Talk:27 Club/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Edit request from 184.175.38.167, 24 July 2011

and Amy winehouse!

Amy Winehouse fits the definition of being the 6th member of this 27 club. If you want to quibble about music genres, Janis Joplin was more of a soul and blues singer than a rock musician herself. But better than that, I think all 6 belong to a larger genre: pop music. All are great singer-songwriters who made an impression on pop culture. That Winehouse released only 2 albums and hadn't had much of a career for the last 5 years makes her perhaps a "lesser" member, but still a member. It certainly strikes me as odd that she is currently grouped with a list of barely-known musicians. She is a big name, and I believe would still have been a big name even without the notoriety of her drug-addled behaviour filling magazine columns in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.103.212 (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Do you really mean "Pop music" and not "Popular music"; than it is utterly false. 2) Why should we include Winehouse if Robert Johnson isn't even in the main table? 3) It is too premature; we must wait until it gets more hype. 4) All three where, and yes Joplin of course too, rock musicians and hugely influenced other musicians. Winehouse wasn't even close a rock musician. 5) see discussions above.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

184.175.38.167 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

While she is no doubt talented, her musical influence and legacy does not currently, nor will it ever, match those of the main 27 club. You seriously think she has the same legacy as The Doors, the Rolling Stones, or Hendrix? She isn't even played on pop radio stations anymore... 72.188.10.214 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Success is not the same as influence; if her songs appear in radios, that doesn't mean she is influental.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It ain't about me serously thinking so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Winehouse#Influence_on_the_music_industry. There you will find such hacks as Sebastian Danchin, author of Encyclopedia of Rhythm & Blues,Jay-Z, Charles Aaron lead editor of Spin Magazine "Amy Winehouse was the Nirvana moment for all these women,". They think she is pretty darn influential. Keith Caulfield chart manager for Billboard. BTW Ronnie Wood of an act that has 27 club member dedicated a show to her. Edkollin (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue was addressed above. There is at the moment no consensus to add Amy Winehouse to the top list. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disussion: Addition of Amy Winehouse to the 27 Club

It is very interesting seeing the argument played out as to whether Amy Winehouse should be added to Wikipedia’s 27 club. There has, of course, never actually been a ‘formal’ 27-club – there has never been an official entry process. (It is interesting to note that Wikipedia classes the article in rock music – this is merely a Wikipedia classification, there has never been any ‘rule’ stipulating people in the group must be associated exclusively with ‘rock’ music). It has instead been a group of musical artists who have had ‘rock and roll’ lifestyles and have tragically died at the young age of 27, shocking the public. It wasn’t necessarily those who were the most popular at the time: Janis Joplin was hardly a chart-buster. However it was her legacy and influence over not only the public, but arguably more importantly current and future artists that made her important. The same goes with the other artists, their legacy and influence has made their importance huge. If we apply this to Amy Winehouse, not only is she an impressive award-winning performer, but her artistic influence is huge. Would Adele be as popular as she is without Amy Winehouse treading the path first? I doubt it. The same goes with a whole host of female artists. Kurt Cobain’s addition was contentious at the time, but set a precedent that additions could be made. Considering the 27-club is not official, and based solely on perception, and it is now on the public’s psyche that Winehouse has joined the 27-club, I would argue heavily that she be added soon to this Wikipedia article. She was a huge artist, especially in Europe. To deny her a place on the list would leave this Wikipedia article incorrect and out of touch. (1ihatehalifax (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

Firstly, although the article is currently protected there seems to be agreement that it should no longer class itself only as rock musicians. Secondly, I strongly believe that per WP:RECENTISM Amy should not be added to the main list until the dust has settled and it becomes clear that she has gone down in history as a member of the 27s. U-Mos (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Having thought about this further, I am certain that Amy Winehouse will be forever mentioned with Cobain, Morrison, Joplin and Hendrix. She's a far greater celebrity than any of the other musicians not in the main list, and she's going to be included. But, I also agree that the dust has not settled, and there is no proof, and this article should be cautious to avoid recentism. Consider that all of the articles mentioning Winehouse with Cobain, Morrison, Joplin and Hendrix are articles about Winehouse. We haven't seen an article about someone else's death at 27 mention Winehouse, Cobain, Morrison, Joplin and Hendrix. That's the true measure... when she's included, others are excluded, and she isn't the main topic, but part of the list of tragic deaths. She's not "usually included" just because CNN wrote an article about Amy Winehouse and mentioned the other musicians. She's usually included in the list when she's usually included in the list. Of course she's going to be included on the day of her death! Let the article stay as is, and revisit the idea in a couple of months. 76.27.134.19 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
"I am certain that Amy Winehouse will be forever mentioned with Cobain, Morrison, Joplin and Hendrix." What a laughable statement. Were you trying to be facetious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy should be part of the club, considering Kurt Cobain was added so not just 1970's stars. This is due to recognition by the press and music commentators, below are just a few links that back up the claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14264609 http://ibnlive.in.com/news/winehouse-the-latest-member-to-forever-27-club/169935-45-75.html http://www.forever27.co.uk/27/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-becomes-the-newest-member-of-the-forever-27-club/ http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2011/07/amy_winehouse_the_newest_member_of_the_27_club.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.243.104 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's ABSURD not to include amy in the list. Granted there is strong recentism here, but she was an incredible talent that will forever be mentioned with cobain et al. 71.185.210.138 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Get over yourself and stop posting this. She is nowhere near the caliber of "Cobain et al." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the criteria for inclusion in the main list should not be restricted because of the music genre the artist performed. The main list should not only contain pop/rock stars but very famous musicians, I mean, it should be a list for musicians/singers in general, not only for pop/rock ones. Like it or not Amy Winehouse was very famous, she had a vibrant career and controversial lifestyle, like all the others on the list. Technically, maybe Amy was even more famous than the others on the list because of the time she grew famous. She gained fame in the 2000s, a decade when access to the media grew rapidly worldwide and it was not only restricted to western developed countries, so maybe more people knew her during her stardom years than anyone else on the main list, the others became famous in the '60, '70 and '80-'90. My point is that "notoriety" should be the principal criteria for inclusion in the list not the music genre of the artist, although I believe some use the latter as an argument because of their personal views. --Ecad93 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of 'Rock Music artists' to 'Music artists'

Resolved
 – Change made. causa sui (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While this comes amid the discussion on the inclusion of Amy Winehouse in the list, the phrase ‘rock’ really ought to be removed. Brian Jones would be turning in his grave if he knew he was being described as a rock musician (he famously always campaigned for the Rolling Stones to be billed as a Rhythm and Blues act). Janis Joplin’s style is arguably very jazz/blues heavy. The larger list of musicians certainly is not exclusive to the ‘rock’ genre. Therefore I propose that when this article is unlocked, the word ‘rock’ be removed. The 27-club doesn't have formal criteria for entry.(1ihatehalifax (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

I second that motion. B-Machine (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Me too - we should go by what sources state. Not sure if the article should be unprotected though. Too much interest and some views do not have wikipedia's best ineterest - there is an obvious motion to censor Amy Winehouse. The old age clash of Rock wanting to be different than pop. Therefore some here do not want her added... and are willing to ignore reliable sources in doing so.RaintheOne BAM 12:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree with getting rid of the 'rock', though I wouldn't object to 'Rock and roll lifestyle', of which it could be said all members (disputed and otherwise) were victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.88.196 (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. 'Rock Music Artists' is totally out of touch with the listing given. (Jrstroud88 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC))
I also concur. I read the article and was like "What? They're not all rock musicians!" Seems ridiculous to have been phrased like that in the 1st place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.194.60 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is that in the opening section of this article, the phrase 'Rock Music artists' be changed to merely 'Music artists'.

