Jump to content

Talk:Prince (musician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.186.159.134 (talk) at 12:57, 29 April 2016 (→Mother was Italian--not African American: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Warning Please read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making additions to this article, or making suggested additions on this article's talk page. Additions made without references which meet this criteria may be deleted as vandalism. Blogs, emails, fansites and statements made on the radio (unless there is a citeable transcript) do not meet this criteria.

Template:Minnesota Portal Selected Biography

Legacy Section

One of the first things that happened after Prince's death was MTV airing an entire marathon of Prince Music Videos.

Sources:

Also, more news sources regarding his legacy:

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant genres in infobox?

Please excuse this if my question has been asked before, but if the Minneapolis sound is a "hybrid mixture of funk, rock, pop, synthpop and new wave," why are funk, rock, pop, synthpop and new wave also listed in the genre section of the infobox? Wouldn't "Minneapolis sound," which is included, be sufficient and more concise?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis Sound describes a particular, regional scene that he was tagged with for a bit, it's certainly not what the vast majority of journalism and critical writing on him categorizes his work under—it's always funk, R&B, rock, pop, etc. Guidelines dictate that the infobox should remain general. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My issues with the infobox appear to have been resolved. It is now general and not redundant.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facts?

I thought Wikipedia was about the facts? The article about Prince refusing surgery because it requires a blood transfusion merely claims "reportedly" without providing the source. The following page shows that such surgery can be performed without blood transfusions: http://www.healio.com/orthopedics/journals/ortho/2012-8-35-8/%7B49d96e9e-037f-43b1-8e4f-8e407c0e5c96%7D/revision-total-hip-arthroplasty-in-jehovahs-witnesses . I recommend removing the claim until it can be verified by an actual source. Corjay (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was "reportedly", and there are thousands of news articles recycling that claim. A BBC source has been added in which the whole story is judged "inconclusive" '''tAD''' (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article is for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty, not for original hip replacement, and definitely not for a double original hip replacement. Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then maybe you should look at this one: http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/3/306.full.pdf It's not that hard to do research, people. Let's stick to the facts, please. Corjay (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the death of Prince merge

I feel at this time it is WP:TOOSOON to have a reactions article as we don't even know the cause of the singer's death yet. Yes the article will be made, but I feel we should wait a bit on it for the details to come in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reaction page should be kept separate regardless of when it is posted. His being one of Jehovah's Witnesses makes it controversial and we do not need to show disrespect to his memory or his family by blowing up his Wikipedia page over unconfirmed reports about rejecting surgery. Corjay (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the page, for now lets wait on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reaction article is ridiculous. He died, people will comment, there will be no lingering on the reactions of people much beyond today or tomorrow. No article on reactions to his death will ever have any encyclopedic and long-lasting value. Any reactions that are noteworthy can be placed in the article, however, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL must also be kept in mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that one, we do have Death of Michael Jackson. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that a few lines about general responses (e.g., buildings and websites turning purple in tribute) would be appropriate. But individual quotes are not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Prince can still happen as long as it is thorough, encyclopedic and appears to be more than a memorial, like the Reaction page. If nothing more arises from it, except the correct COD, then no. Michael Jackson's death affected more, I think, because he reached more of the general public, whereas Prince possibly didn't (additional branch articlewise). Addendum: 6 million pageviews DOD — Wyliepedia 05:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I just stated at the other talk page where you said the same thing, that article will be nominated for deletion, as well. There's nothing notable about his death. And in answer to your comment, Knowledgekid87, Jackson's death was a whole different ballgame. Scandal, a trial, accusations against f murder. Unless that happens here (and I don't think it will), Prine's death remains non-notable. He died. It's sad, people are shocked, but it's not encyclopedic in the manner where a stand alone article is warranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any type of separate article about his death is completely unwarranted. While he is obviously among the most prominent musicians ever, there is nothing extraordinary or notable about his death, such that it would deserve its own article. Dirroli (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:TOOSOON. The Death of Michael Jackson was especially notable with regards to the circumstances surrounding it and the subsequent court case. Should this issue arise (and there currently is no suggestion that there is) then a separate article might be warranted. That said, Death of David Bowie has been created in past few months and should there be similar reporting around the Death of Prince, it could be argued an article should be created. Karst (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one word. I should've said "there is currently nothing extraordinary or notable about his death". Dirroli (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the mention of an earlier overdose, noted in this article. However, the source appears to be tmz.com, which is not reliable. Karst (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again I feel that it is only a matter of time before the article is created. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something to feel good about, but you're probably right. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:44, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
And I probably couldn't be more right about Death of Chyna's chances, but that one has drugs, Twitter reactions, mystery, gender issues, vegetarianism and mononyms, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
These lunatics get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Influence and trivia

While we should probably have an influence/pop culture secction, this facts addendum about the chapelle skit:

Prince also played basketball in high school, and continued to play it for recreation as an adult, which later inspired a famous Dave Chappelle sketch.[1]

is trivia. i removed the reference to chapelle, left the rest.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism during the afternoon

For a few minutes on the afternoon of Thu 21 Apr 2016 Eastern USA time, the top of this article bore a lot of seals and boxes stating that Prince was NOT dead. One image was obviously intended to be an instruction from the President of the USA not to edit the page to the contrary. I assume Wikipedia has blocked the snot out of the IP address of the vandal who posted that fraudulent nonsense?2604:2000:C682:B600:4DCB:5CB2:3531:DFFC (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

The vandalism was taken care of by having the page protected. Usually editors are politely asked not to vandalize, If they persist, then they are blocked for a certain amount of time. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People who commented on his death is getting coat-racky and spammy

