Talk:Dave Van Ronk

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

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk 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.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Maritime Trades

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Jazz

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz 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.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Discussion

Q. Where can I find any of Dave Van Ronk's managers? A. Ron Shelley is listed as manager on Dave Van Ronk (Polydor) album. ronshelleyis@yahoo.com

And here's I was waiting for a punchline -- "In the RonksMuseum", or something. -- TimNelson 05:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could add that he is interviewed and memorable in Martin Scorcese's Dylan dcumentary. Jgrudin (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Jonathan Grudin[reply]

POV?

The second half of this article seems less scholarly and more like a fan web site... {Anon. entry January 2005)

Greenwich Village residence

The career section has him "speaking fondly of his impending return to Greenwich Village" suggesting he did not live there at the time (why would he say that if he was just on a trip?), but the personal characteristics section says "he declined to ever move from Greenwich Village". Can someone clear this up? --Blainster 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Village Scene

clearly, he belongs in that category71.214.177.214 00:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall

The Wikipedia Stonewall article mentions that Van Ronk was one of the few identified individuals who was severally beaten by the police during the Stonewall Riots. If that is true, would that not be a biographically significant fact that should be included in this article?

Sources, Tone and Organization

While this article seems factually correct, I see no sources cited for any of the facts reported. A quick look at the history shows an accretion of unsourced additions over time. Furthermore, the tone and organization of the article seem to me to be more like a personal reminiscence (admittedly a pleasing one!) than a biographical entry. Understand that I don't take issue with what is said, but I do think that this could be considerably improved, both by citing sources and in terms of organization and tone. Pair O' Noyas 02:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is extracted from the sources linked at the bottom, and would require a truly grotesque number of footnotes or equivalents. Perhaps someone like yourself more distanced from the topic might take a hand? --Orange Mike 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mike, I am a noob here, and, in typical noob fashion, said too much too soon!

My introduction to WP editing involved, unfortunately, the topic of <gasp> scientology©®™. As you may know, when it comes to articles involving Scn, mega-editwars commonly take place over the most trivial of issues, and any statement not bolstered with citations galore is sure to bring about a hail of "POV" accusations. (It will be interesting to see whether the above mention attracts the attention of the ~~hyper~~ever-vigilant minions of LRH.)

Again, I don't take issue with anything factual, and since I (long ago) "knew some guys that knew some guys" that knew Van Ronk, it seems like this article is accurate, and, what is more, that he would approve!

BTW, noob that I am, I thought the indents in these discussions were automatic, but I had to put my own colons in (you should pardon the expression!) What am I missing/doing wrong/not doing? --Pair O' Noyas 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing is auto-formatted (and the result is some really crappy mis-indentation on some talk pages). --Orange Mike 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dave Van Ronk.jpg

Image:Dave Van Ronk.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz not black music??

Since when is jazz not "black music"? May be more reasonable to say he gravitated back to black roots music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.180.236 (talk) 16:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Discography

I updated the discography to include all releases - it's a bit confusing in many areas as some same titles were used or same album released under a different name. For example, SomeBODY Else, Not Me was changed when released on CD to SomeONE Else, Not Me. Hopefully, it is good to go. I've added a lot of the albums and will do some more updating on them. Allmusic's discog is off in a bunch of places too. Join in! Airproofing (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Tom Russell Album, The Man From God Knows Where, to the Discography because Dave Van Ronk is featured performing two songs, The Outcast and a followup, The Outcast (revisited). If someone was trying to put together a complete Van Ronk collection they would need to know about this album. I suspect that there are other albums out there that were by other artists that include him as well. If anyone knows of any they might consider including them in the list. AJseagull1 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discography arrangement

I'll admit this is partly personal preference - but I think it might be useful to arrange the discography into several sections. (1) Original studio albums. (2) Live albums. (3) Studio album rereleases (including double-albums on CDs). (4) Greatest-hits style compilations (e.g. a chrestomathy). Any thoughts? :) Luminifer (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the chronological list used now.--Paul (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I find it very difficult to actually get a list of individual performances/songs using the list as it is now - or to get a historical chronological perspective on his actual performances. As far as research goes, I think the current format is somewhat limited.Luminifer (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not compromise and leave the list in chronological order, but mark each album as studio or live as appropriate? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea! What do you think, an extra column and color-coding? Luminifer (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged it - forgetting about this discussion - but I won't be annoyed if someone rearranges it back to chronogical as long as the information I've added (i.e. what kind of album it is) is just as easily readable... i.e. an extra column (if I have time I'll do it).

Ordering of live albums

What do people think of listing them chronologically by performance date rather than by release date? Luminifer (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discography dates

[1] disagrees with the years we have for some of the albums, like the ragtime jug stompers, and just dave van ronk. Just Dave Van Ronk sounds later than In The Tradition to my ears, as well. I just checked my vinyl copy, there is NO YEAR anywhere on it. Likewise for Jug Stompers. Does anyone have any ideas? Luminifer (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for the song "He Was A Friend Of Mine"

The Career section states, "Van Ronk joined the many performers who played at Phil's memorial concert in the Felt Forum at Madison Square Garden, playing a bluesy version of Dylan's 'He Was A Friend Of Mine'."

Dylan did indeed have his own version of "He Was A Friend Of Mine" (HWAFOM), but HWAFOM is a traditional folk song that predates Dylan. (I believe someone [Woody Guthrie?] adapted it for a tribute to FDR upon the latter's death in 1945.)

Not knowing whether Van Ronk's rendition looked more like Dylan's or the traditional version, I'm not sure what would be appropriate to write in this case. In any case, the current text seems to falsely credit Dylan as the originator of HWAFOM. Should it be said that Van Ronk played a bluesy version of the tradition folk song HWAFOM (omitting reference to Dylan), or that he played a bluesy version of Dylan's VERSION of HWAFOM?