Talk:Stevie Wonder/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Birth name / real name

Wonder's birth name is the source of some confusion. His official site lists his birth name as Steveland Morris, but most sources agree his birth name was Steveland Judkins or Steveland Hardaway Judkins (his parents were Lula Hardaway and Calvin Judkins). Other sources spell it "Stevland," without the second "e." Relying on his mother's authorized biography, Blind Faith: The Miraculous Journey of Lula Hardaway, Stevie Wonder's Mother (2002, Simon and Schuster). The book states, "Stevland Judkins was born on May 13, 1950." Blind Faith also says that his surname was legally changed to Morris, "an old family name," when he signed with Motown in 1961 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.247.229 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed them both to "Steveland" as I believe it to be the correct spelling, in the previous edit it was stated as both at the same time. If I am wrong, please change it, however change both references and not just one as this will lead to confusion. --Ccosta 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Stevie Wonder's real name is NOT "Steveland", it is "Stevland". He himself spells it this way in many album booklets.", according to the edit summary for the revision as of 03:23, 6 June 2006.

Anyone have infor on the change from Judkins to Morris. It changes in the article without explanation. BabuBhatt 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean all those reference books that give his name as "Steveland Morris Judkins" are wrong? Isn't there a primary source for this, e.g. the register of births? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} The year should be changed from 2009 to 2010 in the last paragraph of section 2.5 "Current career: 2002-Present":

"On January 22, 2009, Wonder performed Bridge Over Troubled Water for the Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief event to help victims of the earthquake in Port-au-Prince on January 12, 2009."

Change to:

"On January 22, 2010, Wonder performed Bridge Over Troubled Water for the Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief event to help victims of the earthquake in Port-au-Prince on January 12, 2010."

Akimij (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --Stroppolo^talk 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

astro details of wonder

I have put here the astro details but it needs cleaning up and editing so that it is presented in a more systematic way.

thanks for the help,

regards,

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishorepatnaik (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this information. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia and un-sourced. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(not so) neat little divisions

its arbitrary and subjective to say that his classic period is from this year to that; it leads you into awkwardness such as having to begin his commercial period - another arbitrary concept - with the secret life of plants, having to call it a muted beginning. just do '70s, '80s, '90s, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.48.162 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I think the first/opening section could include more info than just one paragraph for someone with such talent and contributions as his. Compared to others with less or as much "history", with his sucess, it would make sense to summarize more of the article within the intro (expanding is warranted). Just my thoughts. Thanks! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.108.146.99, 3 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Being from Saginaw and from what I hear/understand, he was not blind from birth as reported. I beleive he could see until he as 4 years old and could "see some images" until he was eleven or so. Also think this was confirmed in an interview some years ago. 108.108.146.99 (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.

 Not done <sup>Avic</sup>enna<sub>sis</sub> @ 07:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

not oxygen

At the time, it was believed that premies went blind from too much oxygen. It is now known that they go blind from exposure to light. The light cause the eye to finish maturing, but in some cases it's not ready and matures incorrectly. I don't have a proper source on this, but no one has a source that says he went blind from oxygen either.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article presently says that: "...and while it may have been exacerbated by oxygen pumped into his incubator, this was not the primary cause of his blindness. [7]

In [7] on the Stevie Wonder page, Wonder is interviewed by Larry King. Wonder says, "WONDER: Yes. Well, actually, I was not born blind but shortly after that because of being premature I had then being in the incubator (INAUDIBLE) -- it is a condition --

KING: Do you see some light?

WONDER: I may have. I think the retrolental fibroplasia, that's what it's called. And it happens from -- or it happened anyway from the temperature of the -- having to much oxygen and many kids that were born in the '50s, before the doctor discovered that, you know, there was another way to do it, I became blind."

Retrolental Fibroplasia is the same as Retinopathy of Prematurity (This is stated the Wikipedia article on Retinopathy of Prematurity) In an article titled, "Understanding Retinopathy of Prematurity", Richard L. Windsor, O.D., F.A.A.O. and Laura K. Windsor, O.D., F.A.A.O. write, "ROP was the leading cause of blindness in children in the 1940s and 50s....High levels of oxygen have been associated with ROP....Better oxygen level monitoring has led to better control of the oxygen given to premature infants." www.lowvision.org/retinopathy_of_prematurityxx.htm

In the 2010 interview on Larry King Live, Stevie Wonder attributes his blindness to receiving too much oxygen as a premature infant. I, too, am blind from ROP/RLF, and I, too, have been told by my opthalmologist that being put in an incubator with a very high concentration of oxygen damaged my eyes.

I believe the article should reflect Mr. Wonder's assessment of the cause of his blindness.

Perhaps it could best be said as follows:

"Stevie Wonder was born six weeks prematurely. His blindness was caused by retinopathy of prematurity, also known as retrolental fibroplasia, a retinal malformation observed in premature infants. This was the most common cause of blindness in children in the 1940s and 50s and is often linked to exposure to high concentrations of oxygen in the incubators where premature infants were placed for weeks or months after birth so that they might survive."