In my opinion, the list of people who have commented or will comment on his death is already getting too coat-racky and spammy, and it can only get worse. I mean, heads of state and long-time historic household names (McCartney, etc.), yes ... but beyond that it's just going to be a coatrack. Is there anything that can be done to stem the tide of "insert-favorite-musician-here" additions? I mean, unless they had something extraordinarily meaningful and insightful to say, why mention anybody anyway? In the age of social media, everyone and his dog are going to comment. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the list of cities lighting buildings in purple. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with both of you. In fact, I was in the process of removing all the cities for the purple lights sentence but then got edit-conflicted because Lugnuts was doing it at the same time. ;) In terms of musicians who comment on his death, I wouldn't be opposed to removing that entire sentence about Obama and all the musicians. It's simply not notable making a general statement like that because that's what happens every time a very prominent musician dies; the president and tons of musicians express their condolences. If there are some noteworthy quotes from a short list of highly prominent musicians or other famous people, fine. But just randomly naming six to eight singers who expressed a condolence, when there will be literally be hundreds of them making statements, makes no sense. Dirroli (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the Obama statement should be included. It has been noted by Spin, Rolling Stone and CNN. Karst (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Karst, due to the length and detail and significance (meaning, the import of Prince's career that Obama notes) of the statement. I think it bears quoting. Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if there are a short, select list of notable quotes from highly prominent musicians or other famous people, it's fine. But simply saying "U.S. President Barack Obama expressed condolences" is very generic and therefore not encylopedic at all. Literally every president expresses condolences whenever a very famous person dies, so of course it will be reported by many media sources. But a notable quote would be needed to making a mention of Obama worthy of being included. Dirroli (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is notable and incisive. Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What quote? Currently, there is no Obama quote in the article. Dirroli (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:38, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
And I would argue, as per the above, that one should be included. Karst (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to InedibleHulk's "Excellent", I'm including a portion of the non-admin close statements at the linked discussion. They are, by-and-large, an echoing of my own feelings on the matter of comments by world leaders in response to certain events. Note that the editor's comments are in regard to a much more devastating an important incident, the Brussels terrorist bombing: "there is consensus to include a sentence at WP:NOTNEWS indicating that specific reactions and condolences generally do not qualify for inclusion. This alternative proposal effectively mitigates the concerns mentioned above, and many editors who voted oppose did indicate support for the idea that most reactions are not worth including. Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world leaders, and those who did failed to reconcile their position with WP:INDISCRIMINATE." Good argument against inclusion. I see inclusion of presidential comments as non-essential, especially in matters that aren't politically related. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even less essential to the nearly seven billion potential readers who don't have a President Obama. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:25, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Great point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point. I suppose the argument could perhaps be made that as the head of state where the subject here is a citizen of, it would perhaps merit inclusion. But I fully accept the consensus and that we should stick with solely a mention (as is the case now). Karst (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for mentioning when regular citizens meet their leaders, either for business, awards or handshakes. Actions speak louder than words. I was going to say I was fine with leaving the part where he and Stevie Wonder partied for Obama, but it's not even there to leave in. At least if it were, the part where he suddenly mentions Prince would make some sense, plotwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Excellent point by InedibleHulk ("Even less essential to the nearly seven billion potential readers who don't have a President Obama"). By the way, I don't know what "notable and incisive" Obama quote Softlavender was talking about, since I never saw a quote from him in the article. Dirroli (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've included Obama with the rest. Fair enough for now? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the "Prince (musician)" hatnote on the article "Prince"

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Prince#Hatnote regarding the hatnote on Prince and whether or not it should include a link to Prince (musician). Watchers of this page are welcome to participate in the discussion to help establish consensus for either keeping or removing the link to Prince (musician) in the hatnote. Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

writing

From the second and third sentences: . . . widely known for his eclectic work, flamboyant stage presence, and wide vocal range. He was widely regarded . . . Neither the adverbs nor the adjective are needed, and if such embellishments are thought to be essential, at least vary the terminology. Kablammo (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use his actual name?

Why does the article use the name "Prince" throughout the text instead of the symbol he changed his name to? Erniecohen (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's an old joke, and nobody ever really played along. They just called him "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince". That also got old quick. Now we do it how everyone does. The normal way. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
So shouldn't the symbol be used for the part of the text that covers his life between his name change and when he changed it back (in 2000)? This is what Wikipedia biographies of Ali and Abdul-Jabbar, for example. Erniecohen (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if you're pushing to see the thingamabob in action, that section would be your likeliest target. But contemporary sources generally avoided it, too, in favour of what their '90s computers allowed. We generally follow suit with common names. Best to just reflect the reality: it was awkward, uncomfortable and uncatchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The symbol wasn't a joke, it was a legal maneuver to avoid some unfair legal restrictions and constrictions the recording studio(s) was/were trying to pull on him. This is well known, and I'm wondering why (and very surprised that) this article doesn't cover that. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. The joke was on them. Practical-like. Some would call it "trolling" today. But yeah, that's a weird omission. Second big thing I haven't seen here today. Anything else conspicuously absent? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Again, it wasn't a joke, practical or otherwise. He used the symbol because if he used any sort of actual name he would remain legally constricted by whatever nonsense they were holding him to. As for other omissions, I haven't followed Prince's career (besides the Purple Rain song and film) -- so for the one and only fact I know for sure about him to be omitted is a blinding oversight. Softlavender (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same boat I'm in. I forget how "Purple Rain" goes, but I know I've heard it. Are you OK with calling it a "trick"? Maybe "funny business"? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That caused me to search for some better sources and post the info into the article. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Illness and death"?