Buddy Holiday

Please also add Buddy Holiday to the list , thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startigenix (talk • contribs) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the above discussion.

Buddy Holly died at age 22.

Hmm, i might only be a "IP" but why was my comment/ discussion article deleted and replaced here. First and last time i suggest something here when others delete it, just to replace the suggestions with their nick behind it. Greets, gbk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.202.108 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jarhead1, 24 July 2011

According to the Wikipedia pages for "The Wailers (rock band)" and "List of Deaths in rock and roll", one of the lead singers for The Wailers, "Rockin' Robin" Roberts is listed as dying from a car crash in 1967 at the age of 27. However, he is not on the list of "Other musicians who died at 27" on the "27 Club" page. Please add him to the "Club 27" page, under "Other musicians who died at 27". Thank you!

Jarhead1 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are bringing up another flaw in this article. We should be asking which other artists belong there? I'd suggest to be included in this - a couple of reliable sources would have to assosicate the artist with this.. Also you provided no source mentioning him beinglinked to this grouping, so I doubt your request will be fullfilled.RaintheOne BAM 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source that is referenced on "The Wailers (Rock Band)" page:

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9217

And a different outside source:

http://www.billboard.com/artist/rockin-robin-roberts/421992#/artist/rockin-robin-roberts/bio/421992

Thank you for your fast response! 67.253.180.151 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request refused. Sources established clearly that he died at age 27, but nowhere do these sources link that to the age of 27 specifically, or link him to this group of musicians. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why this one was refused as the musician was 27 while Amy Winehouse is being glorified when there is no link to her being 27 when she died as a major factor in her death (unless I totally read this wrong) Osiris3231 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand that answer either. Perhaps it just needs to be worded a little more clearly. I might understand the part that said: "or link him to this group of musicians." Neither link really did that(band name was all they gave),although, the Wailer's Wikipedia page certainly does show him as a member, but the Wikipedia page was not one of the links you gave. If no one can figure out what band he played with, based on your post, and the 2 links you provided, is he notable at all? Most people think of "The Wailers" as a band that Bob Marley played with in the eighties, but they couldn't link him to that band. There is a disambiguation page for The Wailers. Roberts played with The Wailers (rock band), often credited as The Fabulous Wailers, a Tacoma, Washington-based garage rock band formed in 1958. His real name was Lawrence fewell Roberts, but he has no WP page under either name. However, if his band has a WP page, they must have had some notability. The other line "Sources established clearly that he died at age 27, but nowhere do these sources link that to the age of 27 specifically" makes no sense to me at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.50.225 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. You did say "According to the Wikipedia pages for "The Wailers (rock band)". I have no more ideas. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.50.225 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{editprotected}} template since this page is semi-protected. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The 27 Club is not an official Hall of Fame

It is not a quote-unquote "real club" of hallowed rock gods that the music industry grants memberships to based on their chart success, music genre or general "worthiness". It's not like the Football Hall of Fame, Cooperstown, Hollywood Walk of Fame or even the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. There is no official selection process or criteria. Rather, it is a pop culture association like the concept of Supercouple or even Supermodel. Wide spread pop culture usage, reflected and reported in reliable sources, determines who gets the tag--not some solitary determination of one source like TV Guide or Vogue Magazine to determine who is a super couple or who is super model, etc.
Again, as Wikipedia editors we are entrusted to set aside our WP:POV about "worthiness" and our subjective WP:OR criteria about a person having to be in such and such genre, sell such and such amount of records, have such and such influence on the industry and that we need to wait X number of weeks/months/years before they can be added and instead focus on what the reliable sources are saying and let them dictate our content. And the amount of reliable sources who are already including Winehouse in the "27 Club" is too numerous to willfully ignore. AgneCheese/Wine 18:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that she should be added. Portillo (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree...Amy Winehouse should 100% be one of the main members of the 27 Club,ecspecialy if Janis Joplin is on there. Shes already being hailed as a "Female Kurt Cobain" and was when she was alive.

I find it funny how Amy being added to the 27 Club is up to people who work for Wikipedia...who are they to decide the final word? very laughable. Its up to the people and by the looks of things the people and media say shes cemented a place on the list.

Matt,London England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.216.90 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  • And she is on the list. However, putting her as one of the main entry's on there within 2 days of her cracknap would be recentism. Until the dust settles, it seems perfectly adequate to have her on the second list. If it becomes more canon that she should be up on the list, rather than part of the current temporary media hysteria, then she should be added to the top list. Basically, this probably won't happen until a new member joins the most unwanted club in music. I'm sure as soon as an anniversary of one of the deaths comes up, such an article will be published, and given her talents, I wouldn't be surprised if she does end up in the top list.

Finally, I'd say consensus is pretty evenly split on the yes/no front here, so less of the 'We the people' schtick, good sir! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 08:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Any reliably sourced articles arguing against putting her in the club? Edkollin (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, if Robert Johnson isn't included in the main group, then Amy Winehouse certainly shouldn't be. ETA: Most of the articles listed in the above list Robert Johnson as either the father or grandfather of the 27 Club. A google search also produces more than enough notable sources of same. 220.71.81.75 (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my two pence to the discussion: it would be inappropriate to add Amy Winehouse to the list of musicians usually included in the 27 club when it is not clear whether or not that will be the case. Whether or not the consensus among wikipedians is that she will or won't be usually referred to as a member of the 27 club is neither here nor there, what is certain is that we cannot know yet, and we definitely can't source it. Sourcing an article from a newspaper with a title such as "AW joins 27 club" wouldn't be suitable - all this tells us is that some sources included (are including) her in their description of the 27 club immediately after her death, and doesn't tell us anything about whether she will become a "usual" member of the list in general literature about the 27 club, rather than about Amy Winehouse. Alex9788 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that Amy should be added to the main list. Her impact on Jazz music in modern day is immense. She played a vital role in bringing back young British musicians (especially females) to the top of the charts and achieving tremendous sales. Selling 12 million copies of an album in 2006 is not a small thing. Her contribution to music is big enough to have a special mention. And there is no need to compare her with Kurt Cobain to approve/disapprove her relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.41.213 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

BennyDigital said "Finally, I'd say consensus is pretty evenly split on the yes/no front here" Any reliable sources saying Amy shouldnt be in the club Benny dear boy? ;) lol

Matt,London England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.221.94 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2 pence, but if Robert Johnson isn't considered influential enough to be on the main list, then there's is no way in hell that Winehouse should be included. I would put forward a proper argument but the points I was going to make have been argued above numerous times. Nerter (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

edit protected

Amy has well and truly cemented a place on the main 27 club list.

