Talk:Jefferson Starship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cheryl Fullerton

Hello AbleGus, yes, we disagree on not only the historic details of the band, Jefferson Starship, but also what the emphasis of this article on this band should be from the start of the article and throughout its body. In addition, I disagree with your consistent removal of my valid, good faith edits with sourcing and referring to them as “irrelevant” or as “wholesale changes” if they are not in line with your point of view.

"That leaves the article bereft of substantive details that would benefit their understanding of the topic."

Again, I have not said to leave it out entirely; I have said that I disagree with your continuing insistence upon referring to Jefferson Starship as an evolution of Airplane—particularly at the outset in the Summary portion of the article, and into the first third of it--- when that is your opinion; it is not fact. Indeed, there are valid sources, which I have repeatedly provided and which you have repeatedly discounted and removed, that state otherwise, clearly referring to Jefferson Starship as a new band—not an evolution or spin-off. Clearly the difference lies in perception and Wikipedia stance on verifiability makes clear that a NPOV is one of Wikipedia’s core content policies. Fact: Jefferson Starship was formed two years after Airplane was no more and after several solo albums were put forth by key band members. When those did not sell well, the new band was formed. "With the decision now made to regroup, the next order of business was to come up with a name. Paul and Grace initially insisted on something completely unrelated to Jefferson Airplane, hoping to instill in fans that this was a new start, not a continuation from where the Airplane left off. But they ultimately agreed with Thompson that maintaining the connection made good business sense, and Paul christened the new band Jefferson Starship swiped from the album cover of Blows Against the Empire. By January of 1974, they were in rehearsals for their first tour." [Tamarkin, J. (2003) Got a Revolution: The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane, pg.267.] That the new band was somehow an evolution or spin-off of a prior, defunct band is a biased opinion often repeated in certain press materials and not a NPOV, and Wikipedia is intended to be a place to find FACTS. The article Summary should not be a referendum on Jefferson Airplane and band members of that band who did not perform with Jefferson Starship, nor should there be a large and up front “Origins” section to this article that is all about another band—namely, Jefferson Airplane—two band members’ solo albums, relationships and children—before Jefferson Starship was even formed, particularly when there are valid opposing viewpoints as to whether the former band had anything at all to do with Jefferson Starship, other than having shared a few of the same band members. I’m not saying, and haven’t said, that these prior events did not occur, as did the histories of every other member of the band, Jefferson Starship, or indeed prior to any other band’s history. I am saying that placing biased emphasis upon Airplane and individual members’ histories on the Jefferson Starship band page to the point that readers of the page have to scroll way down into the article to even reach the actual history and the 1974 start of the band whose article it is, serves only to support your strong opinion that Jefferson Starship was an evolution of Airplane and individuals’ solo albums which, again, is opinion and perception. It is not fact or NPOV and it detracts from the focus of the article. I have attempted to improve this—and other related—Wikipedia article(s) by focusing them on the facts of this band, Jefferson Starship, which has a long and successful history of its own, and to provide an article that is balanced and not slanted toward any one or two band members, or a particular and personal point of view. Yet, you have disregarded or dismissed my—and others’-- editorial input as “irrelevant”, over a period of more than three years and on several related articles, if they do not seem to back up your POV and you have automatically reverted all such edits. This is the Wikipedia definition of edit warring, and I believe your consistently reverting my good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, falls under that definition and that you have been in violation of this policy on an ongoing basis. “An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: ‘But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring’ is no defense.”

“Slick was involved in this process, and is one of the co-owners of the trademark for both the names Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship, with a controlling (51%)”

If your claim about trademark ownership is valid, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for owners of trademarks to push their agendas. It is for readers to gather facts. Wikipedia is not a place to promote individual companies or trademark owners. Wikipedia’s rule on Ownership of Content specifically states that “a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.”

This forum is a place for unbiased fact-finding. There are other, appropriate, articles on Wikipedia which can go further into the individual histories of Ms. Slick and other equal members of this band and other bands, such as Jefferson Airplane, Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Casady (who were not even in the band, Jefferson Starship, and yet you are emphasizing them with your edits) but even those should not be used to promote a personal point of view based on a few selective facts but rather to be accurate and present a balanced perspective that is NPOV per Wikipedia core policies.

“Her [Grace Slick’s] assessment has value and should not be dismissed.”

I have not suggested it should be dismissed; I am suggesting that it should not outweigh the facts and history of this band and this article and the assessments of other band members, historians and qualified journalists.

“As a co-owner of both Jefferson Airplane and initially Jefferson Starship (until the 1985 settlement), [Kantner’s] perspective here should not be disregarded.”

I dispute your assertion that I have disregarded Paul Kantner’s input. Regardless of your point of view regarding “ownership,” I have also provided articles and interviews where Kantner has been quoted as saying that Airplane broke up years before Jefferson Starship was formed and that his 1970 Blows Against the Empire album was not a Jefferson Starship band album but a solo album. Your edits not only dispute Kantner’s own quotes if they do not follow your opinion but you also go so far as to insist on altering the title of his solo album in the lengthy Origins section, by adding the word “and” to the subtitle “Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship” so it reads "Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship." This clearly misleads uneducated researchers to believe the false premise that this was a Jefferson Starship album and that there was no delineation between Jefferson Starship, Kantner’s solo projects and his former band, Jefferson Airplane. This is clearly not NPOV. Kantner himself attempted to clear up that confusion when he stated on the record about Blows Against the Empire that “It’s where the [Jefferson Starship] name came from, but I didn’t really feature that being a band. We were still in Jefferson Airplane at the time and that was just a side project. The band [Airplane] was sort of breaking up at that time but it took like two years for the band to come to that decision. The Starship started after—long after—the other band had died.” – Paul Kanter,1981. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7x1H_JqP2c Again, Wikipedia is not a forum for owners of companies to promote an individual agenda but to be an encyclopedic model for historical accuracy, and your continuing to revert my edits on this page, and other related pages, to promote a bias, also violates Wikipedia’s Ownership of Content rule which states, ““All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page.” I have provided ample valid sourcing where the subtitle of this album clearly uses a “/” when indicating this album’s subtitle and you have consistently reverted my edits. And as far as your continually emphasizing Slick, Kantner and Airplane band members in this article, note that there were as many as eight equal band members who contributed to the success of Jefferson Starship during its hit-making era (1974-1984) and the article should be balanced to reflect this fact. The formation of Jefferson Starship as a new band is a fact, and I have supplied valid sourcing for this fact and yet you have repeatedly refuted and reverted my edits with regards to this fact. Your reference to the band in this article as a “reorganization” of Jefferson Airplane can also be disputed by other source materials, including those I have provided from the San Francisco Chronicle https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2017/jefferson-lawsuit-timeline/ “1974 – After the breakup of Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship forms with Jefferson Airplane members Kantner and Slick, keyboard and bass player David Freiberg from Quicksilver Messenger Service, and a teenage guitar wizard named Craig Chaquico.” New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/arts/music/paul-kantner-of-jefferson-airplane-dies-at-74.html, and including Jeff Tamarkin’s oft quoted—including by you--Airplane biography mentioned above. I've attempted to include this information in this article, but you have immediately reverted it, preferring to include only your chosen quotes and arguing away other, equally valid, points of view. Again, this violates Wikipedia’s rules on Ownership of Content. “All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." Your additional edit stating that Jefferson Starship was an “evolution” of Airplane is also not factually based. The definition of an “evolution” is “the gradual development of something” (Oxford Languages) and I assert that this was not the case. Granted, everything that occurs has something that occurred prior, which led to its existence; however, this article on the Jefferson Starship band should be about the band itself, and its own factual history and not have that history relegated and reduced to a promotion of Jefferson Airplane, band members in that other band (especially those who did not have any influence on Jefferson Starship) or the promotion of a trademark or company owner, if that is indeed, what is happening here, and appears to be the case, per your comments and your reversions of other editors’ work on these pages.

