Talk:Jamiroquai/Archive 2

Problem with the 'classic lineup' dates or people

The 'classic lineup' part says it lasts from 1993 to 2000, and includes Stuart Zender on bass. Stuart Zender left in 1998 and was replaced by Nick Fyffe. One of those (either the dates or the people) has to change. AddingInstruments (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Buffalo Man worth keeping?

I searched for sources about him, but there didnt't seem to be any reliable sources I could find. (Well, other than funkin.com which is a fan site) I propose that the section should be deleted or at least more compromised.

Any thoughts? 100cellsman (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised you've removed the whole section. Yes, it was almost wholly unsourced. But it has been quite a distinctive part of his image over many years - like a brand logo. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We really need to talk about the member list.

The list is very excessive with almost half the members being supporting members as well as seemingly being session or touring musicians. In particular member Rob Harris, who is still in the line-up could not be found in the members list in their Allmusic biography. And sources that do state some of the members being a part of the band are skeptical since they are from musical instrument sites rather than music journalism sites. Using the former as sources might be possible but I'm not 100% sure about it.

Let me know your thoughts, before I do anything right afterwards.

100cellsman (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Tours?

Any possible sources I look for that have at least past tour dates seem either unreliable or have possibly incomplete information. I'm tempted to compromise or delete the tour section but it could be cutting corners as there wouldn't be enough information. Any thoughts or other places to look would be appreciated.100cellsman (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jamiroquai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Review

I will review this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for taking the time. :) 100cellsman (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have reviewed images and they seem to be correctly licensed. I am not well-versed in understanding fair use - so there may be some reason to challenge the fair use rationale of the logo. This should be checked at any subsequent reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have to say that on reading the article there are parts I don't like: The writing style strikes me as very dense and telegraphic, and written in the style of a music magazine rather than an encyclopedic article. It is written almost as a list with the entire prose content being very short paragraphs listing their record releases. I miss biographical information about the members (I don't really get a feeling of who they are and how the group dynamics are like), and I also feel I lack also much about the development of their musical style, the views they express in their lyrics, the style and contents of their videos, things they may themselves have expressed about their music in interviews etc. Basically I think the article comes across as minimalistic both in its contents and its writing style. Do you think it is possible to expand a little on some of those things - given the sources available?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually once added an artistry section for them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&oldid=830201155) I felt like it stripped the history section too much and the hat mention was kinda dubious. I can bring that back if possible though.100cellsman (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think something like that would be helpful, because it is difficult to extract that type of information from the very densely written history section.The hat thing seems notable to me, also the Native American complaint - especially given that name of the group incorporates part of the name of a native people (Iroquois is not a tribe btw. but a confederacy of six native nations). You might also mention why they chose to include that in the name (apparently something about being inspired by their religious views).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I unfortunately need to head off to bed now as it is quite late in my time zone. I'll work on that at soon though.100cellsman (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not in a hurry, so work on it when ever you can. Good night.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So I added the artistry section again. The history section is kind of unchanged because I don't know how I feel about removing their musical directions during certain periods.100cellsman (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really work to have material repeated between sections though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I stripped down the history section some more.100cellsman (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and I added some more info about their live sound, hat and their name in the artistry section.100cellsman (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I also have a question, what do you think if I changed the infobox pic back to this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jamiroquai_Automaton_Performance_2017_(cropped).jpg I changed it since I thought them looking to the right was kinda strange. I'm going for photos that best illustrate them as a group and not Jay Kay looking like a solo act.100cellsman (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that photo is fine, and I also do like the added artistry section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know your thoughts on the article's writing so far. Is there anything else I should improve on?100cellsman (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I still can't say I like the writing style, it is much to journalistic for my taste. But I wouldn't fail the article on that account. I think it falls within the criteria.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I found one instance in which a direct quote from the source was not correctly formatted as a quote - I fixed it by moving the quotation marks to include the entire sentence. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

1. Well written:
   1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Hey anonymous user 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm taking this to the talk page to avoid edit warring. I need more specific answers to your removal of content other than, "Delete Personal Opinion". The mention of Kay assaulting a photographer should be kept because the media sensation affected their sales. As for "Now We Are Alone", the group stated on their YouTube page that the song was part of a series of -new- and unreleased tracks. Saying that the track "may be" from Rock Dust Light Star is not a valid reason to remove it. Also, I have already stated in "view history" that their "classic lineup" was their most defining sound during the peak of their career in the 1990s.

