Talk:Michael Hedges

question from Jimbo

"an instrument with additional bass strings that Hedges used to play Bach's Prelude to Cello Suite #1 in G Major in its intended key" On which album did he play this? I can't find it. I am a huge fan of Michael Hedges, having seen him perform in concert many years ago in the Live on the Double Planet tour at Auburn University.--Jimbo Wales 02:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm pretty sure he didn't play it on an album, but he did it live...

Would you like a recording of him doing this?

GregMinton 04:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on a Christmas compilation. I replied earlier to Jimbo's question directly on his talk page if you want to get more info. Cheers Anger22 05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

TimLanier 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it's on "A Winter's Solstice II" from Windham Hill, and he's playing a harp guitar. Yo Yo Ma does an excellent version of this song (on cello of course), but I prefer Michael's version.

It's a Harp Guitar, andy mckee uses one to. Moezzillas world (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hedges.jpg

Image:Hedges.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem was immediately fixed by DoubleBlue. Jo (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Born in OK or CA?

was michael born in Enid OK, or in Sacramento, CA? Type3secretion 12:54, 7 April 2008

Nice to see you here, type3. There's one or two sources stating Hedges was born in CA, but most say he was from Enid, OK. HTH, Jo (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of Death

The reports say his body was only found several days after the accident. Therefore the death date 02-Dec-1997 seems wrong to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.192.45 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The exact date of his death is not known. The last sign of living was a telephone call he made to Hilleary Burgess on Friday, November 28, from a plane on his return trip from New York to San Francisco. He was discovered dead on Tuesday, December 2, 1997, by a work crew. If returned directly from SF to Mendocino he probably died that same day or the day after (November 29). But as the cited reference in the article states it is not known if he stayed somewhere else before returning home. --Jo (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont know if you wanna add this to the MAIN page or right here... it was on Hiway 128 betw'n Cloverdale and the Mendo Coast.. downhill S-curve, i know it well (11yrs). Deep, dark culvert on one side or another.. took a work/road crew passing by to find him.. Very sad. 2600:1700:A760:C10:4E2:F5A:EACC:3CC7 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Tribute video removed

I added an external link Michael Hedges Tribute "You Were Always There" by Don Record which was almost immediately removed by User:Binksternet with the comment "rv promo". The video showcases many family photos of Michael and the song is written and performed by a childhood friend and bandmate. All proceeds from the public access tv produced video go to Michael's kids. Would anyone care to enlighten me as to how this external link does not enrich the information content of this article without being self promoting or whatever was being alleged ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site—that is what www.nomadland.com is for. How about this: if a reliable news source comments on the Record video, then it can be mentioned in the body of the article, and its youtube link can then be in the references along with a link to the news article. Otherwise, the encyclopedia is not here to make things notable; it is here to report on notable things. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed Wikipedia:External_links and it certainly seems to me that this external link would at least fall into the "to be considered" category and most certainly does not meet any of the criteria for "Links normally to be avoided". I appreciate the effort by many editors to weed out self promotion and other inappropriate edits - it's a big and important job. I just don't agree that this external link is not appropriate - i think it adds considerable information value to the article. However, i am retired from the time consuming argument process for Wikipedia disputes so if anyone wants to carry this forward feel free and you will have my support. Otherwise, so long to all the cool photos in that video. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Questioned regarding interview posted on YouTube

This new section is being started because of feedback given by Vmavanti. The initial revert of my edit was based on the fact that my reference was a video which had been posted to YouTube. That edit summary which stated "del youtube as source" conveyed the view that there is absolutely no video posted on YouTube which can possibly count as a reliable source (my words). This is clearly a misunderstanding of WP:NOYT. Policy does not guide us to never cite a YouTube video under any circumstance whatsoever. The reason this policy exists, as I see it, is as a general warning that anyone can post a video which says absolutely anything, so therefore in general, does not meet the RS standard. I re-added my edit, this time explaining that "No YouTube" is not a rule imposed upon us where there are no exceptions. The overriding rule of WP is the Catch 22 for editors: Ignore All Rules. That said, a closer look at NoYT shows that the policy makes a lot of sense.

So when I re-added my edit, I had explained this in my summary. The reason for this new Talk section now is that new criticisms have been raised. Those have been posted to my UserTalk, here. I myself see this ArticleTalk to be a much more useful place to engage in this discussion, so that others interested in these issues about this article will not need to go on any hunting trips. So Vmavanti, I invite you to continue the discussion here.

