Talk:Janis Joplin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Mention her mention on 30 Rock?

Could we include a section mentioning her mention on the popular NBC show, 30 Rock? 74.73.39.22 (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Jakebond70

How is that relevant to her biography and career? There is a section that discusses relevant inclusion in songs (specifically songs about her) or portrayals in film. Anything else is trivia and Wikipedia discourages the inclusion of trivia sections. Beyond that, the 30 Rock bit was about vandalizing the page, which has led to incessant problems with vandalism and absolutely no attempt to do anything other than insert the content mentioned on that show. It's not relevant to her career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

hmm that sounds like portrayal in popular culture, and you won't acknowledge it only because you think it would also incite further vandalism but you explain that as "not notable", that's just kind of double standards and manipulation I've come to expect from other wikipedia editors 67.212.7.249 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please contain your bad faith accusations and aspersions. We don't list mentions on televisions shows that aren't specifically about the article subject. 30 Rock is not a show about Janis Joplin. It is not relevant to her career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Haha! wow.... People actually watch 30 Rock? LoveLight8980 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother and the Holding Co Tour dates

Big Brother and the Holding Co also toured several midwestern cities before Janis Joplin left. Could someone determine and documentthese performances? I know the played at he Grande Ballroom in Detroit - about 68 0r 69.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.202.214 (talk • contribs)

It's not as if editors here have access to extensive materials that aren't available to anyone else with a library card. You'd probably be just as successful researching and documenting this yourself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvement drive

An important and popular topic such as Janis Joplin deserves to have a high standard article. I'd be keen on taking part in improving this article and perhaps bringing it up to GA standards. The lead needs developing along lines suggested by WP:Lead, there needs to be more sourcing for some of the statements, a general tidying up - merging legacy and film sections, developing a critical response section, and generally expanding the whole thing. SilkTork *YES! 09:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work with you, hope you remember me (but then it's been a while). I've tried quite hard to keep this from being a run-away disaster and after the 30 Rock "let's vandalize Janis Joplin's article on Wikipedia" frenzy died down, it might be possible to work on it without massive interference from the vandalizing public. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Karyn Kupcinet!
Good to have you on board Wildhartlivie! I have a couple of things to tidy up first, then I'll be dropping in here now and again to look at what's needed and blast the editing. Should be fun! SilkTork *YES! 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's useful to have the criteria here to refer to:

What is a good article?

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

The lead currently doesn't adequately cover the article, and that could be built on. I also notice that there are very few references, so work could be done on tracking down sources. SilkTork *YES! 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotation

Don't know where this quotation was originally from, but it was in today's "Thought for the Day" in the Portland [Maine] Press Herald newspaper, and I thought it worth recording.

"Being an intellectual creates a lot of questions and no answers" - Janis Joplin

Dubious section

Not sure of the value of this. I have moved it here to see if there's anything in this that needs to be in the article, and where it can go. SilkTork *YES! 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Joplin in film and song

  • The Mamas & the Papas wrote a song about Janis Joplin entitled "Pearl", and released it as part of their 1971 album, People Like Us.
  • Kris Kristofferson (with Donnie Fritts) wrote the song "Epitaph (Black and Blue)" about Joplin. The song is the final track on his 1971 album, The Silver Tongued Devil and I.
  • The Righteous Brothers included a tribute to Janis Joplin in their 1974 reunion Top-10 single "Rock and Roll Heaven". The lyrics of the first verse begin with the lines "Jimi gave us rainbows, and Janis took a piece of our hearts..."
  • Joplin's premature death is the subject of Dory Previn's song "A Stone for Bessie Smith", which appears on Previn's 1971 album Mythical Kings and Iguanas. The lyric sheet of this record refers to a televised conversation between Joplin and actress Gloria Swanson.
  • In the 2007 movie Across the Universe, a Joplin-like character is portrayed as Sadie, played by Dana Fuchs.
  • Janis Joplin is a prominent character in the TV episode "You Know They Got a Hell of a Band" from Nightmares and Dreamscapes: From the Stories of Stephen King.
  • "In the Quiet Morning" recorded by Joan Baez and written by her sister, Mimi Farina, recounts the moment Farina heard the news about Joplin's death.
  • Leonard Cohen's song "Chelsea Hotel #2", with the line "You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception", was inspired by his brief affair with Joplin.[7]
  • The Grateful Dead wrote "Bird Song" inspired by Joplin. The first two lines are "All I know is something like a bird within her sang. All I know she sang a little while and then flew on". The song's lyricist, Robert Hunter, included the dedication "...for Janis" with the lyric in his book "Box of Rain".
  • Don McLean is widely believed to allude to Janis Joplin in his song "American Pie" with the lines "I met a girl who sang the blues / And I asked her for some happy news, / But she just smiled and turned away".[8][9][10][11] McLean has neither denied nor confirmed the belief.[12][13]


I think almost everything listed here is valid content with roots in reactions by her contemporaries to her death. In many cases, these were her friends/lovers/colleagues and their reaction goes a long way toward charting her legacy in music and the effect her death had on those people. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
  7. ^ "Chelsea Hotel # 2 (1972-1993)". Orange. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
  8. ^ Verse 6. Understanding American Pie.com. Accessed 3 August 2008.
  9. ^ Bob Dearborn's Original Analysis. Jeff Roteman's American Pie Page. 1971. Accessed 3 August 2008.
  10. ^ American Pie. BBC.co.uk. Accessed 3 August 2008.
  11. ^ Knap, Joe. STI Lesson 20 - Slices of American Pie: The 1960s Through Music. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum - www.rockhall.com. Accessed 3 August 2008.
  12. ^ What is Don McLean's song "American Pie" all about? StraightDope.com. 15 May 1993.
  13. ^ Don McLean’s American Pie. DonMcLean.com. 9 January 2008.

