Talk:Jimi Hendrix

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimi Hendrix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

	Jimi Hendrix is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 9, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Guitarists B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as High-importance).

Reading a bit of this article and the author(s) seem(s) to leverage a healthy portion of arbitrary bull. I think it's sad that bent people use the legacy of someone deceased to let their neuroses shine. Actually it's worse than sad - it's despicable. I recommend a thorough copyedit and rewrite. The article in its present condition is - to be honest, it reads like something written by a 'merkaan'.

I am sure, that many, or most, of the authors, of this protected article, have never heard of Lynne Truss, but I would still recommend, that they read, and use, her book, if it can, in some way, help correct, their extravagant, writing style. Thank, you.

Jim Dawson in his 1994 book Nervous Man Nervous, (Big Nickel Publishing; pg. 134), argues that saxophonist Big Jay McNeely had a significant impact on the development of Hendrix both in terms of his stage performance as well as a musician.

"Indeed, the 'screaming' bent notes and shrieking feedback that Hendrix coaxed out of his guitar and amplifier sounded similar to what Big Jay and the other honkers had been routinely forcing out of their horns for years."

Jim also cites Harry Shapiro and Caesar Glebbeek's definitive bio of Hendrix, "Electric Gypsy" (St. Martin's Press, 1990).

"The sax players were the guitar heros of their day and McNeely's act was a blueprint for the gameplan that Jimmy himself would use later on. Jimmy was also impressed by the power of the horn itself, the way it cut through the rhythm section, soaring and swooping to the climax of the song, and he incorporated horn sounds into the matrix of his own style and technique."

Buescher38 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds awesome! Why don't you add it to the article?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi often referred to his guitar as his "public saxaphone", but I don't see any reason to single out Big J as several songs Hendrix covered in his early days featured prominent sax as the soloJameselmo (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Jimi was Not influenced by B.B.King Several Times His Family has Said That Jimi's Idol was Elvis ; B.B.King Had The Opportunity to share the stage with jimi and B.B. King Sais That The Man Was Incredible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bintays (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sivertone & Danelectro are two seperate guitar companies that didn't build any guitars together - hence, it was either one or the other - this needs clarification...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.7.243 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. "Silvertone" was never a guitar company; it has always strictly been a brand name that Sears applied to the guitars they bought from the Danelectro, Harmony, Kay, Teisco and Valco factories. (This was a common practice with Sears who also contracted with many other famous factories to produce wares with Sears' "J.C. Higgins" brand applied to them.) Hendrix' guitar was a Danelectro model #3011 or 3012 (the only difference was the color), sold by Sears with the Silvertone logo on the headstock.Bricology (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Carlos Santana has suggested that Hendrix's music may have been influenced by his partly Native American heritage.[15] " Hendrix was in no way musically influenced by "his heritage". That's speculation and Santana probably said it so we could see his name on a page he doesn't belong to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.72.175 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounded pretty NPOV.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a Santana quote - Hendrix himself mentioned several times that some of his songs were influenced by Native-American themes, he frequently introduced I Don't Live Today as being "dedicated to the American Indian" and named another song with a distinctly Native -American beat "Cherokee Mist"Jameselmo (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a mixed blood Cherokee - Hendrix was as well - and I actually lecture at a university. One thing we talk about is the Native American influence in some of Hendrix's songs. For example, in Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) there is a lyric... "If I don't see you no more in this world, I'll meet you in the next one... and don't be late." That is a very Cherokee thing to say.Bigdatut (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that actualy sounds pretty African American.............. His father was African American. His mother has some mix. Which would make the majority of his genes Sub Saharn.... I find it funny everybody wants to claim african americans AFTER they get famous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.78.187 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the song Voodoo chile lyrics very closely resembles negro spirituals. Darkman1984 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Darkman84 His father was AFrican American, and his mother was a mix. That would make most of his genetics sub saharn African. I find it funny the only time Indians, or white people want to try and "claim" People is when they get famous Darkman1984 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Darkman84[reply]

Hi i was reading this page on jimi hendrix and i noticed you spelt his orignal name wrong it is hendricks not hendrix as i read it in his biography and also i dont know if its in there but the reason it was hendrix was beacuse of some producer who didnt know his name was spelt with 'cks' at the end and put an 'x' as he thought it was.

