Talk:Glen Campbell/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Better Discography

Although this article shows an album discography there is no singles discography and that is well needed, becuase Campbell had many hit singles. The article deserves a better discography and should be in a more organized fashion, like a table. LovePatsyCline 15:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Full name

Is he not Glen Travis Campbell ? If so, the main article does not state this.

Derek R Bullamore 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: Better Discography

Yes, the discography is a bit messed up - it lists "albums" when they are (mostly) singles, or at least most of the links point to "song" pages, not album pages.

Mike 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition To Sessions Work

I'm adding The Kingston Trio to the list of GC's sessions work. The KT outsold at least half of the artists listed, had four albums in the Billboard Top Ten the same week in 1960 (before GC, and a feat never exceeded and only matched by the Beatles). Campbell recorded banjo and high vocals on the KT's last Top Forty hit ''Desert Pete (playing a six string banjo designed for him) and background instrumentation on the live performance album "Back In Town."Sensei48 18:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)sensei48

Piedmont not Delta Airlines!!

Alan Jackson's wife worked for Piedmont Airlines not Delta. She recounts the story in her book "It's All About Him" in the section titled " A Chance Encounter" on pages 40-42.I made the appropriate changes.TCPWIKI (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

Nice career but

The lede sounds like it was written by the guy's agent. Unappealing tone and perhaps not really worth reading.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More on "True Grit"?

The article only gives a passing mention of Campbell's performance in "True Grit." In his autobiography he talked extensively about this film, particularly his experiences working with John Wayne. Obviously he regards this as a high point in his career. His own performance in this film was rather forgettable and panned by critics, but Campbell keeps a sense of humor about it. He says, "I made John Wayne look so good that he won his only Oscar!"97.73.64.165 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Campbell was co-host with Rod Cameron on the TV show Star Search in the early '60s. The program had a guest star each week and Glen would sing one of the guests hits, usually doing a better job than the star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.77.57 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

sourcing needed

Fairly desparately. Will look in again ina month before commenting out all the unsourced material - which is most of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Republican

An IP added the following assertion to the article:"Campbell is a Republican and he was a close friend of Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston." The source for the sentence is a recent interview ([1]). The IP cherry-picked the assertion out of a pargraph from the interview that gives the material some context:

In their heyday, Campbell, Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston – three proud Republicans – were close friends. Like Campbell, the other two were also diagnosed with Alzheimer's, but by the time the world knew about it they had quietly disappeared from public life. Kim says this is one reason why the family felt it was important to make the announcement – so he can live as normally as possible without having to feel shame.

In other words, the reference has to do with Campbell's recent announcement that he suffers from Alzheimer's, nothing really to do with being Republican other than Reagan and Heston were also Republicans. I know that political affiliation is sometimes included in celebrity bios, but usually some sort of connection is established to the celebrity's activities. For example, the celebrity supports conservative causes or liberal causes or whatever. Here, the sentence just comes out of the blue and has no real connection to Campbell. And the IP's assertion in the edit summary "His Republican politics are important" is nothing more than a conclusion without any support. If they are important, then more material is needed from reliable sources to show why they are relevant to the article.

I'm going to revert the change and ask the IP to contribute here so hopefully a consensus can be reached as to the suitability of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the statement that Glen was Republican is adequately referenced by that cite. [2] appears also more than adequate. Try also [3]. Self-identified, noted in third party sources, seems to me that keeping the bare fact of him being a Republican is not contentious. The individual friendships would actually need stronger sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the reliability of the source or its accuracy (although it's really the interviewer's comment, not Campbell's) - I'm questioning the relevance to the article. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it has to be included. As an aside, the other source, you bring up is from 1988.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS does not say "when a claim is over ten years old, it can not be used." The claim is not remotely "contentious" as far as I can tell. And performing at a National Convention is "notable" per se as well. Try 2007 (I trust it is not "too old") [4] He performed for both Nixon and Reagan at the White House. If you start articulating non-Republican values, he looks at you much as he might if you'd started to tell him that cork doesn't float: he's not about to agree with you, but neither will he hold it against you. seems fairly clear, no? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you insist on not addressing my point, there's not much I can do. If the issue gains no traction on WP:BLPN, the assertion will stay in, useless as it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Campbell is a longtime Republican and he was a vocal supporter of President Reagan during the 1980s. Of course his political views are relevant to the personal life section of the article. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