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}Please change "The official cause of death was an overdose of heroin, possibly combined with the effects of alcohol." to "The official cause of death was an overdose of heroin, a result of a dealer's forgetfulness in providing her unknowingly with uncut heroin, possibly combined with the effects of alcohol. Several others were killed that week with the same batch of heroin." This is cited from an essay by John Byrne Cook, titled Seth, in the book called "Janis Joplin; A Performance Diary 1966-1970." Bybiggs (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. It would be good to have the publisher and isbn of that book, along with a page to make verification easier. If you have a chance, leave the info here and I will improve the cite. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh! Thank you so much! The ISBN is 1-888358-11-4 and the page number is 126. Bybiggs (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a lack of consensus over the change. I'd like to suggest that you reword your contribution into a separate sentence to follow the current one. Something like, "Cooke believes that Joplin had accidentally been given uncut heroin by her dealer, as several of that dealer's other customers also overdosed that week." Cooke is already mentioned in that paragraph, so we don't need to identify him again. Can you share the actual wording from the source? Celestra (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The exact phrasing is "But Janis tripped and fell, struck down by a dealer's forgetfulness, by uncut heroin that killed several others in that fatal week." I do agree that my wording is rather awkward and fully agree with reworking the sentence structure. I thought this addition to be useful because it wipes away any concerns that Joplin's death could have been willful suicide. Bybiggs (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there was ambiguity regarding her death. No one has postulated that her death was willful suicide. It has always been accepted as an accidental death. The content about her being a victim of uncut herion is not substantiated anywhere that I can find, outside of the speculation of a few conspiracy theorists who seem to want someone to blame. She overdosed and died. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me to be an interesting detail with a reliable source, an essay by her road manager. I agree that there are conspiracy sites that make this out to be part of some plan, like the one I mentioned to you yesterday, but if one considers the observation without looking for black helicopters, one finds a plausible reason for a young person to have accidentally overdosed. Without it, a reasonable person could take our presentation of her death either way, as accident or suicide. Celestra (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, John Byrne Cook was not her personal road manager, despite what the internet pages say. He was on the road crew for the band itself and had no inside knowledge about the drugs she used when she died. He wasn't even present. Nor has been given any credible mention in any of the biographies I have read about Joplin. He is an essayist who wrote something unsupported in an essay about Seth Morgan, which may have come from Morgan's own mouth - there is no credible proof that the heroin Joplin used was "uncut", "too strong", or that she was suicidal or anything else. This is simply passing on word of mouth from the street. I object to this article perpetuating a rumor that has not been substantiated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we don't want to give credibility to rumors or fringe ideas, but I don't think this detail is an unsubstantiated rumor. From an interview with her sister: "I very thoroughly researched her death. I have a copy of her death (certificate). I had a pathologist go over it. Look up Coroner Thomas Noguchi's book and read what he wrote about her. I talked with John Cook who was with her in Los Angeles and actually was the person who found her. I talked with Paul Rothchild (producer) who was down there and some of the other people that were in the band recording. Janis had not been using heroin for six months. She was clean. She had just been chipping a little bit at night, maybe four or five times. Some people made claims there was only one fresh needle track. Well, there were actually four or five. That's written on the autopsy. People that were around her knew she was using. There's no doubt that she was using drugs again. Also, when Janis died, she was legally drunk. It's very typical that when death is attributed to a heroin overdose it is actually what they call a poly drug effect of alcohol interacting with heroin. Very few people die from just a straight heroin overdose. The heroin Janis used, according to the coroner, was four to ten times stronger than normal street drugs. So, she had super strong heroin, and was also legally drunk. The combination of those factors led to her death." Celestra (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
None of that confirms in any way that Joplin "had accidentally been given uncut heroin by her dealer, as several of that dealer's other customers also overdosed that week." That is the unfounded rumor against which I protest. There is no independent substantiation that Joplin had uncut heroin, that several of the dealer's other customers overdosed, or that there was any hand in her death besides her own. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If you take 'uncut' to mean pure, I see your point. I meant 'uncut' to mean 'not cut' at some level of distribution that would normally cut it. Is there a better word that would capture that overly potentness of the heroin? The interview confirms the portion of Cooke's statement which asserts that the heroin was unusually strong. That corroboration does not have to include every detail of the original source in order to express that "Cooke believes" these things. If we find other sources that confirm the dealer/other ODs portion of his statement, we could remove the qualifier. I'll try to get to the library this weekend to read through the coroner's books. As to whether "there was any hand in her death besides her own", no one is even asserting that she had a hand in her death. It was an accidental overdose. The details of how that accident occurred are interesting and encyclopedic, in my opinion. Celestra (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I mean uncut, as in not diluted in strength. The interview only repeats the story that Cooke told Laura Joplin, it in no way confirms anything reliably. There is no reason to include what Cooke believes. I have a huge issue with repeating what Cooke first circulated in this article. As it currently stands, it perpetuates that her death was related to uncut heroin which is unproven and unsupported. I've read all the biographies of Joplin, I've read Thomas Noguchi's book. This requires a reliable source to continue to carry it in the article. The details might be interesting, but the rumor that there was "uncut heroin" circulating around that led to her death are not encyclopedic in that they are only confirmed by rumors Cooke heard and spread elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the interview clearly states that the information about the unusually strong drugs was from the coroner. And remember, we are not here to prove or disprove what is reported in reliable sources. These both appear to be reliable enough to support the text I added. I'll rephrase the text around uncut, though; you have a reasonable point about a reader taking that as meaning pure, although I'm sure that wasn't what Cooke meant. Celestra (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You have another issue. The "John Byrne Cook" who wrote the essay titled "Seth" (included in Janis Joplin: A Performance Diary) is not the same John Cooke who was her road manager and who found her dead. That John Cooke has an "e" on the end. You can confirm the spelling by noting that John Cooke is the son of Alistair Cooke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.37 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The authors of Janis Joplin: A Performance Diary are John Byrne Cooke and David Dalton. John Byrne Cooke's website characterize the book as "ten essays by Janis's road manager, John Byrne Cooke, give an intimate portrait of the first woman superstar of rock in the turbulent Sixties." I think the Cook mentioned in the interview as well as by the requester were simply misspellings. Celestra (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper external links?

Has there been a community consensus formed that the following links actually meet instead of violate our external link guidelines?

  • JohnGilmore. com: Spotlight on Janis Joplin
  • Janis Joplin's Kozmic Blues - janisjoplin. net
  • Canadian Classic Rock Page: The Full Tilt Boogie Band

To me, they appear to fall easily within self published sites that should not be included when actual reliable sources are plentiful. Because the site is locked, I could not remove them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The page isn't locked, it is protected against edits by anonymous, unregistered editors because of the issues arising from 30 Rock including an episode where they vandalized this page. Sara's Song (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

death

joplin had a more than lethal amount of alcohol in her system at the time of her death. the cause of death is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.33.159 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The cause of death is sourced from two different works in the article. On what do you base your contention? She did not have a lethal amount of alcohol in her system, her death was from an overdose of heroin. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Janis Joplin died of a heroin overdose, not from alcohol poisoning or even combining alcohol with opiates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.0.24 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The value of a good image

The photo removed was a valuable addition to the article, which now has only a poor passport photo. To me, at least, it makes no sense to remove an "original," museum-provided, photo of a world-renowned historical singer and leave an insignificant one. The image "File:Janice Joplin hall of fame.jpg" is the best one of her in Wikipedia, and is currently orphaned. It should be added back, IMO. Anyone else agree?

  • Include. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I don't agree. There was no evidence that the photo was museum-provided, it is also identical to the album cover of Farewell Song. All I saw was that the photo was posted with a story about her. We need proof of provenance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
As a non-free "fair use" image for this article, I'm not sure that provenance is required, just a source. The image source was from an article about an event at the museum, so no one is trying to confirm a PD status. It's not a record cover, it's an original photo and much better. It's also the only decent image of her that we have to add, and meets rule #8 for acceptable use: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That image is the one that was originally [or at least a few years ago] placed on the site. I put it up. It was quite a while after that it was indicated to be non-fair-use and removed. But it is certainly a much better image than the main image on the site that replaced it. Dumarest (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It has to meet the requirements of WP:FURG, have a valid rationale and there shouldn't be a free use image available. The thing is, there is a free use available. I realize the image you uploaded was not an album cover, but it was the identical image that was used on the album. How do you rationalize it having historic significance? And where in the article does the commentary address the image itself? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an expanded rationale on the image page: File:Janice Joplin hall of fame.jpg. As for the fact that there is a free image available, I would propose a new standard: the "Who's that?" test. In other words, If someone who knows who Janis Joplin was, is shown a photo of her (i.e. current passport shot), and replies "Who's that?", then the photo should be considered below the standard, and a non-free image is a valid replacement. Test results:
Who's that? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The rationale is much stronger. The problem that I see is that the rationale addresses why we should use an unfree image but not strongly why we should use this unfree image. That's something that could and should be expanded so that anyone reading it can see why this image is chosen ahead of any other unfree images that may exist. The image page says it's for use in the legacy section, but that's not explained, and looking at the article, I don't see how it fits into the legacy section anyway. The image itself is of Joplin performing and the fact that it is associated with the Hall of Fame is not obvious from the image. If it is to go anywhere, I think it should go in the body of the article, however the text in the article would need to be rewritten so that that the image enhances the text. The image may be historical in nature, but on first glance it's a generic image of Joplin performing. The text and fair use rationale need to be enhanced so that the relevance of the image is clearly seen by anyone unfamiliar with Joplin. You seem to approaching this from the perspective of knowing the background and significance of the image, so you need to make it as obvious to everyone else as it is to you. The "who's that" test would need to be raised at the appropriate copyright and image use talk pages, but I doubt it would get a lot of support. A lot of people could look at this image of Joplin and still ask "who's that?" I think the "who's that?" test would end up saying more about the knowledge/ignorance of individual editors rather than the quality or usefulness of particular images. Rossrs (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The article text mentions many of her concert tours, but where and when this photo was taken I don't know. It might be mentioned on the album cover that used the photo. The photo does show her performing, presumably at a live concert, and she is wearing many of the items such loads of jewelry that is also mentioned. The photo could perhaps be mentioned as unique in that it was used on an album cover. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it could but there may be alternatives. Generally I support fair use if I believe it's being used appropriately, so my attitude is not a case of "it's not free, delete it", but I think if the copyright status/holder is unknown, that it makes any possible use more difficult. I think the article needs an image of Joplin performing, ideally a free one. If that's not possible (and she's been deceased for a long time, so the chances of a free image being available seems less likely) we should at least aim to use a photograph with a known copyright, properly attributed. I would feel easier supporting that type of image. This image is nice and it addresses some points you want to address, but if you don't know where or when it was taken, it is just a generic performance shot, and if another generic performance shot conveyed the same info, and could be attributed to its copyright holder it would be more suitable, in my opinion. Rossrs (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

New Cover Photo

Can someone out there find a better cover photo then the passport ID? This is JANIS. Please. Anyone? Could there be any outlet that would give permission to use another photo? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Here is a link to a photo of Janis Joplin. Can anyone get permission to use this photo: http://onshuffle.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/ Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Although any photo of Janis is a good photo, I removed this from the article because it does not portray her accurately as an artist. Until (an) artistic photo(s) of Janis is (are) found that can be used on Wikipedia, it is better not to have any photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Janisjoplin.png
Photo taken from her passport

Thanks again Endlessdan for putting in an artistic cover photo of Janis Joplin!