The writer Charles A Cross (who wrote Biographies about Kurt Cobain and Jimmi Hendrix) think shes a member... http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/music/news/amy-winehouse-another-star-dead-at-27-16027456.html


US site FORBES added her to the 27 Club main list and even say Wikipedia should have her added... http://blogs.forbes.com/kiriblakeley/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-joins-unfortunate-27-club/

More sources who are all saying Amy Winehouse has joined the list with Cobain,Hendrix,Joplin etc...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/amy-winehouse-dead-joins-hendrix-cobain-in-27-club-52774/

http://www.inquisitr.com/128506/amy-winehouses-death-gains-her-membership-in-the-strange-27-club/

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2011-07/25/content_12975603.htm

http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2011/07/24/the_forever_27_club_musics_growing_li


All over the world people are saying shes cemented a place on the list and she should be on the main list.


Matt,London England.

This request was answered above, in the negative. Come back in another year. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the Objectiva Criteria of the club

i am not an expert in the field of music history in general, but i do have a professional interest in the scientific method. allow me a little hypothetical what-if...

what variables do the entire list have in common? musicians, dead at age 27. if those two traits match that, i'll consider someone part of the club. just statistically, as a scientist, i'm looking for common traits and it's just true about Ms Winehouse as it's true about Robert Johnson. you only need two key variables to identify a group, and since it's true about everyone in the group: musician, dead at 27. and in the control group, musicians older than 27

Foszae (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The BBC defines The 27 Club as "The list of stars who have died at this early stage in their life covers a range of eras and styles but one thing they have in common is that they had a huge influence on music during their short careers." BBC "Amy Winehouse joins iconic stars who died aged 27"
As Agne mentioned earlier, this isn't some official club. It developed as a sort of superficial idea in the music industry based on the age, popularity, but most importantly, the influence the musicians involved had on rock music. Winehouse was not even a rock musician, and using Janis Joplin as a justification to induct her because she was female is an ineffective excuse as they were a part of different genres. The ongoing dispute should not be a matter of whether Winehouse was influential or not because to some or most, she was. And 94.196.216.90, it isn't up to "[...]who work[s] for Wikipedia" who gets "added to the 27 Club". As you said, "Its up to the people"... as the editors in discussion here are. The only reason this article has been locked is because people are edit warring (WP:EW) and that is an impractical method of resolving differences of opinion.Valce 12:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should it be exclusive to rock musicians, though? Like you said, this is not an official club, so the criteria for "membership" is a moot point. That's why I disagree with the opening sentence of this article. It's more like an odd trend of influential musicians succumbed to their deaths at the young age of 27 due to the infamous rock&roll lifestyle than the genre itself. Most of the fansites for this 27 club include Robert Johnson (a blues singer) so I think both Robert Johnson and Amy Winehouse deserve to be included in the main entry. @pple complain 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It isn't an official club, you're right. But the concept developed in response to rock musicians who died. If there had been a "27 Club" made for other genres, then everyone would be happy. What I see going on is people want Winehouse to be in the first list because they feel it represents superiority and that the second list is for no-names or something. Like I said earlier, this isn't a matter of whether she was influential or not. She died at 27, she was added to a list in accordance with this... I don't see any further issue except that people are edit warring about which list she goes in. An article will get locked in response to edit warring, not because Wikipedia doesn't want her in the first list. What's left of a discussion is that the order of lists does not represent importance. Valce 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valce (talk • contribs)
Regardless of the origin of the concept, it is never stated anywhere that this 27 club is only inclusive of rock musicians. If people care that much about the genre, we won't have millions of articles, a lot of which coming from credible sources, paying tribute to Amy Winehouse as the newest addition to this club anyway. It's just unnecessary to subcategorize any further. The problem with this article is that it separates the list into 2 sections: the notable ones and the others. The big 5 included in the first section happen to be the most recognizable and influential artists (bar Robert Johnson). This kind of presentation alludes to the understanding that the level of influence and importance the musicians hold in the music industry is demonstrated this way. @pple complain 22:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough, the link I just posted below is from Rolling Stone magazine, including her on a list of 'Rockers lost before thier time', so we have a good relevent and reliable source saying she is a rock musician. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Billboard think Amy should be included

It was stated yesterday that until Rolling Stone or Billboard said that Amy Winehouse should be included the other sources don't matter. Leaving asside the absurdity of that statement, Billboard has put up an article explicitly saying she has joined the club (which incidentaly they number at nine, not five).

http://www.billboard.com/#/features/dead-at-27-nine-artists-gone-too-soon-1005290792.story

So, even by the bizare standards being thrown about on this page, she deserves to be in. If we want to argue that it's better to wait a while, fine, but there is no question that plenty of extremely reliable sources are showing she should be included.

By the by, Rolling Stone haven't 'put her in' yet, although this article cetainly suggests they think she is of a similar stature to those who are currently in the 'club'

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/not-fade-away-rockers-lost-before-their-time-20090203