It might be worthwhile to add that, "Better regulation of oxygen levels in incubators in the decades since the 1950s has greatly decreased the incidence of this condition." Denise Karuth (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

El Toro Negro?

Who put "the black bull" as a nickname? Its never referenced in the article, and has no source, yet for some reason, its part of the accepted revision.Hstarrunner621 (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

re: Gibson

Folks, we should take to the talk page before reverting everything for vague reasons. The edit I made re: Gibson also had two other good edits that should have stayed. Let's follow guidelines and be consistant, please. This is a message I left user: blinksternet after my edit wasn's accepted a third time (twice by two others). I reduced the edit three times, and there is no way it shouldn't be accepted here. It is a minor mention to explain how similar he is, his work with Wonder and their contributions together to improve the article. Just because people don't like it or didn't make the edit themself, doesn't mean it's not valid. I have good edit history (when there wasn't it was a mistake on the part of other editors), and just because I'm using IP doesn't mean it's not legit. I sourced it and compromised. Enough is enough, it should stick. Now, I'm discussing this first so we can come to an agreement. But the edit should stay until then. It's been changed three times which I don't agree with, and two other edits about his blindness were made in addition (and sourced) and should stay. The attempted edit wars gotta end. It's getting old. It's wrong. Here is the edit history and the message left: [1] (Revision history of Stevie Wonder) & other two corrections to keep

Unlike you, I'm doing this the right way and discussing the reverts that people seem to want to continue to do and in the process create edit wars over. How is it possibly too much "promotion" of Gibson? I shrunk that down to nothing. The above section about "Impact" also includes additional sentences about other artists to express a point. I think showing how Stevie was his idol (not mentioned by the other artists) and that the voices are similar (it's apparent you're not familiar with Gibson's work) is noteworthy. That's the only other thing I included. I can take this to the talk page or discuss with other admin to get a concensus but it's not worth removing just because someone doesn't like it. The other problem is that you removed two other good edits I made with that change that are acceptable. I'm not trying to "showboat" Gibson. I'm trying to expand and improve the articles with facts. Originally I just copied the entire mention about him working with Wonder from his article then reduced it and then again just down to the source. So there is no way it's too much. The other explanations was already there about him. I think you're not looking at the big picture here. Many articles still discuss other artists if they pertain to the person the article is about, and there was definitely a relationship worth mentioning in the article. Just because you're not aware of it perhaps, doesn't make it wrong. It's sourced. It should stay. It's a minor thing here, and according to Wiki, we aren't looking for perfection and the edit doesn't "hurt anyone" and is still "productive and correct". Thanks! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 63.131.4.149 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If I removed two good edits along with the Gibson promotion, I'm sorry. I took a look at the other edits and did not see any significant improvements, just the moving around of sentences, a debatable improvement.