“The attention provided to Jefferson Airplane at the start of the Jefferson Starship article is necessary to establish how it came to be that Jefferson Starship developed.”

I dispute this assertion. The opening to this article should refer to the band, Jefferson Starship, which was formed in 1974 and had multiple gold and platinum albums, with many notable, now considered classic, hit singles, and included very prolific founding members who came from a wide variety of backgrounds. Their original music continues to be played and streamed successfully to this day. A reader who comes to Wikipedia to read about the band, Jefferson Starship, whose music they might admire, and they want to learn about that band—or importantly, journalists or other professionals seeking reference materials on the band or its band members--should not have to be immediately, from the start, forced to sift through the history of a different band, and different musicians who had nothing to do with Jefferson Starship or its success, let alone the past histories and personal lives of just two or three of the band members. Should the history of this band, or of the band members who formed the band, wrote, produced and performed in it during its hit-making years, be referenced in the article at some point? Yes, certainly, that could play a role in giving ‘backstory’ however, it should not be at the forefront of this article and certainly not a full 2/3 of the article and unbalanced in its presentation. This band had its own history, while it was writing, recording and performing its own music of interest to the public, and that should be the focus of this article and other editors who seek to improve the quality, balance and NPOV of this article should be allowed to make edits and have them remain.

“the lead paragraph and origins section are about the same size and cover the same material as the AllMusic entry for Jefferson Starship. We should keep it that way.”

You continually refer to AllMusic as if that Website is the arbiter of all things Wikipedia and Jefferson Starship. It is not. It is one source, written by one not impartial writer, and I have seen the article(s) on that Website also change over time to reflect whatever the company owners are promoting and would like to emphasize. Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for promotion, and I object to your use of it—and other related, Jefferson Starship album Wikipedia articles, Starship Wikipedia articles, and Jefferson Airplane, Kantner and Slick articles, to promote a marketing angle which is not a neutral point of view and to control the edits of others who would seek to improve the article(s) related to this band.

In summary: I propose a re-write of the introductory paragraph of the Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article to focus solely on the band itself, its duration, and the founding members of the band and not a reference to other another band or band members who did not directly contribute to Jefferson Starship, its history or its success.

I propose that the “Origins” section of the article be edited to reduce the lengthy description of another band, and the histories of two of the Jefferson Starship band members, their solo albums, relationships and children, but rather to offer a brief synopsis or mention of the history of two of the founding members and their formation of this band, along with the histories of other equal founding members. I propose that references to other articles already on Wikipedia regarding the other band and these particular band members be linked for additional information if desired. I also propose that your reference to Blows Against the Empire: Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship—which was a 1970 solo album of Paul Kantner and not a Jefferson Starship album—be clearly referenced as such and not redefined by your editing as “Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship” in order to confuse the uneducated reader into believing that it was the first Jefferson Starship album. I propose that the bulk of this Jefferson Starship article be about the band Jefferson Starship, its factual history while it was in effect—with a clear delineation between the hit-making years of the original band—and those of a post-1992 Paul Kantner who began using the name again for his solo projects with many different musicians coming and going and a full six years after the band name was legally retired.

If there is continued disagreement, I propose following the Wikipedia rules for verifiability which state, “If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.” Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to Cheryl Fullerton

Hello again Cheryl, I will agree that we disagree on this topic, both in the introduction and the body of the article. My reverting of your edits I each instance was based on the content of those edits, as well as the existence of a preponderance of sources that back up the previous version of the article as opposed to your changes. I did not refer to your edits as “irrelevant.” In reference to your objection about "Lengthy paragraphs about former members," I stated, “the article is covering the entire history of the topic, so whether the person is still a member of Jefferson Starship presently or has since left the band is irrelevant to how they should be covered in the article.”

1. "That leaves the article bereft of substantive details that would benefit their understanding of the topic."

You stated that you “disagree with your continuing insistence upon referring to Jefferson Starship as an evolution of Airplane,” and that this is my “opinion.” This reference to Jefferson Starship evolving from Jefferson Airplane is not a statement of opinion but an impartial assessment based upon sources. Once again, I would point to the direct quoted statements I previously provided by Grace Slick and Paul Kantner that describe the transition from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship as an evolution, a name change, or Jefferson Starship being a continuation of Jefferson Airplane (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qyEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KZcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7193,2688665&dq=paul+kantner&hl=en) (https://relix.com/articles/detail/the-core-jefferson-airplane/) (https://web.archive.org/web/20180707062402/http://www.njherald.com/story/23602165/kantner-still-pilots-jefferson-starship) (https://web.archive.org/web/20160307165710/http://www.yuzu-melodies.fr/Paul-Kantner-The-songs-of-Jefferson-Airplane-and-Jefferson-Starship-are-as-relevant-now-as-they-were-in-the-60s_a1299.html). The statements meet the criteria for verifiability laid out by Wikipedia. You have chosen to give these sources no weight, claiming there are other sources we should use instead. The sources you have provided, ostensibly to counter these direct statements, make no specific assessment of the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. In fact, the New York Times article you cite states “Paul Kantner, a founding member of Jefferson Airplane, one of the definitive San Francisco psychedelic groups of the 1960s, and the guiding spirit of its successor, Jefferson Starship.” As pointed out in our previous exchange, the word “successor” would indicate a continuation from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship. It is your selective interpretation that because the article uses the word “break up” to describe the departure of Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen from the organization, that it therefore means Jefferson Starship did not evolve out of Jefferson Airplane. That is a faulty assumption, as those statements in and of themselves do not spell out the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. We should not take these statements you provided to define that relationship between the two above the direct quotes provided by the two parties behind the process of the transition from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship, which were Kantner and Slick. Again both parties were co-owners of Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship (Kantner was co-owner of Jefferson Starship up until 1985 only when he agreed to the settlement terms regarding a lawsuit), who would have first-hand knowledge of the decision and standing as owners to define that relationship.