Since we have no inkling of any kind, as yet, about the cause of his death, why have we bunched it together with "Illness" in the new section title? In my opinion, we should not speculate, not even in the way we word headings. If we knew his sudden death was illness related (and if we didn't know he had just stated that his book would be revealing a lot of things about a lot of people), we could make a heading like that, already. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone dies of illness. So while not inaccurate, it does go without saying in the header. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Being shot in the head, or in the arm with a syringe, is not normally classified as "illness". Nor is falling off a balcony or down some stone staircase or breathing poisonous gas. I think you know what I mean. Can't we wait till we (possiby) find our whether or not Nelson died of what most of us would call "illness"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both know what the other means. Though don't you think it might imply a connection more strongly if it was just called "Death", but talked of the flu-like stuff? At least the "and" here tells readers these are two things. And those two things are connected chronologically. That sort of organization is the glue holding the topics in his Career section headers together, too. No direct link between the Super Bowl and LOtUSFLOW3R. Is normal, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I changed it from "death" during the flurry of death reports yesterday; at the time it was a subheading under personal life, and there were more than one "death" sections in the article which I removed. The change was entirely because I thought it looked better that way, I don't really like one-syllable "death" section headers because they tend to be one-sentence statements of fact, with any details about prolonged illness shoved in some other section, so I guess you could say the change was speculative. We had a bit about his recent emergency landing so it seemed appropriate, and I do expect we'll learn more about his brief illness and cause of death over the next few days, but I definitely didn't mean anything by adding "illness". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serge makes a very good point about the "Illness and death" section title. That wording improperly implies that his death was directly related to his recent illnesses. While it may appear likely that there's a direct connection, we have no idea at this point if that's actually the case. And, no, InedibleHulk... it is obviously not true that "Everyone dies of illness". The categories/causes of death are natural (includes illness/disease), homicide, suicide, accidents, and undetermined. Dirroli (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are called manners. While illness and disease have come to be fairly synonymous in daily life, illness is just poor health or something that causes it. No healthy person has ever died. Not really important, though. Anything we write can be interpreted differently. That's English. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
We are not diagnosing or doing a post-mortem. We are reporting facts. He was seriously ill for several weeks (and that was reported even within the weeks before he died). He died. There's no point in moving the "Illness" part into a separate section (where would it go?). There's no point in omitting the illness part. There's no point in titling the section "Death", because it's about more than his death -- its about his weeks of serious illness as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The change to two separate headings (even when they were moved around a bit) was constructive. Changing the heading back to "Illness and death" was not, in my opinion, and goes against consensus here, so far. Changes are normally made in article text when consensus is clear. I respectfully repeat: can't we wait till we (possiby) find our whether or not Nelson died of illness? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether he did or didn't, as we are not stating that he did. There is no reason size-wise or chronology-wise to separate the section into two sections, especially for events that lasted only a span of a few weeks. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circulating article vandalism story

@Kiraroshi1976: @EvergreenFir:, et al. Someone may wish to examine and address, via review of Edit summary, the claim made in this vandalism story, at The Wrap. Note the error in its titling (hacked), and in the image shown, the appearance of the Redirected from…" line under the standard WIkipedia second line.

If such a vandalism ever appeared here, it should be readily apparent in the Edit history. If not in that or other records, it may well be a prank, something created in a sandbox, by someone punking The Wrap, or even by one of their staff. Otherwise, I expect they would have provided a link to the version (rather than claiming a screen shot before the vandalism was reverted). Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Apparently so. It was Heidi Wyss, now blocked, and the edit-summary of the page move (and move back one minute later) was immediately redacted [2], and the article semi-protected. Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curious and curiouser. Tell me, @Softlavender: does this questioning, that I ask of the diligent reverting Admin, make sense to you? Can you see any way that the outside communication of the offensive page (to the web publication, The Wrap) could have occurred other than by the offending editor? My reasoning is at the Talk page of the admin (see link just given). Rsvp here, thanks. I am trying to understand how this could have happened, given the 1 minute attentiveness of the diligent Admin. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Often vandals do $#!t like that in order to take a screenshot and post it on social media (including the less savory ones like Reddit or 4chan). That's possibly how The Wrap got it; they (or someone who then sent it to them) could have also simply clicked on it at the right time (the window could have been up to nearly two minutes); the third choice is yes they did it themselves, but that seems unlikely to me. In terms of the timing, when someone very famous dies, lots of admins place the article on their watchlists. In terms of the edit summary, etc., the (two) edit(s) has been WP:REVDELed [3], which means the content and the edit summary are now visible only to admins. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial autopsy report indicates no signs of suicide, trauma, or foul play.