I will let you leave a reply here so we can reach a possible consensus with the edits. Otherwise, if there is no response for one week, the edits will be reverted. 100cellsman (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"may be" Uncertain things and personal opinions may misleaded by readers and should not be described. In addition, descriptive items should get opportunities as equal as possible, special handling should not be described as it is regarded as personal opinion. It is question that the media sensation you say has affected worldwide sales. Also, it is your personal opinion whether it has had an impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.66.59.177 (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion? The mentions were stated by the articles and not me. I already said that the group STATED on their YouTube video description that the track was NEW. They have made no mentions of the track being a draft from a previous album.100cellsman (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion that put emphasis on that article especially. It is obscure information because no one does not know clearly the song is from the previous album or from the current album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.74.80.200 (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It is what it is, I guess. But I still think that the mention about The Brand New Heavies should not be included in the article. Especially since its a denied rumor, it adds undue weight to the article.100cellsman (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It was written on this wiki as if the rumor had been true for a long time. Is it reasonable to describe the rumors? Isn't the description of denial of rumors not reasonable? If there is incorrect information, we need to post correction information in the same place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.66.17.204 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what to tell you. I just feel like adding a denied rumor doesn't give a good look to the article and possibly goes against Wikipedia guidelines. I think removing the mention altogether would give readers the idea that it never happened.100cellsman (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And you already mentioned that anything that's bought up by tabloids should be removed anyway. Therefore, I think its appropriate to remove the speculated claim from the article.100cellsman (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to introduce a personal opinion led by originally arbitrar tabloid articles. But the rumors of the Brand New Heavies audition were have spreaded extensively worldwide through the Internet. The denial of that rumors is an important new truth to need to introduce. I think it's wikipedia responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.66.59.137 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point but it could be better suited for Jay Kay's page, as I already put it there. After all, he was in the rumor alone and not his entire group.100cellsman (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In the explanation about the origin of the group, the story of the audition has been explained so far. The origin of Jamiroquai is Jay Kay, and the early band's relationship with The Brand New Heavies is a certain fact, and the explanation is natural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.66.59.137 (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It'll be kept in the article then. I'll probably tweak it a bit and add some info that relates to it so that the flow can be more sensible.100cellsman (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.66.17.206 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey anonymous user 2

Stop adding unreferenced content to the article. Where are you getting this information?100cellsman (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference "I am writing to you because I have made an album"

Hi @100cellsman:, you added a reference with a quote from Matt Johnson but it seems the reference is lacking some information. Would you be able to add where the quote was published? Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a complicated situation, I'm afraid. The quote from the fan site funkin.com and I couldn't find it anywhere else, not even on Jamiroquai's official website. I was iffy about having the reference link to a fan source, so I deleted it. I am also genuinely unable to find any other information about Radio Silence, as literally the only sources albeit primary are iTunes, the funkin site and a Czech podcast interview. (A translator talks over the English parts) I'm not totally sure on what to do about this. *shrugs* 100cellsman (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the difficulty. But perhaps a poor reference is better than none at all? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it did cite pretty basic info. I could put link back along with maybe adding a ref to iTunes. I have plans to list this article as a featured article candidate at some point, so when that time comes, I'll bring that up for more in depth discussion.100cellsman (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Good. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't find a better source for TWM reaching number 2 in UK

It has been surprisingly very difficult to find, and it's not the official charts site merely just listing it as number 2, but a high quality reliable source that makes this statement within its prose. It lowers the article quality slightly and it bothers me, because I want "All eight of the band's albums have entered the UK top 10" to be verifiable in the article body, and removing the TWM UK number 2 statement altogether is the very last thing I want to do. 100cellsman (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Awards section

I think that the article would be improved if the awards were spun off into its own page. Though my only personal gripe would be writing a lead for it, because I don't have much knowledge with awards. lol 🧍‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparison, head-gear and singular/plural use

1. "While Jamiroquai, as well as Kay's vocals, have drawn comparisons to Stevie Wonder,[20][29][30] some critics accused the band of closely emulating throwback styles to the point of copying such artists."

Stevie Wonder and emulating to the point of copying? What a bunch of nonsense! As a Jamiroquai fan and hearing Stevie Wonder, I really don't see it. It's like to say that Axl Rose sounds like Pavarotti.

2. In the "Visuals" section there was a comment about Jay Kay's "indigenous-themed head-dress" and the fact that there was a "criticism from the Indian Country Media Network" commenting that Jay Kay had worn "sacred regalia of the First Nations".

Aside from the fact this entire argument has been wiped out, it was in an earlier version of the article which I printed, I would like to add that all this argument about discriminating Native Americans is an endless and unnecessary discussion that has no meaning. History cannot be rewritten or erased like some people think but we can only learn from it and the fact Jay Kay is using something that looks similar to something considered sacred by the Native Americans is something I can respect. However, it is also true that I have never heard the Native Americans, especially the Cherokee Nation and its neighbors, complain about the fact Andrew Jackson is printed all over the $20 bills. I find that more offensive than Jay Kay's head-dress or Chief Wahoo on a Cleveland Indian's hat or T-shirt.

3. I don't understand why this article must state things as "Jamiroquai are a band" when it should say "Jamiroquai is a band". You would never say Van Halen are a band or that Oasis were a band. This is not an opinion. It's English grammar. It's the group/band that we are talking about. I also noticed that Robby.is.on swiftly reverted my edits on this subject but I really don't care. I do not condone stupidity or obsession. I came across a few people who will not allow others to edit articles on Wikipedia over the years. I let them drown in their obsessive compulsive disorder.