I completely agree with Bbb23's first statement. I never read about GC begin a "close friend" to Ronald Reagan and Charles Heston before. Did Reagan or Heston ever mention Campbell as a close friend? More sources are definitely needed there. I think the journalist made a little stretch to arrive at the point of them all being Alzheimer patients (i'm sure GC knew them). So then we're left with the statement "GC is a republican". So what? Campbell has always been non-political. He was also friends with The Smothers Brothers, Jimmy Webb and John Hartford who are/were definitely NOT republican. And as for performances in the White House, GC performed for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, but also for Carter. His marriages however are relevant to his life and career. This would become clear if the personal life section would be integrated into the main article. I haven't gathered the strength to do that yet, though.... :-) If someone can write a section on GC being a republican in relation to his activities then I won't object. Right now, it's just a four word sentence without any significance. Lumdeloo (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Several reliable sources refer to his political positions - there is no reason to consider this "contentious" when not only do reliable sources make the claim, he appeared at a number of Republican campaign events locally and at the national convention, he donated money to Republican organizations and campaigns, and he was certainly acquainted with people with whom he worked directly <g>. Are you suggesting that all of this is "weak" by any chance? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it contentious or weak, but it's not relevant, at least not in this way. And I would like to see more than one source for GC being "close friends" to Ronald Reagan and Charles Heston. That one source uses it as a setup to the Alzheimer thing and I think the journalist made a stretch there. Again, I'm sure they knew each other. Funny to see GC performed at the Republican Convention and donated for the democratic candidate in the same year. Lumdeloo (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd comment - the donation records I found for him were to Republicans. [5]. In any case, the fact that he performed at a slew of campaign stops for Republicans and endorsed Republican candidates would be the clincher - the donations would be OR at best. As for relevance - a great many BLPs have political affiliation listed where it is known. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why odd. You yourself wrote "donated *almost* exclusively to Republican candidates" and your source lists the 1980 donation to the democratic candidate. [6] It could be that many BLPs have political affilation listed (there are probably a lot more that don't have it listed), but that's not the question. Is it relevant in this case? No, I don't think so. At least not with this paragraph. Do you have sources for other performances at Republican campaigns? Lumdeloo (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary: seriously, why do I need consensus to be able to remove this paragraph? Don't you need consensus to keep it in? Lumdeloo (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP states reasons why material must be removed under some circumstances. This material does not fall into any of those reasons. See WP:CONSENSUS for how consensus is used on Wikipedia for purposes of editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