Marc

Vampiresoxxie (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind referencing the book? Then we can add it. Or you can feel free to add it yourself...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jimi was so born with the surname "Hendrix", not "Hendricks". Same goes for his father and grandfather. I think you need to look up the Hendrix Family Tree on the 1991 biography Jimi Hendrix – Electric Gypsy on page 747 ISBN 0312058616.. It wasn't until the 1800s, one of Jimi's ancestors started using the -x spelling. [[1]] 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The band was actually billed as 'The Blue Flame' in the only surviving advert for them and they were also referred to as such by John Hammond, a Crawdaddy 1967 issue, and also by Hendrix himself in his 1969 interview with Nancy Carter. 'Jimmy James' was merely his alias at this time, as was the earlier 'Maurice James' ie not part of the band title)

What's your problem with this Abie?

My problem is with the "i.e." part of it. i.e. I don't understand what you're trying to convey with that fragment of a sentence. But I love all the other changes you've made. I consider it an honor to find a way to improve on edits made by someone as well informed on Jimi Hendrix as you.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly clear it's not "a fragment" , it's part of the sentence: 'i.e.' - 'that is' his name was not part of the band title as per Hammond, Hendrix, Crawdaddy and the advert from village Voice i.e. the band was called and billed as : 'The Blue Flame' period. Jimmy James was just his alias at the time as was the earlier Maurice James - can I make it any clearer?Jameselmo (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I assumed it was perfectly clear to you. That's not the issue, Jameselmo. The issue is that I feel that particular clause is unnecessary. I never thought his name was part of the band's name. Why can't we just edit it to say "The Blue Flame"? And, maybe, but only if the consensus calls for it we could add the clause, ", sometimes mistakenly known as "Jimmy James and the Blue Flame".

That would be perfectly clear to me. Let's try and meet.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made my edits, moving the info about the misnomer Jimmy James and the Blue Flames down to the reflist, though I'm not sure if it would fit better in a notes section. What are all your thoughts on any of my fussing around? I'm particularly curious to know Jameselmo's thoughts.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "compromise" statistically ie the Billboard R&B chart shows clearly that Hendrix was very popular with the "black" community and I have added a cite as to this fact. The idea that Jimi wasn't popular with this community stems from "white" rock journalists who were unaware of the R&B chart, and unsubstantiated POV repeated endlessly until it has become a "factoid".Jameselmo (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abie:"The resolution for the dispute included Hendrix having to record an LP of new material for Chalpin company, which wouldn't feature the Experience band, and wouldn't be associated with the Experience band name."

Where did you get this information from?

Ed Chalpin said that he was unhappy with the album as the agreement stipulated the Lp was to be the next 'Jimi Hendrix Experience' studio LP composed of original songs, of a comparable standard to their previous releases.Jameselmo (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sound useful, Jameselmo. Please reference and add it. By the way, no one's fighting you. At least, I'm not. And I'm not trying to disparage Jimi nor the black population. I am trying for a good article on Jimi Hendrix. Just to be clear. With that said, I think I have found the compromise. Let me know if you like it. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free file does not have a non-free use rationale to explain why it is acceptable to use it in this article. If there isn't a rationale the image shouldn't be here. It may ultimately end up being deleted if it remains here without a rationale being added to the image description page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article reported in error that Hendrix was discovered in his girlfriend's flat unresponsive then brought to St Mary's Abbott Hospital where he later died. He had actually died long before being discovered, the testimony from the two ambulance drivers Mr Reg Jones and Mr John Suaaw confirms that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "this article", do you mean Wikipedia's article? Because the second paragraph explains both the claims of Dannemann, and the police's and ambulance drivers' claims. Seems fair to me, no?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Austin Rowe and i have been playing the guitar for 4 years and know how to play all of his songs. He is awesome :) I dislike tessa wilkes she likes women —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arowe63 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of how a certain dude named Freddie Bulsara idolized Jimi and went to see him several times with his friends/future bandmates Brian May (also influenced by Jimi) and Roger Taylor? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I think the "Legacy" section is doing an adequate job. Do you have a source to reference for that info? Maybe you could try squeezing it into that section.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am 12 years old and play electric guitar and I have looked up to Jimi most of my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.88.196 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since the article is semi-locked or whatever, I just want to point out to whoever can edit this that the "Pan handle" of Golden Gate Park should be "Panhandle". (5th paragraph 1st line of the US success section.)