Seems like important information until real cause is known. What do you think?   https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prince_(musician)&oldid=prev&diff=716658468   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get consensus first. There's no reason to have that in Wikipedia when he'd been seriously ill with flu-like symptoms for several weeks. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we don't do scandal-mongering. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's getting consensus. Or is there another process for that I am not aware of? I concur with his suggestion. This is not scandal-mongering. It's a confirmation that limits speculation. Corjay (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD. Consensus first for a controversial and contested edit that is not within Wikipedia's usual style. Do not re-add until there is a consensus to add it. To say the "real cause is unknown" is not true when he'd been seriously ill for weeks, even having to make an emergency landing to go to a hospital the week before. Our place is not to "limit speculation". Speculation, or discussing speculation, is for the media and the tabloids. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The report is based on statements from the medical examiner's office. All the hospital stay does is confirm that fact. The real cause does indeed remain unknown, but a professional medical examiner has declared that it is not suicide, trauma or foul play. Your idea of speculation is specious. A confirmation is not speculation. The fact that it limits speculation is merely a benefit, not speculation itself. Corjay (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I suggest that it be put at the bottom of the "Illness and Death" section. It does not need its own section or subsection. Corjay (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a newspaper and we surely shouldn't give tentative updates in bits and pieces as they roll in, especially when it's a BLP and the content is about the subject's death. And including what his death was not isn't what's important or appropriate for an encylopedia article, like it would be for a newspaper and other media. Let's wait for the final determination and then use what top quality sources report. Dirroli (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting a coroner's report is not top quality? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A coroner's report is a WP:PRIMARY source. Moreover, the official full final autopsy report will not be released until a week or two from now, per reliable media sources. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Daniel, my comment had absolutely nothing to do with the source and everything to do with the content itself. My point is that we don't know the cause of death yet and therefore need to wait for reliable sources to tell us. From an enyclopedic standpoint, we don't care what didn't cause his death; only with what did. You started this thread by saying "Seems like important information until real cause is known", which is completely contrary to how we edit an encylopedia. Unlike newspapers and other media, which give blow by blow accounts of everything that's reported, an encylopedia waits for the key, relevant information (what you call the "real cause") to be provided by reliable sources. There's no rush. Be patient. When we find out what caused his death, we'll add it. Dirroli (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, there's no reason why anyone would suspect that a death following a very serious illness that had lasted several weeks (which is explained in this Wikipedia article) would involve suicide, foul play, or trauma. The media just needs to sell papers and get eyeballs and thus create buzz and hysteria -- that's the only reason this is being bandied about. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. It's okay to post speculation about Prince's supposed rejection of surgery on account of his stance on blood, but it is not okay to post a factual update regarding his death? Is this hypocrisy or just some loophole in Wikipedia's rules? Corjay (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a double standard. Related to hypocrisy, but a distinct ball of wax. No real loophole, but our consensus policies are intentionally flexible. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
Seems pertinent to me. And if a Star Tribune reports it, it stops being primary. Grammar-wise, should be "The initial autopsy report indicated no signs of suicide, trauma or foul play." And only needs one citation. But it's good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Or wait, it's all wrong. The police said that. The medical examiner said she'll tell us later. Still, pretty relevant. Should also at least note there was an autopsy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support adding what the local police and medical officials now have announced on television about no signs of foul play or evidence of suicide. Many people are traumatized by this event. Soothing their feelings a bit will not hurt Wikipedia's dignity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Many people are traumatized"? His death is sad and surprising, but let's not go overboard. In any case, this is an encylopedia, not a memorial site. We are not here to comfort the distraught. We need to know what did cause his death, not what didn't. The media can report that stuff, not us. They need to fill time and space. Dirroli (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feelings don't matter, but this has nothing to do with feelings. Or memorials. Just narrowing the circumstances of his death down. What something is is ideal, but what it's not is the next best thing. Useful for dispelling speculation. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Of course it has nothing to do with feelings. Tell that to SergeWoodzing, who said, "Many people are traumatized by this event. Soothing their feelings a bit will not hurt Wikipedia's dignity." And, no, it is completely inappropriate for an enyclopedia to narrow down circumstances or dispel speculation! Again, that's for the newspapers, tabloids, entertainment programs, and other media to do. Not an enyclopedia! The only thing we're concerned with in this case is what caused his death. The media has daily deadlines; we don't! Relax and wait for reliable sources to report the cause of death. Dirroli (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd figured I was telling both of you. Serge associated these facts with feelings, and you associated those feelings with memorials and sensationalism. But the facts are still just facts. Too much information for here, in your opinion. Just enough, to others. Same as it ever was. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, April 24, 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Two brand-new articles on the death of Prince are currently at AfD

-- Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

The whole 2000–07 section is tagged as unsourced. What shall we do with the section? Also, other portions are tagged as unsourced. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

After sufficient stability resumes after his death (maybe 2-3 months?), this article is good article material. TeacherA (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a shot. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this has the potential to be a Good Article after it stabilizes. However, I'd like to see a better 1st photo. A few additional photos of him would be nice to see. - SeaBeeDee 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)

  • This would be premature at the moment I think. With a lot of work (basically a complete rewrite) and after the fuss around the subject's death has died down, this might be possible. For now I say leave it. It wouldn't be too early though to start trimming out all the insignificant garbage about individual concerts and TV appearances though. --John (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love 4 One Another Charities

Love 4 One Another Charities should be folded into the article as appropriate. The organization currently appears to be either defunct or on hiatus, but this may very well change when Prince's estate is settled. The man had superb back office! kencf0618 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charity

Apparently Prince was involved in a lot more charity than is in the article; Drmies just wrote on his talk page "If you start listing all the charitable work he's done you'll be up for a while." I don't have time to research or look up more (I've merely grabbed some extra info from one of the existing refs), but this is an area that should be researched and expanded. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Adding that he is also known as "The Purple One"

I would like to add "The Purple One" to the list of other names in the infobox; here are 3 mainstream news headlines that use the name; it is his most well-known nickname, as shown by the thousands of other articles indexed by Google.

> He is also known as the "Purple One"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/23/us/prince-fast-facts/

See these headlines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/arts/music/purple-rain-prince-memorable-albums.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/inside-princes-paisley-park-my-amazing-day-with-the-purple-one-20160422

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7341543/prince-songs-deep-cuts

https://www.google.com/search?q=prince+%22the+purple+one%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

InternetUser25 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've reverted that. The infobox "Also known as" parameter is for pseudonyms or stage names used by the person themselves. It is not a grab-bag of nicknames. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of cited info without consensus

John, please stop removing cited information without gaining consensus beforehand. I've replaced your removals several times, as the information was pertinent cited, valuable, and accurate. It's up to you to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus on this talk page before removing cited information. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Actually, it is up to you to justify here why this poorly written fancruft is important to you. Go for it.--John (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how BRD works, especially if you are repeatedly removing pertient cited information, or removing pertinent cited information with little or no rationale. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything citable needs to be included. Less is more. This article was a disgusting mish-mash of fancruft before I started trimming it. Again, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify this material, every character of it. Again, this is your opportunity to do so before I remove it again. --John (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, you know exactly how BRD works. If your BOLD edits are reverted/contested, the status quo ante remains until you establish consensus, especially if removed information is cited and accurate. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's interesting to have your opinion. WP:BRD is an essay, and WP:ONUS is part of a policy, so I am standing by my position that it is you who need to justify your poorly-written and verbose fancruft. If there is no consensus to keep it then it goes. --John (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't written any of the cited material that you have deleted and I have replaced. I only started copyediting the article on April 22. WP:ONUS says that "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." If you can demonstrate via consensus that cited material you wish to repeatedly delete does not improve the article, then you are welcome to do so; however one editor's simply not liking something is simply not sufficient rationale for repeated deletion of informative pre-existing cited material. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. What does the next sentence say? --John (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, what content did John remove that you object to? How are other editors supposed to comment without knowing exactly what you're talking about? For the record, just because content is cited doesn't automatically mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. Most facts in reliable sources are actually not encyclopedic. So please provide diffs so we know what you're talking about. By the way, the missing sentence in WP:ONUS you forgot to include says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Why did you leave out that vital part? Dirroli (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing controversial/disputed about the material he deleted, therefore the onus is actually on him as far as removal; his only rationale (stated in various ways) was that he didn't like it. He is welcome to post the material here and get consensus on whether to remove it. If he had given detailed, cogent, and policy-based rationales for deletion, that would be one thing, but personal dislike of informative cited information is insufficient rationale to repeatedly delete the material without other reasoning and without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued misunderstanding of our basic norms and policies is noted. If you get a chance to read the sentence after the one you quoted, this may help you. If there is no argument to keep this excessive material other than "it's cited", we can safely remove it. John (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, your behavior is on the verge of becoming disruptive. You misstate clearly written guidelines or policies, or present them out of context, and also ignore direct questions. I asked you to provide diffs so that editors will know what the hell you're objecting to in terms of John's deletions. And I also asked you why you did not include that last sentence of WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") when you were quoting that section. If you don't want to show us specifically what deletions you object to (with diffs), then this thread should be closed. By the way, my observation of John's edits in general show very good judgment. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he/she has even changed a few things I've done, and I had no problem with them. And John is right, using only "it's cited" as an argument for inclusion carries no weight. Content must be cited and worthy of inclusion in an enyclopedia. Dirroli (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'm reading the above as consensus to reinstate these copyedits. Remember, we are not being paid by the word, and not everything that appears in a reliable source needs to be in the article. --John (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duly done, for now. The article is still in a dreadful state, badly written with poor structure and way too much fannish stuff, but I believe it is a little better for this modest copyedit. It would be great if anyone wishing to reverse these edits would discuss it here first, as our policy suggests. --John (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous charitable giving/help -- need opinions