With the changes made to the article since I last looked, I am now okay with leaving in the republican part (not real happy, but okay). I would still remove the close friends phrase, not because it needs another source, but because it's trivial and it kind of hangs there with no explanation (obviously, it requires the reader to know that Heston was conservative). I don't see that it's useful at all. And, for Collect, I would cite to WP:IINFO with the comment at the top of that policy: "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Allright then. Are we in consensus that, as Collect wrote earlier, that "the individual friendships would actually need stronger sourcing"? And that while Campbell performed on the National Republican Convention in 1980 he actually supported the democratic candidate in the same year with a donation? To give you a preview of what I like to make of this: my point is that a) in his heyday he was never outspoken on politics, even vowed to be non-political b) he supported democrats as well, I think from the time he could vote into the late 70s/early 80s, and only became more outspoken republican since the late 80s. I found some sources that have him perform on democratic fundraisers. I'm still looking for good sources to support he performed at Republican campaigns (besides the 1980 performance) though. If Collect can point me to those I would happily include them.Lumdeloo (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. We have adequate sourcing for him being a Republican, and being a friend with Reagan. We have absolutely zero sourcing for him donating to any Democratic nominee for President at all in 1976 nor 1980. I find no evidence whatsoever that Campbell supported Mondale, nor Carter in any manner at all. We also have good sources for his appearances and endorsements of Republicans. Nor can I find any source saying he "vowed to be non-political" anywhere. Proposed: Campbell, a friend of Ronald Reagan, performed at the 1980 Republican National Convention, and was a Republican. Sort, sourced and accurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen only donated to that Democrat in the 1980 primaries because he wanted them divided so Ron would easily win. (92.7.11.137 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Without specualting as to reason - Campbell did not donate to a Democratic Presidential nominee -- which seems to get rid of that cavil for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He donated to Brown, a democrat, during the primaries. I think that's relevant and indicates he wasn't a convinced republican at that point. He also supported other democrats in the past, for which i found some sources. Please point me to the good sources for him being friends with Reagan (except that one you used which I find suspect as I explained) and his appearances en endorsements of Republicans. Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Which means about zilch. By the way, "primary sources" can not be used for the SYNTH you appear to be making - that where a person self-identifies as a Republican, donates to Republicans, appears at a Republican Natinal Convention, makes campaign appearances, but donates to a Democrat in a primary (actually not even in a primary and definitely not the nominee), that he is somehow "not a Republican"? Sorry - does not fly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you keep thinking I want to make a democrat out of him. But that's not the case. He is a republican and has been open about that since the late 80s. However, again, please point me to those good sources for him being friends with Reagan (except that one you used which I find suspect as I explained) and his appearances en endorsements of Republicans. Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talking about SYNTHs. Your suggestion "Campbell, a friend of Ronald Reagan, performed at the 1980 Republican National Convention, and was a Republican." does just that. It suggests that Campbell performed at the 1980 Republican National Convention because he was a friend of Reagan and because he was a republican. But there is no source for that synthesis. There is also the possibility that he initially supported the democrat Brown (which is supported by the fact of his donation) but when Carter won the nomination, he went to support the republican candidate. My suggestion would be: "Campbell is a republican. He performed at the 1980 Republican National Convention and made several republican campaign appearances during the late 80s." However, i'm still looking for sources for those appearances. I'm happy to leave out his democratic past because i figured it's even less relevant than him being a republican now. Lumdeloo (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point you are the only editor who seems not to accept the clear consensus here. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. Sorry these al were missed - some are paywalled, but many are not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're about the only two people talking here so... it's not so surprising i'm the only one who disagrees with you. Anyway, Bbb23 agrees that the quote about the friendships would better be left out and that's what I proposed. It requires more sources and, as I pointed out, it suggests a connection that you don't have a source for. So why don't you agree with my proposal? It's a) clear about him being a republican b)it leaves out the Reagan friendship which Bbb23 and I find confusing and c) it mentions his republican campaigns appearances, which to me are crucial, because that ties this whole republican thing up with his professional activities as a singer, making the paragraph at least a little more relevant. And d) i dropped the democratic appearances even though they happened. What do you want more? Lumdeloo (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for the sources. I did find the signature on the billboard thing. I wasn't sure about it, but i guess it counts as an "appearance on a republican campaign". Bob Dole talking outside a Glen Campbell concert is not that strong I think. Then there is the performance for Ford, but GC also performed for Carter [19]. There's the 1972 Nixon article but GC also performed on a fundraiser for the democratic party in 1972 [20] [21]. This article even mentions GC as someone who would not be caught dead with a Nixon button on [22]. And this article has Campbell performing in 1983 for a democratic candidate for governor of Kentucky [23]. This gives me the impression that he either accepts gigs for both parties just because it's his job to entertain or that he judges the person and not so much the party that person is connected to. This last option is supported by this interview [24] in which he expresses admiration for Obama and says "I vote for the person rather than the straight party guy." Nevertheless, if we use those paywalled articles as well we have enough sources to claim he actively performed on republican campaigns, especially in 1988.Lumdeloo (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When a concert is a fundraiser, I suspect it is relevant <g>. The Martha Layne Collins' article does not show a campaign contribution - the paywall makes it hard to figure out much at all. By the way, a huge number of Republicans will occasionally support others - it is not a monolithic organization. The Bob Considine column, by the way, is worthless as a source for ascribing any political sentiments to anyone ... it does not meet RS as a fact source by a country mile. As for Obama: "He's got some smarts," Campbell observes, "But I don't know if it will take him anywhere." does not in any way make a claim that he supported Obama. Not by a mile. So we have several dozen sources connecting him with Republicans, and a New Zealand source saying he thinks Obama "got some smarts." In short - nada. Cheers - I see no reason to continue this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT colloquy. Collect (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have made my point more clear. Your sources confirm his performances on republican campaigns in the 80s and 90s. So my new proposal would be: "Campbell is a republican. He performed at the 1980 Republican National Convention and made several republican campaign appearances afterwards." If I offended you, it was not on purpose. English is not my native language, so sometimes my writing comes across as awkward.Lumdeloo (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

They also confirm friendship with Reagan ... which goes back to my earlier suggestion as to wording. I woul suggest "a number" instead of "several" as "several" frequently means only 3 or so, and the number is higher than that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I will try and make my objections against using that quote from The Guardian clear.