Looks like the cover photo has been deleted. Again, I am removing the Visa ID photo. Makes no sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a debate going on at that image's own page about whether it's free use or not. Whatever we do, we need to insert a better picture than that semi-abstract, high-contrast image that's there now. That's decorative, and does not give a true, encyclopedic picture of the appearance of this article's subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Saw someone had added a much better picture today, a painting her performing that illustrates her standard performing look. Nice.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer a standard photograph rather then the abstract painting of a photo for the cover. I put the abstract painting on since a previous photograph had been taken off due to copyright infringements. The current photograph is artistic and represents Janis as an artist. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Links

I put these links from the article to the talk page.

See also

Release date - Very Best of Janis Joplin

According to Amazon.co.uk it was already released in 1989. --Adam Brody (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wake party

The information on Seth Morgan, Janis's fiancé, has everything to do with Janis Joplin, in my opinion. Seth Morgan having sex with someone after the wake party shows the character of the people whom Janis was associated with. It was not meant to be salacious since this is the person Janis was allegedly suppose to marry. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, I don't see any reason that should be in an encyclopedia entry on Janis Joplin. While an interesting and, yes, salacious tidbit of gossip, it has everything to do with HIS biography, not Janis's. If he had his own wikipedia page, I would certainly advocate including it there, but not on Janis Joplin's page. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Good article attempt

Is it possible to try for a good article at this time? Any suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


LGBT tag with no content?

Hi, I was just wondering if there was a particular reason that this article is part of Wikipedia's LGBT studies collection but doesn't mention anything about Joplin's sexual orientation. Looking through the history, it looks like the last discussion of her sexuality on the talk page gave up on it because the sources they were talking about using were not substantial enough for WP standards. If that's the only issue, there was a "20-20 Downtown" mini-biopic on her back in 2000 (part 1 is here) that seems legitimate enough (I think?). Anyway, I just was curious if this was an already much-debated and now closed topic. It seems like an odd comprimise to just have the WikiProjects tag. Dgianotti (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Janis Joplin was bisexual and very out about her sexuality while she was alive and had relationships with men and women then including Kris Kristofferson and Janis Ian. Even in biographies about Janis it's well documented that she's bisexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.0.24 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. No, Ms. Joplin wasn't out as a lesbian or bisexual when she was alive. She never had a relationship with Janis Ian. If you have read Ms. Ian's 2008 memoir, you would notice that the two singers were platonic friends in 1967 and 1968. They lost contact with each other sometime before Martin Luther King's assassination.

The morning after his assassination, Janis Ian got dosed with LSD without her prior knowledge in front of a midtown Manhattan hotel. She spent almost a year recovering from the experience, spending much of that time with a full-time psychiatrist in Philadelphia. Even as late as September of 1970, Ms. Ian was still intermittently ill. She was lying on a couch at a friend's house in Philadelphia when she learned of the death of Jimi Hendrix, with whom she had been friendly in 1967 and 1968. They had last seen each other just several hours before her involuntary dosing by a stranger. Both were at a Greenwich Village club immediately after they, B. B. King and other performers learned of Dr. King's assassination. This is all is the 2008 Janis Ian autobiography. It describes profound friendships she had with Hendrix and Joplin -- nothing more.

All the comments attributed to Janis Joplin about her lesbian experiences were attributed to her when she was dead. I'm not saying anyone put words in her dead mouth. I'm saying she was careful when she talked to reporters. One source for this article, the book Piece of My Heart by David Dalton, contains a transcript of a taped conversation involving Dalton, Joplin and two male bar patrons sitting near them in Louisville, Kentucky. One of the patrons insists that Janis meet his wife. Janis says cautiously, "Well, I'm not real fond of women" and she laughs.

In one of the posthumous books on Joplin filled with her quotes on same-sex relationships, the one by Peggy Caserta, you read about a press conference held at an expensive hotel near the Woodstock concert where performers stayed. Caserta claimed in the book that Joplin encouraged her to stand next to her in front of journalists, and that Joplin fondled her breasts. I have checked several books on Woodstock written over a period of many years, and none of them mentions this hotel press conference.

The article as it is now does mention "her relationship with Peggy Caserta" as one of the causes of her break-up with David Niehaus. That's enough. Joplin was careful discussing Niehaus when she was alive, saying only that she had visited the jungle of Brazil with "a big bear of a beatnik." After they broke up, she did not mention him to reporters, and she never mentioned Caserta. I have read all the major press articles about her published when she was alive. Even Kristofferson's relationship with her turned up just a few times during her lifetime. What would Janis Joplin have said about her male and female lovers had she lived longer ? We'll never know. Myra Friedman said in the first edition of her book, published three years after the singer's death, that calling her a lesbian is oversimplified. Friedman added that the LGBT community outers and the people who dismiss her bisexuality totally are both wrong. Friedman said something like, "If only she were as simple as people on both sides of the fence have portrayed her!" Find that in the first edition (hardback) of Buried Alive at many libraries. I'm going to remove the LGBT tag.


THANK YOU for removing the LGBT tag! LoveLight8980 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the tag should be returned. There is at least one woman living in San Francisco who was lovers with Janis and had an ongoing relationship with her. Janis left her for another woman. She accompanied Janis to the Monterrey performance when she made her big break through. She is an excellent musician and that may be how they came to know each other; I don't know. I would be willing to help a responsible researcher make contact with this woman, but do not feel I can provide her story for her. She feels that Janis in today's world would be a lesbian and not a bisexual. To have this important part of her person blocked out is disrespectful to her spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.11.105 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since leaving the last comment 1/24/13, I have learned that the relationship I wrote about, is no secret. There are several online articles and a book that refer to their relationship and the fact that they lived together as lovers. There seems to be a choice here to withhold this known fact about Janis. It can be argued she was bisexual and not a lesbian, but to leave out her romantic and sexual relationships with women is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.11.105 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that it's been a while since this has been discussed. I don't give one whit about LGBT or JJ being or not being included. I care about the integrity of the article or wiki as a whole (not to be too melodramatic). I think that if the tags stay, then there needs to be supporting content. Without such, it is not right. If someone opens the article and is looking for that topic, a page search will highlight the tag with no explanation (gee, guess why I'm here!). I don't care one way or the other. Tags and content or no content and no tags. Let's improve this article with some consistency. Thanks for listening. I'll check in from time to time. --Geneb1955Talk 10:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Artistic perfomance links

I added a new section "Artistic performance links". I believe this is a good way to view Janis Joplin in her stage performances. The section is not meant to be piled on with other Janis Joplin performance links, just ones that are high quality and give a good example of her musical talent and singing abilities. Possibly two more could be added. I would not go over five performances. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I renamed "Artistic performance links" to "Artistic performances" and incorporated the section into the "External links" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

New additions all with footnotes

Every addition I made today has a footnote. Sorry if I did too many in one edit. Discuss what I did if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.8.239 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Piece of My Heart" on the Billboard Hot 100

Hi. In the Janis Joplin article it´s said "The breakthrough hit single, "Piece of My Heart," reached the number one spot on the Billboard Hot 100 eight weeks after its release, remaining for eight (nonconsecutive) weeks", when actually the song just made it to number twelve. It´s the album, Cheap Thrills, that spent eight non-consecutive weeks in the Billboard 200. 