I think it also worth noting the huge amount of grief that the music industry in general is showing over this. It makes no odds to the 'is she in or is she out' argument, but it quashes the 'just another artist with no influence who will be forgotten tomorrow' idea that is floating about. You might not like her, but it's ridiculous to suggest she had no influence and was just a minor act.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I accede. The suggestion of waiting for some time (till when?) before accepting her as one of the most notable members is absurd. They accept her now, and they will accept her then. We didn't have to wait for Amy's death to determine the "membership" status of Kurt Cobain. The huge amount of public attention and media coverage on her death and influence on music industry, as well as the undeniable warm embrace of the idea of her as the newest member of this "elite" but unfortunate club seem to be not enough for some people. She's not a rock musician but who care? This is a disturbing trend among the rock artists, but not exclusive to them. @pple complain 17:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
On the Dutch-language nl:Wikipedia the discussion aroun Amy reulted in an edit-war in such a way that the Dutch article on the 27 club. I added the category "Dead at the age of 27" (nl:Categorie:Dood op 27 jarige leeftijd) and this category was immediatly marked for deletion and some people wanted even speedy deletion. People discussed/stated that suc a catagory was nonsense and would result in a category for each age, but I came with the argument that the 27-club is a special one because everyyime an artist with a specific lifestyle (more precise: heavy drug- and/or alcohol use) dies at that age the press mentions it soecifically and compares that person to other members of the 27-club. The same with Amy: in the Dutch NOS Journaal of 23rd July, 2011 it was specifically mentioned that she died at the age of 27, which is the same age as Kurt Cobain, Jumu Hendirx and Janis Joplin. Please listen to the fragment starting at 03m20s at NOS Journaal on Amy Winhouse.
I really don't understand why people have such problems with the existense of Club 27: several attempts are made to get it deleted and now I noticed the same problems in The Netherlands (I first hoped to award the objections to very conservative US Wikians that think that you shouldn't mention certain facts as mentioning that certain people follow a lifestyle they don't agree with you shouldn't be allowed to mention it: I once had a similar discussion with an American Wikian when I wrote that a specific pop-start had declared that he was bi-sexual: I wasn't allowed to mention this as (a) he was married and (b) being gay is a sin and (c) it wasn't true: the person was married and had children, so he couldn't be gay. The person completely ignored the fact that I didn't claim that he was gay/bi-sexual; I only said that the guy had delared in an interview that he 'was bi-sexual and had probably been that all his life': but it gave a huge edit-war).) But I can't categorize the discussion that started in The Netherlands pure on any religious fundamentalist point-of-view; but then I really don't understand all the objections.
It is not us (as people contributing information on Wiki) that make someone member of Club27 (as that would be 'original research'): we only refer to existing information, in my example the highly acclaimed news-programme from the public broadcasters. Tonkie (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I just added Winehouse to the article (quite frankly I was amazed she wasn't already there) but then removed her name when I saw this discussion was going on. But seriously, how can there be any dispute over this? Winehouse was 27 and she was a well-known musician. If anything she was probably too well-known and we're seeing reverse snobbery among people who prefer obscure subjects. But it's silly to pretend Winehouse isn't famous enough to join a list that includes people like Lily Tembo and Valentín Elizalde. (User talk:MK2)

Jason Thirsk

Jason Thirsk is the bassist from Pennywise who took his own life at the age of 27 on 7/29/96. I understand he is not as wide known as Hopkins, Generic, Consonants etc but should be included in the table that lists other arttists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.240.164.143 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For convenience: Jason Thirsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) causa sui (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Jason Thirsk died at 28, not 27. Valce 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valce (talk • contribs)

Winehouse dispute - RFC candidate?

Maybe the where-abouts of where the Winehouse entry could qualify for an official WP:RFC? I am staying neutral in the debate, but this could qualify as a candidate for an official Request for Comment. NECRATSpeak to me 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a broader RFC on recentism and what distinguishes a merely news event to one that's worthy of a Wikipedia article. Frankly, the rash of AFDs on all recent events (there's way too many to list, but I'll just rattle off a few recent ones: Barck Obama's visit to India, QEII's visit to Ireland, Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, the Discovery Center hostage crisis, 2010 Shanghai fire, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, Nidal Malik Hasan) should tell you that nobody really knows what constitutes an article or not.. It's gotten so predictable that I check the talk page and mark it on my Wikipedia bingo card if the recent article went through an AFD. This fight on the 27 Club is pretty much a fork of that movement either "jumping the gun" toward recentism, or whether to stay back and take history into perspective. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rbottoms, 26 July 2011

Rbottoms (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposition of member inclusion

Lately with the passing of Winehouse, this talk page has blown up with much of the same arguments of who should be included, both in the main and secondary lists. I would like to propose a possible solution so we can put this behind us and move on. The main list is restricted to Jones, Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, and Cobain, and that's as it should be - until there is substantial evidence to support the inclusion of another in that main list. As for the secondary list, I propose that we have strict guidelines to the criteria for inclusion in that list. Obviously, we don't want that list to become so bloated that it becomes major listcruft. I say we keep everyone that is in there now, but we need some sort of ruling for future inclusion, so we don't just keep adding people. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense but define your "substantial evidence" please. @pple complain 16:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying I have evidence, I'm saying that until there is strong evidence to support the inclusion of another person - such as Winehouse, although I don't think that will happen - into the main list, that list should be limited to the five that are usually put in it. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You do realise there are more than twenty reliable sources saying she is part of this group? They are not just passing comments either, some critics have gone into detail and explained the comparisons between all the said artists in the main group. What more evidance do you need.RaintheOne BAM 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Which is why she deserves to be in the "Main Group", with the possible exception of Robert Johnson (who died long beore "27 Club" was even considered a remote idea) none of the other people listed in the 2nd group have even a hint of an arguement to be included in the main group, but Amy Winehouse does for sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If Amy Winehouse is considered, why not Robert Johnson? He influenced ALL of those musicians in some way. Splent (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, Johnson influenced them, but did Amy Winehouse influence anyone o.O? Joe, 10:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.78.43 (talk)
Lady Gaga, Adele, Duffy,... to name but a few. @pple complain 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who influenced who and how important they are, wikipedia just reports on what other people are saying, it doesn't make judgements itself. Elvis could have died at 27, but if nobody was identifying him as part of this group he wouldn't belong on this page. Conversely the guitarist in my local pub band could be included if enough reliable sources published that he was a member. Amy has clearly been reported widely as being a member and so belongs, if Johnson is similarly widely included in reliable sources then he does too. Frankly I doubt if most of the secondary list pass this criteria in which case they don't belong on this page at all.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Micra78, 27 July 2011

I am outraged that the Mexican 'singer' Valentin Elizalde is listed among such talented real musicians. I am from Mexico and whoever is in charge of editing this page should google his name and watch a Youtube video to confirm that by no means he can be included in this list. Just because he died at 27 does not make him a musician or a singer or anything of the sorts. There is nothing backing his status as a musician. Before the death of Amy Winehouse he was not even mentioned and that's how it should have stayed. I agree with moving Amy Winehouse to the top list. Thank you! This is the text I'm talking about, the list below the main list:

style=white-space:nowrap|Valentín Elizalde | November 26, 2006 | Murdered | Mexican banda singer Micra78 (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He did not play any instrument, he did not compose any music, and he did not sing. Here is further proof, a youtube video. This man couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. I am Mexican, and there is no way to defend him. The wikipedia page that lists him as a singer is not correct. It should say 'recording person' or something like that. His inclusion among true musicians constitutes an insult to real musicians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0YdPXodPrY