Thanks,

Q

{{editsemiprotected}} DRUG USE, DEATH and IN THE ARMY

What's the point of the entire DRUG USE section on the Jimi Hendrix listing? While its known that Jimi experimented with drugs, so too did almost all musicians in that scene at the time. Two mandates of Wikipedia are to maintain "neutral point of view" and that content has to be to "verifiable."

Too many people in mainstream media have the incorrect belief that Hendrix was a heroin user and died from an overdose of that substance. The Drug Use section seems to create more questions than it answers. In the end, it provides almost no benefit to the entire Jimi Hendrix entry and seems a little out of context in the terms of what an encyclopedia should include; not to mention several drug related facts can't be verified.

Linda Keith: can that really be verified that she introduced Jimi to LSD?

Kathy Etchingham: whether this did or did not happen; its a singular event that doesn't seem to fit into an encyclopedic reference. It's also a posthumous interview quote remembered some 20+ years following Jimi's death. It happened in a public place (a pub) but never seemed to be verified by anyone else.

Carmen Borrero: another posthumous interview, done some 20+ years after Jimi's death. If its true, its sad; but could there be other circumstances behind this event other than just alcohol? Unless you're an alcoholic -- which no one has ever said Hendrix was -- tying alcohol to the generic DRUG USE moniker is heavy handed.

Stockholm: lots of musicians have trashed hotel rooms, parties are parties. Plus this happened in Gothenburg, not Stockholm.

Paul Caruso: Jimi punched him because he believed Caruso stole from him; not because he was drunk. If someone steals from you, are you not potentially prone to wanting to punch them too?

Toronto event: Hendrix was aquitted.

Death controversy: Making vague references (even to discredit use of heroin -- albeit in a clumsy way) only seems to expand mainstream media's perception that Hendrix was a full-time drug addict and that he died on heroin. There's never been proof of Hendrix doing heroin, no one ever said he did; and the autopsy report following his death made clear reference that there was no indication of Hendrix using needles, etc. Why make any references whatsoever to that subject if it's never proven?

Hendrix's official cause of death is "barbituate intoxication, inhalation of vomit" caused by wine and sleeping pills. Doctors on the scene following his death had also indicated that had Jimi passed out on his side, rather than his back, he most certainly would have made it through the night and not choked on his own vomit.

That said, this drug use section seems to come across as having a negative bias towards Hendrix. If you look at the Wikipedia entries for fellow entertainers who died of drug overdoses and had reasonably well-documented history of taking drugs; they have no such similar entries. A random sampling people like Tommy Bolin (Deep Purple, Zephyr), John Belushi, Paul Butterfield, John Entwistle, Shannon Hoon, Janis Joplin or even Keith Moon ... none of their wikipedia bios are tarnished by the unnecessary DRUG USES section.

The last two paragraphs of the DEATH section also present questionable material that cannot fully be vouched for by official postmortem documentation and only help to serve those individual's personal interests in selling books (Eg. Tappy Wright). Interesting that Wright's statement is backed up by a discredited doctor who was drummed out of business in the UK for fraudulent conduct. John Bannister's comments have grown more exaggerated over the years each time he gives an interview; they also conflict slightly with Reginald Jones who was one of the ambulance attendants who came to Jimi's flat after he died.