New criticisms have been raised. Perhaps the strongest is questioning whether the video I had cited was posted in violation of copyright law. I myself am not aware of any evidence of that. I did not post my edit because "I like this video". The reason for my edit was because I see this interview to contain extremely high quality information which can be quite useful for the purpose of improving the quality of the article. YouTube implements very powerful tools for policing copyright violations. One approach we could take here is trust the process they use.

Other criticism I've received is based upon comments I included in my edit summaries. Let's be clear that the level of scrutiny applied to anything I may have editorialized on in an Edit Summary has absolutely no bearing upon the content of the edit itself. The proof is in the pudding, and the summary ingredients are 0% pudding. Nothing. Nada. So disagree all you wish with what I have put in that space, but I suggest we keep our focus on actual edits.

"...it's not up to Wikipedia (or you or me) to tell people what to think. We present facts."

I agree with that completely. It seems that the discrepancy here hinges upon what constitutes "present". Edits are info presented to the public. Edit summaries are not presented to the general public whatsoever. For a user to see a summary, they must click on a link which takes them away from Article Space and into this other realm where we editors interact. And the moment a user clicks on that type of link, they have exited the general public, and entered this other realm where a different set of rules apply. Like here in this TalkSpace. I am at liberty to announce to other editors that "I LIKE TURTLES". And it would be totally inappropriate for any other editor to come along and remove or change my statement.

I maintain that this Michael Hedges interview he did in his old hometown of Enid, Oklahoma with host Janice Andrukaitis has EXCELLENT nuggets of info we can use to improve our article. That said, I am totally open to arguments from anyone who feels otherwise. --Concord19 (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

These posts miss the point. 99 times out of 100 when someone links to a Youtube video there is a copyright violation, if only because most videos on YouTube are copyright violations. What this usually means is a video from the person's own channel is permissible, but most other videos are not. Better, link to it. Better still, try to find text that says what the video says and use text rather than video as a citation. Many people have written about Michael Hedges. One ought to be able to find, at least try to find, written sources that say what that video says. It depends on what information you want to use. Is it as valuable as you think? Why?

I don't forbid people from using YouTube. I discourage it. For reasons already given. And others. Like having to write paragraph after paragraph trying to persuade someone like I'm doing right now. And failing because the words "I want" are more powerful than rational persuasion. 99 times out of 100. This is esp. true when talking to someone who is a fan. Instead of debating policy, which we can do on policy Talk pages, we should discuss specifics. When someone says "Hedges is the Eddie Van Halen of acoustic guitar", I know I'm dealing with a fan. Rules don't forbid you from saying this or whatever you want in your edit summary. But it is in your interest and everyone else's to make the edit summary clear and useful—among other reasons, to avoid having long, useless, time consuming discussions and misunderstandings. Wikipedia documentation explains how to write edit summaries. After a certain number of years on Wikipedia, competent editors develop a sense of what works. They see the same errors made every day, day after day. They aim for prudence rather than perfection. A contributor's experience might be new to them, but for us it is old hat. We've been here before. Like many, many other people who want to add something to Wikipedia, the poster seems to want to include cheerleading, promotion, praise, love, worship, or what journalists call advocacy—information that says how great Hedges is. My point was, that's not why we're here. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to pick winners and losers. To get into Wikipedia, one ought to have accomplished something, so the extra cheerleading is superfluous. Often it's embarrassing and counterproductive. It adds nothing of substance. I would encourage anyone who wants to use YouTube as a source to spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia's documentation, particularly parts about copyright, a confusing subject. I encourage people to use text rather than video. I encourage people to concentrate on communicating facts rather than promoting a subject or sharing your love for a subject.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a straw man: " I am at liberty to announce to other editors that "I LIKE TURTLES". And it would be totally inappropriate for any other editor to come along and remove or change my statement." It's an invention, because no one removed your edit summary. No one objected to it. It was revealing, but nothing more. You're not being punished for it. Yes, you are free to say what you want in edit summaries, for the most part, but is it prudent or wise to do so? An edit summary should...summarize...one's... edits. Given the large quantity of information on Wikipedia, and the small size of the edit summary box, I would think people would want to keep their summaries brief and relevant. You can give whatever opinion you want on Talk pages. But is it wise to say anything that pops into your head? Probably not.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)