Talk:John Fogerty

His Rickenbacker guitar

I saw Jon Fogerty in concert tonight. He had a Rickenbacker. He said that it was used on the old CCR records, but he lost it in 1972 or 73. He said that he got it back about a year ago. That would be a good thing to put in the article, if it can be sourced. In fact, it would be good to list his instruments. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I found an article about it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Current" residence

Under the "Personal Life" section, the author has written and erroneously cited (#55) that John Fogerty and his wife Julie live in Redding, California. I do not believe that is accurate, because the cited publication makes no mention of his residence and further research indicates that he and his wife live in Hidden Valley, California. <https://www.dirt.com/entertainers/musicians/john-fogerty-house-encino-15052/> I hesitate to make any changes to this information, but do believe the reference to his living in Redding should be removed. MizKatz (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discipline and focus on performance

There is a good, brief quote in ‘’Fortunate Son’’ reflecting his personal discipline, non-use of drugs and expectation of professionalism in performances. The topic is only a few sentences long and I think belongs in his CCR section here rather than in the CCR main article as it is about his personal outlook. Does anyone object? …Otherwise I’ll add it. Zatsugaku (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Military

The military service part needs to be edited for clarity by somebody who actually was in the military. Several aspects of the article as now written make no sense if you know how reserve components operated back then. The part that does make sense is the assertion that he managed to slip into a reserve component and that they backdated it to predate the draft notice, but it was almost impossible to get into the Reserves too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Pantheism

@Rmrarchiver: search Fogerty's book for the word "pantheism" and you will not find it. You will find a discussion of God's nature. Looking in a dictionary to find your definition is classic original research. On a separate note, the reference you used pointed to Amazon.com for Fortunate Son information. We don't do that, we use a non-commercial clearinghouse such as Google Books. Google Books even has most of the book scanned in so we can read it online. That's why I changed your reference. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Hi, Elizium!

Once again, I disagree. I pulled those definitions for you in an attempt to demonstrate the accuracy of the use of the term in my original edit. The term was not researched for the edit nor could I tell you for certainty when or where I learned the term; probably 7th grade. "Pantheism" is a noun; "pantheistic" is the adjective form. If a particular noun is best described by particular adjectives, then those adjectives should be used. In my view, "more pantheistic" is the best description of Fogerty's view of God as outlined in his book when compared to Catholicism. If I correctly understand your logic, no adjective could be applied to any noun unless that adjective first appeared in the source. Fogerty also never used the phrase "nature of God" in his book. Should that also not be used here? But that is what he is discussing, and his view on it is a more pantheistic view than the view of Catholicism.

If Fogerty had said, "I think there's more than one god floating around out there," could "polytheistic" not have been used to describe this view simply because Fogerty didn't actually say "polytheism" in the book? In the book, he also talks about a positive change in his world view after he met his second wife, but I don't think he ever says "more optimistic" when comparing his latter outlook with his former. Would it, therefore, be a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy to say something along the lines of, "In his autobiography, Fogerty discusses developing a more optimistic outlook after meeting his second wife: '[Block quote from book supporting the assertion in the preceding sentence],'" simply because Fogerty doesn't describe it himself as "more optimistic"? I cannot begin to tell you where or when I learned the terms "polytheism" or "optimism," and I will not be finding a source for their definitions to support their use in this example. Does this constitute "original research"?

Regardless, in your first edit, you removed the entire phrase after "original sin," leaving no introduction for the block quote of Fogerty's views. As the sentence stands now, it is better but poorly constructed at the end:

"In his autobiography, Fogerty spoke negatively about his experiences with the Church, deriding the Christian doctrine of original sin and discussing the nature of God:"

"Discussing the nature of God" does not reinforce the contrast between his Catholic upbringing and current views, which is how the sentence is otherwise constructed. Although I still believe the best construction would be to apply the phrase "more pantheistic" (because that would best describe the disparity between his upbringing and current views and allow for a single, coherent sentence as an intro to his quote), if that is not allowable, it would be better to break the "nature of God" segment into a separate sentence to introduce the quote. Do you concur?

In regards to the Amazon link, I am aware of Wikipedia's policy in that regard, and I have no idea how that possibly happened. I did re-use some previously entered sources on my edits without checking to see if the sources were valid; perhaps this was the cause of my error. Regardless, my apologies. I will be more diligent in the future.

On a final note, I am still unclear on why his autobiography is not an acceptable source for the quote and is subsequently fitted with a "non-primary source" editing template. Thanks! Rmrarchiver (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Rmrarchiver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do not know why we are allocating so much time, space and effort to discussing Fogerty's religion when it is clearly a minuscule part of his life. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB: Hi, WWGB! First, I wouldn't say it is a minuscule part of his life as his autobiographical epilogue is dedicated to elaborating on his spiritual view of the universe as it is laid out in his song "Mystic Highway," which was one of his two most recent songs at the time of the book's publishing. He also spends some time earlier in the book discussing his previous experiences with religion, which appear to have had a lasting negative impact. Clearly, religion and spirituality have meaning to Mr. Fogerty, and his views and experiences are certainly relevant and interesting aspects of his life.