Regarding Gibson, if I Google "Stevie Wonder"+Gibson, I get mostly references to Gibson guitars, precious little about Jon Gibson, showing how unimportant he is to the topic. If I Google "Stevie Wonder"+"Jon Gibson", the sources that appear are mainly self-published ones deemed less worthy by the guideline at WP:RS. The only good source that showed up was Uncloudy days: the gospel music encyclopedia, page 155, by Bil Carpenter. Such a mention in one gospel work is in keeping with a very, very short mention in the Stevie Wonder article, per WP:WEIGHT. Any attempt by you to expand it will be opposed by me and by others who follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The main point is that Stevie Wonder is crucial to the story of Jon Gibson but not vice versa. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you admit you didn't even view the edit that well? You probably assumed since an IP user did it, that it's no good? 1st edit: since birth not from birth; 2nd edit: sources verifying his blind condition that required citation 3rd edit: an edit about how Wonder was Gibson's idol, they did a remake of a song of Wonder's, how his voice IS very similar and the record label owner trying to fool people who thought they were listening to Stevie when it was really Gibson, etc. Then I reduced the Gibson portion two other times (to appease others) to just how his voice is similar as heard in the song mentioned/covered with the source and the point that they recorded Wonder's song together. Not everything is on the web, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. It takes time to include "everything" and it's maybe about time someone adds something else different that was perhaps more common-knowledge back then that isn't splashed all over the web now. There probably isn't much about Stevie and other things mentioned here, but that doesn't mean it's useless or doesn't belong here. I don't think that's a valid point. This is an encyclopedia and with it sourced (I only included one cite but I can give you at least three more sources from the web about that very point if you want them?) and having very little mention of Gibson (if you'd read it, it's one sentence about his voice being similar besides mentioning the cover song), it should stay. I also reorganized the order of the cover songs that you affected by undoing the edit too. I mean, talk about guidelines, I think you know it's a very innocent and "general/generic" statement that can stay as your reasons for removing it are vague and trivial. Now, you may have an army of people back you up from here because I didn't decide to create an account after years of editing on here, but I think it's worth fighting for something that is right, does not disrupt or vandalize the article nor is an attempt to over promote another person on Wiki (and has a connection to the article it's about), no more than other artists (even if they may be more commericial) within Wonder's article (such as the above Impact section that goes on about another artist connected with a Stevie project). I think to add something "different" and not "mainstream" improves/expands the article and shows Wonder's spiritual side that he very much uses and has incorporated in his music. I could add Take 6 and other Christian groups he's worked with that are just as important (to some people who will read the article if not you), but I haven't/didn't (not yet). You have to be biased and while I'm not pushing an agenda by mentioning the artists (it's your opinion that he is being "promoted" when this was way back in the 80s), I'm not going to just ignore or omit it because someone doesn't think it's relevant or "pop culture" enough for them. Him meeting Wonder/Jackson was during Gibson's secular time with the record label, it wasn't until he converted that he later recorded "Have a Talk with God" in 1989. What was news then, isn't now, but that doesn't make it worth throwing out. One issue people have with Wiki is that they focus too much on the present. An encyclopedia should show some history. Give it some thought and realize that this is in no way a problem. I did change it three times, and it wasn't just "moved around". Check the history better, and you and others give input about how this minor edit is appropriate enough to keep, along with the other edits I made to improve the article. I'm not trying to control or monopolize the edit or article, but fair is fair, we need to discuss these first (especially after three attempts to "get it right" or "get it the way others like it") and not just undo it because it doesn't suit us or what we think Wiki would/wouldn't allow. In all honesty, the edit doesn't violate a policy/guideline. It seems like cherry-picking and nit-picking here, in my opinion. To continue to revert without discussing is what isn't allowed by Wiki. After three times, that's just unacceptable. It takes a guy using the IP to do the right thing here -- talk about it first. Let's sort it out, I'm not just on here wasting my time. It's kind of so petty, I can't believe it's come to this, but I can't just sit back and let someone undo something that contributes to the article. You'd think you'd want to know about a young white guy inspired by Stevie, got his life together, decided to do music and later record with his idol. There are a lot of "private" relationships popular people have with others that aren't all over T.V. or the web or radio (ie. Hammer-2pac/Diddy or Gibson-Usher/Prince or Bush-Jackson/Ryan), but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. Gimme a break, some people don't need web validation or to "shine" in the public eye nor name drop to prove who they are and who they know or associate with. I say all this not so I get my way, but to keep balance and to improve the article is all. I do my research and I stand up for what I think is right. I won't be passive and let reverts happen that shouldn't because someone wants an article to look/be/sound a certain way when what I did completely coincides in theory with what Wiki expects. Thank you respectfully, and have a great evening/day! P.S. Over time, I did most of Gibson's article, most recently all of it. So I take info from articles such as Hammer (which I also did most of) and spread it to other articles. Just because the main one has it, doesn't mean it isn't relevant in another. It's a minor mention, seriously. Semantics. Splitting hairs here. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you choosing to remain anonymous via IP editing. Feel free to improve the encyclopedia as best you can—go for it! However, this article is unusual; it is arranged such that the changes made by IP editors will not be seen by the general public until they are approved by established editors. It has pending changes level 1 protection. That fact leaves your changes in the hands of others who decide whether they are worthy. If that situation is acceptable to you, it is to me, too.

You say people may "want to know about a young white guy inspired by Stevie, got his life together, decided to do music and later record with his idol". That may be true, but we are not here to correct some oversight by fate. We are here to describe those things which were important to the life of Stevie Wonder. Gibson was not that important, dig? He was a very, very minor happening in Stevie's life. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but this was back in the early 80s, Stevie wasn't as much of a living legend that he is now. I think incorporating ALL aspects of Wonder's life is adequate, not just the "big news". And there are more than one "well-known" Jon Gibson's. Just because the way you searched it didn't yield many, doesn't make it less valuable. Keep in mind an encyclopedia should be all inclusive. Many "minor" facts are throughout all the articles on Wiki, so this makes it a "prejudice" issue as to why you and the others aren't accepting it. Hmm... At any rate, I'm going to undo it again and add more cites as mentioned below:

Per the newest revert by User_talk:Logan#Unsourced_re:_Gibson.3F, I'm including this as well:

Here are some sources per ANOTHER revert done before finishing this discussion. That shouldn't have been done so soon with the reason "not sourced", therefore also removing the two other good edits again. Research, and read articles, etc.