ICE77 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 3.: Where did good faith go? I'm quite surprised you just went ahead with changing all the verb forms instead of taking a minute to think about why they were the way they were. Let's not start calling people stupid or obsessed because they disagree. Like it or not, in British English, it is common to treat band names as collective nouns and use the plural verb form – Sources: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/24910/band-name-grammar, https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11023/is-a-music-band-a-singular-or-a-collective-entity-grammatically-speaking, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AU2%2FAre_vs._is?oldformat=true#U2_are, https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-plural-are-used-to-describe-bands-as-in-AC-DC-are-a-great-rock-group-Shouldnt-it-be-is-AC-DC-is-a-great-group-because-a-band-is-a-singular-entity Hope that clears things up.

Regarding 1. and 2.: WP:NOTAFORUM. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

which of the two: photos of headgear or pic of leaping?

I'm on the fence between choosing either the photos of his hats in the stage/visuals section or this photo montage of Kay leaping: [1]. I'm not sure which would represent that section better. Any thoughts? 웃OO 06:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hats are better. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

👍  웃OO 20:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Return of the Space Cowboy songwriting process

Hi. Is the content removed here not supported by the source? It does seem relevant enough to be included. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I initially thought it was too much, but you made a good point so I restored it. 웃OO 20:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Good. :-) Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Half Life Alyx refrence

In the eBook Half-Life: Alyx - Final Hours they used JAMIROQUAI as the codename for the game when recruiting voice actor Mike Shapiro. Would love to see that included as its a great reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.249.223 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it's an official reference. ias:postb□x 23:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. Its merely trivial information that doesn't serve much purpose for the article, as opposed to facts relating to their success, like album sales, critical reviews of the band, ect. 웃OO 01:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi over there! I guess you're right that the Half-Life: Alyx - Final Hours reference is unnecessary trivia. ias:postb□x 01:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

JAMIROQUAI - Reference to capital hill protests - Jacob Angeli

I've added this as there have been a few articles discussing the trending of JAMIROQUAI in relation to the Capital Hill Protest, including this one: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9507436/jamiroquai-trending-twitter/, and how people are using it in memes. The term JAMIROQUAI was trending, and some people were dubbing the man featured at the protest as JAMIROQUAI. As a point of interest, I have added it, and also to establish that this is a different individual, and he is not related to the band. Please do not remove this before discussing here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but a guy dressing up in buffalo horns resembling Jamiroquai is not something that has given the band any particular notoriety or scrutiny. There also hasn't any major news of people mistaking him for the band. Meme culture isn't really relevant to Wikipedia. Thank you for providing sources but this is not worthy for the page. 웃OO 10:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the articles do mention Jamiroquai the band, so I think it is notable, including a reference from the music magazine billboard. There's nothing in wikipedia guidelines that say additions have to provide notoriety or scrutiny. Plus there may be confusion by some between the two people, so this differentiates that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Once this whole thing is over, everyone will forget about the other guy because his fifteen minutes of fame won't last. 웃OO 12:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as the guy who was dressed like Jay Kay/Jamiroquai at the protests now has his own page, I've put the entry there, and details about Jamarioquai video response to the incident on that page. It's obviously more appropriate for it to be there, but I would say its strange there is a reference there, and not a corresponding reference here. In any case, thanks for the input. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The case is asymmetric because of due weight. Kay relates to a large part of the coverage Angeli has received, as he is notable only for his unusual appearance, beliefs and presence at protests; however, Kay/Jamiroquai have received far more sustained and deep coverage over a much longer time period. Additionally, the coverage in this case is not really about Jamiroquai at all, but about Angeli and the storming of the Capitol, so it's less weighty than a source about, say, reviewing Jamiroquai's music. Asymmetric references are inordinately common on Wikipedia—for a simple example, a figure may be Ethiopian and hence link to the page Ethiopia, but it would be crazy to list every notable Ethiopian figure on the page Ethiopia. — Bilorv (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

vice and current members

In WP:RSP, Vice media is in the yellow for "considerations apply". Vice won't speak a whole lot for Jamiroquai anymore here, but I would like to keep it for merely the listing of the current members. I'm unable to find any other decent source regarding this and what's referencing it now is the closest to verifiability. So since its entirely basic information vital to the band's timeline, I think Vice should be kept in this manner. 웃OO 10:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Currently"

Hi. I share 109.76.137.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s objection to the use of the word "currently". @100cellsman: wrote that "This is an exception. It's not certain how long their record holding will last." – aren't most MOS:RELTIME words mostly used to indicate non-permanent events? The word "currently" as it's being used in the article does not add any meaning, in my opinion, as records are always held until they're broken. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been editing Travelling Without Moving and when the record came up, I just say the album "holds" it without using "currently". In a way I do agree about this now. 웃OO 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"since 2001" had been added, It does seem better that way. 웃OO 02:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)