it is taken out of context. The point the journalist is making is that all three suffered from Alzheimers, like Bbb23 also pointed out. I think "close friends" is a stretch.
i cannot find any other sources that say Campbell and Heston were (close) friends
i can only find one other indirect reference for the friendship between Reagan and Campbell [25] and this quote from Campbell's autobiography: "I said I was going to call my friend Ronald Reagan and ask him to bomb Indonesia", which is an obvious exaggeration. He mentions Reagan quite a lot in his book but never calls him a friend. So I really wonder if a supposed friendship between Reagan and Campbell is notable enough to mention at all here. The important part, his public support for the Reagan/Bush administration, is already covered by the line about republican campaigns performances (which could be made more explicit by the way).
to me, it suggests also that Reagan, Campbell and Heston formed a group of friends. No others sources confirm this.
the quote also suggests that Campbell, in his heyday, was a proud republican, which would mean that in the period before 1980 (from 1967 on) he publicly presented himself as a republican, which is not clear from the available sources. Only from 1980 on did he start supporting republican campaigns regularly.

My suggestion would be to just leave out the quote. Looking forward to your reply. If you have other reliable sources that directly mention the friendship between Reagan and Campbell, then a few words about it should/could be added, but I would still leave out Heston.Lumdeloo (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to know "the point the journalist is making." Period. It is up to us to use reliable sources and not to second-guess what they "meant". Cheers - the source is good and the quote is clear. Collect (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But that would mean you can just quote any part from a reliable source, even if the content of that particular quote is not supported by any other source. Then I could just as well add: According to The New-Zealand Herald, Campbell "admires African-American Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama." That can't be right, can it? Lumdeloo (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Where there is a simple declarative direct sentence incapable of being misunderstood, then certainly it can be used. And if you use the FULL SENTENCE about Obama, that would be fine as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So if you make a statement by paraphrasing a certain article, then editors are allowed to discuss if the statement is relevant, supported by multiple reliable sources, notable enough to mention etc. and make certain changes, but if you directly quote from a certain article, then no discussion about the use of that quote is allowed? In my opinion that particular quote is not relevant and even contains elements that are not supported at all by other sources, as I explained in my previous comment. Shouldn't that be taken into account when using quotes? Lumdeloo (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A direct quote ascribed to the source is proper. "Paraphrasing" is subject to interpretation at times, while a direct quote is not where it is a full and complete quote. As has been noted, Campbell self-identifies as a Republican, has performed at Republican campaigns, has endorsed Republicans, and was noted by the Guardian specifically as a friend of two other Republicans in reliable sources, and per WP:BLP and per discussion at WP:BLP/N. Is there an IDIDNTHEARTHAT somewhere above? This is not really a contentious issue at all, and at this point might you simply note that the WP:CONSENSUS is on the side of including the information? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see how this discussion could be tiring to you. It is to me too, a little. What frustrates me is that apparantly I cannot seem to make to clear to you that this discussion is NOT about whether Campbell is a republican or not. He is! There is complete consensus about that. Right from the start I had two issues. First, I didn't think saying Campbell was a republican and a friend of Reagan and Heston was particularly relevant without some connection to his public activities and secondly, I didn't think the friendship with Reagan and Heston was backed up by other sources than the Guardian article. The first issue has been solved (by pointing to his campaign performances), the second still remains. And on this issue we don't have consensus yet, not here and not at WP:BLP/N where this particular issue was never discussed to begin with. If Campbell was really a close friend of Reagan and Heston then I would expect to see some more explicit and reliable sources about it. Right now, you have to search really hard to find anything about it at all, which also says to me that it can't be terribly notable / relevant too. I really hope you will address this remaining issue. Lumdeloo (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: please address the remaining issue.Lumdeloo (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lumdeloo - I have addressed every issue. Non-contentious material which is well-sourced (indeed, very well-sourced) referring to the subject of a BLP is generally not argued over in hundreds of lines. There is no Wikipedia requirement that every fact separately and individually be 'notable'. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that might be it. You're obviously well experienced in editing BLPs, knowing exactly how to handle contentious material (I imagine that political affiliation can be a controversial subject sometimes). But that's not what this is about at all (for me anyway). I don't personally care whether Campbell is a republican or a democrat. I think the Personal Life paragraph should be restricted to the most relevant and multiply confirmed stuff, and in my opinion this is not achieved by picking out a quote from an interview (from yes, I agree, a reliable source) which states something (that in his heyday, Campbell, Reagan and Heston were close friends) that cannot be found anywhere else. That's what bugging me. It's like making a summary of a book and then highlighting an irrelevant (and perhaps inaccurate) detail. And when someone makes a comment about it, you respond by saying "but it says so in this book!". It's a bit the same with your last comment "there is no Wikipedia requirement that every fact separately and individually be notable". Again, that's true, but does that mean you don't have to discuss the relevancy / notability of and support for those facts (or supposed facts) with other editors who don't agree that there are relevant/notable/etc.? I hope I have made clear what my objections are to using this quote. Can I ask you (perhaps I should have asked this long before) why is including this specific quote so important to you? Thanks.Lumdeloo (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of the exact quote is only important because another editor questioned the source. When a source is questioned, best practice is to use the source with an exact quote of what the source says, so there can be no question at all about interpretation of the source. It is not I who insists on the quote, but you. It is not up to us to "know the truth" it is up to us to make sure each claim is cited to a reliable source where there is any editor who questions the claim in a biography of a living person. As you questioned the claim, the requirement is that the claim be fully and properly cited. When you averred that the claim was an "interpretation" then the only course is to cite the full statement as made in the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What I said is that that one sentence had been taken out of its context and that, in my view, the journalist made a stretch by calling them close friends. The context being Campbell's diagnosis with Alzheimers, and Reagan and Heston of course also had Alzheimers, which was explained in the sentence that came after the one you quoted. So fully citing that single sentence, to me, didn't solve the problem. However, you might argue that I cannot know if the journalist made a stretch. That is why (a few hundred lines ago ;-) i also pointed out these other objections. I will repeat them here:

i cannot find any other sources that say Campbell and Heston were (close) friends
i can only find one other indirect reference for the friendship between Reagan and Campbell [26] and this quote from Campbell's autobiography: "I said I was going to call my friend Ronald Reagan and ask him to bomb Indonesia", which is an obvious exaggeration. He mentions Reagan quite a few times in his book but never calls him a friend. So I really wonder if a supposed friendship between Reagan and Campbell is notable enough to mention at all here. The important part, his public support for the Reagan/Bush administration, is already covered by the line about republican campaigns performances (which could be made more explicit by the way).
to me, it suggests also that Reagan, Campbell and Heston formed a group of friends. No others sources confirm this.
the quote also suggests that Campbell, in his heyday, was a proud republican, which would mean that in the period before 1980 (from 1967 on) he publicly presented himself as a republican, which to me is not clear from the available sources.

So I hope you can see that it's NOT me who insists on using that quote. On the contrary, I think that quote suggests all kind of things that aren't supported by other sources. So, let me rephrase my question to you a little: why do you insist on emphazing a supposedly close friendship between Campbell, Reagan and Heston (by direct quote or paraphrasing, it doesn't matter to me), when there are no other sources that confirm this? To me that seems at best irrelevant and at worst, inaccurate.Lumdeloo (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Campaign appearances and endorsements. Appearances with Reagan. Guardian article making specific claim. Autobiography making explicit claim. Non-contentious claim in the first place. Seems that consensus is not on your side to remove what is actually better- sourced than most claims in most Wikipedia BLPs <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So appearing on/endorsing somebody's political campaign, that counts as proof for calling someone a (close) friend? And you also feel the quote from the autobiography can be taken as a serious source for this claim? The context there is that he is giving examples for the negative effects drugs had on him, causing him to say things he didn't mean to say. I'm not being cynical here. In my mind, these sources don't count as support for saying they were friends. But if you are convinced that they are sufficient, and no other editor comes in to support your or my side on this, then I would go with something like you proposed before:

Campbell, a Republican and a friend of Ronald Reagan[][], performed at the 1980 Republican National Convention[] and made a number of campaign appearances afterwards[][][].

This solves at least 3 of my objections against using that specific quote so... what do you say? 07:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources for the material you elide are WP:RS and multiple. Leave it be, is how consensus appears to be now. I find that where an editor seems to reject everything, that the earlier offers disappear from the table - the sources are good and sufficient and strong and non-contentious. And where a person has endorsed, campaigned with, and called a person a close friend, that we have done a bit too much "counting angels on the head of a pin" discussion compared with the innocuous nature of the material. Cheers, and please stop all of this colloquy over "not a lot at all." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand you. You prefer using that quote over the above proposal? I'm looking for straightforward reasons to explain your point of view but I can't find them. You talk about material I elide (had to look that one up in the dictionary). Are you talking about leaving out Heston and "close" in "close friends"? But there are no multiple sources for that at all. Then you say consensus is to leave it be. But there is no consensus about using that quote. I was trying to find consensus by proposing to include "a friend of Reagan". Do you decide what the consensus is on your own? And then you say earlier offers disappear from the table when an editors seems to reject everything?? What's that all about? Are you saying that you won't accept a reasonable proposal which is similar to your earlier proposal, just because *you* think I was just being stubborn in all this? Ten days ago I already commented this: "If you have other reliable sources that directly mention the friendship between Reagan and Campbell, then a few words about it should/could be added, but I would still leave out Heston." In my view, you are the one that's being stubborn here. I hope I'm just misunderstanding you though. Lumdeloo (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Messianic Jew category