His sinuous soul voice and intuitive way with words and music brought the singer to the attention of artists like Stevie Wonder and MC Hammer who guested on his records. [2]

It was during those old Solar days that Jon and Michael Jackson worked together on a song called SO SHY as special guests on Bill Wolfers first solo album entitled WOLF, also a Solar/Constellation release. Bill worked with Michael on the albums OFF THE WALL and THRILLER and previously toured with the Jacksons as a keyboardist on their VICTORY TOUR. During the recording of Jon's first solo album, STANDING ON THE ONE, Bill Wolfer introduced Jon to a new friend, Stevie Wonder. Jon went on to make his next record. ON THE RUN, which was well received rendering his first number one single on Christian radio entitled GOD LOVES A BROKEN HEART. [3]

After returning from service in the Army at age 20, Gibson was signed to Dick Griffey's new Constellation label. For days Griffey had great fun tricking a number of his Solar artists with Jon's tape (they thought it was Wonder). Jon's debut came as a guest vocalist for 3 songs on Bill Wolfer's Wolf album. During the process of making that album, Jon met his musical idol, Stevie Wonder, and worked with a crew of great musicians, including Michael Jackson. Wolfer returned the favor the next year by producing Gibson's debut album, Standing on the One. It was a fine debut, showing that Gibson was more than a Wonder-clone, and that he had songwriting skills to go with his great voice. [4]

Blue-eyed soulster Jon Gibson's instincts and songwriting made his too-close-for-comfort Stevie Wonder-like vocals worth tolerating. His later albums are the better, as Gibson evolved into a vocal style more his own. The songs and production are improved as well. [5] Jon?s first record deal was with Solar Records in 1983 where he worked with both Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson. [6]

[7]

[8]