This cited information has been repeatedly removed from the article, now leaving the sentence "As a Jehovah's Witness Prince did not speak publicly about his charitable endeavors" as an orphan:

Following Prince's death, friend Van Jones recalled in an interview:

There are people that have solar panels on their houses right now in Oakland, California, that don’t know Prince paid for them. ... Anybody struggling, anywhere in the world – he was sending checks, he was making phone calls but he did not want it to be known publicly, and he did not want us to say it; but I am going to say it because the world needs to know that it wasn’t just the music. The music was one way he tried to help the world but he was helping every single day of his life.[1]

References

  1. ^ Einenkel, Walter (April 23, 2016). "The breadth and power of Prince's activism begins to be revealed after his death". Daily Kos. Retrieved April 23, 2016.

Need opinions/consensus on whether it should be replaced/included or not. Softlavender (talk)

What does it actually add, or is it just fancruft that belongs on Wikiquote? --John (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It reveals the remarkable charitable aid and assistance he privately and often completely anonymously gave to strangers in need, "every single day of his life". Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to his friend, according to the Daily Kos. Is it slightly promotional in tone, do you think? Slightly undue to include the long quotation? --John (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not promotional; the person is dead and already very renowned around the world. I don't consider it UNDUE or even long (the entire quote/interview in the article is several paragraphs, and the tiny bit we have on Prince's charities is a mere drop in the bucket according to Drmies: [4] so it's hardly UNDUE at this point). I used a quote because it was difficult to summarize adequately or accurately, and the quote is elegant (more elegant prose than I could make it). As far as the person being a friend, I don't know how good or close of a friend he was (the article says he worked together with Prince on several charities), but Van Jones is a respected and notable journalist (with a 60,000+ byte Wikipedia article), and only someone who was a friend would know of secret anonymous giving, so I think that point is moot on both counts. I used the material because this Daily Kos article was already being used as a citation in the article but to emphasize the wrong thing: that Prince didn't reveal or talk about his charity because he was a Jehovah's Witness (which seemed to me to be missing the crux of the article and promoting Jehovah's Witnesses). Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the issue of using Daily Kos as a source, that long quote is indeed undue. And, yes, Van Jones and Prince were very close friends. I watched a few TV interviews with Jones the day of the death, and he cried like a baby while explaining his relationship with Prince. Dirroli (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought: We could perhaps summarize it by saying "Prince also gave frequent completely anonymous help to strangers in need." Although personally I prefer the quotation as it is more accurate and eloquent and in my mind sums up the situation better. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

The article contains extensive content about his early life, career, personal life, and illness/death. Each of the four should stand on their own and have their own section, and the illness/death info is an extension of the personal life info. Merging the early life, career, and illness/death content into a single "Life" section made no sense. Therefore, I have separated each of the four into their own sections.[5] Dirroli (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having an overarching "Life" section is generally how other biographical articles are organized when there is an extra section on the subject's very public death. Final illness and death are part of their life cycle and come after their career. Illness and Death should not be far below in a stand-alone level-2 section following Personal Life, as Personal Life sections are outside of the fixed chronology of the subject's lifespan. Moreover, Prince's illness began during part of his career/performance. Prince's death was certainly very publicly covered. Lastly, in the Life section is where readers will look for, expect to find, and most easily find the information on his death. It makes sense chronologically, sense-wise, and encyclopedia-wise to have it follow the Career section in an overarching Life section. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC); edited 10:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you say makes sense, nor does it address the fact that separate early life, career, and death sections are standard, particularly when there is extensive content for each. And are you actually going to say with a straight face that one's illnesses are not a part of their personal life? Let's be serious. And the fact that the illnesses and death in this case relate to an extremely famous person, they need to be separate from his personal life content. General readers looking for info about a famous celebrity's illnesses and death most certainly wouldn't look for it crammed in between his career and artistry content. Let's see what other editors have to say. Dirroli (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sections are separate that way. They are also chronological that way; however not in your layout. Your layout both buries Illness and Death far far far below the Early Life and Career sections -- below three other intervening sections -- and it also over-emphasize Death by making it a level-2 rather than a level-3 header. I will give a comparison below for readers to opine on. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between sections and subsections. In any case, you have again failed to address the standard layout issues I pointed out, nor answered my question about one's illnesses being a part of their personal life. Are you actually claiming that it's not standard for bios to have separate early life, career, and death sections when there is substantial content for each, and that it's more common to cram all of that content into a single life section?? You do undertand the majority of the tens of thousands of bios on Wikipedia include illness and death info in the personal life section, right? And how exactly is having a separate section about his death "overemphasizing" it, particularly when we're talking about one of the most famous people in the world? When you make comments like that, it makes it more difficult to take other things you say seriously. And if you want to talk about chronology, which happened first: his girlfriends and marriages or his illnesses and death? Finally, stay calm. The unnecessary bolding and underlining doesn't advance your position. Now just relax and let other editors weigh in. You've made your points. Dirroli (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had already covered your question in my first post: illness and death are fine to put in a Personal Life section (often without any header at all) if they were not in any way Career-related and if they were not widely covered by the media (i.e., not widely covered beyond standard obituaries). Prince's illness was publicly covered as early as April 7, and was connected with his Career because he missed two concerts because of it, and later fell unconscious and had to be hospitalized following a third concert because of it. Both his illness and his death have been extremely widely covered by media around the world. Therefore they are not personal events -- they are public. Lastly, your layout actually does not put Illness and Death in the Personal Life section -- it makes Illness and Death its own Level-2 section, after Personal Life (and three other intervening sections following Career). I previously addressed your layout concerns; to clarify: Level-2 is a section, Level-3 is a subsection, Level-4 is a subsubsection, etc. (the "levels" refer to the number of equals signs that precede the title). By the way, compare David Bowie, a Featured Article. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Teddy Pendergrass, Rich Cronin, Teena Marie, Clarence Clemons, Amy Winehouse, Etta James, Davy Jones, Donna Summer, Scott Weiland, and Natalie Cole. We could play this game for weeks. Dirroli (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Section layouts -- where/how to place the "Illness and Death" section vis-a-vis other sections?