Inclusion criteria As the category's introduction states, "This category is for anyone who claims a Messianic Jewish faith." As Campbell attends a Messianic group and is a member there, the fact that he is not of Jewish ancestry is not a problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Christians can follow Jewish commandments - that does not make them "Jews." See the theological arguments between Peter and Paul. Messianic Christianity is also a valid term. And a person can be a member of any denomination (even Baptist) and also follow kosher laws, celebrate Jewish holy days etc. Really. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Right Messianic Jews aren't persons descended from Abraham who practice Christianity, they are persons who belong to Messianic Jewish congregations, like Campbell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

- - Unsure what you meant - I have found no source which says Campbell is not a Christian. Amazingly enough, Christians are not barred from celebrating Jewish Holy Days. It does not make them "Jews." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Messianics Messianic Jews are Christians. I'm not sure that you understand. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

First Marriage

I have been researching the dates surrounding GC's first marriage for a bit. The (as far as I'm concerned fairly unreliable) bio by Kramer talks about ages 15 and 17. But did they met when there were 15 and 17, did she get pregnant at that age, or did they marry at that age. The Rhinestone Cowboy bio suggests she was 15 when she announced she was pregnant and that GC was 18 during that time. I found a source which cites a marriage date (jun-1955) and specific divorce dates by a journalist who visited the Bernadillo County Archive in New Mexico in 1969. This would mean that GC was nineteen when they married. The problem with this source is that I don't have a specific date for it. Would like to hear your suggestions on how to deal with this.Lumdeloo (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing specific in a source = not much to be gained by using that source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ghost album and Alzheimer's

An IP has been trying to change the spot in which the article reports on Campbell's latest album. The IP did it clumsily, and it ended up being reverted because he did it in separate edits, and it looked like a removal rather than a move. In any event, the current state of the article is it's now in both places (Career and Alzheimer's sections), which of course is no good. I'm going to revert the last change by the IP so the article is in the state it was originally. However, I have no strong view on where the material best belongs. If editors think it's better off in the Alzheimer's section because it relates to his farewell tour, etc., fine. It's not a clear pick, though, because the Alzheimer's section is a subsection of his Personal section, which isn't normally a place we disscuss career-related events.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources belong here, not in external links

These sources do not belong in External links. I have moved the link farm from there to this talk page where they do belong. Warning: I didn't check them over, so be careful in choosing any references for use from here. Thank you! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Songwriter

The infobox identifies him as a songwriter, but it's not clear from the article what he wrote. (Presumably, some of his songs, especially early in his career, for which no author is named, were by him, but this should be spelled out.) Also, he's not included in Category:American singer-songwriters. Either the category should be added or the infobox listing should be deleted. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also perhaps there should be discussion of his singing style, and also his guitar playing style, and favorite guitars. I will look for sources. Popish Plot (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written Bios

The Bios I read here on Wiki are poorly written and structured. There needs to be a better ordering of events that exemplify the persons rising in career in general. The texts tend to go forward with information chronologically, then go back to earlier years which is frustrating and often makes the Bios come off as disjointed and unclear not to mention the many gaps that occur. It goes along with this cockamamie style. I could write better if I had all the facts. This seems to be the path that many Wiki bios take and should be rectified. 76.168.226.12 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Tweaks

I've had this article watchlisted for some time with the intent of actually digging in and doing some serious copyediting. I just made some minor tweaking edits to the article in light of a few recent changes. Hopefully the editor who made the changes won't take my edits of their edits personally. The word "was" in relation to Debby Campbell-Cloyd has been returned to "is". She is still his daughter as well as his oldest daughter. I can see changing it to "was" if she were no longer alive, but that is not the case. I also restored the hall of fame award of being included in the list of studio musicians who were a part of the famed "Wrecking Crew". The edit summary stated the Wrecking Crew is not notable. This is not the case and the Wrecking Crew is well known not only among musicians but 1960s and 1970s music aficionados and fans. Also, I did not feel it was necessary to make a big deal of Campbell and Tanya Tucker's relationship by labeling it an "affair". It was tabloid-notable, but not exactly scandalous (as I felt "affair" made it seem scandalous). Any discussion on the above changes will be welcomed. Winkelvi (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Musicians Hall of Fame induction of 2007 was deleted again with the reasoning that it's not notable. I thought about that for a bit and decided to look into Wikipedia's definition notability in regard to stand alone lists (such as the now deleted sub-heading under "Awards"). I ran across the following here [27]. From what I can see, the Musicians Hall of Fame meets the criteria for notability for stand-alone lists and the General Notability Guideline (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). In this manner, the Musicians Hall of Fame has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject (I learned what all this means from the article linked above). Here is a list of links where you can find secondary source reporting of the MHOF induction online at what seem to be reliable sources: [28], [29], [30], [31]. The MHOF also has their own website here [32]. Since notability has been established, I'm going to put this back into the list. I'm not trying to start an edit war. But this is a legitimate award and item of interest that should be included in the Awards list. Winkelvi (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Drug Addiction