P.S. You also undid two other edits, are you guys paying attention to the entire edit? Using a "tool" again perhaps? See talk page for discussion going on and sources. Thanks!! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you "guys" realize the only thing you're not "approving" is the last sentence after the song collaboration/cover between Gibson and Wonder? Gibson's sound and style had a canny resemblance to Wonder's voice. How can that not be what you're approving???? In the meanwhile, you're undoing two other important edits made within that change. "since birth" not "from birth" and the two CNN transcripts from Larry King that sourced a cite request that wasn't present. Now, I have spent all this time to defend my edits instead of [you] really checking into it physically/manually and not just going with the Wiki "established user" or "level protection alert" thingamabobbers. My IP may get your attention, but that doesn't mean my edits aren't reliable. I resent that I've had to do all this just to prove that what I've done is not wrong. You seriously are incorrect here, sorry if that upsets you, but my edits are acceptable and reliable. In the meantime, I could have been being productive on another edit/article. I did most, if not nearly all of Gibson's, Hammer's, Meece's and many other articles in the past (different places, accounts, pc's, etc. over time) and I think this is "profiling" and not assuming good faith or even investigating the actual edits and sources. The same sources on Gibson's article were used here (see his page). They're fine. I'm out of breath and energy over this. Ugh. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, don't know if you realize this (go back several/many edits), but the actual mention of Gibson was already in the article. I just moved it from the 80s portion to the cover section and added sources. I included the record label info that wasn't approved originally, then just mentioned how their voices sound the same that is overly sourced. So not to accept it is very petty. I did nothing but improve it. I don't care at this point if it's mentioned or not, but I think involving other Admin to have a concensus is important. I don't care to get my way, just think it's the principle of the matter. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Was approved again, we'll see how long it sticks. Also, on mutiple edits, people should keep what's good (in this case it was all good) not just mass revert. Very unproductive. Additionally, the argument about him not being popular enough to mention in the article is ridiculous. You and others may not know much about Kirk Franklin, but he worked with U2 and other Christian artist celebrities, but unlike many "Top 40" artists (even though Franklin had crossover hits and charted), they aren't marketed on secular t.v. or radio and therefore their work isn't as recognizable. (This is just an example I'm using to prove my point, that just because you don't know much about him, doesn't mean it isn't worth including. It seemed like editors were flip-flopping on the reasons they didn't like it.) It doesn't make it less important. They just don't "show-boat", "name-drop" or have to brag about it to be noticed in the world. They feel they have a higher calling. So that reason for not accepting it isn't even appropriate/correct. It's all in the eye of the beholder what is noteworthy or not. I realize this isn't a "news forum" but that wasn't news as one editor said. That is encylopedia worthy, as much as all the other 'junk' on the site. Maybe editors think those with IP's will just go "oh well, my edit wasn't accepted, poor me". or "i'll vandal cus i'm angry" -- to the point of being blocked. Well, I wasn't on here trying to cause problems, but there seems like a conspiracy or sabatoge to keep edits that are acceptable out if it's not done by Admin or a "trusted" user. Remember, give the benefit of the doubt? Edit in confidence? Honor "good faith" edits that are sourced? Hmm... Opinions. Thanks, I guess, but this ends my participation on the matter. I am going to work on other articles as I see you all are very territorial about this one, even though I'm a huge fan, he's my favorite artist (Wonder) and I have all his albums, researched about him all my life, etc. Oh well, your losses. lol. jk. I don't have to brag on here or get my way, I was just helping. Go figure! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are sourced, in good faith, and constructive. I'll remain neutral with regards to whether Gibson should be mentioned in a BLP in this respect, but because it is sourced and there is a clear relationship between the two, I feel matters should be discussed and debated here. I strongly feel the pending changes system was put in place to prevent nonconstructive or highly controversial edits to notable articles, and not to prevent or obstruct users from making good faith contributions. This absolutely isn't highly controversial, and I hope fellow wikipedians will respect equality and debate the topic here instead of rejecting further edits by you. On the same token, you are arguably tiptoeing around the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule on this article so please tread carefully! Nick Wilson (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The warning(s) put on my talk page aren't legit and I've "paper trailed" my talk page to show that it was the mistake of others, not me. I viewed the BLP article already, so I knew what I was doing wasn't wrong. This is why people get blocked for no reason, and they in turn become labeled "vandals". I appreciate your clearheadedness (if that's a word) about this and respect that. I also agree with your neutral view, as they did have more of a relationship together than I even mentioned, based on facts, but wasn't "mainstream-pop-culture-top-forty-highly-publicized-noteworthy" in media and is "dated" info. People are very protective on here, but that shouldn't be a reason not to accept something. I don't think the edit was even really being looked at clearly. I shouldn't have had to revert that many times, but did so after the conversation/discussion I actually started (which should have been done by others as you said) and after initial approval. I was reverting as I improved them too. I got to thinking I should have just did it as a new edit each time. Or waited. I like to move on though, but my "ocd" gets the best of me when I know something is right, yet being challenged for no real reason. Like I said, even though I know a great deal about Wonder and Gibson, I'm moving on past this one. I can see I'll be challenged too much and it's not worth it to me. I did nearly all of Gibson's article and just thought I'd add it to Stevie's since it wasn't there. I guess if I go to Jackson's page and mention the relationship between MJ and JG, I'll get the same treatment. No thanks. At any rate, I appreciate you leaving your message. Again, thanks Nick. Great job! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC) [9][10][11][12] 63.131.4.149 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: UGH, User talk:Binksternet has reversed it again after I put a comment on his page about the sources I found compared to his search. This is appearing to be intentional and out of spite, as well as vandalism. I'm avoiding an edit war and leaving it. I have more info to add but was taking baby steps (regarding music made with Gibson and others). I can see I will be challenged even though my edits are ok and sourced. Per above editors, this should have stayed. Please assist! I will leave messages on your talk pages as well, thanks! [13] 63.131.4.149(talk) 02:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(For future reference to add later: "Happier Than the Morning Sun" (by Stevie Wonder) Jobete Music Co. Inc./Black Bull Music/ASCAP covered on Forever Friends (1992) by Jon Gibson as well.) [14] 63.131.4.149 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides those I've left messages with, ADMIN, please assist with this deliberate disruptive behavior by Binksternet! Thank you... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and it's my pleasure - your edits were constructive and beneficial; I'm unsure as to why others would have rejected it. Please let me know if I can ever be of any other assistance. Nick Wilson (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the issue on Talk:Stevie_Wonder, BLPs are a particularly sensitive issue with Wikipedia:No_original_research, but your point on Gibson was mentioned in your sources and appears to be valid. Have you considered making an account on wikipedia? If you do register, please let me know! Nick Wilson (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I certainly understand your point and I sympathize and apologize that you've been through so much red tape, but want to echo Nick's point: registering for an account is a good way to avoid some of the issues that you've encountered. Personally, much of my wiki work is in the area of "RC patrol," or looking through recent changes and reverting vandalism. Many editors are naturally more suspicious of changes made by users without accounts, because as unfair as it is, a lot of vandalism comes from anonymous editors. A lot of good edits come from anonymous editors too, and you're certainly one of those, but when you're wading through page after page of vandalism, it's very easy for something to "look wrong" and be too quick on the revert button. Again, this isn't your fault, in fact you're one of the more rare exceptions: an anonymous editor who cites sources and discusses controversial edits. But I think registering might help other editors better assume good faith in your edits and help you get farther around here. It's certainly your option not to register, but just something to keep in mind. Zachlipton (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I still feel that the small bit of text we have about Jon Gordon is enough text about the man. My take on this kerfuffle is that Stevie Wonder is a very important part of Jon Gibson's life story but not the other way 'round... This article does not need to go into additional detail about Gibson. What was here before was fine. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your opinion, not facts. I gave sources. You just don't like it and have mistreated me with the way you have reverted it without fixing and causing other edits not to stay. That is disruptive. The other two fixes have been fixed since then, but the fact Gibson did backing for Wonder, they toured, and songs he sampled in that section is appropriate. The only sentence you have an issue with is that they have identical voices and you don't want that on there. Look, Wonder is my favorite artist and I'm his "biggest fan". But you have to be neutral. It's not about what you want or don't want. It's related, no less than the other stuff on his article. You are making a big deal about nothing. I was the one that put the original text there, then was moved from 80s section to covers section, and then I just expanded on it for clarity, was "forced" to reduce it and then it was approved by others and you still revert it. I have contacted admin who blocked you before to assist me. You are out of line here, and you don't like that I'm telling you this or that I included a productive edit, so you are trying to exclude it. It's "not hurting anyone" being there and is well sourced. It's so minor, I can't believe you have created this huge problem. Maybe you thought I would just back down and accept your reverts, but I won't. I can't. It's right, and you are causing policy violations for "generic/vague" reasons. You have changed your reasoning too, and it's just not reliable. Sorry, but that's how I feel. I have overly documented this issue and hope the edit sticks because it's productive and a fact that isn't included that would be beneficial to the article. I think it's safe to say, I won't edit much on S.W.'s article (even though I know alot about him and can source everything) because of you challenging it/me, but I won't be silenced over something that is ok/right. I feel you could have left it and moved on with something else, and by now I could have been doing a ga'zillion other good edits. I have a great history and have nearly created pages from scratch. You don't have to like my edit, but you don't have the final say. Even if it isn't approved, I'll sleep tonight knowing I was right and that it belongs there as much as any others. This will conclude my communication with you directly since I've taken this matter to others, including admin. Best of luck, and I hope you give editors a break in the future, you don't control articles, and you give good faith edits that aren't "perfect" per Wiki's pillars/guidelines approval, because we are here to help not be counterproductive and disruptive. And to lie and say I was disruptive by putting a warning on my page is absolutely inappropriate! Good bye... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors who have approved and/or agreed with the edits based on edit history and/or talk pages: at least 6-7