Link of "Piece my heart" song and covers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_of_My_Heart, when it´s said that the song´peak was # 12.
Link of the Number one albums in the US in 1968, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number-one_albums_of_1968_%28U.S.%29

SET LEVY (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Laura Joplin interview

I've just removed this section, as this one interview in no way warrants its own section. So, if anyone does wish to integrate any of the points made there into the prose in the article, here is the latest version with the Laura section intact: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janis_Joplin&oldid=442089473 U-Mos (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I put in the original section, I believe certain parts of the interview can be incorporated into the Legacy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Janis Joplin seen on the street..png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Janis Joplin seen on the street..png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Kozmic Blues Band

The article Kozmic Blues Band was deleted and the contents were merged into Janis Joplin on 13 December 20111. See the history page of Kozmic Blues Band for attribution. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Music links

Why were the music links to Janis Joplin deleted? The reader, in my opinion, is left without any access to Janis Joplin's music and denies access to understanding her artistic works as a female rock singer. The current article is eerily silent without any music links. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Death section

Why is Janis's "Death" section confusing in the article? I noticed that one of the references was deleted or misplaced. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Image

In Berkeley tile - Janis Joplin arrested

I think this belongs here, either in the early years, or as her legacy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother & the Holding Company

Nancy GURLEY is the one who died in 1970 from a heroin overdose. James GURLEY died in 2009 from a heart attack, a long time after Janis own death. --86.218.111.211 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Close. Nancy died from a heroin overdose in 1969. Joplin was informed about it and had a strong emotional reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.204.174 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Improve the current image

If you cannot find a better photo, you should take a look at the wikimedia commons category of Janis Joplin. There are two great photos there. Just take a look. --Το αλλήθωρο οπόσουμ (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I added fall 1968 concert tour with Big Brother plus I made smaller additions.

Before I made this edit less than an hour ago, the article claimed the September 14, 1968 gig at Fillmore West (San Francisco) was Joplin's last official gig with Big Brother. Oh, they did one final gig on December 1st as a favor for the hippie commune called The Family Dog, and that was it for 1968.

The article was very misleading when it claimed that. When Joplin announced she was quitting Big Brother, they were contractually obliged to play many more gigs throughout September, October and November. So I added two new paragraphs. First has a long quote from a Washington, D.C. area newspaper reviewer who referred to Joplin's imminent departure from Big Brother. Next paragraph includes a story about Big Brother bassist Peter Albin making fun of her; the story was repeated many times in Rolling Stone article and in books including Ellis Amburn's. I omitted the rest of the story, which had her screaming at him backstage in anger.

I made many minor corrections of word usage and punctuation. Comma goes inside the end quotation mark, right? Other additions that you could call major:

-- a clarification that Seth Morgan talked after Joplin's death about his feeling excluded when he visited Sunset Sound Recorders during her Pearl sessions. Previous edits used the words "much later," and that came too soon after the use of the word "much" in "much to [Joplin's] dismay."

-- a second example of one of Joplin's friends "who did not become clean and sober until a very long time after the singer's death." I felt the article warranted another example besides Peggy Caserta. Many people including Myra Friedman felt, while Joplin was alive, that Caserta was a bad person for Joplin to associate with. She had no musical talent, and her only legal means of supporting herself was owning a clothing boutique that she ruined soon after Joplin's death when she used, bought and sold too much heroin. Millions of California residents in their generation messed up their lives, many of them basically good people. One of the admired ones was Big Brother guitarist James Gurley, so I added a new sentence about him sourced by the Ellis Amburn book. That's one of the article's major sources. I don't mean to start a debate on Peggy Caserta. I'm saying she caused trouble while Joplin was alive, and the article should refer to the eventual downfalls of people who had little to do with criminals when their friend / colleague Joplin was alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.4.86 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

recent edits

To say that having Joplin voted Ugliest Man on Campus is "trivial" is obviously absurd; moreover, if you had bothered to read the article in the Washington Post, you would see that things like that were what are believed to have founded here "other self: It was always there, beneath the music, informing it, and we knew this, we just didn't want to think about it very much". To claim that Welch is irrelevant is plainly wrong: the point is that the episode was contrasting the two women--and that could hardly have been a conincidence. You have no substantiation for your claim that Youtube channel cavettbiter is a copyright violator: the channel has been there since 2006. EllieTea (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously which you should read about here. That Youtube channel has no information demonstrating that it is properly licensed by the copyright holder of those TV broadcasts to make those videos available. That those videos have been there for 7 years in no way mitigates the problem of copyright or how Wikipedia is to handle it. The short of it is that there has to be express permission given (via a license or some other means) or else Wikipedia will not link to it. This does not mean that you cannot cite that episode of the Dick Cavett show but that you cannot link directly to it.
The next problem is that Welch's appearance is only mentioned in your edit. There is no context or explanation given for why her appearance on the show needs to be in an article about Janis Joplin. Of course it's not enough for you to say that it's significant or meaningful as that would be original research, you need to find a reliable source who makes that claim and then cite them.
Finally, the anecdote about Joplin being voted "ugliest man on campus" might be of use in this article but again no explanation or content is given. You supplied what looks like a reliable source but did not put in the significance of that incident. Wikipedia is not merely a list of facts but a summary of knowledge to help readers understand various subjects better.
So, I'm removing the Youtube link because it is clearly problematic under Wikipedia policies concerning copyright violations. I'm also removing the bit about Welch because there is nothing in that edit telling us why it needs to be mentioned. I'm leaving in the ugliest man on campus bit even though as it stands it's not particularly useful but at least there's potential there to expand on it given the source supplied. SQGibbon (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To Love Somebody

To Love Somebody shouldn't be listed as a Janis Joplin song, it is a Bee Gees song. Janis' song was Somebody To Love.

50.179.73.202 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning - "30 rock" JUST suggested people vandalize this page

Had 30 rock going in the background for some silly reason - they showed someone adding an edit about her "speed walking everywhere" and some other thing. Keep an eye out for vandalism. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And... nothing!. I don't think many people watch that show, but... people still must be less suggestible than I thought. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This has been a continuing problem (although, thankfully, less so recently) since the episode first aired in January 2009. I've personally done about twenty reverts of this 30 Rock vandalism over the years, and other users have probably reverted many more. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize those shows in the "oops I left the TV on" slot were reruns... or would ever be reruns... :) Wnt (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

13FEs?

Didn't JJ audition for/almost join The 13th Floor Elevators just prior to her officially joining BB&THC? No reference to the 13FEs in this article. Thanks. Maccb (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lennon birthday gift

This page says it was recorded on September 26, 1970; the Mercedes Benz (song) page says it was recorded on October 1, 1970.
Ulmanor (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the article's source for September 26, 1970 being the correct date: Log of Joplin's recording sessions with dates

Janis Joplin Sessionography

For those interested, I've started a discussion about the reliability of the above website at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please feel free to post your opinions there. BMK (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

ATLANTIC CITY POP FESTIVAL, 1969

Need to add that she was at this outdoor weekend concert 2 weeks before Woodstock. I was in the audience. It poured down rain while she sang, but few people left. I know I didn't!


Atlantic City Pop Festival From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atlantic City Pop Festival took place in 1969 on August 1, 2 and 3rd at the Atlantic City race track, two weeks before the better known Woodstock Festival. The Performers

Attended by some 100,000+ people, the festival featured the following performers (partial list): 

   American Dream
   Aum
   Booker T. & The M.G.s
   Tim Buckley
   Paul Butterfield Blues Band
   The Byrds
   Canned Heat
   The Chambers Brothers
   Chicago (as the Chicago Transit Authority)
   Joe Cocker
   The Crazy World Of Arthur Brown
   Credence Clearwater Revival
   Dr. John
   Cass Elliot
   Iron Butterfly
   Jefferson Airplane
   Janis Joplin
   BB King
   Lighthouse
   Little Richard
   Lothar and the Hand People
   Hugh Masekela
   Buddy Miles
   Joni Mitchell
   The Mothers Of Invention
   Tracy Nelson & Mother Earth
   Procol Harum
   Buddy Rich
   Biff Rose
   Santana
   Sir Douglas Quintet
   Three Dog Night
   Johnny Winter

Biff Rose was the master of ceremonies. Rose filled in for Joni Mitchell when she started to cry and ran off stage in the middle of her 3rd song because the crowd was not paying attention to her performance. It seems she was placed in the rotation directly after Mother Earth featuring Tracy Nelson and the crowd wasn't ready to hear her mild act.