Just look at the video, you will not stand his voice for more than 5 seconds, and you will agree with me that he is not a musician. This really makes me wish he was killed sooner or at least until he turned 28. Micra78 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Micra78 (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: If you check out his page linked here Valentín Elizalde he is listed as a musician. He was also added back in 2010 and has been removed but then re-added multiple times. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter what I think or not but he is classified as a musician which is not up to us to decide. Was he part of a musical group? If so then he is a musician, and from the looks of it that is what he's notable for as well. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Update needed

There is a real chance here, thanks to Amy Winehouse, that this article can recieve plenty of sourced content. Many sources explain why the main artist should be part of the list. So maybe someone should harvest these sources, put them in place. There is a chance of a nice introduction section and a public image section could also be included. At present it is quite a mess and some parts sound like POV. But there is actually some phenomena here and it could be turned into a pretty neat 'pop culture' article combining old and news sources. Beware that some sources from certain news sources do go dead after a while, so if anyone can archive the most useful, that would be a help. Some may not be on the Wayback machines radar, so WebCite may be useful.RaintheOne BAM 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Keep the Club 27 page! Great reference! ~ N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.152.207 (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Structuring on WP:fr

The discussion of the second list of musicians is now centralized at Talk:27 Club/Archive 2#Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People here might be interested in the structuring used on WP:fr : in addition to the "usually included" section which includes historical members and the "other musicians dead at 27" section which is filled of people never mentioned in the 27 Club is a section titled "also associated" which is dedicated to musicians often associated to the 27 club. It currently includes Robert Johnson, Alan Wilson and Amy Winehouse. This structuring, which may help solving edit wars and is IMO more accurate that the "two-sections" one, was adopted as some contributors thought it was a bit early to decide Amy Winehouse would be definitely included in the club. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that having 'other musicians who died at 27' is irrelevent to this article. This article is about the cultural phenomenon of the '27 club', which is something that has been defined by others. It is not an article about everyone who happened to die aged 27. If no one else is claiming these people as being members of the club, then they aren't members and don't belong on this page. Including them here in any capacity is suggesting they are related to the 27 club, which without refs to back it up constitutes OR. If there are to be two sections, they should be 'usually included' and 'sometimes included', both of which can be easily backed up with refs to the places that have included them. Anyone who is never cited as being in the club doesn't belong on this page at all, even if they did die at 27. ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this. It's a bit cruft-y and borders on original research, if noone else is connecting them to this "club". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both commenters above. Unless we have credible sources link those who died at 27 with 27 club, we should leave out the whole second section. @pple complain 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is noticing this section. I'm going to start a new section about deleting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is Orca the whale included?

Keiko (orca) 02003-12-12 December 12, 2003 Pneunomia Plays Willy in Free Willy, Free Willy 2 and Free Willy 3

I am unaware that he was regarded as a musician. Scampi69 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. I took it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Keiko did die at the age of about 27 in December 2003, but I don't think he fits under the definition of musician (he was an animal actor). Even if Keiko held some sort of record contract or something at some point, I'd think we'd need some reliable sources that connects him with other "died at 27" musicians (if not the 27 club in general). I wouldn't consider this vandalism, just incorrect.--Tim Thomason 06:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually vs often

I think the section "Musicians usually included in the 27 Club" might be better named "Musicians often included in the 27 Club". Alex9788 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See also the section I initiated two sections above, which may elegantly solve such controversies. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think those two words make much difference to the article. What is more important is the title of the second section. Currently it is 'other artists who died at 27', which if correct would suggest they don't belong in this article at all as it is about the club, not people who happened to die aged 27 . However, the list description describes them as 'Some lists include other musicians who died at age 27', which is valid and can be referenced. The second list title should be changed to 'Sometimes included', or words to that effect, so that it is consistent with the description and the article as a whole. After that the current second list members probbaly need to be checked to see if they meet this criteria or not (I suspect quite a few won't). If no one has any objections I'll make the change in a couple of days.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.90.232.151, 29 July 2011

Hello -

I would like to request an addition to the "Further Reading" section of the "27 Club" page, specifically that a link be added for the graphic novel series "27," written by Charles Soule, with illustrations by Renzo Podesta and Scott Forbes. The series has been extraordinarily well-reviewed and extensively covered in the media (comics-related and otherwise), with mentions in USA Today, New York Magazine, MTV.com and many others. The series tells the story of a famous guitarist who turns 27 and must try to beat the mythical 27 Club curse. The legend of the 27 Club is woven into the series, and it would be an appropriate addition to the 27 Club Wikipedia page.

The book's Amazon page is here: http://www.amazon.com/27-First-Set-Charles-Soule/dp/1607063824/

The page on the Image Comics website related to the book is here: http://www.imagecomics.com/series/360/Twenty-seven

Specifically, then, the text to be added would be "27, by Charles Soule, illus. Renzo Podesta and Scott Forbes" with the number 27 being a link to either the Amazon page or the Image Comics page.

Thank you for your consideration.


24.90.232.151 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every piece of literature inspired by the topic is required to be included. I don't see what about this particular graphic novel makes it worthy of inclusion, especially if it isn't notable enough for a wiki article (nor is the author). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean McCabe

Sean McCabe's birthday was missing from this article. He was one of my best friends growing up so I can confirm he was born on Nov 13, 1972. I'm not really sure how to "prove" this and I've edited information I can personally confirm to pages before and I had nitwits claim that counts as "original research," but of course knowing my friend's birthday is not original research and I hope the Wikipedia editors have the common tact and courtesy to not remove information about a young man who is unfortunately deceased. Mikerichi (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:V rules, and your memory doesn't. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Now this is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia, that a random journalist is considered more "verifiable" than a primary source, i.e. someone's best friend. In the world of academia, primary sources rule but I guess that's not the case on oh-so-accurate Wikipedia. You are aware that newspapers make mistakes, right? I've seen errors all over Wikipedia that supposedly come from "verifiable sources." In any case, here's three sources that confirm that his best friend actually did remember his birthday correctly:

http://www.slendermusic.com/artDisp.php?id=102 http://www.the27club.net/category/the-27-club/21st-century/sean-mccabe http://blog.seanbonner.com/2008/11/13/happy-birthday-sean-patrick-mccabe/

But I suppose none of these are verifiable sources either, and his best friend and three websites could all be in a conspiracy to get Sean McCabe's birthday wrong. 68.81.180.171 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not what is wrong with wikipedia. How do we know you are his friend? You could be anyone and while I agree that it would be a pretty daft thing to try and lie about, I see people putting in pointless inaccuracies all the time on wikipedia. The point of a reliable source is that anyone can check it, whereas nobody can verify you are who you claim or that your recollection is correct. However, for me those sources are fine to establish what doesn't appear to be a particularly controvercial fact. Neither are sources required for everything, only things likely to be challenged or that actually are challenged.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not his friend, the guy earlier in the thread is. Where do you think a journalist would get the guy's birthday from? Most journalists wouldn't demand his family produce his birth certificate and a lot of them would merely ask a friend. I couldn't find this guy in the SSDI and actually Wikipedia has ruled in other articles that use of the SSDI constitutes "personal research." 68.81.180.171 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Journalists are expected to check thier sources and a published article can be verified and indeed corrected if fonund to be wrong. It's not perfect but if 'I know the guy so this info is correct' were taken as the standard for citation then Wikipedia would full complete tosh in no time.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rbottoms, 30 July 2011

Rbottoms (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Links to youtube are generally not acceptable under the WP:ELNEVER policy, because adding such links to a video file may be in violation of a creator's copyright. Minima© (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rbottoms, 31 July 2011

Rbottoms (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vidret, 31 July 2011

The singer for "The Red Shore", Damien Morris, died in a car accident at the age of 27 in a buscrash (http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/12/20/9845_news.html). He should be added to the list, as well as linking his name to their band on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Shore).