Editors who have denied it, and later did not accept the "consensus": 1 (about 2 didn't approve originally for "incorrect" reasons) 63.131.4.149 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was asked by 63.131 to look over this and provide an opinion, since I had blocked Binksternet earlier (would be fortuitous were this article Freddie Mercury, but oh well). Anyway, I'm agreeing with Binksternet here: The sources just aren't that good. Either it's self-published, or its an interview, or its a blurb. There ought to be better sources. It's sufficient to say that Wonder influenced Gibson, but past that it appears as a coatrack to discuss Gibson in an article that's not about him. Discussing Wonder in the article on Gibson is–somewhat ironically–perfectly valid, for the same reason that it's OK to go into detail on how Band X is influenced by The Beatles in the article on Band X... but not the other way around. I mean, it's The Beatles. This is Stevie Wonder we're talking about. Y'know? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC) tl;dr - the sources just aren't strong enough to support the weight Gibson would receive in this article.

Additional notes to whom it may concern: I got a feeling that if it was Michael Jackson we were talking about on this track, the mention of the voices being identical would be left. It was important to include since Gibson backed vocals for Wonder but also because WONDER assisted on Gibson's projects (which is vital to improving/expanding the article). But just because he wasn't as "well known/popular" (he chose to decline secular music but to his credit still has many #1's and Top 5/10 Hits with all due respect) as those being mentioned in the article. It's as if the editor reverting it is preventing the fact to be included on purpose. Not sure the motive, but I have my speculations. There are many other mentions of similar edits within the article I could give as an example that haven't been removed and have more information about related artists who aren't Stevie. There are also many articles with "trivia" facts (which is not accepted within a section and needs to be incorporated within other portions of the article and something I try to work on and reduce) listed which this is not the case. It's not like I said, "And Jon Gibson in my opinion is much better a singer" or "they covered such and such a song together, with Gibson's voice sounding similar to Wonder's, even backing for him and touring... because when it comes down to it, Wonder couldn't have done it without Gibson." or "Gibson worked on Wonder's Jungle Fever soundtrack because he actually sounds like a black guy but isn't, which is really amazing!" In these case, you would have an argument. Those examples would be "promoting" Gibson. You are only protecting this article, there are many others that need fixing regarding your reason, not my edit in this case. You are either wanting a religous artist (once secular during the times with Wonder before the cover song was done together) left out, or because you think he isn't "famous enough" in your world, it's unacceptable. I was told no reliable sources could be found by the reverting editor, as if I haven't or wouldn't check myself. I basically did nearly all of Gibson's article. There are plenty of sources. The fact about them working together, is helpful. Just like many other articles add "tid bits" or expand on another artist in a different person's article who have worked together, this is totally appropriate. It is the principle that I am "fighting" this. And not to approve it would send a negative message about the motives of Wiki and the editors/admin on it. Maybe you don't like that I knew this bit of information, but I hope egos don't prevent it from being included. I overly explain myself, unlike the editor who has reverted it over and over. I don't have a web source, but for over 20 years, I've owned the album the song they did together is on, and in it Gibson thanks Wonder and calls him his brother. I say that, to say this, they had a special bond and just because he wasn't walking arm in arm with him on T.V. or mentioned on tracks from radio, doesn't make it less important or necessary to include here. It's such a "passing comment" to tie the whole edit up, that it seems so petty not to include it just because of (not really even a rule) preference. If I think of more helpful insight, I will add. But we must be consistant. We must honor good faith edits, and we must respect everyone's contributions especially when they are clearly sourced. I don't care that the world knows Gibson sounds identical to Wonder or even did the song together. What I am caring about is honesty, transparency and neutrality for the improvement of this and other articles. If this is not included, in all fairness, many other edits within this and other articles would need to be removed to. I'm being professional and I compromised (shrunk the edit several times to appease the editor) but the editor reverting it has not compromised or accepted the minor mention of Wonder's work with Gibson. Just because you say I'm mentioning Gibson's work with Wonder in that order, doesn't make you right. Enough said, I've pleaded my case. I hope admin will see the good intentions of my contribution and avoid "red tape" that is keeping it from being kept. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