Crosby, Stills & Nash were originally on the lineup but ended up as a no-show, Nash supposedly had polyps on tonsils (but sang at Woodstock two weeks later). The Chambers Brothers were a last-minute substitute.

The Moody Blues were scheduled but weren't there.

Johnny Winter was present but did not perform as his equipment did not show up in time. 

198.176.80.34 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)dianne adkinson198.176.80.34 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Child singer?

Joplin was not a professional child singer. That category belongs to others and Joplin should be removed from the list. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bootlegs

Bootlegs should not be included in discographies unless they are critically important, in which case they should be clearly identified as unauthorized releases and put in a separate table. Bootlegs here include:

  • Live in Amsterdam
  • Live in Honolulu
  • Wicked Woman
  • Live at Woodstock: August 19, 1969

217.38.90.4 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Projected Changes

I believe this article is pretty terrible, but rather than dive in, make a bunch of changes, then have thiry-two big fights after, thought the discussion page would be a better place to discuss than the main article.

One step at a time :

Paragraph One, no problem except it's either The Full Tilt Boogie band or it's the Full Tilt Boogie Band. I'd have to go look to be sure and I'm too lazy but the article (the) ought to be corrected one way or the other.

Paragraph Two says "Her first ever large scale public performance was at the Monterey Pop Festival, which led to her becoming very popular ..."

Umm, they don't ask unpopular people to play at the Monterey Pop Festival. Something like "her appearance at the Monterey Pop Festival introduced her to a larger audience and led to an invitation to perform at Woodstock ..." would, imo, be more accurate.

Paragraph Three, now we're getting into hot water ...

"Joplin was well known for her ... skill as a multi-instrumentalist."

Has someone been hallucinating ? Has anyone got any evidence of any kind that Janis ever played anything except the tambourine and maybe maracas in concert ? Ever ?

"Her fans referred to her stage presence as "electric";

There is no doubt that she was "electric" but it was not only fans who said this. Anyone who ever say her said the same thing. "Fans" is not a good fit for this sentence.

"she was known as "The Queen of Psychedelic Soul."

Wa ? references, please ? I've never in my life heard this phrase and I'm not a spring chicken. Thinking of Janis and Lionel Richie in the same genre boggles the mind :) Besides, Janis had been dead for a year before Soooooul Train even came out. This claim is like saying "Aretha was known as the Queen of Soulful Acid."

It's silly :)

"Known as "Pearl" among her friends,"

References, please ?

"she was also a painter, dancer and music arranger."

I guess we need to define painter, dancer and music arranger ?

Not to disparage Janis in any way but facts are usually more informative than exaggerations ... she painted in high school. Does this make her a "painter" ? If so, we need to add a lot of people to the "painter" category. Dancer, likewise. And music arranger ... everyone in any band has their own ideas of how they want a recording to sound. But here is a definition of "music arranger"

http://musiced.about.com/od/famousmusicians1/p/arrangers.htm

"Arrangers generally know how to play several instruments, have a good grasp of music theory, able to read and write music, able to transpose and transcribe and have a strong background in orchestration, harmony and composition."

Does Janis fit those criteria ? or are we just throwing words at the wall and hoping some will stick ?

That's enough for now ..... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's pretty bad, most likely the result of patchwork editing by various people who push and the pull the focus. The article is in dire need of an overhaul by someone who has read all of the best biographies of Janis, so that she can be properly represented as a greatly influential rock and blues singer. I'm not the right person; I haven't read the biographies. Can we find someone who has access to the following?
The first book on this list doesn't appear anywhere (yet) in our biography. From a brief bit of skipping through its pages, I think its viewpoint is unique. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that I did not list the Peggy Caserta book, which I felt was overly self-serving. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The silence is deafening around here :) Went ahead and made those noncontroversial changes in the first few paragraphs. It's ugly and doesn't read well but more factual than before.
Agree with you that a more coherent article would be very desirable. However ... the John Byrne Cooke book is probably the only one that's very accurate. As you noted, the Peggy Caserta is an "As told to ..." sensationalist potboiler. But at least Peggy actually knew Janis. The Myra Friedman book is worse than a waste of paper. It's a despicable character assassination that should never have seen print.
Far from being Ms Joplin's "publicist", Friedman worked across the country for Albert Grossman (West coast people did not trust East coast people then, with good reason. Heck, we didn't even trust people from LA, also with good reason :) ) and was definitely *not* a friend. The lady was a fraud. There are a couple of excellent criticisms of that p.o.s. at Amazon in the review section. I would suggest looking there before accepting that "biography" as a reputable source. So I would remove her ignorant, malevolent do-gooder backstabbing lies and amateur pop-psychologizing from consideration for this article. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Your edits are good. I understand your hesitation regarding doing significant clean up work - I sometimes wonder if there are regular editors who might revert and ask for consensus when a non-regular editor starts working on their favourite article, and if I'm just about to waste my time by being dragged into a series of long drawn out discussions. Sometimes, before embarking on a big clean up I will click on the History link, then on the Revision history statistics link, which gives me a page like this, which - if you scroll down - gives you a list of contributors, and shows those who have worked on the article the most, and the most recent. In the case of Janis Joplin, two editors who have done a lot of edits and are still active on the article (having edited this year) are User talk:Poiluj and User talk:Binksternet. Sometimes a note on such editors' talkpages before starting editing can save misunderstandings later. Perhaps a note saying: "I see you are a recent regular contributor to XXX. I am starting some clean up work on that article - if you have any concerns, or if I make any mistakes please do let me know." SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
My work here has been more maintenance than developmental. I have reverted poor-quality changes and I have buffed some references. I have not read the biographies. On that note, I am crossing out the Friedman biography per comments by IP 210. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
"Umm, they don't ask unpopular people to play at the Monterey Pop Festival."
Monterey was set up to introduce unknown and lesser known acts alongside better known acts. At that time Janis Joplin was unknown, and the local band she joined, Big Brother, hadn't even released their first album. Monterey records her first significant public appearance and the event is notable for that. A particularly acclaimed shot is of Mama Cass' response during Joplin's astonishing performance of Ball and Chain. Also noteworthy is the audience's indifferent response to her name when the band are introduced, and the difference to their reaction when she finishes Ball and Chain. That's the exact moment a star is born. And it's captured on film. That rarely happens. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be worth looking for sources that do mention the importance of that moment, such as: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
According to this website, she appeared twice. On the Saturday afternoon, and then on the Sunday evening. Big Brother appear to be the only band who appeared twice. Either that's a mistake by the website, or there's a story there which might be worth tracking down. In the film the shots of Mama Cass's reaction to her performance are in sunlight, while the performance itself is early dusk. I wonder if Mama Cass was so impressed with the Saturday afternoon performance that she asked the band to appear again on Sunday evening? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. This book explains the difference in lighting - Mama Cass was shot during the main performance. The band (who had not been filmed - presumably because they were unknown) came back for an encore, and this time the film crew shot them. But the book only mentions a Saturday afternoon performance. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This book says it was their manager who insisted they not be filmed. The book says the band played a second set which was filmed, but doesn't say when. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This book's Chapter Three, "It Happened In Monterey", says their manager refused the filming of the band's performance Saturday afternoon, but the film producers really wanted to capture them because their electrifying performance would make the film. So the festival producers arranged for a second set on Sunday night which would be filmed. The band was convinced by Bob Dylan's manager that it would be a good thing for them to be filmed, after which their own manager left in a huff. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice one. I just found this, which isn't much, but also supports the Sunday performance, so later today I'll put the info into the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna jump back out to the edge of the page here, this is getting a little long :)

Didn't want to get too bogged down in the Monterey Pop thing, SilkTork's comments would be correct today but this took place at a very unusual time ... it wasn't Big Brother's manager who was trying to restrict Big Bro / Janis -- almost all the SF bands felt the same way. And their "manager" was Chet Helms, not exactly a no-name in San Francisco music history. The Dead refused to be filmed too. In fact, none of them except for the Airplane (who have always been a little more commercial than everybody else - "We built this city" ? eeeuw) were willing to even go. Ralph Gleason talked them (the SF guys) into it. LA was the black and stinking heart of the devil for us northerners. Slick commercial crap like the Monkees, Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, Lou Adler, it was everything the SF bands did not want.