Thanks!

Vidret (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Vidret: Is this person generally included in the memberlist? Imho he doesn't belong on the list, but it is not up to me (or you) to make someone member or not: important is if he is seen as member in the real world. There are several definitions of the club and as such also several membership-rules and imho you can't say that one definition is correct and all others incorrect: some die-hards think that ONLY the original 4 should be included, others link it to the lifestyle of the person and if that lifestyle has a link with their death while others think that the next door neighbor who did sing under the shower if he died at the age of 27. I think that Wiki should follow the most accepted usage in the outside world: thus if leading publications like Rolling Stone include someone Wiki should follow that membership list - but thats only my opinion. Tonkie (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This talk page has become pretty unwieldy and it's a little hard to follow what's been going on. But, basically, the article has two lists. The first list is the "main" list of the several musicians usually talked about the most as part of the 27 Club, and there's some debate about who should be included. The second list is a bunch of other musicians who died at the age of 27. By previous consensus, to be notable enough to be added this article as part of the second list, a musician has to either have their own Wikipedia article, or at least have been a member of a band that has its own article. Since there is an article for The Red Shore, I'm going to add Damien Morris. Here are a few references I found that say that he was 27 when he died: Geelong Advertiser, MyDeathSpace, Bebo. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done — Mudwater (Talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The discussion of the second list of musicians is now centralized at Talk:27 Club#Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are we listing every random musician who died aged 27, whether or not they or thier band have a wikipedia page? This page is about the 27 club, it does not create or maintain the list of members, it meerly notes who is or isn't considered a member by other reliable sources. The structore of 'usually included' and 'sometimes included' makes it really easy to judge if someone should be here. If you can find a source showing someone is included then they make the 'sometimes' list, if you can find lots and lots of sources, i.e. most of them, then you make the 'usually' list. End of. Just because someone happened to die at 27 they shouldn't be listed unless other sources say they are a 'member', otherwise we're doing WP:OR. You could of course create a page called musicians who have died aged 27, but that's not this page and frankly would be listcruft.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As it says in the lead section of the article, "The 27 Club consists of two related phenomena, both in the realm of popular culture. The first is a list of seven famous musicians who died at age 27.... The second is a list of other notable, albeit lesser known, musicians who have also died at the age of 27." In other words, part of the popular culture concept of the 27 Club is the idea that a lot of musicians have died at the age of 27, and the lead section used to spell this out a bit more clearly. But contrary to what you said, only musicians with a Wikipedia article, or musicians who were in a band with a Wikipedia article, are listed in this article, by prior consensus. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
So we are creating our own '27 club' list based on wikipedia notabillity and age of death? This is Original Research, the article should only reflect pre-existing lists from reliable sources.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Before Amy Winehouse died, the lead section said that the first part of the 27 Club was a list of just a few musicians, and "The second is the idea that many other notable musicians have also died at the age of 27." I've restored that sentence, it explains the concept better. Part of the pop culture phenomenon is people saying that a lot of musicians -- some say more than would be expected statistically -- died when they were 27. (Again, this is pop culture we're talking about, not science.) The second list documents those musicians. But we don't want to include someone's random second cousin who was in a really good garage band, and they released their own CD, even though no one's never heard of them. As is the case with any other Wikipedia article, certain things are too minor to mention. So by previous consensus on this talk page, to be mentioned in the article, a musician needs to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, or have been in a band that has its own article. That's why it's not original research. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I like they way the people at wikipedia.fr handled it. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_des_27 62.178.171.33 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Garrighan of The Berlin Project should be added to the others

all of the details are in the following links

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11033/1122328-122.stm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11205/1162568-455.stm


thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley2213 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like he qualifies, since there's a Wikipedia article about his band, The Berlin Project. Here's his official obituary, which gives his birth and death dates. From what I'm seeing online, he died of a heroin overdose. I'm going to go ahead and add him. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done — Mudwater (Talk) 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Undone. The section is called "Other musicians sometimes included in the list", and the sources don't mention the list, hence he shouldn't be there. Frankly, this sort of WP:OR issue is why that table shouldn't exist here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this article. If you do a google search for "John Garrighan 27 club", the number one result is THIS PAGE and that is the only result which is linking him to the '27 club'. In all the others the word 'club' is used in a different context unlinked to '27'. This is a classic example of Original Reseach as it is wikipedia that is linking him to this phenomenon, with the likely result that those who maintain lists elsewhere will now include him on thier lists because they saw him here, the exact opposite of how wikipedia is supposed to work.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy whinehouse

She should be added. The new entre to the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.118.4 (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

She was a nobody and doesn't belong on this list.G90025 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
ABSURD comment bordering on vandalism. She should definitely be added. GG The Fly (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
She wasn't a nobody, and could be on the lower list, but she CERTAINLY doesn't deserve to be on the top list. No way in hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose a new requirement for the 27 club. Must have 27 years of post mortum popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.166.119 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse should be included on the long list at the bottom, she should not be on the top list with hendrix and morrison. - Landry Jackson

It is not for us to decide who is or isn't in the list, we just follow the references. The list is of musicians usually included, and there are masses of references from extremely reliable sources, including for example Billboard, saying she is now on the list. So as of right now the references clearly put her on the main list. If over time that changes and future publihed lists stop including her again then this might change, but that is not relevent now--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Janisjoplin.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Janisjoplin.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Keith Green

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.24.221 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Keith Green died at age 28, not 27. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article?