The IN THE ARMY section includes the Charlie Cross reference to Jimi Hendrix being homosexual, with similar personal interests to help sell his book. Cross provided no verifiable evidence to make that point; which clearly goes again the "verifiability" requirements for Wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveshotz (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010

 Not done: Welcome. The editsemiprotected template requires a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Also, you need to understand that our policy on verifiability means that one can verify that the source made the claim, not that the claim was true or verifiable beyond the source. We rely on reliable sources not to make wild claims. If something is presented in the source as an opinion, it should also be presented here as the opinion of that source, but claims which are presented as fact by a reliable source are considered facts. You are welcome to leave your comments here for an editor interested in this article to read and use or you can submit a new request with specific changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Celestra. Excuse me if I'm way off base as I'm not a Wiki-expert. However, it seems to me that the test for verifiability between a LIVING PERSON and a DECEASED PERSON is heavily flawed. Under Wikipedia's mandate for trusted sources they state "As WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Who declares someone as being a "trusted source" when they are referring to a deceased person? Just because you wrote a book; should not automatically make someone considered authorative on a subject matter.

If content can be pulled for a LIVING PERSON that is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" should be removed immediately; why can't similar such statements for a DECEASED PERSON have similar responses. Seems that the declaration on what is a trusted source for a deceased individual may have some issues that can allows "questionable" statements to be permitted.

And while it may be true that you can't defame a dead person ... so the need to remove "questionable" or "negative" material is less important than for living people ... it does a great disservice for readers that attempt to use Wikipedia as a source for unbiased and correct information on subjects when such "questionable" statements can be left in. Seems a little like a double-standard and a flaw in the process. Liveshotz (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Re the drug use issue... if you go to the official Hendrix website, there are a number of recorded radio broadcasts that can be played. In the numerous interviews, a number of his closest friends and business associates say emphatically that Jimi was clean and sober for the last 6 months of his life. They also opine that his death via an overdose of sleeping pills was an accident that had to do with the difference between American versus European medical measurements (i.e., metric versus standard). One European sleeping pill equated to three American pills... so he ended up taking the equivalent of 9 pills by mistake. Check it out.Bigdatut (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we have more than enough on his life. Would it be possible to expand on his music, techniques, effect on contempories and later, effects, etc, etc, blah, blah? Fergananim (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Bold, Revert, Discuss. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a link to the Wikipedia article on Rory Gallagher at the point in the Jimi Hendrix article where Hendrix says "ask Rory Gallagher". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.97.117 (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation can be found here. It was actually in the Rory Gallagher article where you added the info in the section where it's actually cited. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page locked? Anyway, can someone add the cat: American expatriates in the United Kingdom for Jimi Hendrix? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that giving Jimi Hendrix the meme treatment wasn't right, but I thought it would be blocked by the same filter that disallowed another meme at Stanley A. McChrystal. Oops. Can someone remind me how to properly test filters? 68.36.120.7 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says James Marshall "Jimi" Hendrix, the box to the right says Birth name: Johnny Allen Hendrix. I'm confused... --92.200.223.228 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was named Johnny Allen Hendrix by his mother at birth, but was later renamed James Marshall Hendrix in the custody of his father. To make it clear, I'll mention his birth name in the lead, per the manual of style. Sir Richardson (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the List of Mexican Americans provides this reference, but there is no reference i can find in this article to show his Mexican ancestry. I dont usually add material to high profile articles, so i am leaving this here for someone else to place. I think we need to have some reference here, and some mention in the body of the article, not just the category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to be removed from the Mexican American page. If thats the case he need to be on the African American musician page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this ill-sourced and tabloidesque section as it seems to have no place in a serious encyclopedia article. Another user has replaced it. What purpose does it serve? --John (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It serves a purpose and conveys the possibility that this was an intentional act. We do not censor these and it is clear it was only a allegation. Had I seen the removal I would've reverted it, there is nothing new in Wikipedia about reporting things that are controversial or possible. Remember a allegation is exactly that something not proven, however if we start by removing all the articles that talk about conspiracies we might as well start with this one Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories or Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories. Had the section been sourced by Inquirer I'd understand the reasoning but as is the section is fine Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the merit of conveying this possibility? Bear in mind WP:UNDUE please when answering. --John (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a edit conflict...I guess I'd also be iinterested in what is undue attention to this? Ten lines that are sourced when compared to several hundred? It seems this is a very small portion of a otherwise large article so not understanding your viewpoint. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the murder allegations section:

A former Animals "roadie," James "Tappy" Wright, published a book in May 2009 claiming Hendrix's manager, Mike Jeffery, admitted to him that he had Hendrix killed because the rock star wanted to end his management contract.^[1] John Bannister, the doctor who attended the scene of his death in 1970 stated publicly in 2009

"The amount of wine that was over him was just extraordinary. Not only was it saturated right through his hair and shirt but his lungs and stomach were absolutely full of wine. I have never seen so much wine. We had a sucker that you put down into his trachea, the entrance to his lungs and to the whole of the back of his throat. We kept sucking him out and it kept surging and surging. He had already vomited up masses of red wine and I would have thought there was half a bottle of wine in his hair. He had really drowned in a massive amount of red wine."^[2]

In 1992, Bannister, according to the Daily Mail, was struck off for "fraudulent conduct" .^[3]

It was claimed that Mike Jeffery was not "in London," he was in Spain when Jimi died in London on September 18, 1970.

"There was a freak storm across Majorca and all the phone lines were down. Somebody told Mike that Jimi had been trying to phone him. The first call that got through was to say Jimi was dead. Mike was terribly upset at the thought of Jimi not being able to get through to him." - Trixie Sullivan, secretary/assistant for Mike Jeffery ^[4]

I think it's pretty clear that John has a reasonable point, the section is just awful. The section starts with an accusation by a roadie (which would no doubt have helped boost sales of his book), followed by a quote from Bannister taken out of context. In the Sunday Times article he said that Wright's accusation "sounded plausible because of the volume of wine". The way the quote is presented in the article gives the impression Bannister agrees with the accusation. Also, why is it relevant that Bannister was struck off in 1992? And why is "in London" in scare quotes? Why is it even mentioned at all? The section needs a heavy pruning to say the least; at most a sentence may be salvageable. Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the headline about the Dr mqking the claims...."Doctor on duty the night Jimi Hendrix died adds weight to murder theory" Consider also [[2]]. It doesn't matter if the person added this to sale books the issue is that he result ended in news coverage. This is not undue wait it is clearly a npov reporting there was controversy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the headline? Please tell me you're not serious. Bannister said it was "plausible"; it's one thing for the Mail to be sloppy, but Wikipedia's article is just as bad as it presents the information as if Bannister supports the allegations. Including so much information on what he said is irrelevant. If this should be mentioned at all, it should be something along the lines of the first sentence of the section and merged into the death section as it doesn't stand on its own. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am serious. No one here has raised a reason why it shouldn't be raised. If you think it should be pruned down go ahead but the material is valid and it has recieved coverage. It at least deserves mention in my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Having received coverage" is not the criterion here. Please actually read WP:UNDUE. Thanks. --John (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me, as a child of the '60's, that this idea which never received coverage, and indeed didn't exist as a rumor (even among fans like me) until sometime 20 years after JH died (an entire generation) would somehow now (some 40 years/2 generations later) garner a following sufficient to sell books or notoriety for a few peripheral and now geriatric hangers-on (an ANIMALS roadie? An ancient former doctor? A supposed girlfriend who was never mentioned by JH?) None of these unreliable sources ever spoke up at the time, despite the anguish, disbelief, and incredible publicity that immediately followed JH's death and persisted for a year or two; all waited for literally 20 to 40 years. The Google news search above actually tends to demonstrate that the murder theory is recently invented, but of course, it's not a reliable source for that point (or for that matter, for the idea that the murder theory is somehow worthy of consideration). My two cents, but this really is a great example of WP:UNDUE. I suggest a single sentence: "Decades after Hendrix died, the public's fascination with his life and early death continued; several persons claiming some connection to Hendrix announced to media in the 1990's and early 21st Century that they had information indicating that a crime had occurred, and that Jimi Hendrix had been murdered (cite reliable secondary source). Steveozone (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something along those lines would work IMO as it doesn't put undue emphasis on the allegations and puts them in perspective.. Nev1 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the suggestion, Steve. --John (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy perhaps you haven't.... Consider these points. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources(news Article counts as reliable), in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description (no where is this given undue attention there wsa two statements by a Doctor and a former roadie) as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth theory. (there is clearly support for the claims in contemporary media.)