You have to remember, there had been exactly one rock festival prior to this, and it featured the Hell's Angels as ushers. Not exactly mainstream :)

So, by today's thinking, you'd be right, this was everyone's Big Chance for Success, etc etc. But in fact a lot of the people involved did not want that kind of success. And the statement that it was "intended to showcase" unknown bands made me laugh out loud. Lou Adler doesn't "showcase" anything he doesn't intend to make a buck (or three or five) out of. Even Pennebaker was distrusted as an LA slimeball.

In fact, I think Monterey Pop should be expanded but not in the way it is now - it really was a turning point for Janis but not just because 30,000 people saw her. The Avalon and Fillmore were not chic little coffee houses, either. Right after she played at Euphoria, the city pulled their license, that whole half of the city was blocked off for hours with the crowds. Janis was not an unknown prior to Monterey. Not if you were into music, anyhow.

(No one saw the movie back then, it would have been a second feature on the bill with Blue Water, White Death and other b-grade stuff. It is now that people look at that documentary and say, "Wow, right there is when it all happened !") Monterey was where she began to turn away from the peace love good vibes kind of hand-to-mouth existence to being a more conventional singer. It wasn't exactly appreciated at the time, either.

Everybody else sold out pretty quick soon after tho, so maybe she was just the leader of the laundromat :)

It wasn't Albert Grosman who talked the band into playing again - it was Janis herself. She was the one who saw how the crowd reacted, and she was the one who convinced the rest to abandon their principles. Grosman never could have, no way that egotist Peter Albin would listen to him. (And with good reason, the Diggers never did get even a penny of the gate.)

This doesn't exactly fit with the "Little Girl Blue", Myra Friedman "no talent insecure junkie" image, does it ? That's because much of this article is revisionist crap trying to turn a dead person's life into a tool for current writers and directors to use for their own ends ... If I can just remove the "poor little insecure girl, took refuge in heroin" heartstrings-tugging schtick I'll be happy.

New references above [1] [2] etc -- I can't get to the first couple, no google or blogspot here but ?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/21/the-secret-life-of-janis-joplin-a-girl-interrupted.html

Come on ! See the photo of the writer ? She wasn't even a gleam in her daddy's eye when Janis was with us ! She knows exactly **** about Ms Joplin ! "a ballsy Texan girl whose toughness masked a deep-seated hurt and a need for validation" -- what a crock !! This twelve year old needs a sign on her door, "Pop Psychologist is In, 5¢". (Betcha she doesn't even get the allusion :-))

http://www.inquisitr.com/2625377/psychedelic-janis-joplin-porsche-356-c-sells-for-1-76-million-at-auction/

This is great. Read on down .. it's a phony ! The family painted the car grey, it was too embarrassing for them :) And now that it's worth a lot, they "had it repainted from old photos." Yeah, just like the Mona Lisa, got too faded so they repainted it, but it's the same as Leonardo did, really !

These are kinda interesting, might add a little background :

http://likethedew.com/2012/03/04/we-can-all-join-in-how-rock-festivals-helped-change-america/

and the prototype :

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-untold-and-deeply-stoned-story-of-the-first-u-s-rock-festival-20140617

It would be nice if this article were re-written to be more in the spirit of the facts, referenced here :

http://www.popmatters.com/article/bandmate-recalls-janis-joplins-big-appetite-in-tv-documentary/

But I'ma scairt to just jump in and rip out the Myra Friedman/Amy Berg sob-sister stuff :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh-oh, I missed reading this : "The band (who had not been filmed - presumably because they were unknown) "
No way. Adler and Philips got Big Brother because they were well-known .. and so was Jimi Hendrix. And Ravi Shankar. In fact, almost everyone (except for one or two hangers-on that were friends of Adler) was well-known. Go look at the playlist. Many of them had not been peddled by the record companies yet !! but that's not the same thing as well-known. Adler was trying to cash in on their popularity, not the other way 'round.
Once upon a time (and for a short time) in Amurrica we had our own minds. We chose our own heroes, instead of being force-fed whatever crap Sony and Apple wants us to buy. Compare Janis to Lady Gaga if you doubt me :) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janis Joplin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Introductory statement "a little more than"

As a casual reader, this struck me as odd. Describing "just over three months after her death" as "A little more than" doesn't read as one would expect Wikipedia to.

Perhaps a minor error in expression. My thoughts are that it should read "A fourth album, Pearl, was released in January 1971, just over three months after her death."

Just a casual reader who thought something wasn't quite right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.245.247 (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

possible improvement of Carl Bernstein, definite improvement of "Sexuality and relationships"

As a follow-up to an edit conflict from less than an hour ago, I'm providing below this paragraph Carl Bernstein's words that were published in a daily newspaper in 1969. Can we have a consensus as to whether any of them should be included in Janis' article? After I included them, an editor with the name FlightTime reverted the edit, saying Bernstein's words were "not notable."

Scroll down a little and you find the bulk of Carl Bernstein's 1969 review of Janis Joplin's concert in Columbia, Maryland.

Even if we don't include any of Bernstein's words, we must correct the "Sexuality and relationships" section so it has the correct details that my most recent edit has. For example, in my edit, Peggy Caserta and Seth Morgan meet with Janis in Janis' hotel room at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, September 29, 1970. Previous edits said the meeting had happened "Tuesday night." 6:00 pm is a little early to be described as "night." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Janis Joplin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality section

Relationships with men, 2 1/2 lines. Relationships with women, bla, bla, bla, including a long chunk from her biography on the author's opinions on her sexuality. I would offer help grinding that axe but none is needed. Balance, anyone? Britmax (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

Should be nominated, what do you think? Ernio48 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather a stale inquiry, but I will answer anyway: I think the article is not nearly ready for a GA review. While a review may be helpful, I feel there are certain issues readily apparent which a premature review would focus on and which can be easily remedied first so that the reviewers can focus on more nuanced suggestions. First and foremost, the basic organization is a bit of a mess here. The 'solo career' section is, I kid you not, 48 paragraphs long (with each paragraph being made up of 1-3 sentences), without a single break of subsection, and its not the only excessively long section by any means. Some headers to break-up / better contextualize this information would be an easy first step, but what would really help would be careful scrutiny on the content, to cut some fat and connect the points of the encyclopedic narrative. Snow let's rap 10:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This is Janis. This is Janis on drugs.

Quote: In June, she was photographed at an outdoor concert that celebrated the summer solstice. The image, which was later published in two books by David Dalton, shows her before she relapsed into drugs.

... and she looked notably different than she did on drugs?

If we don't or can't show that image, this information is pointless.

Thanks, Maikel (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The introduction states in the third paragraph that she 'was well known for her performing ability and skill as a multi-instrumentalist' yet the only instrument quoted on the background information panel is guitar. Are we sure that she was a multi-instrumentalist and that she was well-known for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.62.17 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

the above quote is incorrect. The summer solstice concert was June 21, 1967 while the above quote suggests it's in 1966. There are pics from the 6/21/67 speedway meadow concert, a week after Monterey Pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.65.152 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Summer Solstice concert took place in at least two consecutive years : 1966 and 1967. Big Brother performed at both of them. Books by David Dalton include the existing photo of the 1966 event. Janis looks directly into the photographer's lens while smiling, not singing. Other four Big Brother musicians are not seen.