As I see it, this table is rife with cruft. How many of these artists who died at 27 are really ever mentioned as members of this club? I just removed one who had been added simply because he was an artist who died at 27. The sources mentioned nothing about the club. Thus, this table is full of original research and synthesis. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed quite a bit, most recently in the #Inclusion criteria section above. To reiterate, and as it says in the article, the 27 Club consists of two related phenomena, both in the realm of popular culture. The first is a list of several famous musicians who died at the age of 27 -- Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and a few others. The second part of the 27 Club is the idea that many other notable musicians have also died at the age of 27. In other words, part of the popular culture concept of the 27 Club is the unscientific idea that a lot of musicians have died at the age of 27. The second list, of the other musicians, is therefore very much a part of the 27 Club, and should be kept in the article. But this is still a Wikipedia article, and we don't want to include musicians who were relatively unimportant, so by previous consensus on this talk page, to be included in the article, a musician needs to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, or have been in a band that has its own article. In closing, I'm reverting your reversion, and putting John Garrighan back into the article, because he meets the previous consensus of editors' criteria for who should be included. Of course, consensus can change, and as always other editors are encouraged to join the discussion. Edited To Add: It's not just my opinion that the second part of the 27 Club concept is the idea that a lot of other musicians have died at age 27. There are not just articles but whole books about it, like The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
And at #Structuring on WP:fr, three editors (including myself) have voiced concerns about the inclusion of this list. I would say there needs to be a thorough discussion about whether or not this should remain, rather than relying on a couple disparate sections on this page that didn't have more than a couple opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There's already been a number of thorough discussions, here and on the archived talk page. But having another discussion now is fine with me. Since the death of Amy Winehouse this article has been getting way more attention, from editors and readers, so, let's use this section for a new, centralized discussion of this topic. In all honesty though I think my previous post explains very well why the second list should be kept. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to being convinced. I'm concerned by what you said in that post about it being "unscientific". That leads to a potentially indiscriminate list, with questionable inclusion criteria. I feel it may be overly inclusive, and perhaps should only include people who have at least one RS mentioning them and the 27 club in tandem. This may have been discussed in the past, but consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole thing is completely unscientific -- it's a phenomenon of popular culture. But, the second list is not a list of other musicians who have been mentioned by a reliable source to be a part of the 27 Club. It's a list of all musicians who died at the age of 27, because the pop culture concept is, "Gee, it's so weird and interesting that so many musicians died at the age of 27." But by "any" musician, we only want to include the notable ones, because this is a list that's part of a Wikipedia article. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What we should do is put Robert Johnson and Amy Winehouse in the "Sometimes included in the list" and take everyone else on there out (unless you want to make it another section) since none of the other people are ever mentioned as part of the "27 Club" whereas the other 5 people in the main "27 Club" are prety undisputed. I think that might be a fair comprimise to all of the heated debates about which people are "offical" members of the "27 Club" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, before Amy Winehouse died, that section of the article was called "Other musicians who died at 27". That's a much better description than "Other musicians sometimes included in the list". So, I'm going to put it back now. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You talk about pop culture phenomenon and that other people discuss the unusual number of musicians who are percieved to have died at Age 27. This is entirely correct, and this page is clearly about that phenomenon. However, you then go on to say that any musician who meets wikipedia notability criteria for their own page and dies age 27 is automatically included here, whether or not anyone else is linking them to the '27 club' phenomenon. This is where it becomes original research or synthesis, as you are independantly 'putting people in the club', even if no reliable source has ever linked them to the club. This page is not musicians who died aged 27, it is about a 'list' (or more acurately a collection of many related lists) that other people independantly maintain and wikipedia just reports on (as is the correct thing for wikipedia to do). I changed the title of the second list, because it does not match the article, or even the list description below it which makes clear the second list is (correctly) about musicians who are sometimes identified as being part of the phenomenon, but are not consistently identified as such (unlike say Janis Joplin who is always listed). While the concept of the '27 club' in unscientific, the maintenance of this page does not need to be, and indeed per wikipedia rules shouldn't be. All we need to do is list those musicians who have been linked to the phenomenon in reliable sources. This is a simple thing to maintain and administer per standard wikipedia policies. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please also see the 'John Garrighan' section above, for an object example of the problem here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors of this article aren't including people in this list, the nature of the 27 club itself includes them in the list. That is the second phenomenon described in the start of the article. In my opinion, as long the article of the musician or their band mentions that they died at 27, they should be included in a second list, as it is now. -EzraZebra (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the phenomenon is that people have noticed this and made lists about it. That is what the article is about otherwise it would be Musicians who died aged 27. If you associate new people with the list by adding them here you are creating or adding to the phenomenon, which is not what wikipeida should do. Any way you look at it, you are compiling a list which doesn't exist elsewhere, which is the definition of WP:OR --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This issue remains unresolved. I see no sufficient argument at this time to suggest that the "other musicians" list is not a violation of WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if there is to be a second list it should be of those sometimes included in lists published elsewhere, using citations to demonstrate this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Syd Barrett

I think a special mention should be made of Syd Barrett, because though he did not physically die he involuntarily stopped being a musician at age 27, and ceased being himself. The personality of Syd Barrett no longer existed, nor exists, yet his music lives on and on. 173.206.72.233 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

-Shine On Y'old Crazy Diamond 173.206.72.233 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Statistical Significance ?

If you multiply the number of current list members by about 60, for the number of years a rock star might be a star, you end up with a number that is NOT larger than the number of arguably famous rock stars, particularly if you go back as far as the early blues. This seems to invalidate the concept of the "club". It seems to me more like the superstition that deaths come in threes. If you count them by threes, it's a likely a case of confirmation bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.166.242 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually an example of the availability heuristic, in which people assign more importance to an event that occurs "in their own back yard". They disproportionate in their own mind the rate that something is known to occur by assuming everyone has an equal chance of the particular event happening to them or someone they know in their lives. Thus someone who has never swallowed a fly thinks it absurd that someone who has swallowed one believes it happens all the time. These rock stars are so well known to so many people, that more and more people think they have a personal connection to them, in which case they all have the "they died at 27" example "available" in their minds, and voila, it's a "statistical anomaly". However, it does belong on wikipedia as an example of that. And, as with the economy or other fictionalistic assertions, it does exist because people think that it does. 173.206.175.160 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a sound analysis. If the age at which people died was random, then a handful of famous rock stars dying at the age of 27 would not be notable. However, people are much more likely to die at older ages than 27, so, within the set of famous rock stars, death at 27 is an anomolous spike, and this is what gave rise to the pop culture concept of the 27 Club. --Victim Of Fate (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This quote is deceptive because it's not backed up by any evidence "[Although] humans die regularly at all ages, there is a statistical spike for musicians who die at 27". No evidence in the Wikipedia article or the article the quote is taken from cites or presents any data suggesting that musicians dying at 27 is anomalous. An unsupported statement should not be included even as a quote. Even if there are more musicians that have died at 27 that doesn't mean that it's more than might be expected by chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.166.207 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the last time Amy Winehouse should be included in the main list with Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Robert Johnson, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison and Brian Jones

