there is quite a lot to unpack here, I'll make my replies going down the page:

1. As was unveiled back in May/June, HEB is insistent on everything that is stated in the articles be sourced: "None of those sources say that there is a "A confirmed factual error in Mattix's account of her experience with Bowie"" But this is a specific instance where that just cannot happen. When you have one source that says A, another that says B, and more that say C and D, more likely than not you're not going to have a source that says the above. And given that we cannot editorialize, we have to make the best of the situation and say "Source 1 says A, although source 2 says B"

2. Medium has been characterized as a self-published source so its removal is perfectly fine here.

3. "Case is a cultural critic who wrote a pop biography of Led Zeppelin, he does not appear to be an academic or subject matter expert and the standard for BLP are high. ... Stephen Davis (music journalist) has a mixed history when it comes to the accuracy of their writing and the publisher Boulevard Books appears to be a self publishing house so thats a no for a BLP. Pegg is not a subject matter expert and Titan Books Ltd is a pop publisher, that doesn't seem to stand up to BLP." Going into the minute details of whether a specific publisher is reliable or not comes off as a desperate way to try to remove content (at least to me).

4. SideSwipe is completely right with the 17:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply: "The part that was removed gave the detail on the contradiction"

5. All this back and forth is just headache-inducing: "I'm somewhat disappointed here that we're largely rehashing the discussion we had in May, and for which consensus was clearly against the points that you raised both then and now." That's literally what we're doing. HEB started a discussion full of contradictions on Talk:David Bowie then did the exact same thing (at the same time I may add) on WP:NPOV and is now doing the same here.

Overall, I would say HEB was right in removing the Medium content as that is unreliable, but for the most part all I've witnessed here is a rehash from months ago. Given that there are no biographies on Mattix herself, all that can be done here is describe what has been written through other primary and secondary sources. I'm not sure if has been mentioned here but there is this article from "rockerainsider.com", although idk if it's reliable (it says her first sexual encounter was Bowie, and she met Page weeks after). There's also an [https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-life-of-lori-maddox-the-baby-groupie-of-the-stars/ article from Far Out magazine, which I believe is reliable as I've seen that used a few times on WP although I could be mistaken.)

Point being, most primary and secondary sources on this matter contradict each other and their reliability is certainly questionable. But making the same arguments over and over again in different places isn't going to solve anything. In Mattix's case, it's important to mention all the facts, even though most contradict each other. I have no idea if Page (still alive) has personally said anything on the record about if he took Mattix's virginity (their underage relationship is certainly documented), but it's honestly a real shame there was never an answer from Bowie himself while he was still alive. Mattix's "I lost my virginity to David Bowie" declaration to Thrillist was published in November 2015, two months before he died. Even though he had turned into a recluse towards the end it still would have been nice to get clarity from him (however reliable it might have been) as that would make things easier.

But not everything is easy, and HEB has certainly brought extreme annoyance upon the matter this year. The solution was clear over on Bowie's page (don't say anything at all), but here it's a different story, as you have to work with sources that have questionable reliability. I agree with the removal of Medium but the use of Bowie's biographies (Pegg and Trynka) should be used as those are reliable. I can't say much else about the others except for Stephen Davis (I own and have read his biography on Duran Duran and it's pretty reliable). But overall, just as it was over on Bowie's talk page, HEB is just trying everything in their power to get what they want no matter how long it takes. Ugh. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughts, just a note that the the Trynka content was not removed or challenged. Also note that you can't use sources which have questionable reliability for BLP so "The solution was clear over on Bowie's page (don't say anything at all), but here it's a different story, as you have to work with sources that have questionable reliability." doesn't make any sense at all. After Mattix has been dead for a while we can revisit using sources with questionable reliability, but its literally not an option for a living person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think, from reading this, that we have consensus that the section in question is valid and should be included, although we can strike the statements supported only by blogs from Medium. Correct? That would result in this:

Mattix's allegations regarding her experience with Bowie have been called into question due to timeline issues; she is documented, by her own statements, statements of others, and photographs, as having already been in a relationship with Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page by the time she claims to have first met Bowie, as Led Zeppelin's 1972 North American tour came to Los Angeles in June, several months before Bowie's Ziggy Stardust Tour arrived for the first time in October 1972. Mattix's account is contradicted by fellow groupie Pamela Des Barres' 1987 memoir I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie, in which Des Barres recalled Page being in an relationship with the then 13-year-old Mattix by late 1972 and before February 1973. Mattix also previously claimed that she had lost her virginity to Page.