The more recent of the two Dalton books includes his written description of Janis' magical presence at the 1967 Summer Solstice event, but a photo does not seem to have survived. According to Dalton, Big Brothet and other bands performed on the back of a truck.Myra or someone (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

October 4, 1970

Janis Joplin died before she had a chance to vomit all over her hotel room according to what I saw online. It was a heroin overdose just like Jim Morrison. Jim Morrison vomited blood and gore and Janis Joplin vomited nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B153:F031:F8B0:B799:D82E:A9E2 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"...one of the most successful and widely known female rock stars of her era."

Why is the word "female" necessary here? — goethean 16:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

For context to the question being asked, Wikipedia itself explains why it's problematic to do that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_as_norm

2600:1006:B106:E5E6:678B:533A:E734:F542 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that 'female' should not be included (especially in the lead) unless it can be shown to be explicitly relevant, the 'Male as norm' article linked is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, or part of the Manual of Style. Its existence doesn't imply a general agreement or disagreement with its content among the Wikipedia community any more than any other article covering an ideological, political, religious, etc., principle or concept does. A better resource is the Wikipedia Style Guide: MOS:GNL. Paisarepa (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Another good resource WP:WAW#Male_is_not_the_default --177.68.93.254 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC))
Well, not really. Read the banner at the top: This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Paisarepa (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree "female" should be removed. Inarius (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Female should be removed. It is a qualifier that sets her apart from a large group of rock musicians, such as Jimi Henxdrix, who were fully her equal. Thrawn82 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've fully protected to prevent edit warring. FYI: https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/cb22ws/i_edited_janis_joplins_wikipedia_page_to_say_most/. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have seen the Reddit post. I don't think it is a justification against the edit. Let's discuss why "female" should remain or be removed. Inarius (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it was. I was just pointing it out so that everyone is aware of where the sudden interest has come from. I haven't made any judgement on what the content should be (WP:WRONGVERSION). SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I side with excluding it. She was one of the biggest stars. She was one of the biggest stars from Texas, she was one of the biggest stars in her 20s, she was one of the biggest stars in San Francisco, she was one of biggest stars who was a junkie, she was one of the biggest stars who drank too much, oh and also she was one of the biggest stars who was female. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is using qualified value statements. Saying "one of the most" instead of discretely saying "the most". The three references cited on that sentence used don't make special qualifications for her status among female rock stars. The qualification that she be ranked only among females is unique to this article, not well supported, and not appropriate. Inarius (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with removing "female". --Adamanttt (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with removal. The sentence is true in either case but you wouldn't see that phrasing for males. Male as norm is superfluous. JimsMaher (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Another vote for removal. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest reworking the whole first sentence. "one of the most successful and widely known female rock stars of her era" doesn't have an encyclopedic tone. Suggest "She is described by the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame as having one of the most powerful voices in the 60s<ref>https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/janis-joplin</ref>", which would be in line with the phrasing used in the Hendrix article while simultaneously handling the male as norm dispute. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to wait for the Reddit furor do die down before making a decision (we have to anyway, given the protection) but while we wait, does anybody actually have good reason to include 'female' in the line? Genuinely asking, because the initial revert just cites 'vandalism' which I don't think this is. GeekX (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Have any of you thought about reading the rules on Wikipedia editing? Wikipedia is not a soapbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. If you cannot find a reliable source that quotes JJ as "one of the most successful and widely known rock stars of her era", then arguably the whole sentence does not belong there because it violates WP:OR. I know over on reddit it is ok to just proffer opinions and seek out upvotes as validation, that is not how things work here. WP is a different community, please respect it. 198.185.164.120 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The entire Rock and Roll Hall of Fame entry discusses her achievements, including her fame and popularity, without addressing her gender. That was the first place I looked - I have no doubt that a dozen such reputable references would be available from various relevant sources. Link to Hall of Fame 70.91.166.181 (talk)
There is _nothing_ in that link you just given that can justify inserting the statement "one of the most successful and widely known rock stars of her era", it appears you guys are failing to understand that. Sure you have inferred it, and that is called original research or synthesis, which is against the very tenet of wikipedia. Encyclopedias repeat facts. Encyclopedias are not for people to read articles, form opinions, then translate those thoughts into their own words. There's an easy way to end the edit war: find a reliable source that claims JJ is "one of the most successful and widely known rock stars of her era", then it's over. 198.185.164.120 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The primary topic of discussion is whether including the qualifier "female" in the intro paragraph is justified. --Jdlh | Talk 21:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
You guys are still missing the point. You have to remember this is not reddit: wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias cites from authoritative (mostly) primary and secondary sources while seeking to faithfully transcribe those sources with minimal paraphrasing. You can introduce facts into encyclopedic writing if you find enough _authoritative_ primary and secondary sources that qualifies her without mentioning the term female. Many current cited sources explicitly use that term, to wit: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Janis-Joplin and is a big reason why it was written as-is. The goal here is not to seek truth but to seek _verifiability_. This is a concept that seems to be eluding many of the sudden editors from the reddit crowd. Personally I find all this to be a tempest in a teapot. Again: find enough authoritative sources that cite her as a dominant rock star of her era without the gender qualification, then you'd have a much stronger case. The reddit mission is ruffling feathers because there're too many "I'm a woman, hear me roar" type of edits that just plainly ignores what encyclopedic writing is about and seeks to politicize when it wasn't political to begin with. 108.30.97.215 (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That isn't true. To the contrary, simply 'transcribing sources with minimal paraphrasing' (such as from Encyclopedia Britannica) is explicitly not allowed, as it is copyright infringement. Besides the copyright law issues, the fact that a source has a certain tone, includes or excludes certain language, etc., is not relevant to the style and tone of a Wikipedia article. If for some reason Encyclopedia Britannica had her listed as 'JaNiS jOpLiN', or 'Jan Joplin', or 'Joplin, Janis' the article here would still be 'Janis Joplin' because that is the guideline in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Whether or not authoritative sources cite her sex is irrelevant; what matters is whether her sex is integral to her notability. If not, it shouldn't be listed any more than any other non-notable fact about her should be. And especially not as a qualifier when mentioning her success. You wouldn't have her lede read 'Janis Joplin was one of the most successful lactose-intolerant musicians of her era' to avoid the obvious (incorrect) implication that she was only successful relative to other lactose-intolerant musicians. Paisarepa (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few things wrong here. Regardless of whether the word "female" should be included or not, I want to say when editors are so focused on an agenda (whether correct or not) they are not even processing other editor's comments; then they really should take a step back, read other people's contributions carefully, seek to understand before being understood, before doing any editing. As an example: two of your recent edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janis_Joplin#%22...one_of_the_most_successful_and_widely_known_female_rock_stars_of_her_era.%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJanis_Joplin&type=revision&diff=905698856&oldid=905694096 Here you argued against fellow editors who were arguing FOR your point without even realizing they were actually arguing for removal of the word "female". Clearly you barely read their comments, never mind the quoted essays, before responding (ironically, because you have argued since these are essays one can ignore their advocacy to avoid the Male-as-default behavior). I would like to explain on how sourcing works, before you go around editing featured articles that quoted primary and secondary sources as "copyright infringement" :) but if like many from the reddit influx you will just not make an effort to read the wikipedia guidelines, then go another few years without contributing to articles--till the next soapboxing edit war--what is the point... 108.30.97.215 (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about two different things here on the talk page. The first is the immediate subject at hand, specifically my agreement with others that 'female' should not be included as a qualifier to Joplin's success. The second topic is a more general conversation about what constitutes Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I generally agree with the content in the Male-as-default essay, but my agreement with it doesn't change the fact that it is an essay and therefore the opinion of one or more editors and NOT official Wikipedia policy. In short, I agree with removing 'female', but I don't agree with any implication that the essay should carry weight in this decision. Hope this helps clear up the confusion. Paisarepa (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