About the newest message left while I was typing the above one, I disagree and a BILLBOARD srouce is not reliable????? That alone should be fine. I added nearly 10! They are the artist's site. There are photos of the two together on the web. Seriously guys? I hope this isn't "good 'o boy" thing. Doesn't matter if we are talking about the Beatles or Wonder or Elton, or whoever. People are people and they deserve as much credit and acknowledgment on here if it's sourced as the next. It's not like this is all about Gibson, it's about what Wonder did on Gibson's album. Hands down, you're wrong on this and I think that upsets those wanting to revert it. Shame. It mentions the very point I mentioned. Very inconsistant guys, very bad impression. You act like I mentioned a paragraph. I mentioned the voice similarities. Very petty. Very sad. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a "good 'o boy" thing, at all. I abhor the implication. What I'm saying is that the sources are better used in the Gibson article. Again, Stevie Wonder has influenced many people. I myself don't actually care. You asked for an opinion, ya got it. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I resent his actions and your implications as well. I didn't ask for an opinion, I asked for help to resolve it and it's cut and dry. Your hang up over a cite isn't correct. The sources are fine. I'm not sure if you actually checked all the sources, but just because they're not "name brand" doesn't make them less reliable. It's on his personal sites, music sites, etc. Yahoo, Billboard, etc. I can look for more. The point is, you're being prejudice and discrediting other reliable sources that are normally acceptable. Just becase you "don't like them" doesn't make it right. I am going to continue to draw attention to this situation as long as it takes, not to get the edit to stick but to show the "issues" that people are having on Wiki so something is done to stop it. This isn't so much about the edit than it is about the process and wrong way it was handled. I was the one that began the talk for instance. I'm an established editor (don't let the IP user name fool you) and this is something that is not consistant within Wiki. As a result, in all fairness, I will find similar remarks made and remove them from the article too so we're on the same sheet of music and in agreement about all this then. Ok? Thanks! P.S. You didn't address the fact the user reverted good edits over and over, which are now in the article finally, and that's disruptive. He also was not cooperative and disrespectful, and I compromised, he did not. The attitude and reverting habits should be addressed. Seriously guys, you're not being consistant. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I support bringing changes such as this through the pending revisions system, but whether it really belongs on the article is a different matter. As I mentioned earlier, I'm neutral on it and don't have any specific feelings either way - there's a clear relationship between the two and your information is sourced, but I also feel somewhat like it's a coatrack as Xavexgoem mentioned. Nick Wilson (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, it doesn't really qualify as coatrack. If it needs to be reworded, fine. But as I was typing during your edit, this is about how he used another artist for his tracks. That isn't promoting Gibson. That's insane. We all know it. But whatever. Again, thanks Nick. You're the only one making sense besides me in my opinion. "Love the editor, hate the edit" I guess. (smile) 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the point being missed is that since Gibson had an identical voice, WONDER utilized him on tracks/albums. Thisthat is about Wonder. If I said, Wonder uses a computer to see or speak, would I be glorifying mentioned software/electronics? Or the brand he uses? If I said that because Wonder likes eating candy, it gives him a belly ache, is candy being promoted? It's important since WONDER worked with Gibson just as much as Gibson did for Wonder. It is fine in this context, and can belong in the article. It's ok to acknowledge a white guy sounds like Wonder (you've never heard him it's clear) but I'm not even gonna put that. I'm not gonna say "wow, for a white guy, Gibson sure did sound like Stevie in this song. don't believe me? check this source out!" I'm not saying that. You guys are splitting hairs. You have the ability to keep if off the page and I think that power is why it's not on it, nothing more. Does that "abhor" anyone? 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a difference of editorial opinion and nothing more. I suggest you read WP:SPIDER, and that's the last I'll say. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Abhor!

Read it, not helpful here. But what is: [15] (What is NOT a coatrack)! And that's what it comes down to and you just proved it "it's a difference of editorial opinion and nothing more". So the IP user doesn't get the edit, the ones with the ability not to approve it do in this case. Good to know... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll approve your edits so long as they're constructive and it doesn't turn into an edit war, but I really have to agree with everything Xavexgoem has said. Nick Wilson (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now you agree with him. Hmm... Interesting.