A confirmed factual error in Mattix's account of her experience with Bowie is that although she claims to have met John Lennon and Yoko Ono with Bowie at the Rainbow Bar during the alleged encounter in March 1973, Bowie and Lennon never actually met until September 1974.

87Fan (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023‎ (UTC)

That doesn't seem to reflect the conversation we just had. "Mattix's allegations regarding her experience with Bowie have been called into question due to timeline issues; she is documented, by her own statements, statements of others, and photographs," doesn't appear to be supported by the source, Case is only commenting on the pre-2011 allegations. There is no comment there on the later allegations because that would be impossible. This also doesn't match the Case quote thats been provided. Is it part of a longer bit which does include those details? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Though I have my own issues with the "Mattix's allegations" sentence, it's not forbidden by policy. NPOV requires us to give weight to all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources. Where there are multiple conflicting viewpoints of equal weight, we are required by policy to include them, as to exclude the conflicting viewpoints would have us engaging in a dispute instead of merely describing one. It is most decidedly not OR and not SYNTH to do so in this manner, though we naturally do have to be careful when presenting the information.

That means we can't say "a confirmed factual error", because that is editorialising. But we can say that Mattix has given conflicting accounts of the encounter, and additionally juxtapose Mattix' accounts against the accounts of Starr and Des Barres', both of which have also been covered in reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Some juxtaposition we can do and some we can't do, for instance including "Mattix also previously claimed that she had lost her virginity to Page." in that section we can not do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the MOS:CLAIM issues with that sentence, why can't we say something to that effect? She has, as recorded in reliable sources, said that Page was her first sexual partner, and she has also said that Bowie was her first sexual partner. Both cannot be true, and determining truth is outside our remit. Comparing and contrasting conflicts between sources is not OR, and we are allowed to note that sources/accounts differ with regards to the facts at hand. Therefore we have to mention all conflicting accounts per policy, as they are all of equal weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"we are allowed to note that sources/accounts differ with regards to the facts at hand" we are not unless a WP:RS has, we aren't even allowed to imply it otherwise. WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Summarising a conflict in reliable sources is not SYNTH.

Additionally, SYNTH is not a policy in its own right, it's a part of WP:OR, and comparing and contrasting factual conflict in reliable sources is not OR. If it is not OR, then by definition it cannot be SYNTH. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It has no business being in the David Bowie section other than to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source... We can have it in the Jimmy Page section, as long as we can source it... Note that the given quote from the subject does not say that she lost her virginity to Page, I'm presuming there is part of the source that does and we aren't combining "I was a virgin" and "I had sex" into "I lost my virginity"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It has no business being in the David Bowie section other than to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source This doesn't seem to be a policy based argument, as we've already covered why policy allows and requires us to compare and contrast the conflicting sources. However, Case's biography explicitly states that the chronology is problematic with regards to Bowie being Mattix' first sexual encounter, referring to statements Mattix gave to Des Barres' for Des Barres' memoir. Davis meanwhile, quoting from an interview Mattix gave him, and as discussed back in May gives rather explicit details of how Page was her first sexual encounter on or around 25 June 1972.

I have you ask, you have read all or most of the sources we're discussing here right? Links to many on archive.org, including page numbers, were given during the May discussion. Would it perhaps help your understanding if we listed every single reliable source of relevance here, where their information is sourced from (eg interviews with Mattix, interviews with Starr, etc), and summarise what those say? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been unable to review the documentary that quote is sourced from. Again Davis doesn't appear to be a high quality source, the quoted work is known to have issues with accuracy and can't be used for BLP. If there is a quote from the subject we can use that, but not in Davis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearly we aren't going to agree on the reliability of Davis, and possibly several other sources given what you've said above. Outside of other editors chiming in (unlikely, this is a lesser watched page), it seems like we have two choices here. We can go to RSN, ask uninvolved editors about the reliability of the sources, and if/when a consensus forms there we come back here for drafting content. Or we can draft two separate versions of the text, each supported by sources we believe to be reliable, and put those drafts to an RfC.