Yes, Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view in presenting information, but that does not include synthesis of sources to suggest a statement not backed by the source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not). Saying because the article uses the word “break up” or says “forms” means it supports the idea that Jefferson Airplane did not evolve into Jefferson Starship, when in fact the article does not provide a description of the relationship at all. Your claim that it is a “fact” that “Jefferson Starship was formed two years after Jefferson Airplane was no more” is not accurate. It is disputed by sources I have continually provided. This includes another quote from “Got a Revolution,” the Jeff Tamarkin Jefferson Airplane biography (page 259), "Jefferson Airplane never broke up. There was no farewell tour, no press conference or tear filled announcement, no vicious mud slinging in the press." Once again, they did not say that they broke up during this time. I have also provided a link to a video from June 1973 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baW9SSixSu8) showing an interview with Kantner and Slick where they speak of the Jefferson Airplane in the present tense and detail plans to record future Jefferson Airplane albums. They would not make these statements in June 1973 if the band had broken up, and they would certainly be aware of it if Jefferson Airplane had broken up. You have disregarded these details in your assessment. The quote you cited from the Jeff Tamarkin biography (page 267), "With the decision now made to regroup …” contains the word regroup. Using that word would certainly indicate they were coming together again as opposed to the first time. You also disregard or dismiss as “marketing spin” the part saying “But they ultimately agreed with Thompson that maintaining the connection made good business sense,” in reference to their decision to maintain the link to Jefferson Airplane and keep the continuity rather choosing to go for a new start. “That the new band was somehow an evolution or spin-off of a prior, defunct band” is not in fact “a biased opinion” or not NPOV, as once again it is verifiable by multiple sources containing direct quotes from the most pertinent parties in the process. If you are again attempting to synthesize source information to say because they use the phrase “new band” that it proves there was no evolution from Jefferson Airplane, once again that is not backed up in the source itself. The same person who wrote the Jefferson Airplane biography, Jeff Tamarkin, also wrote the following in an article about the subject, “Starship, the group that evolved, or devolved, out of Jefferson Starship, a pretty decent (and sometimes great) ’70s band, which itself evolved, or devolved, out of Jefferson Airplane, one of the most significant American ’60s bands." (https://bestclassicbands.com/we-built-this-city-1-7-17/). This statement of this journalist should not be disregarded as mere marketing spin or materials, without evidence. It should be accepted as a valid statement in a verifiable source from a person with significant knowledge of the subject matter, based on his years of research and numerous interviews with a comprehensive list of individuals associated with the topic.

The “article summary” by which you refer to the article lead paragraph is not “a referendum on Jefferson Airplane and band members of that band,” but rather a succinct and accurate description that explains the relationship of the article subject (Jefferson Starship) to Jefferson Airplane. It is important to define that principal in the lead paragraph to establish context. Multiple reliable sources are provided to validate that statement. The Origins section should have details about Jefferson Airplane to provide context on how that this topic came to be in the first place. It is tied to the dynamic of cliques developing within Jefferson Airplane that led to the departure of Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen in the first place, a key step in the development of what became Jefferson Starship. The details about Kantner and Slick’s relationship is essential to understanding the topic. They were a couple between late 1969 and 1975, which certainly would overlap with the time period of Jefferson Starship, and including that information also helps explain the dynamics of the organization. Including it is also in line with other biographies on this topic, including the AllMusic entry for Jefferson Starship. Even if it is prior to 1974, it is relevant to the topic. Again, the “solo” albums are really collaborations where all of the musicians who were a part of Jefferson Starship in 1974 were involved, and are steps in the development of them working together. It also serves to introduce the individuals on those albums who would be involved with Jefferson Starship into the article, which serves to make a more complete and informative article.

You assert that there are “valid opposing viewpoints as to whether the former band had anything at all to do with Jefferson Starship.” You have not provided a source for this viewpoint. I have seen no credible sources that make the statement that Jefferson Starship had nothing to do with Jefferson Airplane. This is a fringe theory with no sourced basis. Jeff Tamarkin’s Jefferson Airplane Biography certainly contains multiple chapters specifically about Jefferson Starship. It would be quite foolish to dedicate all those pages in a book about Jefferson Airplane to something that had nothing to do with Jefferson Airplane. The simple fact is that these are related, and there is broad consensus of that point in numerous sources. The presence of this information in the Origins section serves to set the table on why Jefferson Starship developed, and information on Jefferson Airplane and the collaboration albums are intrinsic to creating an understanding of the topic for the reader. Concerns about someone having to scroll down in an article should not outweigh providing a factual and relevant presentation of information. A person seeking to learn the full history that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article should not find a full background as an impediment to understanding the topic. This is not biased emphasis, it is an accurate narrative. The solo albums in question from 1970 through 1974 were actually collaborations with a number of artists appearing on them, which includes all eight musicians that were members of Jefferson Starship in calendar year 1974. For Peter Kaukonen, Craig Chaquico, and Pete Sears, it is on these collaboration albums where they worked for the first time with the Kantner and Slick tandem, and the working relationship developed in those recordings eventually lead to all three of them becoming band members in Jefferson Starship. This serves to illustrate the evolution of the organization, a concept supported by sources, and not just my biased opinion. It presents a neutral account of what happened.

Your “attempt to improve” this article has involved presenting “the facts” as you see them, often with disregard to sourced material that says otherwise, and in many instances not providing a balanced account of the subject. In addition to seeking to remove any link to Jefferson Airplane, these edits to the Jefferson Starship article have included changing the article to refer to the band in the past tense, while providing your non-NPOV opinion that the 1992 revival of the band was a Paul Kantner “solo project.” This is also not reflective of any other sources or biographies on Jefferson Starship. Many of your edits were reverted by myself or other editors. Your edit removing the word “evolved” from the introductory sentence was done at 20:07 hours on September 4, 2017. I reverted it on September 5, 2017 with an explanation on the talk page that referenced the existing sources. You edited to remove the word “evolved” again on September 5, 2017, and it was restored by user Trackinfo that same day 21:31 hours to retain the word evolved. This would indicate a consensus on the topic by multiple editors. You removed it again on March 17, 2020 despite multiple sources provided for that statement. In the cases where I have reverted an edit, I have explained my reasons for the change and provided sources for that position in the edit summary or on the article talk page. I dispute that I have engaged in edit warring with you on this or any related topic. I have provided sources to justify this wording. It has been your continuing effort to edit to your preferred version with no regard to the sources that has been occurring here, which meets the definition of edit warring. You are also engaged in an endeavor that seeks to ignore or discount as “marketing spin” anything that does not match your preferred narratives despite sourcing. Those include the omission of a connection of Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship despite direct contradictory statements by Slick, Kantner, Jorma Kaukonen, and biographer Jeff Tamarkin. This also includes fringe theory efforts to designate the 1992 revival of Jefferson Starship as a solo project and to separate the band albums from that timeframe out from the albums from the prior period of 1974-1984, or to remove the “post 1992” information from the Starship page despite no sources that support it. In addition to myself, numerous other editors reverted or removed edits you have made to the Jefferson Starship article to this effect for NPOV or non-encyclopedia content. This includes user Ritchie333 on June 21, 2018 at 23:56 hours, user Wilburycobbler on July 29, 2017 at 02:38 hours, and user Misterpither on June 28, 2017 at 20:15 hours. This also happened on the Starship band Wikipedia page on June 28, 2017 at 03:06 hours, where user Misterpither restored the previous wording of the article after your edits claiming Starship was defunct. It has in fact been you who have repeatedly inserting biased, non-NPOV statements into this article and a carrying this effort into other related articles. This includes the Jefferson Starship, Jefferson Starship Discography, List of Jefferson Starship Members, Blows Against the Empire, Starship (Band), Jefferson Airplane, and the Jefferson Airplane Template pages. This would constitute Disruptive Editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing), specifically 1) is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors, and 2) cannot satisfy Wikipedia Verifiability by misrepresenting reliable sources.