Here are some sample layouts, plus people can add more samples from current FAs if they like (please add a number and bullet). Please opine on your preferred layout by number.

Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Discussion

You really need to stay calm and be patient. We just started a discussion above about this and haven't even received input from any other editors yet. But you're aleady starting a poll? Dirroli (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did this upon your comment in your thread "Let's see what other editors have to say". Other editors can't opine if they can't see the two options that are being discussed above; plus there are further options as well. Please don't alter the section heading here. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What other's have to say... in the discussion that was already started for that purpose. What's funny is that you didn't even name a singer/musician so we can have an apples to apples comparison. (Then you came back and added Bowie.) But, hey, if you want to play this game, fine; here are some famous musician deaths from the 2010s: Teddy Pendergrass, Rich Cronin, Teena Marie, Clarence Clemons, Amy Winehouse, Etta James, Davy Jones, Donna Summer, Scott Weiland, and Natalie Cole. Dirroli (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, other editors can't see the two versions that we were discussing (especially considering the rapidly changing state of this article) unless they are posted on this talkpage, so they couldn't say anything informed in what you call "the discussion that was already started for that purpose". David Bowie is a "singer/musician". None of the articles you linked just now are WP:FAs, which I requested in the OP (or even WP:GAs except Amy Winehouse). Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"To repeat"? Again, you need to calm down. Anyway, all you had to do was make a comment in the existing discussion and include diffs, not start an entire new section about the same dispute. Simple. Bowie's FA status had nothing to do with having those particular sections being merged. It was the article in its entirety that earned that honor. Per MOS:BODY, there is no set layout for sections You understand that, right? And you didn't add Bowie until about an hour after you used only Hoffman as your example, and after I had already replied to it.[8][9] You know damn well you did that, so why would you mislead others by subsequently saying to me: "David Bowie is a 'singer/musician'" when you know it wasn't there in the first place? Great, you provided one example. Like I said, you provide an example and I'll provide two more. Fun. Interesting how you completely dismissed the 10 great examples I presented since they are completely contrary to your position. Your argument: since they're not FA, they don't count. Right. Dirroli (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TPO, please stop changing the header to this section; I already asked you once. David Bowie was there ahead of your statement that "What's funny is that you didn't even name a singer/musician so we can have an apples to apples comparison" [10], plus a bio is a bio (especially for creatives); I only added Bowie because he was the last major death I could think of and his article is a FA and has a different choice of layout from the three choices I had already listed. As I mentioned in my OP, people, including me, are welcome to add FA articles as additional samples if they substantially differ from the options so far (but there's no need to clutter the samples with nearly identical choices as that just creates confusion). This is a survey/poll, to gather consensus, and needed a fresh thread, like an RfA, not an overlong and repetitive discussion; thus this separate thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do not create a brand new section (and poll) regarding the exact topic that's already being discussed elsewhere, especially when it just started recently and zero other editors have yet to comment. Patience is definitely something you need to work on. Dirroli (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Survey section);

How many different threads, subsections, and polls are you going to start before even one other editor chimes in to give their opinion on the overall topic? Dirroli (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get a consensus. The way to do that is through a poll/survey. A poll/survey cannot happen without a structured thread or subthread. You have already edit-warred and violated WP:BRD by changing the existing article layout and reverting to your change four times in one hour. I don't wish to report you for edit-warring now and I'm not going to edit war, so we need a poll/survey to gain consensus. (Technically the layout previous to your changes should have stood per BRD until consensus is reached otherwise, but I have no interest in violating 3RR.) I've now moved all of the discussion to this separate Discussion section to avoid clutter and to avoid needing to collapse that discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, "We need to get a consensus". So calm down and wait for other editors to reply to the original discussion. You don't start creating surveys and polls before even one editor has commented in the original discussion. Dirroli (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors could not comment without choices in the form of samples/examples or links to what is being discussed. And the way to form consensus on a simple question is via RfC or Survey/poll, not a lengthy discussion. This is the standard form of dispute resolution, although I can make it into an official public WP:RFC by adding an RfC template if desired. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need choices; they need you to calm down and give people a chance to come here and give their opinions. It wouldn't be a lengthy discussion if you would stop talking. Look at this talk page. You're all over it! Take a breath. Arguing your point endlessly will not help your cause. Dirroli (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss how to improve the article and edits, rather than editors. Lord knows Softlavender and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but on this I agree with her. Further, she's trying to achieve consensus, which is the Wikipedia way. Can't understand why you would object to that. Comment on the topic, please, and leave out the other personal commentary, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrite much? Take your own advice, Winkelvi. Stick to the topic and eliminate the lectures. Your editing history shows you're extremely infamous for fighting with an endless number of editors, spending a lot of your time at various noticeboards reporting people, and getting blocked. Dirroli (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Illness and death" section doesn't belong in chronological order of events, then what is the rationale for the "Early life" section? Mitchumch (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I personally think you can go ahead and replace it like it was (especially since the editor was not following WP:BRD); your edit and opinion push the current consensus to the chronological order it used to be. The other editor has been blocked for edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis sound