This article has one major omission although I seem to recall it being here at one point..Glen Campbell was a major drug addict for years...I wouldn`t bring this up except that he`s also made a career of courting the conservative right..there was a very famous quote from him at one point that all draft dodgers should be hung..before crack cocaine blessed this great country with it`s presence there was something called freebase...remember it? it`s basically what rich coke heads get to smoke..i suppose that`s because it`s more or less pure cocaine not the cut powder that sells in the ghetto for 5 bucks a pop..well lets just say Glen used to smoke it..alot...he was a good musician but no different from anyone else in the business...except for his drug habit which even by musicians standards was pretty extreme...I personally don`t care about it or his political beliefs however someone seems to be unwilling to admit the contradiction in his life..he was a hard core stoner..probably has a lot to do with his current health problems..him and Jerry Garcia should have gotten together..other then Garcia wasn`t a republican and Campbell wasn`t exactly very tolerant of people from different political persuasions. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glen Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141123175744/http://www.hmmawards.org:80/newspost/glen-campbell-to-receive-lifetime-honor-at-hollywood-music-in-media-awards/ to http://www.hmmawards.org/newspost/glen-campbell-to-receive-lifetime-honor-at-hollywood-music-in-media-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Glen Campbell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citing ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glen Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Associated Acts:

I did some research and he was associated with:

The Champs

The Beach Boys

The Kingston Trio

The Righteous Brothers

The Monkees

John Denver

Bobbie Gentry

Anne Murray

John Hartford

Jerry Reed

Tanya Tucker

Jimmy Webb

Willie Nelson

Johnny Cash

Merle Haggard

Roger Miller

Buck Owens

Frank Sinatra

Dean Martin

Ray Charles

Kenny Rogers

Ricky Nelson

Phil Spector

Jerry Cole

Steve Hardin

Todd Youth

Harold Shedd

Al Coury

Ted Hewitt

Marva Wright

Larry McNeely

Al De Lory

Elvis Presley

Nat King Cole

Tennessee Ernie Ford

Matt Campbell (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)User:Matt Campbell Matt Campbell (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

These are not all what we call "associated acts." See the documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I read it already, The documentation didn't really help, and I research them! Matt Campbell (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)User:Matt Campbell Matt Campbell (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

DIC Arrest

Can someone tell me why this article is missing the content in respect of Campbell's arrest in November 2003 on drunk driving and hit and run charges. According to Arizona cops, the 67-year-old performer was nabbed shortly after plowing his BMW into another auto at a Phoenix intersection. He left the accident scene, but was arrested at his nearby home, where cops smelled booze on his breath and noted that Campbell looked smashed. After he was booked into a Maricopa County lockup, Campbell kneed a sergeant in the thigh--for which the country star was hit with an aggravated assault on a police officer charge. Campbell posed for the bottom mug shot in July 2004 after checking into a Phoenix lockup to serve the first of ten nights in jail. The singer, now 68, pleaded guilty in May to extreme DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. Campbell was eight months later jailed for ten days for the incidents. Quasi judicial (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source for the above: [33] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The arrest is mentioned in the article. See the alcoholism and drug abuse section. (JitF (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC))

That's because I just re-added it. This was improperly removed in 2011. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Illness and retirement section

His Alzheimer's diagnosis was in 2010, not early 2011. (JitF (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC))