2. “Slick was involved in this process, and is one of the co-owners of the trademark for both the names Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship, with a controlling (51%)”

The statement regarding Slick being a member of Jefferson Airplane Inc. and one of the owners of the name Jefferson Starship (with a controlling interest of 51%) is based on the Jeff Tamarkin Jefferson Airplane biography as source, pages 329-330 for the Jefferson Starship information and page 352 for the Jefferson Airplane information. The sources containing direct quotes from these parties regarding the “evolution” from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship have merit based on those individuals having a stake in that entity. This is a reporting of the facts based on those sourced statements. It is not a scenario where the owner(s) of these trademarks are “pushing an agenda” on this page. I am not a co-owner of either trademark, and have no affiliation with any of the involved parties. While other articles on individual members go into more detail on that topic, the amount of information provided in this article on Grace Slick or Jefferson Airplane is necessary in explaining the developmental process that led to the evolution of Jefferson Starship. It is necessary to mention Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Casady (for the record Casady was also a member of Jefferson Starship from 1992-2000) to establish their departure from the organization, which precipitated the eventual reorganization into Jefferson Starship in 1974. Once again it is not a “a personal point of view based on a few selective facts” but rather to present an objective article that is based on numerous sources and in line with other biographical materials on the subject, such as the AllMusic article for Jefferson Starship. It is presented using a neutral point of view that is based on a preponderance of verifiable sources. Conversely, the removal or discarding of reliable, sourced material containing statements from the principals involved or biographers, as well as the use synthesis to claim sources are saying something they actually do not, will leave the article inaccurate and misleading. That would not be NPOV, but a vehicle for revisionist history based on the agenda of a specific editor.

3. “Her [Grace Slick’s] assessment has value and should not be dismissed.”

You state that “it should not outweigh the facts and history of this band and this article and the assessments of other band members, historians and qualified journalists.” Again, Slick is the legal co-owner of both Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. She was one of the two principals, along with Kantner, in the 1974 reorganization. Sourced direct quotes from her in both 1975 and 2019 are consistent in describing this process. Kantner has provided a direct quote stating "I wouldn’t so much call Jefferson Starship a spinoff as, perhaps, an evolution." (https://web.archive.org/web/20160307165710/http://www.yuzu-melodies.fr/Paul-Kantner-The-songs-of-Jefferson-Airplane-and-Jefferson-Starship-are-as-relevant-now-as-they-were-in-the-60s_a1299.html). This is a definitive statement by Kantner describing the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship as an evolution. Both Kantner and Slick were band members, and have an ownership stake in the entity, which gives them the perspective to describe the process that other parties do not possess. As to your reference to qualified journalists, Jeff Tamarkin has extensive credits writing about this topic, and also wrote a biography about Jefferson Airplane. The quote he provided as explicitly refers to Jefferson Starship evolving out of Jefferson Airplane. Nothing you have provided outweighs the assessment of Slick. Once again, it is your effort to selective synthesis to claim if an author uses the words “break up” or “form” that they are stating there was no connection between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. That is in fact not what is being stated in any source you provided. The sources you cited make no direct statement to that effect. No reliable sources state that Jefferson Starship is unrelated to Jefferson Airplane or that there is no relationship between the two. That they had nothing to do with each other is a fringe theory which is not supported by any sources. Promoting that fringe theory by using an inaccurate interpretation of selective sources instead of the direct statements to the contrary from multiple, reliable sources is not NPOV, and would serve to give an undue validation to an unsupported view.

4. “As a co-owner of both Jefferson Airplane and initially Jefferson Starship (until the 1985 settlement), [Kantner’s] perspective here should not be disregarded.”

You dispute that you “have disregarded Paul Kantner’s input” here, yet that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore the quote have I provided earlier where he explicitly calls it an evolution. There is no other way to interpret his statement, "I wouldn’t so much call Jefferson Starship a spinoff as, perhaps, an evolution," then to take it at face value. The quote you provided from Kantner back in 1981 makes no statement of the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. You assume the word “break up” means that he is saying there is no connection to Jefferson Airplane, and you once again use this faulty synthesis to claim sources are saying something they actually do not say. My edits do not dispute Kantner’s quotes, just your inaccurate interpretation of them to advance your revisionist narrative. Once again, I am not the one attempting to alter the title of the album “Blows Against the Empire” in this article or anywhere else. “Blows Against the Empire” is the full title of the album, which is what every single source on the subject reports. Once again, both Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship are co-credited as the artist for this album. It is not a subtitle to the album, it is the names of both of the credited recording artists. Your assertion that it is a “subtitle” instead of the co-credit has no sourcing, making the claim original research. “Wikipedia articles must not contain original research,” which is defined as “facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Your unsourced statement is misleading as it attempts to obscure the fact that the album was co-credited to Jefferson Starship. Far from your claim that this is misleading, the Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article as presently constituted actually explains precisely what, and who, the co-credit “Jefferson Starship” refers to on “Blows Against the Empire.” Again, per the AllMusic Biography, “Jefferson Starship” was used as a co-credit on the album to "To pay tribute to this loose-knit studio ensemble and refer to the album's science-fiction theme." This is also supported in Jeff Tamarkin's book "Got a Revolution" (Page 234), where it states, "to make fans aware that it wasn't an Airplane album - and yet to indicate that it wasn't entirely a solo record either - Kantner branded it with an appropriately forward-looking touch. The finished product was attributed to Paul Kantner-Jefferson Starship." To reiterate, the word attributed means that those names are the artists credited on the album, and not the album’s name or subtitle. Later in the Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article, paragraph six of the origins section, it explains how this name was then chosen in early 1974 for the band. This delineates the use of the name first as the album co-credit, and then as the band name. It is NPOV to present the facts with sources, which is how the information about “Blows Against the Empire” is presented now. Your theory that it is a subtitle and is not a co-credit to the artists appearing on the album is in direct contradiction to the sources I reference here, and inserting it here would not be NPOV. Your effort to change it to read “Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship” is again a use of faulty synthesis of sources to claim if they word it that way that they mean the album is not credited to both Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship. In fact, those sources are using the “/” to indicate that the album is being credited to both Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship. Also per the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) "avoid joining two words with a slash, also called a forward slash, stroke or solidus ( / ), because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording." [1]. A clearer wording is the term "and" as it indicates both names were used for the artist credit.

Your use of the quote for Paul Kantner from YouTube is quite interesting. He confirms it was originally used on “Blows Against the Empire,” but does not say it is a subtitle. He is referencing the use of that name specifically for the artists appearing on the album. Yes, it did not get selected as the band name until 1974. The Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article currently makes that same point. Once again, his use of the words “break up” does not mean there was no relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship, the sourced quote does not specifically make that statement. “The other band had died” refers to the prolonged process of the departure of Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen which created the need to reorganize in the first place. You are again attempting to synthesize this use of the word “died” to indicate he meant to indicate there was no evolution. Kantner makes no such assessment on that relationship. The word “died” does not indicate no evolution occurred. This is an organization, not an organism. A transition does not need to occur immediately, it can be gradual. Saying it “died” is not literal. The organization did not cease to exist. A group can have a lengthy transition phase while this process plays out, which is exactly what happened here. It would be inaccurate to assume because they last played together in 1972 that it ended when they left the stage that night. There was never any formal announcement to indicate that they broke up (page 259 of the Jeff Tamarkin Jefferson Airplane biography). Again, in the 1976 Rolling Stone article, David Freiberg stated “They kept saying, ‘Sure we’ll do another Airplane album. Just wait a couple months.’ It dragged on for practically two years." (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/jefferson-airplane-the-miracle-rockers-19760101). After the last performances of the “Long John Silver” tour, there was an extended period of time where Casady and Kaukonen kept telling they would return, so other members waited, while doing their own recordings (as they had already been doing independently since 1970). Casady and Kaukonen did perform on the collaboration albums with the other “faction” of the organization during this time. I have also provided a link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baW9SSixSu8) to a June 1973 interview where Kantner and Slick are still speaking about Jefferson Airplane in the present tense and future recordings. This would not be possible if they believed Jefferson Airplane had “broken up” already. It was only after Paul wanted to return to playing live, and Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen had no interest in coming back, that the reorganization occurred. This is sourced from both the AllMusic Jefferson Starship biography and the Jefferson Airplane Biography by Jeff Tamarkin (page 267). Going by your standard, we would also be required to state that the band New Order did not derive from Joy Division because there were members in New Order that were not in Joy Division and they did not perform as New Order for over two months after the death of Ian Curtis. Both in the case of Joy Division to New Order and the one with Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship; there was a transition from one to the other precipitated by personnel departures, with the remaining members deciding to continue forward as a group.