Oddly, Minneapolis sound is mentioned (but not cited) in the lede, but there's not a single mention of it (much less a description/discussion or citation) anywhere else in the article. As far as I can make out, it was the type of music Prince played in the 1980s [11] (and which he pioneered in the late 1970s). As far as I know he continued to evolve his sound and music and style and eclectism beyond the 1980s and beyond Minneapolis sound, so his music should not be defined as that, or as merely that. The first comma in the sentence

He was the pioneer of Minneapolis sound, and his music integrates a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, psychedelia, and pop.

has been removed, leaving it as

He was the pioneer of Minneapolis sound and his music integrates a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, psychedelia, and pop.

... thus equating the totality of his lifelong music and style(s) with Minneapolis sound, the style he had in the 1980s. I do not think this is accurate. Therefore I would like to request that that first comma be replaced in that sentence. Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comma was incorrectly removed and should be replaced to achieve the correct tense. Further, unless something is in the body of the article describing and addressing the Minneapolis sound, it should not be mentioned in the lede. That's basic Wiki-Stuff 101. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; personally I'd never heard of Minneapolis sound, so unless it's prominently mentioned in the current wave of media articles on Prince, I think it should be removed from the lede (since it's not in the body text even); particularly as without context it diminishes his accomplishment and total oeuvre (especially without that comma). If we could add something about Minneapolis sound was the sound/style he used in the 1980s, and then refer to his career/sound as a whole or his later work/sound, it might improve it. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Minneapolis sound is a thing, something he was known for, and it should be in the lede, but there has to be content in the body of the article on it for it to remain. As you already know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it's "a thing". But it should not be in the lede unless it's mentioned in a significant number of post-death reliable sources. If hardly any of the coverage even mentions it, then clearly it's not important enough to be in the lede. For the body, just add a bit of content about it and use the sources from Minneapolis sound. Simple. Dirroli (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why post-death? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The Minneapolis sound should not be in the lede at all. Abductive (reasoning) 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's OK, I'm just going to remove it for now until we sort out what to do with it and how/where to cite and describe it. The main cite in the Minneapolis sound article isn't even working, unfortunately (I posted a plea about that on its talk page). Softlavender (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem from my perspective. It's not essential in the lede but should be mentioned if content in the body of the article exists and is well-referenced. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not altogether certain that removing the comma produces a meaning where his musical legacy is equated with the Minneapolis sound; there is ambiguity there, even with the comma. Why not replace the first clause with the dependent "Along with pioneering the Minneapolis sound," and continue with "he integrated a wide variety of styles...into his music", or something of the like? JordanGero (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, after I tagged that messed-up link as dead that lovely Cyberbot fixed and found the link on Wayback! (I swear to God I had tried every trick I knew to find it online via the title and author.) Here is the main source about Minneapolis sound, and it's very helpful and informative: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't his full name in the title?

It should go there--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:COMMONNAME, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

opening paragraph

I changed the opening from

"He was a musical innovator and known for his eclectic work, flamboyant stage presence, and wide vocal range."

To

"He was a musical innovator and known for his eclectic work, flamboyant stage presence, extravagant dress and makeup, and wide vocal range."

While the phrase "flamboyant stage presence" is good, I didn't think that phrase captured him known for his unique clothing and makeup both on and off the stage. So I added the "extravagant" phrase. "extravagant" isn't quite the perfect word, but I didn't want to use the word "flamboyent" twice. And "androgynous" didn't work either. Maybe someone cant think of a better word. It's a longer sentence now, but I thought it was still pretty good.
JamesThomasMoon1979 20:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think the lead should note that Prince became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely it's one of the most important things he ever did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the least important, and most obscure, things he ever did. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Clearly Prince's religion was important to him: that should be enough to show that it is objectively important. Also, the article dedicates a significant amount of space to this matter. I believe it would be appropriate for the lead to briefly note, perhaps in one sentence, that Prince became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Religion was always publicly important to him, many of his songs and their themes obviously as well as ambiguously mentioned something spiritual. That said, I don't think his spiritual beliefs and the evolution of them are lede-worthy but certainly should be addressed in the body of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest adding a line about his religion in the infobox? SlowJog (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with doing that. We've already had an RfC that ended up with a consensus that the Religion parameter in infoboxes should not be filled out unless it is/was a very publicly prominent part of the person's public life. This wasn't. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy awards and nominations in the prose

I just started the article for "International Lover", Prince's first Grammy nomination. I was suprised not to see his first Grammy nomination or his first 4 Grammy wins mentioned in the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it and add them! This article is far from complete or comprehensive, as has been noted above. If you have the information, you are well-placed to add it, IMO. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

photo?