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant (this was done in the claim that Jefferies wasn't in London. ), and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view(this has been clearly denoted as allegations and not fact.). Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. (Ten lines is hardly out of proportion with this article) This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude and counterproductive to do a text dump like that. It's also rude to revert. I think the bit you aren't getting is probably "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight""; this is a tiny minority view, a recent invention by inherently unreliable sources for commercial reasons, and thus does not belong in the article at all. Putting one sentence was a compromise. Having a paragraph of this conspiracy theory crap is definitely too much. I think you are the only editor arguing for its retention at this point. Conceding gracefully is a real skill here. You should practice it. --John (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rude and counter productive to make stupid comments like "Please actually read [[WP:UNDUE]". If I can't get you to back up your argument in a coherent way without vague policy references, I'll paste the entire fucking policy here and bold the important parts so it's a little more like a coloring book, simple and easy to understand. Perhaps you'll like to instead make a valid point how clearly noting it was a allegation only and also then putting evidence that refutes the claims helps lend it NPOV and gives it undue weight. We're talking about ten lines in a article with hundres if not in the thousands. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it was rude to ask you to read a policy, if the problem was actually that you had read it but didn't understand it. Anyone else besides Hell in a Bucket think this paragraph "helps lend it NPOV"? I don't agree that it does, I think it breaches UNDUE, indeed it is a textbook example of UNDUE. It's like having a paragraph in the Earth article about how some people think the Earth is flat. We don't work like that. The claims are weak, the sources are weak, and it taints the article with tabloid trash. --John (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming a less vague comment will be forthcoming....Why is this a textbook example of Undue? I'm interested to see your reasoning and not vague ramblings that don't really explain your position at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, Hell, I would accept the sentence that has been generously suggested and drop the matter. I don't think this theory is worth mentioning at all. I would liken it more to a paragraph in the Moon article regarding the theory that it is 'made of green cheese' or is 'a reflection' or that a London bus was found on it (reported in the Daily Star in the 90s, with a photo). It is the sort of theory that gives half-baked a bad name. Occuli (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please by all means explain what sentence has been offered so generously? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider the coverage.....

• Hendrix murdered by his manager, says former aide [[3]] The Independant
• Jimi Hendrix murdered by manager, claims roadie [[4]] The Guardian
• Jimi Hendrix murder theory 'plausible' says ER doctor The Telegraph
• Was Jimi Hendrix murdered? [[5]] The Week
• Was Jimi Hendrix murdered? [[6]] The Sunday Times
• Doctor: Jimi Hendrix May Have Been Murdered [[7]] Fox News

I've demonstrated that this conspiracy has generated international headlines with more examples here [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. I guess I'm completely not understanding how this plethora of sources is being ignored. It was covered on both sides of the ocean, clearly make things known it was a allegation only and not established fact. I am really not seeing how this should be exclused. It has widespread coverage and does not give it undue wueght. Please explain how these sources are not allowable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi was born with the surname "Hendricks," and that was the spelling he used until he went to London in 1966. I'd like to hear thoughts on changing the spelling in the Biography section for his life prior to that time. (The matter has been somewhat confused by the fact that, after Jimi became famous, his father and other family members started using the -x spelling) --Solicitr (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitor, your statement is false. Jimi was indeed born with the surname "Hendrix" not "Hendricks". Same with his father and grandfather, according to the family tree in the 1991 biography Jimi Hendrix – Electric Gypsy on page 747 ISBN 0312058616.. It wasn't until the 1800s, one of his ancestors started using the -x spelling. I suggest you pick up a copy. [[11]] 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.famousroots.com/profiles/H/hendricks-johnny-allen.html. I suspect the tree in Electric Gypsy has been "regularized" (not uncommon in genealogy, since name spelling can be rather flexible over time).