Once again, I am not an owner of Jefferson Starship and have no affiliation with the organization, so your assertion that I am the owner seeking to promote an agenda is meritless. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with the purpose of providing an objective of information. It has been your continuing efforts to edit this and the related pages with a specific agenda to purge this article of sourced statements involving its evolution from Jefferson Airplane, deleting information that the actual first use of the name Jefferson Starship was a co-credit on “Blows Against the Empire” in reference to those musicians appearing on the album, and attempts to delete or misleadingly label the 1992 revival of the band as a “Paul Kantner solo project” that has been reverted. I would state that I have not acted as “owner” of this or any other page, but acted in good faith when presented with some of your edits that do not provide a NPOV presentation of the subject or when you make deletions of sourced statements for assertions with either no sources or with a source that is not truly saying what you claim it means. Per the Wikipedia Ownership of Content Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content), it is acceptable practice to revert edits “believed to be detrimental, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia,” and “such reversion does not indicate an ‘ownership’ problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.” I have explained in the edit summary and provided additional explanation on the talk page for any reversions to content.

You have provided no sourcing that indicates that “Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship” is the “subtitle” of the album “Blows Against the Empire,” as all sources as referring to the artist credit on the album. The sources you provide are listing the co-credit as “Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship” for this album, they are not claiming it is a subtitle, but expressing the two names by using the forward slash. Once again you are using synthesis to claim a source is indicating something it is not, as no source states this was a subtitle to the album. As noted previously, the album cover itself has both the names "Paul Kantner" and then "Jefferson Starship" appearing under the album name “Blows Against the Empire” with no punctuation between them. “Jefferson Starship” is listed beneath “Paul Kantner” on the cover, and not next to it separated by a forward slash ( / ) or any other punctuation. Again note that the credits on the album inset list the word Jefferson Starship and underneath it the list of performers being credited under that name for this album in the same way an album would note the members of a group in credits. This indicates the album is being credited to Paul Kantner as well as “Jefferson Starship”, and the album liner notes specifically list the musicians being called “Jefferson Starship” here. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) regarding slashes noted earlier, that is not the preferred method to describe the concept of a co-credit, so this article should retain the word “and” between the two co-credits for clarity and accuracy.

Regarding your assertion that I am “continually emphasizing Slick, Kantner and Airplane band members in this article,” please note that other biographies of Jefferson Starship, such as the AllMusic entry, contain a similar amount of content relating to Slick, Kantner, and other members also associated with Jefferson Airplane, such as Marty Balin. This presents an accurate, NPOV narrative of the subject. Balin, Kantner, and Slick are all members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and a balanced discussion of any musical endeavor they were involved with would logically have a good deal of information on them. They were well known to the public prior to 1974, including appearing on the cover of Life Magazine in 1968, and were acknowledged as part of the “San Francisco Sound.” It would not be surprising if they may have received more attention by media outlets than other members, and have more information about them in other biographies on the subject of Jefferson Starship, but it is not the purpose of a Wikipedia to significantly diverge from other sources and alter the narrative in an effort to equalize the coverage. The Wikipedia article reflects the coverage in other sources, and no information on any band member is missing from this article as it currently stands. Your assessment that there were “as many as eight equal band members” is not sourced and appears be another example of original research. This should not be included in the article based on the Wikipedia rule on no original research. This article should cover all eras of the topic, both 1974-1984 and 1992-present, and does so in its present form.

You have asserted Jefferson Starship is a new band, and therefore it is not an evolution from Jefferson Airplane. There are multiple sources that contain quotes from Paul Kantner, Grace Slick, Jorma Kaukonen, and biographer Jeff Tamarkin that speak specifically to Jefferson Starship being an “evolution” from Jefferson Airplane, or that describe the process as a reorganization. You have elected to disregard them wholesale without explanation in favor of your theory that they are unrelated. Once again, the sources you have provided make no assessment of the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. It is your synthesis of the source material to claim that their use of the words “form” or “break-up” means that they are saying Jefferson Starship had no relationship to Jefferson Starship, when that is not what they are saying. Again, the San Francisco Chronicle is titled “A Band Named Sue” and refers to information on Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, and Starship. This would make no sense by your theory that Jefferson Starship is completely unrelated to Jefferson Airplane. Your theory also ignores the five members who carried over from the latter from the former, the same management and staff for the organization, the same headquarters at 2400 Fulton Street, and the selection of the name “Jefferson Starship” by Kantner and Slick specifically because "they ultimately agreed with (Bill) Thompson that maintaining the connection made good business sense." (Jeff Tamarkin, Got a Revolution: The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane. Page 267). Yes the San Francisco Chronicle article uses the words “break-up” and “forms” to describe Jefferson Starship, but in no way does the article spell out the process that occurred, and it makes no representation that it is defining that no relationship existed between the two. It is your interpretation alone that asserts, if it says break-up, it means there was no evolution, and we should therefore take this source to mean that is definitive proof the evolution did not happen, overruling the direct quotes in other sources by the principals in the decision to the contrary. I have already provided a direct quote from the Jeff Tamarkin Jefferson Airplane biography (page 259), "Jefferson Airplane never broke up,” to explain why the word “break-up” is not the best way to describe the process, but I do not believe that the use of this particular wording should be taken to imply the author means that no evolution occurred, especially in light of all the other sources to the contrary. With regards to the New York Times article, it does not use the word “evolved” to describe the process, but refers the Jefferson Starship as a successor to Jefferson Airplane, which I have previously pointed out is a recognition of the continuity. You have repeatedly attempted to include this unfounded information of no connection based on your own synthesis of information unsupported by your sources, and without any regard to the sources that directly support the statement of the evolution. I have reverted your edits precisely because it is in direct contradiction to what is being stated in the sources you are unilaterally dismissing, and the sources you have given do not say anything of the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. As I noted before, other Wikipedia editors have reverted your edits that removed the word “evolved” from the opening sentence, and you have persisted in attempting to remove it repeatedly from the article. In one instance on March 17, 2020 at 00:08 hours, you did so while leaving the very sources that contradict your assessment in the article and explained it in the edit explanation that you “Removed the inaccurate reference.” Again you are disregarding multiple sources and direct quotes in favor of your own narrative that Jefferson Starship was completely new and unrelated to Jefferson Airplane. You are repeatedly seeking to impose this unfounded assertion into the article which “cannot satisfy Wikipedia: Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing). Your “equally valid” point of view contradicts the account of Grace Slick, who has a controlling interest stake in the ownership of Jefferson Starship and has repeatedly described the process as a name change or Jefferson Starship “growing” out of Jefferson Airplane. It also ignores statements from Kantner and Jorma Kaukonen, two other parties with ownership in Jefferson Airplane Inc., so it is not an assessment shared by the individuals who either decided to leave the organization or the two principal stakeholders who were behind the subsequent decision to reorganize under the new banner.

