Talk:Davey Graham

message: Comment by Ralph Katzenell.
My brother, Sydney Katzenell (now deceased)told me that in fact he (Syd) originated Angie whilst living in a flat at 26 St Charles Square, in the West End of London. The flat was occupied by a whole group of kids who were musicians, who hung out at, among other places, "The Gyre and Gimble" in John Adams Street, just across from the side stairs up to Charing X Railway Station. Syd had a sort of "job" looking after the coffee shop, and always made sure that young musicians could get free coffee and a place to play there. Angie, he told me, was based on "Hit the Road, Jack" which was a hit at the time, and "Big Noise at Winnetka". Davey Graham heard my brother playing it, and polished it and recorded it.
:I have expanded the section on Anji and referenced Sydney Katzenell Bluewave 10:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note for the, um, record: The section of "The Work Song" that is often included in "Angie" originates with Bert Jansch's version, which was transmitted to US players primarily via Paul Simon's cover. (I never heard anyone play Davey's original version live until the 1980s, when John Renbourn demonstrated it at a workshop.) RLetson (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anji

message: This has been added today. Is it verifiable? I have checked the birth indexes for November/December 1940 and the only Graham born in Leicester was Michael A. Graham. Bluewave 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Born in Leicester?

message: Someone has recently changed the cat from British guitarists to English guitarists. Given that he is half-Scots, British seems a better category, so I have changed it back. Other views welcome... Bluewave 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality - category

message: Both spellings abound, sometimes in the same web page. In the article we have things like a link to "Davey Graham's website" which is www.davygraham.com. Graham himself is not much help: the Terrascope interview cited in the article includes "Q: I've often wondered, should 'Davey' be spelled with an 'e' or without an 'e'? A: I used to be called Davie because Angie spelled her name with an 'i'. I didn't know 'Angiography' was the study of blood vessels, did you? Actually, I'd rather be called 'Dave'. I'm not too concerned about the 'e', or the 'y' either." Can anyone offer a convincing rationale for Davy or Davey? Bluewave 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Davey or Davy?

message: :Image:Hat.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hat.png

message: An anon claims that the drugs claims are unsubstantiated and libelous; the Guardian article (provided as reference) was withdrawn due to factual errors, and that Graham was never booked to go Australia.
This is a WP:BLP issue.
I don't see any link to the Guardian article. The Guardian's website has articles dated earlier than 2003. Since the article provided as reference was published in 2005, it should be present on the Guardian website, if not withdrawn.
Any comments?
I've removed the disputed content, until somebody provides a better, accessible source. utcursch | talk 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the original Guardian article which was certainly published and I was the person who quoted from it. I don't think that every article that appears in the Grauniad also appears on its website, however. I'm not sure what the statement that the article was "withdrawn" means - how do you withdraw an article which has appeared in a national newspaper? Did they print a correction or apology or something? If the issue is finding a reliable source for Graham's use of drugs, there are several other sources: Colin Harper's books are well-researched and quotable (and I think there were some references to them in the now-deleted paragraph). If the issue is about potential libel, that is surely OK if the section quotes explicitly from published material. The other thing that has been mentioned is that Graham himself finds the material upsetting. I would have some sympathy for omitting it on those grounds but not sure if this is indeed that point at issue. I would be quite happy to rewrite the section, making sure that everything is a direct reference to published (and not withdrawn) material, but don't want to waste my time doing that if the consensus is to omit this section because of Graham's own views. Bluewave 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. I believe the original Guardian mention came from the BBC News website which has most of the original text that was included here before... except that the verification link to the "source" did not work. The anon that kept blanking all the material(including try to rm any previous discussion on it) was acting under fan-boyism... more than just trying to rm text that couldn't be (WP:V|verified]]. Some people just don't like seeing anything negative about their idols added to Wikipedia. If any material with verifiable citations is added... negative or positive... I will see that that stays put.(and I know several editors who will assist in keeping the content in place 156.34.221.91 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug abuse 

message: :Image:Hat.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem fixed. Jo (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hat.png

message: The article has been in need of repair for some time. With the Times obituary to hand, I have had a go at improving it. The main things I've done are:
*Add in stuff about his charity work (cited from Times obit)
*Reinstated some stuff about drugs which has never seriously been disputed but someone kept removing.
*General tidying.
*Changed English back to British. This was originally discussed here but changed by someone without comment or discussion. I haven't seen any evvidence for using English rather than British. Given his strong rooting in Scottish music from his father's side, English seems very odd. Bluewave (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good job done there. —Ian Spackman (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates 23 Dec 08

message: Is anyone able to shed light on the reliability of the claim, apparently in the Guardian article, that DG was booked to go to Australia but did not arrive? At least one off Wikipedia source states that the story is a fabrication. The Guardian is not a relatively reliable broadsheet. It would be wise to remove this reference from the article pending clarification. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say the Grauniad is "not a relatively reliable broadsheet"? It used to be satirised for its supposed typos but I would have classed it amongst the "serious" papers. It is certainly not in the category of the tabloids. It usually has good coverage of the arts. What are you looking for that is more reliable? Bluewave (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The guardian is not a tabloid; it appears to be on a rung above that. I am asking for clarification. Can anyone confirm the veracity of the non-arrival in Australia story or was it a fabrication picked up by the Guardian and printed as fact? --Zanthorp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a point of clarification for non-British readers: the serious/posh/somewhat-reliable/not-invariably-abysmal national newspapers are generally (alphabetically) held to be the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph and the Times, plus their Sunday siblings (the Observer in the case of the Guardian). All have become trashier than one would wish (unless they have made themselves afresh since I stopped buying any of them). But they are not to be confused with the Mail, the Express, the Mirror, and that lot: rather they are in the same sort of territory as Le Monde and La Stampa. The Guardian in particular makes (at least it did when I last read it) quite a point of publishing corrections when readers point out factual errors, so it could be worth scanning through the next few issues when checking out an article for reliability. —Ian Spackman (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't track down that source that I read a couple of years ago, so no problem with the Guardian's claim. It has certainly become part of the legend. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Guardian article reliable? 

message: A proposed addition to the 3rd paragraph under 'Early life and success' - please feel free to edit and /or comment.--Zanthorp (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: Holly Gwinn has a website at -
http://www.hollygwinngraham.com/pages/davey.php
which includes a short account of her life with Davey Graham.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.178.112 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holly Gwinn