Here's a source to back up a claim of notability: "Best Lead Singers of All Time". Billboard (magazine). November 12, 2015. Among the rankings: Janis Joplin: #5. Elvis Presley: #4. Paul McCartney: #6. "Janis Joplin was an artist who shared her soul with her audiences and left nothing to hide. The psychedelic era would never have been the same without her, and anyone who saw her rock “Piece of My Heart” live would probably attest. Had she lived longer than her 27 years, no doubt she would have continued to break musical ground." --Jdlh | Talk 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This one is a much better link. From this, I think it'd be perfectly fine to make a statement such as "billboard.com ranked her as one of the best rock singers of all time" and then cite that as a source. The statement everyone is tempest-ing in a teapot about is, frankly and arguably, too much of a peacock term to be included to begin with and perhaps warrant removal with or without the word "female". 198.185.164.120 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Another source is "100 Greatest Singers of All Time". Rolling Stone. December 3, 2010.. She's ranked #28 on that list. With either of those citations, I think the edit to remove female would be appropriate. The existing citations either don't make this claim or use the term female, so they are not sufficient. 24.6.153.193 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I consider the word "female" to be inappropriate qualification. It comes across as condescending. Similar qualifiers do not appear in intro paragraphs for comparable male rock singers:

Billboard rank Name Sex Intro qualifies "male" or "female"
1 Bruce Springsteen Male No
2 Freddie Mercury Male No
3 Jimi Hendrix Male No
4 Elvis Presley Male No
5 Janis Joplin Female Yes
6 Paul McCartney Male No

Removing the "female" qualifier from the Joplin intro makes this article more consistent with articles on comparable other people. --Jdlh | Talk 21:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the above editor. This is an excellent summary. I personally feel that those who are calling for removing the whole sentence are clearly posturing for an excuse to avoid removing the word "female" rather than making a valid observation about the content. Inarius (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it is catching on. An editor removed the "male" modifier from Franz Liszt's entry https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Liszt&diff=905535891&oldid=905533796 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C8B0:A4A0:4CA9:F372:B610:6945 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It was there for a whole 15 minutes and your IP and the IP who added that both trace to San Diego. Blumpf (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I too am fine with the adjective "female" being removed. I don't know why some editors take this as vandalism. Kurzon (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is so very obviously not vandalism. Vandal and trolls make intentionally destructive and disruptive edits. The edit was to remove a single qualifying word and the vast majority of editors here agree with the quality of the edit made. Inarius (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree removing "female" was not vandalism. However the reddit thread had also drawn in some trolls who were mixing vandalism in as well. That was the primary reason for the original protection. -- ferret (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the 'female' qualifier should go. I don't know much about that era of music, but if she hits #5 on the Billboard she's well-known enough to stand on her own merits without the qualifier. --Aabicus (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The qualifier of "female" is inappropriate and totally unnecessary. The removal by the reddit user u/diddlydeedledoo (wiki user Delyda) seems like a perfectly reasonable edit that is in line with virtually all other pages that describe artists. It should not have been reversed by 37.201.174.15
I understand there is a political fight between two groups, and user Delyda may have inflamed folks by saying "made less sexist" instead of something more apolitical (like, changed gender qualifier to align with wikipedia guidelines and standards). And she should have correctly cited a source. But it's Janis Joplin. There isn't anyone alive in America that has listened to music in the last 40 years that hasn't heard of Janis Joplin. The gender qualifier should be removed and this article should be locked from being edited except by verified wikipedia editors.

Charlesblack (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Should be included. The current cited sources support the female descriptor.[6] "Janis Joplin was perhaps the premier blues-influenced rock singer of the late Sixties, and certainly one of the biggest female rock stars of her time." [7] "Janis Joplin, (born January 19, 1943, Port Arthur, Texas, U.S.—died October 4, 1970, Los Angeles, California), American singer, the premier white female blues vocalist of the 1960s, who dazzled listeners with her fierce and uninhibited musical style." [8] Blumpf (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • We don't necessarily have to use the exact wording or tone found in every reliable source. Our goal as a community of editors should be to craft a high-quality article that is accurate, fair, neutral, and well written. And if we can do so using non-gendered language where appropriate, why not? There is an insightful essay, Wikipedia:Writing about women, that has several suggestions worth considering. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Male_is_not_the_default looks like this sums up the question at hand. It seems that there are indeed sources (see above) that point to versions of The Statement without mentioning sex. To convey historical importance, we should avoid pointing out sex without adding relevant context for inclusion as a qualifier, for any facts about the subject. I'll also put it out there that-- use of pronouns should be sufficient to point out their sex in all cases except where the achievement or point of interest was special to their sex (e.g. first woman vs 12th person in space). In other words, it doesn't need reiteration except in special cases with added context. JimsMaher (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The article should specify her sex with her accomplishments only if her accomplishments are notable specifically because of her sex. She is notable for being a musician, not for being a female musician. For example, the climber Junko Tabei is notable for being the first female to climb the Seven Summits, so 'female' belongs in the lead. J. K. Rowling is notable for being a best-selling author, not for being a female author, so 'female' does not belong in the lead. Joplin falls in the second category. Paisarepa (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, it seems like separating the noun phrase that she is female from the noun phrase of her actual accomplishments is a task that is not beyond the English language.89.107.6.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that adding the word female here is not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not that familiar with the guidelines around protecting pages, but wouldn't it have been good to protect it in a version that is in line with our guidelines now that the spotlights are/were on the article? Or is there a preference for protecting the version before edit warring started taking place? To me, and I could be wrong here, it seems like a bit of a defensive reaction, with us not willing to take criticism from elsewhere. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a policy either way; admins can use their discretion when deciding whether to protect the current version of a page or revert to a stable (pre edit-war) version. However, in my experience admins usually revert to the version prior to the edit that set off the edit-war, presumably to avoid the appearance of favoritism and to avoid inflaming the issue which can make it even harder for the opposing parties to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page. See WP:PREFER and WP:STABLE. This is especially true when an edit war devolves into obvious vandalism.
I count only one person arguing for keeping the original version (plus one person that argued for removing the entire sentence), so it appears to me that there is general consensus that the edit should remain. I don't think the edit would have been controversial without the Reddit post. Paisarepa (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the statements of reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy; consensus is not formed by polling, particularly when there has been canvassing.
There are three inline citations for the statement. Rolling Stone states Joplin was "certainly one of the biggest female rock stars of her time". Britannica states she was "the premier white female blues vocalist of the 1960s". The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame states she was "One of the most powerful singers of the Sixties". None of these sources support the proposed change. Feel free to look for sources that support the proposed change. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but decisions are made through consensus. I was stating my opinion; that the general consensus was for keeping the edit was demonstrated by the relative lack of opposition compared to support for the edit. However, that was only my opinion and you're absolutely right that there has been canvassing which makes it a lot less clear whether there is truly consensus.
With regards to the sources you're listing, I am not arguing that the sentence is factually incorrect. I am arguing that it is inappropriate to qualify her success by stating her sex in the same sentence due to the false implication that doing so creates. For an unrelated example, it would be factually correct to state in the lede to his article that Neil Armstrong was the first person from Ohio to walk on the moon, and you can find many, many authoritative sources that demonstrate the accuracy of the statement, but it still wouldn't be appropriate due to the false implication that the language creates (that other people, not from Ohio, walked on the moon first). And should we describe Michael Jackson as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century and one of the greatest entertainers, or should we describe him as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century and one of the greatest entertainers with vitiligo? Both are factually correct and can be backed up by many authoritative sources, but one falsely implies that he is only considered successful when compared to other entertainers with a specific skin disease. Paisarepa (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Rolling Stone qualifies the statement with "female"; we follow what reliable sources say, not what editors believe should be said. But again, feel free to look for sources that support the change. The line as written at the moment is unsourced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
All the sources claim she's one of the most well-known female rockstars. This does not imply she is one of the most well-known rockstars. As a more illustrative example, if sources claim that "X is one of the most well-known rockstars from Latvia", that doesn't imply X is one of the most well-known rockstars. The "female" part should be re-added to the sentence unless there are sources that imply she was actually one of the most well-known rockstars (and not just well-known for female rockstar standards). Re-add female. YellowJelly (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove female. Sources are clear that Joplin is superlative among human vocalists of all genders. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Jane Fonda & Janis Joplin ?

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Grand neice of Scott Joplin

Janis Joplin is the grand niece of Scott Joplin who was also from Texas Scott Joplin is also known as the " King of Ragtime". He moved to New York City to expand his musical career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.81.237 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source which supports this claim. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Janis_Joplin/Archive_2&oldid=1158906277"