Photo to migrate:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nico7martin/8794917623/in/photolist-epbfAK-mJTwmF-fdPuRe-5bhTHn-fdPr5K-fe4HW3-mmLCH5-6v6JDb-5ANR6s-fdPoTP-fdPpjX-6PUaCn-fe4QU7-4psdrX-83oihy-fdPqCx-fe4EC7-2HsbUd-95aJ6N-dVPD6e-fHo6F-fdPrVM-hwSpNX-q2zspa-7PucGo-fdPu6M-fHo6g-fe4Lrd-fe4RMh-fe4Mh9-e5Z8U2-2HnUYB-fe4KU9-6imnFf-qbnKzz-fe4Np7-6jXi6W-DmKwHV-2HspZh-fdPspg-fdPwN2-djq87Q-fe4Ems-eVhS9M-bDNaE9-qquQCR-83okTU-5AJAhc-8vtF4S-7kmeU1

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgrams/5474199008/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickfarnhill/166505426/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgrams/5474198530/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2449973469/in/photolist-4JuKKT-8PHsdV-qLKbk3-a9hhBF-nFe4ca-7e9KcA-8ihRQh-2DXYbu-bDJA8c-bs4Yig-8Bf8YM-bSGTgT-5bncNd-di6jBN-r8b7UK-jCTzZK-fe4JNQ-46cVW-2HnZg8-C826p-e5Z9ya-7ynFzk-GdZ7h-6Kqy8K-qoDdPQ-bWuhR1-2DM1cq-5ANR43-5bhVFP-4pwgny-ehjQiA-3a97Hg-fe4NZu-cGcfUN-fe4Q9w-8HnpYj-aKxThF-epbfAK-mJTwmF-fdPuRe-5bhTHn-fdPr5K-fe4HW3-mmLCH5-6v6JDb-5ANR6s-fdPoTP-fdPpjX-6PUaCn-fe4QU7

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2449968395/in/photolist-4JuJfp-eitYUv-dzvN67-dx31KK-4FrWn8-7e9JBd-DLMo-oR8134-dAfoKt-dTxypY-4JyYam-4Fw97y-4kn3Qn-btwoGg-f4H1u7-9CaaxZ-75Gbum-9Cdc9Y-5z3KRp-mQWYs-8kcSDA-sfN2Dq-91uia3-acCCNW-6k19xr-6KeN-C2Ewso-9kQi68-fHogd-717HUV-CsuHtB-71bHcs-9kJGvh-4KyjU5-3Y7Zt-9Y1Xd5-dVKpxH-4Fw9dy-ekABHf-9pBWCG-csDMtf-4uFQ9L-gFwhRg-edShq-5ANRcj-evfVsa-7Mzzhk-j8Qp4-G94rR-4Ku4DD

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2450795646/in/photolist-4JyYam-4Fw97y-4kn3Qn-btwoGg-f4H1u7-9CaaxZ-75Gbum-9Cdc9Y-5z3KRp-mQWYs-8kcSDA-sfN2Dq-91uia3-acCCNW-6k19xr-6KeN-C2Ewso-9kQi68-fHogd-717HUV-CsuHtB-71bHcs-9kJGvh-4KyjU5-3Y7Zt-9Y1Xd5-dVKpxH-4Fw9dy-ekABHf-9pBWCG-csDMtf-4uFQ9L-gFwhRg-edShq-5ANRcj-evfVsa-7Mzzhk-j8Qp4-G94rR-4Ku4DD-9kJGrN-aczPZD-4DNQZS-bSGSG4-9XPL3a-5zWZMD-iDABxF-4KyiJb-52SYVM-nfQrYu


Victor Grigas (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is this really CC-licensed?

Is this really cc-licensed?
No. The Arsenio Hall Show is owned by CBS Television Distribution and Tribune Broadcasting. It is in no way copyleft. Clip should be deleted. dissolvetalk 06:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from music critics

The following statements by music critics have been removed from the article.

1. From this:

In 1980, Prince released the album Dirty Mind, retrospectively described by Stephen Thomas Erlewine as a "stunning, audacious amalgam of funk, new wave, R&B, and pop, fueled by grinningly salacious sex and the desire to shock"; Erlewine concluded "It's a breathtaking, visionary album, and its fusion of synthesizers, rock rhythms, and funk set the style for much of the urban soul and funk of the early '80s."

... this has been removed:

Erlewine concluded "It's a breathtaking, visionary album, and its fusion of synthesizers, rock rhythms, and funk set the style for much of the urban soul and funk of the early '80s."

2. From this:

Critic Simon Reynolds called him a "pop polymath, flitting between funkadelia, acid rock, deep soul, schmaltz—often within the same song", adding that "Prince doesn't so much build bridges between categories as create music that exceeds each category simultaneously".

... this has been removed:

adding that "Prince doesn't so much build bridges between categories as create music that exceeds each category simultaneously"

Should either of them be replaced? -- Softlavender (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO those edits are fine. Karst (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

We have:

On February 12, 2011, Prince presented Barbra Streisand with an award and donated $1.5 million to charities.[1]

then later

As a Jehovah's Witness, Prince did not speak publicly about his charitable endeavors.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Prince Presents Barbra Streisand With Award; Gives Away 1.5 million To Charities". Drfunkenberry.com. February 12, 2011. Retrieved February 20, 2011.
  2. ^ Einenkel, Walter (April 23, 2016). "The breadth and power of Prince's activism begins to be revealed after his death". Daily Kos. Retrieved April 23, 2016.

They can't both be true, can they? --John (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Someone else connected to the Streisand incident released the information. I mean to say, Prince might of not talked about the donation, save what ever he had to say on stage. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thank you. The article needs a total rewrite to get away from the nit-pickingly chronological record. --John (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mlpearc (open channel) 21:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death

"The mysterious circumstances of his death, and the withholding of autopsy results until toxicology tests were completed,[180] encouraged speculation. A few days before his death an online gossip site had published a blind item stating that a very popular celebrity had ceased taking HIV medication due to the belief that he had been cured by God, and was expected to die soon.[181] When, shortly after his death the National_Enquirer alleged that Prince had been ill with AIDS,[182] the story was picked up by mainstream media.[183][184] Despite this, the allegation has not been confirmed by any official source."

Hello. The source does not say that anything "encouraged speculation" thus the rest of this does not follow. An hour ago the lead said he died of a drug overdose, and now he died of AIDS. Kindly refrain from speculation. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mother was Italian--not African American

Mother was Italian--not African American

Source: [1]

  1. ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-princes-troubled-childhood-provided-7814484
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_(musician)&oldid=717741974"