For goodness sake this is humiliating for wikipedia that we do not have amy winehouse. These people who go on about how she is not up to the calibre of Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix, doesn't matter what you think AT ALL everyone else already includes her in the club and will do for years. Billboard list now includes Winehouse as a member of the club, Internet Movie Database includes her as a member of the club (check out Jimi Hendrix's and Kurt Cobain's profiles under the trivia section),CNN included her in the club as did many websites about the club around the world. Just about everyone does and will do for years because she is the only really huge and popular artist from this generation that they can include. Amy Winehouse was not just one of the other musicians who died at the age of twenty seven including her in that list of relatively unknown musicians just makes wikipedia look unbelievably ignorant. Back to Black was one of the few albums to sell over thirteen million albums worldwide in that decade, it won five grammy's this is the first time any British artist won five grammy's in any single award ceremony. Just about every female artist of the past five years has been compared to Amy Winehouse in some way and most of them have cited her as an influence or a reason for their success like Adele (who has always said she would never have made it big if it wasn't for Amy Winehouse and cited back to black as a big influence on her style of music), Lady Gaga, Florence Welch, Katy Perry (who compared herself to her) Duffy, Paloma Faith (check out her facebook page where she said Amy paved the way for her on her tribute to Amy). She will obviously be remembered for years to come not only because her music was huge all over the world unlike the other artists on that bottom list but because of her influence. When people look at Adele and Lady Gaga and Paloma Faith they will have to mention that Amy inspired them, by the way she has already influenced literally the biggest stars on the planet like Adele and Gaga in just five years who knows what else she will influence in years to come. Her death made news all over the world five years after her last album was released, how many artists if they hadn't done anything in half a decade's death would be front page news all over the world, only the most major and influential, not just some other artist. So she only had two albums Hendrix only released a few in his lifetime, there will doubtless be many others of unreleased material like Hendrix had. She was not just a one hit wonder, her music led to something and was huge all over the world. The top list should be included for those who are the most famous because as obviously they are the ones who are going to get mentioned all the time. To include Amy Winehouse a multi award winning, global superstar who influence a whole generation of singer songwriters in the other mostly obscure musicians who died at 27 is ignorant beyond belief and will make wikipedia look like it knows nothing about popular music. BINKYMORTON, 15:08, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Please read before posting about Amy Winehouse

There has been an extensive discussion about this subject on this page in the weeks since her death. Everyone's perspective and opinion is valued, but please read through the discussions that have already taken place before adding a new section. It is more productive to support or comment on an existing point of view in the discussions that have already taken place, than to start an entirely new discussion that just repeats things that have already been said many times over. This is not trying to censor anyones opinion, on either side, simply asking people to be productive and efficient in thier posting. Thank you.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

amy winehouse does deserve to be in the main list, she is the best or top 10 greatest woman singers or just jazz. she is a genius sorry, but she is way more talented than any female and joins the likes of other amazing performers such as GAGA and Bjork. Amy was superb, had effortless talent, and gifts abound she lived the life of pain, expressed it though her art as did Janis and Cobain and now she joins them in Immortality, thank you............

First off, could you not have added to one of the numerous existing conversations on this above? Secondly, while you enthusiasm for Amy is appreciated, it has nothing to do with whether she should be in the top or bottom list. The criteria is not how important individual editors subjectively think she was, but rather what the citations say. At present I think the citations show she should be in the main list, but over time they might stop including her at which point she would drop out. This is nothing to do with her relative merits as a singer, but rather whether reliable sources are linking her to the '27 club'--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's way too early to tell if she is "usually" included in the list. Therefore, I'm moving it to the bottom of the list until someone can come up with reliable sources about the 27 club, with her as one of the many headliners. 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackass2009 (talk • contribs)

Please take the time to read the enormous discussions above on this subject, which includes numerous references, including for example the BBC and Billboard magazine.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Winehouse does deserve to be in the main list. I have seen so many things which include her like the internet movie database always lists her, go to hendrix's profile on the site it says he is in the twenty seven club along with Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Robert Johnso and Amy Winehouse Kurt Cobains profile mentions her among the regulars too. She is a huge ommision she is not just some musician who was a bit popular, she was massive all over the world, she influenced a whole generation of female singers, Lady Gaga, Adele, Paloma Faith, Duffy, Jessie J, V V Brown, Florence Welch, Kate Nash are among the few who have either cited her as a big influence or if not as an influence then at least a reason for their success. She kicked off a third British invasion and really she is the only ultra famous musician who can be included from my generation in this list (so far), so its obvious she will be included with the main ones from other generations like Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, Jones from the sixties and seventies, Kurt Cobain from the Nineties and Robert Johnson from the 30's for years. Get real everyone from magazines to people I know personally to websites to music critics all include Winehouse, just because a bunch of users don't think she sold as many records as Kurt Cobain, or that she only had two albums big deal, Hendrix only had a few albums in his life time and not that many hits but he was still a huge figure in modern music. Her death was on news stations all over the world and while she was alive she had the likes of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, George Michael, Debbie Harry, Ringo Starr, Brian May, Grace Jones, Prince, Quincy Jones and of course Tony Bennett all going on about how amazing she was. She was not just a one hit wonder and whether or not you like her music to act as though she will just be forgotten in a couple of years time, well it had been five years since her last album and she had done virtually nothing in between yet her death was still huge news all over the world. By not including her you just make wikipedia look stupid and behind everyone else who does already include her like the Internet Movie Database, magazines and music critics. This should not be a page for personal opinions, that's the only reason she keeps being taken off of the list is because of people who love Hendrix or Cobain or the other regulars and don't think Amy Winehouse measures up to them. Doesn't matter what they think you can't deny that she was a huge figure in modern music she is not just another musician who died at age twenty seven. Do you honestly believe in twenty years when people look back at this generation and look at the music from it she won't get a mention, do you think that she will be forgotten when the biggest stars from this generation like Adele and Lady Gaga cite her as an influence years from now, do you think she won't inspire anything else when she has already inspired several breakthrough acts and huge stars already in five years GET REAL. I mean honestly these same people would have argued that Kurt Cobain didn't deserve a mention when he died either its stupid and ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.127.119 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Perhaps as a compromise for now, we could make 3 lists on this page.
First list would be the "core" group—the string of deaths in late 60's/early 70's that raised attention to musicians dying at 27. These core four are the ones always included in any 27 Club list. This list would include Jones, Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison.
Second list would be those who are usually included but not always: Johnson, Cobain and Winehouse.
Third list would be any other notable musician who died at 27 but is rarely, if ever, included in the list.
This may be a less than ideal solution because it will complicate the article, but it can just be temporary--Racerx11 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:27_Club/Archive_2&oldid=1140237720"