Regardless, the bulk of the space, time, and effort has been spent not on Mr. Fogerty's religion itself but on the allowability of the use of the adjective "pantheistic" under Wikipedia's original research rules when no form of the word can be found in the source. On the surface, not being able to use an adjective that appropriately describes the element at hand, simply because no form of the word can be found in the source, does not appear to make sense. I, for one, do not mind spending time and effort trying to understand the reasoning behind a rule that initially makes no sense to me. I also still do not understand why the source was flagged with "primary source" template. If I don't understand the issue with my action, I might very well make the same mistake again, and I would like to avoid that. I feel I can make valid contributions to Wikipedia, but not without understanding the nuances, which I am clearly missing despite reading Wikipedia's rules beforehand. If the "Talk" section is not for discussing the appropriateness of edits, then for what is it?

However, as I've already said, in regard to this page specifically, I believe the section in question can be edited for a better flow of relevant info without using the word "pantheistic," since that seems to be a point of contention. If there are no objections. I will make the edit.

Note, again, I still do not know why the source was flagged and, subsequently, under what circumstances it can be removed.

Per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ...". If Fogerty published that the Earth is flat, but no secondary sources commented on that, then his opinion is not considered notable. Likewise, if his thoughts on religion are not covered by others, then they are not notable, and hence not worthy of inclusion in this article. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB: I find it interesting that you have switched your objection. Originally, you didn't think religion should be included because it was a minuscule part of his life. When I pointed to his own work indicating that it was more than a minuscule part of his life, you changed your objection to "religion shouldn't be included because no one else has covered it."

Does a secondary source quoting Fogerty's references to religion and/or spiritual concepts count? Because in a recent interview with Billboard, Fogerty said, "I realize you cannot legislate people's hearts, but it blows my mind that religion and faith in God wasn't enough for some people to see that being racially prejudiced and biased in the way the legal system works is just wrong. It's wrong in the presence of God." Fogerty is once again speaking in terms of spirituality, and this time, it's reported by a secondary source. Or this article from the website of a former Independent, Guardian, and Observer editor that shares this quote from Fogerty: “I just want to say what a great country we live in, and God bless the men and women who protect us.” While a minor mention on Fogerty's part, clearly, there is a religious aspect to his life, and it has inevitably seeped into press coverage.

In addition, I point to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully: "An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." I do not see why the autobiography cannot be used for the quote. In the quote, Fogerty explains his religious views (making a statement about himself) and such views ("We are God") are certainly controversial in many circles. The same logic would apply if Fogerty stated his belief that the earth is flat, as in your example. A controversial statement about himself from a primary source. Therefore, even if no secondary source has covered that specific passage, in my view, it doesn't negate the relevance of Fogerty's sentiment to his life nor preclude it from being included on his Wikipedia page.

As you have offered no indisputable reasoning for excluding coverage of Fogerty's religious views in the entry, I stand by the validity of including them and using his book as a source. Rmrarchiver (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think the section on religion adds anything relevant to the article. The majority of other artists don't have a similar entry and there is nothing significant in what Fogerty has said to mark him out as an warranted exception. My vote would be to take it out completely. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a reasonable argument for the section's complete removal. Another option would be to retain the info of his Catholic roots and move to "Early life" section, which already mentions his Catholic schooling. The semi-protected Paul McCartney article is formatted similarly. Rmrarchiver (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23:I just noticed the single-purpose account tag added after my earlier comment and would like to respond. I am a long-time Wikipedia reader, and over the last few years, Wikipedia has seemed to me to become a less and less reliable source for updated information on given topics. As someone with knowledge and experience in research, writing, and a variety of fields, I decided to join as a contributor. I chose as my first article a subject with whom I was already familiar, on whom I already possessed several sources, and whose page was, in my view, lacking in relevant information. Wikipedia has always seemed to encourage contribution, and I felt I could help make the site better by providing relevant, up-to-date, properly sourced information, which is what I strived to do in my first round of edits this past weekend.

Unfortunately, during my first editorial discussion, I have been bombarded with non-sequitur arguments and, now, what appears to be a personal accusation against my motives. I am now beginning to wonder if the reason Wikipedia has fallen behind in recent years is the poor of treatment of new contributors who are genuinely attempting to gain their footing in editing but are being met with a frigid reception from established editors. Although it was a (mostly) fun 4-day experience, after this discussion, I am not sure I will continue to contribute to the site, no doubt a welcome departure for my partners in discourse. I welcome anyone to remove any edit I made to any page, and encourage established editors to please be more understanding of freshman contributors in the future. Wikipedia is still the standard in internet encyclopedias, but if it continues on its current trajectory, that might not always be the case. I'll leave you with the following: "We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't the fish." Thanks for your time! Rmrarchiver (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Covers

We should start a section on covers of Fogerty’s songs done by other artists. -Wwallacee (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)