To Whom it May Concern for later reference to this:

1. My edit was acceptable and well sourced.
2. I conducted myself professionally, compromised, and created a discussion for the resolution of this issue.
3. Editors ignored many approvals of it and conducted edit wars, excessive reverts and disrespectful behavior.
4. Facts speak for themself, if no other source works, Yahoo and Billboard should (as there are others I will add later that will show this is an acceptable mention that ties in the entire thought/entry regarding Wonder's use of Gibson on his projects) and this is about Wonder's life.
5. I was given a warning on my page for no reason and Admin supported misuse of reverting editor's "power" with no actions taken (as well has him reverting two other good edits over and over without just removing the one in question or checking sources, history, etc. which is what creates/provokes "vandals").
6. I was consistant and documented this page, other user's page, my page and summary notes.
7. No direct pillar or guideline was violated and a concensus showed the edit was appropriate. What about that "rule"?

May add more as I think of them. Good bye for now... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Before I progress further beyond this page, here is a proposed change about how Wonder utilized Gibson, which doesn't promote him and with reliable sources: Wonder has recorded with Jon Gibson, a Christian Soul musician, on a remake of his own song, "Have a Talk With God" (from the 1989 album Body & Soul), covered by Gibson in which Wonder plays harmonica.[57] The two men met in the early 1980s through a shared music agent (Bill Wolfer).[58] Because Gibson's voice resembled Wonder's, Stevie Wonder had him sing backup on his 1991 soundtrack album Jungle Fever (ie. on the track "I Go Sailing"), even touring together.[16][17][18][19][20]

If this isn't acceptable, the part about Bill Wolfer will be removed and other notes mentioned in the article with more info about an artist than this, by me. IE. Contrary to popular belief, Minnie Riperton didn't start her career with Wonderlove, since she began her professional career as lead singer of the girl group The Gems in the '60s and later found critical success with the psychedelic soul band Rotary Connection before leaving the group for her acclaimed solo career in 1970. Riperton did provide background vocal work for some of Wonder's albums after they became friends following the production of Perfect Angel in 1974. Wonder wrote a song dedicated to Riperton that he presented near her hospital bed prior to her death in July 1979.

AND Wonder's songs are renowned for being quite difficult to sing. He has a very developed sense of harmony and uses many extended chords utilizing extensions such as 9ths, 11ths, 13ths, b5s, etc. in his compositions. Many of his melodies make abrupt, unpredictable changes. Many of his vocal melodies are also melismatic, meaning that a syllable is sung over several notes. In the American Idol Hollywood Performances, judge Randy Jackson repeatedly stated the difficulty of Wonder's songs. Some of his best known and most frequently covered songs are played in keys which are more often found in jazz than in pop and rock. For example, "Superstition", "Higher Ground" and "I Wish" are in the key of E flat minor, and feature distinctive riffs in the E flat minor pentatonic scale (i.e. largely on the black notes of the keyboard).

AND Wonder played a large role in bringing synthesizers to the forefront of popular music. With the help of Robert Margouleff and Malcolm Cecil, he developed many new textures and sounds never heard before. In 1981, Wonder became the first owner of an E-mu Emulator.[56] It was Wonder's urging that led Raymond Kurzweil to create the first electronic synthesizers that realistically reproduced the sounds of orchestral instruments; Wonder had become acquainted with the inventor as an early user and evangelist of his reading machine, the technology for which would prove instrumental in the success of the Kurzweil K250.

AND His daughter, Aisha Morris, was the inspiration for his hit single "Isn't She Lovely." Aisha Morris is a singer who has toured with her father and accompanied him on recordings, including his 2005 album, A Time 2 Love. Wonder has two sons with Kai Milla Morris; the older is named Kailand and he occasionally performs as a drummer on stage with his father. The younger son, Mandla Kadjay Carl Stevland Morris, was born May 13, 2005, his father's 55th birthday.

Just a few inconsistencies within the article about "promotion" and going on about other people/things unrelated to Wonder. Now compared to what I put, these are much "worse" and shouldn't belong here either. Correct?? I mean, you said that yourself, right? 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What, no responses? Ok, as you told me about my edit, I will go and remove these "promotion" and "coatrack" issues from the article eventually because they aren't acceptable either. You said so yourselves. Thanks for schooling me, take care! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? How is this ok: Vocalists Deniece Williams, Carl Anderson, and Angela Winbush all began their careers in the 1970s as backup vocalists for Wonder as part of "Wonderlove".[55] from myspace source but mine isn't? Explain??? Or the other about Minnie Riperton (who?) without a source?? Things that make you go "hmmm"... I can remove tomorrow if I don't hear from anyone, thanks. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors aren't constantly watching the page - you need allow more time for responses and establish a consensus for how to handle these interactions with other musicians in a useful and consistent manner. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. But those remarks were only moments after their last response, point being they realized I caught them in a contradiction and the misuse of reverts/"concensus" and 'the like and such as'... (smile) It was "rhetorical", relax. The truth is that there are plenty of inconsistencies and the orginal edit this discussion I created was about was fine and should have stayed compared to all the "wrong" ones within the article I cleaned up. I didn't have to wait for a response to do that. They said in their own words what's acceptable and not, so I went to work fixing the other problems with the article. But thanks, and may we take our next caller please? Bye! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)