Johhny Allen Hendricks (soon re-named James Marshall Hendricks and eventually known as Jimi Hendrix) was brought into the world in the city of Seattle, the son of Al Hendricks and his wife Lucille Jeter. http://www.nndb.com/people/885/000031792/Solicitr (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The family tree in Electric Gypsy has NOT been "regularized"; it's all the evidence you need. You also need to read more of his biographies. The two websites you have just provided me are just completely unsourced. Better yet, you need to sit down with the Hendrix family in person and they'll tell you the real spelling of their name. To think that Jimi and his family were born "Hendricks" and not "Hendrix" is just absurd. 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, IP, but "Sit down with the Hendrix family" is not how we cite here; a cite from an editor here saying "He told me" is not going to work. I've frequently seen or heard biographies that mention this idea that the "x" was invented when JH met Chas Chandler and was "remade" so as to be famous; it's not surprising that there are some sources out there that repeat that "conventional wisdom." ON the other hand, though, there is this: [12], an actual document from the beginning of JH's military service, before Chas Chandler and before the chitlin circuit--JH is acknowledging and signing his last name with an "x." I'm not necessarily saying that this is conclusive, or even a reliable source, but it does lead me to question the "conventional wisdom" and conclude that we need some better sources than those which have been used to support the "-cks" story (which may be nothing more than an oft-repeated legend). Steveozone (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source the IP provided clearly states on page 7 (paraphrased by me for relevant content): "Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix was born in Urbania, Ohio, on 11 April 1866... His mother...was called Fanny. Fanny Hendrix (or Hendricks as it was originally spelt)...had been married to...Jefferson Hendrix". So I think we have some conflicting sources here, fellow editors! Cool. How should we proceed? Doc9871 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stop believing this legend that Jimi's surname was originally "Hendricks" and cite Jimi's family tree on Electric Gypsy. Since I'm a complete Hendrix nerd, I don't remember seeing or reading any of his biographies that mentions this name-spelling change. And thanks for agreeing with me, Steveozone. Fanny Hendrix was probably the first to officially change the spelling from "Hendricks" to "Hendrix". OH! And by the way, I read in one of his bios that Jimi himself altered the spelling of his first name from "Jimmy" to "Jimi" during his time at Cafe Wha? in Greenwich Village, claiming he wanted the spelling to look more "exotic". 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the surname was originally "Hendricks": but long before he was born. Even Fanny's husband was named "Hendrix" - so I don't even think she changed it. It seems clearer that Jimi Hendrix was born "Hendrix" and not "Hendricks" from this source. No thanks needed here, IP! Happy editing :>

