18-07-2015, 07:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-07-2015, 03:48 PM by Albert Doyle.)
The Death Of Jimi Hendrix Wikipedia page "Talk" section drew this response from an obvious political poster trying to discourage coverage of Jimi's murder:
{ There is a long article on Jimi Hendrix, which covers his death. There is really no need for a separate article. No matter how famous or "great" he was, Hendrix was just a musician with a short career, and then died. His death was not historically significant, like that of Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy. The world went on as before. If there are questions about the death itself, okay, put that in a section of the main article. This article is far too long and smacks of fan worship or controversy for its own sake. He took drugs. he died. That's the whole story, isn't it?Chagallophile (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Yes, there is a reason; the main article already exceeds WP:SIZE, and uses Summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)But is the death of Jimi Hendrix itself so important it is worthy of a separate article? If so, why?Chagallophile (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully you are familiar with WP:N; if not, then perhaps it is best not to add tags to articles that have been vetted in a review process to define Wikipedia's finest work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)@Chagallophile: I was going to say "yes" it's worthy but, I just noticed Joplin has just a section, I think both deaths are equally notable, maybe Hendrix just has more information. Also, we should have this discussion in one place Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC) }
The poster Chagallophile is an obvious neo-con op trying to dismiss the importance of Jimi's death and its true interpretation. He gives no recognition to the controversy and then adds the insultingly stupid comment that Jimi did drugs and died of them and it is really that simple. Never does the rules-strangled Wikipedia ever reflect that part of the reason why contemptuous posters like Chagallophile get away with their stupidly short-sighted opinions is because Wikipedia's deliberate information-denying coverage has created a deficient viewpoint on the matter. The article actually gets way too little attention and is not appreciated for its true significance. By the way, it isn't accurate that Jimi died of drugs. He was murdered. To add insult to injury I think the moderator Sandy refers to this crap article as "one of Wikipedia's finest works".
I remain banned from Wikipedia for daring utter "There's actually good evidence that Michael Jeffery murdered Jimi Hendrix" on the "Talk" page in front of the great Machiavellian rules authoritarians.
.
{ There is a long article on Jimi Hendrix, which covers his death. There is really no need for a separate article. No matter how famous or "great" he was, Hendrix was just a musician with a short career, and then died. His death was not historically significant, like that of Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy. The world went on as before. If there are questions about the death itself, okay, put that in a section of the main article. This article is far too long and smacks of fan worship or controversy for its own sake. He took drugs. he died. That's the whole story, isn't it?Chagallophile (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Yes, there is a reason; the main article already exceeds WP:SIZE, and uses Summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)But is the death of Jimi Hendrix itself so important it is worthy of a separate article? If so, why?Chagallophile (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully you are familiar with WP:N; if not, then perhaps it is best not to add tags to articles that have been vetted in a review process to define Wikipedia's finest work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)@Chagallophile: I was going to say "yes" it's worthy but, I just noticed Joplin has just a section, I think both deaths are equally notable, maybe Hendrix just has more information. Also, we should have this discussion in one place Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC) }
The poster Chagallophile is an obvious neo-con op trying to dismiss the importance of Jimi's death and its true interpretation. He gives no recognition to the controversy and then adds the insultingly stupid comment that Jimi did drugs and died of them and it is really that simple. Never does the rules-strangled Wikipedia ever reflect that part of the reason why contemptuous posters like Chagallophile get away with their stupidly short-sighted opinions is because Wikipedia's deliberate information-denying coverage has created a deficient viewpoint on the matter. The article actually gets way too little attention and is not appreciated for its true significance. By the way, it isn't accurate that Jimi died of drugs. He was murdered. To add insult to injury I think the moderator Sandy refers to this crap article as "one of Wikipedia's finest works".
I remain banned from Wikipedia for daring utter "There's actually good evidence that Michael Jeffery murdered Jimi Hendrix" on the "Talk" page in front of the great Machiavellian rules authoritarians.
.