Again, I dispute that I am acting as Content Owner of this article. Each reversion included an explanation in the summary or the talk page as to why it was reverted, and sources were provided to indicate what was being used to justify those revisions. Again, per the Wikipedia Ownership of Content Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content), it is acceptable practice to revert edits “believed to be detrimental, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia.” Inserting opinions about what period of a band’s history is important versus the period to be labeled as a “solo project” and disregarding sourced statements about the relationship of Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship in favor of a fringe theory that they are unrelated interests would fit that description. Those edits do not improve or balance the article, but serves to make the Wikipedia page differ significantly from other sources on the same topic.

You continue to assert that there was no evolution from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship. This is in fact your opinion. There are direct quotes that describe it as such in the article sources. You have sought to remove that on the basis of sources you provide that do not specifically describe the relationship, you assume that the words “break up” or “form” in these select sources prove there was no continuity between them despite them not saying that, and then assert that this mean there was no evolution. I do not feel rewriting the article based on your opinion that ignores statements to the contrary serves to maintain an accurate and NPOV article on the subject.

The article as currently constituted does cover the topic of Jefferson Starship thoroughly, while also fully explaining the relationship to Jefferson Airplane and the events that led up to Jefferson Starship. It is not “promotion of Jefferson Airplane” to adequately provide context as to the decisions and events that led to the topic of the article. It is a fact that the five remaining members of Jefferson Airplane became members of Jefferson Starship, with a sixth individual previously in Jefferson Airplane, Marty Balin, coming on board within a year. To not acknowledge this does not serve to make a better encyclopedia article, it only obscures the history of the topic or seeks to retell it in an inaccurate and misleading light. Again, I am not the owner of the name Jefferson Starship or associated with it in any manner, so your claim that I am is meritless. It is not promotion of a trademark owner to inform the reader what the parties who own the name have stated in regards to emergence of Jefferson Starship. It would be an omission to disregard that information and exclude it from the article altogether; especially if that removal is done to promote an unsourced version of events that is not rooted in sources.

5. “The attention provided to Jefferson Airplane at the start of the Jefferson Starship article is necessary to establish how it came to be that Jefferson Starship developed.”

In response to your assessment, the opening to the article does in fact refer to Jefferson Starship. In the first sentence of the article it identifies Jefferson Starship as the topic. The second sentence in the lead paragraph points out the record certifications and chart successes associated with Jefferson Starship. Your observation about “their original music continues to be played and streamed successfully to this day” sounds very much like marketing or promotion. This type of consideration is out of step with the aim of Wikipedia article, which should be written in an objective and unbiased style. Similarly, your concern about “journalists or other professionals seeking reference materials on the band or its band members” using the Wikipedia article, seems to be focused on promotional concerns of individuals associated with the band. Individuals coming to the page to learn about the topic would be best served by a presentation of the facts provided in a neutral manner, not an article written with the purpose of promotion. Readers are not “forced to sift through the history of a different band” in this article, they are provided an accurate account of how it was that everything came together for the re-organization to occur in 1974. Yes, there is information about Jefferson Airplane present, which makes sense in a situation where five of the seven members of Jefferson Starship carried over from Jefferson Airplane. While you dispute any carry over or connection exists, you must concede the point that these five individuals (Kantner, Slick, Creach, Barbata, and Freiberg) were in Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. Marty Balin collaborated with Jefferson Starship starting in mid-1974 and became a band member in January 1975. Balin was in Jefferson Airplane. He is credited with coming up with the idea to form Jefferson Airplane in the first place, and his departure was another pivotal point in the eventual split into Hot Tuna and Jefferson Starship. This makes six members of Jefferson Starship in 1975 who were in Jefferson Airplane, a fact that was not mere coincidence, and should not be ignored or dismissed. It is logical and should be quite expected that an article seeking to inform on the topic of Jefferson Starship would make mention of these details in the narrative. Of course Jefferson Airplane and Hot Tuna are going to be mentioned in an article about Jefferson Starship. These are all related topics with significant overlapping personnel, the same management, and shared a record label (Grunt via RCA). It would be a disservice to readers seeking a full understanding of the topic to remove those references from the Jefferson Starship article. No other biography on Jefferson Starship, including the AllMusic biography, avoids reference to Jefferson Airplane or the choice of Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Casady to move on to Hot Tuna full time in their narratives on Jefferson Starship.

The relationship of Kantner and Slick is of significance in understanding the dynamics within the band. Their being a couple was another pivotal development in the development of factions within Jefferson Airplane, leading to the eventual departure of the Hot Tuna side, which instigated the reorganization into Jefferson Starship in the first place. There is not an overabundance of coverage in the Jefferson Starship Wikipedia presently. There is only enough to provide context, and that information is similarly present in other biographies of the topic. Their relationship is also covered in chapters of the Jeff Tamarkin biography of Jefferson Airplane pertaining to Jefferson Starship (page 281-282), indicating it was still a going concern during 1974-1975. The “psychedelic John and Yoko,” as they were called in Rolling Stone, received considerable coverage of their relationship in multiple publications and media reports, and ignoring or downplaying that information in an article about Jefferson Starship would be in contrast to other similar biographies on the subject. Information about their collaborations on the series of albums from 1970 (Blows) to 1974 (Manhole) is all present in the AllMusic biography of Jefferson Starship, again an indication that the Wikipedia article is reflective of other coverage of Jefferson Starship.

The history of Jefferson Starship is fully recounted in the body of the article, and within the chronological order of when it occurred. All of the band members, past and present, are included in the narrative already. The songs and albums associated with the group are also covered in the body of narrative when they were made, and not simply provided as a list. The band has “recorded and performed its own music” throughout all eras of its history, as well as performing the music of its predecessor, Jefferson Airplane, live in concerts. The most recent studio album was recorded and released by Jefferson Starship was in 2020. Your decision to focus on the “hit-making years” and exclude or downplay the last 29 years is your personal perspective, and that non-NPOV narrative should not be adopted by the article. Editors are able to make edits, but other editors are also able to revert these edits if they feel the edit is not an improvement provided they discuss why they are reverting the edits in either the edit summary or the talk page. I have done that here, explaining why I have reverted edits and provided sources. It is you who have engaged in tendentious disruptive editing related to the Jefferson Starship and related pages. You have been consistently editing these articles in a non-NPOV manner to remove or segregate information about Jefferson Starship from 1992 forward, making the same effort to remove information regarding the band Starship after 1990 from that article, or to deny the connection of Jefferson Starship to Jefferson Airplane, despite direct quotes from the principal parties that precisely define it as an evolution. Those are your opinions. There are no sources describing Jefferson Starship 1992-present as unrelated to the earlier incarnation or a group using the name to describe a solo project. How can a “Paul Kantner solo project” still exist over five years after his death? One would logically assume that the “solo artist” would need to be present in their “solo project” for it to be designated as such. You have made this assessment on your own without support of sources and attempted modify the Jefferson Starship article to that end. It would be misleading to Wikipedia readers to claim something is a “solo project” when the purported solo artist himself is not part of it. Your assessment also ignores the return of previous band members Balin, Creach, Freiberg, Peter Kaukonen, and Baldwin as band members since the 1992 relaunch. As noted previously, it is you who have repeatedly tried to make the same edits, such as removing the term ‘evolved” from this article, which you did on September 4, 2017, September 5, 2017, and again on March 17, 2020. While doing so, you are completely disregarding the sourcing it derives from and choosing to instead install your own opinion that there is no connection, and have used synthesis to portray sources as confirming there is no evolution when they in fact make no such assertion of the relationship. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox), and the article should be presented with a NPOV based on reliable sources and not a vehicle for POV pushing. The sources do not say that, so this article should not say it in contradiction of the sources.