Good catch. There are two sources cited for "early 2011". One is dead, the other says June 2011 but obviously has confused the diagnosis with the announcement. Most sources say six months prior to the June 2011 announcement, which would be December 2010. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to drag down the worthy encyclopedia, yet again, to the gutter level of social media, but I found this interview with Alice Cooper, quite informative. Surprisingly, they seemed to have played a lot of golf together. Cocaine gets quite a mention, as does Christianity, as does Passover Seder. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Golf's supposed to be a relaxing sport. But here he is after missing a short putt. --Light show (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention this, but since you brought it up, we have a slight discrepancy on religion. In 1990 he was a member of a Christian church, yet in 2008 he had been an adherent of Messianic Judaism for two decades, or since 1988. I suppose it's possible to be both, and I haven't watched the interview. Is there anything in there about that? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You should watch, it's watchable. Hardly a WP:RS for religious beliefs, but strongly suggests (to me) that Campbell and his family were simply Christians. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I will watch it. I've always found Alice Cooper surprisingly articulate and informative given his stage persona. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The source for that part is here, and the Messianic Judaism article seems to explain what it is. I think since Christians focus on the New Testament while Jews rely on the Old Testament, but both together are still The Bible, such crossover beliefs are more common nowadays. --Light show (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is a branch of belief within Christianity, Kendall-K1. -- ψλ ● ✉ 03:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

This edit request to Glen Campbell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

86.25.51.66 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

'Speechmark' (") is missing at the beginning of "Gentle On My Mind". Please enter.

Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bagpipes

Glen also played the bag pipes...see the 2001 Live with the South Dakota Orchestra. Glen played the pipes on Amazing Grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.161.1 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Intro: what's a 'hit'

The intro has ""Universal Soldier", his first hit from 1965", this song reached 45 on the US charts. His 1961 release "Turn around, look at me" reached 62. 45 v 62, neither is a major hit, so why not have his first chart success as "his first hit" Brunswicknic (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Death news

@Light show: I would support removing the material about legal action against Kim, and the Rolling Stone report on the final stages of disease. The first seems undue unless some sort of verdict or settlement has happened, and the second is uninteresting gossip. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: I second that emotion. The legal action didn't result in anything and the second part seems to be added as counterbalance.Lumdeloo (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

His second wife was a beautician from Carlsbad

@Martinevans123: Okay fair enough, why is that irrelevant? Well we could add that his eldest daughter is a flight attendant, that his eldest son was a car salesman for a while, that his third wife didn't have a job etc. The article is about the musician Glen Campbell, what does the job that his second wife held for a few years before they got married add to his story? Even if's is true and a source can be found for it, doesn't mean it should be included. The personal life section is already quite big. I just thought let's remove the least relevant part of an already oversized section in this biography. Maybe you can tell me why the job of his second wife is so relevant? Thanks! Lumdeloo (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:, looking forward to your feedback on this issue. Thanks.Lumdeloo (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lumdeloo. You seem pretty keen to expunge this. I didn't say it was so relevant. I really don't think the jobs his children do, or have done, are necessarily relevant - and I certainly didn't suggest adding them. And I certainly don't advocate including any material can't be sourced unsourced. So the first job, I think, would be to find a source. Otherwise our discussion is a bit pointless. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So I've now adjusted the wording to fit the existing source. Do you still have doubts as to its veracity? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the cn tag. Everything there seems to be in the source. We say: "After divorcing Kirk, Campbell married Billie Nunley, an Albuquerque beautician, who gave birth to Kelli, Travis, and Kane." And the source says: "After divorcing Diane, Glen married Billie Nunley, an Albuquerque beautician who bore him Kelli, 21, Travis, 17, and Kane, 14." Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So "an Albuquerque beautician" is not necessarily "a beautician from Albuquerque"? I must admit that's what I had read as the intended meaning in that source. So much for paraphrasing, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is fine as long as it doesn't change the meaning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well at least it's one word shorter. And this way, it's correct. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspect Billie Jean may also have been correct, but I can confirm that she's not my lover. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Only now do I see your point. She is actually almost always called Billie Jean Nunley, so I suggest we add that. Do we need to add an additional source just for her correct name? Lumdeloo (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay I will add it. Lumdeloo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just ten days

I removed "just" from this sentence: "In 2003, Campbell was arrested and pleaded guilty to drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident and spent just 10 days in jail in Arizona." My edit summary says why: "remove 'just' which is a value judgement about the length of time that is not in the source." I have been reverted, but I don't know why because there was no edit summary. I really don't think the word "just" belongs in that sentence. Does anyone want to defend it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted this sentence back to the way it was. We had a long discussion about the exact wording and this was the consensus version. Please don't change it without discussing first. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

his acting in the movie Deliverance must be included

Campbell's acting in the movie Deliverance should be mentioned. Also the great music of "Dueling Banjos" was a great highlight of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentrjones (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but he wasn't in that movie, nor was he responsible for the music.Lumdeloo (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)