BTW - After the last "period" of your next post, put one space and then type four "tildes" ~~~~. This will sign your posts so that other nitpickers like me won't have to. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And - I think it's possibly WP:BRD time, here, folks. The source provided in the article for him being born "Hendricks" (pg.8 of that source) does not support this at all: in fact it's the opposite. I'll do the honors, if no one else wants to "embolden" themselves... :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Doc9871. I will do that. Since you've said "Happy editing", do you think you can contact someone to unlock this article so that I can edit it? Just change the spelling back to "Hendrix". 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'll do it for you: and happily! And I'll add the appropriate source. BTW - I had to put the "nowiki"/"/nowiki" marks around the above example or it would have signed as "Doc9871" instead of actually displaying the four tildes. You shouldn't put the "nowiki" marks when you sign: just type the four tildes. You've fixed it, though, I see! You can still edit this article anyway: see WP:REGISTER. IP page protection quite often happens because of continuing vandalism: but registering gets around that nicely. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you changing the spelling back to "Hendrix" yet, or are you still in discussion? Just curious. 75.192.240.187 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let's see what happens... :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the Early life and The Jimi Hendrix Experience sections. Can you also delete the sentence where Chas Chandler was "coming up with a name-spelling more eye-catching than 'Jimmy Hendricks'"? 75.192.240.187 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I've still got to move the cite, as that page of the source doesn't completely support the birth name listed in the article; only that his surname was "Hendrix" and not "Hendricks" prior to his birth. Still working on it, believe me. There's no WP:DEADLINE, and anything here must be properly sourced above all else if it's to stay. Even so: I've had many reliably sourced entries altered by another editor to then not reflect the source: it happens as part of the course of action here. No worries! It will get sorted out, and hopefully the discussion will continue here from other editors as well. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some bad references here: some aren't even considerable as references. I'm going to have to find the appropriate substitutes, and this may take a short amount of time... Doc9871 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what the IP pointed out was correct to do, removing "references" and original research. To think that I was actually going against this editor until I actually looked at the source he/she provided. You learn everyday... :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ya gotta love those anonymous IPs, who come up with good edits despite the fact that they refuse to edit under their own names that their parents gave them, as opposed to those who insist on editing here under their own fake names that they gave themselves....Good looking out, IP. Steveozone (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I forever curse the day my parents named me "Doc9871". It caused me a lot of grief growing up. Thanks, Ma and Pa! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I concede that I was mistaken as to "Hendricks." Mea culpa. But it is unquestionably true that the "Jimi" spelling was Chas Chandler's idea, or at least that Hendrix didn't use it before London. Solicitr (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember where you saw this? If it can be backed by a reliable source, it pretty much needs to be here... Doc9871 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally missed the reinsertion of the quote with the source: awesome! One problem though: the source says, "Switching gears from bass player to manager, Chandler's first task was to change Hendrix's name to "Jimi." It mentions nothing about "eye-catching", and as a NPOV issue, that part of the phrase would be considered original reseach. I'll rewrite it to reflect the name change only, or another editor can if they get to it before I do ;> And Solicitr: it's best to actually use the edit summaries when undoing another editor's edits. This[13] could have mentioned that you added a source, you know. The same source that further backs up the "Hendrix" vs "Hendricks" thingy. Without an edit summary, it appears as a straight revert: I don't mind, but reverting can be a "touchy" thing with some editors, and doesn't foster good communication too well. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Roger Law" who did the cover for Axis: Bold as Love the same one referenced here? If so, could this be made a link (and someone edit the Roger Law page to reflect this). KeithC (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i read in a book that the ukulele he had as a kid, before he had a guitar, only had one string on it. so in other words not really a playable instrument. i think that should probably be included... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.200.69 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to add it, provided you WP:CITE the book, which needs to meet the criteria as a reliable source. All you have to do is find the book and use {{Cite book}}, and it's all good (usually). I can help you with it if you need it: just keep talking on this page. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jimmy never played behind his head and or back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.120.146 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right... all those videos were forgeries.Bigdatut (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At various times, and in various interviews, the story of his exit from the military has taken different form. In one interview Jimi himself said he pretended to hurt his back. In one of the books (it might have been Room Full of Mirrors) it mentioned that he broke his ankle. In another reference it said that Jimi told his commanding officer that he was a homosexual.

It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to think that Jimi could have been at least bi-sexual. Look at his incredible stature in the entertainment world. He certainly would have had the opportunity. Look at other media icons - Jagger, Bowie, even John Lennon, who admitted to giving it a try with a man "just to see what fucking would be like with a guy." Jimi knew all of these people, and it is not at all impossible that, perhaps during one of his many groupie orgies, a male would have been involved. It certainly would not diminish my respect for the man.

From the American Indian standpoint (I am an Indian person), there is a tradition of the Dual Spirit Person - one with the spirit of a man and a woman. Jimi would exactly fit the mold of such a person. Jimi was almost like an alien - he was such an original. In fact, some Indian people point to a lyric in the song "Purple Haze", in which Jimi sings, "Excuse me while I kiss the sky." Kiss the sky? What does that mean? In reality, if you watch a number of his live concert recordings, it is clear that he is actually saying "Kiss this guy." That makes sense. It's as if he is trying to tell us his secret - not that he is gay - he clearly had many sexual encounters and relationships with women - but that he was bi-sexual - at least on occasion. In my opinion, this is almost a settled fact.Bigdatut (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the following sentence in the music legacy section, please note that Kurt Cobain was not a 1960s rock star but a 1990s rockstar so I do not think including him in this reference is correct. He was 27 but he did not die within months of the others.

   "His career and death grouped him with Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Ron "Pigpen" McKernan (of the Grateful Dead), and Kurt Cobain as one of the 27 Club, a group including iconic 1960s rock stars who suffered drug-related deaths at age 27 within months of each other..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsuit (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]