6. “the lead paragraph and origins section are about the same size and cover the same material as the AllMusic entry for Jefferson Starship. We should keep it that way.”

The AllMusic site is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Your objection based solely on your opinion that it is written by biased writer is not sufficient to disregard it as a source. You have provided no evidence of this bias. Your observation that you “have seen the article(s) on that Website also change over time to reflect whatever the company owners are promoting and would like to emphasize” is quite an interesting assessment. It suggests you have inside knowledge into how this process works and had at least some engagement with the representatives of musicians, or else how would you actually know that a change on that website was made by the company owners for promotion as opposed to an edit made by the AllMusic writer on their own accord. Do you know individuals who either have AllMusic articles themselves or that represent parties related to AllMusic articles and have been impacted this way? Have you personally engaged in making changes to AllMusic biographies yourself? Were the changes you witnessed happening in relation to articles you have a vested interest in? If so, what is that interest? What articles are you referring to that you have observed being changed in this manner?

It is correct that Wikipedia is not meant for use in promotion, but that is not the basis of my reversion of your edits. Again, I am not affiliated with this organization or anyone currently or previously associated with it. I am not editing in that capacity. You have not provided any evidence to back up your claim that I have been “promoting a marketing angle.” What you deem to be “promotion” is really keeping a neutral and balanced article on those topics based on reliable sources. You attempt to smear anything as “marketing” that does not comply with your viewpoint is a way to dismiss it without having to explain why it is wrong or why these sources are incorrect. Is Grace Slick lying when she says they “had to change the name” from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship in 2019, or when she said it was a “name change” in 1975? Why does she not have standing to say this? Why should any source that you have provided overrule what Grace Slick has directly stated? This claim by you that the article is being edited for promotional purposes does not assume good faith editing on my behalf. It also disregards reliable sources and quotes in favor of a narrative unsubstantiated by sources, or in the misinterpretation of specific sources to indicate something they do not really mean. Your narrative discards any backstory from Jefferson Airplane, denies any connection from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship, and consistently seeks to remove or mislabel the last 29 years as not really being a valid part of the history of the band Jefferson Starship. That is non-neutral point of view. Its introduction into the article runs in contrast to other reliable sources, would not improve the article, and thus should not be part of an objective encyclopedia article on the topic of Jefferson Starship.

7. Your Proposed Series of Edits I disagree that the introductory paragraph should be altered as you suggest. The article currently focuses on the band Jefferson Starship, and provides an accurate and sourced account of where it came from. It already informs of significant merits in terms of record certifications and chart positions of songs. The years active are already indicated in the article Navbox at the top of the article. The lead paragraph lists the years 1974 to 1984 already, and it also spells out when the name was retired and then when it was revived. References to Jefferson Airplane in the introductory paragraph explain the origin and relationship, and note that information on Jefferson Airplane is present in the opening paragraph of other biographies on Jefferson Starship, such as the AllMusic entry. No “band members who did not directly contribute to Jefferson Starship” are listed in the lead paragraph. Perhaps you feel that Paul Kantner did not contribute to Jefferson Starship despite his 34 years of combined membership, but this would be a fringe theory that is unsubstantiated and should not justify the removal of his name here. If you mean Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen, it is their departure from Jefferson Airplane to perform in Hot Tuna full time that precipitated the development of Jefferson Starship. That information should be included to inform the reader what events led to the reorganization. For comparison, please note that the Wikipedia article on Starship mentions Kantner’s departure in the lead paragraph and discusses it further in the first paragraph of the History. While Kantner was not a member of Starship, his departure and subsequent lawsuit led to the development of Starship, and it is logical that he be mentioned in the article to provide context of what occurred. The Jefferson Starship band members of all eras are all listed in the body of the article. It does not improve the article to selectively list certain band members in the lead paragraph, and deem them founders. There was a lineup change within a few months of the rebranding and the return of Balin to the organization by the start of 1975, so why should we place one specific lineup in the lead paragraph with an unsourced honorific? Sources indicate it was Paul Kantner and Grace Slick who put together the reorganization and had ownership in the entity, plus the membership of five individuals carried over from the earlier incarnation, Jefferson Airplane. Besides, a listing of the names of the seven members from 1976 circa Spitfire is already present as the caption to the image used in the Navbox in the same area of the article.

I disagree that the Origins section should be edited in the manner you describe. There is no “lengthy description of another band” but rather an explanation of what lead to the evolution of Jefferson Starship in the first place. The history of Paul Kantner and Grace Slick is necessary to properly describe what was going on to lead to the 1974 reorganization. The group did not just randomly show up in early 1974 with no history of performing together previously. Every member of Jefferson Starship had previously worked together. Most together in Jefferson Airplane, and the other three members (Chaquico, P. Kaukonen, and later Sears) on the collaboration albums centered on Kantner and Slick. The Wikipedia article should present that information. Your assertion of “equal founding members” is once again an unsourced assertion. Kantner and Sick, along with manager Bill Thompson, were the co-owners of the incorporated entity. All of the members of the group in 1974 are introduced in the six paragraphs of the Origins section, to include information on their background and prior work. There are already links made in the article to subjects or persons who have their own Wikipedia article. Just providing a link itself without explanation why it is being mentioned is not informative to the reader. They should be able to understand why it is being referenced and then can use the link to go to that article for information specifically on that topic, which is how it is now.

Your repeated assertion that “Blows Against the Empire” is not credited to Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship, but the term “Jefferson Starship” is merely an album subtitle is unsourced, inaccurate, and misleading. I disagree with changing it to read “Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship” for the previously stated Wikipedia Manual of Style considerations. Stating it was credited to “Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship” is accurate. This is also in line with sources including the previously cited information from the Tamarkin biography of Jefferson Airplane, and the Jefferson Starship AllMusic biography. It can also be confirmed by actual album itself, which lists both names on the cover as a co-credit and then has a listing in the liner notes with the various musicians being credited as part of “Jefferson Starship” on this album. The Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article as currently written clearly indicates Kantner recorded the album and what the name “Jefferson Starship” is referencing on the album “Blows Against the Empire” in the first paragraph of the Origins section. In the sixth paragraph of the Origins section, it specified when (early 1974) and from where they obtained the selected name Jefferson Starship with the line, “They appropriated the name from Kantner's Blows Against the Empire.” This is not done to confuse or mislead readers, it serves to inform the reader that the name “Jefferson Starship” was first used on “Blows Against the Empire” as a co-credit in reference to the musicians performing on the album, and then how it was later used for the band name. This is reporting the facts to inform the reader, not attempting to mislead them by indicating that the name Jefferson Starship was an album subtitle instead of a co-credit and leaving out that it was used on that album specifically in reference to the musicians who appeared on it.