Either option will eventually end up with the same result; inclusion of text in the article that is supported by consensus. But I think the RfC option would be the more expedient of the two. RSN discussions can sometimes take a prolonged period of time, and even if it only takes a week or two, we'll still wind up back here again for drafting purposes anyway. There's also no reason why source reliability can't be assessed in an RfC, as that would naturally form part of assessing the merits for each of the provided options.

I don't mind either option, though I have a slight preference for just holding an RfC as it would be more expedient, and the eventual end result would be the same. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that this is a BLP RSN is almost certainly the way to go, remember the source not only has to be reliable it has to be high quality which is a higher bar. Note though that if the claim is made by the subject in the documentary we don't need to use it at all for this info. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify for me which subject and which documentary you mean here. Do you mean the 2010 VH1 documentary Let's Spend the Night Together that's no longer available online? Or is it another source entirely? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this page is Lori Mattix and the given source is "A to Zeppelin: The Unauthorized Story of Led Zeppelin" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Though we couldn't include it in a citation for the article, as it seems to be an unofficial upload, that documentary is available on YouTube. It's also, region dependent, available on Amazon Prime Video for rent or purchase. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful, and what does she say in it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's complicated. The quotation in the citation template is accurate, and the narration surrounding the interview clip puts Mattix and Page getting together in 1972. It doesn't go into the detail found in the interviews with Davis, which as this was a prime time documentary makes sense.

There's some anachronisms though, like Mattix claiming she first heard of Zeppelin in '73, after hearing Stairway. However other interviews with Mattix, like Davis, and Way Down Inside (currently cited in the article, and coincidentally matches reasonably closely the interviews given to Davis for Hammer), along with the narration in A to Zeppelin date Mattix and Page's relationship starting in June 1972. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything in addition to the quote? The given quote does not support the text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it's a prime time documentary, so it doesn't go into the more sordid details found elsewhere. In conjunction with Davis, it supports the text that Mattix said she lost her virginity to Page, as it really just serves as an additional verifier to the interview content in Davis for when they first got together.

However the Way Down Inside interview I linked in my last reply would probably be a better fit here, as it near word for word matches what is said on page 172 of Davis. Davis does have a little more detail in it, as there's definitely some stuff there that wouldn't realistically be included in a TV documentary, but otherwise they are way closer a match than any other retelling of either the Page or Bowie events from Mattix. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It has to do it on its own, "in conjunction with" is SYNTH. Hammer of the Gods (book) can't be used until you take it to RSN, nothin on that pages gives confidence that its a high quality source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

HEB you really, really, need to drop the SYNTH stick, as it does not mean what you think it means. Please re-read what I said in my last reply about A to Zeppelin being an additional verifier to Davis. Both sources, in an interview with Mattix, state that Mattix was a virgin when she met Page in 1972. Davis has further detail, which a lot of can also be co-verified with Way Down Inside as it has more detail than A to Zeppelin, on what happened when they reached the Hyatt House. Nowhere are we asserting something that neither source on their own states, which is what is required for SYNTH. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't "co-verify" with an unreliable source, if we can do all that with Davis then lets do it with Davis. We just established that Way Down Inside does not contain the claim that she lost her virginity to Page, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Or how about you read/watch/listen to the sources we've been discussing, as accessible links have been provided, including timestamped links for the video, and then you tell me what you think about the sources? That way you're not relying on second hand information, can verify the information yourself directly, and can spot things I might have missed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"including timestamped links for the video" that would be wonderful and must have missed it, I genuinely can't find where in the video she says she lost her virginity to Page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the last paragraph. It has the same editorialising issue I pointed out above. There's almost certainly a better way to phrase that, I just don't have my wordsmithing head on right now so can't figure out what it is.

Where exactly will this proposed content fit? Obviously in the Bowie section, but is it going before the second paragraph or after the third? Or is it replacing the current first paragraph entirely? If it's going before the second paragraph, or replacing the current first paragraph, then I think we need to add content here to cover the multiple variations of this encounter from Mattix' POV. Not just the Page relationship stuff on whether Page or Bowie was her first time, but also the variations on whether this took place in March 1973, or October 1972, whether or not Mattix (and/or Starr) was invited to Bowie's room, and whether Sable Starr was or was not present.

Then in the second paragraph we can juxtapose this against both Starr's and Des Barres' accounts. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Reflist

References