The Jefferson Starship article as written now is about the band Jefferson Starship. It includes an Origins section to explain the development, and additional sections on the 1974-1978 period, the 1979-1984 period, the departure of Paul Kantner and the subsequent lawsuit, the revival of the group from 1992-2016, and the period after Kantner’s death in 2016 until the present. The article currently presents the information on all eras of the band in a NPOV manner. Your suggestion for a “clear delineation between the hit-making years of the original band—and those of a post-1992 Paul Kantner who began using the name again for his solo projects” is not NPOV. It seeks to diminish or minimize the revival of the band, and inaccurately label it as a “solo project, without sources to that effect. The fact is that Jefferson Starship was revived in 1992 and that the band obtained authorization to use the name from the legal owners of the trademark (Bill Thompson and Grace Slick), as well as a lifetime license from the Kantner family and Slick to continue using the name after Paul Kantner’s death (https://ultimateclassicrock.com/jefferson-starship-its-about-time-video/) (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/octogenarian-rocker-david-freiberg-on-keeping-the-jefferson-airplane-legacy-alive-711568/). Grace Slick stated in 2019 that “Jefferson Starship is still going on, in one form or another,” which indicates her awareness of its continued existence and acknowledgement of the continuity between the revival and the earlier eras (https://relix.com/articles/detail/the-core-jefferson-airplane/). Earlier in the quote, she refers to the renaming of Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship in 1974, and here indicates that Jefferson Starship is still in existence now, linking both eras. The facts should be presented without an agenda to segregate or write off periods of the band for which you do not approve of or that were not “hit” producing. The article as it stands now provides complete coverage on the period from 1974 to 1984, there is nothing missing here. The Wikipedia article also covers the revival, which is in line with other sources such as the Allmusic biography, which also includes the 1992 – present period of the band.

As to your proposal to follow the Wikipedia rules for Verifiability, please note that it does not extend to unsourced fringe theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories) such as the name “Jefferson Starship” really being a subtitle on the “Blows Against the Empire” album. Nor would it apply to stating opinions that the reformed band is really a solo project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). It also does not include using synthesis to make claims that a source is saying something that it is not saying, such as your selection of sources that use the word “break up” in relation to Jefferson Airplane or “form” for Jefferson Starship as definitive proof they are saying no evolution from one to the other occurred, when they make no direct statement of the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material). Again, in some cases the source you cited will have another sentence that counters your assertion, such as the New York Times obituary of Paul Kantner calling Jefferson Starship a successor to Jefferson Airplane, or the Rolling Stone article on Paul Kantner’s Ten Trippiest Lyrics that explicitly states “Before Jefferson Airplane transformed into Jefferson Starship.” That Paul Kantner and Grace Slick have explicitly defined the relationship should be acknowledged, and fringe theories or misinterpretations of other sources that do not really define the relationship are not noteworthy to include in this article as an alternative narrative.

In conclusion, I propose that the changes you suggested not be implemented in the article as they do not reflect a neutral point of view, promote statements not stated in the supplied sources, and seek to exclude or marginalize periods of the band history. I would suggest we do not incorporate your changes into the article.

Regards, AbleGus (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Further Response to Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl, I have reverted your edits to the lead paragraph of the Jefferson Starship article. Most of the reasons I have previously discussed. Using the term formed and deleting reference to the evolution from Jefferson Airplane is counter to direct sourced statements from Grace Slick and Paul Kantner, among others. Kantner called it an “evolution” and Slick referred to the process as a “name change.” The sources you use to deny this evolution occurred do not speak to the relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. You are synthesizing your own view from these sources that they use the word “break up” or “form” in some manner that it must preclude there being an evolution or connection, when they make no such assertion. This article is better served by accurately spelling out the relationship between Jefferson Starship and Jefferson Airplane, rather than a selective wording that makes it seem irrelevant or just happenstance that the five remaining members of Jefferson Airplane ended up in Jefferson Starship.

Your designation of founding members is unsourced, and it is unclear how you determined this, indicating original research. Pete Sears replaced Peter Kaukonen in the band in June 1974, so why is Sears listed instead of Kaukonen? It does not improve the article to list this information in the lead paragraph, and without explanation. Both the AllMusic biography and Jeff Tamakin’s Jefferson Airplane biography indicate it was Paul Kantner and Grace Slick who put together the reorganization and had ownership in the entity. The membership of five individuals carried over from the earlier incarnation, Jefferson Airplane, so why would that fact be ignored and all of these seven names be listed as founders of an already existing organization undergoing a transformation? This arbitrary designation should not be added to the article.

The information on the album certifications and the Billboard chart rankings is factual and NPOV statement about the band’s achievements. It is unnecessary to insert a qualifier about being the period of greatest commercial success. The article should point out the accolades for the reader, but writing the lead the way you have seems to be an attempt to diminish other periods of the band history. A list of songs without any specific criteria or reason as to why they are mentioned, other than that they were singles from the band, does merit inclusion in the lead paragraph. All of these songs are already listed within the body of the narrative in the correct chronological order. It is redundant to list them here just to give a list of songs.

The previous wording already mentioned the band name being retired in 1985. The information on Starship and what members carried over is covered elsewhere in this article, it is redundant and unnecessary to state it in the lead paragraph. The information on Starship’s three number one singles is appropriate in the Starship band article, where it is already present, but not as part of the lead paragraph of the Jefferson Starship article. The information on Starship being officially retired in 1991 does not really fit in the lead paragraph for the Jefferson Starship article. It is also misleading since it fails to mention that Starship has continued as an active band until the present, and as written gives the inaccurate impression that the group is not still in existence today. The mention of Starship Featuring Mickey Thomas in the next paragraph does not really belong in the lead to the Jefferson Starship article. It is also misleading as it again attempts to say this is a different band and not Starship. This is countered by numerous sources that acknowledge that the 1985-1991 era and the era from 1992 to present are the same band (Starship), such as this 2013 article indicating that they were working on their first studio album of original material since 1989 (https://ultimateclassicrock.com/starship-new-album/).

The third and final paragraph of the new lead section you added makes it seem that Paul Kantner is merely using the name “Jefferson Starship” as opposed to relaunching the band. The selection of the name was deliberate by Kantner and he stated he was reclaiming that name (https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-1992-02-11-0000204147-story.html). Kantner died in 2016 and not 2017. Grace Slick stated in 2019 that “Jefferson Starship is still going on, in one form or another,” which indicates her awareness of its continued existence and acknowledgement of the continuity between the revival and the earlier eras (https://relix.com/articles/detail/the-core-jefferson-airplane/). Wording it as “Kantner’s remaining band members have continued to tour under the name” is misleading. It makes it seem that they were simply using the name with no association or connection to the earlier incarnation. They have the authorization of both Grace Slick (https://ultimateclassicrock.com/jefferson-starship-tour-2017/) and Kantner’s family to keep going (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/octogenarian-rocker-david-freiberg-on-keeping-the-jefferson-airplane-legacy-alive-711568/), and Kantner was already granted the right to use the name “Jefferson Starship” since a 2008 legal settlement. The previous wording should be retained here for clarity and objectivity. Additionally, information specific to Starship post 1985 is not a good fit for the lead of the Jefferson Starship article. I have reverted these edits to the article for those reasons.

Regards, AbleGus (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)